The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCertify Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 14-001__,___.__._ __--_-.___.----, 3A, Fndings_itec�grding Protect Alternatives �. Gttli FBNi f�rte:C�y dida�F ttmcl4 e1'r7 FIGURE i Alternative 3, Gathard Corridor Land Use Grange Alternative Atkins I City of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program EIR Page 19 August 2t117 Item 8. - 43 HB -258- City Council Barbara Delgleize, Mayor Mike Posey, Mayor Pro Tempore Patrick Brenden, Council Member Jill Hardy, Council Member Billy O'Connell, Council Member Erik Peterson, Council Member Lynn Semeta, Council Member Planning Commission Connie Mandic, Chair Bill Crowe, Vice -Chair Dan Kalmick, Commissioner John Scandura, Commissioner Michael SGrant, Commissioner Pat Garcia, Commissioner Alan Ray, Commissioner 7 The Next wave I DRAFT Mey-September 2017 General Plan Advisory Committee Dianne Thompson John Ventimiglia Roy Miller Jeff Coffman Robert Schaaf Dan Kalmick Ed Pinchiff Kim Carr John Scandura Clem Dominguez Leslie Mayes Jessica Budica Robert Sternberg Ed Kerins Bob Wentzel Tim Mulrenan Sue Taylor Alan Walls Darrel P. Arnold City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) Item 8. - 83 HB -298- Task Forces Pat Brenden Biological Resources Jack Kirkorn Vic Leipzig Dave Pryor Christine Whitcraft Tim McCormack Kim Kolpin Hemal Patel Sustainability Gordon Smith Teresa Howe Greg Hickman Tom Bock Lyle Ausk Circulation Keeli Scott Lisack Dan Kalmick Sue Gordon Janis Mantini Kim Nicholson. Mark Sheldon Barbara Delgleize Ed Mountford Kathy Millea David Cicerone Dan Kalmick Michelle Schuetz Mike Posey Market Trends Pat Brenden John Ventimiglia John McGovern Tony Smale Philip Eddins Brett Barnes City Staff Steve Dodge Fred Wilson, City Manager Tom Grable Shawn Millbern Ken ' Scott Hess, AICP, Community Development Sea Level Rise Director Robert Schaff Jennifer Villasenor, Planning Manager Hemal Patel Gordon Smith Consultants to the City Jack Kirkorn Michael Baker International Wes Warvi In association with: Mike Van Voorhis Atkins Global Robert Thompson Moffatt & Nichol Mark Bixby Stantec Ed Pinchiff Stanley R. Hoffman Associates Jennifer Thomas Matrix Consulting Group City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) HB -299- Item 8. - 84 Internally consistent. The general plan must fully integrate its separate parts and relate them to each other without conflict. All adopted portions of the general plan have equal weight, whether required by state law or not. Long range. State law requires every general plan take a long-term perspective since anticipated development will affect the city and the people who live or work here into the foreseeable future. Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)ISustainable Communities Strategy: Towards a Sustainable Future provides a comprehensive outline of the regional vision for transportation investments in Southern California through 2040. The RTP was adopted in 2017 and is updated every four years to address regional transportation needs. The General Plan Mu5 should be consistent with these regional planning efforts. The state legislature adopted the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in response to a public mandate for thorough environmental analysis of projects that could affect the environment. The provisions of the law and environmental review procedures are described in the CEQA Statutes and Guidelines (Public Resources Code Sections 21000-21189). A separate Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the General Plan is the instrument for ensuring that environmental impacts of the plan are appropriately assessed and mitigated. Huntington Beach ,Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance The City of Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (Huntington Beach Municipal Code Title 20—Title 25) is the primary implementation tool for the General Plan. The Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance consists of two parts: the official Zoning Map divides the city into zones consistent with General Plan land use designations, and zoning text establishes development standards for each zone including permitted uses, density and intensity of uses, building height, performance standards, and other similar regulations. The California Coastal Act (California State Public Resources Code, Division 20, Section 30000 et seq.) directs each local government lying wholly or partly within the coastal zone, as defined by the Coastal Act, to prepare a Local Coastal Program for its portion of the City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) HB -300- In some areas of Huntington Beach, intensity and density are regulated by development and design standards rather than FAR limits. These standards, sometimes referenced as form -based codes, may include specifications for setbacks (how far a building may be situated from a street or sidewalk), limits on building height and massing (e.g., size and shape), and requirements to include open space, among others. These standards apply to properties within the planning areas of specific plans, which establish these standards when they are adopted. The maximum allowable development on any individual parcel is governed by the maximum measure of density or intensity permitted for that land use designation applied to the parcel. The General Plan uses these measurements to establish development capacity for each individual parcel and for the planning area at large. The planned (and actual) density or intensity on a parcel is usually less than the maximum, and is influenced by the physical characteristics of a parcel, access and infrastructure limitations, compatibility with other nearby uses, market factors, and past development trends. Use Characteristics Use characteristics refer to the intended character and development pattern of, and uses associated with, a parcel of land. The General Plan uses these use characteristics to classify buildings with similar characteristics into land use designations. To maintain compatible development on and between sites and within neighborhoods, overlay areas, and other defined areas, use characteristics for each designation are intentionally limited. Distribution of Existing Uses Existing land uses in Huntington Beach include a mix of residential, commercial, industrial, mixed use, parks, open space (e.g., wetlands, beaches), oil-relatedi"es, and public uses. According to a 2014 land use survey, residential development is the predominant use in the city; housing uses constitute about44_3 percent of all land uses in the planning area. Public uses, primarily comprising public rights -of -way, occupy an additional 33-28 percent of the planning area. Open space, commercial, and industrial development occupies most of the remainder of the planning area. Character of Change Change is a constant process observed over a specified time frame. Between now and 2040, Huntington Beach expects a certain continuing level of change resulting from a number of forces such as population growth, changing demographics, the need to replace aging buildings and improve existing homes, and an ever -changing economy. Physical changes are guided by new development that almost exclusively occurs through private forces based on market demand. The goals and policies provided in this element address areas and locations that would be best suited to accommodate transformational change that supports the Community Vision established in the General Plano City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, Setpember 2017) HB -301- Item 8. - 86 Mixed -Use Building FAR range and residential densities are established per specific plan and shown on the Land Use Map for specific areas. The Mixed -Use designation provides for any combination of commercial uses; offices; attached single-family housing, multiple -family housing, and live - work units; institutional uses; cultural facilities; developments including an open space component; and/or civic facilities. Mixing of these uses may occur in a vertical and/or horizontal orientation. Maximum FAR and residential density standards are established within individual specific plan areas. For some specific plans, FAR and density are not prescribed for individual properties or developments. In these cases, the overlaying specific plan includes a maximum development capacity for each land use. Industrial Designations Two land use designations accommodate industrial development in Huntington Beach. To ensure that the city is well positioned for future prosperity, these designations continue to provide jobs in established industries, while also supporting new employment opportunities that accompany emerging technologies and the redevelopment of transitioning industrial areas. One designation accommodates a diverse mix of nonresidential uses. The other accommodates a range of industrial uses that have historically characterized established industrial areas. Research and Technology FAR range: up to 1.0 The Research and Technology designation provides for a wide variety of nonresidential mixed -use development in industrial areas that are undergoing or poised for transformation to support changing employment demand. The designation encourages both employment uses and commercial uses designed to accommodate employees while continuing to allow traditional industrial uses such as manufacturing and production. Uses include clean and green manufacturing (e.g., medical devices, solar panels), research and development, technology, warehousing, business parks, professional offices, limited eating and drinking establishments that have an industrial component (e.g., a brewery), restaurants and cafes to accommodate employment uses and surrounding residential neighborhoods entertainment, and similar neighborhood commercial uses. City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) Item 8. - 87 HB -302- Community Subareas In addition to the specific plans identified throughout the planning area, the General Plan also identifies a number of community subareas (Figure LU-4), which are intended to supplement density/intensity standards, use characteristics, and urban design goals and policies provided in this element beyond the guidance offered by the land use designations. Each community subarea has been identified to further the economic goals and guiding principles of the City and to enhance areas where reinvestment or improvements are proposed during the life of the General Plan, but require additional consideration due to their locations and/or environmental setting. Although some subareas are contained ap rtially or wholly within a specific plan, the description and goals of the subareas in this General Plan do not cOnflic with the res ective s eeccific lap ns. The following subareas have been identified through the General Plan process or carried over from the previous General Plan. Intersection Enhancement Subareas The following four community subareas represent opportunities to improve neighborhood gateways and commercial corridors within the planning area. Subarea 1: Beach lVamer Intersection Enhancement Encompassing the four corners of the Beach Boulevard and Warner Avenue intersection, within the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan, this 27-acre subarea is designated Mixed -Use and surrounded by Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, Medium High Density Residential, General Commercial, Mixed -Use, and Public uses. The subarea includes buildings of varying scales and architectural styles. The built environment and streetscapes lack a cohesive style. The predominant uses are retail stores, a gas station, a drug store, a car wash, and the 14-story Ocean Tower. The intersection is the subarea's defining feature. Subarea 2: BrookhurstlAdams Intersection Enhancement Encompassing the four corners of the Brookhurst Street and Adams Avenue intersection, this subarea includes 58 acres of commercial use. Surrounded by low -density residential uses to the south and medium high -density residential uses to the north, each corner contains a variety of commercial uses within individual developments. This subarea is characterized by large parking lots separated from the main roadways by landscape buffers. Strip retail and/or large format retailers are located behind the parking areas, and small pad retail buildings are dispersed within portions of the developments. The buildings generally maintain a low profile and the built environment and streetscapes lack a cohesive identity. Existing uses include banks, restaurants, a grocery store, a drugstore, and several small commercial service businesses. Both streets are wide and carry a large volume of traffic through the subarea. City cf Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) HB -303- Item 8. - 88 Technology and Innovation Subareas Subarea 5: Gothard Street Centrally located along Gothard Street between Edinger Avenue and Ellis Avenue, the 422-acre Gothard Street Subarea consists of both industrial and research and technology uses, along with a few isolated community service and public use parcels. The subarea is predominantly surrounded by residential development of varying density and character to the east and south, areas identified for mixed commercial and residential development to the north along Edinger Avenue, and Ocean View High School and Central Park to the west. The eastern edge of the subarea abuts the Oak View neighborhood. The Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) right-of-way runs just east of the Gothard Street Subarea, extending from the northern city limits to its endpoint just north of Garfield Avenue. The Gothard Street Subarea is predominantly occupied by smaller manufacturing and warehouse uses and auto repair facilities. Other uses include a lumberyard, some retail and office uses, Rainbow Republic Envifenment Services, several gyms/training facilities, Seabreeze Church, and City facilities. The built environment consists of small industrial buildings, isolated offices, and a few industrial parks. Incompatibilities between existing industrial uses in the subarea and residential uses in the Oak View neighborhood present existing environmental justice concerns, as expressed by community members. Given the proximity to residential uses and Ocean View High School, the potential for land use compatibility and environmental justice issues associated with typical industrial use remains an ongoing concern. The City has also designated the abandoned portion of the UPRR rail corridor south of Ellis Avenue for a future transportation corridor use. Potential uses include development of a bicycle or multipurpose trail or an exclusive transit corridor. To support economic development goals to attract new incubator and technology -oriented uses, this subarea introduces the Research and Technology land use designation along With the existing Industrial designation to promote opportunities for new industrial uses that are generally greener, lighter, more mixed with commercial, and more compatible with surrounding sensitive uses. Similar to the Northwest Industrial Subarea, this subarea uses the Research and Technology designation to provide a flexible platform for both industrial and commercial uses that do not fit into the city's historically commercial or industrial areas. While the average building intensity of research and technology use is anticipated to be higher than that of traditional industrial use, the processes and operations of such uses are intended to have fewer potential air quality and noise impacts on surrounding sensitive uses than conventional industrial activities. The maximum development intensity for uses in this subarea ranges from 0.75 FAR for traditional industrial uses to 1.0 FAR for proposed research and technology uses. City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) Item 8. - 89 1413 -304- Subarea 6. Northwest Industrial The 760-acre Northwest Industrial Subarea is located in the northwestern portion of the planning area. Comprising the McDonnell Centre Business Park Specific Plan north of Bolsa Avenue and industrial and research and technology uses south of Bolsa Avenue, the subarea is surrounded by residential uses to the north, south, and east, and is bordered by the City of Seal Beach to the west and Interstate 405 and commercial developments to the east and north. This subarea is anchored by two of Huntington Beach's largest employers (Boeing and C&D/Zodiac Aerospace), as well as a variety of industrial, technology, commercial service, and fitness uses. The built environment ranges from large office buildings and business parks to small commercial pad and industrial spec buildings. Given the proximity to residential uses, the potential for land use compatibility issues within typical industrial uses is a major concern. As a result, this subarea introduces the Research and Technology land use designation in areas adjacent to single-family residential neighborhoods to promote opportunities for new industrial uses that are more compatible with surrounding sensitive uses. The Research and Technology designation provides a flexible platform for both industrial and commercial uses that do not fit into the city's historically commercial or industrial areas. Many new business types require this flexibility as they may need both commercial and industrial components to conduct business. As a result, the Research and Technology designation is a catalyst to spur employment growth and change within this opportunity area, reinforcing the City's desire to meet current and future needs and spur economic growth. The maximum development intensity for uses in this subarea ranges from 0.75 FAR for traditional industrial uses to 1.0 FAR for proposed research and technology uses. Pacific Coast Highway Coastal Corridor Subareas These subareas intend to preserve and enhance the recreational character of the Pacific Coast Highway coastal corridor through the expansion of visitor -serving uses and maintenance of open spaces and recreational opportunities. The intent is to establish distinct commercial nodes, residential communities, and open spaces along its length. Subarea 7. open Space — Shore The shoreline along Pacific Coast Highway is an amenity that requires a careful balance of preservation and enhancement of the recreational character through the expansion of visitor -serving uses and maintenance/improvement of open spaces and recreational opportunities consistent with policies and programs identified in the Coastal Element. No modifications to development intensities or use characteristics are proposed. However, City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) HB -305- Item 8. - 90 Table LU-1 General Plan Distribution of Land Uses Residential Low Density 6,66345-6&6.3 29.8% Medium Density 1,194.6 61MA4 6.2% -5.5% Medium High Density High Density 180.7 0,95% Commercial Neighborhood 90.9 0.48% General 296.9 165.7 1.6% 0.9% Office 16.3 0.1% Mixed Use Mixed Use 637.9 .. ..................... Industrial Research and Technology 473.2 2.5% Industrial + 654.6 3.5% Open Space and Recreational Conservation Park 1,661.9 701.1 8,8% 3.7% Recreation 237.8 Water Recreation 238.7 1.3% Shore 434.3 2.3% Public and Community Service Public 835.7 4.4% Public -Semipublic .... 779.2 . .. ... . ..... 4.1% Rights -of -Way 3,681,5 19.4% Total 18,971.8- 100% Source: City of Huntinaton Beac * Totals may not add up due to rounding Development Capacity Table LU-2 identifies the development capacity associated with the planned distribution of land uses described in this element and summarizes the land use distribution and the resulting residential and nonresidential levels of development that can be expected from implementation of land use policies established by the General Plan. As the density and intensity standards for each land use designation are applied to future development projects and land use decisions, properties will gradually transition from one use to another, and land uses and intensities will gradually shift to align with the intent of this Land Use Element. City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) Item 8. - 91 1113 -306- able LU-2 General Man Development Capacity 'Estimated NonreE Acres Land Use Designation SquareTotal Units ...- xe(2040) Residential ` 8,066.0 85,360 — Commercial 1,207.7 43" _18,442,316 Industrial - 1,127.8�— 24,149,404 Open Space & Recreational 3,273.8 — — 1,73_4,283 -- Public & Rights -of -Way 5,296.4 — 6,084,987- Total (2040) 18,971.8* 85,403 50,410,990 Existing (2014) Totals 18,971.8* 78,175 45,026,070 Change, 2014-2040 — 7,228 5,384,920 Source: City of Huntington Beach Notes: * Totals may not add up due to rounding 1. . Residential units located in the General Commercial designation represent existing residential units on land designated for a range of nonresidential uses where no land use change is anticipated. The Land Use Element does not directly specify a maximum population for Huntington Beach. The maximum possible number of residential units is determined by the different maximum densities allowed for each land use designation and the amount of land area with that designation. However, this maximum number of units is unlikely to be reached because every residential parcel in Huntington Beach would need to be developed to its maximum potential. Because most of the planning area is built out and existing buildings are generally in good condition, these changes will primarily occur within the "transform" areas identified in Figure LU-1. Forecasting assumptions are used to determine the realistic expected number of residential units that Huntington Beach will have when all of the parcels that are reasonably expected to redevelop have already done so. City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) HB -307- Item 8. - 92 for new development to help meet these goals. These opportunity areas were identified because they either have significant concentrations of existing employment, or have future economic growth potential. The City could provide incentives to retain, expand, and capture new businesses, including research and development industries and start-ups. The City should also update the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance to ensure that development regulations and land use controls reflect the City's economic development goals. Research and Technology Uses When assessing Huntington Beach's location, employment, and land use potential, technology manufacturing and technology services industries present high potential for growth. A Research and Technology land use designation within the Northwest Industrial Subarea and the Gothard Street Subarea will accommodate these types of future uses. This designation provides for a wide variety of nonresidential mixed -use development and encourages both employment uses and commercial uses designed to accommodate employees while continuing to allow traditional industrial uses such as manufacturing.- and production. Uses may include clean and green manufacturing and industrial uses (e.g., medical devices, clean air technology), research and development uses, technology, warehousing, business parks, professional offices, limited eating and drinking establishments that have an industrial component (e.g., a brewery), restaurants and cafes to accommodate the —employment uses and surrounding residential neighborhoods, entei4ai .., efit and similar neighborhood commercial uses. Technology firms will demand newer or refurbished multi -tenant buildings that offer modern, high speed and high bandwidth infrastructure. Therefore, the City will also focus on encouraging develop+tment of a strong inventory of adequately improved and competitive industrial buildings within these districts that provide the resources and technological capacity desired by businesses in this industry. Infrastructure Along with bandwidth in facilities, adequate infrastructure across all services is also important to support new industry growth. The City must invest in water, sewer, drainage, street, and other infrastructure updates to serve future generations of residents, businesses, and visitors. There is much to be done to achieve long-term fiscal stability and to bring public services and capital infrastructure back to acceptable levels, which were impacted by the economic recession and loss of redevelopment funding. The City will continue to maintain and expand its Capital Projects Reserve for the repair and construction of city infrastructure. New infrastructure projects will be coordinated using a comprehensive systems approach that balances serving existing community members and provides adequate capacity for future growth. City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) Item 8. - 93 HB -308- Quality of Life Huntington Beach currently has an excellent quality of life. Its desirable residential neighborhoods, world -class beaches and recreation areas, and safe environment all contribute to a city that is a great place to live, work, and play. Improving the jobs -housing balance by planning for a range of housing types in appropriate focus areas in conjunction with industrial and commercial expansion is a key component of ensuring and maintaining the city's quality of life. Fiscal Responsibility Without redevelopment, new, creative, and innovative ideas to stimulate business and development will have to be implemented. Resolving these issues and many others will influence the level of net revenues that the City will have available to fund enhanced levels of service and to maintain and build new infrastructure necessary to support a strong, vibrant economy. General Fund costs will now be subject to a fiscal impact analysis since they are so important to the fiscal health of the community. As part of this plan, the economic development recommendations will be tested using a fiscal impact model to provide guidance in the development of effective land use goals and policies that facilitate a strong local economy and long-term fiscal stability. As economic recovery is vulnerable to global, national, and state forces beyond the City's control, the City is committed to continue on the path of fiscal conservatism. Tourism and Hospitality An estimated 30 percent of jobs in Huntington Beach are tourism -based. Tourism is one of the city's competitive economic advantages, and continuing to foster the health of this sector is important to the overall strength and diversity of the city's economy. With over 10 miles of contiguous, accessible coastline, Huntington Beach hosts eve 4fi millions of visitors annually. Many of these visitors stay in one of the city's nearly 2,000 hotel and motel rooms, most of which are located along the coast. However, the current level of demand for overnight accommodations is not fully met within the city, leading to economic leakage and lost tax revenues. Therefore, identifying prime locations along the coastline as well as in other areas that provide a high -quality visitor experience remains an economic development priority. The City will continue to work with existing and future operators to update or expand existing overnight accommodations and visitor -serving facilities, and develop new accommodations and facilities to meet future demands. To complement this strategy, the City will also continue to expand and enhance natural resources, open spaces, and recreation amenities to retain or improve its position among the top tourism destinations in Southern California. City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) HB -309- Item 8. - 94 The land use and urban design issues addressed in this element include: • Coordinating development patterns and protecting community character • Addressing interactions between neighborhoods and nonresidential attractions • Providing a range of well -maintained housing types • Protecting and adaptively reusing industrial areas • Maintaining flexible long-term school capacity • Fostering the identity of individual neighborhoods and community subareas • Maintaining historic character and architectural diversity in Downtown Coordinating Development Patterns and Protecting Community Character Much of the planning area has been developed, and many of the remaining undeveloped parcels are committed to development by specific plans and development agreements, or are preserved for open space. Consequently the fundamental patterns, distribution, and form of development has been established. However, protecting the traditional beach and the successful "Surf City" brand and feel of Huntington Beach is a community priority. Continuing to preserve historic and cultural resources related to that "Surf City" identity, such as older neighborhoods.L-and-historic buildings, s ruc res, and monuments: Native American, pioneer settlement, agricultural development, and historical periods including prehistory settlements, trading with Catalina. Civil War, World Wars, veterans' history etc., is an important step in retaining Huntington Beach's unique culture. Goal LU-1. New commercial, industrial. and residential development is coordinated to ensure that the land use pattern is consistent with, the overall goals and needs of the community. Policies A. Ensure that development is consistent with the land use designations presented in the Land Use Map, including density, intensity, and use standards applicable to each land use designation. B. Ensure new development supports the protection and maintenance of environmental and open space resources. C_Support infill development, consolidation of parcels, and adaptive reuse of existing buildings. City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) Item 8. - 95 HB -3 l o- G-D. Ensure that new development projects are of compatible proportion, scale, and character to complement adjoining uses. Goal LU-2. New development preserves and enhances a distinct Surf City identity, culture, and character in neighborhoods, corridors, and centers. Policies A. Ensure that new development and reuse projects protect existing Surf City culture and identity and preserve and recognize unique neighborhoods and areas as the building blocks of the community. B. Ensure that new and renovated structures and building architecture and site design are context -sensitive, creative, complementary of the city's beach culture, and compatible with surrounding development and public spaces. C. Distinguish neighborhoods and subareas by character and appearance and strengthen physical and visual distinction, architecture, edge and entry treatment, landscape, streetscape, and other elements. Evaluate the potential for enhancement of neighborhood entrances and perimeter walls. D. Maintain and protect residential neighborhoods by avoiding encroachment of incompatible land uses. E. Intensify the use and strengthen the role of public art, architecture, landscaping, site design, and development patterns to enhance the visual image of Huntington Beach. Addressing Interactions Between Neighborhoods and Attractions Huntington Beach contains several well-defined places characterized by community activity and a high level of identity. These include the pedestrian -oriented Downtown area, the beach, Central Park (the city's primary recreation and cultural center), the Bolsa Chica Wetlands, neighborhoods such as Huntington Harbour and Sunset Beach, and the comparatively new Bella Terra area. Most other areas have developed as principally auto - oriented environments that pose a challenge for neighborhood interactions. Future planning should provide multiple ways for neighborhoods and attractions to interact through non -auto travel modes, drawing on existing and expanded bicycle and pedestrian facilities as well as enhanced transit facilities. Goal LU-3. Neighborhoods and attractions are connected and accessible to all residents, employees, and visitors. Policies A. Ensure that future development and reuse projects are consistent with the Land Use Map to provide connections between existing neighborhoods and city attractions. City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) HB -311- Item 8. - 96 Goal LU-5. Industrial businesses provide employment opportunities for residents, supporting the local economy. Policies A. Support and attract new businesses in the city's industrial areas. B. Encourage clean, less intensive industrial development in areas identified in the planning area. C Ensure proposed development and uses in industrial areas contribute to the City's economic development objectives and do not minimize existing uses. D. Explore opportunities to optimize use of underutilized or underperforming industrial land that is sensitive to surrounding uses, and to introduce new industrial uses that create bet-h jobs and heusing. E. Encourage and assist existing and potential industrial owners to update, modernize, and expand their industrial properties. ILEMEMMM Mg.# * M, W Much of Huntington Beach was built during a time when demand for school facilities was high to accommodate the needs of the post -World War II baby boom.. Today, demand for school facilities is experiencing a relative decline. Some schools in Huntington Beach are at or above capacity while others are under capacity depending on the school or district. Short-term demand for residential, commercial, and open space uses is competing with the ability to retain these sites for longer -term school use. Nonoperational schools are being leased for other uses, while other schools are overcrowded. Goal LU-6. Neighborhood school ��z—sites adapt over time to meet the changing needs of the community. Policies A. Consistent with state law, ex Igor alternatives with school districts for `het public benefit and access to recreation and open spaces, as well as other uses for surplus fOF fUtUFe use Of school faei!4Bassi s should a closure occur. B. Continue to consult with school districts in connection with any City-relgled or school district---relateddering planning and environmental review of proposed non -education surplus school site reuse _projects. C. In consultation with school districts- and consistent with state law, encourage Czensider flexible interim use options to maximize existing use of school spaeessites while aeeemrnedatft ssino future community and steel needs. City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) Item 8. - 97 HB -312- Policies A. Reinforce Downtown as the city's historic center and as a pedestrian and bicycle -oriented village with commercial, entertainment, and recreation uses to meet the needs of residents and visitors. B. Encourage development of underused parcels with a mix of uses and unique architecture. C. Ensure new development reflects the Downtown's historical structures and theme. D. Reinforce the unique Downtown character and visual distinctions, architecture, and streetscape. IRUMV TM'' I The economic development issues addressed in this element include: • Capitalizing on location with technology infrastructure • Retaining, expanding, and capturing businesses • Capturing sales tax revenues • Encouraging renovation and revitalization of commercial and industrial areas • Adapting to a changing economy • Enhancing tourism, hospitality, and the high tech industry The City must continue to capitalize on its location and reputation as an advantageous and competitive business location by encouraging expand+ngsion of state-of-the-art technology infrastructure related to communications, media, and computing systems that existing and new businesses can cost-effectively use. Goal LU--9. Industrial uses provide job op2portunities for existing and future residents, as well as the surrounding region, while generating revenue for the cit�r. Policies A. Establish technology or innovation districts, such as the Gothard Street Subarea and the Northwest Industrial Subarea, where technology infrastructure is provided specifically to support existing and new businesses. B. Support the provision of Pfevide-technology infrastructure and services to supply necessary technological and communication tools for existing and new industry and businesses. City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) HB -313- Item 8. - 98 C. Provide opportunities for new start-up businesses to develop innovative products and services in a business incubator environment. D. Support the ability for future industrial uses to accommodate new flexible work programs and sehedules. The city's business sector includes a sizable share of research, development, and start- up businesses. However, there is an opportunity to attract more of these businesses to locate within the city and thrive, thus increasing the average wage rate of workers and improving the jobs -housing balance. Largely concentrated in the Northwest Industrial Subarea and the Gothard Street Subarea, most of these jobs are associated with technology manufacturing or technology services. Goal LU-10. The City aggressively retains and enhances existing industrial businesses and technology businesses while attracting new firms to the city. Policies A. Provide incentives to retain, expand, and capture new businesses, including research and development industries and start-ups. B. Promote the creation of jobs with increasing wage opportunities within the community. C. In partnership with regional, state, and federal agencies, provide workforce programs that facilitate workforce diversity in the city through expanded labor force training and hiring practices. D. Maximize the economic development services provided by the City to existing and prospective businesses and industries eteJ. Capturing Sales Tax revenues The City must monitor taxable sales trends by key locations and work to reverse leakage trends in retail sales, with the objective of recapturing sales tax revenues that are leaving the city, by promoting targeted development and expansion of commercial uses that serve Huntington Beach and the surrounding region. Goal LU-11. Commercial land uses provide goods and services to meet regional and local needs. Policies A. Encourage a variety of commercial uses that cater to local and regional demand to create an environment that meets resident needs and increases the capture of sales tax revenues. City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) Item 8. - 99 118-11� B. Encourage new businesses to locate on existing vacant or underutilized commercial properties where these properties have good locations and accessibility. C. Maximize the economic development services provided by the City to existing and prospective businesses and industries , e". Encouraging Renovation and Revitalization of Commercial • Industrial There is a marked difference in development quality and property maintenance between older commercial/industrial corridors and newer commercial/industrial and mixed -use centers. Goal LU-12. Commercial and industrial corridors throughout the planning area are renovated and revitalized. Policies A. Establish in the Urban Design Guidelines that nonresidential buildings and sites be designed to be consistent with and use low -impact design techniques. B. Encourage renovation and revitalization of deteriorating and struggling nonresidential areas and corridors, particularly commercial locations. C. Expand shuttle services and pedestrian linkages between adjoining business areas, particularly along the coast, where a greater flow of local shoppers and visitors is encouraged. D. Seek opportunities to encourage the creation of business improvement districts or oth r economic development strategies where coordination and financing of mutually shared, enhanced services can increase business potential for all. As with the oil industry in the early 20th century, many new industries are getting their start in Huntington Beach in the 21 st century. However, in the past decade, the way businesses operate has changed. Employees are looking for alternatives to long commutes, employers are considering ways to attract new talent, and communities desire greater workforce diversity. Goal LU-13. The city provides opportunities for new businesses and employees to ensure a high quality of life and thriving industry. Policies A. Encourage expansion of the range of goods and services provided to accommodate the needs of all residents and the market area. City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) HB -31 s- Item 8. - 100 B. Capture emerging industries such as, but not limited to, knowledge" -based industries and research and development firms. C. Support development of new commercial and industrial projects and retrofits of existing buildings. D_Improve transit and other alternative transportation options, including shuttles and safe bicycle routes, for employees who live and work in the community. 8:E Do not preclude future mobility technologies in land use planning. Anchored by the beach, Pier, natural resources, and cultural amenities, Huntington Beach is a world-renowned tourist destination. Annual events like the US Open of Surfing and Surf City Half Marathon draw hundreds of thousands of visitors. Huntington Beach is also enjoying an increase in conventions and meetings, and has expanded the number of available hotel rooms along Pacific Coast Highway. A limited number of other lower -cost lodging options are available, and ongoing provision of a variety of lodging options to ensure visitors of all income levels can enjoy the coast is a top priority of the Coastal Act. A healthy tourist and hospitality economy also requires a robust service economy. Goal LU-14. Huntington Beach continues to affract visitors and provides a variety of attractions and accommodations during their stay. Policies A. Encourage expansion of the range and location of available lodging for both tourist and business visitors. B. Encourage both coastal and inland visitor -serving uses to offer a wide spectrum of opportunities for residents and visitors. C. Improve the availability of affordable housing and accessible transportation options for service workers. DFacilitate the provision of transit and bicycling linkages between the various tourist destinations which help encourage local residents and visitors to minimize the use of automobiles. E Support a concert/entertainment venue within the Gcity City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) Item 8. - 101 H B -316- ssaes, Goals, and Policies The circulation issues addressed in this element include: • Maintaining adequate level of service • Providing adequate Downtown and beach parking • Enhancing regional transit • Increasing local transit options • Ensuring mobility options for all users • Enhancing bicycle, pedestrian, equestrian, and waterway options • Protecting and developing scenic corridors • Providing for alternative fuel vehicles and infrastructure • Ensuring access for emergency vehicles While the City has generally maintained adequate levels of service over time, congestion occurs at some key intersections and on several arterial roadways during commute hours, on the weekends, and during the tourist season. The City does not control operations on some roadways, such as Beach Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway, as they are under Caltrans jurisdiction. Maintaining adequate levels of service enhances quality of life for Huntington Beach residents, promotes traffic safety, and improves the ability of emergency service providers to respond to emergency situations. Goal CIRC-1a. The circulation system supports existing, approved, and planned land uses while maintaining a desired level of service and capacity on streets and at critical intersections. Goal CIRC-1b. The implementation of citywide systems and driver applications, such as vehicle detection, traffic signal coordination, collision avoidance systems, traffic calming measures, and emergency or traffic notification systems, creates a quality circulation system. Goal CIRC-1c. Through ongoing evaluation of jurisdiction, efficient trangportation management provides the highest level of safety, service, and resources. Policies A. Develop and maintain the city street network and pursue completion of missing roadway links identified on the Arterial Highway Plan (Figure CIRC-2) and standard roadway cross City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, Septembert 2017) 1111.31 7- Item 8. - 102 sections (Figure CIRC-1), including appropriate roadway widths, medians, and bicycle lanes. B. Maintain the following adopted performance standards for citywide level of service for traffe-signal-controlled intersections during peak hours. a. Locations with specific characteristics identified as critical intersections: LOS E (ICU to not exceed 1.00) b. Principal Intersections: LOS D (0.81-0.90 ICU) c. Secondary Intersections: LOS C (0.71-0.80 ICU) C. Monitor the capacity of principal intersections. When principal intersections approach or have reached unacceptable levels of service, consider elevating the priority of Capital Improvement Program (CIP) projects that reduce traffic congestion at these intersections. D. Require additional right-of-way and restrict parking on segments adjacent to principal intersections to allow for future intersection improvements and turning movements as needed to satisfy performance standards. E. Maintain compliance with the OCTA Congestion Management Program or any subsequent replacement program. F. Require development projects to provide circulation improvements to achieve stated City goals and to mitigate to the maximum extent feasible traffic impacts to adjacent land uses and neighborhoods as well as vehicular conflicts related to the project. G. Limit driveway access points, require driveways to be wide enough to accommodate traffic flow from and to arterial roadways, and establish mechanisms to consolidate driveways where feasible and necessary to minimize impacts to the smooth, efficient, and controlled flow of vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians. H. Protect residential neighborhoods from adverse conditions associated with cut -through and nonresidential traffic. I. Remain inflNnqed abetit and involved in develepment ef.Pursue technological innovations and .....,.efe19 +o ensure Huntington Beach eentinues to invest in has the best available traffic management systems. J. Ev e—Investigate current jurisdictional control of roadways and determine where adjustments may be made in the future. Providing Adequate Downtown and Beach Parking Parking can be a challenge in Downtown throughout the year, but especially during the high tourist season and special events. Street parking and Downtown parking structures are the current primary parking options. While drivers circulate looking for available City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) Item 8. - 103 HB -318- =1111 WIN 11 IN NO IN iiiiiiii!� Traditional circulation planning tends to focus on travel by cars, many times at the expense of other modes of transportation, such as walking, biking, train, and transit. The Circulation Plan is intended to accommodate and encourage these other modes of travel. In addition to carrying traffic between destinations, streets are integral to neighborhoods and provide places for people to gather and recreate. The City's objective is to balance the many competing roles that streets play in the lives of residents, businesses, and visitors. Goal CIRC-5. The City:g active transportation system integrates seamlessly with transit and vehicle circulation as part of a Complete Streets system. A. Maximize use of transportation demand management strategies to reduce total vehicle miles traveled and improve regional air quality. B. Develop Complete Streets that create functional places meeting the needs of pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, wheelchair users, and motorists. Provide safe, accessible, and connected multimodal routes, especially along popular and arterial routes. C. Coordinate with neighboring jurisdictions to ensure that bicycle routes connect to and are consistent with routes in adjacent jurisdictions. D. Maintain and repair bicycle lanes and sidewalks as necessary to expand use and safety. E. Improve citywide awareness of pedestrian and bicycle safety. F Include low -impact stormwater system design techniques in Complete Streets designs (i.e., natural stormwater retention basins, curb cuts to planter areas for stormwater management). -and F.G. ----Aaupport alternative fuel vehicles where feasible. Enhancing Bicycle, Pedestrian, Equestrian, and Tgatww%l Options The existing development pattern in Huntington Beach limits the ability in some areas of the city to commute via bicycle or by walking, and could result in limiting access to goods, services, schools, and parks and recreation resources. It is generally considered challenging and unpleasant to cross or travel along major roadways as a bicyclist or pedestrian. Enhancements to the roadway system through Complete Streets serve the needs of all users equally and can increase the Viability of bicycling and walking for both commute and local service trips. At the same time, some portions of Huntington Beach (e.g., Downtown/Main Street) are dominated by pedestrians during the peak tourist season and would benefit from improvements that balance the needs of other users. City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, Septembert 2017) H13 -319- Item 8. - 104 Goal CIRC-7 Designated scenic corridors protect and enhance visual quality and scenic views. Policies A. Establish and implement landscape and urban streetscape design themes for landscape corridors, minor urban scenic corridors, and major urban scenic corridors that create a distinct character for each, enhancing each corridor's surrounding land uses. B. Require that any bridges, culverts, drainage ditches, retaining walls, and other ancillary scenic and landscape corridor elements be compatible and architecturally consistent with surrounding development and established design guidelines, to the greatest extent practicable. C. Require that slopes and earthen berms along scenic corridors be landscaped consistent with design objectives and standards. D. Provide landscaped medians and sidewalk treatments in accordance with City standards within major and primary arterial streets designated as landscape corridors, and continue to require the construction of landscaped medians and sidewalk treatments in new developments. E. Require that development projects adjacent to a designated scenic corridor include open spaces, plazas, gardens, and/or landscaping that enhance the corridor and create a buffer between the building site and the roadway. F. Continue to locate new and relocated utilities underground within scenic corridors to the greatest extent possible. All other utility features shall be placed and screened to minimize visibility. Increasing the use of alternative fuels (e.g., natural gas, hydrogen, fuel cells) in traditional vehicles and increasing the use of electric vehicles represent important strategies to maintain mobility while reducing air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. Goal CIRC-& Planning and infrastructure support electric and alternative fuel vehicles through oower or fueling stations and other means. Policies A. Encourage inclusion of power stations and alternative fuels at traditional gas stations. City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, Septembert 2017) Item 8. - 105 HB -320- B. Plan for conversion of all government fleet vehicles to alternative fuel or electricity. Ensuring the ability of the City's emergency services to respond to emergency situations is crucial to the community's public safety. Congestion may impede the ability of the City's emergency services to respond in a timely manner. It is important to implement new devices and programs to improve the ability of emergency personnel and vehicles to respond to calls for assistance and direct residents during emergencies. Goal CIRC-9 The circulation system is prepared for emergency vehicle response by reducing congestion or other roadway- and traffic -related impediments which can slow response times. Policies A. Provide a circulation system that helps to meet emergency response time goals and incorporates technology infrastructure to clear intersections during emergency response events. B. Complete transportation improvements that assist in meeting the response goals for emergency services. C. Provide a system of primary, major, and secondary arterials that can be used for evacuating persons during emergencies or for ingress when emergency response units are needed. City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) l-tR -3211- Item 8. - 106 Huntington Beach benefits tremendously from surrounding natural resources, which include City parks, wetlands, mineral resources, biological diversity, clean air and water, and the community's world-famous beach and shoreline. These resources contribute substantially to the local economy, provide rest and recreational opportunities, and help support public health. In order to continue to benefit from these resources, Huntington Beach must protect and enhance them when possible while still allowing for economic growth. The Environmental Resources and Conservation Element establishes goals and policies to protect and conserve Huntington Beach's environmental resources, including open space and beaches, and addresses air quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, water quality, biological diversity, and mineral resources. City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) Item 8. - 107 HB -322- Habitat Areas Though most of Huntington Beach is urbanized, several open space areas remain that are capable of supporting habitat for special -status species. These areas are managed by a variety of agencies and organizations that have different levels of jurisdiction and authority over the resources present. Several established habitat areas also support other uses requiring routine maintenance (e.g., beaches, parks). Table ERC-5 and Figure ERC-4 identify these areas and the organization(s) responsible for managing them. Rmvmv�_ M_�M I �M' "�Mfil �� Within City Limits Bolsa Chica State Beach Brightwater Conservation Area (includes 5-acre eucalyptus ESHA) Briahtwater Environmental Protection Area Flood Control Channels Huntington Beach Wetlands ---- Huntington City Beach (City Beach and Sunset Beach) Huntington Harbour and associated shorelines _ Huntington State Beach (includes Least Tern Natural Preserve) Waterfront Wetland City parks and open spaces (includes open space areas, and parts of Central, Bartlett, and Norma Gibbs Parks) _ Seagate -created Wetland Area Shea Parkside Property ESHA Shea Parkside Property Wetlands/Buffer Outside City Limits Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve (includes eucalyptus grove and Warner Pond ESHAs) Bolsa Chica Basin State Marine Conservation Area Bolsa Bay State Marine Conservation Area 130 California Department of Parks and Recreation 34 Brightwater Homeowners Association 2 Brightwater Homeowners Association* 368 Orange County Flood 172* Huntington Beach Wetlands Conservancy 122 City of Huntington Beach 253 City of Huntington Beach and Orange County 144 California Department of Parks and Recreation 3 City of Huntington Beach 256 City of Huntington Beach 5 Seagate Homeowners Association 3 Future Homeowners Association 16 Future Homeowners Association 1,334 j California Department of Fish and Wildlife 450 California Fish and Game Commission 45 California Fish and Game Commission Goodell Property I 1 Property owner Unincorporated Open Space Areas 1 57 Various agencies and organizations Huntington Beach Wetlands acreage includes Newland Marsh, which was owned by Caltrans at the time this plan was prepared. — Presently the develooermanaaes the Briahtwater Conservation Area and Environmental Protection Area: the Briahtivater HOA will ultimately take over this responsibility. Note: Acreages cannot be totaled, as several established habitat areas overlap City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) H13 _323- Item 8. - 108 The City faces numerous key challenges to maintaining and protecting habitat including a complicated regulatory environment, numerous overlapping stakeholder groups, ecological degradation through water and air pollution, invasive pest plants, and changing climate conditions. This element establishes policies to collaboratively maintain, manage, and expand, when possible, important habitat lands, including the coast, wetlands, bay, and inland areas. Energy Resources Energy comes in numerous forms, including chemical fuels such as coal and oil, heat energy, and nuclear energy. This element focuses on electricity and natural gas (a form of chemical energy), which are two of the most common kinds of energy used in Huntington Beach. Electrical energy is used to run innumerable appliances, devices, and pieces of technology, including lights, computers, and air conditioners. It can also be used as a transportation fuel for electric vehicles. Natural gas can be used to generate electricity and to heat water and indoor spaces. Electricity in the planning area is supplied by Southern California Edison, while natural gas is supplied by the Southern California Gas Company. Table ERC-6 shows current and forecasted electricity and natural gas use in Huntington Beach. Residential electricity use (kWh) Nonresidential electricity use (kWh) Total electricity use (kWh) "able EWE-6 Curren-t and Folecasted Energy Use 485,753,410 1 487,243,550 ! 490,786,730 I 494,662,470 726,213,200 I 703,114,370 j 743,073,060 1 791,265,320 1,211,966,6101,190,357,920 1 1,233,859,780 1 1,285,927,790 Residential natural 31,156,530 30,363,590 30,735,350 31,796,430 gas use (therms) Nonresidential natural gas use 9,328,020 10,210,450 10,857,240 11,811,700 (therms) Total natural gas use 40,484,550 40,574,040 41,592,590 43,608,120 (therms) Source- Southern California Edison: southern California Gas ComAanv * 2020 and 2040 values are projections without locally driven efforts to reduce energy use. City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) HB -324- Item 8. - 109 I�� area is generally located along the uplifted mesa north of Talbert Avenue, west of Beach Boulevard, and east of Huntington Harbour. Active mining no longer occurs at these sites, and new uses have been introduced, which deter future mining activities. Figure ERC-5 shows MRZ classifications within the Huntington Beach planning area. Water Supply The City provides water to over 50,000 service connections. The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Metropolitan) and; the Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC)_; provide water to Huntington Beach. The City's water comes from a combination of groundwater (approximately three -fourths) and imported water resources (approximately one-fourth) purchased from Metropolitan through the MWDOC. Metropolitan's principal sources of water are the Colorado River and the Lake Oroville watershed in Northern California, and this water is treated at the Robert B. Diemer Filtration Plant located north of Yorba Linda, The Orange County Water District (OCWD) manages the groundwater in the Orange County Basin and allocates a proportion of that groundwater for Huntington Beach. According to the City's 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, total water demand in Huntington Beach is forecasted to increase by roughly 8 percent from 2020 to 2040, with the increase being met using a combination of groundwater sources and imported water based on the OCWD-established Basin Pumping Percentage. Table ERC-7 identifies expected planning area retail demands (i.e., the amount of water used by residential and nonresidential water customers, and unaccounted water loss) through 2040. Table ERG-7 City of H€MUPgt011 t 0c-K; € Planned Water Retail Dernand (2020— 04 ) Note: AFY = acre-feet per year As a result of recent drought conditions since 2012, water conservation efforts significantly reduced the city's water consumption from 2011 to 2015 by over 17 percent, from around 30,000 acre-feet to around 25,000 acre-feet. Orange County Water District's Groundwater Replenishment System Facility takes highly treated wastewater that would otherwise be discharged into the Pacific Ocean, further purifies it, and pumps it into seawater barriers and groundwater recharge basins. City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) HB -325- Item 8. - 110 I -able ERC- 2010 California 343(d) andi ,l MI DL Priority _ Enterococci Unknown Low .... ... XIndicator - - _ ._. Bacteria Unknown Low X Chlordane Unknown ..................... Low X Copper _._._ Unknown Unknown Low X' Lead Low 1 Low X X' INickel Unknown X' Pathogens I Dieldrin Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers Unknown Low Low X' X PCBs Unknown Low X X I Ammonia Unknown Low X pH Unknown Low X X Sediment Toxicity Unknown Low X = listed on the 2006 Clean WaterAct Section 303(d) List of Water Quality Limited 1 = Listing made by US Environmental Protection Agency. 2 = Priority determined by "estimated TMDL completion data" listed in the State Water Resources Control Board's 2010 integrated Report on Water Quality. All pollutants and water bodies on this list have an estimated completion date of 2019 or later, indicating "low" priority. The City faces numerous water supply and water quality problems. Water supply concerns include continued groundwater overdraft conditions, future imported water costs and allocations, continuing drought conditions, State Water Resources Control Board water use reductions, and the financial and ecological costs associated with developing alternative supplies. Water quality issues include pollution associated with local and upstream urban runoff and sensitive ecological conditions. In this Environmental Resources and Conservation Element, the City addresses these issues with goals, policies, and programs that require water conservation, pursue recycled and alternative water resources, and reduce local water pollution in new and existing development. City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) Item 8. - I I I HB -326- Goal ERC ? Adeguatey sized and located parks meet the changing recreational and leisure needs of existing and future residents. Policies A. Maintain or exceed the current park per capita ratio of 5.0 acres per 1,000 persons, including the beach in the calculations. B. Seek opportunities to develop and acquire additional parks and open space in underserved areas where needed, including pocket (mini) parks, dog parks, athletic fields, amphitheaters, gardens, and shared facilities. C. Distribute future developed park and recreational sites to equitably serve neighborhood and community needs while balancing budget constraints. D. Require all park improvement projects to consider ways to improve access to park facilities by foot and bicycle. E. Continue to locate future neighborhood parks adjacent to elementary schools with independent street frontage when possible. F. Continue to balance and maintain a mix of recreational focused and passive and natural environment areas that preserve and protect special status species within open spaces. G. Develop a comprehensive trails network linking hiking, biking, and equestrian trails to parks, beaches, recreation facilities, and open spaces both within and outside the planning area. H. Administer the City's open space program in a manner that supports lands, resources, and services provided in regional parks, open spaces, and conservation plans. Providing Recreation Programs Community Needs The aging of the general population and resulting increases in the senior population will increase demand for senior services. The city's senior and elderly population would greatly benefd from additional and accessible social services to serve their needs. Meanwhile, demand for programs for families, children, and other components of the community remain high. Goal ERC Z Diverse recreational and sports facilities provide active and educational opportunities that meet the changing needs of residents and visitors of all ages. City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) HB -327- Item 8. - 112 Policies A. Enhance and expand accessible and affordable recreation programs and sports facilities, providing new programs and adaptive facilities that respond to changing community demographics and needs. B. Ensure that buildings, equipment, fields, and other recreation amenities are in full use and capable of accommodating changing program demands. C. Partner with neighboring cities and the County to provide access to a wider range of recreational services. D. Encourage and coordinate with private commercial recreational businesses to provide recreational services and facilities that may not otherwise be offered by the City. E_Partner with school districts to offer after-hours recreational activities at both open and closed school sites. E.F. Work with the school districts to encourage after school hours access to playgrounds and playing fields on school properties. Managing the Beach, Parks, and Recreation to Accommodate Diverse Recreational Needs The beaches and adjacent marine environments provide habitat for numerous species, including federally listed birds that use the beach for nesting. While important biologically, coastal dunes, beach, the surf zone, and the off -shore areas are also recognized as important cultural amenities. Beach management practices should improve the sustainability of extensive recreational beach use while protecting sensitive natural resou rces. Goal ERC-3. Maintain the recreational and cultural identity of the beach while improving and enhancing the overall habitat value of coastal areas. Policies A. Maintain the beach and ocean as natural recreational resources, not only for the city but also for the Southern California region. B. Maintain the current high level of recreational access to the coast and its recreational facilities and continue to provide resources that improve accessibility to the beach for all users. C. Consider devoting certain portions of the beach to different preferred recreational uses while maintaining access for all users and meeting the recreation needs of both visitors and residents. D. In areas known to be utilized by special -status species, encourage low -intensity uses that provide public access and passive recreational resources such as picnic/observation areas, nature trails, peripheral bike paths, and informational signs/displays. City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) Item 8. - 113 HB -328- Reducing Air Pollution Air quality in the South Coast Air Basin has generally been improving for a long period of time due to cleaner vehicles, technological advances, and increased regulatory oversight. Continued improvements in air quality will help improve public health and increase the overall quality of life in Huntington Beach. The community should work to support cleaner air while addressing challenges posed by population growth and climate change, which could stall or reverse these hard-fought gains in air quality. Goal ERC-4 Air quality in Huntington Beach continues to improve through local actions and interagency cooperation. Policies A. Continue to cooperate with the South Coast Air Quality Management District and other regional, state, and national agencies to enforce air quality standards and improve air quality. B. Continue to require construction projects to carry out best available air quality mitigation practices, including use of alternative fuel vehicles and equipment as feasible. C. Enforce maximum idling time regulations for off -road equipment. D. Require grading, landscaping, and construction activities to minimize dust while using as little water as possible. E_Continue to explore and implement strategies to minimize vehicle idling, including traffic signal synchronization and roundabouts. F Minimize exposure of sensitive land uses to toxic air contaminants by logating new pollutant sources away from sensitive uses and disproportionately affected communities and by encouraginge existing pollutant sources to reduce emissions when changes to existing operations or permits are proposed As there are numerous sources of GHG emissions, a variety of strategies are available to help local communities reduce these emissions. Establishing and meeting GHG emissions reduction goals will help to decrease the threat posed by climate change, while providing multiple benefits to Huntington Beach community members. Efforts to reduce GHG emissions can help save money for residents and businesses, enhance the local economy, improve public health, support improved air quality, and conserve water and other natural resources. The goals and policies below establish emissions reductions goals and create a high-level framework for GHG reduction efforts. Policies that support GHG emission reductions are located elsewhere in this element, as well as in the Circulation and Public Services and Infrastructure Elements. Specific strategies, anticipated reductions, and associated action items are addressed in the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program. City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) HB -329- Item 8. - 114 Goal ERC-6. Various agencies that oversee habitat areas and wildlife corridors, including but not limited to parks beaches coastal dunes marine waters and wetlands coordinate decision -making and management to ensure ongoing protection of resources. Policies A. Create, improve, and/or acquire areas that enhance habitat resources and identify, prioritize, and restore as habitat key areas of land that link fragmented wildlife habitat, as funding and land are available. B. Support land acquisition, conservation easements, or other activities undertaken by landowners to create and preserve habitat linkages that support the integrity of ecosystems. C. Preserve and enhance the connection between the Huntington Beach Wetlands and the wetland/riparian area in Bartlett Park via the Huntington Beach Channel. D_ Use future specific and area plans as a means to complete wildlife corridors. �_a :ti ncr nri ftStef the we'Lland B aeh ,n etlan F-7E. Establish aquatic and terrestrial connections between the Bolsa Chica Wetlands and Central Park by restoring areas in the oil fields to a more natural environment. Huntington Harbour, the Bolsa Chica Wetlands, the Huntington Beach Wetlands, the Talbert and Huntington Channels, and Anaheim Bay are used as spawning and nursery areas for a number of marine fishes, including important commercial fishes, and are utilized by threatened and endangered birds. Past development and the ongoing modifications to the Santa Ana River mouth and Huntington Beach Wetlands outlet have directly impacted areas through filling, dredging, and channelization. Urban runoff has also affected these areas. Stormwater runoff from streets with oil, grease, and trash is known to adversely impact marine biological resources and wetlands sea level rise also threatens to affect the stability of the wetlands. . Possible Goal ERC-7. Wetland areas that serve as important biological resources for threatened and endangered birds, fish, and other species are protected and restored. City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) Item 8. - 115 HB -330_ Policies A. Protect important wetland areas in the planning area through land use regulation or through non-profit land trust or public ownership and management. B. Maintain and enhance existing natural vegetation buffer areas surrounding riparian habitats and protect these areas from new development. C. Support County efforts to designate and manage environmentally sensitive lands —such as the Bolsa Chica Wetlands, the Huntington Beach Wetlands, and lands near the mouth of the Santa Ana River and north of Newland Street —for inclusion into a coastal wetlands preserve. D. Minimize filling, dredging, and channelization of river and wetland areas other than necessa[y dredging to keep the tidal channel open. E. Reduce pollutant runoff from new development and urban runoff to the maximum extent practicable. F. Continue to evaluate and mitigate the effects of domestic and industrial wastes on living marine resources. G. Seek opportunities to naturalize flood channels while also enhancing flood protection capacity. Protecting Coastal Habitat Resources Coastal dunes, the beach, the surf zone, and offshore areas serve both important biological functions and as important recreational amenities. Coastal dunes have been reduced by urban development erosion and degradation and the intensification of beach uses. Goal ERC 8 Coastal dunes and habitat resources remain resilient to Potential impacts of encroaching development urban runoff, and possible sea level rise. Policies A. Sustain the biological productivity of coastal waters and maintain healthy populations of species of marine organisms adequate to support long-term commercial, recreational, scientific, and educational purposes. B. Promote the improvement of tidal circulation in the Bolsa Chica Wetlands, Huntington Harbour, Huntington Beach Wetlands, and Anaheim Bay and minimize impacts to sand migration, aesthetics, and usability of the beach area. C. Prohibit development that jeopardizes or diminishes the integrity of sensitive or protected coastal plant and animal communities, accounting for expected changes from sea level rise. City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) 1413 -33 1 - Item 8. - 116 Urban stormwater runoff occurs when rainfall is collected by storm drains instead of being absorbed by groundcover or soil (commonly seen in a nonurban environment). When it rains, trash, silt, automotive chemicals, fertilizers, animal wastes, and other contaminants are washed into the storm drain system. Since storm drains are designed only to carry stormwater, they are typically not equipped with filters or cleaning systems. Consequently, they can carry contaminants found in urban runoff directly into flood control channels, creeks, rivers, and the ocean. Many of the contaminants found in runoff affect water quality, and can, at elevated levels, be toxic to aquatic and marine life. Increased surface water runoff will likely result from new development and reuse projects and existing land uses in Huntington Beach, potentially degrading already polluted waters. Goal ERC-17. Enhance and protect water quality of all natural water bodies including rivers, creeks harbors, wetlands, and the ocean. Policies A. Require redevelopment to comply with the City's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit and other regional permits issued by the State Water Resources Control Board and the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. B. Require that new development and significant redevelopment projects employ innovative and efficient drainage technologies that comply with federal and state water quality requirements and reduce runoff and water quality impacts to downstream environments. C. Continue to require new development and significant redevelopment projects to propose protective safeguards and implement best management practices that minimize non -point source pollution and runoff associated with construction activities and ongoing operations. D. Continue to require that new development and significant redevelopment projects incorporate low -impact development best management practices, which may include infiltration, harvest and reuse, of -evapotranspiration, and bio-treatment. E. Prioritize investment in green stormwater infrastructure that restores natural landscapes before employing other management solutions. F. Reduce pollutant runoff from new development to marine biological resources and wetlands by requiring the use of the most effective best management practices currently available. G. Partner with and provide information to community organizations, community members, and businesses regarding best practices to minimize runoff and improve groundwater recharge. H_Reduce impacts of new development and significant redevelopment project sites' hydrologic regime (hydromodification). H-. L Continue working with the County and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) on the Integrated Regional Water Quality Management Plan to explore and expand more regional treatment of stormwater runoff. City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) Item 8. - 117 HB -332- Tsunamis are an important hazard of concern for Huntington Beach, with the ability to impact the entire length of coastline in the planning area. Tsunamis are often caused by earthquakes occurring below or near the ocean floor, although underwater volcanic eruptions and landslides can also generate these waves. Tsunamis can travel vast distances, and are capable of causing damage far away from the site of event that generated them. Huntington Beach may be affected by a tsunami caused by a local event, or by an event thousands of miles away elsewhere in the Pacific Ocean. The California Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) estimates that the 214i Huntington Harbour neighborhood, the area northeast of the Bolsa Chica Wetlands, and of Huntington Beach are at an elevated risk of a tsunami, as shown the southeast corner in Figure HAZ-5. CD 0 Coastal Hazards Now As a community with both bluffs and low-lying areas near the coast, Huntington Beach is at risk from two types of coastal hazards. High tides and high surf continually erode coastal Ewa bluffs located along the shoreline. This condition is often exacerbated by wind and inadequate drainage practices from development on top of bluffs. Beaches underneath too' the coastal bluffs can act as a protective buffer; however, these protective beaches themselves can be eroded away, particularly when structures such as seawalls, jetties, and breakwaters interrupt the natural processes that maintain the beaches. The Huntington Beach coastline totals 9.5 miles of shoreline, including both state and City beach areas. Beaches and other low-lying portions of the planning area are threatened by sea level rise, a slow but gradual process that may cause average sea levels to increase by as much as 5.5 feet or more by the year 2100. Current science indicates that Ssea level rise is directly linked to climate change, and sea level is expected to increase over time. An increase in the frequency of intense storms that affect California is one possible effect of climate change, and any such increase would also likely increase erosion through high surf and storm surges. Higher sea levels may increase community vulnerability to hazards such as storm surges and tidal flooding, and may also exacerbate coastal erosion by decreasing the size of protective beaches. To support the General Plan, and in accordance with adopted guidelines of the California Coastal Commission, the City prepared a vulnerability assessment estimating the consequences, probability, and resulting risk from various sea level rise scenarios. Depending on the scenario, additional land located near the coast could be subject to varying degrees of shoreline erosion and more extreme storm -related flooding. These hazards could threaten private buildings, public facilities, roads, and beaches. 0 City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) 5-9 HB -333- Item 8. - 118 This assessment looks forward to 2100 to determine the specific extent of the city's vulnerability to sea level rise, including an inventory of potentially affected assets and their estimated replacement value. Although most of this General Plan looks to the year 2040, the sea level rise assessment identifies vulnerabilities on a much longer horizon for multiple reasons. First, while the sea level rise assessment relies on the best available science and methods, there is an inherent degree of uncertainty in these projections, meaning sea levels could rise faster or slower than the estimated projections. Second, as current science indicates that sea level rise is a difeet-consequence of climate change, the amount of sea level rise could exceed estimates if the activities that cause climate change end up being greater than expected. Additionally„ a building constructed within they horizon of this General Plan may still be used toward the end of the century; thus, it is important to understand potentially hazardous conditions within the planning area in 2100 to cover the life span of a building. �p Both coastal and inland areas face threats from sea level rise. The threat to coastal areas is the result of erosion and flooding from wave run-up (particularly from large waves associated with coastal storms). Sea level rise threatens the inland areas by exacerbating flooding from very high tides, and by contributing to flooding from extreme rainfall events. Areas subject to potential coastal or inland sea level rise by 2050 are identified as a Potential Sea Level Rise Hazard Area in Figure HAZ-6. The Sunset Beach and t� Huntington Harbour neighborhoods and areas located south of the Huntington Beach Pier face the highest risks. The planning horizon of this General Plan is 2040, although the hazard area reflects areas of potential impact by 2050. This extra time helps ensure that projects proposed near the end of the General Plan horizon will still benefit from increased resiliency to sea level rise for several more years. It also provides a safety margin in the event that future sea level rise is more severe or occurs more rapidly than anticipated in current modeling, as previously discussed. Sea level rise risks within the hazard area are addressed by the Huntington Beach Coastal Resiliency Program (CRP). Strategies outlined in the CRP include monitoring and implementation of regulations to minimize impacts in low-lying coastal areas of the city, constructing new infrastructure in less vulnerable areas or using methods more resilient than current standards, considering sea level rise when planning shoreline protection structures, and encouraging new development in less vulnerable areas. City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) 5-11 Item 8. - 119 HB -334- Remediating Brownfield Sites 'aD Due to historical aerospace, oil, and energy production uses and related contamination, cc several opportunity sites for future cleanup and remediation are located within the cc cc community. These sites offer new opportunities for brownfield development and reduce the potential for exposure to contaminants for future generations. For the purposes of this .�r General Plan, brownfield sites are defined as properties that are contaminated and underutilized due to perceived remediation costs and liability concerns. The goals and policies provided below are intended to assist the City in the future development of sites Othat meet this criteria rather than regulate sites with current hazardous waste activities. `�. Goal HAZ-5 Environmental cleanup and management of brownfield sites improves environmental quality of life, desirability of surrounding neighborhoods, economic development and housing options in the community. CC Policies 11 A. Continue to identify, map, and remediate existing hazardous waste sites and require 0 remediation when a property is redeveloped. B. Encourage use of remediated brownfields for housing commercial industrial public and recreational uses and for open space opportunities while Pprioritizeing open space uses, renewable energy facilities, and other community -supporting facilities as preferred options for future use of remediated brownfield sites. C. Prohibit the future placement of sensitive land uses inclose proximity to hazardous material and waste sites. Managing Hazardous Materials and Wastes While brownfield sites pose a risk from hazardous materials that may have leaked into the environment in previous years, Huntington Beach community members and visitors also face risks from hazardous materials that are transported through the community or used as part of current activities, including vehicle and pipeline transport. The City can reduce risks from these materials by ensuring that proper safety practices are in place, and that emergency responders and community members have information necessary to protect themselves. Goal HAZ-6 The risk of exposure to hazardous materials in Huntington Beach is substantially decreased.. Policies A. Avoid locating facilities that use, store, transport, process, or dispose of hazardous materials near residential areas or other sensitive uses. B. Promote the use of roadways with minimal exposure to residential areas or other sensitive uses as routes suitable for transporting hazardous materials. 5-22 City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) HB -335- Item 8. - 120 I 5-24 J Item 8. - 121 B_Ensure that all emergency plans are fully inclusive of the community members of Huntington Beach. �C Support the GommunitX Emergency Response and Training (CERT) orogram. as feasible depending on the availability of funding and volunteers. ReducingPotential • Homeland Security Huntington Beach is a desirable location to live and work as well as a destination for over 11 million visitors annually. Large-scale events such as the US Open of Surfing attract large crowds every year. In addition, the beach and Downtown area attract a wide variety of visitors on a regular basis. These conditions have increased the need for enhanced emergency response and preparedness activities throughout the community. As a result, a portion of the City's emergency response resources are used to address planning and policy issues associated with homeland security, as well as to regularly monitor activities within these areas. In recent years, some events have escalated, causing minor property damage and injuries and resulting in additional police response. Goa! HAZ-9 Residents and businesses are protected from human -caused and terrorism -related hazards. Policies A. Recommend emergency personnel become engaged in proactive community policing activities during special events. B. Ensure City procedures and protocols are updated to reference departmental roles in the Emergency Operations Plan, which outlines response and recovery activities for terrorism and civil unrest in the city. C. If deemed necessary during a large community event, activate the Emergency Operations Center to ensure effective coordination of emergency response activities. D. Expand emergency management planning and preparedness activities to include anti- terrorism components. City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) HB -336- w Issues, Goals, and Policies ,ON" 0 The noise issues addressed in this element include: • Protecting noise -sensitive land uses • Ensuring land use/noise compatibility • Reducing noise from mobile sources • Mitigating noise from construction, maintenance, and other sources Sensitive land uses have associated human activities that may be subject to stress or significant interference from noise. Noise -sensitive land uses are located in portions of the planning area that vary from moderately quiet residential areas to noisy major transportation corridors. Goal N-1 Noise -sensitive land uses are protected in areas with acceptable noise levels. Policies A. Maintain acceptable stationary noise levels at existing noise -sensitive land uses such as schools, residential areas, and open spaces. B. Incorporate design and construction features into residential er4-mixed-use. commercial, and industrial -projects that shield noise -sensitive land uses from excessive noise. Ensuring Land Use/Noise Compatibility City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) HB -337- Item 8. - 122 corridors, and on the other hand, state -mandated interior noise requirements for residential uses must be met within the residential portions of such uses. $not Goal N-2 Land usepatterns are compatible with current and future noise levels. eb Policies A. Require an acoustical study for proposed projects in areas where the existing or projected noise level exceeds or would exceed the maximum allowable levels identified in Table N-2. The acoustical study shall be performed in accordance with the requirements set forth in this Noise Element. B. Allow a higher exterior noise level standard for infill projects in existing residential areas adjacent to major arterials if no feasible mechanisms exist to meet exterior noise standards. C. Minimize excessive noise from industrial land uses through incorporation of site and building design features that are intended to reduce noise impacts to sensitive land uses. D. Encourage new mixed -use development projects to site loading areas, parking lots, driveways, trash enclosures, mechanical equipment, and other noise sources away from residential portions of the development, to the extent feasible. "'• • •1111111111111! • • Roadway noise from vehicle traffic is the most common source of noise in Huntington Beach. New development supporting anticipated population growth will increase traffic levels on arterials, resulting in increased noise levels. Future development of several vacant parcels and parcels that may support infill development or reuse will also have the potential to increase roadway noise levels in surrounding neighborhoods. In addition to roadways, rail and aircraft operations create noise in certain portions of the planning area. The general noise environment also includes occasional noise from private, police, emergency medical, and news/traffic monitoring helicopters. Goal N-3 The community is not disturbed by excessive noise from mobile sources such as vehicles rail traffic..and aircraft. Policies A. Mitigate noise created by any new transportation noise source so that it does not exceed the exterior or interior sound levels specified in Table N-2. B. Prioritize use of site planning and project design techniques to mitigate excessive noise. The use of noise barriers shall be considered a means of achieving the noise standards only after all other practical design -related noise mitigation measures have been integrated into the project. C. Employ noise -reducing technologies such as rubberized asphalt, fronting homes to the roadway, or sound walls to reduce the effects of roadway noise on noise -sensitive land' uses. City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) 6-19 Item 8. - 123 KB -338- Dry utilities provided in Huntington Beach include electricity, natural Qam, interne{ and cable omnnnmunioodona, and both wired and wireless telephone service. Electricity is provided to residents and businesses in Huntington Beach through Southern California Edison, and natural 0ma in provided by Southern California Gas Company (SuCo| Gas). Southern Californiaprovides energy a$part ofits energy portfolio, with wind and geothermal providing the most energy of the renewable sources. The City has also installed 213megawatts ofsolar panels at City Hall and the Central Library, helping tVreduce City costs and providing the City more control over its energy supplies. Internet, cabka, and/or oornmUninetnno services are provided bypurveyors. Cellular service is available from all major mwUu}or networks. The City is committed to working with utility providers so that the most advanced and effective oen/icmo are available toall residents and businesses. Major infrastructure projects, including cunatruotion, expamsion, nanovaton, or replacement ofinfrastructure, facilities, orequipment, are known ao"capital projects." The City funds capital projects using a variety of sources. The largest sources one opeukx| revenue funds and enterprise funds. Special Revenue Funds Special revenue funds are derived from entitlement funds, such as the gas tax or developer funds, such as development impact fees. Entitlement funds are distributed based on popu{odon, vvhenaaa developer funds are used to minimize the impacts e development project will have on infrastructure. Special revenue funds include the Air Quality Fund. Traffic Impact Fund. Gas Tax Fund, Park Acquisition FunU, Measure Fund, and Traffic Congestion Relief (Proposition 42)Fund. Enterprise Funds Enterprise funds are acquired from users paying for the use of aervice, such as water and sewer. These funds support the cost of operations, maintenance, and upgrades to the system and service. Enterprise funds include the Water Fund. the Sewer Service Fund, and the General Fund Capital Improvement Reserve. 7-8 \ | City ofHuntington Beach General Plan (Dnaft.September 2U17) \/ Tt�n,� l�� HB-339- ^�"^°' - ^^~-` Goal PSI-2. Huntington Beach residents and property owners are protected from fire hazards and beach hazards, and adequate marine safety and emergency medical services are provided by modern facilities and advanced technology. Policies A. Consider the relationship between the location and rate of planned growth, the placement of critical facilities, and the resulting demands on fire, marine safety, and EMS facilities and personnel. B. Adopt locally defined performance objectives for emergency response to fire and EMS calls, and periodically evaluate fire service and EMS facilities and personnel relative to community needs. C. Consider fire -related emergency response needs when improving streets and critical intersections. D. Research, procure, and use modern equipment, advanced technology, and other innovative techniques to optimize fire, marine safety, and EMS services. E. Ensure that new development and reuse projects and existing land uses promote fire safety. FFContinue to provide adequate marine safety services, and consider additional safety measures to address increases in visitors to the city's beach areas and protect citizens from ocean surf line hazards. FG. Ensure d v I men vid r public safety responders in thp. event of an emergency. Public libraries are valuable cultural centers that are well used by a variety of community members. Increases in library patronage generated by development may overload the library system's capacity to provide adequate services without appropriate funding increases. The City has an opportunity to transform libraries to offer expanded cultural, artistic, and educational activities. Goal PSI-3. Libraries are central community facilities and library services respond to changing community needs. Policies A. Adapt libraries to become expanded cultural centers providing public space to meet community needs for after -school programs, job training programs, workshops, and other activities while ensuring they maintain the basic service of providing public access to information, reading, and education resources. B. Consider constructing new libraries and rehabilitating and expanding existing libraries and programs to meet changing community needs. City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) Item 8. - 125 HB -340- Goal PSI-5. A range of educational programs and facilities meets the needs of all ages of the community. Policies A. Continue to consult with school districts to maximize existing use of school speees-sites while aeee redetft-addressing future community and school district needs. B. Continue to support and expand continuing education, after -school programs, and educational programs for all ages including educational opportunities offered in neighboring universities and colleges. C Continue to work with school districts for shared use of school district park spacesEnsufe far public recreational activities and the use of City parks to support school educational purposes. G-D_ Ensure that developers consult with the appropriate school district with the intent to mitigate a potential impact on school facilities prior to project approval by the City. Maintaining Optimal s • • and Sewer Infrastructure Water and sewer infrastructure is managed through the use of separate enterprise funds. As the water and sewer systems continue to age, deterioration will occur. Water system infrastructure is much more costly to construct and maintain than the sewer system. Water Master Plan (WMP) updates are performed typically every five years, with the last update adopted in 2016. The Sewer Master Plan study was last performed in 2003 and will be updated as needed to identify new major improvements to maintain and replace aging sewer infrastructure. Goal PSI-B. The costs of water and sewer infrastructure improvements are addressed b,t bbenefitting development projects. Policies A. Provide and maintain wastewater collection facilities which adequately convey wastewater generated by existing land uses and future projects while maximizing cost efficiency. B. Ensure that the costs of water and wastewater infrastructure improvements are borne by those who benefit, through adequate fees and charges or the construction of improvements. C. Explore additional funding sources to support necessary maintenance, expansion, and upgrades to the water and sewer systems. City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) 7-13 HB -3141- Item 8. - 126 D. Improve solid waste collection and recycling services associated with specialevents and the availability of trash and recycling receptacles in public areas, including but not limited to Downtown, Beach Boulevard, City parks, and along the beach. E. Continue to expand household recycling services and provide public information regarding how community members can dispose oforrecycle materials correctly. F. Reduce the amount of waste disposed per employee in the business community by bnpnmong commercial recycling services and providing information to support waste G. Expand the types of waste that can be recycled or otherwise diverted from the community waste stream, including organic materials incompliance with state law. H. Continue to provide public information regarding residential collection of household hazardous wastes including paint containers, electronics, household chemicals, motor oils, and pesticides, and promote development of facilities that collect these materials. Meeting Dry Utility Needs Dry utility services, such as electricity, natural gas, telephone, and data services, both meet basic needs and enhance quality of life for Huntington Beach residents. Supporting or providing enhanced data services in industrial and employment/technology areas ia also an important economic development strategy. These services are provided by independent entities that set their own service standards and facility improvement strategies. The City works with service providers to ensure that goals and service expectations are met for both current and future development, Goai PSI-10. SUOerior electricity, natural gas, telephone, and data services impro gua!W of life and support economic development. Policies A. Continue to consult with dry utility service providers to ensure that the community's current and future needs are met. B. Continue to require utilities to be placed underground as part of new development projects. C. Support the use of new and emerging communication technologies. D.Promote provision of high -capacity data systems to support new development and reuse projects, particularly within the Research and Technologyland use designation. E^_Enomurmge integrated and cost-effective design and technology features within new development and reuse projects to minimize demands on dry utility networks. once"E F. Create and maintain a"dig 7-10 City ofHuntington Beach General Plan (Dnaft.September 2017) lfeDl @_- 127 8B 342- LU-P 1 Related Programs and Governmental Agencies Continue to ensure compliance with federal, state, and local programs and regulations, including but not limited to the following: • California Coastal Act and Local Coastal Program • Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy • Orange County Local Agency Formation Commission • Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance • Huntington Beach Municipal Code Departments: Community Development, Public Works, Police. Fire Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund, development fees Time Frame: Ongoing LU-P 2 Surf City Culture and Identity Continue to ensure that all new development and reuse projects in the city are designed in a manner that preserves the Surf City culture and identity. Encourage project applicants to emphasize the Surf City culture and identity through building orientation and design, landscaping, and other visual features. Provide specific guidelines and resources for how to incorporate the Surf City culture and identity into proposed developments. The Surf City theme should be emphasized in development projects throughout the city, not only in visitor -serving areas. Departments: Community Development Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund, development fees Time Frame: Ongoing LU-P.3. Downtown Preservation Continue to maintain the character, function, and visual feel of Downtown as the central commercial, entertainment, and recreational district in Huntington Beach. Allow for new development in Downtown that supports the area's characteristics and purpose. All design standards applied in Downtown, including building and architectural design guidelines, City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) HB -343- Item 8. - 128 street furniture standards, landscaping requirements, and sign standards, shalt emphasize the character of Downtown and reinforce Downtown as distinct from the rest of the city. The Downtown area shall continue to emphasize pedestrian and bicycle -oriented transportation. Ensure that Downtown continues to meet the needs and expectations of residents, local businesses, and visitors. Departments: Community Development, Office of Business Development, Public Works, Police, Fire Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund, development fees Time Frame: Ongoing LU-P.4. Residential Compatibility Protect existing residential neighborhoods from increased development or redevelopment on surrounding parcels that may prove incompatible with residential uses, including development or redevelopment that generates substantial traffic volumes, produces noise or unpleasant odors, or involves the use of hazardous materials. Identify opportunities to convert existing land uses near residential neighborhoods that are incompatible with the neighborhood to more suitable uses. Ensure that all new homes in existing residential neighborhoods are compatible with surrounding structures, while still allowing for variations in appearance to maintain an interesting visual character. Departments: Community Development P� olice Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund Time Frame: Ongoing LU-P.S. Protection for Unique Areas Ensure that the unique neighborhoods, corridors, and land use subareas within the planning area maintain their distinct character and visual appearance. All standards for building design, streetscape design, and landscaping in these areas should be consistent with the area's look and feel, Work closely with residents and business owners in these areas to ensure that new development proposals are consistent with the character and visual appearance of the neighborhood, corridor, or subarea. Departments: Community Development, Public Works Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund, development fees, Business Improvement District funding Time Frame: Ongoing City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) Item 8. - 129 HB -344- LU-P 9 Accessibility of New Development Focus new development, particularly larger developments with a high number of residents, employees, customers, and/or visitors, in areas that are easily accessible by alternative modes of transportation, including walking, bicycling, and transit use. Work with applicants to include project improvements that support alternative transportation. Consider the ease of reaching other destinations from the proposed development using alternative transportation, and identify opportunities to improve local and regional transportation networks. Coordinate with the Orange County Transportation Authority to ensure consistency between proposed land uses and changes to transit operations. Departments: Planning Division, Public Works Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund, development fees Time Frame: Ongoing LU-P.10. Affordable Housing Ensure that Huntington Beach has a sufficient supply of housing for individuals and families of all incomes, including extremely low- and very low-income residents. Meet or exceed the target number of affordable units specified in the city's Regional Housing Needs Allocation. Integrate affordable housing into mixed -use projects and market -rate residential developments. Locate affordable housing near high -quality jobs, and ensure that affordable housing sites have sufficient access to alternative modes of transportation. Departments: Community Development, Office of Business Development Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund, development fees Time Frame: Ongoing LU-P 11 Industrial Expansion and Redevelopment Attract new businesses to the city's industrial areas, and encourage existing businesses to expand. Work with property owners in industrial areas to ensure that buildings provide the amenities necessary to attract and retain high -value tenants. Amend zoning and development codes to remove regulatory barriers that may prevent businesses in new and emerging fields from locating in Huntington Beach. Identify opportunities to allow businesses that support industrial uses and provide services to employees to locate in or near industrial areas. Ensure that new and expanded businesses do not create conflicts with surrounding land uses and community character, and work with businesses to reduce existing conflicts. Require preparation of a health risk assessment for new uses located in the Industrial and Research and Technology designations that potentially generate diesel particulate matter emissions and potential toxic air contaminant (TAC) emitters located City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) Item 8. - 130 HB -345- within 1,000 feet of existing sensitive uses and use recommendations outlined in the health risk assessment to determine siting limitations and mitigation approaches. Departments: Community Development, Office of Business Development Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund, Business Improvement District funding Time Frame: Ongoing LU-P 12 Technology and Innovation Subareas Recruit and incentivize new business uses in the Northwest Industrial and Gothard Street Subareas suitable for light industrial and manufacturing activities, with an emphasis on high-tech businesses, research and development, small-scale advanced manufacturing, and similar land uses, as well as supportive uses that provide basic services to employees. Buildings in these subareas should be flexible enough to support a variety of potential tenants and provide the amenities sufficient to attract and retain desired types of businesses, including necessary energy and communication infrastructure. Ensure that Technology and Innovation Subareas are easily accessible by multiple modes of transportation, including walking and biking. Departments: Community Development, Office of Business Development Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund, Business Improvement District funding Time Frame: Ongoing LU-P.13. Intersection Enhancement Subareas Develop a City -defined landscape program for major intersections in the Intersection Enhancement Subareas to unify the landscaping between individual developments and further enhance the aesthetic appeal of the areas. Develop design guidelines that define appropriate colors, materials, signage, and architectural treatments for commercial developments located at major intersections to enable developments to become more unified as new uses are established and properties are updated over time. Work with individual property owners to create additional pedestrian connections and modify the circulation patterns in parking areas to create pathways for pedestrians to access the site and internal uses. Identify and remove existing curb cuts that no longer meet current safety requirements, and work with property owners to develop new circulation patterns within sites affected by this activity. Departments: Planning Division, Public Works, Office of Business Development Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund Time Frame: Ongoing City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) Item 8. - 131 HB -346- LU P 14 Housing for Industrial and ResearchiTechnology Employees Consider allowing housing near Industrial and Research/Technology areas to create convenient residences for employees in these land uses. Ensure that any housing in or near these areas does not conflict with Industrial or Research/Technology activities, and is not exposed to any potential undesirable impacts that may be generated by these land uses. Avoid building housing on land that is more suitable for nonresidential land uses within the Industrial or Research/Technology zones. Consider opportunities to locate housing above nonresidential buildings. Departments: Community Development, Office of Business Development Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund Time Frame: Ongoing LU-P.15. Commercial Revitalization Identify and improve struggling commercial areas within the planning area. Work with property owners and local business groups to select and implement revitalization strategies, including renovations to the building stock, changes to the streetscape and landscaping, and improved access for multiple modes of transportation. Determine which types of land uses are most suitable for the area, including the potential to build residential units above commercial properties. Use existing assets such as historic buildings, and consider how older buildings may be renovated to support new land uses. Pursue all available sources of funding to provide economic assistance to businesses in revitalized areas. Departments: Planning Division, Office of Business Development, Public Works Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund, grant funding, Business Improvement District funding Time Frame: Ongoing LU-P 16 Business Improvement Districts In coordination with business groups, establish Business Improvement Districts or other economic development strategies to generate funding for area improvements that will result in increased customers and economic activity. Coordinate improvements funded through Business Improvement Districts to ensure that all businesses are benefiting. Identify opportunities to use Business Improvement Districts for improvements that result in long-term improved economic sustainability, including resource conservation programs and hazard resiliency. Departments: City Manager's Office, Office of Business Development Related Policies: To be provided following adoption City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) HB -347- Item 8. - 132 Funding Source: General Fund, grant funding, Business Improvement District funding Time Frame: Ongoing LU-P.17. Residential Property Maintenance Provide residential property owners with resources to support preserving a high quality of housing, including available economic incentives, financing programs, and assistance in obtaining the necessary City permits. These items should allow residential property owners to maintain safe, healthy, and comfortable living environments, as well as provide opportunities for improvements such as energy efficiency retrofits. Ensure that support and incentives are also made available to residential landlords to maintain and improve the quality of rental stock, while maintaining affordability. Department: Building Division, Code Enforcement Division, Office of Business Development Poli,Fire Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund, grant funding Time Frame: Ongoing LU-P.18. Economic Development Assistance Maintain existing economic development programs, and identify and implement opportunities to expand and improve these programs. Through economic development assistance, emphasize businesses that provide for unmet or undermet needs in Huntington Beach, provide high -quality jobs, support new and emerging industries, or provide economic opportunities to historically underrepresented persons such as ethnic minorities, women, or disabled individuals. Coordinate with local business groups and academic institutions to improve these programs and expand their reach. Monitor and report on the effectiveness of economic development assistance programs, and revise programs as needed to improve success. Department: Office of Business Development Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund, grant funding, Business Improvement District funding Time Frame: Ongoing LU-P.19. Local and Diverse Economy Encourage the establishment and expansion of businesses which provide an increase in job type diversity and support a healthy jobs -housing balance in the planning area. Emphasize jobs for people with a wide variety of education backgrounds, skills, and passions. Work to ensure that jobs provide a sufficient wage, allowing employees to live near their workplace, and that such jobs include opportunities for advancement. City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) Item 8. - 133 HB -348- Departments: Planning Division, Office of Business Development. Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund, grant funding, Business Improvement District funding Time Frame: Ongoing LU-P.20. Commercial Diversity Work with the local business community to ensure that retail and other commercial facilities in Huntington Beach meet resident needs by providing desired types of goods and services at reasonable prices. Consider the varying commercial needs of residents, including lower -income individuals, minority groups, and non-traditional families. Identify opportunities to meet commercial demand from surrounding communities and to attract customers from a wider region. Encourage businesses to fill unmet commercial demand through economic incentives and favorable development policies. Departments: Office of Business Development Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund, Business Improvement District funding Time Frame: Ongoing LU-P.21. Retail Sales Monitorina Track all taxable retail sales in Huntington Beach, and publicize this information regularly to City officials, members of the public, and the local business community. Use this information to determine the amount of retail leakage (consumers purchasing items from retailers outside of the city) for key categories. Work with business groups to determine the causes of retail leakage, including why consumers may favor a store in another community, and if there is residual demand for retail goods that are not met within Huntington Beach. Identify strategies to address the causes of retail leakage. Departments: City Treasury, Office of Business Development Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund Time Frame: Ongoing i � � • • +..a1�2.ii+.V1�!.l.l In the event of the closure of a surplus school site, work with school districts to develop and implement alternative uses for the property. Consistent with state law, exl2lore with the school districts alternative uses for the site with seheel distfi that serve a public benefit, including other education facilities, community centers, recreation facilities, and open space, although all uses should be considered. City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) HB -349- Item 8. - 134 Departments: Community Services, Planning Division, City Manager's Office, Office of Business Development Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund Time Frame: Ongoing LU-P 23 Overnight Accommodations Encourage additional expansion of overnight accommodations in Huntington Beach, consisting of both new businesses and expansion and renovation of existing properties. Identify suitable locations for new and expanded accommodations, and work with property owners and business groups to consider whether lodging on these properties is feasible. Support the inclusion of smaller lodging uses as part of mixed -use developments. Ensure that the supply of lodging in Huntington Beach meets the needs of different types of visitors, including vacationing families, single adults and couples, and business travelers. Support a range of different lodging options at various price points. Explore the feasibility of short-term vacation rentals. Departments: Community Development, Office of Business Development Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund, Business Improvement District funding Time Frame: Ongoing LU-P.24. Shuttle Services Explore creating a free or low-cost shuttle service connecting the shore and Downtown to major shopping districts, hotels, and other visitor destinations. The shuttle should have sufficient hours of operation and arrive frequently enough to offer a viable alternative to car travel. As funding allows, adjust the operating schedule to support employee commutes to visitor destinations. The shuttle service and supportive infrastructure (such as stops) should be comfortable, safe, visually engaging, and marketed with unique branding. Departments: Office of Business Development, Public Works Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund, development fees, Business Improvement District funding Time Frame: Consider feasibility by 2020 Citv of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) Item 8. - 135 HB -350- CIRC-P.4. Emergency Access Provide approved means for emergency vehicles to access and turn around on all streets. Departments: Public Works, Planning Division, Fire, Police Related Policy: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund Time Frame: Ongoing CIRC-P 5 Emergency Management and Homeland Security Program Implement the City's Emergency Management and Homeland Security (EMHS) Program according to requirements and provisions of the State Emergency Management System (SEMS). Ensure that the program establishes community evacuation routes and emergency shelter facilities, and is easily available to the public. Departments: Fire, Police, Public Works Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund Time Frame: Ongoing CIRC-P 6 Neighborhood Circulation Improvements Prepare and maintain a Neighborhood Traffic Management Technical Administrative Report (TAR) that identifies needed methods to address cut -through traffic volumes, high speeds, truck traffic intrusions, demonstrated accident history, parking shortages, or school -related traffic congestion in city neighborhoods such as: • Discouraging creation of new major roadway connections that would adversely impact the character of existing residential neighborhoods. • Continuing to develop and implement parking and traffic control plans for neighborhoods that are adversely impacted by spill -over parking and traffic, as feasible. • Implementing the Residential Parking Permit Program (Municipal Code Chapter 10.42) in residential areas as prescribed in the Municipal Code. • Considering appropriate traffic -calming measures such as raised medians and provision of bike or transit lanes to mitigate problems posed by schools and other land uses that generate high traffic volumes at specific times. Provide solutions to mitigate these problems as warranted by local studies. Department: Public Works, Fire Related policies: To be provided following adoption City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) HB -351- Item 8. - 13 6 CIRC-P 10 Waterborne Transportation Continue to support the maintenance of existing waterways and encourage private development of waterborne transportation for recreation or commuting. Departments: Planning Division, Community Services, Public Works Related Policy: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund Time Frame: Ongoing Capital improvements CIRC-P 11 Capital improvement Program Use the City's 5-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) process to prioritize, fund, and build required roadway and bikeway improvements, and to address phasing and construction of traffic infrastructure throughout the city. To prioritize these improvements, the City's TARS will be reviewed and updated regularly with current citywide traffic counts for roadway links and intersections. Roadways and intersections that are approaching the LOS standards stated in Policy CIRC-1.13 should be prioritized appropriately for improvements including road widening, paving, parking restrictions, or intersection improvements. Departments: Public Works, City Council Community Development Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund Time Frame: Ongoing CIRC-P 12 Principal and Secondary Intersection Improvements Prepare and maintain a Principal and Secondary Intersections TAR that will include information such as roadway dimensions, a listing of intersections and roadway improvements required to transition from the current system of roadways to full implementation of the Arterial Highway Plan, current citywide traffic counts for roadway links and intersections, and other useful traffic -related information. Content included will be based on need, as determined by the Director of Public Works. Updates to the TAR will be coordinated annually in tandem with the Capital Improvement Program. The TAR will be available for use by City staff and decision -makers, and should be available for review by the public. Include TAR information in the City's GIS system as appropriate and feasible. Departments: Public Works, City Council, Police, Fire Related Policies: To be provided following adoption City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) Item 8. - 137 HB -352- CIRC-P 16 Pedestrian Facilities and Enhancement Zones Maintain existing pedestrian facilities and require new development to provide accessible pedestrian walkways between developments, schools, and public facilities. Review potential areas in or near Downtown, adjacent to the beach, and along portions of Beach Boulevard for designation as pedestrian enhancement zones. Prepare and maintain a Pedestrian Facilities TAR and other pedestrian facility related analyses describing the location and proposed improvements in enhancement zones. Such improvements may include wider sidewalks, enhanced or new crosswalks, trees, pedestrian -scale lighting, or traffic -calming measures. All improvements shall comply with ADA accessibility standards. Exact improvements will vary depending on location. Departments: Planning Division, Public Works Working With: School districts Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund Time Frame: Prepare Pedestrian Facilities Technical Administrative Report by 2020, ongoing implementation CIRC-P.17. Equestrian Facilities Continue to ensure that trails and other equestrian facilities are maintained by the responsible party and expanded as opportunities arise. Departments: Community Services, Public Works Related Policy: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund Time Frame: Ongoing CIRC-P.18. Site Development Permit Process and CEQA Utilize the site development permit process and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to: • Review potential impacts of proposed projects to the circulation system and require appropriate mitigation measures as required by CEQA. • Require preparation of traffic impact studies as described in the City's traffic study guidelines. • Require new development proposals to consider and minimize vehicle miles traveled. City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) HB -353- Item 8. - 138 • Improvement of signal operations on staj@L--h--i-9—hwP-Y—s in the Ocity including the development and implementation of effective signal synchronization programs and advanced signal communications infrastructure. Investigate the potential for Caltrans to deefy-relinguish Beach Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway -as a state - --fe-a��bF this read frem G84FBMSto the City ' Departments: Public Works, Planning Division, City Council Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund Time Frame: Ongoing CIRC-P.26. Southern California Association of Governments Participate with the Southern California Association of Governments and represent the City's interests in development of regional transportation initiatives such as the Regional Transportation Plan. Departments: Public Works, Planning Division, City Council Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund Time Frame: Ongoing CIRC P 27 South Coast Air Quality Management District Work closely with the South Coast Air Quality Management District to improve air quality and incorporate the Air Quality Management Plan into the City's practices and programs. Department: Public Works, Planning Division, City Council Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund Time Frame: Ongoing CIRC P 28 Orange County Transportation Authority Work with the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) to achieve the following: • Maintain consistency with the County Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) within the city. • Pursue amendment of the MPAH to reclassify or delete street segments as identified in Figure CIRC-3. Implement the Congestion Management Program (CMP) in the city. City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) Item 8. - 139 HB -354- • Expand and improve bus service throughout the city, and between Huntington Beach and other communities. Encourage provision of attractive and appropriate transit amenities, including shaded bus stops. • Provide special transit services (such as direct shuttle or dial -a -ride services). • Support and implement the OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan, and participate in future updates and revisions to the plan. • Plan and implement an urban rail system that links the city to central Orange County and Los Angeles County. a invest in and puf weInvestigate the development of a transportation center in the coastal area. • Plan and implement Measure M and M2 projects. • Maintain consistency with OCTA's Long Range Transportation Plan. • Review, every five years, the Orange County Master Plan of Bikeways to ensure consistency. Update Huntington Beach's Bike Plan, as appropriate. • Work with OCTA to study vehicle -to -vehicle and vehicle -to -infrastructure technology. 00 - • ••• • • Pur§ue Measure M Project S funding to link the Goldenwest Transit Center to t resort area of Anaheim as funds are available. Departments: Public Works, City Council Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund federal New Starts state proposition funding. Measure M2 Time Frame: Ongoing CIRC P 29 Future Santa Ana River Bridge Crossings Participate in ongoing regional planning efforts regarding future Santa Ana River bridge crossings. Departments: Public Works, City Council Related Policy: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund Time Frame: Ongoing City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) HB -355- Item 8. - 140 CIRC-P.30. Single -Occupancy Vehicle Legislation Remain aware of national, state, and regional legislation directed at reducing use of single - occupancy vehicles, and do what is feasible to support it. Departments: Public Works, City Manager's Office Related Policy: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund Time Frame: Ongoing CIRC-P.31. Adjacent Jurisdictions and Transportation Agencies Work with adjacent jurisdictions, including the Cities of Costa Mesa, Fountain Valley, Newport Beach, Seal Beach, and Westminster and Orange County, to ensure that traffic impacts do not adversely impact Huntington Beach. Continue to work with other public agencies to ensure that the city's circulation and transportation system is efficient and meets applicable safety standards. Engage in discussions with Caltrans, OCTA, and Orange County regarding the City assuming jurisdictional control of key areas, and being involved in the decision -making processes of areas in the city which are to remain under Caltrans jurisdiction. Departments: Public Works, Planning Division, City Council Related Policy: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund Time Frame: Ongoing CIRC-P.32. Transit System Coordination Encourage the inclusion of facilities that transport bicycles, surfboards, and other beach activity equipment on public transit vehicles (both fixed route and paratransit) wherever possible. Work to make routes and vehicles available and accessible to the disabled and seniors. Departments: Public Works Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund Time Frame: Ongoing CIRC-P.33, Preserve Abandoned Rights -of -Way Continue to work with rail agencies to reserve existing and abandoned rights -of -way for future transportation uses, such as transit or bicycle facilities. City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) Item 8. - 141 HB -356- Environmental Resources and Conservation Element ERC-P 1 Related Programs and Governmental Agencies Continue to ensure compliance with federal, state, and local programs and regulations, including but not limited to the following: • California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 and Scoping Plan (AB 32) • California Coastal Act and the California Coastal Commission • California Environmental Quality Act • California Endangered Species Act • California Fish and Game Code • Quimby Act • National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit • Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 (SB 375) Departments: Planning Division, Public Works, Community Services Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund, development fees Time Frame: Ongoing ERC-P 2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Tracking Monitor the status of greenhouse gas emissions in the city, as directed in the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program, and report the results to City officials and members of the public as part of an annual reporting effort, through the following actions: • Estimate community greenhouse gas emissions to track progress toward adopted greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals of 15 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, and 53.33 percent below 2020 levels by 2040. • Track implementation of all greenhouse gas emissions reduction measures and actions, including the status of each effort and progress toward the performance metrics in the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program. Department: City Manager's Office Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund Time Frame: Annually beginning in 2017 City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) Item 8. - 142 HB -357- ERC-P 6 Energy Effciepcy Audits Develop a program to provide low- or no -cost energy audits to homes and businesses to help identify the most cost-effective ways to improve building energy efficiency. Recommendations should include low-cost actions which can be taken by renters. Publicize the availability of these energy audits, and strongly encourage all building owners interested in installing solar energy systems to conduct an energy efficiency audit prior to installation. Departments: City Manager's Office, Building Division Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund, grant funding Time Frame: By 2017 ERC-P 7 Energy Efficiency Retrofits Explore strategies to encourage energy efficiency retrofits in existing buildings by making upgrades more economically feasible, including offering incentives or financing mechanisms, and implement cost-effective strategies as feasible. Work to increase participation in property assessed clean energy (PACE) programs. Investigate the feasibility of a revolving loan program to support energy efficiency retrofits. Collaborate with residential and commercial landlords to support energy efficiency upgrades in rental units and leased commercial space. Department: City Manager's Office Community Develogment Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund, grant funding Time Frame: Ongoing ERC-P 8 Energy Efficiency in Large Facilities In partnership with business groups, utility companies, and other involved stakeholders, work with large nonresidential properties to support energy efficiency retrofits in major facilities. Provide recommendations about available rebates and financing mechanisms, encourage highly effective lower -cost actions such as lighting upgrades and retrocommissioning, and work toward providing customized specific solutions for individual facilities based on energy audits or other assessments. Publicize participating facilities in events and in local media. Departments: City Manager's Office, Office of Business Development Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund, grant funding Time Frame: Ongoing City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) Item 8. - 143 HB -358- ERC-P.17. Alternative Vehicles for City Fleet Transition the City vehicle fleet to alternative fuels such as electricity, biofuel, or hydrogen. Replace conventional vehicles at the end of their operational lives with alternative fuel vehicles as feasible. Consider the cost of alternative fuel vehicles relative to conventional vehicles over the entire lifetime of the vehicles.. Department: Public Works Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund, grant funding Time Frame: Ongoing ERC-P.18. Renewable Fuel Stations Install renewable fuel stations, including DC Fast Chargers and biofuel pumps, at City - owned facilities to support alternative fuel fleet vehicles. Open renewable fuel stations to members of the public to the extent feasible. Integrate solar photovoltaic systems into public electric vehicle charging facilities as possible. Encourage installation of renewable fuel stations as part of existing and new development projects. Department: Public Works Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund, grant funding Time Frame: Ongoing ERC-P.19. Municipal Microgrid Study opportunities to develop a microgrid for critical municipal facilities, allowing them to continue to operate during a power interruption with greater flexibility and in a more environmentally responsible way than currently allowed by diesel backup generators. Proposed microgrids should link key City administration and public safety buildings, as well as other critical facilities such as water pumping stations as feasible, aim -rely on energy storage and renewable energy systems as much as possible, and be consistent with broadband and wireless master plans. Departments: City Manager, Fire, Police, Public Works Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund, grant funding Time Frame: Study completed by 2020 City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) HB -359- Item 8. - 144 ERC-P 20 Municipal Green Buildings Establish Explore minimum standards for new municipal facilities that require green building and energy efficiency features that exceed state requirements, and explore opportunities to retrofit existing municipal facilities. Study the feasibility of installing renewable energy systems on new and retrofitted municipal facilities, in support of state zero net energy goals. Pursue green building certification for new and retrofitted municipal facilities, and publicize successes in local and regional media. Departments: City Manager, Community Development, Public Works Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: Capital Improvement Funds, grant funding Time Frame: Ongoing ERC-P 21 New Parks and Open Space Explore opportunities to acquire and develop new parkland and open space, including mini parks, dog parks, athletic fields, amphitheaters, gardens, and shared facilities. Emphasize creating new parkland and open space in currently underserved areas, and in areas expected to see significant new development. Ensure that community members are served equitably by new parkland and open space, and that future parks and open space meet community needs and values. All new parkland and open space should be easily accessible by foot and by bicycle, as well as via public transit to the extent feasible. When possible, locate new parks near elementary schools with independent street frontage. Departments: Community Services, Community Development Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: Capital Improvement Funds Time Frame: Ongoing ERC-P 22 Ooen Space Preservation ,Continue to preserve open space in Huntington Beach, including by setting aside areas within parkland for natural areas. Structures or other development in open space should encourage low -intensity and passive activities such as nature trails, picnic and observational areas, informational signs and displays, and peripheral bike paths. Avoid development or recreational activities that may damage open space areas or be otherwise incompatible with existing habitat and native species. Department: Community Services Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund, Capital Improvement Funds Time Frame: Ongoing City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) Item 8. - 145 HB -360- Departments: Development Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund Time Frame: Standards established by 2020 ERC-P.31. Construction Activijy Emissions In partnershipvvKhtheGouthCoaGtAirQu$|itvK8aneQemerkDisthct.conbnuebJenforce standards to reduce air pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions from construction aoUvUUeo. and impose these standards on new projects as a condition of development. Continue to require the use of best management practices b) reduce dust and other airborne debris, reduce idling time for construction equipnment, and explore the feasibility of requiring construction projects to use alternative fuel construction equipment. Require monitoring and reporting throughout construction activities toensure the standards are being properly applied, and promptly remedy any violations. Update standards as needed tosupport new technologies and practices. Departments: Community Development, Public Works Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund, development fees Time Frame: Ongoing ERC-P.32. Coastal Access and Recreation Continue to provide a high degree ofaccess tnthe coast, and identify opportunities to equitably improve coastal access for all community members that all Huntington Beach community rnennbeme and visitors have reasonable access to an array of active and passive coastal recreational use$, and consider providing additional recreational uses in other locations to improve access without diminishing existing uses or coastal biological integrity. Departments: Planning Division, Community Services, Public Works Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund, developmentfees Time Frame: Ongoing ERC-P.33. Water Conservation for New DeveloRmen Continue to require new development projects to include feasible and innovative water conservation features as appropriate. Require the use of recycled water for landscaping irrigation, Qrading, and other non -contact uses where recycled water is available or expected to be available. Require new projects to include low -impact development strategies as feasible, which may include green atonnvvater infrastructure and greyxvoter City ofHuntington Beach General Plan (Draft,September 2017) T��n� 1�� F{B-30|- ^~�^'' "' - ^-`" Departments: Public Works, Community Services Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund Time Frame: Ongoing ERC-P 37 Tidal Circulation Coordination Work with surrounding jurisdictions to improve the tidal circulation in the Bolsa Chica Channel, Huntington Harbour, the Huntington Beach Wetlands, and Anaheim Bay. Coordinate to minimize construction of features that impact natural sand migration and littoral drift within the local environment. Develop ways to improve tidal circulation while also supporting increased biological integrity of coastal habitats, and improving the aesthetics and recreational viability of coastal areas. Work with the State Lands Commission and the California State Parks Division of Boating and Waterways to ensure they secure funding to maintain the Bolsa Chica tidal inlet. Departments: Public Works, Community Services Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund Time Frame: Ongoing ERC-P 38 Air Pollutants and GHG Emissions from Stationary Sources Work with the South Coast Air Quality Management District and the California Air Resources Board, in coordination with local business groups, to decrease air pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions from large industrial facilities and other stationary sources. Pursue funding to reduce emissions from major sources, and prioritize emissions reduction activities near sensitive land uses and in disproportionally affected neighborhoods. Continue to coordinate with federal, state, and regional agencies to enforce air quality standards and improve air quality. As future land use glans are proposed and/or amended undertake heightened consideration of policies and strategies to minimize exposure of sensitive land uses and disproportionally affected neighborhoods to health risks related to air pollution Departments: City Manager's Office Community Development Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund Time Frame: Ongoing ERC-P 39 Regional Recreation Coordination Partner with surrounding communities and Orange County to increase access to a wide range of recreational services and programs for Huntington Beach community members. Explore opportunities to work with private recreational businesses to provide facilities and City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) Item 8. - 147 HB -362- ERG-P 42 Energy Efficiency and Conservation Education Widely distribute information about energy efficiency and conservation strategies, including information about rebates, financing opportunities, and low-cost and free strategies. Provide information about energy efficiency and conservation strategies for both residential and nonresidential facilities. Distribute information in multiple languages through in -person events and workshops, print media, television, radio, and online/social media. Identify members of the Huntington Beach community that are not easily reached by conventional outreach campaigns, and develop community engagement strategies to involve these community members. Department: City Manager's Office Related Policies: To be provided fallowing adoption Funding Source: General Fund, grant funding Time Frame: Ongoing MN-Wrr-m- z 1 W"Wr-CM. Y * - - - - - * ♦ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - -- - i - :Gie i• i - - - City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) HB -363- Item 8. - 148 ERG-P.435.. Water Efficiency and Conservation Education Expand existing water efficiency and conservation education campaigns to provide information about reducing water use to Huntington Beach residents and businesses. Include information about available rebates, financing opportunities for retrofits, and low- cost and free water efficiency and conservation options. Information should be distributed in multiple languages through in -person events and workshops, print media, television, radio, and online/social media. Identify members of the Huntington Beach community that are not easily reached by conventional outreach campaigns, and develop community engagement strategies to involve these community members. Continue water efficiency and conservation efforts during normal or wet water years, and work to ensure that water efficiency and conservation accomplishments continue outside of drought conditions. Departments: Public Works Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund, grant funding Time Frame: By 2020 City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) Item 8. - 149 HB -364- to support resiliency efforts. Funding should emphasize the use of soft shore stabilization and avoid shore armoring structures. Departments: Community Development Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Sources: General Fund, grant funds Time Frame: Local Coastal Program amendment by 2020, ongoing implementation HAZ-P 4 Runoff and Ponding Standards Amend the Municipal Code to establish standards for new development and significant retrofit projects to reduce the risk of increased runoff and ponding, and to support increased groundwater recharge. These standards shall emphasize the use of permeable paving, bioswales, and other low -impact development strategies. Departments: Community Development, Public Works Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund Time Frame: Standards established by 2020, ongoing implementation HAZ-P.5. Fire Inspections Continue to conduct regular inspections of nonresidential buildings to ensure that fire safety standards are met. Residential occupancies, based on type, should shall be inspected at a minimum frequency a s required by state law. Department: Fire Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund Time Frame: Ongoing HAZ-P.6. Abandoned Oil Wells Reevaluate the safety and status of abandoned oil wells on brownfield properties where new development or reuse projects are proposed. Identify whether the well was properly decommissioned or whether mitigation activities may be necessary. Department: Fire Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund Time Frame: Ongoing City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) Item 8. - 150 HB -365- HAZ-P.7. Alternative Brownfield Uses Identify and maintain a database of brownfield sites that may not be suitable for residential or nonresidential development. Work with property owners toencourage alternative use ofsuch sites, including but not limited turenewable energy facilities, open spaces, orother community -supporting uses. Seek federal, state. and private funds for the assessment and remediation of brownfield sites in the C—city that have redevelopment potential. Departments: Community Development Related Policies: Tobeprovided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund Time Frame: Database completed by 2020, ongoing implementation HAZ-P.8. Hazardous Materials Inspections and Database Continue to conduct inspections of facilities that manufacture, transport, store, process, or dispose of hazardous material and waste, Ensure that all information in City databases is up to date and that facilities are complying with all applicable requirements. Identify opportunities for facilities to improve their hazardous materials and waste methods to comply with beet management practices. The Cijy's participating agency will coordinate with other certified unified program agencies (QUPAs Oran County and With the qe California Environmental Protection Agency CUPA office to ensure the program is funded and eguipped and that the employees receive proper training. Department: Fire Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund Time Frame: Ongoing HAZ-P.9. Hazardous Materials Response Protocols Establish and maintain emergency response protocols toensure that City staff and any other emergency responders are notified immediately if there is a hazardous materials or vvaube na|ease, or ifanother emergency situation poses the significant chance of such a release occurring. Departments: Fine, Police Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund Time Frame: Ongoing HAZ-P.10. Methane Overlay Districts Continue to evaluate the locations and concentrations of soils that may contain methane, and adjust the boundaries Ofthe Methane Overlay Districts gsneeded. Continue borequire methane testing and appropriate mitigation activities prior to any new development in a Methane Overlay Oiotrict, including methane isolation booiers, collection systenna, and vent systems. City ofHuntington Beach General Plan (Onaft,September 2817) n� lf�� | `�"^ "' - '^^ 8B-30h- Funding Source: General Fund Time Frame: Ongoing HAZ-P 28 Hazardous Materials Source Reduction Coordinate with industry representatives, researchers, and government agencies to identify cost-effective ways for businesses to reduce the amount of hazardous waste generated by normal operations, and encourage businesses to adopt these methods as part of their regular practice. Publicly recognize businesses that successfully reduce the amount of hazardous waste produced. Departments: Fire, Office of Business Development Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund Time Frame: Ongoing HAZ-P 29 Hazardous Materials Coordination Continue to coordinate with federal, state, and countyeetffltye agencies on hazardous materials and waste programs, including site selection and screening for hazardous waste management facilities, household hazardous waste collection efforts, sharing and standardization of hazardous materials and waste data, and comprehensive emergency response actions for spills and illegal dumping of hazardous materials and waste. Departments: Fire, Public Works Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund Time Frame: Ongoing HAZ-P 30 Regional Aircraft Operation and Hazards Coordination Continue to coordinate with regional agencies to ensure local Land use plans are consistent with the safe and effective operation of airports and helipads, and that City emergency response plans address the potential hazards associated with aircraft. Departments: Planning Division, Fire Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund Time Frame: Ongoing City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) Item 8. - 152 HB -367- • Offer free emergency planning and response classes, including participation in Community Emergency Response Teams training, to Huntington Beach community members. • Distribute information about possible risks in Huntington Beach, ways to reduce risk, and effective post -emergency recovery strategies to community members through in - person events, online, and in print and electronic media in multiple languages, including Spanish, Vietnamese, and Chinese. • Work with local businesses to prepare workplace emergency plans, and to conduct regular drills -and other preparatory exercises for emergency situations. • Work with the school districts to educate schoolchildren about ways to prepare for emergency situations, and to coordinate school emergency plans with City plans. Consider shelter in place provisions, evacuation needs, provisions for school closure, and consistency with City and regional shelter plans. • Develop emergency education programs for elderly and disabled persons, in collaboration with medical providers, residential care workers, and other supportive organizations. • Ensure that City evacuation plans include provisions for the safe and efficient Jevacuation of individuals with limited mobility, including elderly residents and persons with disabilities. • Continue to have the Huntington Beach Fire Department sponsor the Senior Home Inspection Program (Proiect SHIP), where volunteers conduct free home fire safety inspections for seniors in the city which can provide free smoke detectors and carbon monoxide detectors as funding is available. Departments: Fire, Police Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund Time Frame: Ongoing HAZ-P.35. Neighborhood -Based Coastal Resiliency Task Forces Convene neighborhood specific coastal resiliency task forces, or utilize existing neighborhood specific groups and committees to vet and implement resilience strategies that balance the diverse stakeholder interests. Prioritize neighborhoods with highly vulnerable communities and assets such as Huntington Harbour and Sunset Beach and include community members, City staff, and relevant stakeholders such as Caltrans, Southern California Edison, Sunset Beach Sanitary District, homeowners associations, and the County of Orange. Departments: Planning Division, Public Works Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund Time Frame: Ongoing City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) Item 8. - 153 HB -368- N-P.1. Noise -Mitigating_ Design Guidelines Establish design guidelines for residential, commercial, industrial, and mixed -use structures that respond to noise concerns. Provide the guidelines to developers at an appropriate time during the development review process. Departments: Community Development Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Sources: General fund, development fees Time Frame: Guidelines established by 2020, ongoing implementation N-P.2. Industrial Hours of Operation Update the Municipal Code to establish and enforce appropriate hours of operation for industrial activities that may the potential to result in excessive noise with potential to disturb noise -sensitive land uses. Such activities include, but are not limited to, mechanical operations and truck deliveries. Departments: Community Development, Police Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General fund Time Frame: Code updates completed by 2020, ongoing implementation and enforcement N-P.3. Noise Ordinance Updates Update the Noise Ordinance regularly on a cycle of no more than every 10 years. During each update, conduct the following: • Monitor on -the -ground conditions in areas of existing or likely noise -related conflict. • Conduct public outreach. Evaluate the adequacy of enforcement mechanisms, and implement a system for tracking and monitoring locations where known or repetitive violations of noise standards have occurred or in locations where excessive noise disgro op rtionately impacts disadvantaged communities,- • -Identify specific exterior noise standards for industrial and commercial properties located adjacent to sensitive land uses, and incorporate project design features that City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) HB -3169- Item 8. - 154 reduce noise conflicts between industrial and commercial properties and sensitive land uses. Departments: Community Development Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General fund Time Frame: Every 10 years, ongoing N-P 4 Noise Barrier Construction Funding Secure funding to support construction of noise barriers to protect private outdoor yard areas along arterial roadways where existing homes are exposed to noise levels above the standards identified in Noise Element Table N-2. Develop a priority program for the construction of such barriers. Department: Public Works Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Sources: General fund, grant funding Time Frame: Ongoing N-P.5. Construction Hours Enforce the following requirements during environmental review of proposed projects: • Limit construction activities that would produce an hourly L, above 85 dBA to between the hours of 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. if such activities are proposed to occur within 100 feet of identified noise -sensitive uses. • Alternative mitigation may be considered for projects that would require pile driving or nighttime activities such as pumping or truck hauling. Departments: Community Development, Public Works Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: Development fees Time Frame: Ongoing N-P.6. Acoustical Studies Acoustical studies will be required for all discretionary projects where any of the following conditions apply: City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) Item 8. - 155 HB -370- • The proposed project includes a noise -sensitive land use that is located within the existing or future (Figure N-2) 65 dBA CNEL contour for transportation noise sources. • The proposed project will cause future traffic volumes to increase by 25 percent or more on any roadway that fronts a sensitive land use. • The proposed project will expose a noise -sensitive land use to a stationary noise source or vibration source exceeding the standards outlined in the Noise Ordinance. Such stationary sources may include mechanical equipment operations, entertainment venues, and industrial facilities. The proposed project includes a noise -sensitive land use in the vicinity of existing or proposed commercial and industrial areas. • The proposed project is a mixed -use development that includes a residential component. The focus of this type of acoustical study is to determine likely interior and exterior noise levels and to recommend appropriate design features to reduce noise. An acoustical analysis prepared in accordance with the Noise Element and the Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance (Section 8.40 of the Municipal Code) shall: • Be the financial responsibility of the applicant seeking City approval of a project_; • Be prepared by a qualified person experienced in the fields of environmental noise assessment and architectural acoustics -- Include representative noise level measurements with sufficient sampling periods and locations to adequately describe local conditions and predominant noise sources.; Nttoise level measurements must be conducted at the time of greatest potential for noise level increases above baseline conditions or allowed by law.; • Estimate existing and projected cumulative noise in terms of CNEL or L.Qf and compare those noise levels to Noise Element standards and policies • Recommend appropriate mitigation to achieve compliance with Noise Element policies and standards. Where the noise source in question consists of intermittent single events, the report must address the effects of maximum noise levels in sleeping rooms in terms of possible sleep disturbance; -, • Estimate noise exposure after the prescribed mitigation measures have been implemented. Departments: Community Development Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: Development fees Time Frame: Ongoing City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) HB -3 71- Item 8. - 156 Publicand intrnstruct re Element City Plans, Ordinances, and Programs PSI-P 1 Related Proarams and Governmental Agencies Continue to ensure compliance with federal, state, and local programs and regulations, including but not limited to the following: • National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) • National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) • Municipal Separate Storm Water System Permit Program • Groundwater Management Act • California Public Resources Code • California Water Code • California Urban Water Management Planning Act • California Integrated Waste Management Act • California Education Code • Orange County NPDES Municipal Storm Water Permit Departments: Community Development, Public Works Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund, development fees Time Frame: Ongoing PSI-P.?. Fire and Emergena Response Performance Objectives Adopt locally defined performance objectives for fire, marine safety, and emergency response. Track compliance with adopted performance goals for fire and emergency medical services quarterly and report the information annually to the City Council and community residents. Use annual report results to modify and better locate fire resources (e.g., stations, equipment, personnel) to meet established emergency response performance objectives. Annually evaluate fire department staffing levels and workload projections, and modify the Capital Improvement Program and operations plans, as necessary, to ensure facilities, equipment, and personnel meet established performance objectives. City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) Item 8. - 157 FIB -372- Department: Public Works Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Sources: General Fund Time Frame: Municipal Code revisions completed by 2020 PSI-P.7. Public Library Facilities Plan Establish and implement a public library facilities plan to: Ensure the library system both meets California State Library recommended standards and adequately serves community needs. • Explore withEyeiuete local school districts the use of school libraries serving as City library satellites. • Continue to support after -school programs, job training programs, workshops, and other activities. • Expand library outreach services for seniors and others who are physically unable to visit library facilities. • Explore all funding and grant options available to support upgrading library facilities and amenities; support library efforts to incorporate the best technology and facilities; and support technology and facility upgrade efforts in libraries to ensure community members have access to state-of-the-art amenities. Department: Library Services Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Sources: General Fund Time Frame: Facilities plan completed by 2020 PSI-P.Q. Development Fees Perform a nexus fee study and revise City development fees to ensure that new development and reuse projects pay for a fair share of public infrastructure in a manner coordinated with improvements identified in the City's infrastructure management plans. Departments: Community Development, Public Works, Fire, Police, Library Services, Community Services Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Sources: General Fund Time Frame: Complete nexus fee study by 2020, update fees annually PSI-P.9. Police Department Annually review police department staffing levels and workload projections and modify the Capital Improvement Program and operations plans, as necessary, to ensure facilities, equipment, and personnel meet established performance objectives. Annually evaluate City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) HB -373- Item 8. - 158 crime trends and police services, facilities, personnel, and response times relative to community needs and established state and federal standards, Departments: Police Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Sources: General Fund Time Frame: Ongoing, annually PSI-P 10 Special Events Review special events for the need to coordinate enhanced solid waste removal and police protection in conjunction with the permitting process. Identify fees associated with additional costs to be paid by event sponsors. Departments: Community Services Beach Division, Police Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Sources: General Fund, user fees Time Frame: Fee structure based on individual agreements or as events are proposed PSI-P 11 Public Service and Infrastructure Improvements Continue to adopt and update the City's operating budget to maintain adequate public services, facilities, and infrastructure, exceed national averages, and coordinate development of community facilities and amenities and capital projects. Evaluate the cost- effective provision of public services and seek innovative funding sources to provide services and maintain and upgrade existing infrastructure systems to counteract decreasing federal, state, and county funding sources, including grants, infrastructure financing districts, and other sources. Department: Public Works Community Development Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Sources: General Fund„ federal, state and county funds, grants, infrastructure financing districts Time Frame: Ongoing PSI-P 12. Infrastructure Technology Expand infrastructure technology in Huntington Beach by: • Partnering with local utility and telecommunication companies to coordinate and implement the most advanced and effective infrastructure technology possible. • Ensuring that budgeting for police, fire, and EMS services enables procurement of the most advanced technology accessible to aid in these services. City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) Item 8. - 159 HB -374- • Encouraging and facilitating the installation of fiber optic internet service starting in the Research and Technology designated industrial areas. • Evaluate a comprehensive information systems platform based on geospatial reckoning across all Cif departments to keep residents informed. Departments: Public Works, Fire, Police, City Manager's Office Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Sources: General Fund Time Frame: Ongoing PSI-P.13. Recycling and Composting In coordination with the City's waste hauler, build on existing waste collection and reduction programs to support California's goal of a 75 percent recycling rate by 2020 and to support long-term zero -waste efforts. Develop a composting program for commercial businesses, and expand participation to include single-family and multifamily residences as feasible. Identify materials that cannot be easily recycled or composted in Huntington Beach, and develop strategies that allow for effective diversion of these items. Improve the amount of construction and demolition (C&D) waste recycled in the community, and establish minimum diversion criteria that exceed state requirements for all future waste hauler contracts. Departments: Public Works Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Sources: General Fund Time Frame: Ongoing Capital Improvements PSI-P.14. Capital Improvement Program Use the City's 5-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) process to prioritize, fund, and build required infrastructure and public facility improvements, including: • Wastewater collection facilities • Water supply and distribution facilities • Water storage and transmission facilities • Storm drain and flood control facilities Use public capital resources in combination with private financing sources and seek regional, state, and federal funds to supplement local funding of infrastructure projects listed in the CIP. City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) HB -375- Item 8. - 160 Department: Public Works, ommunity Development Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Sources: Enterprise funds, service fees, impact fees, grants, General Fund Time Frame: Ongoing PSI-P 15 Storm Drain Improvements Design, preserve, and acquire land for water storage and transmission facilities, storm drain, and flood facilities. Provide for the construction of necessary pump and storage facilities to ensure adequate water supply and proper water system balance and the installation of stormwater drain gates. Evaluate existing environmental degradation or potential degradation from current or planned storm drain and flood control facilities in wetlands or other sensitive environments. Departments: Public Works Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Sources: Impact fees, grants, General Fund Time Frame: Ongoing PSI-P 16 Installation of Trash and Recycling Receptacles Design and install additional trash and recycling receptacles in public areas, including but not limited to Downtown, Beach Boulevard, City parks, and along the beach. Departments: Community Services, Public Works Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Sources: General Fund Time Frame: 2020 PSI-P.17. Development Review Through the development and design review processes for new development and reuse projects, require or continue to require the following: • That sufficient utility and water capacity is available. If sufficient capacity is not currently available, additional capacity or adequate mitigation shall be provided by the project. • Use of energy- and water -efficient fixtures and design elements to the maximum extent feasible consistent with City codes and policies. • Use of drought -tolerant and native landscaping to the maximum extent feasible consistent with City codes and policies. • Adequate receptacles for trash, recycling, and composting, as applicable. City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) Item 8. - 161 HB -376- • Completion of studies to determine water and sewer right-of-way and infrastructure requirements for future development projects, including that study recommendations be incorporated into the design of proposed projects. Payment of costs associated with providing new and improving wastewater, stormwater, and solid waste services shall be the responsibility of the project applicant. • Incorporation of Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (OPTED) techniques into site planning and architectural design including territoriality, natural surveillance, activity support, and access control. • Adequate street widths and clearance for emergency access and the provision of all appropriate safety features. • Evaluate the need for additional technology infrastructure in building design, both from the street and within the building. Continue to consult with the fire and police departments and utility providers to: • Evaluate the need for additional fire and police facilities or resources to serve new development projects during the development review process. • Evaluate the need for safety features when improving streets and critical intersections. • Ensure capacity and infrastructure is adequate for the projected demand. Departments: Community Development, Fire, Police, Public Works Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Sources: General Fund Time Frame: Ongoing PSI-P 18 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Require new development and reuse projects to submit plans to demonstrate compliance with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements, including but not limited to: • Mitigation of pollutant flows. • Limitation of impervious surfaces. • Preservation and usage of natural filtration systems such as wetlands and bioswales. • Provision of on -site infiltration and runoff, as well as temporary on -site retention areas. • Limitation of disturbance to natural bodies of water, drainage systems, and highly erodible areas. • Use of pollution prevention measures, source controls, and treatment strategies. • Implementation of erosion protection during and after construction. City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) IJB -377- Item 8. - 162 Department: Public Works, Community Development Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Sources: General Fund Time Frame: Ongoing Interjurisdictional Coordination PSI-P.19. Regional Coordination Coordinate with regional agencies, surrounding jurisdictions, and service providers on actions including: • Coordinating the installation or renovation of infrastructure to ensure compliance with regional plans and uninterrupted continuation of services across jurisdictional borders. • Maintaining an updated list of nonprofit organizations and interested parties, and ensuring they are included in planning decisions. • Working with state safety personnel to coordinate emergency response and safety efforts. Departments: Community Development, Public Works, City Manager's Office Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Sources: General Fund Time Frame: Ongoing PSI-P.20. School District Coordination Meet with local school districts to ensure continued coordination of maintenance and operations for the use of school facilities for public recreational activities, and the use of City parks for school educational purposes. Department: Community Services, City Manager's Office Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Sources: General Fund Time Frame: Ongoing Public Information and Outreach PSI-P.21. Community -Based Crime Prevention Offer advice and support to community -based crime prevention efforts by neighborhood groups and civic organizations. Specific efforts may include, but are not limited to: City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) Item 8. - 163 HB -378- ATTACHMENT #4 INTRODUCTION TO THE FINAL PROGRAM EIR 8.1 CEQA Requirements Before approving a project, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires the Lead Agency to prepare and certify a Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR). The contents of a Final EIR are specified in Section 15132 of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that: The Final EIR shall consist of: (a) The Draft EIR or a revision of the Draft EIR. (b) Comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR either verbatim or in summary. (c) A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR. (d) The responses of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process. (e) Any other information added by the Lead Agency. The Lead Agency (the City of Huntington Beach) must also provide each public agency that commented on the Draft Program EIR with a copy of the response the City has made to those comments at least ten days before certifying a Final EIR. 8.2 Public Review Process To satisfy the requirements of CEQA with regard to the General Plan Update, a program -level EIR was prepared (Draft Program EIR). The Draft Program EIR for the General Plan Update was circulated for review and comment by the public, agencies, and organizations for a 45-day period that began on May 22, 2017, and concluded on July 7, 2017. A public information meeting was held on June 7, 2017, to receive comments on the adequacy of the Draft Program EIR. In addition to the verbal comments that were L*6. 's I City of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Progro- FIR HB -379- Au Item 8. - 164 CHAPTER 8 Introduction to the Final Program EIR SECTION 8.3 Contents and Organization of the Final Program EIR received at the public meeting, eleven written letters were received on the Draft Program EIR during the review period. Additional written letters were received during this period on the General Plan Update itself, and written letters were received on a small portion of the Draft Program EIR after the close of the public review period. 8.3 Contents and Organization of the Final Program EIR To fulfill the requirements of CEQA, a program -level document has been prepared for the General Plan Update (Final Program EIR). This Final Program EIR is composed of two volumes. They are as follows: Volume I Draft Program EIR—This volume describes the existing environmental conditions in the project area and in the vicinity of the project, and analyzes potential impacts on those conditions due to the proposed project; identifies mitigation measures that could avoid or reduce the magnitude of significant impacts; evaluates cumulative impacts that would be caused by the project in combination with other future projects or growth that could occur in the region; analyzes growth -inducing impacts; and provides a full evaluation of the alternatives to the proposed project that could eliminate, reduce, or avoid project - related impacts. This is the document that was circulated for public review and comprises Chapters 1 through 7. Volume II Final Program EIR—This volume contains an explanation of the format and content of the Final Program EIR (Chapter 8); all text changes to the Draft Program EIR resulting from corrections of minor errors and/or clarification of items, which have been incorporated into the Draft Program EIR (Chapter 9); a complete list of all persons, organizations, and public agencies that commented on the Draft Program EIR, copies of the comment letters received by the City of Huntington Beach on the proposed project, and their responses to these comments as Lead Agency (Chapter 10); and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) (Chapter 11). 8.4 Use of the Final Program EIR Pursuant to Sections 15088(a) and 15088(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, the Lead Agency must evaluate comments on environmental issues received from persons who reviewed the Draft Program EIR and must prepare written responses. The Final Program EIR allows the public and the City of Huntington Beach an opportunity to review the response to comments, revisions to the Draft Program EIR, and other components of the Draft Program EIR, such as the MMRP, prior to the City of Huntington Beach's decision on the General Plan Update. The Final Program EIR serves as the environmental document to support approval of the General Plan Update, either in whole or in part. After completing a Final EIR, and before approving the project, the Lead Agency must make the following three certifications as required by Section 15090 of the CEQA Guidelines: ■ That a Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA ('ity of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program EIR I .A.ti~i- r Item 8. - 165 )i7 HB -380- CHAPTER 8 Introduction to the Final Program EIR SECTION 8.4 Use of the Final Program EIR ■ That a Final EIR was presented to the decision -making body of the Lead Agency, and that the decision -making body reviewed and considered the information in the Final EIR prior to approving the project ■ That a Final EIR reflects the Lead Agency's independent judgment and analysis Pursuant to Section 15091(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, if an EIR that has been certified for a project identifies one or more significant environmental effects, the lead agency must adopt "Findings of Fact." For each significant impact, the lead agency must make one of the following findings: 1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. 2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. 3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. Each finding must be accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for the finding. In addition, pursuant to Section 15091(d) of the CEQA Guidelines, the agency must adopt, in conjunction with the findings, a program for reporting on or monitoring the changes that it has either required in the project or made a condition of approval to avoid or substantially lessen environmental effects. These measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. This program is referred to as the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Additionally, pursuant to Section 15093(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, when a Lead Agency approves a project that would result in significant, unavoidable impacts that are disclosed in the Final EIR, the agency must state in writing its reasons for supporting the approved action. This Statement of Overriding Considerations is supported by substantial information in the record, which includes this Final Program EIR. Since the project could result in ten significant and unavoidable impacts (five project -specific and five cumulative) in the issue areas of Air Quality, Cultural Resources, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Noise, and Utilities and Service Systems, the City of Huntington Beach would be required to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations if it approves the proposed project. The certifications, Findings of Fact, and the Statement of Overriding Considerations are included in the staff report and resolutions that accompany this document. The Final Program EIR will be considered, and, in conjunction with making Findings, the City of Huntington Beach may decide whether or how to approve the General Plan Update. r,< City of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program FIR HB -3 81- Au Item 8. - 166 CHAPTER 8 Introduction to the Final Program EIR SECTION 8.4 Use of the Final Program EIR This page intentionally left blank. r'it,, f Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program EIR I Atkins Item 8. - 167 >» HB -382- CHANGES TO THE DRAFT PROGRAM E I R 9.1 Format of Text Changes Text changes are intended to clarify or correct information within the Draft Program EIR in response to the comments received on the document, or as initiated by Lead Agency staff, including changes to the General Plan Update that have been made as a result of comments received on the Draft Program EIR. Revisions are shown in Section 9.2 (Text Changes) below as excerpts from the Draft Program EIR text, with a line ems„ deleted text and an underline beneath inserted text. In order to indicate the location in the Draft Program EIR where text has been changed, the reader is referred to the page number of the Draft Program EIR. 9.2 Text Changes This section includes revisions to text, by Draft Program EIR Section, that were initiated either by Lead Agency staff or in response to public comments. The changes appear in order of their location in the Draft Program EIR. Chapter 2, Executive Summary, Page 2-7, Second full paragraph Development under this Alternative would result in a different buildout compared to the development buildout of the General Plan Update. This Alternative would result in a greater number of residential units overthe number of residential units allowed under the General Plan Update and a decrease in the amount of nonresidential square footage as noted below: ■ New Residential Development Potential: 86,499 8-3224 dwelling units (1,096 dwelling units above the General Plan Update) ■ New Non -Residential Development Potential: 45,748,00047�°O�square feet (4,662,990 square feet below the General Plan Update) :ar City of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Progrom RIP HB -383- Au.Item 8. - 168 CHAPTER 9 Changes to the Draft program EIR SECTION 9.2 Text Changes Chapter 3, Project Description, Page 3-8, Section 3.2.4, First paragraph The city of Huntington Beach has 15 adopted Specific Plans: SP1: North Huntington Center SPI Seabridge SP4: Huntington Harbor Bay Club SPS: Downtown SP6: Seacliff SP7: Ellis-Goldenwest SPB: Meadowlark SP9: Holly-Seacliff SP1O: Magnolia Pacific SP11: McDonnell Centre Business Park SP12: Palm/Goldenwest SP13: Bella Terra SP-14: Beach and Edinger Corridors SP15: Brightwater SP17: Sunset Beach Chapter 3, Project Description, Pages 3-15, Table 3-2 Table 3-2 Land Use Designations4 General Plan Update Land Density/FAR Use Designation Range Low Density Up to 7.0 Residential units/acre Medium Density >7.0-15.0 Residential units/acre Medium High >15.0-25.0 Density units/acre Residential General Description Traditional detached single-family housing, zero -lot - line developments, mobile home parks, low -density senior housing, and accessory dwelling units or "granny" flats. Smaller lot detached single-family housing, zero -lot - line developments, attached single-family housing (e.g., duplexes, townhomes), and lower -density multiple -family housing, such as garden apartments. Also allows uses permitted in the Low Density Residential designation. Attached single-family housing (e.g., townhomes), and a limited range of multiple -family housing (e.g., garden apartments, lofts). Also allows uses permitted in the Low and Medium Density Residential designations. Chapter 3, Project Description, Page 3-16, Table 3-2 Table 3-2 Land Use Designations4 General Plan Update Land Density/FAR Use Designation Range Research and Up to 1.0 FAR Technology Industrial Up to 0.75 FAR General Description Nonresidential mixed -use development in industrial areas. Uses include clean and green manufacturing (e.g., medical devices, solar panels), research and development, technology, warehousing, business parks, professional offices, limited eating and drinking establishments that have an industrial component (e.g., a brewery), and similar neighborhood commercial uses. Manufacturing (e.g., assembly, fabrication), construction, transportation, logistics, auto repair, research and development, warehousing, business parks, professional offices, ancillary commercial services (e.g., financial institutions, print shops), warehouse and sales outlets, and similar uses. Percent of Planning Acres Area (Approx.) (Approx.) 5,666 5,653 30% 1,185 6% 1,034 5.5% i,047.5 Acres (Approx.) 473 655 Percent of Planning Area (Approx.) 2.5% 3.5% ('Itv of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program EIR Item 8. - 169 >» HB -3 84- CHAPTER 9 Changes to the Draft program EIR SECTION 9.2 Text Changes Table 3-2 Land Use Designations4 General Plan Update Land Density/FAR Use Designation Range General Description Conservation - Environmental resource conservation and management (e.g., wetland protection) and supporting ancillary uses (e.g., maintenance equipment storage). Park — Public parks and recreational facilities and supporting ancillary uses (e.g., maintenance equipment storage). Recreation - Publicly or privately operated recreation facilities; such as golf courses and supporting ancillary uses (e.g., food stands, recreational equipment rentals, maintenance equipment storage). Water -- Water bodies used for recreational purposes, such as Recreation boating, swimming, and water sports. Shore — Coastal beaches operated by the city and state, and publicly or privately operated ancillary uses (e.g., food stands, recreational equipment rentals, maintenance equipment storage). Public Government administrative and related facilities, such as public utilities, public parking lots, and similar uses. Public/Semi- — Hospitals, churches, cultural facilities, institutional, public schools and related facilities, and similar semi-public community service uses. Mixed Use -- Permits the development of residential uses in Overlay conjunction with the underlying commercial designation. Specific Plan -- Permits the underlying land use designation and Overlay requires that a specific plan be prepared to provide greater specificity for land use and infrastructure plans, design and development standards, and phasing/implementation. Specific plans have predominantly been used to focus on the unique characteristics of an area and customize the planning process and land use regulations and requirements to apply to that area of the city. FAR=Floor-to-area ratio Source: City of Huntinaton Beach 2017 Percent of Planning Acres Area (Approx.) (Approx.) 1,662 9% 701 4% 238 1 % 239 1 434 2% 836 4.5% 779 4% 9 <1% 2,158.5 1 1 % Atkins I City of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Progrom FIP HB -385- Au -Item 8. - 170 CHAPTER 9 Changes to the Draft program EIR SECTION 9.2 Text Changes Chapter 3, Project Description, Page 3-17, Table 3-3 Table 3-3 Proposed General Plan Update Development Capacity5 Acres Total Estimated Population Land Use Designation (Approximate) Dwelling Units (2040) (2040)111 Residential 8,066.0 85,360 210,945 Commercial 1,207.7 43iT41 106 Industrial 1,127.8 Open Space & Recreational 3,273.8 Public & Rights of Way 5,296.4 Total (2040) 18,971.8 Non -Residential Square Feet (2040) 18,442,316 24,149,404 1,734,283 6,084,987 85,403 211,051 50,410,990 Existing (2014) Totals 18,971.8 78,175 193,189 45,026,070 Change, 2014-2040 7,228 17,862 5,384,920 2040 population estimate based on the projections prepared for the draft GGRP. This calculation assumed a 2014 population of 193,189 and a consistent growth rate of 1.7%from 2020 to 2040 (in increments of 5 years). Based on trends of Huntington Beach, a constant growth rate of 1.7% was assumed while acknowledging the Orange County growth rate is expected to slow over time. The population estimate for the General Plan Update is largely consistent with projections of SCAG and Orange County and underlying land use assumptions. As the planning horizon moves further away from reliable and measured data, it is not uncommon for the model to become less accurate. si Residential units located in the General Commercial designation represent existing residential units on land designated for a range of nonresidential uses where no land use change is anticipated. Source: City of Huntington Beach 2017 Chapter 3, Project Description, Page 3-17, First paragraph As shown in Table 3-3, which identifies the same development capacity as Table LU-1 of the General Plan Update, implementation of the General Plan Update could result in an additional 7,228 dwelling units and approximately 5,384,920 square feet of nonresidential uses developed within the planning area by 2040. Future development within Specific Plan areas would continue to be regulated primarily by the development standards established by each Specific Plan and are accounted in the 2040 buildout assumptions identified above. The General Plan Update does not propose additional Specific Plans or changes to the maximum permitted density and intensity established by each adopted Specific Plan within the planning area. Chapter 3, Project Description, Page 3-19, First paragraph Technology and Innovation Subarea Northwest Industrial Subarea The 760-acre Northwest Industrial Subarea is located in the northwestern portion of the planning area and comprises the McDonnell Centre Business Center Specific Plan north of Bolsa Avenue and industrial and research and technology uses south of Bolsa Avenue. This area is anchored by two of Huntington Beach's largest employers (Boeing and Zodiac), as well as a variety of industrial, technology, commercial services, and fitness uses. The built environment ranges from large office buildings and business parks to small commercial pad and industrial spec buildings. Given the proximity to residential uses, the potential for land use compatibility issues within typical industrial uses is a major concern. As a result, this subarea introduces the Research and Technology land use designation in areas adjacent to single-family residential neighborhoods to promote opportunities for new industrial uses that are more compatible with surrounding sensitive uses as well as encourage economic growth and change within this area. This designation encourages both employment uses and commercial uses designed to accommodate (-it,, r,f Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program EIR Item 8. - 171 ) 1 7 H B -3 86- CHAPTER 9 Changes to the Draft program EIR SECTION 9.2 Text Changes employees. Uses include clean and green manufacturing (e.g., medical devices, solar panels), research and development, technology, warehousing, business parks, professional offices, eating and drinking establishments, and similar neighborhood commercial uses. T"^ M-AWPF UFA develOpFAeRt iAte%ity {^� uses in thers, subaFea FaRgP-S frp—m. A-75 figel: te aFea Fatie (PAR) feF tradit;A—Aal ind-u-stri-al te 1-0- PAIR fAr Chapter 3, Project Description, Page 3-19, Second paragraph Gothard Overlay Centrally located along Gothard Street between Edinger Avenue and Ellis Avenue, the 422-acre Gothard Subarea consists of both industrial and research and technology uses, along with a few isolated community service and public use parcels. The Gothard Subarea is predominantly occupied by smaller manufacturing and warehouse uses and auto repair facilities. Other uses include a lumberyard, some retail and office uses, Republic Services, several gyms/training facilities, Seabreeze Church, and city facilities. Given the proximity to sensitive uses such as residential dwellings and schools, the potential for land use compatibility and environmental justice issues associated with typical industrial use remains an ongoing concern. More information on this issue can be found in the General Plan Update beginning at pages 2- 1 ') anti d-1 2 Chapter 4.2, Air Quality, Page 4.2-12, Section 4.2.1.2, Local Air Quality This entire section has been deleted in this location and moved to page 4.2-16 as noted immediately below. Chapter 4.2, Air Quality, Page 4.2-9, Last paragraph Because air pollutant emissions resulting from operation under a General Plan Update are considered cumulative in nature, and as specific information regarding the land use and overall size of individual development projects and the resulting potential operational air quality impacts is not available, toe SGAQMD deeS REA Fe ^.,a „I *;^, ^f it is not possible to calculate operational emissions for a planning document, such as the General Plan Update. Therefore, there remains the possibility that air pollutant emissions resulting from operation of specific projects under the General Plan Update may not be reduced below the thresholds established by the SCAQMD. As no feasible mitigation is available to reduce these emissions, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Chapter 4.2, Air Quality, Page 4.2-10, Section B B. General Plan Goals and Policies 2. Construction There are General Plan Update policies that are aimed to reduce emissions within the planning area. Such policies from the Environmental Resources and Conservation Element of the General Plan include: ■ Goal ERC-4: Air quality in Huntington Beach continues to improve through local actions and interagency cooperation. City of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Progrom FIR HB -387- A,, Item 8. - 172 CHAPTER 9 Changes to the Draft program EIR SECTION 9.2 Text Changes — ERC-4.A: Continue to cooperate with the South Coast Air Quality Management District and other regional, state, and national agencies to enforce air quality standards and improve air quality. — ERC-4.13: Continue to require construction projects to carry out best available air quality mitigation practices, including use of alternative fuel vehicles and equipment as feasible. — ERC-4.C: Enforce maximum idling time regulations for off -road equipment. — ERC-4.D: Require grading, landscaping, and construction activities to minimize dust while using as little water as possible. — ERC-4.E: Continue to explore and implement strategies to minimize vehicle idling, including traffic signal synchronization and roundabouts. — ERC-4.F: Minimize exposure of sensitive land uses to toxic air contaminants by locating new pollutant sources away from sensitive uses and disproportionately affected communities and working with existing pollutant sources to reduce emissions when changes to existing operations or permits are proposed. Chapter 4.2, Air Quality, Page 4.2-15, Section 1, Localized Significance Thresholds LSTs have been developed by the SCAQMD to determine maximum allowable concentrations of criteria air pollutants during construction and operation of specific projects. SCAQMD says that since LSTs are applicable at the project -specific level and generally are not applicable to regional projects such as local General Plans unless specific projects are identified in the General Plans, and this General Plan Update does not contain any specific projects, LSTs are not applicable to this General Plan Update. While specific construction and operational activity under the General Plan Update cannot be determined at this time and the General Plan Update does not contain any specific projects, there is no impact from LSTs due to the General Plan Update. Once projects under the General Plan Update are identified and the entitlement processes begin, project -specific environmental analysis will be completed to determine whether construction and/or operations would result in a significant impact with respect to localized significance thresholds. Chapter 4.2, Air Quality, Page 4.2-16, Section 2, Carbon Monoxide Hotspots The SCAQMD defines typical sensitive receptors as residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, athletic facilities, long-term health care facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, and retirement homes. When evaluating potential air quality impacts to sensitive receptors, the SCAQMD is concerned with high localized concentrations of CO. Motor vehicles are the primary source of pollutants in the project site vicinity. Local emissions sources also include stationary activities, such as space and water heating, landscape maintenance from leaf blowers and lawn mowers, consumer products, and mobile sources. Traffic -congested roadways and intersections have the potential to generate localized high levels of CO. Localized areas where ambient concentrations exceed national and/or state standards for CO are termed "CO hotspots." Section 9.14 of the SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook identifies CO as a localized problem requiring additional analysis when a project is likely to subject sensitive receptors to CO hotspots. Met9F vehieles, (7fv f Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program EIR tki Item 8. - 173 )» HB -388- CHAPTER 9 Changes to the Draft program EIR SECTION 9.2 Text Changes SCAQMD recommends the use of CALINE4, a dispersion model for predicting CO concentrations that may result due to the operation of a project, as the preferred method of estimating pollutant concentrations at sensitive receptors near congested roadways and intersections. For each intersection analyzed, CALINE4 adds roadway -specific CO emissions calculated from peak -hour turning volumes to the existing ambient CO air concentrations. For this analysis, CO concentrations were calculated based on a simplified CALINE4 screening procedure developed by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and utilized by SCAQMD. The simplified model is intended as a screening analysis in order to identify a potential CO hotspot and assumes worst -case conditions and provides a screening of maximum, worst -case CO rnnrantrntinnc As shown in Table 4.2-2, based on CO modeling of three identified "critical intersections" using the simplified CALINE4 methodology at the three most congested intersections at buildout, CO concentrations would be substantially below the state 20.0 ppm 1-hour ambient air quality standards, and the national and state 9.0 ppm 8-hour ambient air quality standards when growth envisioned under the General Plan Update occurs. Table 4.2-2-1 Carbon Monoxide Hotspot Results" Estimated CO Concentration (ppm) Significant Intersection 1 Hour 8 Hour Impact? Beach Boulevard &Heil Avenue 2.7 1.9 No Brookhurst Street & Adams Avenue 2_5 1_8 No Gothard Street & Center Avenue 2_6 1_8 No Implementation of the General Plan Update is not expected to expose existing or future sensitive uses within the planning area to substantial CO concentrations. Much of the area covered under the General Plan Update consists of commercial uses, which are not considered sensitive receptors. There are, however, residences and schools located within or in close proximity to some of the Subareas. As shown in Table 4.2-2-1, based on CO modeling of three identified "critical intersections" using the simplified Atkins 2017. Air Quality TBR for the City of Huntington Beach General Plan Update. February. CALINE4 methodology at the three most congested intersections at buildout, CO concentrations would be substantially below the state 20.0 ppm 1-hour ambient air quality standards, and the national and state 9.0 ppm 8-hour ambient air quality standards when growth envisioned under the General Plan Update occurs. Therefore, sensitive receptors within the planning area would not be exposed to substantial CO concentrations, and the potential impacts of the General Plan Update would be less than significant. Implementation of the General Plan Circulation Element goals and policies would further reduce the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial CO concentrations by increasing transit opportunities and requiring more low emission vehicles and alternative fuel stations within the planning area. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant, and there are no feasible mitigation measures that would further reduce the less than significant impacts identified. ***It is worth noting that due to the relocation of the table (as shown above), a renumbering of both (previous) Tables 4.2-1 and 4.2-2 was necessary. As such, this has occurred on Page 4.2.3 of the Draft Program EIR. City of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Progro- RP HB -389- A,, Item 8. - 174 CHAPTER 9 Changes to the Draft program EIR SECTION 9.2 Text Changes Chapter 4.2, Air Quality, Page 4.2-18, Cumulative Effects, Last paragraph Cumulative development could result in a significant impact in terms of conflicting with, or obstructing implementation of, the adopted AQMP. Growth considered inconsistent with the AQMP could interfere with attainment of federal or state ambient air quality standards, because this growth is not included in the projections utilized in the formulation of the AQMP. Consequently, as long as growth in the Basin is within the projections for growth identified in the 2016 RTP/SCS, implementation of the AQMP would not be obstructed by such growth. Anticipated growth under the General Plan Update is consistent with the 2012 AQMP (in affect at the time of release of the NOP) and is considered to be consistent with the growth assumptions of the SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS and therefore, 2016 AQMP. Further, with implementation of Goal LU-1 (Distribution and Pattern of Development) which aims for development that is consistent with outlined land use designations and prioritization of future growth as infill of existing developed areas and reusing of existing buildings, the General Plan Update will be consistent with the current AQMP 2012 AQMP). Under subsequent AQMPs, projected increases in population and employment within Huntington Beach, as well as that of other cities within the Basin, would be included in forecasts, as the SCAG population forecasts are based on the General Plans of individual cities. As such, the General Plan Update would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to air quality and would result in a less than significant cumulative impact due to inconsistency with the AQMP. Chapter 4.3, Biological Resources, Page 4.3-1, First paragraph This section summarizes the biological resources within the planning area and evaluates the potential for change to specialmm-status species, sensitive habitats, wetlands, wildlife corridors, and conservation planning efforts due to the implementation of the General Plan Update. The following is a summary of the Biological Resources TBR prepared by Atkins' (Volume 1). The discussion for baseline conditions, including additional information on the existing environmental setting, and regulatory framework for biological resources is included in the TBR. Chapter 4.3, Biological Resources, Page 4.3-5, Figure 4.3-3 title FIGURE 4.3-3 Special -status Species Chapter 4.3, Biological Resources, Page 4.3-8, Section B, First paragraph The following Environmental Resources and Conservation Element policies would protect special status species: ■ Goal ERC-1: Adequately sized and located parks meet the changing recreational and leisure needs of existing and future residents. — ERC-1.F: Continue to balance and maintain a mix of recreational focused and passive and natural environment areas that preserve and protect special -status species within open spaces. ■ Goal ERC-3: Maintain the recreational and cultural identity of the beach while improving and enhancing the overall habitat value of coastal areas. (-i+,, of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program EIR I 1 --K".S Item 8. - 175 ),7 HB -390- CHAPTER 9 Changes to the Draft program EIR SECTION 9.2 Text Changes — ERC-3.D: In areas known to be utilized by special -status species, encourage low -intensity uses that provide public access and passive recreational resources such as picnic/observation areas, nature trails, peripheral bike paths, and informational signs/displays. ■ Goal ERC-6: Various agencies that oversee habitat areas and wildlife corridors, including but not limited to parks, beaches, coastal dunes, marine waters, and wetlands, coordinate decision - making and management to ensure ongoing protection of resources. — ERC-6.A: Create, improve, and/or acquire areas that enhance habitat resources and identify, prioritize, and restore as habitat key areas of land that link fragmented wildlife habitat, as funding and land are available. — ERC-6.6: Support land acquisition, conservation easements, or other activities undertaken by landowners to create and preserve habitat linkages that support the integrity of ecosystems. — ERC-6.C: Preserve and enhance the connection between the Huntington Beach Wetlands and the wetland/riparian area in Bartlett Park via the Huntington Beach Channel. — ERC-6.13: Use future specific and area plans as means to complete wildlife corridors. ■ Goal ERC-7: Wetland areas that serve as important biological resources for threatened and endangered birds, fish, and other species are protected and restored. — ERC-7.A: Protect important wetland areas in the planning area through land use regulation or public ownership and management. — ERC-7.6: Maintain and enhance existing natural vegetation buffer areas surrounding riparian habitats and protect these areas from new development. ■ Goal ERC-8: Coastal dunes and habitat resources remain resilient to potential impacts of encroaching development, urban runoff, and possible sea level rise. — ERC-8.C: Prohibit development that jeopardizes or diminishes the integrity of sensitive or protected coastal plant and animal communities, accounting for expected changes from sea level rise. ■ Goal ERC-10: An enhanced network of parks, open spaces, and recreation facilities contributes to habitat preservation. — ERC-10.A: Continue to preserve portions of parks as natural habitat for a variety of species. Policy ERC-3.D would reduce human impacts by encouraging low -intensity uses in areas that are known to be utilized by special -status species. Policies ERC-6.A, ERC-6.C, and ERC-6.D would preserve and restore wildlife corridors in order to reduce impacts to habitat fragmentation. Policies ERC-1.F and ERC-8.0 would require impacts to natural habitat to be minimized in order to avoid reducing natural and open spaces and would prohibit future development that jeopardizes or diminishes the integrity of sensitive or protected coastal plant and animal communities. Policy+es ERC-6.B^"Ivr�rERG oz would require the acquisition of land for conservation easements -and .^es1a. iati.,.. f the ASCON site fel: Fe telFatie increasing the beneficial use of Huntington Beach Wetlands and habitat corridors. Acquiring and maintaining these lands would also increase and protect connectivity between areas of suitable habitat ri.._.: City of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Progrom RIP HB -391- A, Item 8. - 176 CHAPTER 9 Changes to the Draft program EIR SECTION 9.2 Text Changes in the planning area. Policies ERC-7.A, ERC-7.6, and ERC-10.A would further protect and maintain existing wetlands, natural riparian buffers, and natural parks that provide habitat throughout the planning area. Future development within the planning area must also comply with all federal and state regulations enacted to protect special -status species. Required preconstruction surveys, implementation of buffers around active nesting birds, ensuring no net loss of wetlands, and coordination with CDFW and USFWS would further protect special -status species. Chapter 4.3, Biological Resources, Page 4.3-10, Section A, Second paragraph Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS? A. Impact Analysis Sensitive habitats include those that are of special concern to resource agencies and those that are considered to be and are protected under CEQA, Section 1600 of the Fish and Game Code, CCC, and Section 404 of the CWA. Sensitive natural communities within the planning area include: ■ Southern Coastal Salt Marsh (1,068 acres) ■ Southern Foredunes (6 acres) ■ Southern Dune Scrub (4 acres) ■ Eucalyptus (61 acres) ■ Southern Cottonwood Willow Riparian Scrub (32 acres) The geographic location of sensitive natural communities within the planning area are shown on Figure 2 of the Biological Resources TBR prepared by Atkins' (Volume 1). Future development activities may also result in the loss of ESHAs and other sensitive vegetation communities. 9 Atkins 2017. Air Quality TBR for the City of Huntinaton Beach General Plan Update. February. Chapter 4.3, Biological Resources, Page 4.3-11, Section B B. General Plan Goals and Policies The following Environmental Resources and Conservation Element policies would protect sensitive vegetation communities: ■ Goal ERC-6: Various agencies that oversee habitat areas and wildlife corridors, including but not limited to parks, beaches, coastal dunes, marine waters, and wetlands, coordinate decision - making and management to ensure ongoing protection of resources. — ERC-6.F: Establish aquatic and terrestrial connections between the Bolsa Chica Wetlands and Central Park by restoring area in the oil fields. Additionally, the Environmental Resources and Conservation Element policies ERC-6.A, ERC-6.6, ERC-6.C, and ERC-6.D, would ensure the protection of sensitive vegetation communities. Policy ERC- 0 rit\l f Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program EIR I Atkin; Item 8. - 177 D17 HB -392- CHAPTER 9 Changes to the Draft program EIR SECTION 9.2 Text Changes 7.0 would support Orange County's efforts to designate and manage sensitive wetlands in order to expand the coastal wetlands preserve. Policies ERC-7.B and ERC-8.0 would protect riparian habitats from development through maintaining and enhancing the existing natural buffers and prohibiting development that jeopardizes the integrity of the sensitive communities. Chapter 4.3, Biological Resources, Page 4.3-11, Section A, First paragraph 'Mould the project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? A. Impact Analysis The planning area supports riparian and wetland plant communities that are protected by the USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW. Waterbodies within the planning area include the Santa Ana River, marine waters, and the Sunset, Westminster, Ocean View, East Grove-Wintersberg, Huntington Beach, Talbert, and Fountain Valley flood channels. These areas are owned and actively maintained by the Orange County Flood Control District to ensure their adequacy to support their primary function as flood control channels. Chapter 4.3, Biological Resources, Page 4.3-12, Section B B. General Plan Goals and Policies The following Environmental Resources and Conservation Element policies would require protection, enhancement, and preservation of protected wetland habitats: ■ Goal ERC-7: Wetland areas that serve as important biological resources for threatened and endangered birds, fish, and other species are protected and restored. — ERC-7.C: Support County efforts to designate and manage environmentally sensitive lands — such as the Bolsa Chica Wetlands, the Huntington Beach Wetlands, and lands near the mouth of the Santa Ana River and north of Newland Street —for inclusion into a coastal wetlands preserve. — ERC-7.11): Prevent filling, dredging, and channelization of river and wetland areas. — ERC-7.E: Reduce pollutant runoff from new development and urban runoff to the maximum extent practicable. Additionally, Environmental Resources and Conservation Element policies ERC-6.C, ERC-6.F, EDrRcvE, ERC- 7.A, and ERC-7.B would require protection, enhancement, and preservation of protected wetland habitats. Policies ERC-6.0 and ERC-6.F would preserve existing and establish new connections between the Huntington Beach Wetlands and Bartlett Park, and between the Bolsa Chica Wetlands and Central Park. . Policy ERC-7.A would protect important wetlands through land use regulation and management. Policy ERC-7.B would maintain and enhance the existing natural buffers surrounding riparian habitat and protect the buffers from new development. Policies ERC-7.1) and ERC-7.E would reduce pollutant runoff to the maximum extent possible and protect wetlands by preventing filling, dredging, and channelization. Policy m City of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Progrom Fig P HB -393- AuItem 8. - 178 CHAPTER 9 Changes to the Draft program EIR SECTION 9.2 Text Changes ERC-7.0 supports Orange County's efforts to designate and manage sensitive wetlands in order to expand the coastal wetlands preserve. Chapter 4.3, Biological Resources, Page 4.3-13, Mitigation Measure MM4.3-2, #2 MM4.3 2 Wetland Habitat... 2) Prior to the issuance of grading permits by the city, if wetlands are present on a project site (based on the verified wetland delineation), the project applicant shall acquire all applicable wetland permits. These permits include, but would not be limited to, a Section 404 Wetlands Fill Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or a Report of Waste Discharge from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and a Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Additionally, a Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife would be required for development that would cross or affect any stream course (iRGll ding the BaFge G,^a" Chapter 4.3, Biological Resources, Page 4.3-14, Section B B. General Plan Goals and Policies The Environmental Resource and Conservation Element policies protect and enhance wildlife corridors include ERC-6.A, ERC-6.B, ERC-6.C, ERC-6.D, CDC:€ and ERC-6.F. Policy ERC-6.0 would protect wildlife corridors by preserving and enhancing the Huntington Beach Channel, improving the connection between the Huntington Beach Wetlands and wetlands in Bartlett Park. Policy ERC-6.F would restore the oil fields in order to establish aquatic and terrestrial connections between Bolsa Chica Wetlands and Central Park. The Environmental Resource and Conservation Element also aims to reclaim and create areas that would specifically function as new or enhanced wildlife corridors and linkages. Policies ERC-6.A, ERC-6.B, and ERC-6.D direct the city to acquire and enhance areas that enhance fragmented wildlife habitat, support the creation of conservation easements, and use future specific and area plans as a means to complete wildlife corridors. Chapter 4.4, Cultural Resources, Page 4.4-11, Section A, Second paragraph A;th«gh there —a Re kRe;.A9^ h''MaR FemaiRs y.geth.i;Tt1hp planRiRg rea, aAfter conducting an archaeological site record search, it is known that the presence of human remains were previously recorded in archaeological sites outside of the planning area. Close proximity to known and recorded human remains outside of the planning area should raise an increased sensitivity for unknown informal cemeteries that could lie within the planning area. Future development within the planning area would have the potential to result in impacts to unknown human remains. Ground -disturbing activities, such as grading, excavation, and utilities installation, would have the potential to cause adverse impacts to currently undiscovered remains. The potential for disturbance may be reduced through contacting a qualified archaeologist, conducting a record search of given area of a project, and conducting a through site survey priorto any ground -disturbing activities, which would assist in determining the absence and/or presence of human remains. Construction activities associated with the future development under the General Plan Update would have the potential to disturb unknown human remains. Prior to the 2 rite of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program EIR Item 8. - 179>17 HB -394- CHAPTER 9 Changes to the Draft program EIR SECTION 9.2 Text Changes establishment of CEQA, many construction activities carried through without proper mitigation and care for unearthing cultural resources and human remains. Disturbance of soil deposits that are out of context could still yield human remains even after being disturbed. Any disturbance would be considered a significant impact. Chapter 4.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Page 4.6-7, Section 2, Table 4.6-1 Table 4.6-1 Existing and Future GHG Ennissions72 2012 (Existing) Residential energy 327,340 Nonresidential energy 301,840 Transportation 726,190 Off -road equipment 11,580 resource management 38,620 Water and wastewater 10,410 Oil drilling 16,560 Total 1,432,540 Percent change from 2012 Thresholds Percent above thresholds 2020 332,010 321,680 755,700 22,040 40,120 10,800 4&455816,560 1,498,910 5% 1,234,260 21% Chapter 4.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Page 4.6-10, Section D D. Mitigation Measwres 2040 355,380 355,170 840,750 37,510 43,450 11,730 16,560 1,660,640 16% 575,990 188% No other feasible mitigation measures are available beyond those strategies proposed in the draft GGRP. The draft GGRP provides a comprehensive suite of strategies that are expected to enable the city to reduce GHG emissions below the identified thresholds of significance. However, due to uncertainties in forecasting future GHG emissions and the lack of a requirement that the city implement the specified GHG reduction strategies, it cannot be guaranteed that the GHG emissions will be reduced below the identified thresholds of significance. Thus, cumulative impacts associated with GHG emissions would remain significant and unavoidable. Chapter 4.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, Page 4.8-1, Last paragraph 2. Local Hydrology The planning area is located primarily within two watersheds of the SARB, with a small portion in a third watershed. The Westminster and Talbert watersheds are the two watersheds that are most prevalent, as depicted in Figure 4.8-2. The Westminster watershed covers 74.1 square miles in the southwestern corner of Orange County and includes portions of the cities of Anaheim, Cypress, Fountain Valley, Garden Grove, Los Alamitos, Santa Ana, Seal Beach, Stanton, Westminster, Buena Park, Orange, unincorporated OFagen Orange County, and Huntington Beach. The Talbert/Greenville Banning watershed covers 21.4 square miles and straddles the mouth of the Santa Ana River. The Talbert/Greenville Banning watershed includes portions of the cities of Costa Mesa, Fountain Valley, Newport Beach, Santa Ana, and Huntington Beach. a t- i- s City of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Progrom FIP F HB -395- Item 8. - 180 CHAPTER 9 Changes to the Draft program EIR SECTION 9.2 Text Changes Chapter 4.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, Page 4.8-2, Section B(1), First paragraph 1. Regional Facilities The Orange County Flood Control District is responsible for the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of regional flood control facilities. When originally constructed, the flood control channels were built to accommodate 65 percent of the 25-year flood event. The district now uses 100-year flood event standards for new storm drain design and construction and drainage improvements. A base map of the drainage facilities managed by the Orange County Flood Control District, along with a map of the entire drainage system, can be found online at http://www.ocf[ood.com/docs/drawings. Chapter 4.9, Land Use, Page 4.9-2, Section 2, Second paragraph 2. Commercial Commercial uses in the planning area consist of regional retail centers, general commercial uses, neighborhood commercial uses, and offices. Commercial uses are generally located in areas designated as Commercial or Mixed Use in the General Plan. Commercially designated sites comprise approximately 570 acres, or approximately 3 percent, of the planning area's total acreage, most of which is characterized as general commercial. Sites designated as Mixed Use comprise 638 acres or approximately 3.4 percent of the total acreage of the planning area. Most of the parcels that have a Mixed Use land use designation are currently developed with commercial uses only. Existing commercial uses are predominantly located in regional shopping centers, such as Bella Terra, in Downtown Huntington Beach and along the blocks adjacent to both sides of Beach Boulevard, Adams Avenue, Edinger Avenue, and Warner Avenue. The primary regional retail center in Huntington Beach is Bella Terra located at the intersection of Edinger Avenue and Beach Boulevard, near the 1-405 freeway. Most visitor -oriented commercial uses, including hotels, dining, and entertainment facilities, are concentrated along Beach Boulevard, the Pacific Coast Highway, and the Five Points intersection at Ellis Avenue, Main Street, and Beach Boulevard. Chapter 4.9, Land Use, Page 4.9-3, Section 5 5. Open Space Land Use The planning area includes 3,274 acres of open space, which is approximately 17 percent of the total acreage within the planning area. The open space land uses within the planning area consist of parks, beaches, water and commercial recreation uses, habitat conservation areas, and open space. Open Space - Conservation areas make up the largest land proportion of these uses, accounting for 1,662 acres, which is approximately 50 percent of the total open space acreage. However, this area includes the Bolsa Chica Wetlands area, which is considered part of the planning area, but is not incorporated as part of the city. As shown in Figure 3-3 (Existing Land Uses), Central Park accounts for the largest area of parkland within the city. Pocket parks and recreational facilities located on school properties make up approximately 28.91 acres or less than one percent of the total acreage of open space lands. 1 ° 1 4 � (-'t" " f Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program EIR Item 8. — HB -396- CHAPTER 9 Changes to the Draft program EIR SECTION 9.2 Text Changes Chapter 4.10, Noise, Pages 4.10-8 and 4.10-9, Section B B. General Plan Goals and Policies The following Noise Element policies would require interior and exterior noise levels to meet the standards: ■ Goal N-1: Noise -sensitive land uses are protected in areas with acceptable noise levels. — N-1.A: Maintain acceptable stationary noise levels at existing noise -sensitive land uses such as schools, residential areas, and open spaces. — N-1.13: Incorporate design and construction features into residential a-R4 mixed -use,, commercial, and industrial projects that shield noise -sensitive land uses from excessive noise. Chapter 4.11, Population, Housing, and Employment, Page 4.11-2, Section B, First Paragraph The city had an estimated 76,635 jobs in 2012, a 3.6 percent decrease from 2000. In contrast, the Orange County employment rates increased by 12.9 percent from 2000 to 2012'. The city's economy is lam used An ranges from tourism and business -oriented hotels and motels; to restaurant and retail -oriented businesses; industrial manufacturing and warehouse/distribution firms; technology services; automotive sales; and health care, local schools, a community college, and governmental institutions. Chapter 4.12, Public Services, Page 4.12-16 — PSI-5.13: Continue to support and expand continuing education, after -school programs, and education programs for all ages including educational opportunities offered in neighboring universities and colleges. — PSI-S.C: Ensure continued use of school facilities for public recreational activities and the use of city parks to support school educational purposes. — PSI-5.10l: Ensure that developers consult with the appropriate school district with the intent to mitigate a potential impact on school facilities prior to project approval by the City. Additional programs outlined in the Implementation Element will ensure that current school facilities continue to serve the planning area with the implementation of the General Plan Update. Policy LU-P.22 proposes that in the event of a school closure, alternative uses for the property be implemented. This will allow continued public benefit theeg#t—through additional educational programming, community centers and recreation facilities being hosted on site. However, these alternative uses for the school property should enable the building to be converted back to school uses in the event that increasing population requires supplemental resources. -skir~s I City of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program FIR F HB -397- Au Item 8. - 182 CHAPTER 9 Changes to the Draft program EIR SECTION 9.2 Text Changes Chapter 4.13, Recreation, Page 4.13-2, Section 13.3.3, First paragraph Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood, community, and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? A. Impact Analysis An increase in population, regardless of location, would result in increased demand for recreational facilities, which has the potential to result in the deterioration of existing facilities. The Environmental Resources and Conservation Element in the General Plan Update maintains an established citywide level of service goal for parkland of a minimum of five acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. Based on the population of the planning area in 2014 of 193,189, there are approximately 5.55 acres of parkland (including city -operated shore and beach) for every 1,000 residents. As stated in Section 4.12 (Population and Housing), implementation of development allowed under the General Plan Update would result in a total population of 211,051 residents by 2040. However, the General Plan Update does not propose the allocation or construction of additional parkland. Chapter 4.13, Recreation, Pages 4.13-5 and 4.13-6, Section B B. General Plan Goals and Policies — ERC-1.F: Continue to balance and maintain a mix of recreational focused and passive and natural environment areas that preserve and protect special -status species within open spaces. Chapter 4.14, Transportation/Traffic, Page 4.14-1, Section 4.14.1.A, Part 1, First paragraph 4.14.1 Environmental Setting A. Existing Roadway Network Figure 4.14-1 illustrates the existing arterial roadway network within the planning area, which includes all of the existing General Plan Circulation Element roadways together with the number of midblock travel lanes on individual roadway segments. Regional access to the planning area is provided via four interchanges with 1-405 located at Springdale Street, Goldenwest Street/Bolsa Avenue, Beach Boulevard/ Center Avenue, and Magnolia Street/Wagrner Avenue. As shown in Figure 4.14-2, two arterial State Highway facilities serve the planning area: Beach Boulevard (SR-39) and Pacific Coast Highway (SR-1). Chapter 4.14, Transportation/Traffic, Page 4.14-5, Section 4.14.1.E, First paragraph E. Bicycle Network The first city Bike Master Plan was approved on November 18, 20134, and identifies prioritized bicycle infrastructure projects. The Huntington Beach bicycle network is currently comprised of Class 1, Class 2, and Class 3 facilities. As shown in Figure 4.14-6, the network consists mostly of Class 2 bicycle lanes, approximately 77.8 miles, as compared to 8.8 miles of Class 1 and 0.5 mile of Class 3. rtty nf Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program EIR I Atkins Item 8. - 183 >b» HB -398- CHAPTER 9 Changes to the Draft program EIR SECTION 9.2 Text Changes Chapter 4.14, Transportation/Traffic, Page 4.14-10, Section A, Part 1, First paragraph Implementation of the General Plan Update could result in an additional 7,228 dwelling units and approximately 5,384,920 square feet of nonresidential uses developed within the planning area by 2040. Of the adid-itienal 7,228 dwelling units th-at ;Ageuld_ -he allewed URd_P_.F the GeReffal Plan Update, the FnajeFity Future uses within Specific Plan areas would continue to be regulated primarily by the development standards established in each Specific Plan. Chapter 4.15, Utilities and Service Systems, Page 4.15-15, Section A, First paragraph Would the project comply with applicable federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? A. Impact Analysis New development pursuant to the General Plan Update would be required to comply with all applicable federal, state and local statues and regulations related to solid waste. The California Integrated `"',�*^ Management BeaFd (GI Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) is the state agency responsible to oversee, manage, and track California's 92 million tons of waste generated each year. T",^ ,,� ""moo CalRecycle promotes a sustainable environment, where resources are not wasted but can be reused or recycled in partnership with local governments throughout California. In addition to many innovative programs and incentives, *"^�'INAIR CalRecycle promotes the use of new technologies for the practice of diverting California's resources away from landfills. California passed the Integrated Waste Management Act (IWMA) of 1989 (AB 939) when California was disposing 90 percent of its waste and recycling only 10 percent. The act mandated that California's 450 jurisdictions implement waste management programs to achieve a 25 percent diversion rate by 1995 and a 50 percent diversion rate by 2000. Chapter 4.15, Utilities and Service Systems, Page 4.15-16, Section A, First paragraph Would the project require or result in the construction of new energy production or transmission facilities, or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause a significant environmental impact? A. Impact Analysis New development with implementation of the General Plan Update would increase energy use within the city, thus increasing the need for energy services. In 2012, the city used a total of 1,190,357,920 kWh. Residential buildings used 485,753,410 kWh (40 percent), while nonresidential electricity used 601,304,530 kWh (50 percent). The remaining 124,908,670 kWh (10 percent) was direct access electricity purchased from a provider other than SCE. Implementation of the General Plan Update would increase the electricity demand from current conditions through to 2040. Table 4.15-6 identifies the electricity usage associated with implementation of the General Plan Update. At the time of buildout, development of land uses allowable under the General Plan Update would increase electricity generation by approximately 113,634,008 kWh per year36. However, this is considered to be a worst -case scenario with regard to demand as the highest demand generation categories were utilized for both residential and City of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Progro— Fla P Hg -399- AU, Item 8. - 184 CHAPTER 9 Changes to the Draft program EIR SECTION 9.2 Text Changes non-residential uses. This increase in electricity generation equates to a 9.5 percent increase in electricity for the city. SCE SK is a reactive agency and would expand its energy infrastructure to serve the growth associated with buildout of the General Plan Update. No proposals for energy production facilities or transmission facilities are included as part of the General Plan Update. If SCE determines that such facilities are needed at a later date, such projects would be required to undergo separate CEQA review, and their impacts assessed at that time. Chapter 4.15, Utilities and Service Systems, Page 4.15-17, First paragraph Similarly, new development with implementtation of the General Plan Update would increase natural gas demand within the city, thus increasing the need for services. In 2012, the city used a total of 40,574,040 therms. Residential uses accounted for 75 percent of the total, or 30,363,590 therms, while non- residential uses comprised the remaining 25 percent, of 10,210,450 therms. Implementation of the General Plan Update would increase the natural gas consumption from current conditions through to 2040. Table 4.15-7 identifies the natural gas consumption associated with implementation of the General Plan Update. At the time of buildout, development of land uses allowable under the General Plan Update would increase natural gas consumption by approximately 65,944,856 therms per month 38. This increase in natural gas consumption equates to a 38 percent increase in eleetFieity natural gas consumption for the city. However, this is considered to be a worst -case scenario with regard to demand as the highest demand generation categories were utilized for both residential and non-residential uses. SCG is a reactive agency and would expand its energy infrastructure to serve the growth associated with buildout of the General Plan Update. No proposals for energy production facilities or transmission facilities are included as part of the General Plan Update. If SCG determines that such facilities are needed at a later date, such projects would be required to undergo separate CEQA review, and their impacts assessed at that time. Chapter 5, Alternatives Analysis, Page 5-3, Section 5.2 Title 5.2 Alternatives Considered abut Rejected as Infeasible Chapter 5, Alternatives Analysis, Page 5-4, Section E, First paragraph Over the period of development of the General Plan Update, a variety of information has been considered with regard to an alternative that would result in an overall reduced amount of development. This has ranged considerably, addressing discussions through the GPAC process as well as requirements of the MAND within the Beach Edinger Corridor Specific Plan (BECSP) and the Housing Element, and aspirations of growth and organized future development within the city of Huntington Beach. Not surprisingly, the majority of these conversations have resulted in the development scenario identified in the General Plan Update. 8 (-itv of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program EIR I A r,s Item 8. - 185 )8» HB -400- CHAPTER 9 Changes to the Draft program EIR SECTION 9.2 Text Changes Chapter 5, Alternatives Analysis, Page 5-6, Section 5.3.1, Table Alternative 1: No Project/ General Plan Update Existing 1996 General Plan Difference Residential 85,403 dwelling units 86,499 dwelling units 1,096 dwelling units 5,394-�0 .� 662,99n Non Residential 50,410,990 square feet 45,748,000 square feet 9 4,662,990 square feet Chapter 5, Alternatives Analysis, Page 5-7, Table 5-1 Table 5-1 Draft GGRP GHG Reduction Estimates 2040 MTCO2e 2040 MTCO2e 2020 MTCO2e (No CCA) (CCA) Baseline emissions 1,452,070 1,452,070 1,452,070 Forecast with state and local accomplishments 1,308,690 1,101,020 1,102,850 Reduction target 1,234,260 575,990 575,990 Gap between forecast and reduction target 74,430 525,030 526,860 Emissions with Draft GGRP 1,218,090 618,320 570,370 Gap between Draft GGRP and reduction target-16,170 42,330 -5,620 Target met Yes No Yes Chapter 5, Alternatives Analysis, Page 5-15, Third paragraph Development under the 1996 General Plan could locate4 structures within a 100-year flood hazard area and expose people and structures to risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding by failure of a levee or dam. Non-residential or commercial structures can be either elevated or dry flood - proofed to, or above, the 100-year flood elevation. In addition, improvements to the Santa Ana River and Prado Dam will continue reduce the risk of dam failure, and existing emergency response mechanisms would also minimize the risk to people and structures from failure of the Prado Dam. The planning area is currently heavily developed with a range of structures, many of which are quite significant in size having had the previous potential to change the direction of water flows. However, there is little vacant land left within the planning area and the future construction of structures under the No Project Alternative is unlikely to impede or redirect flood flows and will result in a be less than significant impact. Therefore, similar to the General Plan Update, adherence to existing regulations under the No Project Alternative would ensure that impacts associated with the placement of structures within a flood hazard area and dam failure area would be less than significant. Chapter 5, Alternatives Analysis, Page 5-33, Table 5-4 Table 5-4 ADT Trip Generation for the Gothard Corridor Alternative Proposed Project Proposed GP Proposed GP Alt. 34 Difference TAZ Land Use Type Units Amount ADT Amount ADT Amount ADT 16 Industrial TSF 719 5,002 958 6,670 240 1,667 102 45 Right of Ways and Bridges Acre 3 0 3 0 0 0 Subtotal 5,002 6,670 1,667 10 Commercial General TSF 37 2,004 37 2,004 0 0 121 16 Industrial TSF 548 3,817 731 5,089 183 1,272 29 Community Park Acre 87 43 87 43 0 0 City of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Progrom FIR P HB -401- Au Item 8. - 186 CHAPTER 9 Changes to the Draft program EIR SECTION 9.3 Figure Changes Table 5-4 ADT Trip Generation for the Gothard Corridor Alternative Proposed Project Proposed GP Proposed GP Alt. 34 Difference TAZ Land Use Type Units Amount ADT Amount ADT Amount ADT 45 Right of Ways and Bridges Acre 8 0 8 0 0 0 Subtotal 5,864 7,136 1,272 1 Res. Low Density DU 2 17 2 17 0 0 3 Res. Medium Density DU 702 5,720 702 5,720 0 0 4 Res. Med. High Density DU 60 487 60 487 0 0 123 10 Commercial General TSF 27 1,419 27 1,419 0 0 16 Industrial TSF 1,188 8,265 1,583 11,021 396 2,755 45 Right of Ways and Bridges ' Acre 23 0 23 0 0 0 Subtotal 15,909 18,664 2,755 1 Res. Low Density DU 346 3,312 346 3,312 0 0 3 Res. Medium Density DU 47 385 47 385 0 0 4 Res. Med. High Density DU 158 1,288 158 1,288 0 0 5 Res. High Density DU 182 1,221 182 1,221 0 0 135 16 Industrial TSF 515 3,588 687 4,783 172 1,196 23 Open Space/Cemetery Acre 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 Community Park Acre 5 3 5 3 0 0 45 Right of Ways and Bridges Acre 24 0 24 0 0 0 Subtotal 9,796 10,992 1,196 1 Res. Low Density DU 348 3,329 348 3,329 0 0 3 Res. Medium Density DU 749 6,105 749 6,105 0 0 4 Res. Med. High Density DU 218 1,775 218 1,775 0 0 5 Res. High Density DU 182 1,221 182 1,221 0 0 10 Commercial General TSF 64 3,423 64 3,423 0 0 Total 16 Industrial TSF 2,970 20,672 3,960 27,563 990 6,891 23 Open Space/Cemetery Acre 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 Community Park Acre 93 46 93 46 0 0 45 Right of Ways and Bridges Acre 58 0 58 0 0 0 Grand Total 36,571 43,462 6,891 ADT = average daily trips, DU = dwelling unit, TSF = total square feet 9.3 Figure Changes There are no figure changes proposed as a result of comments received on the Draft Program EIR, 0 ri+� -f Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program EIR Item 8. - 187 >> > H B -402- CHAPTER 9 Changes to the Draft program EIR SECTION 9.4 Appendix Changes 9.4 Appendix Changes Appendix B, General Plan Circulation Update (January 2017) The following traffic count sheets from 2016 were inadvertently left out of the traffic study prepared for the General Plan Update and Draft Program EIR. They are hereby incorporated into the study at the end of Appendix A. i �l �s UU I III Taw rs: ou.. TOW Vokow Mr L" Atkins I City of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program FIR P HB -403- Au -Item 8. - 188 CHAPTER 9 Changes to the Draft program EIR SECTION 9.4 Appendix Changes Intersection Turning Movement Mati.w o to a swwe'+ifto Services Intersection Turning Movement Natie4w 0 4 3a i Surveying Servicxs 010 WSft AVLAPKV k 3 t + Item 8. - 189 2 ('itv of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program EIR I Atkins HB -404- CHAPTER 9 Changes to the Draft program EIR SECTION 9.5 General Plan Update Changes 9.5 General Plan Update Changes This section includes revisions made to General Plan Update Goals, Policies and Implementation measures related directly to comments received on the Draft Program EIR. The Draft Program EIR Section and Page numbers have been included to note where the changes were made. It should be noted that additional changes to the General Plan Update as a result of factors other than the Draft Program EIR could result but not be reflected in the Final Program EIR. General Plan Update Introduction, Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (No Draft Program EIR page number) The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)/Sustainable Communities Strategy: Towards a Sustainable Future provides a comprehensive outline of the regional vision for transportation investments in Southern California through 2040. The RTP was adopted in 2017 and is updated every four years to address regional transportation needs. The General Plan Update n9us should be consistent with these regional planning efforts. General Plan Update Policy LU-1.1) Policy LU-1.D: Ensure that new development projects are of compatible proportion, scale, and character to complement adjoining uses. Changes made to: ■ Draft Program EIR Chapter 4.9, Land Use and Planning, Page 4.9-6, First line ■ Draft Program EIR Chapter 4.9, Land Use and Planning, Page 4.9-6, Fifth bullet General Plan Update Policy ERC-1.F Policy ERC-1.F. Continue to balance and maintain a mix of recreational focused and passive and natural environment areas that preserve and protect special -status species within open spaces. Changes made to: ■ Draft Program EIR Chapter 2, Executive Summary, Page 2-13, Table 2-1 ■ Draft Program EIR Chapter 4.3, Biological Resources, Page 4.3-8, Section B, Second bullet ■ Draft Program EIR Chapter 4.13, Recreation, Page 4.13-5, Section B, Seventh bullet ■ Draft Program EIR Chapter 4.13, Recreation, Page 4.13-6, Section B, Seventh bullet General Plan Update Policy ERC-4.F Policy ERC-4.F. Minimize exposure of sensitive land uses to toxic air contaminants by locating new pollutant sources away from sensitive uses and disproportionately affected communities and working with existing pollutant sources to reduce emissions when changes to existing operations or permits are proposed. Changes made to: ■ Draft Program EIR Chapter 2, Executive Summary, Page 2-11, Table 2-1 ■ Draft Program EIR Chapter 4.2, Air Quality, Page 4.2-10, Section 1, Seventh bullet tkins I City of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Progrom PIP F HB -405- Au Item 8. - 190 CHAPTER 9 Changes to the Draft program EIR SECTION 9.5 General Plan Update Changes General Plan Update Policy ERC-6.E Changes made to: ■ Draft Program EIR Chapter 2, Executive Summary, Page 2-14, Table 2-1 ■ Draft Program EIR Chapter 4.3, Biological Resources, Page 4.3-9, Third bullet ■ Draft Program EIR Chapter 4.3, Biological Resources, Page 4.3-9, Section B, First paragraph ■ Draft Program EIR Chapter 4.3, Biological Resources, Page 4.3-11, Section B, Third paragraph ■ Draft Program EIR Chapter 4.3, Biological Resources, Page 4.3-12, Section B, Second paragraph ■ Draft Program EIR Chapter 4.3, Biological Resources, Page 4.3-12, Section B, Third paragraph ■ Draft Program EIR Chapter 4.3, Biological Resources, Page 4.3-14, Section B, First paragraph ■ Draft Program EIR Chapter 4.3, Biological Resources, Page 4.3-15, First line General Plan Update Policy N-1.13 Policy N-1.13. Incorporate design and construction features into residential a+Rd, mixed -use, commercial, and industrial projects that shield noise -sensitive land uses from excessive noise. Changes made to: ■ Draft Program EIR Chapter 2, Executive Summary, Page 2-32, Table 2-1 ■ Draft Program EIR Chapter 4.10, Noise, Page 4.10-9, First bullet General Plan Update Policy N-2.0 (No Draft Program EIR Page number) Policy N-2.C. Minimize excessive noise from industrial land uses through incorporation of site and building design features that are intended to reduce noise impacts to sensitive land uses. General Plan Update Policy PSI-5.1) Policy PSI-5.D. Ensure that developers consult with the appropriate school district with the intent to mitigate a potential impact on school facilities prior to project approval by the City. Changes made to: ■ Draft Program EIR Chapter 2, Executive Summary, Page 2-36, Table 2-1 ■ Draft Program EIR Chapter 4.12, Public Services, Page 4.12-16, Third bullet General Plan Update Implementation Program LU-P.11 - Industrial Expansion and Redevelopment (No Draft Program EIR page number) Require preparation of a health risk assessment for new uses located in the Industrial and Research and Technology designations that potentially generate diesel particulate matter emissions and potential toxic air contaminant iTAQ emitters located within 1,000 feet of existing sensitive uses. Use recommendations outlined in the health risk assessment to determine siting limitations and mitigation approaches. 4 (-it\/ of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program EIR Item 8. - 191 >> > H B -406- CHAPTER 9 Changes to the Draft program EIR SECTION 9.5 General Plan Update Changes General Plan Update Implementation Program ERC-P.38 - Air Pollutants and GHG Emissions from Stationary Sources (No Draft Program EIR page number) As future land use plans are proposed and/or amended, provide heightened consideration of policies and strategies to minimize exposure of sensitive land uses and disproportionately affected neighborhoods to health risks related to air pollution. General Plan Update Implementation Program N-P.3 - Noise Ordinance (No Draft Program EIR page number) Evaluate the adequacy of enforcement mechanisms and implement a system for tracking and monitoring locations where known or repetitive violations of noise standards have occurred or in locations where excessive noise disproportionately impacts disadvantaged neighborhoods. Identify specific exterior noise standards for industrial and commercial properties located adjacent to sensitive land uses, and incorporate project design features that reduce noise conflicts between industrial and commercial properties and sensitive land uses. ,tklns I City of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Progro— FiR F HB -407- Au Item 8. - 192 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 10.1 Organization of the Responses to Comments The letters in this section of the Final EIR include public comments received on the Draft Program EIR for the proposed City of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program EIR. The Draft Program EIR was circulated for public review from May 22, 2017 to July 7, 2017, a 45-day review period. The comment letters included herein were submitted by governmental and public agencies as well as private citizens. Each written comment that the City received, including those by email, comprise part of this section of the Final EIR. Responses to these comments have been prepared to address the environmental concerns raised by the commenter and to indicate where and how the EIR addresses pertinent environmental issues. The comment letters have been organized by type of organization/agency and are presented in alphabetical order therein. Each issue within a comment letter has a unique identifier assigned to it. Responses to the comment letter immediately follow the representation of each letter. References to the responses to comments identify first the commenter, and second, the comment number (Caltrans-1, for example). Where comments have been duplicated within a single letter, the reader is referred to the appropriate response(s) number rather than having a comment repeated and providing a duplicate answer. The commenters, along with the page number on which their comment letters appear, are listed below. Dly of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Progro- RIP Page 10-1 Item 8. - 193 HB -408- August 2017 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR Table 10.1-1 Comment Letters Received During the Draff Program EIR Comment Period Letter No. Commenter/Organization Page No. Federal Government None received. State Government 1 California State Transportation Agency, Maureen El Harake; Letter dated 7-6-2017 10-3 Local Government 2 City of Fountain Valley, Steven Ayers; Letter dated 6-26-2017 10-6 3 Orange County Public Works, Laree Alonso; Letter dated 6-14-2017 10-9 4 Orange County Sanitation District, Ann Crafton; Letter dated 6-13-2017 10-13 Organizations 5 City of Huntington Beach Environmental Board; Letter undated 10-15 6 Climate Action Campaign, Sophie Wolfram and Roger J. Gloss; Letter dated 7-7-2017 10-43 7 Ocean View School District, Edmond M. Connor; Letter dated 7-7-2017 10-51 Individuals 8 Bruno, Gino J.; Letter dated 6-12-2017 10-106 9 Ferguson, Mike; Letter dated 6-22-2017 10-109 10 Ross, Ted; Letter dated 6-7-2017 (combined with the Ted Ross letter dated 6-12-2017 into one 10-1 13 response for the purposes of this section) 11 Ross, Ted; Letter dated 6-12-2017 (combined with the Ted Ross letter dated 6-7-2017 into one 10-1 13 response for the purposes of this section) 12 Comments received on the General Plan Update (General) 10-1 19 13 Comments received on the General Plan Update (Airport) 10-139 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR This section contains the original comment letters, which have been bracketed to isolate the individual comments, with each letter followed by a section with the responses to the comments within the letter. As noted above, and stated in Sections 15088(a) and 15088(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, comments that raise significant environmental issues are provided with responses. Comments that are outside of the scope of CEQA review will be forwarded for consideration to the decision -makers as part of the project approval process. In some cases, a response may refer the reader to a previous response, if that previous response substantively addressed the same issues. Page 10-2 rrtt� -f Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program Elf August 2017 HB -409- Item 8. - 194 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR 10.2.1 California State Transportation Agency (Caltrans) DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 12 3347 MIC HELSON DRIVE. SUITE RX) IRVINE, CA 92f) I 2-8S94 PHONE (949) 724-2(K)O FAX (949) 72,4-2019 Try 711 wmvdotxa.gox July 6, 2017 Ms. Jennifer Villasenor City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Ms. Villasenor: 0 Serious Drought, Serious drought Help sate water! CALTANS File: IGR/CEQA SCH#:210 15101032 IGR Log#: 2017-00601 SR-1, SR-39,1405 Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft Environmental Impact on Report (DEIR) for the City of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Project. The City of Huntington Beach has initiated a comprehensive program to update its General Plan, which establishes an overall development capacity for the city and serves as a policy guide for determining the appropriate physical development and character of Huntington Beach over an approximate 25-year planning horizon (to 2040). The draft General Plan Update project includes a GHG Reduction Program, a Coastal Resiliency Program (CRP) as well as identifies preparedness goals, actions and an implementation strategy. The Draft General Plan will update Caltrans-1 nine elements, which include Land Use, Circulation, Environmental Resources / Conservation, Natural and Environmental Hazards, Noise, InfrastructureTublic Services, Historic/Cultural Resources, Housing, and Coastal. Regional access to the city is provided by SR-1, SR-39, and I- 405. Caltrans Local Developmcnt-Intergovernmental Review program reviews impacts of local development to the transportation system, including the State Highway System. We work to ensure that local land use planning and development decisions include the provision of transportation choices, including transit, intercity rail passenger service, air service, walking and biking, when appropriate. Caltrans advocates community design (e.g. urban infill, mixed use, and transit oriented development) that promotes an efficient transportation system and healthy communities. 1h Caltrans is a responsible and commenting agency on this project and has the following comments: 1. The City needs to coordinate and submit Caltrans District 12 LD-IGR unit for review and Caltrans-2 comment any future project specific proposals and developments in proximity or along SR-1, SR-39, and 1 -405. 1 19 ' �ily of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program FIR Page 10-3 Item 8. - 5 HB -410- August 2017 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR Ms. Jennifer Villasenor July 6, 2017 Page 2 2. Figure CIRC-2 on page 3-14, the west end of Hamilton Avenue near Beach Boulevard is proposed as "Proposed Primary' Arterial Highway. However, in Figure CIRC-3 on page 3-15, the same section of Hamilton Avenue is denoted as "deleted from Master Plan of Caltrans-3 Arterial Highways". Is the City planning to extend Hamilton Avenue to Beach Boulevard? If yes, what is the proposed construction year? If no, please address the impact of mobility especially, in regards to Pacific Coast Highway. Please continue to keep us informed of this project and any future developments that could 11 potentially impact State transportation facilities. If you have any questions or would like to meet with us regarding these comments, please do not hesitate to call Maryam Molavi at (657)328- Caltrans-4 6280. If you have additional traffic -related questions in regards to the above comments, you may contact Jose Hernandez, Traffic Operations at (657)328-4611. Sincerely, MAUREEN EL HARAKE Branch Chief, Regional -Community -Transit Planning District 12 Page 10-4 city/ nf Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program Elf August 2017 HB -411- Item 8. - 196 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR Response Caltrans-1 This comment contains introductory or general information, and correctly provides a summary of the project as proposed. Additionally, the comment introduces the role and responsibility of the Caltrans Local Development -Intergovernmental Review (LD-IGR) program. Please refer to responses to specific comments and recommendations below. No further response is required. -sponse Calfrons-2 Caltrans requests that the City coordinate and submit plans to the Caltrans District 12 LD-IGR unit for review and comment any future project specific proposals and development in proximity to SR-1, SR-39, and 1-405. As part of the ongoing relationship between the City of Huntington Beach and Caltrans, as requested by this comment, the City will continue to submit to Caltrans for review of development plans where State-owned highways and infrastructure are involved. This comment is not a direct comment on the content or adequacy of the Draft Program EIR and does not raise a specific environmental concern. All comments will be forwarded to appropriate City departments and decision -makers prior to consideration of project approval. However, no further response is required. Response Caiuons-3 Figure CIRC-3 is entitled "Proposed MPAH Amendments" and is not intended to indicate amendments to the MPAH that have already been pursued by the City of Huntington Beach. On page 3-13 of the Draft Program EIR, in the section headed "Relationship to County Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH)", the interpretation of Figure CIRC-3 is explained more fully, including the requirement to engage any other affected agencies in the review of an amendment to the MPAH as proposed in the future. The City of Huntington Beach does not have any immediate plans to extend Hamilton Avenue to Beach Boulevard, however, the potential for this future extension has not been removed from the City's Arterial Highway Plan or the MPAH. Any review of a potential deletion of the extension from the MPAH would include an assessment of potential impacts, including mobility, as a component of a likely cooperative study process between the City of Huntington Beach, Caltrans, and other affected agencies or jurisdictions. response Caitrons-4 This comment provides conclusory remarks. Caltrans requests further information and coordination regarding projects that could potentially impact State transportation facilities. This comment does not address the adequacy of the analysis or accuracy of the content of the Draft Program EIR. No further response is required. 'ity of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program Fla Page 10-5 Item 8. - 197 HB -4 ] 2- August 2017 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR 10.2.2 City of Fountain Valley (FV) crry OF FOUNTAIN \IALLEY PI.ANNIN( OF'P 1RI MI'N I �?!_ FV June 26, 2017 Jennifer Villasenor, Planning Manager City of Huntington Beach Community Development Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 SUBJECT: NOA of Draft Program EIR for Huntington Beach General Plan Update (EIR No. 14-001)(State Claringhouse No. 2015101032) Dear Ms. Villasenor: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Huntington Beach General Plan Update. Our understanding is that the Draft Program EIR for the General Plan Update will identify and analyze the potential environmental impacts associated with a city initiated 1W -1 comprehensive update to the General Plan for an approximate 25-year planning horizon to 2040, Following our review of the Draft Program EIR for the Huntington Beach General Plan Update, we have the following comments/concerns: 1. The City of Fountain Valley is concerned with the impacts on Fountain Valley roadways throughout the City due to the addition of 10S,000 daily trips. There is already considerable traffic generated from Huntington Beach that travels Fountain Valley streets to access the 1-405 and other cities and areas east FV-2 of Fountain Valley. A comprehensive traffic analysis of all Fountain Valley arterials and intersections needs to be conducted to evaluate the potential impacts. In addition, evaluation of Garfield/Gisler bridge construction should be considered to address traffic impacts generated from the proposed project as well as to address existing traffic impacts due to a lack of a balanced, regional traffic network. 2. Truck traffic, especially on Talbert Avenue, needs to be evaluated to address impacts of additional truck traffic that will be generated by the proposed traffic as well as addressing existing impacts of truck FV-3 traffic on Talbert Avenue and abutting land uses that originates in Huntington Beach accessing 1-405 in Fountain Valley. Once again, thank you for the opportunity to review the Draft Program EIR for the Huntington Beach General Plan Update. Should you have any questions about our comments, please don't hesitate to me at JFV4 (714) 593-4431 or email at steven.avers@fountainvallev.ore, Sincuely, Steven Ayers Planner Page 10-6 ri+\/ nf Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program Elf ' August2017 HB _413_ Item 8. — 198 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR This comment contains introductory or general information, and correctly summarizes the General Plan Update horizon year of 2040 as well as the purpose of the Draft Program EIR prepared to address potential impacts of the General Plan Update. Please refer to responses to specific comments and recommendations below. No further response is required. Response F V-L The commenter presents their concern regarding trip generation resulting from development under the General Plan Update and the potential for this traffic to cause congestion within their jurisdiction, the City of Fountain Valley. The commenter goes on to suggest a comprehensive traffic analysis of all Fountain Valley arterials and intersections needs to be conducted to address any potentially significant traffic impacts associated with implementation of the General Plan Update. As the General Plan Update is a guidance document, and does not prescribe the location and characteristics of development within the City of Huntington Beach, nor does it grant the entitlement for any specific construction projects, it is not pertinent to complete a full traffic analysis of roadway infrastructure within the City of Fountain Valley. Further, while the commenter notes that the General Plan Update may generate 105,000 daily trips at full build out, only a proportion of these trips would travel into Fountain Valley and potential impacts would be directly related to the size, type and location of projects proposed in the future, particularly given their proximity to Fountain Valley. To address the movement of traffic generated within Huntington Beach to and through Fountain Valley, a cumulative analysis of traffic was prepared as part of the Draft Program EIR (Traffic and Transportation section, page 4.4-23). The analysis concludes, "future project applications in the city and adjacent jurisdictions would be required to undertake a traffic analysis to ensure reduction of impacts to the extent feasible." Future projects will require mitigation, as appropriate and proportional to their contribution to cumulative traffic impacts, for project -related potentially significant impacts associated with increased traffic volumes. The traffic projections from the traffic model along the areas bordering the City of Fountain Valley have been reviewed to determine if there are any locations where significant traffic increases have been forecast. Two locations were identified: Warner Avenue near Magnolia Street and Brookhurst Street near Garfield. In both cases, the forecasted traffic growth (8%for Warner and 12% for Brookhurst - ADT based) is still less than that forecast by recent iterations of the OCTA OCTAM traffic model and substantially less than our prior traffic projections for both roadways. The small number of increased traffic locations along the Fountain Valley border is also consistent with the pattern/location of the sources of the traffic growth which are concentrated in the northern and western portions of the City. These locations would typically seem less likely to generate significant percentages of new traffic that would use roadways extending into Fountain Valley, other than on Interstate 405 itself. Based on this information, the City of Huntington Beach has concluded that the land use changes generating 105,000 additional daily vehicle trips are not expected to result in any significant changes to long-term traffic forecasts within the City of Fountain Valley and would not indicate a need for any additional study. Further, the City of Huntington Beach does not believe that such an analysis is required under CEQA for this type of project. No further response is required. ity of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program Fla Page 10-7 Item 8. - 199 HB -414- August 2017 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR Response FV- The commenter expresses concern about truck traffic, especially on Talbert Avenue, generated by the General Plan Update. Similar to the response outlined in Response FV-2 with regard to non -truck traffic, as the General Plan Update is a guidance document, and does not allow for any specific construction projects, it is not pertinent to complete a full analysis of truck traffic at this time. Rather, such an analysis should be undertaken when the specific characteristics of a project are known in the future and a reasonable estimate of trucks to be generated from a particular land use as well as the origin/destination of said trips can be ascertained. Further, the analysis of cumulative traffic outlined in the Draft Program EIR concluded, "future project applications in the city and adjacent jurisdictions would be required to undertake a traffic analysis to ensure reduction of impacts to the extent feasible." This will include an assessment of truck traffic, as appropriate. Response FV- This comment provides conclusory remarks. This comment does not address the adequacy of the analysis or accuracy of the content of the Draft Program EIR. No further response is required. Page 10-8 r it,/ f Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program Elf August 2017 HB -4 1 5- Item 8. - 200 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR 10.2.3 Orange County Public Works (OCPW) P.blicWorks Integrity, Accountability, Service, Trust Shane L. Silsby, Director June 14. 2017 NCL-2015-025 Jennifer Villasenor, Planning Manager City of Huntington Beach Community Development Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Subject: Notice of Availability of a Draft Program E I R for the Huntington Beach General Plan Update Dear Ms. Villasenor: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Notice of Availability of a Draft Program EIR for the Huntington Beach General Plan Update. The County of Orange Flood Program Support/Hydrology Section reviewed the document and offers the following comments for your consideration: It is the goal of the Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD) to provide 100- year flood protection. To provide for this goal, OCFCD attempts to design facilities to convey I 00-year flows where feasible. Many of OCFCD's facilities are a mixture of segments built at different times. Improvements of deficient OCFCD facilities are programmed through the OCFCD's Seven -Year Flood Control Projects Plan. OCFCD*s Seven -Year Flood Control Projects Plan is reviewed annually and revised based upon Countywide prioritization; it is possible that the design and construction of channel improvements might be postponed or delayed and not constructed for many years. Hence, mitigation of any adverse impacts resulting from the project should not rely solely on a potential OCFCD improvement project. r*14];a1r1T61 2. The Project Area is tributary to the Orange County Flood Control District's (OCFCD) facilities. A map/exhibit should identify and indicate these regional flood control facilities that will likely be impacted by the proposed project, Drainage Facility Base 0CPW_2 maps that depict existing local and regional drainage facilities owned by the Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD) are available for review at htti):.!iwww.ocflood.com,"docs/draALng_s 3. All work within or adjacent to any OCFCD right-of-way for flood control facilities should be conducted so as not to adversely impact channel* s structural integrity, CIPW-3 hydraulic flow conditions, access and maintainability. Furthermore, all work within TO 300 N. Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA 92703 www,ocptiblicworks.com P.O. Box 4048, Santa Ana. CA 92702-4048 714 667,8800 1 Info@OCPW,ocgov.com ' �ily of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Progro- F-11? Page 10-9 Item 8. - 201 HB -416- August 2017 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR OCFCD*s right-of-way should be conducted only after an encroachment pen -nit for the proposed work has been obtained from the County. For information regarding the permit application process and other details please refer to the Encroachment Permits Section link on OC Public Works` website Technical reviews and approvals for the proposed work will be accomplished within the permit process. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Sahar Parsi at (714) 647-3988 or Robert McLean at (714) 647-3951 in Flood Programs, or Linda Smith at (714) 667-8848 in Development Services. Sincerely, Laree Alonso, Manager, Planning Division OC Public Works Service Area./OC Development Services 300 North Flower Street Santa Ana, California 92702-4048 Larce.alonso@ocpw.ocgov.com cc: Sahar Parsi, OC Flood Programs Robert McLean, OC Flood Programs OCPW-3 (cont) 6 Page 10-10 rltv of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program Ell ' August 2017 HB -417- Item 8. - 202 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR Response OCPW-1 Comment noted. The commenter states the Orange County Public Works has established a goal of the provision of 100-year flood protection. However, there is a recognition that the current infrastructure is a mixture of segments constructed at different times. Similarly, programs to upgrade drainage facilities to the 100-year flood protection level may be undertaken at different times. As such, the mitigation of adverse impacts due to flooding resulting from the General Plan Update should not rely solely on the readiness of individual Orange County Flood Control District improvement project. Analysis of the potential environmental impacts resulting from the General Plan Update did not rely on specific Orange County Flood Control District improvements being available to accommodate drainage. Further, it is the regular process within the City of Huntington Beach to not rely on specific flood control measures until they are physically in place, particularly for the assessment of impacts. Additionally, there are many goals and policies throughout the Draft General Plan Update that relate to flood control and appropriate infrastructure design and maintenance to ensure that the City of Huntington Beach reduces the risk of flooding. Specific to the concerns of the comments, Implementation measure HAZ-P.16 pertains to introduction of additional natural flood control infrastructure, noting that the City of Huntington Beach will work in coordination with OC Flood and the US Army Corps of Engineers to retrofit and improve existing flood control infrastructure as well as identify needs for new infrastructure. The City will also continue to conduct and expand routine maintenance and upgrades to City -owned infrastructure. Response OCPW The commenter indicates that the project area is tributary to the Orange County Flood Control District's facilities noting that a figure of the facilities that would be impacted by the General Plan Update should be included in the Draft Program EIR. However, Chapter 8 of the Draft Program EIR, Hydrology and Water Quality identified that the General Plan Update would result in less than significant impacts due to the alteration of existing drainage patterns and the contribution of stormwater drainage that would exceed the existing or planned stormwater drainage systems. As such, a figure of impacted drainage facilities would not be necessary. However, for information purposes to readers and users of the Program EIR in the future, and ease of access to information, a reference has been added to the Draft Program EIR regarding the availability of the Orange County Flood Control District maps at http://www.ocflood.com/docs/drawings (as provided by the commenter). Chapter 4.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, page 4.8-2 has been amended as follows to address this: The Orange County Flood Control District is responsible for the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of regional flood control facilities. When originally constructed, the flood control channels were built to accommodate 65 percent of the 25-year flood event. The district now uses 100-year flood event standards for new storm drain design and construction and drainage improvements. A base map of the drainage facilities managed by the Orange County Flood Control District, along with a map of the entire drainage system, can be found online at http://www.ocflood.com/docs/drawings. -ity of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Progro- FIR Page 10-1 1 Item 8. - 203 HB -4 1 8- August 201 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR Response OCPW-3 Comment noted. The commenter states that all work within or adjacent to any Orange County Flood Control District right-of-way for flood control facilities should be conducted so as not to adversely impact such channels. Further, all work within these rights -of -way should be conducted only after an encroachment permit for the proposed work has been obtained from the County. The General Plan Update is a policy and framework document regarding future development within the city and does not include any specific development projects. However, all future development projects proposed would be required to comply with applicable federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to flood control facilities. As is standard process between the City of Huntington Beach and Orange County Public Works and Flood Control District, the necessary technical reviews, approvals and permit issuance will continue as development is forthcoming in the future. Page 10-12 rit%/ nf Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program Ell August 2017 HB -4 1 9- Item 8. - 204 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR 10.2.4 Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) RECEIVED serving, Oran Coontly Sanitation .�lstrlct -j Anaheim 10844 Ellis Avenue, Fountain Valley, CA 92 714.962.241VIIIII)LAQM01�1 8 Brea Buena Park Cypress Fountain Wiley Fullerton Garden Grow Huntington Beach Irvine La Habra La Palma Los Alamilicis. Newport Beach Orange Placentia Santa Ana Seal Beach Stanton Tustin Villa Park County of Orange Costa Mesa Sanitary District Midway City Sanitary Distinct June 13, 2017 Jennifer Villasenor OCSD Planning Manager, City of Huntington Beach Community Development Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 SUBJECT: Draft EIR for the City of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Orange County Sanitation District (Sanitation District) has reviewed your Draft I Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) for the Huntington Beach General Plan Update. The Sanitation District is requesting that the City of Huntington Beach model the Regional Collection System while modelling for the local sewer impacts as physical developments are planned. Please use the following flow factors to estimate current and future flows for projects: * 727 gpd/acre for estate density residential (0-3 d.u. /acre) 0 1488 gpd/acre for low density residential (4-7d.u. /acre) 9 3451 gpd/acre for medium density residential (8-16 d,u./acre) 0 5474 gpd/acre for medium -high density residential (17-25 d.u./acre) 0 7516 gpd/acre for high density residential (26-35 d.u./acre) 0 2262 gpd/acre for commercial/office 0 3167 gpd1acre for industrial * 2715 gpd/acre for institutional * 5429 gpd1acre for high intensity industrial/commercial 0 150 gpd!room for hotels and motels Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the proposed General Plan Update through 2040. If you have questions, or for more information, please contact me at (714) 593-7331. Irvine Ranch Water District 'Ci4t1L' IT-) Yorba Linda Ann Crafton Water District Principal Financial Analyst Planning Division AC:sa http I/projecVsites/Planning/CEOAfExtematty Generated/2017 Comment Letters/20170609 COY of Huntington Beach Draft EIR-General Plan Update,docx Our Mission: To protect public health and the environment by providing effective wastewater collection, treatment, and recycling, OCSD-1 -ily of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Progro- FIR Page 10- 13 Item 8. - 205 HB -420- August 2017 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR Response OCSD-1 The commenter notes that they, the Orange County Sanitation District, has reviewed the Draft Program EIR and requests that the City of Huntington beach use flow factors distributed by the Orange County Sanitation District (and included in the comment letter) when modeling to determine local sewer impacts of future development. The flow rates provided will be added to the City of Huntington Beach's database of such information and all endeavors will be made to utilize these rates when analyzing future projects. This comment is not a direct comment on the content or adequacy of the Draft Program EIR and does not raise a specific environmental concern. All comments will be forwarded to appropriate City departments and decision -makers prior to consideration of project approval. However, no further response is required. Page 10-14 (-itv nf Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program Elf ' August 2017 HB _42 1 - Item 8. - 206 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR 10.2.5 City of Huntington Beach Environmental Board (HBEB) HUNTINGTON BEACH Environmental Board Environmental Board General Plan EIR Comments As an overall document, we as the Environmental Board saw numerous positive measures outlined in the General Plan to improve the environment of our city while maintaining consideration for the natural elements impacted by our city's growth and development Some concerns, questions, and general comments on specific sections are detailed below. 4.3 Biological Resources Goal ERC-I: Adequately sized and located pants meet the changing recreational and leisure needs of existing and fixture residents. ERC-1.F: Continue to balance and maintain a mix of recreational focused and passive and natural environment areas within open spaces. How does this "protect special status species"? The balance is not indicated and it would be easy to interpret the need for recreation over native landscapes. This policy does not support special status species. This policy should be rewritten to state the City's desire to do that. Example: -Work to preserve, expand and rebuild native habitats that support special status species within open spaces while designing passive recreational uses to provide for the leisure needs of existing and future residents" {include studies that show the benefits for these types of more reflective and quiet spaces.) (p. 4.3-8) ERC-3.1), ERC-6.A, ERC-6.13, ERC-6.C, and ERC-6.D are excellent policies to support the goal of supporting special status species and we concur that these (p. 4.3-8, 4.3-9) Goal ERC-6: Various agencies that oversee habitat areas and wildlife corridors, including but not limited to parks, beaches, coastal dunes, marine waters, and wetlands, coordinate decisionmaking and management to ensure ongoing protection of resources. ERC-6.E: Reclaim the ASCON site and consider restoring it to native coastal salt marsh and to expand the wetland corridor associated with the Huntington Beach Wetlands. This policy needs to be updatediremoved to reflect the latest Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Proposed Remediation Action Plan (RAP) for the ASCON site. There will be no opportunity to restore any salt marsh or wetlands here so this is not supporting this goal. (p. 4.3-9) Policy ERC-6.E would provide for city efforts to reclaim and restore the ASCONT site in order to restore and expand wetland habitat, expanding the beneficial functions of the Huntington Beach Wetlands. Based on DTSC's most recent RAP and soon to commence construction plans, this statement is totally unrealistic and needs to be removed. (p.4.3-9) Sensitive habitats include those that are of special concern to resource agencies and those that are considered to be and are protected under CEQA, Section 1600 of the Fish and Game Code, CCC, and Section 404 of the CWA. Sensitive natural communities within the planning area include: • Southern Coastal Salt Marsh (1,068 acres) • Southern Foredunes (6 acres) • Southern Dune Scrub (4 acres) • Eucalyptus (61 acres) • Southern Cottonwood Willow Riparian Scrub (32 acres) HBEB-1 HBEB-2 HBEB-3 HSES-4 ,ity of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Progrom Fia Item 8. - 207 HB -422- Page 10-15 August 2017 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR HUNTINGTON BEACH Environmental Board Identify where these areas are both by referencing the map where they are shown and HBEB-4 also by giving a general description next to this listing. For example, where are the 32 (cont) acres of Southern Cottonwood Willow Riparian Scrub? A written description next to a policy helps to inform that policy a little better. If those 32 acres are spread across the entire City in pockets, that will require different actions than if they are concentrated in one area. (p. 4.3-10) F,RC-6.F: Establish aquatic and terrestrial connections between the Bolsa Chica Wetlands and Central Park by restoring area in the oil fields. What control does the City, have over the oil fields, land use? If the developer complies with the land use and zoning there won't be a chance for additional conditions to HBE113-5 development. Be more specific about the goals of restoration, e.g. "require the cleanup and restoration of oil fiends to support special status species and restore native and sensitive vegetation communities. Provide enough space to ensure the health and longevity of these species and vegetation communities" and spell out more clearly in the General Plan, perhaps by an overlay, of what is required with respect to establishing these connections: a certain percentage of the land, etc. (p. 4.3-11 ) 11111 A'aterbodies within the planning area include the Santa Ana River, marine waters, and the Sunset, Westminster, Ocean View, East Grove-Wintersberg, Huntington Beach, Talbert, and Fountain Valley flood channels. Please indicate that these -water bodies" are owned and maintained by the County of Orange and are regularly denuded of plant material to allow the channels to perform HBEB-6 their primary function of flood protection. It's disingenuous at best, and dishonest at worst, to fist these '-bodies of water" in this section as if they can and are maintained as natural habitats. It is not in the City's best interests to do anything other than maintain these areas as flood control channels. Continue to list them here however make it abundantly clear they should not be counted as contributing to Biological Resources. (p.4.3-1 1) 1 Goal ERC-7: Wetland areas that serve as important biological resources for threatened and endangered birds, fish, and other species are protected and restored. F,RC-7.E: Reduce pollutant runoff from new development and urban runoff to the maximum extent practicable. Please list actions, e.g. -Reduce pollutant runoff from now development and urban runoff by developing an on -going informational campaign to residents and measuring and publishing the success of that effort every 5 years." (p. 4- 112) Goal ERC-7: Wetland areas that serve as important biological resources for threatened and endangered birds, fish, and other species are protected and restored. There should be a policy to expand wetlands if the opportunity arises such as placing conditions on new development in exchange for park -land or other strategies. The health of the some wetlands depend on expanding them. (p.4.3-12) HBEB-7 However, future development could potentially result in indirect loss or degradation of wildlife corridors through increased light and noise pollution, introduction of native species. habitat HBEB-8 fragmentation, and increased urban runoff. This is a very good point and we are glad it was made. (4.3-12) Page 10-16 (-ifv nf Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program Elf ' August 2017 HB -423- Item 8. - 208 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR HUNTING"ROM BEACH Environmental Board MM4.3-1 Mitigation Measures: If no active nests are identified on or within 250 feet of the construction site, no further mitigation is necessary. If an active nest of a Migratory Bird Treaty Act protected species is identified on site (per established thresholds) a 100 foot no -work buffer HBEB-9 shall be maintained between the nest and construction activity. Since the buffer zone for construction approval is 250 feet, would a 100 foot no -work construction zone offer the same protection or should this be increased to 250 feet? I 4.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions This section discusses emissions of Greenhouse Gases (GHG) in the planning area and evaluates the potential for associated effects of GHG on climate change due to implementation of the General Plan Update. Information in this section is based on the Greenhouse Gas Emissions prepared by Atkins I (Volume I), and the GHG Emissions Inventory and Forecast Technical Report prepared by Michael Baker International2 (Appendix C, Volume 111). The discussion about baseline conditions, including additional information on the existing environmental setting and regulatory framework- for GHG, is included in the Greenhouse Gas Emissions TBR. The General Plan Update addresses GHG in the Environmental Resources and Conservation Element. Howe-ver, policies in the I -and Use Element, Circulation Element. and Public Services and HBES-10 Infrastructure Element also help to reduce the citywide greenhouse gas emissions. The accompanying draft Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program (GGRP) prepared by Michael Baker International (Appendix G. Volume 111), contains specifics about the city's GHG emissions and specific strategies to reduce emissions below established levels. No comment letters regarding GHG emissions were received in response to the NOP circulated for the General Plan Update. Q. 4.6.1 C3 p. 4.6-3 flow much of the GHG from visitors' traffic is accounted for in the inventory? Q. p. 4.6-4 "Establish a mechanism to monitor the plan's progress toward achieving the level and to require amendment if the plan is not achieving specified levels. Section 5.2 of the HBEB-11 draft GGRP meets this requirement- Q. p. 4.6-5 What is the City's XlTCO2 per service population? -a level of 53 percent below 2020 emissions levels is established as the threshold of significance for GHG emissions in :HBEB-12 2040 for purposes of this EIR." Transportation produces majority of GHG impacts • Relate everything to cars -off -the -road measure so people can understand (e.g. • Include measures that can facilitate clei tric charging in homes to promote HBEB-1 3 o Specific pcn-nitting for such installations including adopted standard plans (,, Materials describing how solar can charge cars at night and systems Q. Should local industrial contributions to GHG emissions (e.g. AES Power Plant., Republic Services, and other industrial tenants) be incorporated into the GHG reduction program? The AES upgrade may already address this point for that facility. Republic, as a community HBEB-14 contractor, certainly affects local GHG production and would be logical to include specifically in an overall GIIG reduction strategy. 1h 'ily of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program PIP Page 10- 17 Item 8. - 209 HB -424- August 2017 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR Ch. 4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 1. Environmental impacts of industrial and commercial hazards affecting residential areas. HBEB-15 1 including ongoing monitoring and response to local hazards posed by the Rainbow Republic Waste Processing Facility and other local air emission sources, and the City's role., should be addressed. 2. Specific enforcement and mitigation plans for storm drain and other waste dumping HBEB-16 abuse should be addressed. 3. Scenarios for the long-term (post-rcmediation) plan for ASCON and other waste cleanup sites, consistent with the characteristics of those sites and public safety, should be developed. HBEB-17 Ch. 4.9 Land Use and Planning Q. How will the designation of Research and Technology be defined? With the limited parameters discussed in the document, this rezoning seems to be a positive HBEB-18 change to encompass a growing field as well as reduce emissions, noise, etc in a positive manner for the city. Ch. 4.10 Noise Goal N-213 It appears that this goal allows for a higher than recommended standard HBEB-19 for level of exteri or noise. Ch, .4.14 Transportation/Traffic and Appendix B. Circulation Traffic Stud% - Planning and Circulation Characterization 1. It is noted that the traffic data used to support this element was taken in 2014. before many current high -density developments were completed and impacts on traffic fully realized. HBEB-20 While redoing the traffic study for this update may not be feasible, perhaps the EIR should include a more specific estimates of present traffic based on those changes, and indicate any impact on the long-term predictions. If this has been done perhaps the post-2014 update methodology could be described in a little more detail. I 2. The 2013 Bicycle Master Plan, which is referenced in discussion of bicycle infrastructure. has been recently referred to as outdated, The 2013 bicycle master should be THBEB-21 reviewed and updated (or expected updates described) in order to sufficiently inform the raised General Plan. 4. There is a lack of detail relating to urban run-off and transportation. In addition to being a water quality issue, backed up storm drains affect road and intersection access and flow during rainy periods. There are several locations in Huntington Beach where this is so predictable that HBEB-22 temporary "roa&,-ay flooded signs" are placed before the rain begins. The draft EIR mentions the connection, but does not elaborate, and provides no documentation of impacts, or plan to address impacts. E Page 10-18 r'itv of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program Elf ' August 2017 HB -425- Item 8. - 210 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR HUNTINGTON BEACH Environmental Board 4. The EIR notes several rights of ways which are currently considered unlikely to be developed and recommends that they be removed from the Master Plan, effectively eliminating them as potential future projects. The EIR should consider the circumstances under which those HBEB-23 potential project-, might be beneficial (information which should be available since pro -vision was originally made for those projects), the specific justification for removing these options from the buildout plan, and the potential use and environmental impacts of likely alternative use. Neighborhood Circulation: 5. Maintaining/preserving neighborhood character should address sense of place. and HBEB-24 quality of life for residents beyond avenge daily trips, and solely the movement of people from one place to another. 6. The safety of children in and around street-, for play, and getting to and from school HBEB-25 should be addressed. 7. Areas around schools and parks throughout the City should be considered, where not already so done, as pedestrian zones (PEZ). HBEB-26 Local Intersection Mitigation 8. An example of local traffic impacts associated with development (with implications for other intersections similarly affected.)- traffic flow at Gothard and Center has already downgraded noticeably since die recent (2016) completion of high density residential development at and near that intersection. Updated traffic measurements are recommended if not HBEB-27 already done. Mitigation should be implemented with a suggestion of initial implementation "low impact" changes such as use of protected turn signals in preference to lane addition. If intersection expansion is necessary, the City is encouraged to base the plan on actual data rather than projections of reduced future demand (in this case, the difference between adding lanes in one direction versus two directions). Development Impacts 9. Parking, Capacity (reference Page 4.14-21): While it is desirable to encourage alternative transportation modes which reduce the demand for parking, new projects should not rely, on this JHBEB-28 as a justification for reduced parking allotments until such incentives have proven to be effective for existing facilities. ' 'ily of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Progro- RP Page 10- 19 Item 8. - 211 HB -426- August 2017 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR 0 ;4 AIN 110]11111 V4 IN, tr_- I _E W-1-7-16TtIP Mass Transit 10, The City should work closely with CCTA to develop Transit Centers (including identification of candidate locations) and to otherwise expand infrastructure to accommodate increased use off mass transit including expansion of Park and Ride lots where warranted. IL The North -South rail line which runs just east of Gothard represents an opportunity to connect Huntington Beach with commuter rail lines. The tight of way runs close to the Goldenwest Transportation Center making this a natural location for a passenger rail station. The HBEB-29 City is encouraged to explore this option with OCTA and the other cities through which the right of way would pass. 12. The feasibility and potential benefits of expansion of Huntington Beach shuttle routes and schedules (from a seasonal basis to year round) should be considered, 13. Advanced strategies for on -demand transportation services and other strategies to address specific needs, including senior/disabled access and first mile i last mile options for commuters, should be explored and the impacts on circulation evaluated. I Infrastructure for Zero Emission and Autonomous Vehicles Goal CIRC-8: The General Plan gives mention of some of the following technologies. Many are very close or already being implemented, and so we recommend that consideration of the following be given near -term priority. 14. The city should plan to accommodate the upgrade of electrical grid infrastructure for HBEB-30 expansion of private battery electric vehicle charging stations, and develop options for an expanded network- of public charging stations. The incorporation of charging stations into the base of selected City -owned street light standards is suggested as one option for the latter. 15. The city should support infrastructure (including public signage, and update of permitting procedures where needed) for reduced- and zero -emission fuel alternatives including natural gas and hydrogen. I 16. The City should update infrastructure as needed to facilitate autonomous vehicles as those standards become available. i ADDendix C. GHG Inventory Forecast Appendix C, Page 5, Table I California Statewide GHG Emissions, 2005 and 2012: Sector "High Global Warming Potential" - what is included in this sector at our state level? Why HBEB-31 does the Huntington Beach Inventory Summary (page 6) not account for this sector or these industries, or activities? Appendix C, Page 10-11,.Natural Gas: Because AES Huntington Beach Powerplant resides in our community the emissions output should have Scope I through 3 accounted for in HBEB-32 the HB GHG inventory, not as an unknown indirect assumption from SCEs electricity use. Appendix C, Page 13, A broad assumption on PHEVs, EVs, and hybrids to interpolated for a 6% increase in vehicle miles traveled. As the data suggests, Transportation may be our biggest issue to resolve since it continues to increase dramatically. Increase use of the PBEVs. HBEB-33 EVs, and hybrids should be monitored, and ways to dramatically improve transportation options, and technology should be pursued. I Page 10-20 rltv r)f Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program ElF ' August 2017 HB -427- Item 8. - 212 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR HUNTINGTON BEACH Environmental Board Appendix C, Page 23, Reduction Target: Why has HI3 not committed to a minimum HBEB-34 reduction goal of 15% below baseline levels like our neighbors? Appendix 1; Coastal Resiliency Program All measures are reasonable and we are glad to see multiple measures being recommended for HBEB-35 various flood control, sea level rise, and overall resiliency concems. However, how will these measures be implemented or enforced? Appendix G. GHG Reduction Program 3.2 Local Accomplishments Local accomplishments are strategies taken by the City, local residents, and local businesses that reduce GHG emissions, or support reductions by providing education and resources. HEEB-36 Kudos to the Citv on its accomplishments particularly in setting the example for energy efficiency projects and solar installations and encouraging the community to do the same. The downtown shuttle should be analyzed to see how many miles driven it is reducing and how it can be utilized to reduce even more. I've never heard of the downtown shuttle so perhaps more education of the local population would be appropriate and useful in the off-season, EE-2 — Rental unit retrofits: Improve energy efficiency in residential rental units. Like owner -occupied homes, older rental units are often significantly less energy efficient than newer units. Although renters usually do not have much ability to retrofit their homes, effective partnerships between renters and landlords can make these actions easier, more equitable, and beneficial to everyone involved. Improvements to windows and doors, insulation, appliances. and HBEB-37 water heaters are examples of options for energy -efficiency retrofits in rental units, and a variety of educational and financing programs make retrofits easier and more affordable. (p. 12) An analysis needs to be made of the effect these improvements have on the affordability of the housing. If the rents are raised and/or renters evicted in order to make the improvements. the City's affordable housing goals may be affected. [Are there approaches employed by other cities that have been successful in addressing this issue? - MS] ' �ily of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program r1l? Page 10-21 Item 8. - 213 HB -428- August 2017 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR HUNTINGTON BEACH Environmental Board T-2 — Shared parking: Use shared parking strategies to maximize development potential while providing a sufficient supply of parking. P. 14 Parking is an important feature for new developments in Huntington Beach, and it is critical to ensure there are enough spaces. However, some developments may only need most of their parking spaces for pail of the day. Shared parking allows property owners greater flexibility in the design of their developments and helps avoid creating large parking lots that are empty most of the time, while continuing to provide an adequate supply of off-street parking to meet demand. 2020 GHG Reduction: 1,030 X4TCO2e HBEB-38 2040 GHG Reduction: 12,740 MTCO2e Explain how this creates GHG reductions. Reducing parking because there is an assumption that residents follow the traditional model of driving to work every day, is not acceptable. This policy should not be cast as a GHG strategy unless there is solid data that residents there do not park, during the day. In fact because many people actually work- from home or have nontraditional work- schedules, this strategy can increase emissions as people drive around looking for a place to park. Not only is this probably adding to emissions, its underlying assumptions are outdated and should be revisited as a general policy. [Ideally the study would look at a range of scenarios to assess an estimated figure for 2040, since we can't be certain what driving patterns will look- like. -.\Is] T-3 — Increased transit ridership: Increase transit ridership to minimize congestion, improve air quality, and promote increased mobility. Public transit is a critical set -vice that allows all people, including those without access to cars, a way to effectively travel within Huntington Beach and to other communities in the region. It also emits fewer GHG emissions per rider than a personal vehicle and reduces congestion on local roadways. Huntington Beach can continue to work, with the Orange County Transportation Authority to allow forhigh-quality public transit HBEB-39 that is fast, frequent, predictable, convenient, and safe. Implementation actions would be more effective if they extended to the city working directly with OCTA to develop critical infrastructure and services to make mass transit more -viable: Increased Park -and -Ride capacity, development of a rail commuter link using the existing rail line adjacent to the Goldenwest Trasportation Center, and solutions (including rideshare. shuttle or other approaches) to effectively address "first mile. -last mile" connection between mass transit centers and homes. T-4 — Carsharing: Attract carshare services to Huntington Beach and promote them as a supplemental transportation service. Carshare services, such as Zipear. , provide vehicles to people who may need a second car only occasionally, allowing them to avoid buying a vehicle that may sit unused most ofthe time. These HBEB40 on -demand services make it easier for residents to have fewer cars, or even to avoid car ownership entirely. Similarly. ride -sourcing, services such as Lyft or Uber make it easier for residents to take occasional trips as needed without relying on their own vehicles, and are also a convenient choice for visitors. (p. 15) Page 10-22 (-ifv of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program Elf August 2017 HB -429- Item 8. - 214 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR HUNTINGTON BEACH Environmental Board Explain how the mere fact of non -ownership translates into fewer miles driven and thus GHG HBEB-40 reductions. Also, for Uber, I_yfl and other -tide-sourcing" services, are the miles driven while (cont) waiting for customers accounted far? [Assuming the same passenger miles, total miles driven would increase with ridesharing. There would be some benefit from fewer total vehicles, for reduced parking load. - MS] T-5 Telecommuting and alternative work schedules: Establish telecommuting and alternative work, schedules to reduce peak commute traffic. Telecommuting and alternative work, schedules provide an alternative to the typical commute for flexible employees and businesses. Alternative work schedules let employees travel outside of the HBEB41 normal rush hour periods, resulting in a shorter commute time and less congestion, reducing GHG emissions from vehicles. Telecommuting lets workers further reduce their commute by allowing them to work- from home for some days in the week, which decreases GHG emissions and can help improve employee satisfaction. (p. 15) How is the City planning to effect this strategy for other than its own forces? [Community Wi-Fi is the one program that directly addresses this. - MS] 116 T-7 — Shuttle service: Provide a year-round shuttle service for visitor destinations. Huntington Beach in the past has provided shuttle service during busy visitor times, such as the Fourth of July or the US Open of Surfing. As feasible, the City can follow the example of many other communities and provide a year-round shuttle that serves Downtown, the beach, and other visitor destinations. This makes it easier for visitors to get around without a car, and can also provide a viable transportation alternative for local residents who work in these arcas.(p. 16) 2020 GHG Reduction: 90 MTCO2c 2040 GHG Reduction: 60 MTC, 02c This strategy should be studied to show that it is more than a convenience and reduces miles driven. If the distance and number of riders doesn't impact GHG appreciably, then the service should be categorized as an economic strategy. It would count as a traffic strategy if only there weren't more cars to take the place of the ones taken off the road by this service thus keeping the traffic congestion about the same. [Also, this strategy is viable as a year-round strategy only if economics favor it. This is probably the reason the current service is seasonal. -MS] T-9 - Create a new generation or mass transit users: promote the use of buses and shuttles to middle school students and their parents. To reduce miles driven, reduce traffic congestion around schools and recreation facilities, increase student safety and promote ridership on mass transit, work with OCTA and:'orthe City shuttle service in the off season to make mass transit an alternative way to get to school. Coordinate with the Huntington Beach City School District to adjust schedules, if needed, and to promote mass transit as a safe and viable way for middle school students to attend school and travel to tutoring, recreational facilities for after school spoils, and other extracurricular activities students would attend. As the students move to high school, engage the Huntington Beath Union High School District to do the same for its population. [This would be a positive outcome but requires city1school district support, and also buy -in from parents as well as students. - NMS] HBEB-43 . :ity of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Progro- FIR Item 8. - 215 HB -430- Page 10-23 August 2017 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR I I L-71 I Mill! N F-2 — Electric vehicles: Increase electric vehicle adoption in Huntington Beach. Modem electric vehicles (EVs) are a new option for car buyers. They are quieter and cheaper to operate than gasoline or diesel vehicles, do not en -tit pollution or GHGs, and can increasingly meet the daily needs of many drivers. As the cost of EVs continues to decline and these vehicles become more popular, the City and regional partners should provide education about EVs and ensure that the local infrastructure can effectively support them. The City should develop a program to encourage in -home charging stations by a) identifying neighborhoods where the infrastructure readily supports it b) creating promotional materials that explain how it can be done, and c) developing standard plans along with a clear, straightforward HBEB-44 permitting process designed to facilitate permitting for those facilities. Charging at night reduces the possibility of using more expensive, dirtier energy in the middle of the day. [Extensive deployment of residential charging stations may have some impact on the local electrical grid, however, utilities are already developing plans to incorporate them. Opportunities for expanding the network, of distributed public charging stations should be explored; city -owned street light standards represent a possible platform. It should also be noted that hydrogen vehicles also represent an electric -drive, zero emission platform. Infrastructure to support those vehicles (in particular, fueling stations) should be considered an equivalent technology [from a GHG perspective] with battery clectrics. -MS] 16 CA-3 - Shop local: Improve the visibility of locally produced goods in Huntington Beach retail markets. Buying locally produced goods helps a community in multiple ways. It reduces the distance that products have to travel to the store, decreasing congestion and reducing emissions of air pollutants and GHGs. It also helps to keep more revenue in the community. which supports the Huntington Beach economy and benefits local residents and businesses. Additionally, this can help businesses participating in Huntington Beach's Recycling Market Development Zone. N\ liiuIi provides economic incentives to businesses using waste materials to produce new goods. While HBEB-45 not all goods can be locally sourced, supporting locally produced goods when feasible is environmentally responsible and boosts local economic -vitality. (p.28) This measure needs to include a link to accessibility by other modes of transportation such as mass transit, bikes, pedestrians and neighborhood vehicles not just a discussion of buying local and assuming local transportation. There should be a conscious eftbrt to link, these alternate modes to local resources. Page 2, Strategy Development: Should an audit or forecast be performed for the socioeconomic benefit of the strategies (e.g. any and all of the transportation improvements HBEB-46 increasing safety and worker productivity)? Page 19, CA-4 THROUGH CA-6 Advanced green technologies, Financing. Workforce Training: these sections should be drafted in parallel to the Appendix L. Economic HBEB-47 Development Trends Pages 23-33 Strategy Implementation Actions: Exploration and encouragement language should be stronger (i.e. execute and implement) through finance I HBEB-48 Page 10-24 rltv of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program Elf August 2017 HB -431- Item 8. - 216 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR A AoDendix I. CitvNvide Urban RunoffNlana2ement Pro2ram 1.3 Water Quality Element Table 1-1 Summary of Water Quality Element Programs Quality Planning Area -Based Program Santa Ana River: 1. Evaluate opportunities to reduce dry weather flow and reduce diversions 2. Continue to work, with OC River Park Project and incorporate water quality enhancement where feasible HBEB-49 Talbert Channel: 1. Evaluate opportunities to reducetettse dn, weather flow at Bartlett Park Coastal: 1. Develop expanded education and enforcement programs 2. Continue dtT weather flows and infiltration practice where feasible: construct flow diversion where not feasible 3. Operate and maintain hydrodynamic separator (CDS) treatment units at beach outfalls 4. Evaluate opportunities to reduce/reuse dtT weather flow 5. Enhanced street sweeping and alley cleaning Bo4sa Chica Wetlands: 1. Continue to operate and maintain hydrodynamic scparator(CDS) treatment unit at wetland outfall 2. Evaluate opportunities for water quality features in future development/redevelopment on the AERA property Slater Channel: 1. Operate and maintain hydrodynamic separator unit for dry weather treatment at Central Park, 2. Optimize water quality benefits of detention area south of Sully -Miller Lake 3. Evaluate opportunities for water quality features in future development/redevelopment East Garden Grove Wintersburg Channel: 4. Evaluate opportunities to reducereuse dry weather flow ' 'ity of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Progro- PIP Page 10-25 Item 8. - 217 HB -432- August 2017 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR M R ALTAI IL43 III i LQ a gra E Bolsa Chica Channel: 1. Coordinate with Orange County to clean-up and protect channel in vicinity of Marina HS 2. Evaluate opportunities to reduce.'reuse dry weather flow in future developmentiredevelopment including Boeing property 3. Cooperate with Orange County on projects to improvc�'restore channels for aesthetics and treatment potential Harbour Area: 1. Continue to work with Orange County to monitor, maintain and improve trash boom collection system 2. Develop and implement expanded education, incentive and enforcement programs n Support a fair and equitable means to upgrade, monitor and inspect existing pump -out facilities and install new pump -out facilities at appropriate locations in Huntington Harbour 3. Evaluate and implement drain in let retrofit opportunities 4. Continue dry weather flow diversion from Scenario Pump Station to OCSD system 5. Implement Memorandum of 13nderstandings (MOUs) with HOAs. OC. Sheriff and Peter's Landing for the maintenance of Marina Trash Skimmers. 6. Evaluate the effectiveness of the Marina Trash Skimmers and install additional through grant opportunities. Additional Citvwide Opportunities: 1. Continue the implementation of full scale state-of-the-art irrigation controllers 2. Conduct feasibility study and implement recommendations for constructing trashilgross solids removal device at direct outlets to channels not described above in specific water quality areas 3. Continue working with OCNNID on the possibility of using dry weather urban runoff for future seawater barrier iqiccfion. 4. NVork with local school districts to incorporate retention/detention within applicable areas (e.g., soccer and baseball fields) The same can be said for: Table3-5Summary ol`Citywide Source Control Program Elements Table 3-6 Summary of New Development and Significant Redevelopment Program Elements HBEB-49 (cont) Page 10-26 (-ifv nf Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program Elf ' August 2017 HB -433- Item 8. - 218 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR HUNT11"MIGTON BEACH Environmental Board Atmendix M Fire Response The professionalism of the Huntington Beach Fire Department is noted and there is no doubt that they continually update their preparedness for all new situations seriously. For the sake of documentation. there is little discussion of preparation for the fire emergency resources particular HBEB-50 to high rise and high density residential development which has increased in recent years. An update of Appendix M to address this issue and any anticipated increase in equipment/personnel needs would be help in evaluating the overall General Plan Update and EIR. .Appendix P Sea Level Rise 10. Recommendations and Conclusions (bullet 1): In several places, the main line of on defense against SLR seems to be seawalls, levees and bulkheads. The Mornmendation for is "additional investigation into seawall/bulkhead infrastructure around Huntington Harbour is recommended to improve accuracy of potential hazard zones." However, section 8.1.3 HBEB-51 Huntington Harbour Planning Area, it states that "most seawalls in this planning area are privately owned and vary in type, condition, and elevation.- We would like to see stronger language that requires these private seawalls to meet certain building and integrity standards to bring them up to the high SLR prediction to protect public and private assets. 10. Recommendations and Conclusions: Add a recommendation to continue to monitor the SLR levels in the Los Angeles basin every 2 years due to the potential exposure of flooding HBEB-52 all along our coastal shores. . -ity of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program PIP Page 10-27 Item 8. - 219 HB -434- August 2017 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR Response HBEB-1 This comment contains introductory or general information regarding the General Plan Update and the impact the plan will have on the environment within the City of Huntington Beach. No further response is required. This comment is specific to General Plan Update Goal ERC-1 and General Plan Update Policy ERC-1.F. The commenter questions the adequacy of the policy and whether the policy will protect special -status species. As stated on page 4.3-9 of the Draft Program EIR, this policy would "require impacts to natural habitat to be minimized in order to avoid reducing natural and open spaces and would prohibit future development that jeopardizes or diminishes the integrity of sensitive or protected coastal plant and animal communities." This requirement would support special -status species through preservation. To respond to the comment, as part of the public hearings before Planning Commission and City Council, staff will recommend the following policy be revised within the Environmental Resources and Conservation Element: Policy ERC-1.F. Continue to balance and maintain a mix of recreational focused and passive and natural environment areas that preserve and protect special -status species within open spaces. However, this comment is not a direct comment on the content or adequacy of the Draft Program EIR and does not raise a specific environmental concern. All comments will be forwarded to appropriate City departments and decision -makers prior to consideration of project approval. No further response is required. Response HBEB Comment noted. The commenter supports General Plan Update Policies ERC-3.D, ERC-6.A, ERC-63, ERC- 6.C, and ERC-6.D. This is not a direct comment on the content or adequacy of the Draft Program EIR and is specific to the contents of the General Plan Update. No further response is required. This comment is specific to General Plan Update Policy ERC-6.E. The commenter suggests deleting or revising the policy. To address the comment however, as part of the public hearings before Planning Commission and City Council, staff will recommend the following policy be deleted within the Environmental Resources and Conservation Element of the General Plan Update: All comments will be forwarded to appropriate City departments and decision -makers prior to consideration of project approval. Page 10-28 rt+v nf Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program Elf August 2017 HB -435- Item 8. - 220 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR Response HBEB-4 This comment is specific to General Plan Update Goal ERC-6 (and relevant policies), requesting a figure that references the locations of sensitive habitats within the planning area. While this comment is specific to the General Plan Update, the information is repeated within the Draft Program EIR so is being considered here in the responses to comment. The vegetation communities noted are shown in Figure 2 of the Biological Resources TBR (page 5) which is Volume I of the Draft Program EIR. A reference to this figure has been added to Chapter 3, Biological Resources of the Draft Program EIR (page 4.3-10), as outlined below: Chapter 4.3, Biological Resources, Page 4.3-10, Section A, Second paragraph Sensitive habitats include those that are of special concern to resource agencies and those that are considered to be and are protected under CEQA, Section 1600 of the Fish and Game Code, CCC, and Section 404 of the CWA. Sensitive natural communities within the planning area include: ■ Southern Coastal Salt Marsh (1,068 acres) ■ Southern Foredunes (6 acres) ■ Southern Dune Scrub (4 acres) ■ Eucalyptus (61 acres) ■ Southern Cottonwood Willow Riparian Scrub (32 acres) The geographic location of sensitive natural communities within the planning area are shown on Figure 2 of the Biological Resources TBR prepared by Atkins' (Volume 1). Future development activities may also result in the loss of ESHAs and other sensitive vegetation communities. 9 Atkins 2017. Air Quality TBR for the City of Huntington Beach General Plan Update. February. No further response is required. Response HBEB-F This comment is specific to the City's jurisdiction over the oil fields, and the support within the goals and policies of the General Plan Update to address land use issues, particularly with regard to habitat restoration, within the oil fields. This is not a direct comment on the content or adequacy of the Draft Program EIR and is specific to the contents of the General Plan Update. All comments will be forwarded to appropriate City departments and decision -makers prior to consideration of project approval. As such, no further response is required. The commenter correctly summarizes the seven waterbodies listed on page 4.3-11 of the Draft Program EIR, noting that they are flood control channels owned and maintained by the County of Orange Flood Control District. While this is true, this status does not preclude these areas from supporting riparian and wetland plant communities particularly on the periphery of the areas maintained for flood control purposes. The potential for impacts to these areas as biological resources are addressed within the Draft Program EIR, as required by CEQA. While this is entirely correct, to make it more clear to a reader that these areas serve a dual purpose with the primary function of flood control channel, a statement has been added to the Draft Program EIR to clarify this, as outlined below and captured in Chapter 9 of this Final Program EIR: 'ity of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Progro- FIR Page 10-29 Item 8. - 221 HB -436- August 2017 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR Chapter 4.3, Biological Resources, Page 4.3-11, Section A, Second paragraph The planning area supports riparian and wetland plant communities that are protected by the USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW. Waterbodies within the planning area include the Santa Ana River, marine waters, and the Sunset, Westminster, Ocean View, East Grove-Wintersberg, Huntington Beach, Talbert, and Fountain Valley flood channels. These areas are owned and actively maintained by the Orange County Flood Control District to ensure their adequacy to support their primary function as flood control channels. Further, as noted on page 4.3-11 of the Draft Program EIR, wetland delineations for the entire planning area have not been completed and these areas are not being `counted' towards acreage established as essential or formally designated habitat. Project -specific wetland surveys would need to be completed prior to any future development that would potentially have an impact on riparian and wetland plant communities. Impacts to riparian and wetland plant communities within these areas are possible and require identification. No further response is required. This comment is specific to General Plan Update Goal ERC-7 and related policies. The commenter suggests revising the policy to list remedial actions as well as the potential for wetland expansion. The following General Plan Update goals and policies are provided in Chapter 8 of the General Plan identify specific actions that the City of Huntington Beach will take to implement the reduction of runoff and the effects on wetlands and other biological resources: ■ General Plan Update implementation programs CIRC-P.18—Site Development Process and CEQA ■ CIRC-P.25 - Caltrans, ERC-P.26 — Green Stormwater Infrastructure in Parks and Open Spaces ■ ERC-P.34 — Drainage and Pollution Standards ■ HAZ-P.4 — Runoff and Ponding Standards ■ HAZ-P.21— Flood and Sea Level Rise Hazard Mitigation This is not a direct comment on the content or adequacy of the Draft Program EIR and is specific to the contents of the General Plan Update. All comments will be forwarded to appropriate City departments and decision -makers prior to consideration of project approval. As such, no further response is required. Response HBEB-8 Comment noted. The commenter summarizes the findings of the Draft Program EIR with regard to wildlife corridors, noting they support the statements made in the document. No further response is required. This comment is specific to Mitigation Measure MM4.3-1 where the commenter suggests that extension of the no -work buffer zone for construction should be extended from 100 feet to 250 feet. However, the 100-foot buffer zone is the distance required by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. As such, the language included in Mitigation Measure MM4.3-1 is compliant with the established and pertinent regulation and is considered appropriate. No change to the mitigation measure is proposed and no further response is necessary. Page 10-30 rit, -f Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program Elf August 2017 HB -43) 7- Item 8. - 222 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR Response HBEB-10 This comment begins by reproducing the introductory paragraph of Section 4.6 of the Draft Program EIR. No further response is required on this part. The commenter goes on to question the percentage of the Greenhouse Gas Emissions that accounted for traffic generated by visitors to the City of Huntington Beach. All GHG emissions from the transportation sector are estimated using activity data from vehicle miles traveled (VMT). The inventory discerns between VMT associated with trips originating both inside and outside of Huntington Beach. Visitor trips are therefore included among trips originating outside of Huntington Beach. VMT are figures provided for three types of trips: internal -internal (those which begin and end in Huntington Beach), internal -external (those which begin in the City of Huntington Beach and end elsewhere, or those which begin elsewhere and end in the City of Huntington Beach), and external -external (those which begin and end elsewhere, but pass through the City of Huntington Beach). As recommended by the US Community Protocol for GHG emissions inventories, the VMT includes the full distance of trips that begin and end within the limits of the City of Huntington Beach (internal -internal) and half the distance of trips between the City of Huntington Beach and another location (internal -external). Trips that pass through the City of Huntington Beach, but do not begin or end (external -external) within the city, are not included. This is not a direct comment on the content or adequacy of the Draft Program EIR and is specific to the contents of the General Plan Update. No further response is necessary. Response HBEB-1 1 Comment noted. This comment is a statement and no further response is required. kesponse HBEB-12 This comment requests the City's MTCO2 per service population. For a discussion regarding the City's MTCO2 emissions, refer to the Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Inventory and Forecast Technical Report (Appendix C) and the City of Huntington Beach Draft Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program (GGRP) (Appendix G) of the Draft Program EIR. Based on information derived from population, employment, and emissions inventory data provided in Tables 2-2, 2-3, and 4-2 of the Draft GGRP (Volume III, Appendix G of the Draft Program EIR), the City of Huntington Beach' emissions per service population in the 2012 baseline year was 5.30 MTCO2e/SP. Without implementation of the Draft GGRP, that value would increase to 5.34 MTCC2e/SP in 2020 and to 5.45 MTCO2e/SP in 2040. With implementation of the Draft GGRP, the values would decrease to 2.20 MTCO2e/SP in 2020 and to 1.87 MTCO2e/SP in 2040. Additional decreases are possible with implementation of Community Choice Aggregation. This is not a direct comment on the content or adequacy of the Draft Program EIR and is specific to the contents of the technical reports that support the General Plan Update. No further response is required. Response HBEB-1-s This comment acknowledges that transportation produces the majority of greenhouse gas impacts, and suggests the Draft GGRP include measures that facilitate electric charging in homes. 'ity of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program FIR Page 10-31 Item 8. - 223 HB -438- August2017 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR As noted in the Draft GGRP (Volume III, Appendix G of the Draft Program EIR, page 26), Implementation Strategy F-2.A would direct the City of Huntington Beach, in coordination with the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), to provide information about the benefits of battery electric and plug- in hybrid EVs, and the availability of state and federal incentives, at public events. Implementation Strategy F-2.6 would direct the City of Huntington Beach to work with property owners to retrofit existing nonresidential and multifamily parking lots and garages to include charging stations for EVs and neighborhood electric vehicles (NEVs). This is not a direct comment on the content or adequacy of the Draft Program EIR and is specific to the contents of the General Plan Update. All comments will be forwarded to appropriate City departments and decision -makers prior to consideration of project approval. As such, no further response is required. Response HBEB-14 This comment suggests the incorporation of local industrial contributions of GHG emissions into the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program. Consistent with the US Community Protocol for GHG emissions inventories, these types of emissions are typically not included in communitywide emissions inventories, because a city has no jurisdiction to require or enforce emissions reducing strategies. Rather, these strategies are typically required and enforced by the SCAQMD and California Air Resources board through industrial permit programs. This is not a direct comment on the content or adequacy of the Draft Program EIR and is specific to the contents of the General Plan Update. All comments will be forwarded to appropriate City departments and decision -makers prior to consideration of project approval. As such, no further response is required. Kesponse HBEB- 15 This comment suggests the Draft Program EIR is responsible for addressing the role of the City of Huntington Beach in ongoing monitoring and response to local hazards posed by local air emission sources, specifically noting those from the Republic Services Waste Processing Facility. It is important to note the Draft Program EIR is not required to enforce monitoring. The City has a role in the enforcement of the municipal code and the permitting of industrial facilities that contribute to greenhouse gas emissions; however, the Draft Program EIR does not propose changes to the permit or operation. The Draft Program EIR has no responsibility or requirement to address the issues presented in this comment. No further response is required. This comment suggests specific enforcement and mitigation plans for storm drains and other waste dumping should be addressed within the Draft Program EIR. The commenter suggests adding an additional policy on specific enforcement and mitigation plans for storm drain and other waste dumping. Regulations associated with stormwater dumping, and other forms of dumping, are established through the Municipal Code and regulatory agencies (California Department Fish and Wildlife, Department Toxic Substances Control, Environmental Protection Agency, State and Regional Water Quality Control Boards, United States Fish Wildlife Service). A programmatic level document is not required to address the enforcement of existing regulations regarding storm drain or other dumping. This comment is noted. Page 10-32 r if, f Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program Elf August2017 Hg -439- Item 8. - 224 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR This is not a direct comment on the content or adequacy of the Draft Program EIR and is specific to the General Plan Update contents. All comments will be forwarded to appropriate City departments and decision -makers prior to consideration of project approval. As such, no further response is required. Response HBEB-17 This comment suggests the Draft Program EIR should address the post-remediation plan for ASCON and other waste cleanup sites. Development plans regarding the ASCON site, or any other waste cleanup site, are not part of the General Plan Update; therefore, there is no requirement or responsibility to address these issues within the context of the Draft Program EIR. Additionally, it is inappropriate to consider any remediation plan within a programmatic analysis, such as the Draft Program EIR. However, General Plan Update Implementation Program HAZ-P.7. directs the City of Huntington Beach to work with property owners to encourage alternative use of such sites, including but not limited to renewable energy facilities, open spaces, or other community -serving uses (General Plan Update, page 8-47). This is not a direct comment on the content or adequacy of the Draft Program EIR, and no further response is required. All comments will be forwarded to appropriate City departments and decision -makers prior to consideration of project approval. As such, no further response is required. Response HBEB-18 The commenter questions how the designation of Research and Technology will be defined. At present, the definition of the Research and Technology land use designation (page 2-12 of the General Plan Update) is as follows: "The Research and Technology designation provides for a wide variety of nonresidential mixed - use development in industrial areas that are undergoing or poised for transformation to support changing employment demand. The designation encourages both employment uses and commercial uses designed to accommodate employees. Uses include clean and green manufacturing, research and development, technology, warehousing, business parks, professional offices, eating and drinking establishments, entertainment, and similar neighborhood commercial uses." The characteristics of the Research and Technology zoning designation will be undertaken by the Community Development Department with input from other departments throughout the City of Huntington Beach upon approval of the General Plan Update or by direction of the Planning Commission or City Council, whichever occurs first. Approval of the designation will ultimately be undertaken by the City Council. The commenter indicates that the Research and Technology designation will be a positive change for the city. The commenter suggests rezoning this area. Please refer to Response OVSD-22 and Response OVSD-27. Following the adoption of the General Plan Update, specific requirements for the new Research and Technology zone will be addressed in future revisions to the HBZSO to be consistent with the General Plan Update. No further response is required. -ity of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program FIR Page 10-33 Item 8. - 225 HB -440- August 2017 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR Response HBEB-19 This response is specific to General Plan Update Goal N-213, noting that the exterior noise level allowed in this goal is higher than the recommended standard. As noted in the Draft Program EIR, page 4.10-8, it is likely that new medium -high density, high -density, and mixed -use residential development would be located in areas where ambient noise levels exceed the adopted standard. The General Plan Update Goal N-2B is required to accommodate exterior noise levels in existing residential areas adjacent to major arterial and future infill projects in the same areas. The goal is required in order to bring the existing condition into compliance where meeting the standard is infeasible. This is not a direct comment on the content or adequacy of the Draft Program EIR, but rather a comment regarding a proposed policy in the General Plan Update. All comments will be forwarded to appropriate City departments and decision - makers prior to consideration of project approval. As such, no further response is required. Response HBEB-20 Comment noted. The comprehensive ADT volumes throughout the planning area are from a count program conducted in the spring of 2014; however, this data is supplemented by traffic counts conducted in 2012, 2013, and 2016. The Huntington Beach Traffic Model was updated to support the updated (and existing) Circulation Element (2013) and continues to be used to predict traffic impacts throughout the City of Huntington Beach, providing consistency across all types of development. The traffic model is appropriate and sufficient to address the traffic impacts throughout the City of Huntington Beach and is propagated by the land use data and circulation system outlined in the 2013 update of the Circulation Element, including high -density housing that has been contemplated by the City of Huntington Beach. For a discussion regarding the methodology for obtaining traffic counts and undertaking the traffic analysis, see page 4.14-1 of the Draft Program EIR and page 6 and Figure 4 of the Transportation/Traffic Technical Background Report. See Appendix B of the Draft Program EIR, General Plan Circulation (Appendix A) for 2014 traffic count survey results. No further response is required. Response HBEB-21 Comment noted. The commenter suggests updating the 2013 Bicycle Master Plan. Implementation Program CIRC-P.7 — Bikeway Plan directs the City of Huntington Beach to implement and update the Bicycle Master Plan to plan and prioritize facilities for both recreational cyclists and commuters (General Plan Update, page 8-17). Also, Implementation Program CIRC-P.28 directs the City of Huntington Beach to review, every five years, the Orange County Master Plan of Bikeways to ensure consistency, and to update Huntington Beach's Bicycle Master Plan, as appropriate (General Plan Update, pages 8-24 and 8- 2S). This is not a direct comment on the content or adequacy of the Draft Program EIR. All comments will be forwarded to appropriate City departments and decision -makers prior to consideration of project approval. No further response is required. The commenter correctly notes that there is a lack of detail with regard to urban runoff and transportation, noting the Draft Program EIR mentions the connection between the two but does not provide an analysis of impacts or plans to address impacts. Such an analysis is not a requirement of CEQA. The City of Huntington Beach can undertake such a study in the future if they choose to do so. However, Page 10-34 r'tty of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program Ell August 2017 HB -441- Item 8. - 226 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR this is not a direct comment on the content or adequacy of the Draft Program EIR. All comments will be forwarded to appropriate City departments and decision -makers prior to consideration of project approval. As such, no further response is required. Response HBEB-2 The comment is noted. The commenter suggests undevelopable right-of-ways be removed from the Master Plan, and the EIR address the impacts following the removal. This is not a direct comment on the content or adequacy of the Draft Program EIR. All comments will be forwarded to appropriate City departments and decision -makers prior to consideration of project approval. As such, no further response is required. Response HFFR-24 The commenter suggests other forms of transportation (beyond ADT) should be considered when discussing maintaining or preserving quality of life. The Traffic and Transportation of the Draft Program EIR addressed 'alternative' forms of transportation, which include public transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. This is an area that the City of Huntington Beach can undertake additional study on in the future if they decide to as/when the Bicycle Master Plan and other city-wide transportation plans are updated. This is not a direct comment on the content or adequacy of the Draft Program EIR. All comments will be forwarded to appropriate City departments and decision -makers prior to consideration of project approval. As such, no further response is required. Response HBEB-25 The commenter suggests that the safety of children in and around streets for play and getting to/from school should be addressed. This is an area that the City of Huntington Beach can undertake additional study on in the future when city-wide transportation plans are updated. However, this is not a direct comment on the content or adequacy of the Draft Program EIR. All comments will be forwarded to appropriate City departments and decision -makers prior to consideration of project approval. As such, no further response is required. Response HBEB-26 The commenter suggests that the areas around schools and parks throughout the City of Huntington Beach should be considered as pedestrian zones (PEZ). This is an area that the City of Huntington Beach can undertake additional study on in the future when city-wide transportation plans are updated. However, this is not a direct comment on the content or adequacy of the Draft Program EIR. All comments will be forwarded to appropriate City departments and decision -makers prior to consideration of project approval. As such, no further response is required. Response HBEB-27 The comment suggests alternative measures for reducing parking demand be proven before utilized as a form of reduction. This is not a direct comment on the content or adequacy of the Draft Program EIR. All comments will be forwarded to appropriate City departments and decision -makers prior to consideration of project approval. As such, no further response is required. 'ity of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program FIR Page 10-35 Item 8. - 227 HB -442- August 2017 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR Response HBEB-28 Comment noted. The City will continue to work with OCTA to develop Transit Center and expand transit infrastructure when and where feasible. This is not a direct comment on the content or adequacy of the Draft Program EIR. All comments will be forwarded to appropriate City departments and decision -makers prior to consideration of project approval. As such, no further response is required. Response HBEB-2? This comment is specific to General Plan Update Goal CIRC-8, and infrastructure for zero emission and autonomous vehicles. This is not a direct comment on the content or adequacy of the Draft Program EIR and is specific to General Plan Update contents or strategies for expanding zero emission or autonomous vehicle infrastructure that are outside the scope of the EIR. All comments will be forwarded to appropriate City departments and decision -makers prior to consideration of project approval. As such, no further response is required. Response HBEB-30 The commenter notes that the technologies proposed in General Plan Update Goal CIRC-8 may already been in use (or very shortly will be) and recommend consideration of three additional measures related to an upgrade to the electrical grid, natural gas, hydrogen, and autonomous vehicle infrastructures. This is not a direct comment on the content or adequacy of the Draft Program EIR. All comments will be forwarded to appropriate City departments and decision -makers prior to consideration of project approval. As such, no further response is required. Response HBEB-31 The commenter seeks clarification as to why high global warming potential greenhouse gases are included in the State of California GHG emissions inventory but not included in the City of Huntington Beach GHG emissions inventory. High global warming potential (High-GWP) greenhouse gases are fluorine -containing gases including sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). PFCs and HFCs are used as substitutes for chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) which destroy stratospheric ozone. SF6 is used in electricity transmission and distribution and in semiconductor manufacturing. Semiconductor manufacturing also emits a small amount of NF3. These items are not included in the City of Huntington Beach's communitywide GHG emissions inventory, as the City of Huntington Beach has limited to no jurisdiction to require or enforce reduction measures relative to these uses — electricity transmission and distribution lines are managed by Southern California Edison, and semiconductor manufacturing represents an industrial process emissions source (See Response HBEB-14). This is not a direct comment on the content or adequacy of the Draft Program EIR. All comments will be forwarded to appropriate City departments and decision -makers prior to consideration of project approval. As such, no further response is required. Response HBEB-32 The commenter suggests that natural gas used by the AES Huntington Beach power plant should be included in the calculations of communitywide natural gas use, rather than in the calculated emissions for electricity use. As noted on pages 10 and 11 of Volume III, Appendix C of the Draft Program EIR, AES Page 10-36 r'tty nf Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program Ell August2017 HB -443- Item 8. - 228 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR Huntington Beach does not purchase natural gas through retail services, and thus it is not included in the activity data provided for communitywide natural gas use. GHG emissions from AES Huntington Beach are indirectly accounted for in the SCE emission factor used to calculate emissions from electricity use. Emissions from AES Huntington Beach are addressed by the statewide Cap and Trade program administered by CARB, which requires covered entities to reduce emissions by approximately 2%-3% annually. This is not a direct comment on the content or adequacy of the Draft Program EIR. All comments will be forwarded to appropriate City departments and decision -makers prior to consideration of project approval. As such, no further response is required. Response HBEB-33 The commenter states that an increase in PHEVs, EVs, and hybrid vehicles should be monitored and ways to dramatically improve transportation options and technology should be pursued, opining that transportation may be the biggest issue to resolve over time. This is not a direct comment on the content or adequacy of the Draft Program EIR. All comments will be forwarded to appropriate City departments and decision -makers prior to consideration of project approval. As such, no further response is required. Response HB B-13Z The commenter asks why the City of Huntington Beach has not committed to a minimum GHG reduction goal of 15% below baseline levels similar to other nearby communities. A reduction target of 15% below baseline levels is a commonly accepted GHG emissions reduction target, but jurisdictions may adopt other targets. A 15% reduction target also demonstrates a clear connection with the Assembly Bill (AB) 32 Scoping Plan and helps ensure consistency with the Scoping Plan and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b). However, as neither the State CEQA Guidelines northe SCAQMD recommend a specific target, the City may use another target, as long as it sets a level below which emissions would not be considered cumulatively considerable. It should be noted, however, that the General Plan Update includes Policy ERC-5A (General Plan Update, page 4-33) which specifies a reduction of the City of Huntington Beach's total GHG emissions to 15% below 2005 levels by 2020, and 53.33% below the 2020 target by 2040. This would place the community on a trajectory to match the state's long-term GHG reduction goals. This information does not change analysis or conclusions contained in the Draft Program EIR. No further response is required. Response HBEB-35 This comment is specific to the Coastal Resiliency Program (CRP) (Volume III, Appendix F of the Draft Program EIR), questioning how CRP measures are going to be implemented. The City of Huntington Beach intends to complete and adopt the General Plan Update prior to initiating an update to the Local Coastal Program (LCP). Therefore, the CRP is a "bridge document" that links the General Plan Update to a future LCP update in an advisory manner that allows both documents to incorporate sea level rise considerations (consistent with California Coastal Commission Guidance) into the planning process to achieve a common vision for a resilient community in 2040. As a result, some of the recommended strategies and implementation steps described in this plan are addressed as policies or implementation programs within the Draft General Plan Update. Others are listed in the CRP, but not included in the General Plan Update. These latter strategies and actions are more appropriately addressed in a future LCP update. 'ity of Huntington Beach General Plan Update PrograFI m R Page 10-37 Item 8. - 229 HB -444- August 2017 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR This is not a direct comment on the content or adequacy of the Draft Program EIR. All comments will be forwarded to appropriate City departments and decision -makers prior to consideration of project approval. As such, no further response is required. Response HBEB-36 Comment noted. The commenter suggests further analysis regarding the downtown shuttle. General Plan Update Goals LU-12 and LU-13 direct the City of Huntington Beach to explore and improve shuttle services between business areas, particularly along the coast while Implementation Program LU-P.24 directs the City of Huntington Beach to explore creating a free or low-cost shuttle service connecting the shore and Downtown to major shopping districts, hotels and other visitor destinations. This is not a direct comment on the content or adequacy of the Draft Program EIR. All comments will be forwarded to appropriate City departments and decision -makers prior to consideration of project approval. As such, no further response is required. Response HBEB-37 The commenter summarizes Draft GGRP strategy EE-2 — Rental unit retrofits, suggesting that the costs associated with retrofitting rental housing units may have an effect on the supply of affordable housing within the City of Huntington Beach and requesting that a study of how energy efficient improvements affect affordability of housing be undertaken. A study of this nature is something that the City of Huntington Beach can consider however, this comment is not a direct comment on the content or adequacy of the Draft Program EIR and does not raise a specific environmental concern. All comments will be forwarded to appropriate City departments and decision - makers prior to consideration of project approval. No further response is required. Response HBEB-38 The commenter summarizes Draft GGRP strategy T-2 — Shared parking, requesting an explanation of how this works to reduce GHG emissions as noted in the Draft GGRP. The commenter goes on to opine that due to a change in commuting and work schedules over time, this policy is 'probably adding to emissions, its underlying assumptions are outdated and should be revisited as a general policy' to address future conditions. A further study of commuting patterns is something that the City of Huntington Beach can consider but estimating patterns in 2040 would be speculative at this time and not relevant to the Draft Program EIR. This comment is not a direct comment on the content or adequacy of the Draft Program EIR and does not raise a specific environmental concern. All comments will be forwarded to appropriate City departments and decision -makers prior to consideration of project approval. No further response is required. Response HBEB-39 The commenter summarizes Draft GGRP strategy T-3 — Increased Transit Ridership, suggesting that implementation measures would be more effective if they extended to the City of Huntington Beach work directly with OCTA. This comment is not a direct comment on the content or adequacy of the Draft Program EIR and does not raise a specific environmental concern. All comments will be forwarded to Page 10-38 (-it\, nf Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program Elf August2017 HB -445- Item 8. - 230 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR appropriate City departments and decision -makers prior to consideration of project approval. No further response is required. �,,, :_'use The commenter summarizes Draft GGRP strategy T-4 — Carsharing, questioning how ride share services translate to a reduction in VMT. The Draft GGRP utilizes research from the following sources to determine the potential for carsharing to reduce VMT and resulting GHG emissions: ■ California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. 2010. "Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures". ■ SCAG (Southern California Association of Governments). 2015. Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) Background Documentation Appendix. http://scagrtpscs.net/Documents/2016/draft/d2016RTPSCS_SCSBackgroundDocumentation.pdf ■ SCAG. 2015. Emerging Trends: Mobility Innovations. http://scagrtpscs.net/Documents/2016/draft/d2016RTPSCS_Mobilitylnnovations.pdf ■ Shaheen, S.A. 2011. Carsharing: A Strategy for Reducing Carbon Footprint & Parking Policy Approaches. Conference presentation, 2011 CCPA Conference. Oakland, CA. November 3, 2011. Research suggests that after joining a car sharing service, participants reevaluate transportation choices, reduce car trips, and increase the use of alternative transportation, resulting in measurable reductions in VMT per carshare participant. This information is not relevant to the environmental analysis and does not change analysis or conclusions contained in the Draft Program EIR. No further response is required. Response HBEB-47 The commenter summarizes Draft GGRP strategy T-5 — Telecommuting and alternative work schedules, questioning how the City of Huntington Beach is planning to effect this strategy for its own workforce. This comment is not a direct comment on the content or adequacy of the Draft Program EIR and does not raise a specific environmental concern. All comments will be forwarded to appropriate City departments and decision -makers prior to consideration of project approval. No further response is required. Response HBEB-42 The commenter summarizes Draft GGRP strategy T-7 — Shuttle service, stating that this is an economic strategy that would be a convenience and would not appreciably reduce miles driven. This comment is not a direct comment on the content or adequacy of the Draft Program EIR and does not raise a specific environmental concern. All comments will be forwarded to appropriate City departments and decision - makers prior to consideration of project approval. No further response is required. Response BEB-43 The commenter summarizes Draft GGRP strategy T-9 — Create a new generation of mass transit users, suggesting that if young people learn to utilize mass transit services, it becomes a way of life early in their lives. This comment is not a direct comment on the content or adequacy of the Draft Program EIR and does not raise a specific environmental concern. All comments will be forwarded to appropriate City ity of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Progro- FIR Page 10-39 Item 8. - 231 HB -446- August 2017 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR departments and decision -makers prior to consideration of project approval. No further response is required. The commenter summarizes Draft GGRP strategy F-2 — Electric vehicles, suggesting that the City of Huntington Beach should encourage in -home charging stations. This comment is not a direct comment on the content or adequacy of the Draft Program EIR and does not raise a specific environmental concern. All comments will be forwarded to appropriate City departments and decision -makers prior to consideration of project approval. No further response is required. The commenter summarizes Draft GGRP strategy CA-3 — Shop local, suggesting that alternative modes of transportation should be linked to local goods and services. Draft GGRP strategies T-1— Bike ridership, T- 3 — Increased transit ridership, and T-7 — Shuttle service encourage increased use of alternative modes of transportation within Huntington Beach, and are supportive of the shop local strategy. This comment is not a direct comment on the content or adequacy of the Draft Program EIR and does not raise a specific environmental concern. All comments will be forwarded to appropriate City departments and decision - makers prior to consideration of project approval. No further response is required. Response HBEB- -6 The commenter addresses the range of sources used in developing strategies for the Draft GGRP, as identified on page 12 of the Draft GGRP, questioning if an audit or forecast should be performed to describe the socioeconomic benefit of the strategies. No such analysis was conducted as part of preparing the Draft GGRP, but could be conducted in the future if and when the measures are implemented. This comment is not a direct comment on the content or adequacy of the Draft Program EIR and does not raise a specific environmental concern. All comments will be forwarded to appropriate City departments and decision -makers prior to consideration of project approval. No further response is required. Response HBEB-47 The commenter notes that Draft GGRP strategies CA-4 to CA-6 should be drafted in parallel to the Appendix L. Economic Development Trends. These strategies were included in the Draft GGRP based on strategies advocated for Economic Focus Areas within the City of Huntington Beach as discussed in page 68 of the Economic Development Trends and Conditions Report (Volume III, Appendix L of the Draft Program EIR). This comment is not a direct comment on the content or adequacy of the Draft Program EIR and does not raise a specific environmental concern. All comments will be forwarded to appropriate City departments and decision -makers prior to consideration of project approval. No further response is required. Comment noted. This is not a direct comment on the content or adequacy of the Draft Program EIR. No further response is required. Page 10-40 r-it%/ nf Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program Elf August 2017 HB -447- Item 8. - 232 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR The commenter notes that language within the strategy implementation actions of the Draft GGRP should be stronger. The Draft GGRP has been designed as a voluntary program. As noted on page 4.6-10 of the Draft Program EIR, most of the reduction strategies in the Draft GGRP will require additional action by City of Huntington Beach staff and officials, and the feasibility of implementing these strategies and specific implementation details rely on numerous factors that cannot be adequately forecast by the Draft GGRP or the Program EIR, including economic feasibility, technological improvements, and community and political goals. The City of Huntington Beach is not bound by state or federal law, or by any local mechanism, to implement the reduction strategies in the Draft GGRP. For these and other reasons, the Draft Program EIR concludes that the General Plan Update is anticipated to result in a potentially significant cumulative impact to GHG emissions. The Draft GGRP outlines a series of strategies which, if fully implemented, would result in compliance with state regulations and guidelines regarding GHG emissions reductions, and the degree to which the City of Huntington Beach pursues each strategy remains a policy decision. This comment is not a direct comment on the content or adequacy of the Draft Program EIR and does not raise a specific environmental concern. All comments will be forwarded to appropriate City departments and decision -makers prior to consideration of project approval. No further response is required. Response HBEB-49 The commenter highlights portions of Volume III, Appendix I of the Draft Program EIR — Citywide Urban Runoff Management Program, noting additional city-wide opportunities. This comment is not a direct comment on the content or adequacy of the Draft Program EIR and does not raise a specific environmental concern. All comments will be forwarded to appropriate City departments and decision -makers prior to consideration of project approval. No further response is required. Response HBEB-50 The commenter refers to Volume III, Appendix M of the Draft Program EIR - Fire Services Technical Report, suggesting that an update should be undertaken to address preparation for fire emergency resources particular to high rise and high density residential development. Table A-21 of Volume III, Appendix M of the Draft Program EIR, Training by Class Type — 2012/13 indicates that 151 hours of training dedicated to residential fire operations was completed in 2012/13. Page 25 of the same report states that "while the current response network is well designed to provide consistent response coverage to the city, actual response times indicate that there may be impediments to response." Although the report does not directly address changes relative to high rise and high density residential development, it does recommend the following strategies, which would be inclusive of this and other types of development: ■ The City of Huntington Beach should adopt locally defined performance objectives for emergency response to fire and EMS calls. (Page 15) ■ The Huntington Beach Fire Department should track their compliance with adopted performance goals quarterly and report the information annually to the City. (Page 15) ■ Continually monitor the performance related to call response for stations 5 and 8 to determine when thresholds are met to add additional resources in the City. (Page 23) ,ity of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Progrom RP Page 10-41 Item 8. - 233 J HB -448- August2017 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR ■ The Department should focus on establishing and meeting turnout times for both fire and emergency medical calls. This response time element is within the control of the Department and can immediately improve overall response times. (Page 25) ■ The Department should regularly audit response time data captured by the computer aided dispatch (CAD) and records management system (RMS) system to ensure that critical response time data — dispatch processing times, turnout times, travel times, and clear times are being accurately captured and personnel are aware of their performance compared to established standards. (Page 25) ■ The Department should consider a peak -hour Emergency Transport Unit to provide additional coverage to the busiest areas of the city. (Page 30) ■ The Department and the City should continually monitor the response time and workload of the Emergency Transport Units to ensure performance standards are met. (Page 30) This comment is not a direct comment on the content or adequacy of the Draft Program EIR and does not raise a specific environmental concern. All comments will be forwarded to appropriate City departments and decision -makers prior to consideration of project approval. No further response is required. Response HBEB- - i The commenter refers to the Coastal Resiliency Program (CRP) presented in Volume III, Appendix F of the Draft Program EIR. The comment references recommendations regarding seawalls and bulkheads in Huntington Harbour in the CRP. The comment correctly identifies that most seawalls in the Huntington Harbour portion of the planning area are privately owned and vary in type, condition, and elevation. Currently, there are no requirements for individual homeowners to raise the elevation of their privately - owned bulkheads. This topic will be addressed during a future Local Coastal Program (LCP) update that is anticipated to follow adoption of the General Plan Update. This comment is not a direct comment on the content or adequacy of the Draft Program EIR and does not raise a specific environmental concern. All comments will be forwarded to appropriate City departments and decision -makers prior to consideration of project approval. No further response is required. Response HBEB-52 The commenter suggests adding a recommendation to the CRP to continue to monitor sea -level rise (SLR) levels in the Los Angeles basin every 2 years due to the potential exposure of flooding all along our coastal shores. This is not a direct comment on the adequacy of the Draft Program EIR and is specific to the contents of the Coastal Resiliency Program. All comments will be forwarded to appropriate City departments and decision -makers prior to consideration of project approval. As such, no further response is required. Page 10-42 (-if,/ f Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program Ell August2017 HB -449- Item 8. - 234 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR 10.2.6 Climate Action Campaign (CAC) CLIMATE 'ACTION C A M P A 1 0 N CAC July 7, 2017 Jennifer Villasenor, Planning Manager City of Huntington Beach Community Development Department 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Comments on EIR for the City of Huntington Beach General Plan [�pdatc Dear Ms. Villasenor, Climate Action Campaign (CAC) is a San Diego -based environmental nonprofit organization with a simple mission: to stop climate change and protect our quality of life. Orange County for Climate Action (OCCA) is a grassroots activist network, striving to address the threat of global climate change and mitigate its harmful effects through local action in Orange County, We are committed to helping local governments in southern California develop and implement policies, plans, and regulations that will stop climate change and protect the people and places we love for generations to come. CAC and OCCA appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on the EIR for the City of Huntington Beach's General Plan Update. The comments below focus on Appendix G. the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan (GGRP). Please accept the comments below. which address the shifts necessary in the GGRP to meet those criteria, 1. The GGRP Tracks State Targets Vsing Mass Emissions To Measure Citywide Reductions. We are pleased to see that the GGRP intends to reduce city %% ide emissions in line with state targets by implementing General Plan Policy ERC-5A. which calls for reduction of emissions I i% below 2005 levels by 2020 and 53.33% below that target by 2040. Achieving these reductions will put Huntington Beach on track to meet state goals, summarized below: • In 2016, SB 32 was signed into law, codifying Governor Brown's Fxecutive Order B-30-15 setting a GHG reduction goal of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. These targets are in line with what is needed to protect our quality of life using best available science and are consistent with the Executive Order S-3-05, which calls for an 80 percent statewide GHG reduction by 2050. CAC-1 . " ity of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program FIR Page 10-43 Item 8. - 235 HB -450- Augusf 2017 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR CLIMATE 'ACTION C A. P A , (, " 2. GGRPs Serving as CEOA Mitigation for a General Man Njust Include Enforceable & Measurable Strategies Since the GGRP will serve as mitigation for the General Plan Update. its reduction targets must be enforceable and measurable as mitigation under CEQA. Mitigation measures must be enforceable and once adopted. cannot be defeated by ignoring them. (Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21081.6(b). Sierra Club v. County of San Diego. 231 Cal. App. 4th 1152- 1167 (2014).) In addition, CE'QA itself requires enforceable mitigation measures. (CEQA Guideline § I 5126.4(a)(2) ["Mitigation measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions. P_ agreements, or other legally binding instruments."]. "A public agency shall provide that measures to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment are fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements. or other measures.'* (Pub. Res, Code §21081.6(b))- Because the GGRP is a mitigation measure, it must be enforceable. Finally, where a GGRP is mitigation for the activities in the planning horizon of a GP. there must be enforceable standards with detailed deadlines, as well as substantial evidence that each mitigation measure will achieve the GHG reduction numbers assigned to each straieggy. By including enforceable. detailed measures in a GGRP, the city can help ensure that the plan meets legal muster and fulfills its requirements under CEQA. a Unfortunately, the GGRP for Huntington Beach contains primarily both immeasurable and voluntary strategies and actions to reach its GHG reduction targets. In the Executive Summary, the GGRP states it will reach targets by *emphasizing actions that are voluntary. economically viable. consistent with community character, and advance the priorities of Huntington Beach _ residents. businesses, and visitors." That preference for voluntary actions holds throughout the plan. For example: • T-4 - Carsharing: Attract carshare services to Huntington Beach and promote them as a supplemental transportation service. • CA-2 - Green building awareness. Raise community awareness of green building strategies for new and significantly renovated buildings. Most strategies are not measurable. which makes them unenforceable. For example: • RE-6 - Community Choice Aggregation: Explore the feasibility of launching a community choice aggregation program to increase local control of energy sources. • FF-2 - Rental unit retrofits: Improve energy efficiency in residential rental units. CAC-3 Page 10-44 City of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program Elf August 2017 HB -451- Item 8. - 236 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR CLIMATE 'ACTION 1; 1% M P A I I N 9 WW-1 - Indoor water efficiency: Reduce indoor water use in the community. CAC-3 These strategies should be rewritten to include measurable targets. For example, the City of San (cont) Diego's Climate Action Plan contains goals, associated actions, and measurable targets that allow the city to evaluate whether the goals have been met. Z� 3. Implementation and Monitoring Should Include Timgline and Cost Analysis We commend Huntington Beach for planning for annual monitoring of progress toward - emissions reductions targets and the publication of annual progress reports. The city should additionally commit to completing a full GHG inventory at least every three years. to allow the city and the public to gauge Progress made toward implementing GGRP strategies. determine Z-a whether the local government is on track to meet GHG targets. and assess if adjustments are needed. The final GGRP should include a system to help city officials effectively prioritize strategies for implementation, and it should include a cost analysis for each strategy. These components allow the public to track whether the city is on track to meet its targets and help local governments set sufficient budgeting and staff levels at the appropriate time, 4. The CCRP Should Include Established Best Practices for Climate Planning We further urge the GGRP for Huntington Beach to include best practices for climate planning established by cities throughout California. including 100 percent renewable energy, si nif Ile ant transportation mode share targets, and jobs and social equity measures. /00 Percent Reneivable F.nero The Climate Action Plans of the cities of San Diego and Del Mar commit to 100 percent clean energy by the year 2035, and several other cities across the region are expected to make similar commitments this year. In addition. as noted previously, California Senate Leader Kevin de Lain has introduced legislation to transition the entire state to 100 percent clean energy by 2045. We recommend that Huntington Beach include a 100 percent clean energy goal. which closely aligns with California Executive Orders B-30-1 5 and S-3-05 (in fact. for cities that tic their Climate Plans to their General Plan updates it is often the only way to hit Ion —term state GHG targets). By embracing a 100 percent clean energy future. all families of Huntington Beach will benefit because renewable energy helps clean the air, builds, healthy communitics, and spurs local ' https://www.sandiego.gov/sitesidefaulVfitestfinal_july_2016-cap.pdf CAC-4 CAC-5 ' ��ity at Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program PIP Page 10-45 Item 8. - 237 HB -452- August 2017 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR CLIMATE ACTION C A M P A I r, N investment and well -paying jobs from clean energy technologies. In addition. adding a 100 percent clean energy goal in Huntington Beach would signal a region -wide commitment to the W CAC-5 shift to renewables. It is increasingly clear that 100 percent clean energy is the future in (cont) California and across the nation: the City of Huntington Reach's GGRP should reflect a commitment to keep pace k% ith the region and the state. Z7 TransporiationMode Share Targets Currently. the GGRP identifies the following mode share performance measures: bicycle mode share at 2.65% in 2020 and 3.45% in 2040. and bus ridership at 2% in 2020 and 5% in 2040. The plan should also identify pedestrian mode share in both 2020 and 2040. Further, the plan should specify whether the mode share targets identified are for all trips or for commutes only. Finally, the city should consider adopting more ambitious mode share targets. For example. the City of San Diego states its goal as, '`Achieve mass transit mode share of 12% by 2020 and 25% by 2035 in Transit Priority Areas. achieve walking commuter mode share of 4% by 2020 and 7% by 2035 in Transit Priority Areas. and. achieve 6% bicycle commuter mode share by 2020 and 18% mode share by 2035 in Transit Priority Areas." These ambitious goals were adopted because transportation remains a significant source of GHG emissions. Shifting away from reliance on cars as the primary mode of transportation reduces GIIG emissions and has the co -benefits, of improved public health, safety, and air quality. Ambitious mode share goals also help municipalities plan and budget to facilitate a shift away from car -centric growth, as well as advocate for assistance for better transit infrastructure. Improvements to bicycle infrastructure should focus on separated bikeways. which recent research has demonstrated are far more effective at increasing ridership than painted bike lanes.' Jobs and Social Equity, - While climate change impacts everyone. it hits hardest in low-income and communities of color that face a disproportionate pollution burden. The State of California has recognized the challenges facing Environmental Justice communities and prioritized those areas for allocation of Cap and Trade funds. San Diego was the first city in California to adopt a CAP that utilizes a statewide monitoring tool called CalEnviroScrcen. which identifies vulnerable communities and can be used to direct investment and benefits to these nei-hborhoods. We recommend that Huntington Beach's GGRP include an Environmental Justice section that utilizes CalEriviroScreen to prioritize populations hit first and worst by climate change . Programs in EJ 2 Pucher, John, and Ralph Buehler. 2016. 'Safer Cycling Through Improved Infrastructure." American Journal of Public Health 106(12): 2090- 1, CAC-6 CAC-7 Page 10-46 (-ifv nf Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program Ell ' August 2017 HB -453- Item 8. - 238 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR CLIMATE 'ACTION C A M P A I G N communities might include ensuring all populations in the city have access to solar energy, home energy efficiency upgrades, and green spaces. Lastly, the city should address how GGRP I CAC-7 strategies can create good -paying jobs for residents and improve quality of life in neighborhoods (cont) throughout the Huntington Beach, Conclusion Thank you again for the opportunity to weigh in on this critically important planning document. According to the most recently available data and climate science, there is no greater threat to the future of humanity than climate change. It is incumbent on us to protect our kids and grandkids from the adverse impacts of a heated planet. Therefore, we must employ public policy that facilitates new ways to power our lives and move through our cities while sharply reducing our G116 emissions. CAC-8 We also encourage I luntington Beach to embrace the economic opportunities embedded in a clean energy economy. California has proven that improving our environment and improving our economy go hand in hand. The most successful cities are those which are planning for a 2 1 st century economy powered by renewable energy and clean energy jobs. We look forward to continued participation in the public review process for the Greenhouse (jas Reduction Plan and would be happy to provide additional information or clarification in order to ensure that this planning document preserves public health and enhances quality of life for all I luntington Beach families, Sincerely, Sophie Wolfram, Policy Advocate Roger J. Gloss, Advocacy, Special Projects roper. a loss�ijoccl i in at caction.or I :ity of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program FIR Page 10-47 Item 8. - 239 HB -454- August 2017 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR Response CAC-1 This comment contains introductory or general information and provides a summary of the role and responsibility of Climate Action Change (CAC) and Orange County for Climate Action (OCCA). Please refer to responses to specific comments and recommendations below. No further response is required. Response CAC-2 Comment noted. The commenter is pleased that the Draft GGRP intends to reduce citywide emissions in line with state targets by implementing General Plan Update Policy ERC-5A. This is not a direct comment on the content or adequacy of the Draft Program EIR. All comments will be forwarded to appropriate City departments and decision -makers prior to consideration of project approval. No further response is required. Response CAC-3 The commenter provides a summary of the CEQA guidelines that require a mitigation measure to include enforceable and measurable strategies, including with implementation of a GGRP. However, the commenter incorrectly states that the Draft GGRP 'will serve as mitigation for the General Plan Update.' As stated on page 4.6-2 (second to last paragraph), "The draft GGRP establishes a comprehensive approach to reduce GHG emissions in Huntington Beach, consistent with the reduction targets established in the General Plan Update. It establishes existing, projected, and target levels of GHG emissions for Huntington Beach. The draft GGRP shows how the community can achieve the reduction targets through strategies that emphasize economic viability and are consistent with community priorities." Further, on page 4.6-8, "Beyond the existing state and local actions, the General Plan Update seeks to reduce GHG emissions and other environmental impacts of existing and future land use development by increasing the viability of alternative transportation methods, supporting the use of alternative fuels and fuel -efficient vehicles, promoting renewable energy, supporting energy and water efficiency and conservation, and reducing waste generation. These policies are put into practice by the 42 GHG reduction strategies and associated implementation actions identified in the draft GGRP. These strategies correspond to the seven GHG emission sectors shown in Table 4.6-2. The cumulative emission reductions from implementation of the 42 GHG reduction strategies is calculated to be 90,600 MTCO2e in 2020 and 532,480 MTCO2e in 2040. Greater detail on the GHG reductions achieved by individual GHG reduction strategies is provided in the draft GGRP (Appendix G, Volume III)." Finally, on page 4.6-10, "No other feasible mitigation measures are available beyond those proposed in the draft GGRP. The draft GGRP provides a comprehensive suite of strategies that are expected to enable the city to reduce GHG emissions below the identified thresholds of significance. However, due to uncertainties in forecasting future GHG emissions and the lack of a requirement that the city implement the specified GHG reduction strategies, it cannot be guaranteed that the GHG emissions will be reduced below the identified thresholds of significance. Thus, cumulative impacts associated with GHG emissions would remain significant and unavoidable." As such, the Draft GGRP is not relied upon to reduce GHG emissions below established threshold nor are the goals and policies within considered as mitigation measures as defined by CEQA. An impact finding of Page 10-48 rite/ of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program Elf August 2017 HB -455- Item 8. - 240 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR 'significant and unavoidable' has correctly been identified with regard to GHG emissions, given the fact that the Draft GGRP is not a requirement of the City of Huntington Beach. While no further response is required from a CEQA perspective, to further address the commenter, the Draft GGRP identifies both specific implementation actions and measurable performance assumptions for each quantified reduction strategy. For example, with regard to Strategy T-4: Carsharing, the following implementation actions are identified in the Implementation section of the Draft GGRP (Draft GGRP, page 25): A. Work with carshare services to identify the potential for carshare business in Huntington Beach, and to launch carsharing if viable. B. If viable, work with developers of major multifamily and mixed -use projects to include dedicated carsharing spaces in off-street parking lots and garages. C. Promote the availability and advantages of carshare services in Huntington Beach. D. Encourage public support of carsharing and ride -sourcing. E. Work toward reform of taxi, charter vehicle, and ride -sourcing regulations to maximize social and air quality benefits. Additionally, the following performance assumptions are identified (Draft GGRP, page A-17): VMT reduction per carshare participant 2020 3,060 2040 3,180 Number of carshare participants 2,850 3,900 VMT reduction per ride -source participant 830 860 Number of ride -source participants 3,050 3,270 Each of the Draft GGRP strategies relies on similar implementation actions and measurable performance assumptions. Thus, considering the whole content of each strategy, the Draft GGRP provides goals (in the form of strategies presented in topical chapters of the Draft GGRP), associated actions (identified in the Implementation chapter of the Draft GGRP), and measurable targets (identified in the Appendix A to the Draft GGRP). No further response is required. 'D Comment noted. The commenter commends the City of Huntington Beach for planning for annual monitoring of progress toward emissions reductions targets and the publication of annual progress reports. The commenter believes the City of Huntington Beach should also commit to completing a full GHG inventory at least every three years and that the final GGRP should include a system to help city officials effectively prioritize strategies for implementation. This is not a direct comment on the content or adequacy of the Draft Program EIR. All comments will be forwarded to appropriate City departments and decision -makers prior to consideration of project approval. No further response is required. 'ity of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Progro- FIR Page 10-49 Item 8. - 241 HB -456- August 2017 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR Comment noted. The commenter urges that the Draft GGRP include best practices for climate planning established by cities throughout California including 100 percent renewable energy, significant transportation mode share targets, and jobs and social equity measures. The commenter then goes on to provide more detail regarding the potential for 100 percent renewable energy. This is not a direct comment on the content or adequacy of the Draft Program EIR. All comments will be forwarded to appropriate City departments and decision -makers prior to consideration of project approval. No further response is required. Response CAC-6 As in Comment CAC-5, the commenter provides detail regarding transportation mode share targets that the City of Huntington Beach can explore. Please see Response CAC-5. Response CAC-? As in Comment CAC-5, the commenter provides detail regarding jobs and social equity measures that the City of Huntington Beach can explore. Please refer to Response CAC-5. Response CAC-8 This comment contains a conclusion and encourages the City of Huntington Beach to plan for a 215L century economy powered by renewable energy and clean energy jobs. This is not a direct comment on the content or adequacy of the Draft Program EIR. All comments will be forwarded to appropriate City departments and decision -makers prior to consideration of project approval. No further response is required. Page 10-50 (-it,, f Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program Elf ' August 2017 HB -457- Item 8. - 242 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR 10.2.1 Ocean View School District (OVSD) EDMOND M CONNOR MATTHEVVJ. FLETCHER DOUGLAs A HEDENKAMP CIFIH MICHAEL SAPIRA JMES M. Nm DAviD R. ROTAN CONNOR, FLETCHER & HEDENKAMP LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW OVSD July 7, 2017 VIA E-MAIL AND HAND DELIVERY Ms. Jennifer Villasenor Planning Manager City of Huntington Beach Community Development Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 JVillasenor@surfcity-hb.org Re: Draft Program Environmental Impact Report for City's General Plan Update a As a threshold matter, we note that, after the 45-day review period for the Draft EIR ends on July 7, 2017, the City has scheduled two public study sessions regarding the General Plan Update to be held on July 11 and 25, 2017. OVSD kindly requests that the Draft EIR OVSD-1 review period be extended until after the July 2511 study session in order to give OVSD and the public a better opportunity to fully understand the components and impacts of the General Plan Update before being required to submit final written comments on the Draft EIR. In this regard, we specifically request that the public comment period be extended to Friday, July 28, 2017. We understand that the Draft EIR is a Program EIR and is thus a first -tier document under Guideline section 15168(a). However, a first -tier EIR is still required to analyze the environmental impacts of the development associated with and facilitated by the General Plan Update. For that reason, we believe that it would be beneficial for all involved if the public comment period were extended until after all interested commentators, such as OVSD, Were able to learn more about the General Plan Update and the possible impacts relating thereto. -ily of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Progrom PIP Page 10-51 Item 8. - 243 J HB -458- August 2017 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR Ms. Jennifer Villasenor C I F I H July 7, 2017 Page 2 OVSD'S COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR A. Project Description Section 3.3 In order for the Draft EIR to properly identify and analyze the environmental impacts that would result if the General Plan Update were adopted by the City Council, the Project Description needs to accurately describe the development that is anticipated to occur with adoption of the Update. Unfortunately, the Project Description falls short of this goal for the reasons set forth below: 1. The Draft EIR does not adequately identify the location of proposed OVSD-2 development. Figure 3-3 depicts existing land uses based on a GIS database created in 2005 and updated in 2014. Figure 3-4 shows the proposed development capacity. However, to try to compare these two Figures to determine what changes are actually being proposed is extremely difficult and yields no positive results. Notably, Figure 8 in Appendix J, Existing Land Use Technical Report, depicts the parcels that were changed between 2005 and 2014. The Draft EiR needs to provide a similar Figure, along with a Table, showing the parcels and specific plans that are predicted to intensify and thereby generate the additional residential units and the additional non-residential square footage assumedin the Project Description, 2. The Project Description states the General Plan Update establishes an overall development capacity of 7,228 residential units. However, this does not appear accurate in light of what is stated in Section 4.14 TransportationtTraffiic. On page 4.14-10, the Draft EIR states that "the majority of [the 7,228] dwelling units would be low density residential followed by medium high density." In contrast, however, Table 4.14-1, General flan Update Land Use and OVSD-3 Trip Generation Summary, assumes a decrease of 1,361 single-family dwelling units and an increase of 8,589 multi -family medium residential units. Therefore, the majority of the proposed development will not be single-family dwellings, but, rather, mufti -family units. Given these inconsistencies, the Project Description needs to provide an accurate, detailed account of the number and type of residential units anticipated to be developed following the adoption of the General Plan Update. 3. Table 3-2, Land Use Designations, is inconsistent with the Project Description and the Transportation/Traffic sections of the Draft EIR and needs to be revised to accurately describe the development associated with the General Plan Update. Table 3-2 indicates a OVSD-4 development capacity of 88,964 dwelling units. However, Table 3-3 indicates a different number: 85,360 dwelling units. Table 4.14-1 in the Transportation/Traffic section states yet another figure: 85,483. The Draft EIR needs to eliminate these inconsistencies, clarify the development capacity assumptions, and consistently analyze the project throughout the Draft EIR. 4. Table 3-2 needs to provide the Density/FAR range for the Mixed Use Overlay, Specific Plan Overlay, and Mixed -Use land use designations and explain the assumptions OVSD-5 depicted in Table 3-3, Proposed General Plan Update Development Capacity. Page 10-52 (-its/ of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program Elf August 2017 HB -459- Item 8. - 244 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR Ms. Jennifer Villasenor CIF H July 7, 2017 Page 3 5. The two overlay designations, Specific Plan Overlay and Mixed Use Overlay, are OVSD-6 unclear on Figure 3-4, Land Use Map. A separate map showing the locations of the Specific Plan Overlay and the Mixed Use Overlay should be provided. 6. The Project Description states the General Plan Update establishes an overall capacity of 5,384,920 square feet of non-residential development. This figure is not consistent with what is stated in Section 4.14, Transportation/Traffic. On page 4.14-10 of the Draft EIR, the additional 5,384,920 square feet of non-residential development is described. However, Table 4.14-1, General Plan Update Land Use and Trip Generation Summary, shows that there OVSD-7 is actually a net difference of 13,099,000 square feet of additional non-residential development over the existing condition. Even with considering only Commercial and Industrial/Manufacturing, the increase is 6,525,000 square feet of additional non-residential development. The Project Description needs to be corrected to accurately describe the additional development capacity to be generated by the General Plan Update. 7, On page 4.14-11, the Draft EIR explains that the General Plan Update assumes the highest growth will occur in Multi -Family Residential,. Commercial, and lndustr►aVManufacturing land uses over the next 25 years. As noted above, the Project Description describes a lower amount of anticipated development (5,384,920 sq. ft.), but there OVSD-8 are no land use regulations or restrictions incorporated into the General Plan Amendment to achieve this lower figure. The General Plan Update needs to incorporate policies and implement land use restrictions in order to ensure that development associated with the Update does not exceed 5,384,920 square feet of non-residential development. Alternatively, the Project Description and impact analysis need to be revised. 8. On page 3-19, Technology and Innovation Subareas, the Project Description for the Northwest Industrial Subarea identifies potential land use compatibility issues, but needs to explain what assumptions were used in arriving at the conclusion that the introduction of the OVSD-9 Research and Technology land use designation in areas adjacent to single-family residential neighborhoods would be more compatible with surrounding sensitive uses than the "typical industrial uses." 9. On page 3-19, Technology and Innovation Subareas, Gothard Overlay, the Project Description needs to be corrected to accurately depict the existing condition and the anticipated condition with the implementation of the Gothard Subarea. Although the Project Description identifies the proximity of the Gothard Subarea to sensitive uses, it incorrectly OVSD-10 states that there is merely a "potential' for land use compatibility issues. Over the past several years, (a) public testimony at various City Council and Planning Commission meetings, (b) public testimony at hearings held by the Southern California Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), and (c) the issuance of numerous air quality Notice of Violations have conclusively demonstrated that there are serious land use conflicts in the Gothard Subarea between the industrial and sensitive land uses. This needs to be adequately described in the Draft EIR. 10, On page 3-19, Technology and Innovation Subareas, Gothard Overlay, although the Project Description identifies the proximity of the Gothard Subarea to sensitive uses, it fails OVSD-11 to describe the existing environmental justice designation of the Oak View neighborhood that is directly impacted by the Gothard Subarea. CalEnviroScreen has identified the Oak View 'ity of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Progro- FiR Page 10-53 Item 8. - 245J HB -460- August201 CHAPTER mResponses to Comments Ms, Community, defined byits census tract, aoa community ofconcern for environmental justice 1 due to its proximity to industrial land uses. OVSD operates an elementary school and a n» preschool, serving over 900 students inthe Oak View community. This area has the highest pollution burden of81—QO%hnthe city ofHuntington Beach. B. Air Quality Section 4.2 The Air Quality Draft BRdoes not adequately the air quality impacts associated with the General Plan Update and needs to be revised as described below: O\SC-12 it. The Draft BRneeds toberevised toindicate what land use data 1abeing used to determine the baseline condition for air quality. Without such data, the air quality impacts associated with the development allowed under the General Plan Update cannot be property U unden�oodorenm�zed, �� 12. The analysis set forth onpage 4.2'2inSection 4.Z12.Local Air Quality, ia inadequate and needs to be revised to comprehensively describe the existing local air quality conditions and sources of existing pollutants. At a minimum, the following revisions need to be made tothe Draft E|R: D'13 o) The air quality Notice of Compliance, Notice of Violation and Abatement actions by the SCA(]K8Othat have occurred inthe Planning Area since 2812need tobe addressed and should baidentified bylocation onamap nf the Planning Area. b) The discussion in the Local Air Quality section is limited to solely identifying carbon monoxide hotspots in the Planning Area. The Draft EIR needs to provide justification OVSQ-14 I for only addressing one air quality threshold. c) A Particulate Matter Hot Spot Analysis needs to be conducted for the Planning Area usinQo�he,CAL3C>HCRorAER�WOOtodeh*nnineexiatinganeaon[ps�iou|ate �V��15 ' I matter generation, d) Air pollution sources in the Planning Area, such as major arterials, freeway, industrial land uses, need to be identified and addressed, in addition to vehicle miles OVSD'16 I traveled. e> Section 4.2.1.2, Local Air C>um|ity, needs to be revised to provide information on the health impacts of roadway pollutants on adjacent sensitive land uses as described in the 2O12Air Quality Management Plan, Chapter g.Near Roadway Exposure and U|tuoUneParticles concerning the health effects ofexposure tnuadwmyuKnaDne 0VSD_17 particles, including asthma exacerbation, decreased lung function, increased heart disease, increased risk oflow birth weight and premature delivery, lower immune function and increased risk of Type 2 diabetes. In addition, children are among the most susceptible and greatly affected by exposure to traffic -related pollutants and an analysis ofproject impacts onschool-age children needs tobeincluded. Pao /0-54 nfv nfHuntington Beach General Plan Update Program Elf Tf�`n � �z1�� Aooumuo1r R84h|- ^=^� "` - �-`» CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR Ms. Jennifer Villasenor C I F I H July 7, 2017 Page 5 13. Draft EIR Volume I -Technical Background Reports, Air Quality, includes a Figure 1, TAC Emitters. However, there is no discussion about Figure 1, For example, there is no analysis in the Draft EIR of the impact of the 87 TAC Emitters identified in Figure 1. TAC stands for Toxic Air Contaminants and SCAQMD has published Air Quality Significance Thresholds, 0VSD-18 (Exhibit 1) to establish the standards used to determine when an industry or business is identified as a TAC Emitter. The Draft EIR needs to be revised to provide information on existing TAC Emitters with respect to location, threshold exceedance, AQMD rule violations, greenhouse gas emission exceedances in the Planning Area, and the recommendations from the Air Resource Board for locating sensitive receptors and inclusion of mitigation measures to lessen TAC emitter impacts. 14. The Draft EiR needs to provide justification as to why CaIEEMod was not used OVSD-19 for Localized Significance Thresholds, 15. Based on the increase in non-residential uses and the diesel emissions generated from trucks associated with the increase in industrial land use, the Draft EIR needs to prepare a Health Risk Assessment in accordance with SCAQMD Health Risk Assessment OVSD-20 Guidelines for Analyzing Cancer Risks from Mobile Source Diesel idling emissions for a CEQA air quality analysis. 15. The Draft EIR needs to prepare an air quality compatibility study for the General Plan Update using the California Air Resources Board Air Quality Land Use Compatibility OVSD-21 Handbook. 17. The California Air Resources Board Air Quality Land Use Compatibility Handbook states; "in addition to source specific recommendations, we also encourage land use agencies to use their planning processes to ensure the appropriate separation of industrial facilities and sensitive land uses," The General Plan Update and Draft EIR need to incorporate policies and measures to reduce land use compatibility issues by: a) Prohibiting uses that potentially generate diesel emissions, TAC emitters, dust OVSD-22 and odors generators within 1000 feet of existing sensitive uses; b) Requiring increased setbacks and increased landscape requirements for uses in the Gothard Subarea; and c) Requiring conditional use permits for all uses in the Gothard Subarea and Northwest Industrial Subarea within 1,000 feet of existing sensitive uses. 18, Mitigation measures need to be incorporated in to the Draft EiR to ensure adequate distance between potential TAC emitters and sensitive land uses. OVSD requests the inclusion of the following mitigation measure at a minimum: All new industrial and commercial development projects that have the potential to emit TACs shall be required to be located an adequate distance from existing and proposed OVSD-23 development used by sensitive receptors, unless a project -specific evaluation of human health risks is conducted and the results of the evaluation determine that no significant impact would occur to the satisfaction of the City's decision -making authority. Sensitive 'ity of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program RIP Page 10-55 Item 8. - 247 J HB -462- August 201 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR Ms. Jennifer Villasenor C F I H July 7, 2017 Page 6 receptors include residential, schools, day care facilities, congregate care facilities, OVSD-23 hospitals, or other places of long-term residency. The determination of development (cont) projects that have the potential for TAC emissions and adequate distances from sensitive receptors are identified in the California ARB's "Air Quality and Land Use Handbook —A Community Health Perspective (April 2005; California ARB Guidance). 19, Section 4.2.3, Project Impacts and Mitigation, needs to be revised to describe the air quality impacts of adding 13,099,000 square feet of non-residential development. The analysis needs to discuss types of pollutants expected from industrial and commercial land uses proposed in the General Plan Update, Appendix A of the Air Quality and Land Use OVSD-24 Handbook: A Community Health Perspective, California Environmental Protection Agency, California Air Resources Board, April 2005, provides a table of Land Use Classifications and Associated Facility Categories That Could Emit Air Pollutants, see Exhibit 2 and the impact on sensitive land uses adjacent to industrial land uses, 20. Section 4.2.3, Project Impacts and Mitigation, also needs to be revised to analyze the projected increase in TAC Emitters anticipated with adding 13,099,000 additional OVSD-26 non-residential square footage under the General Plan Update. 21. Section 4.2.3, Project Impacts and Mitigation, Localized Significance Thresholds, assumes that "Development project resulting from the implementation of the General Plan Update would be required to undergo environmental review, at which time LST analysis would be applicable." However, this is not the case and should not be assumed by the Draft EIR. The existing zoning for Industrial, Zoning Code Section 212.04 Industrial General and Industrial Light list the Land Use Controls for Industrial Districts (Exhibit 3). There are a significant number of use classifications that are "permitted" in the Industrial District that have potential to emit key pollutants, such as laboratories, maintenance and repair services, research and development services, vehicle/equipment repair, vehicle storage, industrial, custom, industrial general, industrial limited, industrial R&D, and wholesaling, distribution and storage. These same use classifications are identified as associated with emitting air pollution in Appendix A of the Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective, California Environmental Protection Agency, California Air Resources Board, April 2005. That Appendix provides a table of Land Use Classifications and Associated Facility Categories That Could Emit Air Pollutants. However, if these use classifications are permitted uses under the Zoning Code, the approval for development is ministerial, not discretionary, and no air quality analysis will be required for development. Section 4.2, Air Quality, needs to be revised to include mitigation measures that require all industrial and commercial uses to apply for and obtain conditional use permits prior to development to ensure that the assumed environmental review and air quality analysis are conducted prior to development. 22. Section 4.2.3.3 states: "The General Plan Update does not propose, nor would it facilitate, land uses that would be considered significant sources of objectionable odors'. However, this is not the case. In the Planning Commission Study Session Summary, dated June 13, 2017 (Exhibit 4) Research and Technology land use designation is described as including eating and drinking establishments that have industrial components for example a brewery. A brewery is odor generating not only at the facility, but also with respect to the waste that is generated by the process, including the mash and wastewater. The objectionable odor may also impact greenhouse gas emissions from sewers. (Exhibits 6 and 6). The Draft EIR OVSD 26 OVSD-27 Page 10-56 (-i+,, of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program Ell August 2017 HB -463- Item 8. - 248 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR Ms. Jennifer Villasenor C F H July 7, 2017 Page 7 needs to be revised to analyze the environmental impacts associated with the proposed OVSD-27 Research and Technology designation, which is an industrial classification. The Draft EIR (coat) should not assume that this land use is cleaner or greener unless mitigation measures and development standards are in place to require clean and green development. 23. The Impact Analysis in Section 4.2.3.2 needs to be corrected regarding creation of objectionable odors from industrial and research and development land uses. This analysis concludes that Zoning Code Section 204.12(D) is sufficient to reduce impacts from the General Plan Update to less than significant. The analysis seems to imply that the director [of Community Development?] has the discretion to prohibit industrial and research and technology development uses based on the anticipated production of offensive odor, dust, noise, vibration, OVS-8 but this is not the case. Zoning Section 204.12, Industrial Use Classification (Exhibit 7) describes Industrial, General as typically a high incidence of truck or rail traffic, and/or outdoor storage, chemical manufacturing, food processing, laundry and dry cleaning plants, concrete products and power generating. All of the uses are known to generate odors. Furthermore, Industrial, General is a permitted use under the Zoning Code Section 212,04, Only Research and Development includes the director's discretion concerning uses that generate air quality pollutants. 24. The Draft EIR needs to provide information on the types and numbers of Research and Development applications that the director has previously determined would produce offensive odor, dust, noise or vibration in order to understand how this process has OVSD-29 worked to protect adjacent uses. In addition, the Draft EIR needs to explain how the director will exercise authority for ministerial projects. 25. The conclusion that the odors associated with the construction and operation of development under the General Plan Update would be less than significant is not supported by the analysis and needs to be revised. In addition, mitigation measures need to be included to reduce the odor impacts. The City needs to incorporate development standards and policies to OVSD-30 reduce odor exposure in the Planning Area, such as requiring any operation that has the potential of producing odor to be within a carbon air filtered enclosure and requiring conditional use permits that examine all of the environmental impacts of the use. As noted above, a brewery has site odor issues, wastewater odor issues, and generates odors from disposing of waste mash. 26. The impact analysis for compliance with applicable air quality plans on page 4.2- 6 utilizes the 2012 Air Quality Management Plan ("2012 AQMP"), However, the conclusion that the General Plan Update is in compliance is based on 2016-2040 SCAG RTP/SCS, April 2016 population data. This inflates the population numbers to appear to be closer in compliance than OVSD-31 is actually the case. If the Draft EIR relies on the 2012 AQMP, then it should use the 2012 SCAG RTP/SCS data. The 2012 SCAG establishes a 205,500 population figure compared to General Plan Update 211,051. Therefore the conclusion that the General Plan Update will result in a less than significant impact is incorrect and needs to be revised to show a significant impact. 27. Concerning population and employment data, the City's website provides current OVSD-32 population data and 2013 employment data that identifies the population of Huntington Beach 'ity of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program FIR Page 10-57 Item 8. - 2,49 ! HB -464- August 2017 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR Ms. Jennifer Villasenor CIFIH July 7, 2017 Page 8 as 202,413 in 79,353 households and the employment as 11 7,7W These numbers are OVSD-32 significantly greater than what is being used in the regional planning documents especially for (cont) employment that results in significant air quality impacts that have not been analyzed by the Draft EIR or AQMP. The Draft EIR needs to explain why the City's own demographic data was not used to analyze the impacts of the General Plan Update- 28, The impact analysis for compliance with applicable air quality plans on page 4.2- 6 uses does not include employment that is part of compliance with the 2012 AQMP, SLAG RTP/SCS 2012 establishes a maximum employment of 80,600 and the General Plan Update is OVSD-33 predicting 87,000. The impact analysis needs to be revised to analyze compliance with applicable air quality plan for employment generated air quality impacts, 1 29. On page 4.2-8, the Draft EIR concludes that the General Plan Update "would be consistent with the 2012 and 2016 AQMP." However, there is no analysis showing how the update complies with the 2016 AQMP, particularly with employment. If the 2016 AQMP is the OVSD-34 air quality plan for compliance purposes, then the Draft EIR needs to incorporate the revised standards, threshold, and mitigation associated with the 2016 AQMP into the General Plan Update. 6 30, On page 4,2-9, the Operation impact analysis understates the air pollutant emissions relating to the General Plan Update with respect to source categories typically associated with residential development. The Draft EIR needs to include source air pollutants OVSD-35 associated with industrial development, such as dust and odor, diesel particulate matter, chemicals and solvents, VOCs, etc. Reference should be made to Air Quality Issues Regarding Land Use for additional information along with suggested goals, objectives and policies related to land use (Exhibit 8). 1 31. On page 4.2-9, the Draft EIR concludes that, with respect to predicting operational emissions generated by the development associated with the General Plan Update, there is no land use information. OVSD disagrees because the General Plan Update identifies growth between existing and 2040 by land use type with detailed square footage. The Draft EIR OVSD-36 should include an analysis of projected operation emissions from the residential and the non- residential land uses associated with General Plan Update. The air quality analysis should provide a "worst case" analysis similar to what is provided for the circulation/traffic impacts. 32. On page 4.2-10, the Draft El R states that SCAQMD does not recommend calculation of operational emissions for planning documents, such as the General Plan Update. VSD-37 The Draft EIR should reference the documentation that shows that this is SCAQMD's position regarding air quality impacts associated with adopting general plans. 10 33. The General Plan Update should include air quality mitigation goals to reduce exposure to sensitive uses, including the following: OVSD-38 Through land use plans provide heightened consideration of policies and strategies to minimize exposure of sensitive receptors and sites (e.g,, schools, hospitals, and residences) to health risks related to air pollution. Page 10-58 ritv nf Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program Elf ' August 2017 HB -465- Item 8. - 250 CHAPTER mResponses mComments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR Mo Jwnn�» VU�aennr �~0U�0�� — � ^�V" Vvv 7 ` ' Page 9 34. On page 4.2-14, the Draft El R states; "Future projects resulting from implementadon of the General Plan Update would be required to undergo enwronmental analysis to determine whether each project results in significant air quality impact and would also have to implement policies from the General Plan Update to the extent feasible" * This assumption is not well founded in that industrial land use categories are "permitted" in contrast to "conditionally permitted" uses under the Zoning Code. Also, industrial projects may seek a OVSD-39 categorical exemption from CEQA for Infill" development. Therefore, these industrial uses, many of which have the potential to emit air pollutants, are approved without discretion and therefore no additional environmental analysis would be required prior to development. The air quality impact analysis cannot rely on future environmental analysis for ministerial industrial development projects urinfiUprojects exempt from CEOAand needs toinclude mitigation measures to require subsequent air quality analysis for all commercial and industrial development associated with the General Plan Update, 35. On page 4.2-15 of the Draft BR.the impact analysis for Localized Significance Thresholds states: "While specific constructionand operational activity under the General Plan Update cannot be determined at this time and the General Plan Update does not contain any specific projects, there is no impact from LSTs due to the General Plan Update". Clearly, there OVSD-44 are Localized Significance Thresholds ("LSTs") associated with the development of 7,288 multi- familyresidenha|unitsand5.384.S2Omquaneheetofnnn-nesidendia|deve|npmentmmnhmmp|a(ed bythe General Plan Update, The air quality analysis needs tuberevised toinclude ananalysis U �� ofthese LSTe. �� 36. Dnpage 4.2'18ofthe Draft E|R.the air quality analysis concludes that the anticipated growth under the General Plan Update is consistent with the 2012 AQMP. The Draft 0\XSD-41 E|Rneeds 0oprovide information tosupport this conclusion since the air quality analysis used 2O18S{)A/�population and employment data, instead oY2D13SCAGdata. 1 37. On page 4.2-19 of the Draft EIR, the analysis concludes that the General Plan Update will be consistent with the current AQMP, but it is unclear what AQMP this section is "=D�2 neheningtoand this should becJahfied. �� 38. Onpage 4.2-1g.the Draft E|Rconcludes that the General Plan Update would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to air quality and would result in less than mkgoifioartcumulative impact due toinconsistency with the AC>N1P. However, there ksno supporting analysis for this conclusion since employment data was not used, the amount of qVSD-43 employment iesignificantly understated inSCAQand AOWYPdata, and 2O16 population data was used for the 2012 AQMP. Therefore, the General Plan Update will, in fact, result in significant cumulative impacts due to inconsistency with the AQMP. This section needs to be revised tocorrectly analyze cumulative impacts associated with the General Plan Update. �L C. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Section 4.7 39. This Section states in the Environmental Setting that proximity of schools to waste facilities is an important factor when making decisions on the location of new OVS[44 development since children are more susceptible to hazardous materials and emissions, On page 4.7-4, the impact analysis needs to be revised to include exposure of hazardous materials U �itymHuntington Beach General Plan Update pmgrn- RI" p000/o-5p H�DO "' - �^� ^=��1 ^ BB -466- August 201/ CHAPTER mResponses mComments SECTION /uuResponses ^oComments onthe Draft Program EIm Ma Jennifer �~U U�h�� — »_Yv K,, Ju�7.2017 ` " Page 10 to the Oak View neighborhood, Oak View Elementary and Preschool, CDC Preschool and Head Start preschool from potential toxic emissions and exposure from the Orange County (cont) Household Hazardous Waste Collection Center located on Nichols Lane, as well as Republic Services, an identified TAC emitter. The growth associated with the General Plan Update will U increase the current use by residents and businesses of the collection center and transfer station resulting in greater risk of exposure to adjacent sensitive uses. OVSD requests that the City of Huntington Beach exercise its land use authority to relocate Orange County Household OySD45 Hazardous Waste Collection Center to a more appropriate location that does not expose sensitive uses toaccidental releases ofhazardous materials. I D. Land Use and PlamminaSection 4.3 40. The Draft BR needs to provide consistent population,household and employment data for analysis throughout the document- The Land Use and Planning section identifies 78,175 residential housing units in 2014 and the General Plan Update is projected to add7.2l8nm�denda}unhmforobda|of85.4U3houesho|dunbmatthe2O4Ubui|d'outofthe "=�� General Plan, However, SCAG and SCAQMD based regional plans on 81,200 households, this means that these regional plans were based on 4,203 fewer residential units. The Draft EIR must demonstrate its impact analysis is consistent with these regional plans in order to make a JL finding o/less than significant impact. 1h 41. As discussed in the Air Quality section referenced above, the City seems to have significantly understated its employment data that was used to formulate SCAG and SCAC>K8D regional plans. The Cib/'swebedestates there were 1177OO employed persons in2O13.The addition of 5,384,920 square feet of non-residential with the General Plan Update will significantly increase this number. Table 4.14'1 indicates that there will be anincrease of 13,099,000 in non-residential development. Even if only increases in square footage associated with Commercial and Industrial uses were considered, it would still result in an increase of S^52S.QOOsquare feet. Based onthe data provided mTable 4,14'1.there are 1.3435jobs per 1.8DDsquare feet ufnon-residential development that would result in17.5QQadditional jobs im Huntington Beach associated with the increase in non-residential development for a total employment figure of135.2Q9 in 2040. This issubstantially more than the SCAG and SCAQK4D AOMP projection of 87,000 in 2040. The Draft EIR needs to provide justification for the data used and must correct the inconsistencies that appear throughout the document. 1IMMIDY, 42. �page �-3, Open Space Land Use, the DraftBR states the Planning Area includes 3.274 acres ofopen space, but the document needs to specify what percentage of OVSD-48 these open space areas consist of school properties which are used as pocket parks by the City, The Draft EIR should use the most accurate data to discuss the existing condition and U �� project conditions. �� 43. Section 4.9.2.3, Impact Analysis states that the General Plan Update assumes future development would bmscaled to complement adjoining uses, but there are no mitigation measures or implementation policies to ensure that this assumption is borne out in connection OVSO49 with future development. The Draft E|Rand General Plan Update need tobarevised ho incorporate mitigation and implementation measures and policies to ensure future development isscaled bocomplement adjoining uses, Page/0-60 m"*Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program Elf ' August 2017 BB -467- Tfrn@' - 252 CHAPTER mResponses mComments SECTION 1n.2Responses mComments onthe Draft Program on Ms JenniferVUlaemnor �� July ^°|" Y»" Page 11 44� Smction4.A.2�� Impact Analysis, stabea ^VVhUe non-residential maximum intmnmKy/flonr-to'anearatio kaproposed toincrease for some land use designations, the changes would reflect what iscurrently allowed under the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance." This statement imnot accurate as presented in the Draft E|R since the OVS13-50 new industrial classification of Research and Technology is a 1.0 FAR that is greater than the existing .75FAR for industrial uses. The Draft E|Rneeds toprovide mlist ofnon-residential land use designations that will increase in maximum intensity/floor-area-ratio under the General Plan Updote, but still be consistent with the current Zoning Code, 45. Public schools and the state Education Code required outdoor facilities (playgrounds) are an essential government function and need to be protected by the local land use control agency from land uses that diminish the function of the school's educational D-51 purpose. The Draft BRneeds hoprovide ananalysis demonstrating that the City ofHuntington Beach iosupporting public school functions and using land use controls to reduce environmental impacts nnschool properties from the General Plan Update. 48, Ompage 4.A-5, the Impact Analysis states the Research and Technology land use designation will provide a buffer between the heavier industrial and non -industrial land uses. The Draft E|Rneeds toprovide ananalysis demonstrating how Research and ~^~~~^ Technology will si nce U implementation measures, horequire ~dean^uses. This assumption ionot supported bythe General Plan Update goals, policies and implementation measures and the Draft EIR needs to be revised to correct this, a 47. Dnpage 419-8\the assumption that Research and Technology within the Northwest Industrial and Gothard district would serve to attract less -intense industrial uses and reduce the amount of heavy industry within the planning area is not supported by the General D-53 Plan Update goals, policies and implementation measures and the Draft EIR analysis of consistency with SCA{320D8RCP needs toberevised hocorrect this, 1 48. Onpage 4.Q'Q.Table 4.Q4.SCAG2O18'2O4DRTP/SCSGoals, the statement that the industrial and commercial land uses associated with the Research and Technology land use designation are more compatible with surrounding sensitive land uses is not supported by OVSD-54 the General Plan Update goals, policies and implementation measures and the analysis of consistency with SCAG 2016-2040 RTPISCS needs to be revised to correct this, I 49. Cmpage 4.9'11.the Draft BRstates; "Under the General Plan Update, the allowable floor -to -area ratio is proposed to be updated for several non-residential land use designations; however, these updates would align with the existing flour-to-oearatio requirements of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances." The Draft BR »SD-56 needs to specify what non-residential land uses are proposed to be updated and should also explain how these updates are consistent with the existing FAR inthe Zoning Code. There is nodiscussion inthe General Plan Update about FAR updates. This analysis needs tube clarified and made consistent with the General Plan Update. i �wm*unnngo,nBeach Gen��p�nupuu�p�om-�n puoo/o�/ Yf�n� � �� ^°-�^"`-^~^� RB408- Amumuo1r CHAPTER mResponses «oComments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR Ma Jennifer ��0 U�� — �°V, U"v July ` ' Page 12 50. Onpage 4.9-13,Cumulative Impacts, the Draft BRconcludes that cumulative impacts associated with inconsistency offuture development with adopted plans and policies would beless than significant based onanticipated review for consistency bythe County of C*/SD-5$ Orange, City of Huntington Beach, and other incorporated cities. This is circular reasoning and ienot appropriate for analyzing cumulative impacts. The Draft BRneeds tnberevised in provide adequate justification or should make findings of significant cumulative impact. 51� Onpage 4.9-f3^Cumulative Impact, the Draft BRconcludes that future development would besubstantially compatible with existing land uses. However, the General Plan Update and Draft EIRidentify siQn|fiuordland use compatibility issues between existing p\SD-67 sensitive uses and industrial uses that are expected to continue under the General Plan Update. Before a finding of less than significant cumulative impact can be made, this Section needs to be revised to identify the land use compatibility issues in the General Plan Update and provide mitigation measures to lessen land use incompatibly in the Planning Area. 52. Onpage 4.9-13,Cumulative Impact, the statement that subsequent CEQA review would minimize the potential for cumulative projects hophysically divide anestablished O\XSQ-68 community is not supported by the Impact Analysis in the Draft EIR or the General Plan Update I andneedetnbenevised. 53. Onpage 4.9' 3`Cumulative|mpaot the Draft BRstates the General Plan Update would not conflict with existing land use plans, policies, or regulations of agencies with jurisdiction over the Planning Area, However, this kanot acorrect statement because dconflicts OVSD-69 with analyses concerning air quality, noise, and regional plan consistency. This section needs to be revised to accurately describe the significant cumulative impacts associated with the General Plan Update, -- 54� The Draft BRmakes assumptions and conclusions about the environmental impacts and benefits of the proposed new Research and Technology land use classification. However, the General Plan Update and Draft BRdonot define ordescribe this land use with respect hopermitted and conditionally permitted uses and development standards, such ew setback, building height, and landscaping. |norder hoproperly understand and analyze the environmental impacts on the Planning Area and surrounding land uses in the Northwest Industrial and Gothard Subareas, the General Plan Update should include information on what uses this land use category will include, what uses will be permitted by right, and what will be conditionally permitted. Since the Draft BRrelies onassumptions ofthe type ofuses and development standards associated with the Research and Technology land use designationthe proposed zoning should also bopart nf the Project Description. Bynot providing this important information until after the General Plan Update is approved, the City is engaging in improper segmentation of the project, which is prohibited by CEQA because, among other things, it prevents adequate mitigation measures from being considered and adopted. E. Noise Section 4.10 55. The DraftBR needs to address Land Use -Noise Compatibility Standards when commercial and industrial uses are adjacent to sensitive land uses such as schools. Table 7|n Volume 1, Technical Background Report, depicts the Noise Ordinance exterior standards, It OVSD-60 pnge/o-6u rm 'vHuntington Beach General Plan Update Program Ell' Item 8 254 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR Ms. Jennifer Villasenor C t F f H July 7, 2017 Page 13 indicates that, for all industrial properties, the acceptable noise level is 70 dBA any time of day or night and residential properties have an acceptable noise level of 55 dBA daytime and 50 dBA nighttime. However, there is no listing for other sensitive land uses such as schools. The existing General Plan identifies sensitive uses to include schools, similar to what is stated in the General Plan Update and Draft EIR. Because of this inconsistency between the General Plan and the Noise Ordinances;, industrial zoned uses were allowed to locate and expand across Nichols Lane from Oak View Elementary School. Even though the exterior noise standard in the General Plan for schools is up to 60 dBA, this standard was allowed to be violated by the permitted industrial use since its parcel had a 70 dBA standard. As explained in Volume 1, Noise and Section 4.10 of the Draft EIR, the noise standard is not the loudest level of sound that can be emitted and still is in compliance with the standard. OVSD contends that, on any given school day, there are numerous significant noise events from surrounding Industrial Uses that are over 60 dBA in a four-hour period on the school playground that would result in interference with communication between children and children and teachers. The Draft EIR needs to incorporate mitigation measures and development standards to be adopted as part of the Noise Ordinance to eliminate land use conflicts concerning noise between industrial and commercial properties and sensitive land uses by applying the lower noise level standard. OVSD-61 (cont) 56. The General Plan Update includes Goal N-1.A; Maintain acceptable stationary noise levels at existing noise -sensitive land uses such as schools, residential areas, and open space. However, unless the Noise Ordinance is revised to accomplish this goal, it will not be OVSD-62 accomplished for the existing sensitive land uses currently impacted by noise from non - compatible land uses. The Draft EIR should adopt mitigation measures and the City should fund code enforcement for noise level violations. 57_ The area of the City most impacted by noise from existing industrial users is the Oak View neighborhood identified, on page 4-13 of the General Plan Update, as a community of concern for environmental justice by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. Disadvantaged communities such as Oak View bear a disproportionate burden of environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the negative environmental consequences of industrial, government and commercial operations or programs and policies. Children in minority and/or low -come population groups are more likely to be exposed to and have increased health risks from environmental pollution than the general population. In the recent past, a Huntington Beach code enforcement officer has indicated to the Oak View community that code enforcement is on a "complaint only" basis. Community members responded that they feared retaliation from landlords if they complained. Also, limiting code enforcement to only complaints requires citizens to be aware of complicated regulations and to understand their rights that are also compounded by the disadvantaged community status. The Draft EIR and General Plan Update need to adopt mitigation and policy measures to provide for active noise monitoring and to work with individual noise generators to bring their operations into compliance with the Noise Ordinance. OVSD-63 58, The General Plan Update includes significant increases in commercial and industrial land uses in the Planning Area. Commercial and industrial uses are associated with OVSD-64 increase trucking, such as diesel truck traffic, and air brake and engine noise, that is greater than a passenger vehicle or light truck_ The Draft EIR needs to analyze the increase in noise 'ity of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program FIR Item 8. - 2551 HB -470- Page 10-63 August 2017 CHAPTER /oResponses mComments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR Ms. Jennifer �~U��0�� — Y, V,v Ju�7.2Oi7 ~^' ' Page 14 levels by type ofvehicle generated from the proposed industrial uses, instead of only analyzing vehicle miles traveled for mobile noise source. o��'y 59. The General Plan Update has indicated that the areas that will have the most increase in industrial use are the Northwest Industrial and Guthard Subareas. Table in Appendix K depicts the average 24-hournoise levels that currently exceed community noise OV8D-66 level standards inthese areas, LT'1 andLT-3. The Draft BRneeds hoanalyze these locations with respect to increases in noise levels that can be expected to occur with the implementation of the General Plan Update. GO. On page 4.10-4, the Draft El R discusses noise sensitive receptors, but limits its discussion hnsensitive land uses adjacent bnmajor streets. The Draft E|Rneeds hmberevised to identify other existing areas of the City that are experiencing high noise levels on a regular VSD'66 basis, such aathe Oak View neighborhood due tonearby industrial uses. The Draft BRneeds to include mitigation measures to lessen noise impacts from stationary uses on existing f sensitive8�|andueuaby1haimp|emmn�m�innof|mnduaocomdvo�a� �� 61, Similar hmthe air quality analysis, the noise analysis assumes that all development projects facilitated by the Qemeno| Plan Update will prepare an acoustical study in order to mitigate the development projects impact on noise levels (N'2.A). This is not correct OVSD-67 because many industrial land uses are permitted as ministerial uses under the Zoning Code. As such, there is no discretion to require an acoustical study. The Onyft BR needs to include mitigation measure that all industrial and commercial development shall require aconditional use permit to ensure that all future development projects prepare acoustical studies as U assumed inthe Draft BR �� 62. On page 4.10-20.the Draft BR concludes that the community ambient noise levels would result from vehicle -related noise, but that there are noavailable nrfeasible mitigation measures that would reduce ambient noise levels and exposure below the noise level standards for the community. OVSDdisaQnees with this conclusion and respectfully submits that the City needs to take proactive steps to reduce community ambient noise levels by QVSQ-68 establishing noise level limits for industrial uses inthe Noise O;dinanoe, working with noise generators to bring operations into compliance with the Noise Ordinance, limiting hours of operation that generate noise levels that exceed adjacent sensitive land use standards and actively enforcing the Noise Ordinance without the necessity ofacode violation complaint. �L F. Population, Housing, and Employment Section 4.11 83. The population, housing and employment data presented in this Section of the Draft E|R is not consistent with the data present in (a)Appendix L. Economic Development Trends and Conditions, (b)Section 4.14Tr napnrtaUun/TeMicor(o)the City'ademographic [x/SQ-69 information. The Draft EIR appears to understate the population and employment numbers and inturn, understate the environmental impacts ofthe General Plan Update. The Draft E|R needs to be revised to state consistent data and to accurately analyze the environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the General Plan Update through year 2040, p000/o-6* n*'vHuntington Beach General Plan Update Program Ell CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR Ms. Jennifer Villasenor C I F I H July 7, 2017 Page 15 64. On page 4.11-5, the Draft EIR states that the growth anticipated by the General Plan Update includes a minor amount of units to be added to the BECSP to account for OVSD-70 potential future capacity increase. The Draft EIR need identify the number of residential units to be added to BECSP over the current limit of 2,100 units. This information should be included in the Project Description since it is a known assumption. G. Public Services Section 4.12 65. On page 4.12-11, the Draft EIR states that the General Plan Update will generate 4,770 additional elementary and 867 middle school students that will need to be accommodated by the City's three school districts. Since the additional 7,228 residential units OVSD-71 are to be developed on land zoned for Medium Residential, the Draft EIR needs to provide information on the amount of anticipated additional Medium Residential development that will occur in each of the three school districts and it should also indicate the areas in the Planning Area where this residential development is assumed to occur in order for the OVSD to properly understand the impacts of the General Plan Update on its schools. 66. Although the Draft EIR assumes that the increase in residential development would occur downtown and in Holly-Seacliff, there is no goal, policy or implementation measure in the General Plan Update that would limit where residential development could occur in the OVSD-72 Planning Area. At the June 13, 2017 Planning Commission study session on the General Plan Update, City staff stated that the residential units associated with the General Plan Update were redevelopment of single family to multi -family in Medium Residential zones. 67. The General Plan Update establishes only a net increase in residential units (7,228), but does not identify where these units will occur in the Planning Area or the type of residential unit to be developed. Table 4.14-1 in the Transportation/Traffic section is the only identification of the type of residential units, multi -family, that is assumed in the General Plan Update_ Since there are no goals, policies or implementation measures to control where residential development occurs, it could reasonably be inferred that all additional units would be built within OVSD's boundaries. The Draft EIR needs to provide more detailed information regarding the impact of the General Plan Update on schools in the Planning Area. 68. The conclusion stated in the Draft EIR that the General Plan Update will not impact schools because existing schools are operating under capacity and non -operating schools are leased for other land uses is not supported by facts and needs to be revised. The reality is that some schools may be operating at or over capacity and would be significantly impacted by the General Plan Update. The Draft EIR cannot assume that the school districts can easily relocate students from one school to another, or open leased schools, to readily accommodate the additional students to be generated by the General Plan Update. The Draft EIR and General Plan Update need to include policies requiring the City and developers to coordinate with school districts regarding development associated with the General Plan Update. The current General Plan includes a policy to require development applicants to meet with school districts prior to submittal of development applications and this should be expanded to include the City and should be incorporated into the General Plan Update. OVSD-73 OVSD-74 -ity of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Progrom FIR Item 8. - 257 HB -472- Page 10-65 August 2017 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR Ms. Jennifer Villasenor C I F I H July 7, 2017 Page 16 69. At the June 27, 2017 Planning Commission Study Session on the Draft EIR, staff explained that the 7,228 dwelling units associated with the General Plan Update were parcels in Medium Residential zones that had single family units that could be redeveloped for attached or multi -family units, thus increasing the existing number of units. Section 4.12, Public Services, OVSD-75 states on page 4.12-11, "the General Plan Update would allow for an increase in residential development in the city, within certain areas, such as Holly-Seacliff and the Downtown area, likely to result in more residential development than others." As noted above, the Draft EIR needs to specify in detail where the additional residential development is anticipated to occur and state the number of expected residential units that are slated for each location. H. Recreation Section 4.13 70. On page 4.13-1, the Draft EIR states there are approximately 1,073 acres of parkland within 79 parks, golf courses, city facilities and beaches, The Draft EIR needs to OVSD-76 identify what percentage of the 1,073 acres is actually owned by OVSD and used by the City as pocket parks through an at -will arrangement with OVSD. Each of these pocket parks should be identified by name and location. 71. The Draft EIR should include an analysis regarding whether any of the school sites that are currently included in the 1,073 acres of parkland are subject to closure. Using the City parkland standard of 5 acres per 1,000 residents, the City would need 1,055 acres of OVSD-77 parkland for the population projected with the implementation of the General Plan Update. Therefore, the Draft EIR should be revised to acknowledge that, even if there were a reduction of up to 18 acres of parkland associated with school closures, the City would still meet its parkland standard. 72, On page 4.13-2, the Draft El R states that, even with a projected population of 211,051 residents by 2040, the goal of 5 acres per 1,000 residents would be met. The Draft OVSD-78 EIR needs to state whether there is any anticipation that parkland will be decreased with the implementation of the General Plan Update. 1. Alternatives Analysis of Proiect Alternatives 73. On page 5-8, Section 5.3.3, Alternative 3: Gothard Corridor Land Use Change (Gothard Corridor Alternative), the Draft EIR states that the Research and Technology land use would "result in a marked increase in trip generation" that would result in increased noise and air quality impacts than the existing industrial land use category, OVSD disagrees with this conclusion because, if Research and Technology is cleaner and greener as assumed in the General Plan Update and Draft EIR, it would not generate diesel truck trips associated with heavy industrial uses normally anticipated in the Industrial land use classification. The analysis for Alternative 3 relies solely on an increase in ADT to determine the environmental impacts of that Alternative. The traffic study for Rainbow Environmental Services established a passenger vehicle equivalent for determining impact from the anticipated truck traffic at 3 to 1, Exhibit 9. In order for the community to understand the potential impacts of implementation of the General Plan Update, the analysis in Alternative 3 needs to be revised to include a discussion of diesel truck traffic similar to what the City used for the traffic study associated with Rainbow Environmental Services. Page 10-66 ri+v nf Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program Elf August 2017 HB -473- Item 8. - 258 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR k I Ms. Jennifer Villasenor CIFIn July 7, 2017 Page 17 74. Even though it would result in a higher FAR and associated ADT, Alternative 3 is OVSD-80 the superior environmental alternative because the uses would be cleaner and greener due to significantly reduced diesel trucking generated by heavy industrial operations. I 75. Given the impacts identified in the Alternative 3 analysis of using the new Research and Technology land use as a buffer between industrial and sensitive land uses, OVSD submits that a reasonable project alternative to be analyzed in the Draft EIR would be to reduce industrial intensity in the Gothard Subarea, This alternative could be accomplished by OVSD-81 reducing the industrial FAR to -35 instead of .75. This would result in reduced vehicle miles traveled, ADT, air quality and noise impacts on the Oak View neighborhood. This alternative would be the environmentally superior alternative compared to the project, The City could still accomplish its project objectives by increasing industrial acreage in the Northwest Industrial Subarea, The Draft EIR should be revised to include an analysis of this alternative. Once again, OVSD respectfully requests that the Draft EIR comment period be extended to July 28, 2017, for the reasons stated on page 1 above. In addition, OVSD looks OVSD-82 forward to receiving the City's written responses to each of the comments set forth above. I V my yours, d "u and M. Connor Enclosures ' -ity of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Progro- FIR Page 10-67 Item 8. - 259 J HB -474- August 2017 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR Response ©VSD-1 This comment is both introductory in nature and specific to the public review period of the Draft Program EIR. As required by CEQA, the General Plan Update Draft Program EIR was available for public review and comment for 45 days, beginning on May 22, 2017 and closing on July 7, 2017. During this time period, a Draft Program EIR public comment meeting (June 7, 2017) as well as a public Planning Commission Study Session specific to the topic of the Draft Program EIR (June 27, 2017) were held to provide information about the Draft Program EIR and answer questions of the public and the Planning Commission. The commenter requests an extension of the public comment period to July 28, 2017 in order to consider information provided at additional Study Sessions with the Planning Commission, that occurred on July 11, 2017 and July 25, 2017. However, the agendas of the July 2017 Study Sessions did not include the Draft Program EIR, focusing on the General Plan Update, the Draft GGRP, fiscal trends and analysis, sea level rise, and the Circulation Element. No new information was presented during those meetings that affected the information contained in the draft Program EIR. As such, the City of Huntington Beach did not extend the public review period as conveyed by City staff to the commenter in an email dated July 25, 2017. As this is not a direct comment on the content or adequacy of the Draft Program EIR, no further response is required. However, this comment will be forwarded to appropriate City department and decision - makers for consideration prior to project approval. Response C)VSU-Z The commenter states that figures provided in the Project Description of the Draft Program EIR do not identify the location of proposed development anticipated under the General Plan Update. Specifically, the commenter notes that a figure similar to Draft Program EIR Appendix J (Existing Land Use Technical Report) (Volume III), Figure 8 would more accurately depict the Specific Plans and parcels that are 'predicted to intensify'. As noted on page 3-12 of the Draft Program EIR, "All of the 15 adopted Specific Plans in the city, which have predominantly been used to focus on the unique characteristics of an area and customize the planning process and land use regulations and requirements to apply to that area of the city, have a Specific Plan Overlay designation. No changes to the existing density/intensity standards established in Specific Plan Overlay areas are proposed as part of the General Plan Update." As such, a change to the maximum development intensity within these areas would not usefully be depicted on a map as none are proposed. With regard to a potential change to individual parcels, as outlined on page 3-10 of the Draft Program EIR, the General Plan Update is a policy document, "guiding future development within the City of Huntington Beach as well as providing guidance to decision makers as they consider proposals for new development and site reuse through the planning horizon of 2040. The General Plan Update goals, policies, and implementation programs define a roadmap for new housing and job growth and provide guidance for decision makers on allocating resources and determining the physical form and character of development." As such, an accounting of exactly which parcels would be developed or redeveloped through 2040 is not part of the project, as defined, nor should it be. The General Plan Update is not prescribing specific development characteristics of future development and does not include any specific development projects. Rather, the General Plan Update identifies areas throughout the city where Page 10-68 (itv of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program Elf August 2017 HB -475- Item 8. - 260 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR focused transformation would be beneficial, with development or redevelopment supported in these areas. As such, the Draft Program EIR does not analyze specific development projects, rather it addresses the impacts at a program level, similar to the nature of the General Plan Update. However, the overall development capacity (residential units and non-residential square footage) within the planning area is presented in Table 3-3 of the Draft Program EIR. Parcel -specific development information is not provided in either the General Plan Update or the Draft Program EIR, in either tabular or figure format. This will be addressed on a case -by -case basis by decision makers in the City of Huntington Beach throughout the planning horizon of the General Plan Update. No further response is required. Response OVSD-3 The commenter addresses the level of additional residential development anticipated throughout the planning area with implementation of the General Plan Update, identifying a discrepancy between the Project Description and Chapter 4.14 Transportation/Traffic. Both the information identified in Table 4.14- 1 on page 4.14-11 of the Draft Program EIR and the associated text regarding the anticipated decrease in single-family residential units and corresponding increase in multiple -family residential units are correct and reflective of the distribution of the anticipated net increase of 7,228 dwelling units represented in the Project Description. To ensure that any potential discrepancy is reduced in the text, the following text change has been made to page 4.14-10 of the Draft Program EIR: Implementation of the General Plan Update could result in an additional 7,228 dwelling units and approximately 5,384,920 square feet of nonresidential uses developed within the planning area by 2040. Of the adid-itienal 7,228 d•. el'*.,., R46 that .. „'d he alle ed ,;6•'^^*m-•' f^"^ • ^d by medium high d^^&+ .Future uses within Specific Plan areas would continue to be regulated primarily by the development standards established in each Specific Plan. This information does not change the conclusions or analysis of the Draft Program EIR. No further response is required. Pages 3-16 and 3-17 of the Project Description of the Draft Program EIR correctly identify the net change in total dwelling units relative to the baseline conditions of 2014 (+7,228 units) based on anticipated development that is considered likely to occur in areas designated for residential purposes. No further response is required. Response OVSD-Q The comment suggests that there is an inconsistency in the number of total residential dwelling units anticipated in 2040. The commenter notes that Table 3-2 indicates a residential development capacity of 88,964 dwelling units, Table 3-3 indicates 85,360 dwelling units, and Table 4.14-1 indicates 85,463 dwelling units. Table 3-2 identifies the land use designations including the range of densities/intensities permitted for each land use designation, as applicable, proposed for the General Plan Update and specifies the total acreage associated with each land use designation in addition to the percentage of the 'ity of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Progro- FIR Page 10-69 Item 8. - 261 HB -476- August 2017 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR total planning area. The table does not specify a development capacity or any number of residential units (including 88,964 units as suggested by the commenter), nor is it intended to be interpreted in that manner. It is assumed that the commenter calculated this number utilizing a multiplication of the maximum density of each residential land use by the total acreage of each land use. As noted on page 2-25 of the General Plan Update, development forecasting assumptions are used to determine the realistic expected number of residential units. Therefore, it is acknowledged in the General Plan Update that the development capacity assumptions do not directly relate to development at the maximum density allowable. Further, the decision makers within the City of Huntington Beach have the ability to, and are likely to, restrict development within each category to a range of densities, thereby the maximum number of dwelling units anticipated to be constructed by 2040 would be far less than the absolute maximum calculated by basic multiplication. Table 3-3 is representative of the likely or realistic development expected by 2040, and as accurately summarized by the commenter, recognizes the total estimated residential development of 85,403 dwelling units in 2040. It is worth noting that the total residential development noted in Table 3-3 (85,403 dwelling units), generates the change in residential dwelling units within the planning area of 7,228 by 2040. This is the figure that was utilized throughout the General Plan Update and for analysis throughout the Draft Program EIR. Additional clarity is not needed as part of this response. Finally, Table 4.14-1 actually indicates total anticipated residential dwelling units of 85,403 dwelling units, 60 units less than that noted by the commenter, which is consistent with the number of residential units stated in Table 3-3. Kespanse OVSD-6 The commenter suggests that the density and FAR range for the Mixed Use Overlay, the Specific Plan Overlay and the Mixed -Use land use designations needs to be added to Table 3-2, further requesting explanation of the assumptions for the development capacity outlined in Table 3-3. Regarding the density and FAR additions to Table 3-2, these restrictions are quite distinct and outlined within the descriptions of each of the 15 Specific Plans and the Mixed Use Overlay designation and vary amongst each. As such, it would not be appropriate to attempt summary of these descriptions into the Table 3-2. Table 3-3 of the Draft Program EIR identifies the same development capacity as Table LU-1, General Plan Development Capacity of the General Plan Update, which includes a detailed breakdown of each type of land use. In an effort to make this more clear for the reader, and to ensure that a reader knows where to look for additional detail, the following has been added to page 3-17 of the Project Description: "As shown in Table 3-3, which identifies the same development capacity as Table LU-1 of the General Plan Update, implementation of the General Plan Update could result in an additional 7,228 dwelling units and approximately 5,384,920 square feet of nonresidential uses developed within the planning area by 2040. Future development within Specific Plan areas would continue to be regulated primarily by the development standards established by each Specific Plan and are accounted in the 2040 buildout assumptions identified above. The General Plan Update does not propose additional Specific Plans or changes to the maximum permitted density and intensity established by each adopted Specific Plan within the planning area." Page 10-70 ('ity of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program Elf August 2017 HB -477- Item 8. - 262 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR As this is not a direct comment on the content or adequacy of the Draft Program EIR, no further response is required. However, this comment will be forwarded to appropriate City department and decision - makers for consideration prior to project approval. Response OVSD-b The commenter states that the locations of the Mixed Use and Specific Plan designations identified on the General Plan Land Use Map (Figure 3-4) are unclear, requesting preparation of a separate figure to clarify this information. The diagram correctly and adequately presents the locations of these overlay designations using hyphenations (e.g., -mu, -sp) applied to the end of labels on the map itself. Furthermore, a separate map depicting locations of adopted Specific Plans is provided in the Land Use Element of the General Plan Update (Figure LU-3, General Plan Update page 2-16) and in Figure 3, Adopted Specific Plans of the Draft Program EIR (Volume I, Land Use Technical Background Report, page 9). Furthermore, as stated in the General Plan Update (page 2-14), the only area of the city with the Mixed Use Overlay designation is within the Sunset Beach Specific Plan, the location of which is identified on Figure LU-3. Thus, the requested information is provided within the Project Description section of the Draft Program EIR and further described in the General Plan Update. The Project Description is accurate and provides sufficient detail, and no further response is required. It is also worth noting that all maps used in the General Plan Update and Draft Program EIR are available electronically and parcel -level information can be viewed. However, to further address the comment, an excerpt of the Sunset Beach Mixed Use Overlay designation from Figure LU-2 of the General Plan Update and Figure 3-4 of the draft Program EIR is shown below. No further response is required. 4V WIIIIIIIIIIIII RL Huntington O J raFl ify of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program RIP Page 10-71 Item 8. - 263 xB -478- August 2017 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR Response OVSD-7 The commenter correctly states that the Project Description establishes an overall non-residential development of 5,384,920 square feet. The commenter goes on to state that Table 4.14-1 demonstrates a net difference of 13,099,000 square feet of non-residential development, noting that "even with considering only Commercial and Industrial/Manufacturing, the increase is 6,525,000 square feet of additional non-residential development." The commenter states that the Project Description needs to accurately describe the development capacity of the General Plan Update. The proposed non-residential development of the General Plan Update is correctly stated in the Project Description at 5,384,920 square feet. With regard to Table 4.14-1 of the Traffic/Transportation section of the Draft Program EIR, the non-residential square footage data presented was used to generate trips for purposes of traffic modeling. The terms "Commercial" and "Industrial" as used in this table correspond to a broad range of uses (as depicted in the footnote Table 4.14-1) that are not individually correlated to the land use designations presented in the Project Description. Notably, the non-residential uses presented in Table 4.14-1 do show a net difference of 6,219,000 square feet of non-residential development (different than the 6,525,000 square feet noted by the commenter), which has resulted in the preparation of a more conservative traffic analysis than the development anticipated under the General Plan Update may demonstrate. This is a carry-over from the General Plan Update process, through which the ultimate development capacity of the plan was fine-tuned and reduced through public meetings, GPAC meetings, and engagement with residents and local officials. However, the analysis of traffic impacts began in 2014 to ensure that the traffic model would be updated accordingly to undertake the analysis in a timely manner for preparation of the Draft Program EIR. While the total development numbers are different, as noted above, the resultant outcome is that the General Plan Update is proposed to result in a non- residential square footage of 5,384,920 while the traffic analysis was undertaken on a maximum of 6,219,000 square feet of commercial, office and industrial uses, providing an accurate but conservative analysis of the traffic impacts. It must be noted however that the commenters suggestion that a net difference of 13,099,000 square feet is demonstrated in Table 4.14-1 is factually incorrect. This summary seems to include student count for school into square footage, also picking up the 'other category' which is not necessarily square footage either (i.e., hotel rooms). This number is factually incorrect and not related to the General Plan Update. This information does not change the conclusions or analysis of the Draft Program EIR. No further response is required. Response QVSD-8 The commenter states that the General Plan Update does not include land use regulations or restrictions to ensure that non-residential land use development is limited to 5,384,920 square feet. However, page 2-25 of the General Plan Update identifies a non-residential development capacity of an additional 5,384,920 square feet over existing conditions to the year 2040 consistent with the project description of the draft Program EIR. In addition, the General Plan Update is a policy document, "guiding future development within the City of Huntington Beach as well as providing guidance to decision makers as they consider proposals for new development and site reuse through the planning horizon of 2040. The General Plan Update goals, policies, and implementation programs define a roadmap for new housing and job growth and provide guidance for decision makers on allocating resources and determining the physical Page 10-72 rtty nf Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program Elf August2017 HB -479- Item 8. - 264 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR form and character of development." The General Plan Update does not prescribe land use regulations as a zoning code would and does not propose specific development projects totaling the capacity anticipated by the General Plan Update and analyzed in the Program EIR. However, this is not a direct comment on the content or adequacy of the Draft Program EIR, no further response is required. This comment will be forwarded to appropriate City department and decision -makers for consideration prior to project approval. No further response is required. The commenter requests explanation of the assumptions used in arriving at the conclusion that the Research and Technology land use designation located next to single-family residential uses would be more compatible with surrounding sensitive uses than the "typical industrial uses." The Research and Technology designation is defined, to the extent possible at this time in its development, in the General Plan Update. For example, page 2-7 of the GPU states "To assist in transforming these areas, the General Plan Update proposes a new land use designation, Research and Technology, enabling a broader mix of lower -intensity industrial and commercial uses that better meet current and future market demands, and capture employment growth in emerging fields." Further, page 2-13 of the General Plan Update states, "The Research and Technology designation provides for a wide variety of nonresidential mixed -use development in industrial areas that are undergoing or poised for transformation to support changing employment demand. The designation encourages both employment uses and commercial uses designed to accommodate employees. Uses include clean and green manufacturing (e.g., medical devices, solar panels), research and development, technology, warehousing, business parks, professional offices, eating and drinking establishments, and similar neighborhood commercial uses." This text goes on to state, "The Industrial designation provides for manufacturing (e.g., assembly, fabrication), construction, transportation, logistics, auto repair, research and development, warehousing, business parks, professional offices, ancillary commercial services (e.g., financial institutions, print shops), warehouse and sales outlets, and similar uses." In addition, Policy LU-5.8. of the General Plan Update directs the City to "encourage clean, less intensive industrial development in areas identified in the planning area." Based on the descriptions of these land uses and the policies in the General Plan Update as noted above, it is reasonable to assume that the uses associated with the Research and Technology land use designation would result in the development of uses that are more compatible than traditional manufacturing would be adjacent to residential receptors. Further, there is an element of residential -serving commercial uses that would be beneficial to the interface for residential areas. As such, no further response is required. For emphasis and clarity of this point to address the comment however, page 3-19 of Draft Program EIR has been revised as follows: Technology and Innovation Subarea Northwest Industrial Subarea The 760-acre Northwest Industrial Subarea is located in the northwestern portion of the planning area and comprises the McDonnell Centre Business Center Specific Plan north of Bolsa Avenue and industrial and research and technology uses south of Bolsa Avenue. This area is anchored by two of Huntington Beach's largest employers (Boeing and Zodiac), as well as a variety of industrial, technology, commercial services, and fitness uses. The built environment ranges from large office buildings and business parks to small commercial pad and industrial spec buildings. Given the proximity to residential uses, the potential for land use compatibility issues within typical industrial uses is a major concern. As a result, this subarea -ity of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Progro- FIR Page 10-73 Item 8. - 265 i B -480- August 2017 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR introduces the Research and Technology land use designation in areas adjacent to single-family residential neighborhoods to promote opportunities for new industrial uses that are more compatible with surrounding sensitive uses as well as encourage economic growth and change within this area. This designation encourages both employment uses and commercial uses designed to accommodate employees. Uses include clean and green manufacturing (e.g., medical devices, solar panels), research and development, technology, warehousing, business parks, professional offices, eating and drinking establishments, and similar neighborhood commercial uses. The develepme^+ iRte sity r uses ip thiS sybaFea FaRgPers fFA-.M. 00.7-5 Peer tes area ratie (PAR) feFtr_;;di*;A_.AaI a PH#r*;;I --,;Pr, tA 1 0 P4R fAF Response OVSD-10 The commenter states that the Project Description needs to be corrected to accurately depict the existing conditions and anticipated conditions in the Gothard Subarea, suggesting that previous public testimony and issuance of air quality violations within the Gothard Subarea is evidence that there will be land use conflicts in the future. As stated by the commenter, the Draft Program EIR includes the following: "Given the proximity to sensitive uses such as residential dwellings and schools, the potential for land use compatibility and environmental justice issues associated with typical industrial use remains an ongoing concern." As stated in the General Plan Update and the Project Description of the Draft Program EIR, the General Plan Update is a policy document, "guiding future development within the City of Huntington Beach as well as providing guidance to decision makers as they consider proposals for new development and site reuse through the planning horizon of 2040. The General Plan Update goals, policies, and implementation programs define a roadmap for new housing and job growth and provide guidance for decision makers on allocating resources and determining the physical form and character of development." The General Plan Update is not prescribing specific development characteristics of future development and does not include any specific development projects, the identification of which would be speculative at this point in time. Rather, the General Plan Update identifies areas throughout the city where focused transformation would be beneficial, with development or redevelopment supported in these areas. It is reasonable to assume, based on the description of the Research and Technology land use designation, the content of the General Update, and supported by the revisions to the General Plan Update being made in response to this comment letter, that the General Plan Update would not further increase existing land use compatibility issues. As such, although the Gothard Subarea is proposed as an area of 'Transform', the General Plan Update will not directly (or immediately) alter existing conditions in the area. This will be addressed on a case -by -case basis by decision makers in the City of Huntington Beach throughout the planning horizon of the General Plan Update. However, the potential for land use compatibility issues, existing or future, has been correctly recognized in the Draft Program EIR. No further response is required. Response O SID- 1 The commenter states that the Project Description of the Draft Program EIR does not describe the existing environmental justice designation of the Oak View neighborhood. This is not an entirely accurate statement, as outlined in Response OVSD-10 where the environmental justice issue specific to the Gothard Subarea has been discussed and acknowledged by the commenter. This can be located on page 3-19 of the Draft Program EIR. Page 10-74 rtt%, of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program Elf August 2017 HB -481- Item 8. - 266 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR Further, the General Plan Update does address this issue, beginning on page 2-21 where it is stated, "Incompatibilities between existing industrial uses in the subarea and residential uses in the Oak View neighborhood present existing environmental justice concerns, as expressed by community members." Further, Environmental Justice Considerations is a sub -chapter of the General Plan Update which discusses Tract 994.02 (the Oak View neighborhood) specifically, beginning on page 4-13. To enhance the information available in the Draft Program EIR, the following change has been made on page 3-19: Gothard Overlay Centrally located along Gothard Street between Edinger Avenue and Ellis Avenue, the 422-acre Gothard Subarea consists of both industrial and research and technology uses, along with a few isolated community service and public use parcels. The Gothard Subarea is predominantly occupied by smaller manufacturing and warehouse uses and auto repair facilities. Other uses include a lumberyard, some retail and office uses, Republic Services, several gyms/training facilities, Seabreeze Church, and city facilities. Given the proximity to sensitive uses such as residential dwellings and schools, the potential for land use compatibility and environmental justice issues associated with typical industrial use remains an ongoing concern. More information on this issue can be found in the General Plan Update beginning at pages 2-12 and 4-13. However, this has been part of the environmental consideration included in the Draft Program EIR already (as acknowledged above) and does not change the analysis or impacts identified in the Draft Program EIR. No further response is required. Response nVF7,1-12 The commenter suggests that the Draft Program EIR needs to be revised to indicate what land use data was used to determine the baseline condition for air quality, suggesting that without such data, air quality impacts cannot be properly analyzed. The baseline condition for Air Quality includes the attainment status of the Basin and the proximity of sensitive land uses to localized sources of toxic air contaminants (TACs), CO, and odor. The attainment status of the Basin is based directly on ambient air quality monitoring whereas, it is not based directly on land use. Further, the General Plan Update is a policy document, "guiding future development within the City of Huntington Beach as well as providing guidance to decision makers as they consider proposals for new development and site reuse through the planning horizon of 2040." The General Plan Update does not prescribe specific characteristics of future development and does not include any specific development projects. Finally, the proximity of sensitive land uses (defined in the Draft Program EIR as residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, athletic facilities, long-term health care facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, and retirement homes) to localized sources of TACs, CO, and odor, is based on existing sensitive land uses as well as existing sources of TACs, CO, and odor sources within the City of Huntington Beach. As such, the appropriate baseline conditions for each of the relevant conditions are used and no further response is required. -ity of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Progro- FIR Page 10-75 Item 8. - 267 HB -482- August 2017 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR Response OVSD-13 The commenter suggests that the analysis contained in Section 4.2.1.2 of the Draft Program EIR is inadequate, needing revision to describe existing local air quality conditions and sources of existing pollutants. Further, the commenter states that compliance, violation and abatement actions by the SCA QMD must be addressed and identified on a map of the planning area. Notice to Comply, Notice of Violation, and Order for Abatement actions by SCAQMD are not relevant to and are unnecessary in analyzing impacts to air quality. These notices are served against individual businesses or persons that are or may be in violation of SCAQMD rules and are not related to potential exceedances of established thresholds for criteria pollutants. Further, violations to the SCAQMD Rules are not and cannot be proposed by a project (the General Plan Update in this instance) and are therefore not analyzed in the potential impacts of a project. The General Plan Update is a policy document, "guiding future development within the City of Huntington Beach as well as providing guidance to decision makers as they consider proposals for new development and site reuse through the planning horizon of 2040." The General Plan Update does not prescribe specific characteristics of future development and does not include any specific development projects from which additional violations of SCAQMD Rules could be identified. As such, the General Plan Update will not directly or immediately affect (beneficially or detrimentally) existing violation conditions. Violations of SCAQMD rules would only be potentially considered in the description of existing air quality conditions. The baseline condition for air quality includes the attainment status of the Basin and the proximity of sensitive land uses to localized sources of TACs, CO, and odor. The attainment status of the Basin is based directly on ambient air quality monitoring, where data reflects existing air quality, regardless of what rules or policies apply. Therefore, air quality violations may inherently be reflected in the ambient air quality monitoring. The proximity of sensitive land uses to localized sources of TACs, CO, and odor are based on existing sensitive land uses as well as existingTAC, CO, and odor sources, regardless of whether those sources are currently in violation of SCAQMD Rules or not. Therefore, air quality violations of these sources would not apply to this analysis and no further response is required. Response OVSD-14 The commenter notes that the discussion in the Local Air Quality section is limited to the analysis of CO hotspots and that justification should be provided for addressing only one air quality threshold. It should be noted that the analysis of the remaining thresholds was provided in Section 4.2.3 of the Draft Program EIR. As such, the analysis in the Draft Program EIR is sufficient and adequate. However, to enhance clarity around this, the text regarding CO hotspots has been deleted from Section 4.2.1.1, and inserted beginning on page 4.2-16, Part 2, Carbon Monoxide Hotspots. Page 4.2-16 now reads as below: The SCAQMD defines typical sensitive receptors as residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, athletic facilities, long-term health care facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, and retirement homes. When evaluating potential air quality impacts to sensitive receptors, the SCAQMD is concerned with high localized concentrations of CO. Motor vehicles are the primary source of pollutants in the project site vicinity. Local emissions sources also include stationary activities, such as space and water heating, landscape maintenance from leaf blowers and lawn mowers, consumer products, and mobile sources. Traffic -congested roadways and intersections have the potential to generate localized high levels of CO. Localized areas where ambient concentrations exceed national and/or state standards Page 10-76 City of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program Elf August 2017 HB -483- Item 8. - 268 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR for CO are termed "CO hotspots." Section 9.14 of the SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook identifies CO as a localized problem requiring additional analysis when a protect is likely to subject sensitive receptors to CO hotspots. SCAQMD recommends the use of CALINE4, a dispersion model for predicting CO concentrations that may result due to the operation of a project, as the preferred method of estimating pollutant concentrations at sensitive receptors near congested roadways and intersections. For each intersection analyzed, CALINE4 adds roadway -specific CO emissions calculated from peak -hour turning volumes to the existing ambient CO air concentrations. For this analysis, CO concentrations were calculated based on a simplified CALINE4 screening procedure developed by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and utilized by SCAQMD. The simplified model is intended as a screening analysis in order to identify a potential CO hotsoot and assumes worst -case conditions and provides a screenine of maximum, worst -case CO concentrations. As shown in Table 4.2-2, based on CO modeling of three identified "critical intersections" using the simplified CALINE4 methodology at the three most congested intersections at buildout, CO concentrations would be substantially below the state 20.0 ppm 1-hour ambient air quality standards, and the national and state 9.0 ppm 8-hour ambient air quality standards when growth envisioned under the General Plan Update occurs. Table 4.2-2 Carbon Monoxide Hotspot Results" Estimated CO Concentration (ppm) Significant Intersection 1 Hour 8 Hour Impact? Beach Boulevard & Heil Avenue 2.7 1.9 No Brookhurst Street & Adams Avenue 2_5 1.8 No Gothard Street & Center Avenue 2_6 1.8 No Implementation of the General Plan Update is not expected to expose existing or future sensitive uses within the planning area to substantial CO concentrations. Much of the area covered under the General Plan Update consists of commercial uses, which are not considered sensitive receptors. There are, however, residences and schools located within or in close proximity to some of the Subareas. As shown in Table 4.2-2-1, based on CO modeling of three identified "critical intersections" using the simplified CALINE4 methodology at the three most congested intersections at buildout, CO concentrations would be substantially below the state 20.0 ppm 1-hour ambient air quality standards, and the national and state 9.0 ppm 8-hour ambient air quality standards when growth envisioned under the General Plan Update occurs. Therefore, sensitive receptors within the planning area would not be exposed to substantial CO concentrations, and the potential impacts of the General Plan Update would be less than significant. Implementation of the General Plan Circulation Element goals and policies would further reduce the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial CO concentrations by increasing transit opportunities and requiring more low emission vehicles and alternative fuel stations within the planning area. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant, and there are no feasible mitigation measures that would further reduce the less than significant impacts identified. " Atkins 2017. Air Quality TBR for the City of Huntington Beach General Plan Update. February. 'ity of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program FIP Page 10-77 Item 8. - 269 J HB -484- August 2017 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR No change to the analysis has been undertaken as it was provided in sufficient detail in the Draft Program EIR, but in two places. The text has now been consolidated into one location and no further response is required. It is worth noting however that due to the relocation of the table (as shown above), a renumbering of both (previous) Tables 4.2-1 and 4.2-2 was necessary. As such, this has occurred on page 4.2-3 of the Draft Program EIR. Response OVSD-15 The commenter states that a particulate matter hot spot analysis needs to be conducted to determine existing areas of particulate matter generation. As stated beginning on page 4.2-16 in the Draft Program EIR, "The main source of TACs in the planning area is from the 1-405 freeway. Diesel -fueled vehicles and trucks traverse the freeway, which emit diesel particulate matter, a carcinogen... ARB recommends avoiding new sensitive land uses within 500 feet of a freeway, urban roads with 100,000 vehicles per day, or rural roads with 50,000 vehicles per day. Epidemiological studies indicate that the distance from the roadway and truck traffic densities were key factors in the correlation of health effects, particularly in children. Per the traffic study prepared for the General Plan Update, none of the roads within planning area would generate more than 100,000 ADT under the General Plan Update.13 Therefore, the General Plan Update would not expose new on -site sensitive receptors to substantial TACs from heavily traveled roads." The thresholds listed in this text effectively act as screening criteria for the need for a particulate matter hot spot analysis. As none of the roads within the planning area would generate more than 100,000 ADT under future conditions with the General Plan Update, the General Plan Update would not expose new on -site sensitive receptors to substantial TACs from heavily traveled roads, which is a major source of particulate matter generation, in the form of diesel particulate matter. Therefore, a particulate matter hot spot analysis is not required and no further response is needed. Response OVSD-16 The commenter states that air pollution sources in the planning area such as major arterials, freeways, and industrial land uses need to be identified in addition to vehicle miles traveled. A description of overview and trends of each pollutant are included in the Air Quality Technical Background Report (Volume I, Draft Program EIR) and do not need to be reiterated in the Air Quality Section. Further, such infrastructure and uses as outlined by the commenter are included in the analysis of air quality, as these are inherent in the baseline conditions and attainment level of the Basin. The General Plan Update is a policy document, "guiding future development within the City of Huntington Beach as well as providing guidance to decision makers as they consider proposals for new development and site reuse through the planning horizon of 2040." The General Plan Update does not prescribe specific characteristics of future development and does not include any specific development projects. As such, future changes to industrial (and non -industrial non-residential land uses) would be speculative at this time and cannot be considered in an analysis until these projects are brought forward to the City of Huntington Beach in the future. No further response is required. Page 10-78 r itv f Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program Elf August 2017 HB -485- Item 8. - 270 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR Response OVSD-17 The commenter states that Section 4.2.1.2 needs to be revised to provide information on the health impacts of roadway pollutants on adjacent sensitive land uses as described in the 2012 Air Quality Management Plan. Information on the health impacts of particulate matter and descriptions of particulate matter sources (including motor vehicles) are discussed in the Air Quality Technical Background Report (Volume I Draft Program EIR), beginning on page 2. Further, descriptions, overview, and trends of each pollutant are included in the Air Quality Technical Background Report (Volume I Draft Program EIR) beginning on page 2 and do not need to be reiterated in the Chapter 4.2, Air Quality of the Draft Program EIR. As such, no further response is required. Response OVSD-18 The commenter states that the Air Quality Technical Background Report (Volume I Draft Program EIR) needs to be revised to provide information on existing TAC emitters with respect to location, threshold exceedance, AQMD Rule violations, and recommendations from the ARB for locating sensitive receptors with respect to TAC emitters. Historically, air quality laws and regulations have divided air pollutants into two broad categories: criteria air pollutants and TACs. Criteria air pollutants are a group of common air pollutants regulated by the federal and state governments by means of ambient standards based on criteria regarding health and/or environmental effects of pollution. TACs are often referred to as "non -criteria" air pollutants because ambient air quality standards have not been established for them. Under certain conditions, TACs may cause adverse health effects, including cancer and/or acute and chronic noncancerous effects. As set out by the commenter, existing TACs have been identified within the City of Huntington Beach in the Air Quality Technical Background Report (Volume I Draft Program EIR). The General Plan Update is a policy document, "guiding future development within the City of Huntington Beach as well as providing guidance to decision makers as they consider proposals for new development and site reuse through the planning horizon of 2040." The General Plan Update does not prescribe specific characteristics of future development and does not include any specific development projects. As such, future changes in land uses, and a possible increase in the number of instances where sensitive receptors are located proximate to TAC emitters, would be speculative at this time and cannot be considered in an analysis until these projects are brought forward to the City of Huntington Beach in the future. No further response is required. However, the Draft Program EIR includes analysis of existing TAC sources per the ARB recommendations which include heavily traveled roads, distribution centers, railyards, fueling stations, and dry cleaning operations. The Draft Program EIR also provides information on existing TAC emitters with respect to location of sensitive receptors including TAC source type (ex: heavily traveled roads) and ARB recommendation for the location of new sensitive receptors within proximity. The commenter states that the Draft Program EIR needs to provide justification as to why CaIEEMod was not used to analyze Localized Significance Thresholds (LST). To the contrary, at page 4.2-15, the Draft Program EIR provides justification as to why Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs) are not analyzed, as ' ty of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program FIR Page 10-79 Item 8. - 271 HB -486- August 2017 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR stated here: "While specific construction and operational activity under the General Plan Update cannot be determined at this time and the General Plan Update does not contain any specific projects, there is no impact from LSTs due to the General Plan Update. Once projects under the General Plan Update are identified and the entitlement processes begin, project -specific environmental analysis will be completed to determine whether construction and/or operations would result in a significant impact with respect to localized significance thresholds." As no impact from LSTs would occur as a result of the General Plan Update, further analysis of LSTs is unnecessary, for which CalEEMod would be utilized. As such, no further response is required. The commenter states that a Health Risk Assessment needs to be prepared in accordance with the SCAQMD guideline. The SCAQMD defines a Health Risk Assessment as, "a technical study that evaluates how toxic emissions are released from a facility, how they disperse throughout the community, and the potential for those toxic pollutants to impact human health." The SCAQMD Health Risk Assessment Guidelines for Analyzing Cancer Risks from Mobile Source Diesel idling emissions for a CEQA air quality analysis states, "The modeling analysis should contain a brief description of the facility and its activities." These definitions and descriptions are only fitting towards specific facilities or projects, as these Guidelines also go on to request very specific and detailed information about a particular site, the location and the future design which is only possible at a project -specific level. Further, these Guidelines give specific examples of projects for which they should be utilized including truck idling and movement, train idling and ship hoteling at ports, none of which are part of the General Plan Update. As such, the guidelines suggested by the commenter are not relevant to the program -level nature of the General Plan Update. Further, a Health Risk Assessment is neither necessary nor applicable to the General Plan Update or the Draft Program EIR because of the program -level nature of the analysis. As stated on page 4.2-4 of the Draft Program EIR, "Because this is a Program EIR and is to be used as a regulatory tool, as specific development projects are proposed in the future, site -specific air quality technical reports would be prepared and separate air quality analyses would occur." A health risk assessment can be prepared, as appropriate as part of these project -specific analyses in the future. No further response is required. The commenter states that an air quality compatibility study needs to be prepared using the California Air Resources Board Air Quality Land Use Compatibility Handbook. However, air quality compatible land uses are already addressed throughout the Draft Program EIR. As stated in Section 4.2.3.1 of the Draft Program EIR: "According to the CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G, and the City of Huntington Beach Environmental Assessment Checklist, impacts regarding air quality would be significant if the General Plan Update would: ■ Conflict with or obstruct the implementation of the applicable air quality plan ■ Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation ■ Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the General Plan Update region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality Page 10-80 (-it, of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program Elf August2017 HB -487- Item 8. - 272 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors) ■ Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations ■ Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people" More specifically, the air quality compatibility of land uses is addressed in the Draft Program EIR for the impacts of sensitive receptors and objectionable odors. Regarding odor, on page 4.2-5 the Draft Program EIR states, "The General Plan Update does not propose, nor would it directly facilitate, land uses that would be considered significant sources of objectionable odors. The General Plan Update does not propose the expansion of any specific land uses that currently generate odors." Regarding sensitive receptors, the Draft Program EIR identifies that there are sensitive receptors located within or in close proximity to potential substantial CO concentrations at heavily trafficked intersections, however, the Draft Program EIR demonstrates the sensitive receptors within the planning area would not be exposed to substantial CO concentrations, and the potential impacts of the General Plan Update would be less than significant. Further, implementation of the General Plan Circulation Element goals and policies would further reduce the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial CO concentrations by increasing transit opportunities and requiring more low emission vehicles and alternative fuel stations within the planning area. The Draft Program EIR also applies the ARB Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective advisory recommendations in its analysis of the proximity of sensitive receptors near uses associated with TACs, such as freeways and high traffic roads, commercial distribution centers, rail yards, ports, refineries, chrome platers, dry cleaners, gasoline stations, and other industrial facilities (as discussed beginning on page 4.2-16). No further response is required. Response OVSD-22 The commenter states that the General Plan Update and Draft Program EIR need to incorporate policies and measures contained in the California Air Resources Board Air Quality Land Use Compatibility Handbook to appropriately separate identified industrial facilities and sensitive land uses. It should be noted that, to the degree this pertains to the proposed Research and Technology (RT) land use designation, the specific types of industrial uses have not been determined at this time. The General Plan Update identifies a range of potential use types, and directs the City to prepare amendments to the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO) to identify the specific types of commercial and industrial uses that would be permitted, conditionally permitted, or prohibited within designated areas. The HBZSO updates will also identify appropriate siting radii, setbacks, and landscaping requirements to protect sensitive uses aligned with recommendations of the California Air Resources Board. The recommended approaches are more appropriately applied to the HBZSO, and the City anticipates incorporating these provisions in an update to the HBZSO. While no further response is required to the Draft Program EIR, to address the comment, as part of the public hearings before Planning Commission and City Council, staff will recommend the following policy be added to the Environmental Resources and Conservation Element: ,ity of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program FIR Page 10-81 Item 8. - 273 J HB -488- August2017 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR Policy ERC-4.F. Minimize exposure of sensitive land uses to toxic air contaminants by locating new pollutant sources away from sensitive uses and disproportionately affected communities and working with existing pollutant sources to reduce emissions when changes to existing operations or permits are proposed. Additionally, at public hearings before Planning Commission and City Council, staff will recommend the following addition to General Plan Update Implementation Program LU-P.11 — Industrial Expansion and Redevelopment Require preparation of a health risk assessment for new uses located in the Industrial and Research and Technology designations that potentially generate diesel particulate matter emissions and potential toxic air contaminant (TAC) emitters located within 1,000 feet of existing sensitive uses. Use recommendations outlined in the health risk assessment to determine siting limitations and mitigation approaches. With regard to a requirement for conditional use permits for all uses in the Gothard Subarea and Northwest Industrial Subarea within 1,000 feet of existing sensitive uses, the future update to the HBZSO will determine which specific uses within the RT designation would be subject to conditional use permits. It would be speculative at this time to foresee the full range of uses that could occur within the RT designation, and to determine that all such uses would require a conditional use permit is not relevant nor appropriate. Response OVSD-23 The commenter states that mitigation measures need to be incorporated into the Draft Program EIR to ensure adequate distance between potential TAC emitters and sensitive land uses and suggests text that they think is appropriate. See Response OVSD-22. As changes to General Plan Update policies and Implementation Programs have been made (consistent with OVSD-22), no mitigation measures are required. No further response is required. Response OVSD-24 The commenter incorrectly states that Section 4.2.3 of the Draft Program EIR needs to be revised to describe the air quality impacts of adding 13,099,000 square feet of non-residential development, consistent with Appendix A of the Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective, California Environmental Protection Agency, California Air Resources Board, April 2005. As described in Response OVSD-7, the General Plan Update is not proposed to result in a level of non-residential development similar to this. An analysis of air quality impacts anticipated to relate from the proposed project, which consists of 5,384,920 square feet of non-residential square footage is included in the Draft Program EIR. No further response is required. Response OVSD-25 The commenter incorrectly states that Section 4.2.3 of the Draft Program EIR needs to be revised to analyze the projected increase in TAC emitters anticipated by the addition of 13,099,000 square feet of non-residential development under the General Plan Update. As described in Response OVSD-7, the General Plan Update is not proposed to result in a level of non-residential development similar to this, rather 5,384,920 square feet of non-residential square footage is anticipated under the General Plan Page 10-82 rtt� of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program Elf August 2017 HB -489- Item 8. - 274 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR Update. Section 4.2.3 of the Draft Program EIR analyses existing non-residential TAC emitters as defined in the ARB Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective including heavily traveled roads, distribution centers, railyards, fueling stations, and dry-cleaning operations, as well as ports, refineries, and chrome platers that would be included in the General Plan Update. No further response is required. Response OVSD-26 The commenter suggests that LST analyses cannot be undertaken at a future time when project specific information is available as some uses will be approved by right under the existing Industrial zoning designations, further requesting mitigation that requires all industrial and commercial uses to apply for and obtain conditional use permits prior to development. Please see Response OVSD-19 regarding the LST analysis and Response OVSD-22 regarding the requirements for conditional use permits. Further, standard and existing City of Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision requirements, such as the performance standards in Section 230.82, would address the commenters concern, and negate the issue raised. Also, for example, even if a use were permitted by right in the Industrial land use designation, an application for Certificate of Occupancy requires the preparation and submittal of an SCAQMD screening checklist. No further response is required. Response OVSD-27 The commenter states that the Draft Program EIR needs to be revised to analyze environmental impacts associated with the proposed Research and Technology designation, with a particular focus on the potential for odor generating uses, citing a brewery as an example. With regard to greenhouse gas emissions, the Draft Program EIR evaluates future anticipated greenhouse gas emissions based on forecast factors associated with anticipated land uses described in the Land Use Element of the General Plan Update. With regard to wastewater emissions associated with the Research and Technology land use designation, the GHG forecast relies on service population (population + employment) calculations associated with anticipated new development within the designation. In the case of the Research and Technology designation, future wastewater emissions are predominately driven by increased employment. However, the analysis is conducted at a citywide scale for a broad range of uses, and is not directly reflective of any specific development proposal, including a potential brewery. Please see Response OVSD-22. No specific development in the Research and Technology designation is proposed at this time, and it would be speculative to foresee the full range of uses that could be located within this designation, with regard to both air quality and GHG analyses. Future development with the potential to create objectionable odors within the Research and Technology designation (e.g., a brewery restaurant) would be subject to project -level CEQA analysis that would assess, disclose and mitigate potential impacts to odors and GHGs as well as existing HBZSO and HBMC regulations to address odors. Furthermore, the description of the Research and Technology designation on page 2-12 of the General Plan Update states that the designation would encourage uses such as clean and green manufacturing. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that future uses would be be more compatible with surrounding uses contrary to the commenter's assertion. No further response is required. ity of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Progro- FIR Page 10-83 Item 8. - 275 HB -490- August 2017 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR Response OVSD-28 The commenter suggests that Section 4.2.3.2 of the Draft Program EIR needs to be corrected to address the potential for projects that would generate odor and not require discretionary approval. Please see Response OVSD-27 regarding odors and Response OVSD-22 regarding the approval process. The commenter also asserts that the Draft Program EIR only relies on Section 204.12(D) of the HBZSO to conclude a less than significant impact. However, the Draft Program EIR analysis for this impact relies on not only the HBZSO but also references the Huntington Beach Municipal Code and SCAQMD Rules. No further response is required. Response OVSD-29 The commenter states that the Draft Program EIR needs to provide information on the types and numbers of Research and Development applications that the `director' has previously determined that produce odors and how this would be handled under ministerial approval. Please see Response OVSD-22. Further, the request for baseline conditions of previous determinations is not relevant to the analysis of impacts anticipated from the General Plan Update, nor is it a required topic of analysis by CEQA. No further response is required. response OVSD-30 The commenter states that the analysis with regard to odor needs to be revised, adding mitigation measures to reduce odor impacts. Further, that the City of Huntington Beach needs to incorporate development standards and policies to reduce odor exposure. Please see Response OVSD-22 regarding the approval process and Response OVSD-27 regarding odor generation. The General Plan Update is a policy document, "guiding future development within the City of Huntington Beach as well as providing guidance to decision makers as they consider proposals for new development and site reuse through the planning horizon of 2040." The General Plan Update does not prescribe specific characteristics of future development and does not include any specific development projects, whether approved by discretion or ministerially. An appropriate level (i.e., program) analysis of impacts related to the generation of odors was included in the Draft Program EIR, beginning at page 4.2-4. No further response is required. Response OVSD-31 The commenter states that the conclusion of the Draft Program EIR that the General Plan Update does not conflict with the 2012 AQMP based on use of 2016-2040 SCAG RTP/SCS, April 2016 population data. However, this statement is incorrect because the analysis should have used RTP/SCS population data upon which the RTP/SCS was based. As noted beginning on page 4.2-6 of the Draft Program EIR, projects that are consistent with the employment and population projections identified in the Growth Forecast Appendix of the 2012 RTP/SCS are considered consistent with the AQMP growth projections. After the NOP was released for the Draft Program EIR (2015), the SCAQMD adopted the 2016 AQMP, which is based on the 2016-2040 SCAG RTP/SCS growth projections. Since the horizon year of the most recently adopted RTP/SCS is the same as the General Plan Update (2040), the analysis in this section refers to the more recently adopted regional plans and growth forecast numbers. Page 10-84 (-ity nf Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program Elf August 2017 HB _49 1 - Item 8. - 276 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR The City of Huntington Beach has applied appropriate discretion in basing its conclusion that the General Plan Update does not conflict with the applicable AQMP on a broader range of factors than solely population growth forecast comparisons. As noted on page 4.2-7 of the Draft Program EIR, the City of Huntington Beach identifies that the General Plan Update would exceed the population forecasts identified in the AQMP (a worst -case exceedance of 3,951 residents, which equates to approximately 2 percent of the 2040 population of the planning area and approximately 0.1 percent of the population of Orange County in 2040). However, the analysis continues - identifying that: ■ Although the General Plan Update would exceed the regional population forecast, the mixture of land uses and densities prescribed in the General Plan Update can accommodate the growth projected by SCAG by 2040; and therefore, the General Plan Update population forecast can be considered consistent with the SCAG RTP/SCS and by extension the AQMP. ■ As the existing (1996) General Plan was considered in the 2016 RTP/SCS and would anticipate a higher population growth than that under the General Plan Update, it can be assumed that the lower level of growth under the General Plan Update would not conflict with the RTP/SCS and by extension would be consistent with the existing air quality management plan. ■ The growth projections assumed in the General Plan Update, if approved, will be incorporated into the next update of the SCAG RTP/SCS, and by extension the AQMP. The significance conclusion was based on a broader range of substantial evidence than solely the population projections, and the differences between the 2012 and 2016 projections and the General Plan Update are not substantial. No further response is required. Response QVSD- The comment references a number of information sources available on the City of Huntington Beach's website identifying current population figures. The commenter goes on to note that 2013 employment figures available from the City's data set are not used as the baseline for the General Plan Update and Draft Program EIR, opining that this is not consistent with baseline assumptions used by regional agencies to complete transportation and air quality plans. The Draft Program EIR utilizes information from credible sources including the State Department of Finance and Economic Development Department to describe existing conditions that correspond to the baseline year (2015). Thus, the city's current (2017) population and 2013 employment figures are likely to differ slightly from these totals. However, this does not invalidate the analysis or findings of the Draft Program EIR and no further response is required. t„ f The commenter states that the air quality impact analysis needs to be revised to analyze compliance with applicable air quality plans for employment generated air quality impacts, citing a perceived discrepancy in the data with the 2012 RTP/SCS. Please see Responses OVSD-31 and OVSD-32. As stated on page 4.11- 1 of the Draft Program EIR, "Changes in population, employment, and housing demand can have direct social and economic effects as well as indirect environmental impacts. According to CEQA, social and economic effects should be considered in an EIR only to the extent that they create adverse impacts on the physical environment. According to Section 15382 of the CEQA Guidelines, "An economic or social change by itself shall not be considered a significant impact on the environment." Economic trend -ity of Huntington Beach General Plan Update PrograRIPm P Page 10-85 Item 8. - 277 HB -492- August 2017 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR information is based on the Economic Development Trends and Conditions Report prepared by Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc.Z (Appendix L, Volume III)." The changes to employment were not deemed to result in a significant and unavoidable impact and were not further analyzed. Potential impacts due to increases in employment opportunities will be addressed in future, project -specific environmental analyses. No further response is required. Response OVSD-34 The commenter states that the Draft Program EIR needs to be revised to incorporate an analysis of the 2016 AQMP. Please see Responses OVSD-31, OVSD-32 and OVSD-33. No further response is required. Response OVSD-35 The commenter states that the Operational Air Quality analysis prepared for the Draft Program EIR understates the air pollutant emissions related to the General Plan Update noting that the analysis needs to include source air pollutants associated with industrial development. However, as stated in the response to previous comments, the General Plan Update is a policy document, "guiding future development within the City of Huntington Beach as well as providing guidance to decision makers as they consider proposals for new development and site reuse through the planning horizon of 2040." The General Plan Update does not prescribe specific characteristics of future development and does not include any specific development projects, of an industrial nature or otherwise. Operational impacts associated with Air Quality will be addressed on a case -by -case basis as projects are brought before decision makers in the City of Huntington Beach throughout the 2040 planning horizon of the General Plan Update. Response OVSD-36 The commenter states that the Draft Program EIR should include an analysis of projected operation emissions from residential and non-residential land uses associated with the General Plan Update, noting that the both the General Plan Update and Draft Program EIR have predicted land use information with 'detailed square footage'. The General Plan Update is a policy document, "guiding future development within the City of Huntington Beach as well as providing guidance to decision makers as they consider proposals for new development and site reuse through the planning horizon of 2040." The General Plan Update does not prescribe specific characteristics of future development and does not include any specific development projects, of an industrial nature or otherwise. Operational impacts associated with Air Quality will be addressed on a case -by -case basis as projects are brought before decision makers in the City of Huntington Beach throughout the 2040 planning horizon of the General Plan Update. Further, as discussed in the Draft Program EIR, air quality analysis does not work in this manner. As stated on page 4.2-9, "The thresholds of significance that have been recommended by the SCAQMD for these new emissions were developed for individual development projects and are based on the SCAQMD New Source Review emissions standards for individual sources of new emissions, such as boilers and generators. They do not apply to cumulative development or multiple projects. Project -specific air quality analyses would be required to determine whether operational emissions are below the established thresholds. Currently, no information pertaining to the land use and overall size of individual projects under the General Plan Update is available, as no specific development projects are identified in the General Plan Update. As such, operational emissions cannot be quantified." The Draft Program EIR Page 10-86 r it, f Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program Elf August2017 Hg -493_ Item 8. - 278 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR adequately acknowledges the need for analysis of operational emissions, noting that this will need to be undertaken in the future due to the nature of analysis and established thresholds. As such, the Draft Program EIR has sufficiently and adequately addressed the analysis of operational air quality, identifying a significant and unavoidable impact due to the existing uncertainty of future development. A'worst case' analysis as suggested bythe commenter is not necessary and would not serve a useful purpose. No further response is required. response OVSD-37 The commenter notes that the Draft Program EIR should reference the documentation that shows SCAQMD's position on analyzing air quality impacts for general plans. To reduce confusion, the statement referenced by the commenter beginning on page 4.2-9 (last paragraph) has been revised, as follows: Because air pollutant emissions resulting from operation under a General Plan Update are considered cumulative in nature, and as specific information regarding the land use and overall size of individual development projects and the resulting potential operational air quality impacts is not available, toe SGAQMD gees Ret .eee... le., A it is not possible to calculate operational emissions for a planning document, such as the General Plan Update. Therefore, there remains the possibility that air pollutant emissions resulting from operation of specific projects under the General Plan Update may not be reduced below the thresholds established by the SCAQMD. As no feasible mitigation is available to reduce these emissions, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. No further response is required. Response OVS`. The commenter requests an additional goal in the General Plan Update to address air quality mitigation. In response, during the public hearing process before Planning Commission and City Council, staff will recommend the following provisions be added to Implementation Program ERC-P.38—Air Pollutants and GHG Emissions from Stationary Sources: As future land use plans are proposed and/or amended, provide heightened consideration of policies and strategies to minimize exposure of sensitive land uses and disproportionately affected neighborhoods to health risks related to air pollution. No further response is required. Response OVSD-39 The commenter suggests that land uses within the Industrial designation are permitted by right, rather than conditionally permitted. As a result of this condition, the commenter states that future environmental analysis may not be undertaken for ministerial or infill projects that are exempt from CEQA, requesting that mitigation measures be added to the Draft Program EIR to require future air quality analysis for all commercial and industrial development. Please see Response OVSD-22. 'ity of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program FIR Page 10-87 Item 8. - 279 HB -494- August 2017 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR Response OVSD-40 The commenter states that the air quality analysis needs to be revised to include an analysis of LSTs, opining that the potential future land use information identified in the General Plan Update results in LSTs associated with the development of 7,288 multi -family residential units and 5,384,920 square feet of non- residential development. Please see response OVSD-19. Response OVSD-41 The commenter states that more information is needed regarding the conclusion that the General Plan Update and associated environmental analysis is consistent with the 2012 AQMP. Please see Response OVSD-31. Response OVSD-42 The commenter requests clarity on which AQMP the Draft Program EIR is consistent with, referencing text on page 4.2-19. To address this, the following change has been made to the text beginning in the last paragraph of page 4.2-18 in the Draft Program EIR: Cumulative development could result in a significant impact in terms of conflicting with, or obstructing implementation of, the adopted AQMP. Growth considered inconsistent with the AQMP could interfere with attainment of federal or state ambient air quality standards, because this growth is not included in the projections utilized in the formulation of the AQMP. Consequently, as long as growth in the Basin is within the projections for growth identified in the 2016 RTP/SCS, implementation of the AQMP would not be obstructed by such growth. Anticipated growth under the General Plan Update is consistent with the 2012 AQMP (in affect at the time of release of the NOP) and is considered to be consistent with the growth assumptions of the SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS and therefore, 2016 AQMP. Further, with implementation of Goal LU-1 (Distribution and Pattern of Development) which aims for development that is consistent with outlined land use designations and prioritization of future growth as infill of existing developed areas and reusing of existing buildings, the General Plan Update will be consistent with the current AQMP 2012 AQMP). Under subsequent AQMPs, projected increases in population and employment within Huntington Beach, as well as that of other cities within the Basin, would be included in forecasts, as the SCAG population forecasts are based on the General Plans of individual cities. As such, the General Plan Update would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to air quality and would result in a less than significant cumulative impact due to inconsistency with the AQMP. Response OVSD-43 The commenter suggests that the cumulative analysis section of the Air Quality Chapter of the Draft Program EIR needs to be revised, stating that employment and population was understated given their previous statement about the incorrect use of the 2012 AQMP. Please see Responses OVSD-31, OVSD-32, and OVSD-33. Response OVSD-44 The commenter correctly notes that the Draft Program EIR identifies the proximity of schools to waste facilities as an important factor for decision making with regard to land use. The commenter goes on to state that the impact analysis on page 4.7-4 needs to be revised to include impacts specific to the Oak Page 10-88 (-it,, f Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program Elf August 2017 HB -495- Item 8. - 280 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR View neighborhood and schools within the area due to potential toxic emission and exposure from the Orange County Household Hazardous Waste Collection Center and Republic Services, noting that growth from the General Plan Update will increase use of these facilities. With regard to the Oak View neighborhood, please see Responses OVSD-11, OVSD-61 and OVSD-63. Additionally, the condition of the Oak View neighborhood with respect to the Orange County Household Hazardous Waste Collection Center and Republic Services is an existing condition. The General Plan Update is a guidance document, and does not prescribe the location and characteristics of development within the City of Huntington Beach, nor does it grant the entitlement for any specific construction projects. As such, the General Plan Update will not directly or immediately alter the existing conditions in the area. With regard to the impact analysis, as above, the General Plan Update is a guidance document, and does not prescribe the location and characteristics of development within the City of Huntington Beach, nor does it grant the entitlement for any specific construction projects, including in the Oak View neighborhood. The Draft Program EIR is a program -level document, looking at the potential environmental impacts of the General Plan Update without parcel- or project -level analysis. Consequently, there are no changes to use proposed on any properties in the City of Huntington Beach, including the Oak View neighborhood. As such, it is neither necessary nor appropriate to add an analysis specific to the Oak View neighborhood. However, tangentially -related issues like air quality and noise have been addressed (in Chapters 4.2 and 4.10, respectively) and the commenter is encouraged to review that information. No further response is required. Response OVSD-45 The commenter states that the City of Huntington Beach should use their 'land use authority' to relocate the Orange County Household Hazardous Waste Collection Center. Neither the General Plan Update nor the Draft Program EIR have identified potentially significant and unavoidable impact due to this facility that would trigger the need for mitigation measures, which could provide a necessary nexus for consideration of relocation of such a facility. Further, the commenter does not provide sufficient information regarding the need to relocate this facility, nor a potential legislative or funding mechanism by which to do so. Finally, this is not a direct comment on the content or adequacy of the Draft Program EIR. All comments will be forwarded to appropriate City departments and decision - makers prior to consideration of project approval. No further response is required. The commenter states that the General Plan Update is expected to result in a total potential residential development of 85,403 dwelling units in 2040 while SCAG and SCAQMD regional plans are based on 81,200 households, noting that the Draft Program EIR must demonstrate consistency with these regional plans in order to make a finding of less than significant impact. It should be noted, as discussed on page 4.11-5 of the Draft Program EIR, that the number of housing units in 2040 anticipated by the General Plan Update cannot be directly compared to the number of households in 2040 as projected by SCAG since these two terms (i.e., housing units and households) are fundamentally different. Please see Response OVSD-31 regarding consistency between land use plans and the assumptions therein. It is worth noting ity of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program FIR Page 10-89 Item 8. - 281 HB -496- August 2017 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR that the environmental analysis in the Draft Program EIR is consistently undertaken based on a total residential development in 2040 of 85,403 dwelling units. No further response is required. Response OVSD-47 The comment states that the City of Huntington Beach has understated the employment data used to formulate regional air quality and transportation plans, noting that the Draft Program EIR needs to provide justification for the data used. Please refer to Response OVSD-27 relative to how commercial and industrial development was accounted for within the Draft GGRP and Responses OVSD-31, Response OVSD-32, and OVSD-33 relative to the sources of population and employment data used to establish the baseline. The non-residential square footage data presented in Table 4.14-1 of the Draft Program EIR was used to generate trips for purposes of traffic modeling. The terms "Commercial" and "Industrial" as used in this table correspond to a broad range of uses (as depicted in the footnote Table 4.14-1) that are not individually correlated to the land use designations presented in the Project Description. In any event, if the non-residential uses presented in Table 4.14-1 as distributed across the use types used for trip generation purposes exceed the square footages described in the Project Description, the resulting traffic analysis would describe a greater level of non-residential development, and thus a more conservative analysis. No further response is required. Response OVSD-48 The commenter correctly states that page 4.9-3 of the Draft Program EIR shows 3,274 acres of open space throughout the planning area, and requests that the percentage of this total open space that is provided via school properties is noted. Although not necessary or applicable to the environmental assessment per CEQA, the following change has been added to page 4.9-3 address the request of the commenter: The planning area includes 3,274 acres of open space, which is approximately 17 percent of the total acreage within the planning area. The open space land uses within the planning area consist of parks, beaches, water and commercial recreation uses, habitat conservation areas, and open space. Open Space - Conservation areas make up the largest land proportion of these uses, accounting for 1,662 acres, which is approximately 50 percent of the total open space acreage. However, this area includes the Bolsa Chica Wetlands area, which is considered part of the planning area, but is not incorporated as part of the city. As shown in Figure 3-3 (Existing Land Uses), Central Park accounts for the largest area of parkland within the city. Pocket parks and recreational facilities located on school properties make up approximately 28.91 acres or less than one percent of the total acreage of open space lands. No further response is required. The commenter states that the Impact Analysis in Section 4.9.2.3 assumes that future development would be scaled to complement adjoining uses, but no mitigation or implementation measures are incorporated into the Draft Program EIR or General Plan Update, respectively, to ensure that this assumption is borne out in connection with future development. The General Plan Update (as noted on pages 4.9-6 and 4.9-7 of the Draft Program EIR) includes the following policies related to the scale of new development projects and compatibility of future projects with existing areas: Page 10-90 r ity of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program Elf August 2017 HB -497- Item 8. - 282 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR — LU-2.A: Ensure that new development and redevelopment projects protect existing Surf City culture and identity and preserve and recognize unique neighborhoods and areas as the building blocks of the community. — LU-2.6: Ensure that new and renovated structures and building architecture and site design are context -sensitive, creative, complementary of the city's beach culture, and compatible with surrounding development and public spaces. These policies address general compatibility with surrounding areas and address the scale of new development within single-family neighborhoods in particular. However, to address the comment, as part of the public hearings before Planning Commission and City Council, staff will recommend the following policy be added to the Land Use Element: Policy LU-1.D: Ensure that new development projects are of compatible proportion, scale, and character to complement adjoining uses. No further response is required. Response OVSD-50 The commenter states that the Draft Program EIR needs to provide a list of non-residential land use designations that will increase in maximum intensity/floor-area-ratio under the General Plan Update but still be consistent with the existing Zoning Code. However, the statement that the changes would reflect what is currently allowed under the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance is not accurate as presented in the Draft Program EIR since the new industrial classification of Research and Technology is a 1.0 FAR that is greater than the existing .75 FAR for industrial uses. The Research and Technology designation is a new proposal within the General Plan Update (i.e., it is not contained in the existing General Plan (1996)). As described in Response OVSD-22, the City of Huntington Beach will complete revisions to the HBZSO to establish a new zoning district to implement various provisions of the Research and Technology designation. These revisions will include the proposed maximum floor -to -area ratio for this land use designation, including any provisions under which that maximum is reduced within subareas described in the Land Use Element. The required analysis for the Draft Program EIR is the difference between existing conditions (not the existing General Plan) and future development anticipated with implementation of the General Plan Update, employing a range of FARs identified for each land use designation. The analysis in the Draft Program EIR identifies that all proposed FARs are consistent with established FARs in the HBZSO, or will be following updates to the HBZSO as directed by the General Plan Update. No further response is required. Response OVSD-51 The commenter opines that public schools and related outdoor facilities are an essential government function and need to be protected by local land use control, noting that the Draft Program EIR needs to provide an analysis demonstrating that the City of Huntington Beach is supporting public school functions. There is no requirement within CEQA nor an established threshold against which such an analysis would be undertaken. Further, at the level of a land use plan, such an analysis would not be useful as there are no specific development projects that are proposed with the potential to cause adverse environmental ity of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Progro- RIP Page 10-91 Item 8. - 283 HB -498- August 2017 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR effects on school properties as part of the General Plan Update. The commenter is encouraged to review Chapter 4.12, Public Services, with regard to the CEQA-required analysis of impacts to school facilities. No further response is required. Response OVSD-5 The commenter states that the Draft Program EIR needs to provide an analysis of how the Research and Technology land use designation will provide a buffer between heavier industrial and non -industrial uses. In addition to the straight forward information that the movement of more intense and heavy manufacturing away from residential uses by the imposition of a less intense and less traditional industrial land use zone/designation would create an organic yet physical buffer between these land uses, please see Responses OVSD-9 and OVSD-11. Res,--onse OVSD•53 The commenter states that the Draft Program EIR needs to be revised to have the necessary information to support the fact that the Research and Technology land use designation would serve to attract less intensive industrial uses, thereby reducing the amount of heavy industry. Please see Responses OVSD-9 and OVSD-11. Response OVSD-54 The commenter states that in the analysis of SCAG 2016-2040 RTP/SCS Goals, the statement that industrial and commercial land uses associated with the Research and Technology land use designation are more compatible with surrounding sensitive land uses is not supported by the goals, policies and implementation measures of the General Plan Update. As stated throughout the General Plan Update, the intent of the Research and Technology land use designation is to provide for a more compatible type of commercial and industrial land use that is cleaner and greener than the traditional industrial uses, more characteristic of existing conditions throughout the City of Huntington Beach. Please refer to Response OVSD-22 regarding how specific uses in the Research and Technology land use designation will be defined and permitted through future revisions to the HBZSO. Both the General Plan Update and the RTP/SCS are long-term planning documents that are not intended to designate the precise types of permitted individual uses. Further, please see Responses OVSD-9 and OVSD-11 regarding the potential for more green and clean industry. No further response is required. Response OVSID-51 The commenter states that there is no discussion in the General Plan Update about updates to FAR throughout the City of Huntington Beach, and that the Draft Program EIR analysis regarding consistency with the HBZSO should be revised. The General Plan Update proposes a number of adjustments to the FAR for various land uses where the existing General Plan (1996) uses subareas to establish these/similar FARs. The General Plan Update proposes an FAR range for most non-residential land use designations. The General Plan Update also retains a number of subareas as described in the Land Use Element, and additional limits on FARs are introduced within some subareas (e.g., Peter's Landing). The required analysis for the Draft Program EIR is the difference between existing conditions (not the existing General Plan) and future development anticipated with implementation of the General Plan Update, employing a range of FARs identified for each land use designation. The analysis in the Draft Program EIR identifies Page 10-92 (-i+v of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program Elf August 2017 HB -499- Item 8. - 284 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR that all proposed FARs are consistent with established FARs in the HBZSO, or will be following updates to the HBZSO as directed by the General Plan Update. No further response is required. Response OVSD-56 The commenter states that the cumulative impact analysis for Land Use needs to be revised to provide adequate justification for consistency with future plans, noting that the analysis currently utilizes a circular logic by which the General Plan Update would be reviewed in the future for consistency with regional plans. Regional and local land use plans are not updated on an annual basis, typically being reviewed every four to five years depending on the type of plan or the jurisdiction. As such, it is not realistic that all plans would be 'current' at the time of writing or approval of another plan. Further, the protocol for regional plans is, upon embarking on a process to update, collate the most recent/current information from those jurisdictions within their remit to incorporate into the regional plan. As such, it is not circular logic as much as adherence to the current protocol. The cumulative impact analysis is sufficient and no further response is required. Response OVSD-57 The commenter states that a cumulative impact of less than significant with respect to land use compatibility cannot be made unless individual land use compatibility issues are worked out city-wide, noting that mitigation measures should be added to less compatibility issues throughout the planning area. Please see Responses OVSD-9, OVSD-10, OVSD-11 and OVSD-49. Further, the General Plan Update is a policy document, "guiding future development within the City of Huntington Beach as well as providing guidance to decision makers as they consider proposals for new development and site reuse through the planning horizon of 2040. The General Plan Update goals, policies, and implementation programs define a roadmap for new housing and job growth and provide guidance for decision makers on allocating resources and determining the physical form and character of development." As such, an accounting of exactly which parcels would be developed or redeveloped through 2040 is not part of the project, as defined, nor should it be. The General Plan Update is not prescribing specific development characteristics of future development and does not include any specific development projects. Rather, the General Plan Update identifies areas throughout the city where focused transformation would be beneficial, with development or redevelopment supported in these areas. As such, a parcel -level land use compatibility analysis is neither appropriate nor useful at this level. This type of analysis will be considered in the future as development projects are brought before decisions makers within the City of Huntington Beach. No further response is required. Response OVSD-58 The commenter states that the cumulative impact analysis in the Draft Program EIR regarding the physical division of an established community needs to be revised. However, the commenter does not provide a specific reason why this analysis needs to be revised. No specific response can be provided as a result. It is worth noting though that the General Plan Update is a policy document, "guiding future development within the City of Huntington Beach as well as providing guidance to decision makers as they consider proposals for new development and site reuse through the planning horizon of 2040. The General Plan Update goals, policies, and implementation programs define a roadmap for new housing and job growth pp 'ity of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Progro— RIP Page 10-93 Item 8. - 285 HB -500- August 2017 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR and provide guidance for decision makers on allocating resources and determining the physical form and character of development." As such, an accounting of exactly which parcels would be developed or redeveloped through 2040 is not part of the project, as defined, nor should it be. The General Plan Update is not prescribing specific development characteristics of future development and does not include any specific development projects. Rather, the General Plan Update identifies areas throughout the city where focused transformation would be beneficial, with development or redevelopment supported in these areas and there are no proposals to create a physical division within the City of Huntington Beach, much less within an established neighborhood therein. As such, it is correctly reported in the Draft Program EIR that the cumulative impact with regard to the physical division of an established community would be less than significant. No further response is required. Response OVSD-59 The commenter states that the cumulative impact finding that the General Plan Update would not conflict with existing land uses plans is incorrect, noting that the General Plan Update conflicts with analyses regarding air quality, noise, and regional plan consistency. These topics have been specifically addressed in the following responses: Response OVSD-31, OVSD-41, OVSD-42 and OVSD-68. As such, the Draft Program EIR correctly reports the cumulative impact due to conflict with an applicable land use plan as less than significant. No further response is required. i csponse OVSD-60 The commenter states that the Draft Program EIR and General Plan Update need to provide greater detail on the Research and Technology land use designation, in order for an appropriate analysis to be conducted. Please see Response OVSD-22. Response OVSD-6 E The commenter identifies the City's existing Noise Ordinance exterior standard for industrial properties (70 dBA) and the General Plan Update noise -land use compatibility standards for schools (which identify 60dBA as the maximum exterior normally acceptable standard). The commenter identifies existing conditions at Oak View Elementary School (as a result of nearby industrial uses) to illustrate incompatibility between existing uses relative to these standards, stating that mitigation measures and development standards should be incorporated into the Draft Program EIR and Noise Ordinance, respectively to eliminate land use conflicts between industrial and commercial properties and sensitive land uses. The information and analysis provided in the Draft Program EIR is adequate and sufficient to address these conditions and the related impacts, and no further response is required. However, to address the comment, as part of the public hearings before Planning Commission and City Council, staff will recommend the following modifications to General Plan Update policies be modified to encompass the effects of commercial and industrial uses on sensitive land uses: Policy N-1.8. Incorporate design and construction features into residential, mixed -use, commercial, and industrial projects that shield noise -sensitive land uses from excessive noise. Page 10-94 r it\l nt Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program Elf ' August 2017 HB -501- Item 8. - 286 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR Policy N-2.C. Minimize excessive noise from industrial land uses through incorporation of site and building design features that are intended to reduce noise impacts to sensitive land uses. Staff will also recommend the following addition to Implementation Program N-P.3 — Noise Ordinance Updates: Identify specific exterior noise standards for industrial and commercial properties located adjacent to sensitive land uses, and incorporate project design features that reduce noise conflicts between industrial and commercial properties and sensitive land uses. These additions direct the City to prepare future updates to the Noise Ordinance that apply specifically to cases where commercial and industrial uses are located adjacent to sensitive land uses. It should be noted that the incompatibility described by the comment is an existing condition that may not be resolved through changes to noise standards or policies resulting from the General Plan Update. This information does not change the analysis or conclusions in the Draft Program EIR. No further response is required. Response OVSD-62 The commenter states that the Draft Program EIR should be updated to include mitigation measures and the City of Huntington Beach should fund Code enforcement activities to address noise level violations. Please see Response OVSD-61. Response OVSD-63 The commenter opines that the Oak View neighborhood as a community of concern for environmental justice (as noted on page 4-13 of the General Plan Update) is the most impacted location in the City of Huntington Beach with regard to noise from industrial users. The commenter further states that existing Code enforcement efforts to address violations of noise standards are on a complaint -only basis that is ineffective and further compounds disadvantaged community status. Further, Implementation Program N-P.3 — Noise Ordinance Updates includes language to evaluate the adequacy of existing enforcement mechanisms, which would address the commenter's concern about existing noise sources. However, to address the comment and provide more clarity to the issue, as part of the public hearings before Planning Commission and City Council, staff will recommend the following modifications to the General Plan Update: Evaluate the adequacy of enforcement mechanisms and implement a system for tracking and monitoring locations where known or repetitive violations of noise standards have occurred or in locations where excessive noise disproportionately impacts disadvantaged neighborhoods. Identify specific exterior noise standards for industrial and commercial properties located adjacent to sensitive land uses, and incorporate project design features that reduce noise conflicts between industrial and commercial properties and sensitive land uses. It should be noted that the incompatibility described by the commenter is an existing condition that may not be resolved through changes to the Noise Ordinance. This information does not change the analysis or conclusions in the Draft Program EIR. No further response is required. �7 ity of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Progro— RIP Page 10-95 Item 8. - 28 / HB -SO2- August 2017 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR Response OVSD-64 The commenter states that the General Plan Update identifies significant increases in commercial and industrial land uses in the planning area, noting that these land uses have higher trucking uses. The commenter also states that Draft Program EIR should analyze the increase in noise levels by type of vehicle (e.g., trucks) thereby recognizing the increased commercial and industrial uses, rather than solely analyzing vehicle miles traveled for mobile noise sources. The Draft Program EIR identifies mobile source noise levels associated with future development anticipated within the General Plan Update, using the trip generation and distribution information provided within the traffic model completed for the General Plan Update, which incorporates fleet mix assumptions (including trucks) that are consistent with planned land uses. Please refer to Response OVSD-22 regarding the ability to predict specific proposed uses within the Research and Technology designation and by extension, the specific fleet mix associated with an individual proposed use. The General Plan Update is a guidance document, and does not prescribe the location and characteristics of development within the City of Huntington Beach, nor does it grant the entitlement for any specific construction projects. As such, the General Plan Update will not directly or immediately alter the existing conditions in the area. As such, it would be speculative at this point to identify any individually proposed commercial or industrial use, and the associated fleet mix, and related mobile source noise at this time. As described in General Plan Update Implementation Program N-P.6 —Acoustical Studies, such projects will be required to complete an Acoustical Study which would include identification of a more precise fleet mix and identification, disclosure, and mitigation of resulting noise impacts. No further response is required. Response OVSD-65 The commenter references noise monitoring that was conducted for the Northwest Industrial and Gothard Street Subareas identifying noise levels that exceed current standards. The commenter also states that a similar analysis should be completed to show the effects of implementation of the General Plan Update on these specific areas. The noise monitoring conducted at these locations identifies the ambient noise level over a 24-hour period, without specific regard to whether noise sources are primarily stationary or mobile. With regard to analysis of potential impacts related to the General Plan Update, the Draft Program EIR analyzes anticipated mobile noise sources along several arterial roadways near these monitoring sites, including both Springdale Street and Gothard Street (see Table 4.10-4 and pages 4.10- 15 through 4.10-20 of the Draft Program EIR). No significant impacts due to mobile sources were identified for either of these roadways. With regard to stationary source impacts, the General Plan Update is a guidance document, and does not prescribe the location and characteristics of development within the City of Huntington Beach, nor does it grant the entitlement for any specific construction projects. As such, it would be speculative to anticipate what operational stationary noise sources might be introduced near to these monitoring locations in the future and an analysis of noise levels in just two areas of the planning area would be neither appropriate nor relevant. Further, as required by the City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code, the Draft Program EIR and the General Plan Update, future uses would be subject to identified noise standards, noise reduction measures, and acoustical study requirements. No further response is required. Page 10-96 rite nf Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program Elf p p August2017 HB -503- Item 8. - ZOO CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR Response OVSD-66 The commenter states that the Draft Program EIR needs to be revised to identify areas of the City of Huntington Beach that are currently experiencing high noise levels on a regular basis, such as the Oak View neighborhood, further noting that an analysis of impacts needs to be undertaken for these specific areas. Please see Responses OVSD-61 and OVSD-63. The commenter states that the noise analysis in the Draft Program EIR assumes that all development project facilitated by the General Plan Update will prepare an acoustical study in order to mitigate future impacts on noise levels, noting that some uses in the Industrial land use designation would be permitted by right. Please refer to Response OVSD-22. With regard to a requirement for conditional use permits for all commercial and industrial uses in the Gothard Subarea and Northwest Industrial Subarea, the future update to the HBZSO will determine which specific uses within the Research and Technology designation would be subject to conditional use permits. It would be speculative at this time to try to identify the full range of uses that could occur within the Research and Technology designation, in particular, and to determine that all such uses would require a discretionary conditional use permit. It is worth noting that the Draft Program EIR correctly identifies the noise impact due to proximity to major streets as significant and unavoidable. Further, one of the rationales the City of Huntington Beach will apply in determining which specific uses in the Research and Technology designation will require a conditional use permit during the future update to the HBZSO is the likelihood of the use to include stationary noise sources that would exceed operational noise standards. As noted in Implementation Program N-P.6, such discretionary projects where the proposed project would expose a noise -sensitive land use to a stationary noise source or vibration source exceeding standards outlined in the Noise Ordinance would require an acoustical study. No further response is required. Response OVSD-68 The commenter accurately summarizes the significant and unavoidable impact (and lack of available mitigation measures to address such an impact) with regard to vehicle -related noise. However, the commenter goes on to state that they disagree with this finding and that the City of Huntington Beach should take proactive steps to reduce community ambient noise levels. As the impact was correctly identified as significant and unavoidable, this comment incorrectly challenges the content and adequacy of the Draft Program EIR. However, all comments will be forwarded to appropriate City departments and decision -makers prior to consideration of project approval. In addition, General Plan Update Implementation Program N-P.1, N-P.2, and N-P.3 would address some of the issues raised in the comment with respect to limiting hours of operation for industrial activities, evaluating and strengthening the Noise Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach regarding enforcement mechanisms, and establishing noise mitigating design guidelines and providing them to project applicants. No further response is required. Please see Responses OVSD-61 and OVSD-63. ,ity of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program RIP Page 10-97 Item 8. - 289 HB -SO4- August2017 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR Response OVSD-67 The commenter states that the Draft Program EIR understates population and employment numbers and that the document needs to be revised to analyze consistent numbers. Please see Responses OVSD-31, OVSD-32, and OVSD-37. Response OVSD-70 The commenter states that the Draft Program EIR needs to be revised to identifythe number of residential units anticipated within the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan (BECSP), over the current limit of 2,100 dwelling units. The General Plan Update and the Draft Program EIR anticipate that a total of 2,310 units would be accommodated within the BECSP (the current 2,100-unit cap, plus 210 units to account for potential future capacity increases that may or may not occur). Neither the 2,100 dwelling units currently identified in the BECSP nor the additional 210 dwelling units are specifically disclosed in the Project Description, however both are accounted for within the 7,228 units disclosed in the Project Description at page 3-17 of the Draft Program EIR. This information does not change the analysis or conclusions presented in the Draft Program EIR. No further response is required. Response OVSD-71 The commenter states that information on the amount of additional Medium Density Residential development anticipated that will likely occur within each of the three school districts that serves the City of Huntington Beach, as well as the location of this development within the planning area should be provided. Please see Response OVSD-3. Page 4.12-11 of the Draft Program EIR identifies that the 7,228 new residential units would occur across the planning area and across the three school districts, with certain areas, such as Holly-Seacliff and the Downtown area, likely to experience more residential development than others due to existing permitted residential capacities in the adopted specific plans for those areas. Further, the Draft Program EIR states that understanding these focused locations for future residential development, the Huntington Beach City School District and the Huntington Beach Union High School District would need to accommodate the bulk of school -aged children generated by the General Plan Update. The General Plan Update is a guidance document, and does not prescribe the location and characteristics of development within the City of Huntington Beach, nor does it grant the entitlement for any specific construction projects. As such, it would be speculative at this time to identify specific the quantity and location of all residential development, throughout the planning area or within each of the school districts. This comment and the associated information do not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft Program EIR and no further response is required. Response OVSD-72 The commenter states that the Draft Program EIR assumes that the increase in residential development will occur in two primary locations however, there are no General Plan Update goals, policies or Implementation Measures that would limit development. Please see Responses OVSD-3 and OVSD-71. The General Plan Update anticipates a residential development capacity of an additional 7,228 units over existing (2014) conditions. Of these 7,228 units, approximately 2,000 of these units are accounted for in Page 10-98 (-it\/ of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program EIF August 2017 HB -505- Item 8. - 290 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR the existing zoning and remaining capacity for the Holly-Seacliff, Downtown and Beach and Edinger Corridor Specific Plans. In addition, since the baseline number of 78,175 units was established, the City of Huntington Beach has permitted approximately 3,000 units that would be counted toward the 7,228 units. As such, it is anticipated that the remaining approximately 2,228 units could be developed throughout the City of Huntington Beach in accordance with the residential permitted uses and densities established on the General Plan Land Use Map (Figure LU-2 of the General Plan Update) through the 2040 horizon of the General Plan Update. Furthermore, land use designations and corresponding zoning districts proposed in the General Plan Update provide limits for where residential development can occur within the planning area., General Plan Update Policy LU-1.A requires the City of Huntington Beach to ensure that development is consistent with the land use designations presented in the Land Use Map [of the General Plan Update], including density, intensity, and use standards applicable to each land use designation. Response OVSO-73 The commenter combines the underlying comments in OVSD-71 and OVSD-72 into this one comment, adding that Table 4.14-1 in the Draft Program EIR does have a breakdown by type of residential units. Further, the commenter states that without additional detail on this issue, it is reasonable to assume that all residential development would occur within the boundaries of their school district and that the Draft Program EIR needs to provide more detailed information regarding the impact of the General Plan Update on schools in the planning area. Please see Responses OVSD-3, OVSD-71 and OVSD-72. The General Plan Update is a guidance document, and does not prescribe the location and characteristics of development within the City of Huntington Beach, nor does it grant the entitlement for any specific construction projects. As such, it would be speculative at this time to identify the specific quantity and location of all residential development, throughout the planning area. To this end, it would also be speculative, bordering unreasonable, to assume the location of all residential development within one particular school district. Further, as the Draft Program EIR does not analyze specific development projects, instead addresses impacts at a program level, similar to the nature of the General Plan Update, it is appropriate to address the impacts at a city-wide level, considering the impacts throughout the planning area rather than on a parcel- or district -level. This comment and the associated information do not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft Program EIR and no further response is required. Response OVSD-74 The commenter states that it cannot be assumed within the Draft Program EIR that because schools are operating under capacity, an impact will not occur, noting that it cannot be assumed that school districts can easily relocate students from one school to another to readily accommodate additional students. Further, the commenter states that the General Plan Update and Draft Program EIR need to include policies requiring the City of Huntington Beach and developers to coordinate with school districts regarding development associated with the General Plan Update. Finally, the commenter notes that the existing General Plan (1996) includes a policy that requires applicants to meet with school districts prior to submittal of development applications and this should be incorporated into the General Plan Update. ity of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program FIP Page 10-99 Item 8. - 291 HB -506- August2017 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR Contrary to the commenters statement, the City of Huntington Beach has not made any assumptions regarding the ease by which students might be relocated from one school to another. Further, as future development under the General Plan Update would be generating school -aged children in specific locations, this would not generate the immediate need to relocate students to different schools. Rather, the 'new' students would fill a vacant spot at a school nearby (as many schools throughout various areas of the planning area have capacity thereby allowing for easy incorporation into a nearby school). This would have little effect on existing students (including their relocation) at schools operating under capacity. As reproduced below, contrary to the commenters statement, General Plan Update Goal PSI-5 and related policies do address the need for the City of Huntington Beach to coordinate with school districts about future development. Goal PSI-5. A range of educational programs and facilities meets the needs of all ages of the community. Policies A. Continue to consult with school districts to maximize existing use of school spaces while accommodating future community and school needs. B. Continue to support and expand continuing education, after -school programs, and educational programs for all ages including educational opportunities offered in neighboring universities and colleges. C. Ensure continued use of school facilities for public recreational activities and the use of City parks to support school educational purposes. Finally, to address the request of the commenter, staff will recommend the following policy be added to the Public Services and Infrastructure Element of the General Plan Update as part of the public hearings before Planning Commission and City Council: Policy PSI-5.D. Ensure that developers consult with the appropriate school district with the intent to mitigate a potential impact on school facilities prior to project approval by the City. This comment and the associated information do not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft Program EIR and no further response is required. Similar to previous comments, the commenter states that the Draft Program EIR needs to specify in detail where additional residential units will be located. Please see Responses OVSD-71, OVSD-72 and OVSD-73. Response OVS The commenter notes that page 4.13-1 of the Draft EIR needs to identify what percentage of the 1,073 acres of parkland within the planning area is actually owned by OVSD and used by the City as pocket parks (also known as mini -parks), requesting that each of these pocket parks be identified by name and location. Page 10-100 r-it,, f Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program Elf August 2017 HB -507- Item 8. - 292 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR To address the request, 16.98 acres of the total 1,073 acres of parkland within the planning area are on OVSD school properties, as broken down in the table below.' Facility Name Acreage Circle View Park 2.31 Glen View Park 3.02 Haven View Park 2.95 Lake View Park 2.16 Marine View Park 2.96 Pleasant View Park 2.17 Robinwood Park 1.41 Total 16.98 Unlike with the other school districts that service the City of Huntington Beach, the City does not have an agreement for joint use of these properties. However, this information is not relevant to the high-level nature or impact assessment (existing or future conditions) of the Draft Program EIR or the General Plan Update. As such, no change is proposed to the document. This comment and the associated information do not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft Program EIR and no further response is required. With regard to the identification by name and location of pocket parks, this information is provided in both Figure 4.13-1(Park Locations and Service Area) and General Plan Update Figure ERC-2 (Park Locations and Service Areas). No change is required to address this. No further response is required. r er r The commenter requests an analysis within the Draft Program EIR of the impact to parkland service standards within the City of Huntington Beach in the event of school closures, whereby the parkland acreages associated with school facilities would be lost from use (see also Comments OVSD-76 and OVSD- 77). If the 16.98 acres of parkland on property owned by OVSD that the City of Huntington Beach includes in their tally of total acreage were to be lost from use, the City of Huntington Beach would still have 1,056.02 acres of parkland within the planning area. Given a future population estimate of 211,051 residents, the City of Huntington Beach would still meet their established parkland provision ratio of 5 acres per 1,000 residents (5.0036 acres per 1,000 residents). However, this information is not relevant to the high-level nature or impact assessment (existing or future conditions) of the Draft Program EIR or the General Plan Update. As such, no change is proposed to the document. This comment and the associated information do not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft Program EIR and no further response is required. Response OVSD-78 The commenter correctly states that the Draft Program EIR notes that the established parkland provision standard of 5 acres per 1,000 residents would be met in 2040, noting that the Draft Program EIR needs to City of Huntington Beach Park & Recreation Master Plan, February 2016. J ity of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program FIR Page 10-101 Item 8. - 293 HB -508- August 2017 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR state whether there is any anticipation that parkland will be decreased with implementation of the General Plan Update. Page 4.13-5 of the Draft Program EIR states, "With this population increase, assuming no net change in the acreage of parkland, the planning area would have a level of service for parkland of 5.08 acres per 1,000 residents. Although this projected population increase would degrade the existing level of service, it would still exceed the established standard without the addition of new parkland. Additional safeguards against the projected increase in population include prioritizing maintenance of existing parkland, ensuring accessibility to all residents and visitors, developing new park facilities in underserved areas and creating shared recreational resources with schools." As there is a stated assumption that there would be no net change in the acreage of parkland, this information is available to the commenter. However, for ease of reference and clarity on the subject, the following change has been made to page 4.13-2 of the Draft Program EIR: An increase in population, regardless of location, would result in increased demand for recreational facilities, which has the potential to result in the deterioration of existing facilities. The Environmental Resources and Conservation Element in the General Plan Update maintains an established citywide level of service goal for parkland of a minimum of five acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. Based on the population of the planning area in 2014 of 193,189, there are approximately 5.55 acres of parkland (including city -operated shore and beach) for every 1,000 residents. As stated in Section 4.12 (Population and Housing), implementation of development allowed under the General Plan Update would result in a total population of 211,051 residents by 2040. However, the General Plan Update does not propose the allocation or construction of additional parkland. This comment does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft Program EIR and no further response is required. Response OVSD-79 The commenter disagrees with the conclusion of the Draft Program EIR that Alternative 3, Gothard Corridor Alternative would result in a marked increase in trip generation, noting that this accounts only for ADT for passenger vehicles and does not account for their presumed decrease in diesel truck trips associated with a 'greener and cleaner' land use. The commenter then notes that a traffic study prepared for Rainbow Environmental Services (now Republic Services) established an equivalent for determining the impact from anticipated truck traffic at 3 to 1. Finally, the commenter opines that an analysis of truck traffic similar to that prepared for Rainbow Environmental Services (now Republic Services) needs to be undertaken for the General Plan Update. With regard to the Research and Technology land use designation, please see Response OVSD-22. This describes a distinct move to land uses that would likely reduce the more traditional and heavy industrial uses, while replacing with lighter industrial and a move to research and development. While the allowable land uses will be addressed in the subsequent zoning documents, these two examples of high-level land uses categories both have a notably higher passenger vehicle generation than heavy industrial as the number of employees generated within each land use is typically higher. With regard to the preparation of a diesel truck study, the General Plan Update is a policy document, "guiding future development within the City of Huntington Beach as well as providing guidance to decision Page 10-102 t itv of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program Elf August 2017 HB -509- Item 8. - 294 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR makers as they consider proposals for new development and site reuse through the planning horizon of 2040. The General Plan Update goals, policies, and implementation programs define a roadmap for new housing and job growth and provide guidance for decision makers on allocating resources and determining the physical form and character of development." The General Plan Update is not prescribing specific development characteristics of future development and does not include any specific development projects, the identification of which would be speculative at this point in time. Rather, the General Plan Update identifies areas throughout the city where focused transformation would be beneficial, with development or redevelopment supported in these areas. As such, although the Gothard Subarea is proposed as an area of `Transform', the General Plan Update will not directly (or immediately) alter existing conditions in the area. This will be addressed on a case -by -case basis by decision makers in the City of Huntington Beach throughout the planning horizon of the General Plan Update, at which point a diesel truck study could be undertaken. This is particularly relevant as a study of the generation of a particular vehicle resulting from a land use, and the associated impacts on the environment, is only appropriate for single land uses, parcel- or a small area -based study. This would not be appropriate or useful at a program -level, such as the General Plan Update as there are no specific land use changes proposed. This comment does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft Program EIR and no further response is required. Response OVSD-80 The commenter opines that Alternative 3, Gothard Corridor Alternative, is the environmentally superior alternative, citing their presumption that diesel trucking would be reduced as compared to existing heavy industrial operations. As stated on page 5-6 of the Draft Program EIR, "An EIR must identify an 'environmentally superior' alternative, and where the no project alternative is identified as environmentally superior, the EIR is then required to identify an environmentally superior alternative from among the others evaluated. Each alternative's environmental impacts are compared to the Proposed Project and determined to be environmentally superior, neutral, or inferior. However, only those impacts found significant and unavoidable are used in making the final determination of whether an alternative is environmentally superior or inferior to the Proposed Project." This requires that the potential impacts of a proposed alternative be considered for all impacts that were identified as significant and unavoidable for a proposed project. Notably, this is guidance so that a comparison of just one particular topic or environmental issue area does not dictate the determination of the environmental superior alternative. As such, Table 5-5 of the Draft Program EIR correctly analyzes the potential change of each of the proposed alternatives with respect to each topic where a significant and unavoidable impact was identified for the General Plan Update. A notable change to noise and traffic impacts is not anticipated for Alternatives 2 or 3, however a change in GHG emissions would be noted under Alternative 2. As such, it was correctly identified as the environmental superior alternative. The commenters suggestion that Alternative 3 is the environmentally superior alternative is based solely on their opinion that diesel truck traffic would be reduced as a result of this alternative, rather than a consideration of the impacts 'in the round' whereby an increase in passenger vehicle and associated impacts to air quality and noise could also be anticipated. As such, and without further technical (� -ity of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Progro- RIP Page 10-103 Item 8. - 295 HB -5 1 0- August 2017 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR information presented from the commenter, a change to the analysis or conclusions of the Draft Program EIR is not required as a result of this comment. No further response is required. Response OVSD-81 Following on from the argument in Comment OVSD-80, the commenter submits that another alternative should be analyzed in the Draft Program EIR that would consider a greater buffer between industrial and sensitive land use, with a reduction in industrial intensity (i.e. FAR) in the Gothard Subarea compared to existing allowed intensities/FAR. The commenter goes on to note that this could be accomplished by reducing the FAR allowed within the Industrial land use designation, effectively shifting the increase in FAR out of the Gothard Subarea and into the Northwest Industrial Subarea. As outlined on page 5-1 of the Draft Program EIR, "Section 15126.6(a) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR describe a range of reasonable alternatives to a project or to the location of a project that could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project as proposed, while reducing significant impacts identified. An EIR is not required to consider every conceivable alternative to a project; rather, it must consider a range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision -making and public participation. In addition, an EIR should evaluate the comparative merits of alternatives. Therefore, this chapter sets forth potential alternatives to the proposed project (implementation of the General Plan Update as proposed) and evaluates them, as required by CEQA." Key provisions of the CEQA Guidelines relating to the Alternatives analysis (Section 15126.6 et seq.) are summarized below: ■ The discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the project or its location that are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects identified, even if these Alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be costlier. ■ The "No Project" Alternative shall be evaluated along with its impact. The "no project" analysis shall discuss the existing conditions, as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project is not approved. ■ The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a "rule of reason"; therefore, the EIR must evaluate only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasonable choice. The alternatives shall be limited to those that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant impacts identified for a project as proposed. ■ With regard to alternative locations, only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant impacts of the project as proposed need be considered for inclusion in the EIR. ■ An EIR need not consider an alternative whose effects cannot be reasonably ascertained and whose implementation is remote and speculative. With specific regard to the bolded type in the bullets above, the Draft Program EIR has evaluated a reasonable range of alternatives (as further discussed in Section 5.2 of the Draft Program EIR). The commenters suggested alternative is strictly a modified version of Alternative 3, Gothard Corridor Alternative and does not introduce an alternative to the project as proposed that has not been, in some respect, considered as part of the Draft Program EIR. Further, it needs to be noted that the requirement for selection of an alternative is to consider the potential reduction of impacts of a proposed project (i.e., the General Plan Update) and not an alternative as analyzed. As such, it is considered that the Draft Page 10-104 (-itv -f Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program Elf August 2017 H13 -51 1- Item 8. - 296 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR Program EIR has met the 'rule of reason' as defined by CEQA, by analyzing a range of alternatives that could feasibly reduce the impacts identified as a result of the General Plan Update and dismissing those that would not do so (Section 5.2 of the Draft Program EIR). Analysis of an additional alternative, as proposed by the commenter, is unnecessary and would not result in substantially different impacts at a program -level than those alternatives already considered. As a result of the above, it is speculative of the commenter to suggest, without substantial evidence to support the argument, that the additional alternative they propose would be environmentally superior. No further response is required. Response OVSD-82 This comment in conclusory in nature, repeating the commenters initial request to have the public review period extended and noting that the commenter looks forward to a written response to each of their comments. Please see Response OVSD-1 regarding extension of the public review period. This document fulfills the request of the commenter for a written response. This is not a direct comment on the content or adequacy of the Draft Program EIR. All comments will be forwarded to appropriate City departments and decision -makers prior to consideration of project approval. No further response is required. ,ity of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program FIR Page 10-105 Item 8. — 2(�7 7�7 HB -512- August 2017 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR 10.2.8 Bruno, Gino J (BRU) From: "Gino J. Bruno" <gbrunoQasocal rr,coEm2> Date: June 12, 2017 at 11 09:02 AM PDT To: Jennifer Villasenor <ivillasenoresurfcity-hb or@> Cc: Scott Hess <shess Pcz,,surfcitv-hb,orcp, Fred Wilson <red.wilsonQsurfcitV-hb crq> Subject: Comments to General Plan Update EIR Ms. Villasenor, regarding the EIR ancillary to the General Plan Update (GPU), and particularly Section 4.14 ("Transportation/Traffie'): As I understand it, the city's current General Plan was last comprehensively updated in 1996. [Agenda for the Planning Commission meeting of June 13, 2017] At page 4.14-5, the EIR describes the "Performance Criteria" that was used, and how the Average Daily Traffic (AD11 volumes date back to the 1996 General Plan. At page 4.14-1, the EIR states "The existing ADT volumes are from a comprehensive count program conducted in the spring of 2014, and supplemented by traffic counts conducted in 2012, 2013, and 2016. A comparison of observed planning area -wide traffic count data was performed for the years 2005 and 2014. The results indicate that, on average, daily vehicle trip levels throughout the planning area decreased by approximately one percent in that time period." And so, 2005 was compared with 2014, and a conclusion was reached that there was a decrease in average daily traffic. BRU-1 Questions: 1. Why was the year 2005 used in this comparison, rather than the year 1996 when BRU-2 the General Plan was last updated? 2. Where in the EIR (if at all) is the actual "comparison of observed planning area - wide traffic count data [that) was performed for the years 2005 and 2014" so that BRU-3 one may verify that the comparison was indeed between "apples and apples"? Section 4.14.3.2 reads in full: "This analysis did NOT identify any effects found NOT to be significant for transportation/traffic resulting from implementation of the General Plan Update." [Emphasis supplied) With the double negatives, I read this as saying, "This analysis DID identify effects found to be significant. . . ." BRU-4 Question: If the analysis DID identify effects found to be significant, does the EIR reflect how those "significant" effects would be mitigated (in addition to the reconfiguration of the three intersections of Gothard & Center, Brookhurst & Adams, and Beach & Heil)? If so, please indicate where. Thank you Gino J. Bruno Huntington Beach Page 10-106 rite/ f Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program Ell ' August 2017 HB -5 1 3- Item 8. - 298 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR Response BRU-' Comment noted. The commenter correctly summarizes the history of the existing General Plan (1996) and update of such document. Furthermore, the commenter correctly summarizes text from the Draft Program EIR. This comment is not a direct comment on the content or adequacy of the Draft Program EIR and does not raise a specific environmental concern. All comments will be forwarded to appropriate City departments and decision -makers prior to consideration of project approval. However, no further response is required. Response BRU-2 After referencing relevant data and excerpts of the Draft Program EIR with regard to the collection and analysis of traffic data, the commenter asks why 2005 was used as a baseline by which to compare traffic rather than 1996. However, this conclusion is incorrect; the Draft Program EIR and the associated traffic analysis did not use 2005 as the baseline against which potential impacts of the General Plan Update were identified. Section 15125 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that 'An EIR must include a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as they exist at the time the notice of preparation is published, or if no notice of preparation is published, at the time environmental analysis is commenced, from both a local and regional perspective. This environmental setting will normally constitute the baseline physical conditions by which a lead agency determines whether an impact is significant. The description of the environmental setting shall be no longer than is necessary to an understanding of the significant effects of the proposed project and its alternatives.' In the case of the General Plan Update, this is arguably the timeframe of 2014-2016, the period in which the General Plan Update was going through the GPAC process (and thereby trip counts were being undertaken) culminating in the issuance of the Notice of Preparation (NOP) on October 8, 2015. As such, utilization of traffic data from 1996 and the existing General Plan (1996) would not be representative of the actual baseline conditions in the City of Huntington Beach (particularly as defined by CEQA), with substantially less average daily traffic and improvements made to the physical infrastructure not reflected. Table 4.14-1, General Plan Update Land Use and Trip Generation Summary on page 4.14-10 provides an analysis of changes to the average daily traffic and the resultant impacts of the baseline (counts available in 2015) as compare to the 2040 horizon of the General Plan Update. It is worth noting that the General Plan Circulation Update (Appendix B, Volume III of the Draft Program EIR) Table 7, 'Current General Plan Land Use and Trip Generation Summary — 2040 Projections' provides a comparison of 2014 conditions and trip generation anticipated from development allowed under the existing General Plan (1996). Table 8 of the same document 'General Plan Update Land Use and Trip Generation Summary— 2040 Projections' provides a comparison of 2014 conditions and trip generation anticipated from the General Plan Update. With regard to the period of 2005 to 2014, as noted in the Draft Program EIR, 2014 (arguably the baseline for the proposed project) came at the end of at least six years of financial recession whereby economic forces were changing the way and the amount that people were commuting, traveling for necessary goods and services, as well as undertaking social activities. As such, there was a notable decrease in the amount of daily traffic within the City of Huntington Beach from the period 2008-2014, whereas travel patterns and trip generation slowly began to return to levels seen before the recession at the end of 2015. It is recognized that this was at a time in the economic vitality of the City of Huntington Beach and the region 'ity of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Progro— FIR Page 10-107 Item 8. - 299 HB -514- August 2017 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR that was not representative of the true nature of travel and traffic generation in the area. As such, a summary of the information compiled regarding the trend during this time period was provided in the Draft Program EIR. The information provided about the timeline from 2005-2014 was not utilized for comparison or identification of impacts to traffic and transportation. Response BRU-3 As identified in Response BRU-2, there was no comparison of traffic undertaken of the conditions in 2005 against the conditions in 2014 for CEQA purposes and the identification of potentially significant impacts to traffic and transportation. Further, as outlined in Response BRU-2, the actual comparison of trip generation can be found within the General Plan Circulation Update (Appendix B, Volume III of the Draft Program EIR). Please see the complete Response BRU-2 for additional information. Resr onse BRU-4 As outlined in Section 2.4 of the Draft Program EIR, CEQA has defined terms that describe the level or classification of impact resulting from a proposed project. These include 'No Impact', 'Less Than Significant, with or without Mitigation Measures' and 'Significant and Unavoidable Impact'. 'No Impact' is a class of impacts that results in no substantial adverse change to existing environmental conditions. When referencing this category of impacts, this manifests itself into language whereby the 'effects are found not to be significant'. Although not overly helpful and potentially confusing to the average reader and layperson, the 'No Impact' and 'effects found not to be significant' designations have a formal meaning under CEQA based on established thresholds and the language is utilized appropriately throughout the Draft Program EIR, including in Section 4.14.3.2 as referenced by the commenter. While it is appreciated that confusion can/has occur(ed), the analysis prepared for the Draft Program EIR did not identify any significant and unavoidable impacts to traffic and transportation (page 4.14-23). Further, potentially significant impacts at the three intersections referenced by the commenter and identified in the draft Program EIR have been reduced to a less than significant level by Mitigation Measures MM4.14-1 through MM4.14-3 outlined on page 4.14-18. Page 10-108 rite of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program Elf August2017 HB -515- Item 8. - 300 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR 10.2.9 Ferguson, Mike (FER) From: Mike Ferguson(mailto'mlkeferousengdslextreme.coml FER Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2017 6A5 AM To: Villasenor, Jennifer Subject: Comment on the GPU and EIR updates: Delaware Street residential traffic impact Per http://www.huntingtonbeachca.gov/government/departments/planning/major/ general-plan-update.cfm, this will comment on the GPU and EIR updates. I live on Delaware Street between Memphis and Indianapolis. I have long suffered reduced quality -of -life and property value due to increased traffic supporting increased downtown business activity and residential density. I have long argued against this uncompensated taking, i.e., absent judicial review through condemnation proceedings. This argument FER-1 has lately assumed the form of criticizing a Bicycle Corridor Improvement Program (BLIP) funding proposal, which I apprehend is a thinly veiled civic enterprise design that would further abuse Delaware Street residents and property owners by an uncompensated taking. That is, quality -of -life and residential property value on Delaware Street would be further sacrificed and degraded for the benefit of downtown business interests, if not civic enterprise, absent just compensation. While I would favor re -directing noisy Delaware through -traffic to commercial arterial streets, e.g., Beach Boulevard, I doubt that promoting Delaware as a bicycle boulevard' will achieve that end. I suspect it more likely that funding is sought to perfect the City's claim to a wider street width, ostensibly to pave sidewalks, e.g., using a cynical, alarmist interpretation of the ADA. This I apprehend as little more than a ruse to eventually re- FER-2 purpose Delaware as a secondary arterial, its former designation in the MPAH, despite the absence of traffic noise mitigation in the residential neighborhood. This seems to me planning absent constitutionally required consideration for residents, confirming my view that this design is an unlawful taking. an I am pleased that OCTA no longer routes large, noisy, underutilized buses past my Delaware residence. But I suspect that change resulted more from the Orange County bankruptcy than residents' complaints. Either way, that change made residential use FERN more tolerable. I have not examined plan updates in detail, because I suppose that economic on development is preferable to decline. I also suspect it inevitable that economic pressure will ultimately prevail, and Delaware residential property value will continue to be FER-4 sacrificed to downtown trade. But I did note that it appears Delaware has been downgraded from secondary arterial to collector, a welcome change reflecting reality, since Delaware fails to meet requirements for use as a secondary arterial. If a bicycle corridor would improve my residential property value, I might support that use if it involved no perfecting of a wider street width. The existing width seems adequate to stripe for bicycle lanes, and sidewalks will (eventually) be installed as a condition of new FER-6 construction. A resort to condemnation would confirm my suspicion that Delaware is aggressively planned for through -traffic, that I consider an abuse of the residential zoning. 'ity of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program FIR Page 10-109 Item 8. - 301 J HB -516- August 201 CHAPTER mResponses mComments sECTIOw10.2 Responses to Comments onthe Draft Program em in1905, when the Vista del Mar subdivision was recorded, the platted width of Delaware Street was arguably designed to support ocommercial thoroughfare. But my understanding is that the City has persistently directed development otherwise, failed to timely perfect a wider width, and Delaware property owners have arguably paid the price. Now, a century later, not only are Delaware property owners denied commercial use on a street with traffic that impairs residential value, their property value is ER-6 expropriated to support downtown development by bearing a through -traffic burden absent corresponding benefit. I would argue that is an abuse of the subdivision map, that allocated the street less for public use than more direct benefit to subdivision property owners, i.e., not to support downtown profiteering absent compensation. In the 1905 horse -and -buggy era, when sidewalk paving for pedestrian use was a higher priority than paving between curbs, I doubt that the subdivision map intended to invite the noise, � nuisance, and hazard ufmodern motor vehicle through -troffic. ~~ Since )mmunfamiliar with the plan details, | would value counter -argument tomy impression that the plan might demonstrate. I have seen some signs of an ambivalent drift toward down'zmning(]|dbown to more upscale residential use. e.g., K8cK8onoions. That residential value is impaired by through -traffic. As I note the coastal changes over some time, it seems undeniable that density has increased, density increases will continue, traffic must necessarily increase to support that increasing density, and ER-7 Delaware Street residential value will remain under threat of sacrifice to support increased coastal development density. The best planning might manage is to balance economic development against preserving, if not promoting, the quality -of -life necessary to mtmin, ifnot attract, residents to support it. pooe 10-110 ntv*Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program Ell U+�n� � �A� �omuo/r BB-j|7- "=^^^ °' - �"�~ CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR Response FER-1 Comment noted. The commenter describes existing conditions and issues related his residence located on Delaware Street, primarily including reduced quality of life and property values. The commenter subscribes this to development and economic activity within the Downtown Area. The commenter also notes that they were most recently opposed to a Bicycle Corridor Improvement Program along Delaware Street. This is not a direct comment on the content or adequacy of the Draft Program EIR and does not raise any specific environmental issue. Further, this is not an issue that falls under CEQA regulations and guidelines. All comments will be forwarded to appropriate City departments and decision -makers prior to consideration of project approval. As such, no further response is required. Response FER-2 Comment noted. The commenter would support redirecting Delaware Street through -traffic to commercial arterial streets but does not think that this will occur as a result of "promoting Delaware Street as a bicycle boulevard." The commenter opines that the designation of Delaware Street as a bicycle boulevard is an attempt by the City to lay the foundation for re -designation of Delaware Street as a secondary arterial, noting that this would bring additional traffic and associated impacts without mitigation. As the speculations of the commenter are not part of the project, as outlined in Chapter 3, Project Description, of the Draft Program EIR, they are not required to be analyzed for CEQA purposes. Further, in the event that a change to the MPAH is proposed in the future, an analysis of potential impacts, including those to noise and traffic, would have to be undertaken and mitigation measures proposed for those impacts identified to be potentially significant. This is not a direct comment on the content or adequacy of the Draft Program EIR. All comments will be forwarded to appropriate City departments and decision -makers prior to consideration of project approval. As such, no further response is required. Response FER_3 Comment noted. The commenter expresses their pleasure that bus routes operated by the Orange County Transportation Authority are no longer routed along Delaware Street. This is not a direct comment on the content or adequacy of the Draft Program EIR and does not raise any specific environmental issue. All comments will be forwarded to appropriate City departments and decision -makers prior to consideration of project approval. No further response is required. Response FER-4 Comment noted. The commenter summarizes his view on economic development and designation of Delaware Street as a collector street (as compared to a secondary arterial), particularly as related to property values in the area. A change in the roadway designation of Delaware Street is not part of the General Plan Update; the designation as an augmented collector street is the current designation of Delaware Street on the Arterial Highway Plan. This is not a direct comment on the content or adequacy of the Draft Program EIR and does not raise any specific environmental issue. All comments will be forwarded to appropriate City departments and decision -makers prior to consideration of project approval. As such, no further response is required. ity of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Progro- FiR Page 10-1 1 1 Item 8. - 303 HB -518- August 201 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR Response FER-5 Comment noted. The commenter states that if designation of Delaware Street as a 'bicycle corridor' would improve residential property value, they might support it if a widening of the street was not necessary to do so. The commenter also indicates that he suspects Delaware is aggressively planned for through -traffic. The General Plan Update does not propose a change in the designation of Delaware and does not propose specific development projects. This is not a direct comment on the content or adequacy of the Draft Program EIR and does not raise any specific environmental issue. All comments will be forwarded to appropriate City departments and decision -makers prior to consideration of project approval. As such, no further response is required. Response FER-b Comment noted. The commenter outlines their opinion on the history of the Vista del Mar subdivision (from recordation to present day) and its relationship to commercial development and residential property value. This is not a direct comment on the content or adequacy of the Draft Program EIR and does not raise any specific environmental issue. All comments will be forwarded to appropriate City departments and decision -makers prior to consideration of project approval. As such, no further response is required. response FE Comment noted. The commenter summarizes speculative development in the surrounding areas, again offering opinions on the historic and existing relationship between land use and residential property value along Delaware Street. The General Plan Update does not propose increases in residential densities or changes to the road classification of Delaware. Future proposals to make such changes are not reasonably foreseeable and would be considered speculative. This is not a direct comment on the content or adequacy of the Draft Program EIR and does not raise any specific environmental issue. All comments will be forwarded to appropriate City departments and decision -makers prior to consideration of project approval. As such, no further response is required. Page 10-1 12 (-it, -f Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program Elf . August2017 HB -519- Item 8. - 304 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR 10.2.10 Ross, Ted (ROS) From: Ted Ross <edross 0077 (o),msn com> ROS Date: June 7, 2017 at 2:4938 PIVI PDT To: "ivillasenora-surfcity-hb oro'<iviIIasenorQsurfgty-hb ora> Subject: EIR Comments Sorry but there wasn't an indication that the web page for collecting comments was working properly??? Comments to Draft EIR-. 1) Several references are made as to source data provided by Michael Baker International,. but no qualifying explanation is provided. Since this must be some sort of private consulting firm what are their qualifications to provide such ROS-1 data. Why haven't appropriate Government agencies specifically chartered to provide source data been used as references? Furthermore, what pedigree does Michael Baker International, have in using their data in the past as compared to actual achieved results? I 2) Paragraph 2.6.1: " ..............lower level of growth that is reasonably forecast based on the Huntington Beach Traffic Model, which was updated for the 2013 Circulation Element Update, and accounting for existing conditions within the city of Huntington Beach and the goals and policies of the existing General Plan ROS-2 (1996)" , Comment: Since it is quite obvious to those who travel Huntington Beach Streets this statement needs lots of work; starting with a new Huntington Beach Traffic Model that takes in to account the obvious impact of the new high density housing traffic increases that seem to have caught everyone off guard'. 3) Transportation/Traffic: "General Plan Update Goal CIRC-1: The circulation system supports existing, approved, and planned land uses while maintaining a desired level of service and capacity on streets and at critical intersections.". Comment: It isn't happening now so what makes you think it will ROS-3 be alright in the future? You cant keep up with the needs for infrastructure maintenance with robbing peter to pay Paul so how will this be accomplished in the future. Fiscal trends for both city and State would seem to argue for the contrary. What new resources will be made available that don't exist now? 4) '"ERG-15,C: Evaluate participation in Orange County Water District's recycled water program, and explore opportunities for the city to produce its own recycled water for use within the community." Comment: This is very important; very effort ROS-4 should be made to fully participate in Orange County Water District's recycled water program to the maximum extent possible. 5) "ERC-13.F: Support Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) feasibility studies" Comment: Seriously object to this statement, neither the City Council nor the residents/electorate has authorized such an effort. The City has no role ROS-6 to play in providing and ensuring public utilities, This is presumptuous and needs to be stricken from the EIR and considerations in the General Plan Update unless the Electorate has authorized this new concept for Public Utilities. Ted Ross Huntington Beach, CA 92646 ' -ily of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program FIR Page 10-113 Item 8. - 305 HB -520- August 2017 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR From: Ted Ross <tedross 00775rrlsn 00m> Date: June 12, 2017 at 4:15:35 PM PDT To: "Villasenor, Jennifer" <JVillasenorQsurfeity-hti.orq> Subject: RE: Draft GP & EIR Comments Jennifer, In this email I'll try to recall my comments made at the last meeting you hosted and were provided verbally at first; then I'll be going back to complete my review now that I understand the organization of the documents to be reviewed better. Volume 1 Draft General Plan: 1) Page 1-2 "Key Facts" inserted data. Comment on the source; "4) Stanley R. Hoffman Associates" was included without qualifications to provide such data. You would be far better served by using know qualified sources for reference data such as State and Federal entities that specialize in providing such data. 2) Page 1-4 Paragraph on "Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy" & sentence : "The RTP was adopted in 2017 and is 3) updated every four years to address regional transportation needs. The General Plan must be consistent with these regional planning efforts." Comment: Since Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is not an elected entity perhaps you need to state how the RTP is actually authorized and how The Huntington Beach General Plan must be consistent with it? I do not believe the electorate has ever been asked to concur with this arrangement? 4) Page 2-24. "Table LU-1 General Plan Distribution of Land Uses". Comment: Data source is unreferenced and should be added for clarity. 5) Page 2-25. "Table LU-2 General Plan Development Capacity". Comment: Data source is unreferenced and should be added for clarity. 6) Page 3-19. "Figure CIRC-4" Comment: How is the data shown in Figure CIRC- 4 subject to change by OCTA updated? Perhaps this should be time dependent in some reference so updates can be easily made to reflect the latest OCTA plans & implementation of Sus routes? 7) Page 4-15. "Figure CIRC-4". Comment: Data source is unreferenced and should be added for clarity. 8) Page 4-22. "Table ERC-6 Current and Forecasted Energy Use". Comment: For the data set 2005 & 2012 Data source is unreferenced and should be added for clarity. ROS-6 Page 10-114 ct\/ f Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program Elf Augusf 2017 HB -52 i - Item 8. - 306 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR 9) Page 4-38. "Paragraph dealing with "Goal ERC-13. Increase both distributed generation and utility renewable energy sources within municipal and community - wide practices. Sub -item F) "Support Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) feasibility studies." Comment: Seriously object to this statement, neither the City Council nor the residentslelectorate has authorized such an effort. The City has no role to play in providing and ensuring public utilities. This is presumptuous ROS-7 and needs to be stricken from the EIR and considerations in the General Plan Update unless the Electorate has authorized this new concept for Public Utilities. As stated in the GP it appears that City staff has assumed that this is a suitable objective and that it should be favored. This just isn't the case and places the City in a potential high risk position for assuming utilities rate control and providing for common consumption in times of economic peril! 10) Page 8-6. "LU-P.10. Affordable Housing Ensure that Huntington Beach has a sufficient supply of housing for individuals and families of all incomes, including extremely low- and very low-income residents. Meet or exceed the target number of affordable units specified in the city's Regional Housing Needs ROS-8 Allocation." Comment: I thought this was settled by Mike Gates, City Attorney, that the City of Huntington Beach is not subject to the implied reference to the Kennedy Commission; `target number of affordable units specified in the city's Regional Housing Needs Allocation. 11) Page 8-32. "ERC-P.13. Community Choice Aggregation"_ Comment: Seriously object to this statement, neither the City Council nor the reside ntslelectorate has authorized such an effort. The City has no role to play in providing and ensuring public utilities. This is presumptuous and needs to be stricken from the EIR and considerations in the General Plan Update unless the Electorate has authorized ROS-9 this new concept for Public Utilities. As stated in the GP it appears that City staff has assumed that this is a suitable objective and that it should be favored. This just isn't the case and places the City in a potential high risk position for assuming utilities rate control and providing for common consumption in times of economic peril! (repeat!). Comments to Draft EIR Volume 2: (Continued from prior email dated 6/7/2017) 1) Page 2-34. "MM4.10-5 Prior to issuance of construction permits, applicants for new development projects within 500 feet of noise -sensitive receptors will implement the following best management practices to reduce construction noise ROS-10 levels". Comment: This is the item I spoke to during the last public review where I pointed the potential damage to infrastructure roads from construction noise generated by hauling trucks inducing long -term cumulative structural fatigue to roadways by low frequency sound caused by trucks during the hauling process. This can be mitigated by in part the use of specifications requiring trucks be equipped with Air -ride suspension systems. 2) Where items flagged in my General Plan comments have corresponding items within the EIR Volume 2 these comment have direct applicability to those items IROS-11 also. Ted Ross Huntington Beach, CA 92646 ity of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program FIR Page 10-115 Item 8. - 307 HB -522- August 2017 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR Response ROS-1 Michael Baker International is a full -service planning, engineering, environmental and architecture firm with experienced planners who are qualified to guide community planning and land use decisions through comprehensive planning. Furthermore, the qualifications of Michael Baker International were reviewed and interrogated by the City Council and supporting City departments during award of the contract for preparation of the General Plan Update in 2013. The Draft Program EIR is neither an appropriate place to outline their qualifications, nor is it a requirement of CEQA to do so. Further, with regard to the commenters question of 'Why haven't appropriate Government agencies specifically chartered to provide source data been used as references?', the commenter's suggestion that this has not occurred is incorrect. For example, use of existing data sets by such governmental agencies as the City of Huntington Beach itself (incomplete listing to include: historic/cultural, traffic, utilities, hydrology), County of Orange organizations such as Public Works, Transportation Authority, Sanitation District (incomplete listing to include: hydrology, utilities), SCAQMD (air quality), and the California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources (geology, soils, mineral resources) were utilized. This does not represent a complete listing, rather gives an indication that these data sources were appropriately utilized. This is not a direct comment on the content or adequacy of the Draft Program EIR and does not raise any specific environmental issue. As such, no further response is required. Response ROS-' The commenter suggests that the City of Huntington Beach Traffic Model needs to be updated. The existing traffic model is appropriate and sufficient to address the traffic impacts throughout the City of Huntington Beach and is propagated by the land use data and circulation system outlined in the 2013 update of the Circulation Element, including high -density housing that has been contemplated by the City of Huntington Beach. As the commenter has not identified a specific concern or insufficiency of the model as currently exists, no further response can be provided. However, all comments will be forwarded to appropriate City departments and decision -makers prior to consideration of project approval. Response ROS-3 Comment noted. The commenter questions how General Plan Update Goal CIRC-1 will be accomplished and what new resources will be made available to fund it, opining that this is not being effectively managed at the present time. This is not a direct comment on the content or adequacy of the Draft Program EIR and does not raise any specific environmental issue. All comments will be forwarded to appropriate City departments and decision -makers prior to consideration of project approval. However, it is worth noting that fiscal trends and programs that could support and fund circulation system improvements will change over the planning horizon of the General Plan Update (2040); as such it would be speculative to assess the fiscal programs at this time. Further, analysis of fiscal impacts to address infrastructure upgrades is not a requirement of CEQA. As such, no further response is required. Page 10-1 16 r'it\l nf Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program Elf August2017 HB _523_ Item 8. - 308 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR Response ROS-4 Comment noted. The commenter reiterates General Plan Update Policy ERC-15.0 related to recycled water resources and participating in the Orange County Water District's recycled water program, opining that this is very important and every effort should be made to participate to the maximum extent possible. This is not a direct comment on the content or adequacy of the Draft Program EIR and does not raise any specific environmental issue. All comments will be forwarded to appropriate City departments and decision -makers prior to consideration of project approval. As such, no further response is required. Response ROS-6 Comment noted. The commenter objects to General Plan Update Policy ERC-13.F which outlines support for a Community Choice Aggregation feasibility study, noting that they do not believe that such an effort has been authorized or that the City should have any role in providing or ensuring public utilities. This is not a direct comment on the content or adequacy of the Draft Program EIR and does not raise any specific environmental issue. All comments will be forwarded to appropriate City departments and decision - makers prior to consideration of project approval. Further, it is worth noting that the Community Choice Aggregation is part of the Draft GGRP which is a voluntary program, and not a requirement of the General Plan Update or the Draft Program EIR. As noted in the Draft GGRP, Community Choice Aggregation would be one of many strategies identified to enable the City to achieve 2040 GHG reduction goals. No further response is required. Response ROS-6 Comment noted. In response to the comment, as part of the public hearing process before Planning Commission and City Council, staff will recommend the following change to the third paragraph on page 4 of the General Plan Introduction: The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)/Sustainable Communities Strategy: Towards a Sustainable Future provides a comprehensive outline of the regional vision for transportation investments in Southern California through 2040. The RTP was adopted in 2017 and is updated every four years to address regional transportation needs. The General Plan Update n9ust should be consistent with these regional planning efforts. Footnotes identifying the City of Huntington Beach as the data source for Table LU-1(page 2-24) and Table LU-2 (page 2-25) in the Land Use Element, and identifying Southern California Edison and Southern California Gas Company as the data sources for Table ERC-6 (page 4-22) in the Environmental Resources and Conservation Element will also be added. This comment is specific to the General Plan Update and is not a direct comment on the content or adequacy of the Draft Program EIR nor does not raise any specific environmental issue. All comments will be forwarded to appropriate City departments and decision -makers prior to consideration of project approval. As such, no further response is required. -ity of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program FIR Page 10-1 17 Item 8. - 309HB -524- August2017 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR Response ROS-7 Comment noted. This comment is specific to information in the General Plan Update and specifically the Community Choice Aggregation. However, the comment also suggests that Community Choice Aggregation should be stricken from the EIR. The Community Choice Aggregation is referenced in the Draft Program EIR only as it relates to General Plan Update Policy ERC-13.F and in Table 5-1, Draft GGRP GHG Reduction Estimates. This table provides GHG reduction estimates based both on inclusion and exclusion of the Community Choice Aggregation. The impact conclusion of significant and unavoidable with regard to GHG emissions does not assume Community Choice Aggregation. Therefore, analyzing GHG reduction estimates both with and without the Community Choice Aggregation would not affect the resultant level of significance. While it is the opinion of the commenter that Community Choice Aggregation is not a route that the City of Huntington Beach should pursue, the inclusion of such within the Draft Program EIR is appropriate and the conclusion regarding the significance of impacts would not change. This is not a direct comment on the content or adequacy of the Draft Program EIR and does not raise any specific environmental issue. All comments will be forwarded to appropriate City departments and decision -makers prior to consideration of project approval. As such, no further response is required. Response ROS-8 This is not a direct comment on the content or adequacy of the Draft Program EIR and does not raise any specific environmental issue. All comments will be forwarded to appropriate City departments and decision -makers prior to consideration of project approval. As such, no further response is required. Please refer to Response ROS-7. Response ROS-10 CEQA requires that feasible mitigation measures are discussed to avoid or substantially reduce significant effects where significant impacts are identified. There are generally five categories of mitigation measures identified in Section 15370 of the CEQA Guidelines. Based on the analysis of noise and vibration in Section 4.10.2, the temporary increases in ambient noise levels from construction activities associated with implementation of the General Plan Update would not be considered substantial, and impacts would be less than significant. Additionally, Mitigation Measure MM4.10-5 has been identified to reduce future construction -related noise levels associated with implementation of the General Plan Update. As appropriate, given the characteristics of a specific project and/or the associated construction techniques, Mitigation Measure MM4.10-5 could include restriction on construction equipment, including trucks. No changes to the Draft Program EIR are necessary. Response ROS-1 'I Comment noted. The commenter indicates that all previous comments to the General Plan Update that have corresponding applicability to the Draft Program EIR should be considered as comments to the Draft Program EIR. All text edits applicable to the Program EIR have been outlined in Chapter 9 of this Final Program EIR. Page 10-1 18 C'1+v -f Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program Elf August 2017 HB -525- Item 8. - 3 10 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR 10.2.11 Comments received on the General Plan Update (GPU) From: Mary Ann Cefinder To: Wasenor, 3ennifer Subject: CCA Date: Friday, July 07, 2017 8:40:58 PM July 7, 2017 Jennifer Villasenor, Planning Manager City of Huntington Beach Community Development Department 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Public Comment on draft of City of Huntington Beach General Plan Update (GPU) Ms. Vilasenor, I want to encourage decision to move forward with the feasibility study of a Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) plan. GPU-1 Having a choice of energy providers will encourage a shift to renewable energy. Let Huntington Beach lead by example and look to the future. This is in line with the General Plan and be beneficial to the city at large, Sincerely, Mary Ann Celinder 21341 Fleet Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92646 'ity of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Progro- FIR Page 10-1 19 Item 8. - 311 HB -526- August 2017 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR July 6rd, 2017 Jennifer Villasenor, Planning Manager GPU City of Huntington Beach Community Development Department 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 jvillasenor@surfcity-hb.org Re: Public Comment on draft of City of Huntington Beach General Plan Update (GPU) Dear Ms. Vilasenor: I write to express my enthusiastic support of the Huntington Beach General Plan item ERC- P.13, which calls for a feasibility study of a Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) plan. Simply put, I prefer to choose my own energy providers. Currently, my only choice is to purchase energy from Southern California Edison, which charges the second -highest rates in California. Community Choice Aggregation is a better alternative, because it would foster free market competition leading to lower rates. In addition, CCAs can stimulate the development of high- tech energy suppliers within Huntington Beach, which would create local jobs and benefit our economy. Moreover, by offering multiple tiers of service with different levels of renewable energy, CCA would allow Huntington Beach to cheaply and sustainably meet its goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions without relying on industry or consumer regulations. The transition to renewable energy would also improve local air quality. Finally, if Huntington Beach embraces sustainable energy via CCA, it would reinforce our culture and identity as a "Surf City" that protects beaches by slowing sea level rise. Because HB Huddle is committed to individual freedoms, the well-being of Huntington Beach residents, and environmental protection, it follows that we are committed to CCA as well. Community Choice Aggregation will help Huntington Beach meet its vision of a healthy and safe city in which natural resources are protected (May 2017 draft, General Plan). For example, the General Plan envisions that in the near future, "local attractions, such as the beach... draw tourists from near and far". In fact, tourism is listed as one of the top employment sectors in the city. Yet, sea level rise threatens most —if not all —of the city's beaches. CCA would help mitigate this threat by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and slowing climate change, which is the cause of sea level rise. In addition, the city's support of sustainable energy can be used in marketing campaigns to reinforce the "Surf City" image and draw additional tourists. The General Plan also envisions that by 2040, "the community has shifted to renewable energy resources and conservation practices. Support for local businesses to develop new technologies leads to the use of these technologies to support further conservation and sustainability." CCA is an economically responsible means of shifting to renewable energy via free market forces. Furthermore, CCA will establish a local market for energy production, which will lead to the development of new energy technologies within the city. The shift to renewable energy sources will reduce air pollution generated by fossil fuel burning. Importantly, CCA would help the city meet its state -mandated requirement to specify measures that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. As highlighted in the General Plan, "Although often overlooked, modern life in Huntington Beach would be very difficult without abundant local and regional energy resources." I emphasize that CCA is a responsible and sustainable way to meet this important need, and I respectfully requests that the City Council carefully consider this option. Sincerely, Karen Coyne 18778 Club Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92648 3PU-'1 Page 10-120 (-it,, -f Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program Elf August 2017 HB -527- Item 8. - 312 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR From: Andre%y &Suz To: Vdiasenor, �2nn,L- GPU Subject: Re: Public Comment on draft of City of Hunbngtcri Beach General Plan Update (GPU) Date: Friday, My 07, 2017 7:21 35 PM Ms. Villasenor. I write to express my enthusiastic support of the Huntington Beach General Plan item ERC-P.I 3. which calls for a feasibility study of a Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) plan, Simply put I prefer to choose my own energy providers. Currently, my only choice is to purchase energy frown Southern California Edison, which charges the second -highest rates in California. Community Choice Aggregation is a better alternative, because it would foster free market competition leading to lower rates. In addition. CCAs can stimulate the development of high-tech energy suppliers within Huntington Beach, which would create local jobs and benefit out economy. Moreover, by offering multiple tiers of service with different levels of renewable energy, CCA would allow Huntington Beach to cheaply and stistaimbily meet its goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions without relying on industry or consumer regulations. The transition to renewable energy would also improve local air quality. Finally, if Huntington Beach embraces sustainable energy via CCA, it would reinforce our culture and identity as a "Surf City-, that protects beaches by slowing sea level rise. Because I-IB Huddle is committed to individual, freedoms, the well-being of Huntingtc)n Beach residents, and env ironmental protection, it follows thatwe are committed to CCA as well. Communary Choice Aggregation will help Huntington Beach meet its vision of a healthy and safe city in which natural resources are protected (May 2017 draft, General Plan). For example. the General Plan envisions that in the near future, "local attractions, such as the beach . draw louirists from near and far" In fact, tourism is listed as one of the top employment sectors in the city. Yet, sea level rise threatens, most —if not all —of the city's beaches. CCA would help mitigate this threat by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and slowing climate change, which is the cause of sea level rise. In addition, the city's support of sustainable energy can be used in marketing campaigns to reinforce the -Strf City- image mid draw additional tounsts. The General Plan also envisions that by -1040, "the community has shifted to renewable energy resources and conservation practices. Support for local businesses to develop new techriologies leads to the use of these technologies to support further conservation and sustainability,"CCA is an economically responsible means of' shifting to renewable energ -et forces. Furthermore, CCA will establish a local market for energy y via free mark y production, which will lead to the development of new energy technologies withiiii the city. The shift to renewable energy sources will reduce air pollution generated by fossil fuel burning, Importantly, CCA would help the city meet its state -mandated requirement to specify measures that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions_ Ashighlighted in the General Plan, -Although often overlooked, modem life in Huntington Beach would be very difficult without abundant local and regional energy resources." I emphasize that CCA is a responsible and sustainable way to meet this important need, and I respectfully requests that the City Council carefully consider this option, Sincerely, Andrew and Suzanne Dehritz Sent from my Wad 3PU_1 ' ��ily of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program FIR Page 10-121 Item 8. - 313 HB -528- August 2017 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR From: eitimbsftocal-mcam - To: Vimknmler GPU Subject: RE: community mnyrients to city Plan Date: Thurs&y, 1* 06, 2017 4-.21:56 PM Thmikyou for vinr iwte. I cannot copy and past ix, the %Tong document kept coring up. GPU-1 Basically, it wa., miT-inert for dw city's witinuing effort to jn)cAect tlw envirmnew wYJ support die stuc,• of a (('A I apologize for ffie inconvenience Thank you for your consideration. I Elkn _ , Villasenorwrote - M > I received ycw comment letter, but cannot open it. Will you please provide, it in a different format (word or pdf)? Or you can copy, and paste directly into the bkAy of your email. Thanks. -- Jennifer > --.k)riginal Message— > Vrcwn: %j!j:ll,n`-cJrrt > Semt: Thursday. July 06, 2017 3131 P-N4 >To: Villasenor, Jennifer > s4)je(A' "Mimunity commenl.,4 to city plan > 'Thank Y(M1 for YOUT WlNidelniti"l of lbe K"AChed fM1b1iC WMITIe"t Page 10-122 city of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program Ell ' August 2017 HB -529- Item 8. - 314 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR Fmtn: Dan lannieson To: Villasenor. Jennifer G P U Subject: comment, HBgeneral plan update Data., Thursday, July 06, 2017 4:14:40 PM Dear Ms. Villasenor: Thank you for taking comment on the Huntington Beach (City) General Plan update (GPU). My suggested changes and comments follow. Specify Goals for Parks, Open Space, Trails The GPU should better explain park -service areas and buffers, and include a park - deficit analysis for each service area. (See, for e.g., the Newport Beach GP and its narrative for park service areas. http://www.newportbeachca.gov/PLN/General_Plan/09_Ch8_ Recreation_ web. pdf ). The current draft GPU is unclear in this regard, and gives the City no guidance as to which areas of the City might be underserved by parks. The City should also maintain its current stated 5.4 acres of parkland for every 1,000 residents. The 5-acre goal sets too low a bar, essentially giving the City permission to continue its high rate of development without adding any new parks or open space. The GPU should include an affirmative statement that the City will dedicate the appropriate developer fees for the acquisition of new parks and open space. Furthermore, the City's parkland acreage total should include just the first 100 feet of beach, similar to Newport Beach's policy. The GPU should include language about improving public access to coastal areas, especially Huntington Harbor, where public access to the bay is severely limited. This should include enhanced access with waterfront public walkways, and protection from encroachments such as piers, floats, bulkheads and private/gated communities. The final GPU should also mention the planned improvement of the City -owned rail spur in North Huntington Beach, previously the Navy railroad right-of-way (Navy ROW). The draft GPU notes that parts of the Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way running east of Gothard Street is designated for a future transportation corridor. The Navy ROW runs generally east - west and connects with this Union Pacific spur, which runs north -south. Since the Navy ROW is already abandoned, it should be a priority for improvement as part of a future regional multi- use trailway. Indeed, the City has planned and budgeted money for this very purpose. (The city of Westminster has similar plans for its section of the Navy ROW. Unfortunately, a GPU-9 -ity of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program FIR Page 10-123 Item 8. - 315 H B -530- August 2017 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR GPU misguided plan to store cars on the City portion of the Navy ROW seems to have delayed implementation of the trailway plan.) Ultimately, the Navy ROW spur and the Union Pacific right-of-way could connect into a much broader regional transportation system. Plus, an improved Navy ROW would be a wonderful attraction for employees who work in and around the McDonnell Centre Business Park and desire a quick break from city life. All of these railroad right-of-way projects would support the General Plan's goal of preserving railroad right-of-ways and improving transportation and recreational opportunities. Consider Extending the new Research & Technology Zoning to the McDonnell Centre Business Park Specific Plan north of Bolsa Avenue. Promote Green Development. The GPU proposes a new land -use designation, Research and Technology (RT), to enable a broader mix of lower -intensity industrial and commercial uses to attract new, growing businesses to the City. The current GPU proposes RT zoning south of Bolsa Avenue only. However, implementing RT development in this area will require the turnover and redevelopment of individual parcels. This will be a slow, patchwork process, unlikely to create the kind of environment that cutting -edge employers will desire. In addition to a high -bandwidth infrastructure, these firms will want restaurants, entertainment and other visitor -serving and commercial amenities. Open areas for eating, meeting and breaks from the workday will also be desired. Additionally, walkways and bike trails would be key additions to attract tech firms. All of these amenities are in short supply south of Bolsa, or simply do not exist. Further, the existing parcels south of Bolsa are generally small, raising the question of whether many of these parcels will be large enough to accommodate the light manufacturing planned for the RT area. However, as Boeing exits the McDonnell Centre Business Park (MCBP) area, most of its existing land will be available for redevelopment. As a result, the City should consider the MCBP area for the new RT zoning. Large-scale redevelopment in the MCBP will be a prime opportunity to "jump start" implementation of the new RT zoning on a sizeable and integrated parcel, and begin to attract the kind of high -growth, high -value businesses and jobs the City desires. Within the RT zoning in the current MCBP area, the City should consider a mix of shops and eating/drinking establishments, open areas, public walking and biking space, and recreational facilities. I generally support the concept outlined in LU-P.14 of the GPU, allowing housing in RT areas. Any housing should be compatible with the zoning. For example, industrial, loft -type housing, plugged into the high -bandwidth of the area, located above or incorporated with nonresidential buildings, could help attract high tech businesses and employees, the latter of GPU-1 (cont) Page 10-124 rite/ nf Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program Elf August 2017 H B -5 3 1 - Item 8. - 316 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR GPU which could walk or bike to work. The typical condos, townhomes and other multi -story residential units that litter much of the City now should not be built in RT-zoned parcels and would do nothing to distinguish RT-zoned areas. Please keep in mind that the MCBP area is the main entry point to the City's Northwest corner. The current Boeing facility has a recreation area with ball fields, tennis courts, a gym, basketball and volleyball courts, and landscaping including eucalyptus groves. The property makes a positive impression of the City as visitors enter. It would be a shame if the campus - like setting of the current Boeing property was lost to more of the non-descript warehouses that exist north of the property. These look -alike warehouses are carbon copies of industrial properties that can be found anywhere in Southern California. Building more of these GPU-1 buildings at the Northwest gateway to the City would mark Huntington Beach as just another (cant) faceless, sprawling suburb, rather than the type of world -class research and technology center that the City envisions. The General Plan should promote green development, including in the MCBP and RT zoned land. This should include provisions for green, energy -efficient and self-sufficient buildings, use of native plants and water -wise landscaping, prohibitions on the use of the wasteful turf slopes used by many commercial buildings, and inclusion of public open areas and walkways/trails within any development plans. Green development will help attract clean and green manufacturing. Finally, please note that the Northwest Industrial Subarea is also bordered by residential areas to the north (Spa Drive and surrounding streets). This fact should be incorporated into the GPU. The draft GPU says the area is bordered to the north by commercial developments and the 405 freeway. Sincerely, Dan Jamieson Huntington Beach J ity of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program Fla Page 10-125 Item 8. - 317 HB -532- August 2017 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR From: LorakCalaol.com To: Villasenor. Uennifer G P U Subject: Public Comment on draft of City of H.B.General Plan Update Date: Friday, July 07, 2017 4:52:46 PM Ms. Villasenor, I am writing to show my support of the Huntington Beach General Plan item ERC- P.13, which calls for a feasibility study of a Community Choice Aggregation plan. SCE charges the second highest rates in California and I would like our city to study the CCA as an alternative. Fostering free market competition leads to lower rates. Also, CCAs can stimulate the development of high tech energy suppliers in Huntington Beach, leading to creation of local jobs. CCAs would allow Huntington Beach to meet its goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, transitioning us to renewable energy and reducing local air pollution. I am asking the City Council to carefully this option. Sincerely, Carol Keane 9432 Leilani Dr. Huntington Beach CA 92646 11 GPU-1 Page 10-126 city f Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program Elf August2017 HB -533- Item 8. - 318 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR July 7, 2017 Ms. Jennifer Villasenor City of Huntington Beach Community Development Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE: Comments on Huntington Beach's General Plan Update - Land Use Element Dear Ms. Villasenor: +cvrw.AcnnedycoMrnission.ore 17701 COMM AVC.. Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92614 949 2S0 0%9 Fax 949 2633 0647 VPU The Kennedy Commission (the Commission) is a coalition of residents and community organizations that advocates for the production of homes affordable for families earning less than $20.000 annually in Orange County. Formed in 2001, the Commission has been successful in partnering with Orange County jurisdictions to create effective housing policies that have led to the new construction of homes affordable to lower income working families. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the City of Huntington Beach's General Plan Update. We have reviewed the draft and are submitting this letter to provide public comments. As the City moves forward with the update, the Commission urges the City to continue its support for the development of affordable homes and consider the following: I . Revise Goal LU-4 Policy A to read as: Encourage a mix of residential types to accommodate people with diverse housing needs at all income levels. 2. Revise Goal LU-4 Policy E to read as: Encourage housing opportunities for all economic segments of the community to be located in proximity to employment to reduce vehicle miles traveled. 3. Include a stand-alone policy under Goal LU-4: Encourage the development of affordable homes for lower income households and workers in the City. 4. Ensure the update of the General Plan is consistent with the Housing Element pursuant to Section 65300.5 of the State Government Code. .Ranked among the top ten least affordable metropolitan areas in the country, Orange County is suffering from an affordable housing crisis. A resident must earn at least $34.87 per hour to afford a two -bedroom apartment at a fair market rent of $1,813 a month.' As rents and the number of residents needing affordable homes have continually increased, the number of affordable homes being built for lower income households has not kept up with the demand. An additional 109,965 affordable rental homes are needed to address Orange County's housing needs for lower income renters.' out or Reach 1017- The High Cost of Iiousing, National Low Income Housing Coalition, p.3g, 2017. Change County Renters to Crisis A Call for Action. Cal ifomin I loosing Pannership Corporation, p. t, May 2017. GPU-1 %Vovhing for systentic clan =c rv° uI t i ng iit the producIion of homes affordable to Orange f_'irunII'c e�Irelovls h,sw-i11CoInc firth CI14 41s 'ity of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program FIR Page 10-127 Item 8. - 319 HB -534- August 2017 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR Ms. Jennifer Villasenor July 7. 2017 GPU Page 2 of 2 Burdened by the high cost of housing, on a single night in January 2017, nearly 4,800 people experienced homelessness in Orange County.3 The need to address this crisis is urgent, especially for homeless children. During the 2015 to 2016 school year, 28,450 students in grade Pre-K through 12 th grade were identified as homeless living in unstable environment-, in the Orange County school districts. 4 In addition, according to the recent release of the Cost Study of Homelessness, close to $300 million was spent to address homelessness in Orange County during 2014 to 2015.5 Studies have shown that affordable housing coupled with supportive services is a cost-efficient intervention that will safely house individuals experiencing chronic homelessness. With high housing costs and significant lack of affordable homes, many workers and families. especially those who earn lower wages, struggle financially to live in the city, they work in. These impacts not only hurt workers and families but may also impact the city's economic competitiveness and attractiveness to major employers to provide jobs. Locating homes, specifically affordable homes, near transit, job centers and neighborhood services will decrease travel costs and allow individuals to save money and spend it elsewhere in the City. In particular, the environmental impacts of a development are especially less drastic when a person can afford to live and spend their money in the same community in which they work in. In 2017, the average commute time to work for Orange County residents was approximately 30 minutes and approximately 87% of commuters drove alone. 6 Improving location accessibility and connectivity reduces the dependency for residents, especially for lower income households and workers, to drive their automobiles. This will lead to decreased environmental impacts, such as vehicles miles traveled (VMT) and greenhouse gas emissions, which will contribute to the project's overall purpose and intent to create a sustainable transit oriented neighborhood. The General Plan will also align with the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of' 2008 (SB 375) and help the City implement and comply with SB 375 goals of reducing VMT and greenhouse gas emissions. Please keep its informed of any revisions, updates and meetings regarding the City's General Plan Update. If you have any questions. please contact me at (949) 250-0909 or cesare(�&,kennedyconii-nission.org. Sincerely, Cesar Covarrubias Executive Director 'Orange County Point in Time Count 2017. County JOranse, May 2017. OC Community Indicators 2017. Children and lasuilics Commission of Orange County% 11, 34. May 2017 Cost Study of Homelessness Executive Sononary, orange County Unilcd Way, Janitiorce: and I huvers4y of California. [wine, p. 2, March ',)Ol 7 Profile of Huntington Beach. Southern California Association of Governments„ p 22, May 2017. Page 10-128 (-itv nf Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program Ell August 2017 HB -535- Item 8. - 320 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR From: Grea Kordich To: Villasenor, Jennifer 1 Subject: Re: CCA U Date: Thursday, July 06, 2017 5:58:53 PM Hi Jennifer, My wife and i are in support of the CCA study.We think it would generate income for the city and propel us as a leader in energy. We thought councilman Pedersons derogatory remarks about Antonia Grahams fine work for GPU-1 the city on CCA shows his extreme ignorance of her job duties and the CCA. WHAT a negative BLOW HARD. THANK YOU JENNIFER for your diligent work. Greg and Lynn Kordich 88369 Leeward dr. H. B. 92646 icy of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program FIR Page 10-129 Item 8. - 321 HB -5316- August 2017 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR July Vd, 2017 Jennifer Villasenor, Planning Manager �+ City of Huntington Beach Community Development Department GPU 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 jvillasenorsurfcity-hb.org Re. Public Comment on draft of City of Huntington Beach General Plan Update (GPU) Dear Ms. Villasenor, I completely agree with the following letter. I write to express my enthusiastic support of the Huntington Beach General Plan item ERC-P.13, which calls for a feasibility study of a Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) plan. Simply put, I prefer to choose my own energy providers. Currently, my only choice is to purchase energy from Southern California Edison, which charges the second -highest rates in California. Community Choice Aggregation is a better alternative, because it would foster free market competition leading to lower rates. In addition, CCAs can stimulate the development of high-tech energy suppliers within Huntington Beach, which would create local jobs and benefit our economy. Moreover, by offering multiple tiers of service with different levels of renewable energy, CCA would allow Huntington Beach to cheaply and sustainably meet its goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions without relying on industry or consumer regulations. The transition to renewable energy would also improve local air quality. Finally, if Huntington Beach embraces sustainable energy via CCA, it would reinforce our culture and identity as a "Surf City" that protects beaches by slowing sea level rise. Because HB Huddle is committed to individual freedoms, the well-being of Huntington Beach residents, and environmental protection, it follows that we are committed to CCA as well. Community Choice Aggregation will help Huntington Beach meet its vision of a healthy and safe city in which natural resources are protected (May 2017 draft, General Plan). For example, the General Plan envisions that in the near future, "local attractions, such as the beach... draw tourists from near and far". In fact, tourism is listed as one of the top employment sectors in the city. Yet, sea level rise threatens most —if not all —of the city's beaches. CCA would help mitigate this threat by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and slowing climate change, which is the cause of sea level rise. In addition, the city's support of sustainable energy can be used in marketing campaigns to reinforce the "Surf City" image and draw additional tourists, The General Plan also envisions that by 2040, "the community has shifted to renewable energy resources and conservation practices. Support for local businesses to develop new technologies leads to the use of these technologies to support further conservation and sustainability." CCA is an economically responsible means of shifting to renewable energy via free market forces. Furthermore, CCA will establish a local market for energy production, which will lead to the development of new energy technologies within the city. The shift to renewable energy sources will reduce air pollution generated by fossil fuel burning. Importantly, CCA would help the city meet its state -mandated requirement to specify measures that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. As highlighted in the General Plan, "Although often overlooked, modern life in Huntington Beach would be very difficult without abundant local and regional energy resources." I emphasize that CCA is a responsible and sustainable way to meet this important need, and I respectfully request that the City Council carefully consider this option. Sincerely, Juana Mueller, member HB Huddle GPU-1 Page 10-130 rt+%/ nf Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program Elf August 2017 J-JB -537- Item 8. — 322 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR From: KIRK MASON 1 To: Villasenor.1-nnifer. G PU Subject: Public Comment on draft of Gty Date: Thursday, July 06, 2017 12:46:12 PM July 6rd, 2017 Public Comment on draft of City of Huntington Beach General Plan Update (GPU) Ms. Vilasenor, I write to express my enthusiastic support of the Huntington Beach General Plan item ERC- P.13, which calls for a feasibility study of a Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) plan. Simply put, I prefer to choose my own energy providers. Currently, my only choice is to purchase energy from Southern California Edison, which charges the second -highest rates in California. Community Choice Aggregation is a better alternative, because it would foster free market competition leading to lower rates. In addition, CCAs can stimulate the development of high-tech energy suppliers within Huntington Beach, which would create local jobs and benefit our economy. Moreover, by offering multiple tiers of service with different levels of renewable energy, CCAwould allow Huntington Beach to cheapiy and sustainably meet its goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions without relying on industry or consumer regulations. The transition to renewable energy would also improve local air quality. Finally, if Huntington Beach embraces sustainable energy via CCA, it would reinforce our culture and identity as a "Surf City" that protects beaches by slowing sea level rise. Because HB Huddle is committed to individual freedoms, the well-being of Huntington Beach residents, and environmental protection, it follows that we are committed to CCA as well. GPU-1 Community Choice Aggregation will help Huntington Beach meet its vision of a healthy and safe city in which natural resources are protected (May 2017 draft, General Plan). For example, the General Plan envisions that in the near future, "local attractions, such as the beach... draw tourists from near and far". In fact, tourism is listed as one of the top employment sectors in the city. Yet, sea level rise threatens most —if not all —of the city's beaches. CCA would help mitigate this threat by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and slowing climate change, which is the cause of sea level rise. In addition, the city's support of sustainable energy can be used in marketing campaigns to reinforce the "Surf City" image and draw additional tourists. The General Plan also envisions that by 2040, "the community has shifted to renewable energy resources and conservation practices. Support for local businesses to develop new technologies leads to the use of these technologies to support further conservation and sustainability." CCA is an economically responsible means of shifting to renewable energy via free market forces. Furthermore, CCA will establish a local market for energy production, which will lead to the development of new energy technologies within the city. The shift to renewable energy sources will reduce air pollution generated by fossil fuel burning. Importantly, CCA would help the city meet its state -mandated requirement to specify measures that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. As highlighted in the General Plan, "Although often overlooked, modern life in Huntington Beach would be very difficult without abundant local and regional energy resources." I emphasize that CCA is a responsible and sustainable way to met this important need, and I respectfully requests that the City Council carefully consider this option. Sincerely, Kirk J. Nason 714321-7298 Excuse brevity & typos ity of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Progro- FIR Page 10-131 Item 8. - 323 J HB -538- August 2017 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR July 314, 2017 Jennifer Villasenor, Planning Manager City of Huntington Beach Community Development Department 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 jvillasenor@surfcity-hb.org Re: Public Comment on draft of City of Huntington Beach General Plan Update (GPU) Ms. Vilasenor, GPu My name is Steve Shepherd, and I am writing to comment of the draft of the City of Huntington Beach's General Plan Update. I have lived in the City of Huntington Beach for nearly 30 years and also run a small business with my wife in the City. To say that I have a vested interested in the future of Huntington Beach would be an understatement. It is with the love of our City and the future of my family in mind that I offer the following comments. Specifically, I wish to offer my STRONG SUPPORT for the Huntington Beach General Plan Item ERC- P,13, which calls for a feasibility study of a Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) plan. This would appear to be a "no brainer" in terms of possible benefits to the City of Huntington Beach:. residence, businesses, and environment. I support the further investigation into CCA viability in the City of Huntington Beach for five main reasons: 1) choice/competition, 2) local control, 3) local economic benefit, 4) increased local security, and 4) environmental leadership. First, I don't like monopolies! I like a competitive market where I am allowed to choose. Right now SCE is the only game in town. If I want power for my home and business, I am forced to buy power from SCE. I would like to have a choice, and a local choice at that. A Huntington Beach or Coastal Orange County CCA would provide me with a choice when purchasing my electricity Second, I like local control, and I want services and policies tailored to benefit my community. SCE services 14 million customers from coastal Orange County to the California/Nevada border. It's simply impossible for SCE to focus their service goals on the specific needs and desires of our community here in Huntington Beach. By California State law a CCA must be locally controlled and managed by a not -for -profit administrative board. Whereas SCE's first responsibility is to their shareholders, a CCA would be located in and accountable to our community and residents. Third, whenever possible, I find it preferable to deal with local businesses and entities, and I make an effort to buy goods and services in Huntington Beach. Why not the same for my electricity? I would much rather pump my hard-earned dollars into our local economy than sending my cash to SCE who commission services and makes investments over 50,000 square tales service area. How much of the money 1 send to SCE every month is coming back and invested in Huntington Beach? In addition to having my money staying local when I pay my power bills, I also see how a CCA could create more local jobs in the areas of design, engineering, construction, and skilled -labor as it relates to infrastructure upgrades and sustainable energy expansion. GPU-1 Page 10-132 tit\/ nf Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program Elf August2017 HB -539- Item 8. - 324 CHAPTER 10 Responses to Comments SECTION 10.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Program EIR GPU Fourth, as our community prepares to face future security threats — whether physical or cyber based — local control over our power will be key to keeping our essential services functioning and our residents safe. As seen in other active CCA's, various communities have sought to expand and solidify their local energy needs by upgrading local power generation and distribution. By developing more local power via renewable sources such as solar and wind and then coupling it with the development of a local 11microgrid", Huntington Beach can minimize risks of power disruption and better assure the safety of its citizens. Fifth, as a coastal resident, I like to be a good steward for our environment. Our local environment - ocean, beaches, wetlands, clean water and clean air - was one of the things that originally attracted me to Huntington Beach decades ago, and now that my adult children and grandchild live here as well, I want to pass along our community's natural wonders to them. A CCA appears to be a good vehicle that will allow me to be both a good business person as well a good coastal steward. I see a terrific opportunity for renewable energy production through both wind and solar in Surf City, and given the importance of preserving our coastline and wetlands, this would appear to be a "win -win" for both my business and our environment future. While this is just "one resident's opinion", there is a mass of supporting data not only for the points I've raised but other positives associated with CCA's including — a way to comply with State Law requiring Greenhouse Gas Reductions, competitive advantage in attracting new businesses and investment into the City, regional environmental leadership, increased eco-tourism, etc., etc. As highlighted in this letter, I STRONGLY SUPPORT Huntington Beach General Plan Item ERC-P.13 and urge the City Council to move forward with a full investigation into the feasibility of a Community Choice Aggregation for Huntington Beach. Respectfully Submitted, r4i 1 fI# "IF Steven C. Shepherd, Architect 9462 Waterfront Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92646 GPU-1 (coat) -ity of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program FIR Page 10-133 Item 8. - 325 HB -540- August 2017 3 0 Findings Regarding, Project Alternatives RL t ZI FIGURE 1 Alternative 3, Gothard Corridor Land Use Change Alternative 'ity of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Progro— FiR Page 19 Item 8. - 391 HB -606- August201 Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations Findings Land use, associated assumptions regarding growth, identified mitigation measures and compliance with General Plan Update goals and policies of the Gothard Corridor Alternative would be implemented in a manner identical to the General Plan Update. The only divergence from the General Plan Update would be the change in land use designation along the entire Gothard Corridor from Industrial to Research and Technology. Under the Gothard Corridor Alternative, the amount of land within in the planning area designated as Industrial would be reduced and changed to the Research and Technology land use designation (146 additional acres). As a result of the Gothard Corridor Alternative, it is anticipated that significant and unavoidable impacts identified under the General Plan Update due to greenhouse gas emissions and noise could increase as a result of the increase in vehicle trips and associated emissions. However, the impact conclusion of significant and unavoidable would remain the same as identified for the General Plan Update. While this alternative would achieve the majority of the objectives identified for the General Plan Update (as it is substantially similar to the General Plan Update), it would not achieve avoidance of any of the significant and unavoidable impacts identified for the General Plan Update and would increase the ADT across the planning area, potentially resulting in an additional significant impact to traffic. 3.4.1.4 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Evaluation Five additional land use alternatives were initially considered during the scoping and planning process but were not selected for detailed analysis in the Draft Program EIR. These included: Air Quality, Land Use, Noise, Utilities (Water Supply), and Reduced Development Intensity Alternative. Air Quality The significant air quality impacts that are identified as a result of the General Plan Update are the result of the speculative nature of estimating the emissions from individual projects. The quantity of emissions generated by a project varies depending on such aspects as its size, the land area that would need to be disturbed during construction, the length of the construction schedule, as well as the number of developments being constructed concurrently and in proximity to an individual project. Any variation of a long-term planning document, regardless of land use changes, would result in the same significant impacts due to the speculative nature of individual development projects. The only way to reduce these impacts would be on an individual project basis, as each of the identified and project -specific factors would be known and emissions could then be estimated accurately to determine whether they would exceed SCAQMD thresholds. Due to the programmatic and high-level nature of the land use plan and program, the General Plan Update cannot be considered as one project to support a feasible Alternative. As a result, an Alternative specific to the reduction of the identified air quality impacts was rejected as infeasible. Page 20 (-it,, -f Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program Elf August2017 HB -607- Item 8. - 392 3.0 Findings Regarding Project Alternatives ze=Al(II During the General Plan Update process (including GPAC), several other areas of the city were assessed for potential changes to land use or enhancements to key intersections and/or developments. Two key areas that were considered by the City, but ultimately rejected, include the Peters Landing Opportunity area (consisting of Peter's Landing and adjacent parcels), located along the Pacific Coast Highway north of the Sunset Beach area, and the Southeast Opportunity Area, which included the Ascon Landfill, Plains tank farm, and AES power plant sites. Based on consideration and subsequent direction from the City Council, it was determined that land use changes in these areas were not preferred and no changes to land use are proposed as part of the General Plan Update. While the identification of these areas early in the General Plan Update process as key opportunity sites for achieving economic growth in the city could warrant further consideration for an alternatives analysis, these areas were already rejected by the decision makers from further consideration as part of the General Plan Update. In addition, land use changes for these areas would require increases in development density/intensity that are not likely to reduce any potential impacts when compared to the proposed General Plan Update. Noise Similar to the speculative nature of identified impacts for Air Quality, a significant and unavoidable impact due to roadway noise and groundborne vibration (during construction) were determined to be significant. With regard to roadway noise levels, community ambient noise levels would still increase substantially throughout the planning area by 2040. Because the increase in ambient noise levels would result from vehicle -related noise, a likely alternative that would reduce traffic levels enough to reduce noise levels due to roadway noise (based primarily on the location of existing residential uses) is not possible. With regard to groundborne vibration, while it has been determined that the location of vibration -heavy construction activities outside of 50 feet from a sensitive receptor would result in a less than significant impact, it is not possible to ensure that vibration -inducing activities could, in fact be located at such a distance in all cases. For example, in the Downtown area, where pile driving activities are necessary for subterranean parking structure construction, it may be necessary in the future to allow for vibration -heavy activities. Due to the uncertainty and the inability to prohibit such equipment, impacts in close proximity to sensitive receptors will remain significant and unavoidable. Further, any variation of a long-term planning document, regardless of land use changes, would result in the same significant impacts due to the speculative nature of individual development projects. As a result, an Alternative specific to the reduction of the identified groundborne vibration impacts was rejected as infeasible. Utilities / Water Supply Although the situation has improved within the latter part of 2016 and into the early parts of 2017, California continues to face a significant water crisis. Along with continued water reserve issues throughout the west and across California, delivery and reliability of water sources and supplies continues to be speculative. These conditions have prompted water suppliers, including Metropolitan, to review and continue to amend water supply projections, thus leaving less water available for jurisdictions than was previously assumed. The statewide supply situation is subject, and even likely, to change and over years, depending on precipitation, could return to a condition of normalcy and regular pumping. However, until that point in " ity of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Progro- RIP Page 21 Item 8. - 393 HB -608- August 2017 Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations time, the water supply deficit and uncertainty exists regardless of implementation of the General Plan Update or other individual projects and due to the uncertainty regarding imported water supplies, the impacts would remain significant. As this is a condition across the state of California and not a result of the General Plan Update, an Alternative that would significantly increase water supply availability is not feasible. Therefore, an Alternative specific to the reduction of identified impacts to water supplies was rejected as infeasible. Reduced Development Intensity Alternative Over the period of development of the General Plan Update, a variety of information has been considered with regard to an alternative that would result in an overall reduced amount of development. This has ranged considerably, addressing discussions through the GPAC process as well as requirements of the MAND and the Housing Element, and aspirations of growth and organized future development within the city of Huntington Beach. To address reduction of significant and unavoidable impacts resulting from the General Plan Update as required under CEQA, further consideration of an alternative that reflected a reduced amount of development was undertaken. This included discussions of such reductions as an overall reduced amount of development (i.e., a reduction of a certain percentage across all residential and non-residential development) to address general objection to the General Plan Update, increased changes to the non- residential development land use designations to address comments received during GPAC and in response to the NOP released for the General Plan Update EIR, and reduction of residential development with the assumption that it would reduce traffic congestions perceived throughout the city. However, when these were considered, none provided substantially different or reduced environmental impacts to the more focused alternatives identified in Section 5.3 Alternatives Selected for Further Analysis. Further, as outlined by CEQA, any alternative analyzed must balance compliance with stated project objectives, social and economic benefits and detriments, and the feasibility of implementing such an alternative. In consideration of these potential alternatives, it was determined that the Full Implementation of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program and Gothard Corridor Land Use Change Alternatives would result in similar, if not more significant, reductions in the environmental impacts resulting from the General Plan Update and as such, another alternative with a proposed reduction in development intensity but with less focus and/or purpose would not be sensible, in alignment with project objectives, or supported by the arguments outlined in CEQA Section 15126.6(a) with regard to the selection of project alternatives. As such, analysis of a second alternative that addressed the potential reduction of development intensity under the General Plan Update was rejected as infeasible. As these five alternatives would not reduce or avoid additional significant and unavoidable impacts identified for the General Plan Update and would not better achieve any of the project objectives, they were not analyzed further. Page 22 rrt� of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program Elf August2017 HB -609- Item 8. - 394 4.0 Statement of Overriding Considerations 4.0 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 4.1 Introduction Section 15093 of the CEQA guidelines states: (a) CEQA requires the decision -making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable." (b) When the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the Final Program EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reason to support its actions based on the Final Program EIR and/or other information in the record. The statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. (c) If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the notice of determination. The City of Huntington Beach proposes to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations regarding the significant cumulative air quality, cultural resource, GHG, noise, and utilities/water supply impacts of the General Plan Update. This section describes the anticipated benefits and other considerations of the General Plan Update to support the decision to proceed, even though significant and unavoidable impacts are anticipated. 4.2 Significant Adverse Cumulative Impact The City of Huntington Beach is proposing to approve the proposed project, with revisions to reduce environmental impacts, and has prepared a Draft Program EIR as required by CEQA. Even with revisions to the project, the following impacts have been identified as being unavoidable as there are no feasible mitigation measures available to further reduce the impacts. Refer to Chapter 2 (CEQA Findings) for further clarification regarding the impact listed below. Air Quality Project Specific Due to the speculative nature of estimating emissions from individual projects at the programmatic level of the General Plan Update, emissions cannot be quantified (as there is no project -level data) to establish whether the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) thresholds would be exceeded and the project would result in a significant and unavoidable air quality impact due to the violation of an air quality standard and exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Cumulative Due to the speculative nature of estimating emissions from individual projects at the programmatic level of the General Plan Update, emissions cannot be quantified (as there is no project -level data) to establish -ity of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Progro- FIR Page 23 Item 8. - 395 y HB -610- August 201 Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations whether the SCAQMD thresholds would be exceeded in a region deemed to be in nonattainment, and the project would result in a cumulative contribution to an air quality impact, resulting in a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact to air quality. Cultural Resources Cumulative As it is currently infeasible to determine whether future development under the General Plan Update would result in demolition or removal of historical, archaeological and paleontological resources within the planning area, the incremental contribution of the General Plan Update to these cumulative effects could be cumulatively considerable and the General Plan Update would result in a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact to cultural resources. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Cumulative The topic of GHG emissions is inherently a cumulative impact. While full implementation of the draft GGRP would reduce emissions below reduction targets, as the city of Huntington Beach is not bound by laws or regulations to implement the draft GGRP, there is no certainty that emissions would be reduced to necessary levels. Further, draft GGRP does not analyze GHG emissions associated with specific potential future development projects, and thus forecasted GHG emissions may differ substantially from actual future emissions when implementation of the General Plan Update begins. As such, the General Plan Update would result in a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact due to the generation of GHG emissions and the potential conflict with an applicable plan. Noise Project Specific The General Plan Update would result in an increase in average daily trips (ADT) associated with future development, increasing ambient noise levels across the city due to roadway noise levels, some of which exceed established thresholds. As the increase in ambient noise levels is vehicle -related, there are no feasible mitigation measures that would reduce ambient noise levels and exposure below the identified thresholds and the General Plan Update would result in a project -specific significant and unavoidable noise impact. Further, future development under the General Plan Update has the potential to generate construction vibration levels in exceedance of established thresholds at nearby sensitive receptors (i.e., those within 50 feet of piling activities). Although future development would comply with General Plan Policies N-4.A and N-4.D and implementation of mitigation measure MM4.10-5 would help to reduce impacts, construction vibration levels would not be reduced to a level that would be less than significant. Therefore, the General Plan Update would result in a project -specific (and temporary) significant and unavoidable impact due to construction vibration levels. Page 24 rity of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program Elf August 2017 HB -61 i - Item 8. - 396 4.0 Statement of Overriding Considerations Cumulative The General Plan Update would result in an increase in average daily trips (ADT) associated with future development, increasing ambient noise levels across the city due to roadway noise levels, some of which exceed established thresholds. As the increase in ambient noise levels is vehicle -related, there are no feasible mitigation measures that would reduce ambient noise levels and exposure below the identified thresholds and the General Plan Update would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to noise levels in the region. As such, the General Plan Update would result in a significant and unavoidable cumulative noise impact. The project would expose persons to or generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels due to construction. The project would result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Utilities and Service Systems Project Specific Given the uncertainty of water supply across the western United States and throughout the state of California, a future supply deficit would result in a significant and unavoidable impact. Until such time as greater confidence in and commitment from water suppliers can be made, the General Plan Update would result in a significant and unavoidable project -specific impact. Cumulative As with the project -specific impact, given the uncertainty of water supply across the western United States and throughout the state of California, a future supply deficit would result in a significant and unavoidable impact. Until such time as greater confidence in and commitment from water suppliers can be made, the General Plan Update would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to water demand, result in a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact. 4.3 Findings The City of Huntington Beach has evaluated all feasible mitigation measures and potential changes to the General Plan Update with respect to reducing the impacts that have been identified as significant and unavoidable (see Chapter 2, CEQA Findings). The City of Huntington Beach has also examined a reasonable range of alternatives to the project as proposed (see Chapter 3, Findings Regarding Project Alternatives). Based on this examination, the City of Huntington Beach has determined that the Full Implementation of the GGRP Alternative is considered to be the environmentally superior alternative. 4.4 Overriding Considerations Specific economic, social, or other considerations outweigh the significant and unavoidable impacts stated above. The reasons for proceeding with the proposed project, notwithstanding the identified significant and unavoidable impacts are described below. ity of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program FIR Page 25 Item 8. - 397 HB -612- August 2017 Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations Proposed Project Benefits 1) Vision: The General Plan Update is a policy document, "guiding future development within the City of Huntington Beach as well as providing guidance to decision makers as they consider proposals for new development and site reuse through the planning horizon of 2040. The General Plan Update goals, policies, and implementation programs define a roadmap for new housing and job growth and provide guidance for decision makers on allocating resources and determining the physical form and character of development." 2) Economic Vitality: By introducing a new Research and Technology land use designation, the General Plan Update will provide for job growth, create additional flexibility for more jobs -rich future use of current industrial properties, while attracting a range of cleaner and greener businesses. 3) Infrastructure: To address the allocation of resources and to serve the potential increase in development, the General Plan Update will also provide a plan for updating water, sewer, drainage, street, and other infrastructure facilities through a comprehensive approach to adequately serve future growth while supporting the existing community. 4) Community Image: The General Plan Update will promote Huntington Beach's unique Surf City image, identity, and culture as a beach community while recognizing the desires of residents to remain an economically vibrant and attractive community with a level of growth balanced against the needs of the community. 5) Redevelopment through revitalization and innovation: The General Plan Update provides the ability for the City of Huntington Beach to revitalize commercial corridors and older industrial areas to allow for necessary economic development while supporting the attraction of innovative, clean, green and industry -forward companies to land and expand their business potential within the community. 6) Protection of residential land uses, particularly single-family residential: By focusing the development of non-residential development (including commercial and industrial) into areas of transformation within the City of Huntington Beach, long-established single family residential neighborhoods can remain protected from encroachment of non-residential uses. Further, the housing needs of the Orange County region and the City of Huntington Beach can be accommodated within consolidated areas developed with varied housing types, efficiently utilizing existing and enhanced infrastructure. This will maintain and enhance the community image of Huntington Beach through the design and construction of high quality development consistent with the existing character. 7) Mobility and Access: The General Plan Update will retrofit and enhance high -traffic corridors to better integrate cyclists, pedestrians, and transit users, with a move towards alternative modes of traditional transport (bus, rail, shuttle) as well as up-and-coming modes of transport such as alternative fuel vehicles. 8) Resource Conservation: With more organized development and guided use of existing resources, such potential impacts to water supply can be monitored and improved for the health and benefit of residents. Further, park lands and open spaces can be protected and retained in place throughout the planning horizon to provide recreational benefits to residents, visitors and school - aged students. A shift toward sustainable resources and self-sufficiency, as outlined in the General Plan Update, will allow for the continuation of the valued way of life within the City of Huntington Beach throughout the planning horizon. Page 26 r itv of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program EIF (gyp8 August2017 HB -613- Item 8. - 39 August 14, 2017 Chair Connie Mandic and Planning Commission Members City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE: Comments on Huntington Beach's General Plan Update - Land Use Element Dear Chair Mandic and Planning Commission Members: www.kennedycomm fission. org 17701 Cowan Ave., Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92614 949 250 0909 Fax 949 263 0647 The Kennedy Commission (the Commission) is a coalition of residents and community organizations that advocates for the production of homes affordable for families earning less than $20,000 annually in Orange County. Formed in 2001, the Commission has been successful in partnering with Orange County jurisdictions to create effective housing policies that have led to the new construction of homes affordable to lower income working families. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the City of Huntington Beach's General Plan Update. We have reviewed the draft and are submitting this letter to provide public comments. As the City moves forward with the update, the Commission urges the City to continue its support for the development of affordable homes and consider the following: 1. Revise Goal LU-4 Policy A to read as: Encourage a mix of residential types to accommodate people with diverse housing needs at all income levels. 2. Revise Goal LU-4 Policy E to read as: Encourage housing opportunities for all economic segments of the community to be located in proximity to employment to reduce vehicle miles traveled. 3. Include a stand-alone policy under Goal LU-4: Encourage the development of affordable homes for lower income households and workers in the City. 4. Ensure the update of the General Plan is consistent with the Housing Element pursuant to Section 65300.5 of the State Government Code. Ranked among the top ten least affordable metropolitan areas in the country, Orange County is suffering from an affordable housing crisis. A resident must earn at least $34.87 per hour to afford a two -bedroom apartment at a fair market rent of $1,813 a month.' As rents and the number of residents needing affordable homes have continually increased, the number of affordable homes being built for lower income households has not kept up with the demand. An additional 109,965 affordable rental homes are needed to address Orange County's housing needs for lower income renters.2 ' Out of Reach 2017- The High Cost of Housing, National Low Income Housing Coalition, p.38, 2017. 2 Orange County Renters in Crisis: A Call for Action, California Housing Partnership Corporation, p. 1, May 2017. • 60 IV ClIaslge restil1tII,g III Elie lwouuctwn of It ATTACHMENT #6 Chair Mandic and Planning Commission Members August 14, 2017 Page 2 of 2 Burdened by the high cost of housing, on a single night in January 2017, nearly 4,800 people experienced homelessness in Orange County.3 The need to address this crisis is urgent, especially for homeless children. During the 2015 to 2016 school year, 28,450 students in grades Pre-K through 12th grade were identified as homeless living in unstable environments in the Orange County school districts.4 In addition, according to the recent release of the Cost Study of Homelessness, close to $300 million was spent to address homelessness in Orange County during 2014 to 2015.5 Studies have shown that affordable housing coupled with supportive services is a cost-efficient intervention that will safely house individuals experiencing chronic homelessness. With high housing costs and significant lack of affordable homes, many workers and families, especially those who earn lower wages, struggle financially to live in the city they work in. These impacts not only hurt workers and families but may also impact the city's economic competitiveness and attractiveness to major employers to provide jobs. Locating homes, specifically affordable homes, near transit, job centers and neighborhood services will decrease travel costs and allow individuals to save money and spend it elsewhere in the City. In particular, the environmental impacts of a development are especially less drastic when a person can afford to live and spend their money in the same community in which they work in. In 2017, the average commute time to work for Orange County residents was approximately 30 minutes and approximately 87% of commuters drove alone.6 Improving location accessibility and connectivity reduces the dependency for residents, especially for lower income households and workers, to drive their automobiles. This will lead to decreased environmental impacts, such as vehicles miles traveled (VMT) and greenhouse gas emissions, which will contribute to the project's overall purpose and intent to create a sustainable transit oriented neighborhood. The General Plan will also align with the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 (SB 375) and help the City implement and comply with SB 375 goals of reducing VMT and greenhouse gas emissions. Please keep us informed of any revisions, updates and meetings regarding the City's General Plan Update. If you have any questions, please contact me at (949) 250-0909 or cesarc@kennedycommission.org. z ely, Cesar Covarrubias Executive Director s Orange County Point in Time Count 2017, County of Orange, May 2017. ' OC Community Indicators 2017, Children and Families Commission of Orange County, p. 34, May 2017. s Cost Study of Homelessness Executive Summary, Orange County United Way, Jamboree and University of California, Irvine, p. 2, March 2017. Profile of Huntington Beach, Southern California Association of Governments, p. 22, May 2017. HB -615- Item 8. - 400 Mary Adams Urashima August 15, 2017 Huntington Beach, California RE: DRAFT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Chairman Mandic and Members of the Planning Commission: I object to the removal of the Historic and Cultural Resources Element from the General Plan Update as a key element —if that is what this draft proposes. The staff memorandum states this element being "reformatted" upon adoption of the draft General Plan Update. The language needs some clarification and explanation into the public record. This element should be retained in the General Plan. If my interpretation of staffs language in the staff report is not accurate, I am happy to be corrected. My comments are to place emphasis on the Historic and Cultural Resources Element as a key tool for creating balance in community development, use of natural resources, and environmental and infrastructure impacts. I also have concerns about the proposed land use designation of "Research and Technology" for the Historic Wintersburg property, which appears to have been added to the Gothard Street corridor. The designation appears to have no policy or land use support for heritage preservation. I ask the City recognize community planning is about people, not about maximizing revenue from every single square inch in an institutional fashion. There is a social cost to removing cultural and historic features; we are seeing some of that today in our community. There also is an economic cost relating to lack of affordable and creative space for emerging entrepreneurs, dwindling places to encourage the well-behaved visitors interested in heritage tourism, and clear consumer interest by younger generations in less institutional, more authentic, historic places. Thousands of dollars were spent by the City on an outside consultant, as well as hundreds of collective hours by local historians (including myself) to update the City's historic resources survey. Through that process —while we did finally adopt the Mills Act for homeowners and businesses to alleviate some out- of-pocket costs for their historic preservation efforts —I learned there is internal resistance to designating historic districts and developing a citywide historic preservation ordinance. What this means is the City is preventing itself from becoming a "certified local government" and then cannot be eligible for other funds and grants that assist heritage preservation related development. The funding and economic development that can come from a citywide historic preservation ordinance — guided by a clear General Plan Historic and Cultural Resources Element —is successful in other cities. The mindset that heritage conservation and respect for cultural resources does not pay dividends is contradicted by countless real life examples. "Beach city identity and culture" (page 2 — 26) Huntington Beach is more than a "beach city" culture and identity, which clearly places emphasis on one geographic part of this City as well as one group of people. The Native American, pioneer settlement, Item 8. - 401 HB -616- agricultural development, and historical periods that fostered pre -history settlement and trading with Catalina Island, tent cities and tent revivals, the establishment of missions, Civil War and World War II veteran history —just a few for example —are not recognized in a "beach city identity and culture" descriptor. I am reminded of the 1980s planning effort in Huntington Beach calling for a "Mediterranean theme" Please stop revising or editing the actual history and heritage of Huntington Beach. Communities are not enriched by perfectly aligned streets, mandated design, and a singular heritage. We are reducing the character to a very narrow focus. General Plan goals (page 2 — 32) The draft update includes a statement regarding protection of "community character", by "continuing to preserve historic and cultural resources related to that 'Surf City' identity, such as older neighborhoods and historic buildings." Again, the vague "Surf City identity" seems to favor one narrow aspect of local heritage. This goal is contradicted by removal of the Historic and Cultural Resources Element. It's a nice statement, but if you don't identify in the General Plan what is historic and cultural, and how it will be preserved, then it can easily be ignored. This City has destroyed well over half, if not three-quarters, of the structures and places identified in the 1986 historic resources survey. The draft goal states "continuing to preserve", which clearly has not always been the case with a Historic and Cultural Resources Element as a key element. How will this goal be achieved without priority placed on a Historic and Cultural Resources Element? Enhancing tourism and hospitality (page 2 — 40) The draft General Plan Update appears to focus on the beach area, Central Park, and the wetlands, and events such as the U.S. Open of Surfing and the Surf City Half Marathon. I agree these are prime areas and wonderful events. However, the focus appears to be on mega events focused in the downtown or beach area. Not everything has to be supersized. The policy of goal LU —14 is "Encourage both coastal and inland visitor -serving uses to offer a wide spectrum of opportunities for residents and visitors." However, the draft Update does not indicate or attempt to identify other areas in this community that represent local history or heritage. We're missing the boat by ignoring other parts of town and other types of events. In Los Angeles, the Los Angeles Conservancy developed an online crowdsourcing effort called Survey LA. Each neighborhood has the opportunity to weigh in with what is important to their community identity and history. Through this effort, they have identified and learned more about local heritage in a manner that has encouraged adaptive reuse type development, tourism and community pride. We live in a time where issues such as vandalism, litter, loitering, and public safety are highly vocal concerns by residents. There is a sense of frustration that the elements that people care about are being eliminated in a process that places more weight on visitors than residents. What better way to encourage community pride than by an effort to identify and highlight what residents find important. HB -61 7_ Item 8. - 402 Infrastructure and "green" planning (page 4 — 2) 1 am encouraged to see the recognition that the Historic and Cultural Resources Element is a companion element to the Environmental Resources and Conservation Element. Again, retaining the Historic and Cultural Resources Element as a key element of the General Plan is about more than historic preservation. It is about less wasteful, green development and careful management of impacts to infrastructure. High density over human -scale historic structures will create significant impacts to resources and infrastructure, not to mention traffic, air quality, and light and noise impacts. In resource conservation, "avoided" impacts are a tool that can also be used in urban planning. Research and Technology designation (page 2 -12) The draft plan creates a corridor for a "Research and Technology" designation, which is a linear area along Gothard Street, with the exception of carving out one 4 % acre parcel. That parcel is the National Treasure historic site referred to as Historic Wintersburg. There are less than 100 National Treasure historic sites in the United States; Historic Wintersburg is the first and only one in Orange County. Both the National Park Service and the National Trust for Historic Preservation have stated the property is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The first time this property was noted as eligible for the National Register of Historic Places was over 30 years ago, by Caltrans in 1983. As this planning commission should know from the presentation at the July 17, 2017, City Council meeting by Historic Wintersburg and the Trust for Public Land, there is a current effort to purchase the property at market value for historic preservation as a heritage site and public park. The explanation in the draft plan is that Research and Technology will "promote provision of high - capacity data systems to support new development and reuse projects". The draft plan also explains this land use designation supports commercial and industrial uses, which are exactly the uses that prompted legal action in an earlier attempt at re -zoning. The draft Update's "statement of overriding considerations" makes the blanket statement that some historic resources may be impacted. The language on page 2 —12 states the Research and Technology designation is "Industrial". It further states "the designation encourages both employment uses and commercial uses designed to accommodate employees while continuing to allow many traditional industrial uses such as manufacturing and production uses. Uses include clean and green manufacturing (e.g., medical devices, solar panels), research and development, technology, warehousing, business parks, professional offices, limited eating and drinking establishments that have an industrial component (e.g., a brewery), restaurants and cafes to accommodate employment uses and surrounding residential neighborhoods entertainment, and similar neighborhood commercial uses." We could be back where we started. You are essentially rezoning the property under the draft General Plan for commercial / industrial uses that previously were opposed. This creates additional complications in the middle of a process to purchase the property for historic preservation, something the property owner has stated they are open to. Historic preservation does not mean there cannot be 3 Item 8. - 403 HB -618- technological improvements and innovation; however, the designation of Research and Technology is appears to be not compatible with historic preservation and can lead to the destruction of significant historic resources. As the chair of the Historic Wintersburg Preservation Task Force, with a singular mission to save this National Treasure for future generations, there should be very clear, written explanation regarding why this parcel was singled out, what the Research and Technology designation is intended to do, and, how it supports the preservation of historic and cultural resources. The description for that land use designation does not support historic preservation or heritage park type uses. It leaves a lot of questions regarding the thought process and purpose of changing the land use. Without clarification in writing regarding the intent and historic resources protections, I would oppose the designation. It is unclear how it can be used and could be a tool for destruction of historic and cultural resources, contradictory to preservation of neighborhood character, and opening the door for higher density development with its associated impacts. Respectfully, Mary Adams Urashima Huntington Beach, California 4 HB -619- Item 8. - 404 Villasenor, Jennifer From: tony sellas [tony.sellas@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, August 07, 2017 10:32 PM To: Planning Commission Subject: Huntington Beach Circulation Element concerning Bike Classes Attachments: Huntington Beach Circulation Element concerning Bike Classes.pdf Dear Planning Commission, Please enter my presentation into the record for the 8/8/2017 Planning Study item A-1 (General Plan amendment). The May 2017 HB Circulation Element draft does not provide a traffic study for the proposed Class 1 Multi - Use Bike Path, Class 2 Bike lane, and Class 3 Bike Route. The City's Citizens should know what the final road design will be for the four -proposed road redesigns throughout the city. For example, does any of the three classes remove any lanes from the roads. Please see the attachment for further detail. Thank you for your service. Tony Sellas 1 Item 8. - 405 HB -620- Q�i41N�_�oti Did Wing Oculdon Conditions Tech*td Repod Trdhc Study Huntington 3each General Plon Update Prepared for. City of Huntington deoch Beachol Pi LRAAHL ,I AJ December 19, M14 From the Stantec study it provides a traffic study for many intersections in the city. There are about 30 pages of different intersection studies. In the Draft, May 2017 HB Circulation Element does not provide any intersection studies for the proposed Class 1 Multi -Use Bike Path, Class 2 Bike lane, and Class 3 Bike Routes. Please see the next slide. o M -i N@ 0 Jl 1. Wla anca Y. 9 WWM 1, kale It d ll.11 on tYf�xg 2atU Ixx 1l rl rn RXRl1 Sin A) dN IIE: A: An 93 1N 13 ,II' f!I 1 7 a ) CA 1 1 a ) sal d ) o ) Ilt la33 Sa X. IA A. GI 3 3 a I In 1 1)n L. .IP w .:l N�3 `In 9iia�pt I2I .:I' Clmsa:e Uzonal .PS' '15' I= rA1= WILIUM Sa S2 I, Jpaq it A I lair Am ®natal In) 93=t HMw rg IPNt '10 CL=t a 'rR IL V, HC ? to K .Ua .A .01 1 31tA R .11 119, 3A .EI" 4OF H I 1T( 1% .11 ISO .w 0 i III V( .Z' Q).21 IF 1 IA: 1R .A A .X 1 lAI if .R+ Rl 3 1)rY IS1 .0( taa ,15' k I 1A; PP A Q .A M I Ila 211 X lit .I. Q) 9 51t M V M.Y L. I 1 el 19 AS ne A ' ,I m_ ItItrnl A" .A. 7mlim :ZaW rocx R X IRI IF I; DON =3 :ArICIl1 .7i1 TIC RB WX as. 1) 19 l3'r ) NO) )) ,PI• I( AV IP1 I A) .II )tt .aa my r SO) 111 I 1) .P. 31 .eP ,si Vol 3) .PI tP di at 3 RO) )33 J, 37P .Cl. b51 d 11I) 10 .PP PP A4 T16 I IYl 211 .:I• III M, PPr ) 3:01 R) A 30 A! ' al d ;'a) It .05 I A k;A 1an Stp.tnaet M All Pat .n' C„SNatt "' .43. laL: )mual &I split n4)ir1 Tom MR=c-1101031 .32 .1 11 Ik* R I wo M. AP It Wn R'K In CI. 1 1Pk 1A k ,1 33F 2 21A IA t 1' � I:d Jf= #3I 3 UA 1W Ito .14 3, 1 11A sA .:1' 10 .PH 332 ? 31A aAt .21 3a/ .lt 3'L 1 l)n 19 P2' 710 ,P[ 333 I il5) 1)1 Po I11 .1k� 511 ! I)A 1A Pi PP .PS a I. Ina In 15 :A .01' is t 10 IQ /3 :4 .C3 ::allalse Iatlnai 43' .CS' 3A a1% W'81t3{M11 6e .R rwa m111Q,1MON R .1s 46 The May 2017 HB Circulation Draft Element does not provide traffic study for the proposed Multi -Use Bike Path, Class 2 Bike lane, and Class 3 Bike Route. The City's Citizens should know what the final road design is for the four proposed road redesigns. For example does any of the three classes remove any lanes from the road. From the map some streets are not clearly labeled. Why Not? Class 1 Multi -Use Bike Path AronlAssaconpelaiyae{raaNdrafibol WaytW maaaUnIWA aM 61efeVU,.6 Arfanulantrabaofsflnra by moa6nsts v - '.. mintmltfA. GxeWtr�liilMw«cpeahJ fir rt0.nmt<b WixdlgIXueo�bWrnt«ci,«e WuwU bm+,.rumnn.nMeS^�Y a..r:arow..r va«e.ar«xf..,qu..ensaa n«wrdrrYwa}&+�talara¢ereptyxarrn.mr re..0 ns+..uw„r m,ow.�.rni a+w;.ama,n,r Class 2 Bike Lane AmfNef aitripe4lMt 1W antataY DPoa frnrelon a Omit ar#�Arayt I�i I rn.rt av«tatrptwrs uro.A lsWnssest ,. ��r$ V dan Wret,hhbtgNi iiY',bmaMaM ,n�nn?a¢MfrmNnrwiatnakvi'rrM1b/1lNfa p,.�4 inarrn,nnhmrraKr«rn3 LLk�k1++,.«bcri+t yfs Y4 dG«\Na _� Msa«aeru'4,a,maNlhtrR ««. F . tY ,M rkni«w�}Nkrdie 4xtiueaa,iaw^.m 7,7 � E'ntr'JeMex �` h .. - letr iaa dRAlm4.ax «ytarpamm ,.n...r. taetrRbWt:Da.0 Class 3 Bike Route ►m rnhrah.aiwootw»au..r � �v rlM l�wtal aaltldWnRt. o..y+fwaanan «rtrr+dr.a�d*,c e.�.� ��% 8° (yMowMxanMH-ttttk sMWaWNpIBpr«k `� 'id' «erak.warcrrary'�+,Nd A«A'a'* .ma,n.�ra,mnnm. Abtw MW NwJt.S. a � aw.aruta„� NAY USE r Al.l . rsc rt+ wr�ru�;a,vxn m strrcr i�irti r3 `., ieuuuw,nxCa 4ce Bikeway Cross Sections Figure CIRC-€i 3.24 4 j City, of Huntinglon Beach General Plan IDrak P4ay 2017j Ms. Jennifer Villasenor August 3, 2017 Page 2 suggests that the City is allowed to (a) exercise control over surplus school sites and facilities and (b) limit OVSD's ability to dispose of its surplus properties in accordance with state law. We have prepared Table 1 below to summarize the specific goals, policies, and implementation measures set forth in the General Plan Update that seek to change the City's position on how school facilities are used and/or reused in the future: Table: t Summ of School Facitt►es Goals Pol�a>les, and.lm `lementaion.Measures ttt-GF.0 . ,©escO#Sari; - LU-6 neighborhood school facilities adapt over time to meet the changing education, Goal recreation, and commercial needs of the community. LU-6 A Consider preferred alternatives that maximize public benefit and access to recreation and open space for future use of school facilities should a closure occur. LU-6 B Continue to consult with school districts during planning and environmental review of ro osed non -education school reuse projects. LU-6 C Consider flexible interim use options to maximize existing use of school spaces while accommodating future community and school needs. LU-P.22 School Building Reuse • To the extent possible emphasize alternative uses that serve public benefit, including other education facilities, community centers, recreation facilities, and open space, although all uses should be considered. • Work to renovate and expand existing school buildings to accommodate new proposed uses, rather than construction of new buildings. • Alternative uses of school property should enable the building to be converted back to school uses at a future date if needed. PSI-5.A Continue to consult with school districts to maximize existing use of school spaces while accommodating future community and school needs. PSI-5.0 Ensure continued use of school facilities for public recreation activities and the use of city parks to support school education purposes PSI-P.7 Public library Facility Plan Evaluate local school libraries serving as City library satellites As shown in Table 1 above, the General Plan Update proposes to amend the Land Use Element to include Goal LU-6, Policies LU-6 A through C, and Implementation Measure LU- P.22 to provide that (a) surplus school sites should be limited to other educational facilities, community centers, recreation facilities, and open space; (b) instead of new construction, existing school buildings should be renovated to accommodate new uses and (c) school buildings should be preserved for reuse as schools in the future if needed. The current members of OVSD's school board share the City's desire to retain the playgrounds and recreational facilities currently located on OVSD's school sites in the event that OVSD were ever to decide to close a surplus school site and make it available for sale or lease. However, these same members are mindful of the fact that OVSD and the City are subject to state statutes and regulations that govern the reuse of surplus school sites. As such, it is incumbent on the City to ensure that the General Plan Update is consistent with state law in this regard. H B -641- Item 8. - 426 Ms. Jennifer Villasenor August 3, 2017 I Page 3 As demonstrated by Table 2 below, the Huntington Beach Parks and Recreation Master Plan has designated seven (7) OVSD schools sites, consisting of a total of 16.98 acres, as potential parks for the City to purchase if any of the sites were ever deemed to be surplus school sites that would have to go through the Naylor Act process: Ta>E31e 2 Pa�'ks an'01f1;D'.PrQ ri ` Parks ;na °Recrea#ion Master Plan . Name Acres a T e Circle View Park 2.31 Neighborhood Park Glen View Park 3.02 Neighborhood Park Haven View Park 2.95 Neighborhood Park Lake View Park 2.16 Neighborhood Park Marine View Park 2.96 Neighborhood Park Pleasant View Park 2.17 Neighborhood Park Robinwood Park 1.41 Neighborhood Park Total 16.98 Identifying sites and acreage would be the first step in preparing the way for the City to possibly purchase portions of these school sites for parks, if and when the sites were ever deemed surplus and put up for sale. However, in proposing to adopt Goal LU-6, Policies LU-6 A-C and Implementation Measure LU-P.22, the City is seeking to create land use restrictions that the City may later try to use to justify (a) limiting surplus school sites to only park or recreational uses in the future and (b) interfering with OVSD's right to sell its property. These policies would not be consistent with state law and would directly conflict with the authority OVSD has over its own property. Notably, any such restrictions would be preempted by state statutes and regulations that specify the procedures that school districts must follow with respect to surplus school closure and reuse. For example, in the past, cities had a first right to purchase, at fair market value and under certain conditions, school district land used for playgrounds and recreation. That has now changed to give the first right of purchase to charter schools. OVSD is compelled to follow state law concerning surplus school site procedures, if and when the situation ever occurs. In this regard, Section 65852.9 of the Government Code, which was enacted by the California Legislature in 2006, provides, in relevant part, that cities may not rezone surplus school sites to open -space, park, or recreational uses unless adjacent properties are so zoned or unless the school district in question agrees to such rezoning. In addition, section 65852.9 provides that, if certain conditions are met with respect to a given surplus school site, a school district may request that the site be zoned to be "consistent with the provisions of the applicable general and specific plans and compatible with the uses of the property surrounding the school site." In order to comply with the legislative intent embodied in section 65852.9, the General Plan Update needs to be revised. To this end, OVSD proposes that the goals, policies, and implementation measures listed in Table 1 above be revised to read as follows: Item 8. - 427 H13.642- Ms. Jennifer Villasenor August 3, 2017 Page 4 LU-6 Neighborhood school sites adapt over time to meet the changing needs of the Goal community. LU-6 A Consistent with state law, explore alternatives with school districts for public benefit and access to recreation and open space as well as other uses for surplus school sites should a closure occur. LU-6 B Continue to consult with school districts in connection with any City -related or school district -related planning and environmental review of proposed non -education surplus LU-6 C In consultation with school districts, and consistent with state law, encourage flexible interim use options to maximize existing use of school sites while addressing future community needs. LU-P.22 School Building Reuse: Consistent with state law, explore alternative uses with school districts that serve public benefit, including other education facilities, community centers, recreation facilities, and open space, although all uses should be considered. PSI-5.A Continue to consult with school districts to maximize existing use of school sites while addressingfuture community and school district needs. P51-5.0 Continue to work with school districts for shared use of school district park spaces for public recreational activities and the use of city parks to support school education PSI-P.7 Public Library Facility Plan Explore with local school districts the use of school libraries serving as city library satellites. In addition to making the changes reflected in Table 3 above, the land use designations for four school sites need to be changed to make them consistent with the land use designations for the properties surrounding those sites. Figure LU-2, "Land Use Plan," in the General Plan Update indicates that all OVSD school sites are designated as "Low Density Residential." However, properties adjacent to the Park View, Oak View, Sun View, and Harbour View elementary schools are designated as "Medium Density Residential." Accordingly, Figure LU-2 should be revised to redesignate those four schools as "Medium Density Residential." In addition to the above, OVSD is also concerned that Implementation Measure PSI-P.7 calls for the City to evaluate the use of existing school libraries for City library satellites. OVSD has never been consulted about the use of school libraries for city library use and there are a myriad of concerns that OVSD would have about such a program. Accordingly, OVSD requests that PSI-P.7 be changed to read as follows: Public Library Facility Plan Explore with local school districts the use of school libraries serving as city library satellites HB -643- Item 8. - 428 Ms. Jennifer Villasenor CWH August 3, 2017 Page 5 B. Intensification of Commercial and Industrial Land Use The General Plan Update proposes to add over 13,000,000 square feet of non- residential development. A majority of this consists or industrial development in the Northwest Industrial and Gothard Subareas. OVSD has suffered in the past from the City's failure to exercise its land use authority to address the incompatibility issues that obviously exist between industrial and sensitive land uses in the Gothard Industrial Corridor Subarea. The General Plan Update provides a perfect opportunity for the City to meaningfully address these issues and incorporate policies to reduce such land use conflicts. In our July 7th letter regarding the Draft EIR, OVSD proposed a number of mitigation measures and asked the City to include additional policies and implementation measures in the General Plan Update in order to lessen the environmental impacts associated with the development contemplated by the Update. For example, OVSD has requested that the General Plan Update be revised to include development standards that limit Floor Area Ratio, increase building setbacks, increase landscape buffers, and confine noise and odor -generating operations to fully enclosed buildings near sensitive land uses, such as public schools. There are well -documented land use compatibility issues involving industrial uses and sensitive land uses. These issues will only be exacerbated with intensification of industrial land uses associated with the General Plan Update unless land use controls and development standards are included. OVSD respectfully requests that the City incorporate the following land use controls and development standards in the General Plan Update to address the land use compatibility issues that are of great concern to OVSD: Prohibit uses that potentially generate diesel emissions, TAC emitters, dust and odors generators within 1,000 feet of existing sensitive uses. 2. Require increased building setbacks (currently zero to 10 feet), as well as increased landscape requirements (currently 8%) for industrial and commercial uses in the Gothard Subarea. 3. Require conditional use permits (that would include air quality analyses and noise studies to be performed) for all industrial and commercial uses in the Gothard Subarea and Northwest Industrial Subarea within 1,000 feet of existing sensitive uses. 4. Require uses in the new Research and Technology classification to be "green and clean," instead of only "encouraging such conditions" as stated in Goal LU-5.6. 5. Require project applicants to submit land use plans that include heightened consideration of policies and strategies to minimize exposure of sensitive receptors and sites (e.g., schools, hospitals, and residences) to health risks related to air pollution. 6. Require development to be scaled to complement adjoining uses with respect to building setbacks, building height, and landscape screening. Item 8. - 429 HB -644- Ms. Jennifer Villasenor August 3, 2017 Page 6 7. Actively enforce the City's Noise Ordinance both stationary noise and roadway noise to lessen the ambient community noise levels. 8. Require the lower standard to be used when adjacent land uses have different noise standards to ensure that the noise levels at the property line are not exceeded for sensitive land uses. C. Environmental Justice The General Plan Update does not adequately address the subject of environmental justice, i.e., the fair treatment of people of all races, cultures, and incomes with respect to the development, adoption, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. A healthy environment should be available to everyone, and the burdens of pollution should not be focused on sensitive populations or on communities that already are experiencing the adverse effects of pollution. The General Plan Update needs to be revised to set forth goals, policies and implementation measures to provide equal treatment concerning the pollution burden generated by land use and access to public benefits, such as parks and sidewalks. Figure ERC-2 in the General Plan Update indicates a lack of neighborhood parks near the Oak View neighborhood, but there are no goals or policies provided to increase the number of parks in this area, which has the highest density population in the City and has been identified by Cal EPA as a community that has serious environmental justice issues confronting it. The General Plan Update is proposing to intensify industrial uses adjacent to the Oak View community. As such, the Update should evaluate this in light of the environmental burden that already exists for this community and the Oak View Elementary School and Preschool that serve the community. Chapter 8 — Public Participation of the California General Plan Guidelines, provides that public participation is an important part of environmental justice in order to have planners, decision -makers and the community engage in meaningful dialogue about future development. The City needs to provide the Oak View neighborhood with the opportunity to participate in the General Plan Update process by providing alternative communication services, such as translators and public notices in Spanish about the General Plan Update. OVSD is quite concerned that the Oak View community cannot engage in meaningful dialogue with the City regarding the intensification of industrial uses and its impact to the community if there has been no targeted outreach to the Oak View residents. D. Proposed Additional Goals, Policies, and Implementation Measures OVSD's July 7th comment letter on the Draft EIR included several requests for the City to include additional policies and implementation measures in the General Plan Update to ensure that the assumptions made will be implemented by the development associated with and facilitated by the General Plan Update. OVSD requests that the following policies and implementation measures be added to the General Plan Update to ensure development assumptions will, in fact, be achieved; HB -645- Item 8. - 430 Ms. Jennifer Villasenor August 3, 2017 Page 7 The Project Description in the Draft EIR states the project consists of 7,228 residential units and 5,384,920 square feet of non-residential development, but the Transportation/Traffic section states there is 8,589 multifamily units and 13,099,000 square feet of non-residential. A land use cap on the type and amount residential units and non-residential square footage needs to be incorporated into the General Plan Update. The General Plan Update needs to clarify the location of the assumed 7,228 residential units. The Draft EIR it anticipates that more units would be added to the Beach/Edinger Corridor Specific Plan, but does not provide a number. The Project Description should include a description of the amount of units that will be added above the current cap of 2,100 in order for OVSD to plan for the anticipated school children that will be generated by the General Plan Update. • Staff has stated that the majority of the anticipated residential development will occur in the Downtown area and the Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan area. However, there are no policies or implementation measures to limit where residential development will occur. The General Plan Update should either indicate where the assumed residential development could occur or incorporate policies that align with the project assumptions. Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the General Plan Update. If you have any questions or need any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me or the below - listed representatives of OVSD. yours, M. Connor cc: Gina Clayton-Tarvin, President, OVSD Board of Trustees Carol Hansen, Superintendent, OVSD Michael Conroy, Asst. Superintendent, OVSD Susan Whittaker, Whittaker Planning Services Item 8. - 431 HH -646- THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS ARE ALSO INCLUDED IN THE FINAL EIR AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS HB _O4--_ Item 8. - 432 From: Ted Ross To: Villasenor, Jennifer Subject: EIR Comments Date: Wednesday, June 07, 2017 2:49:43 PM Sorry but there wasn't an indication that the web page for collecting comments was working properly??? tedross_0077(@msn.com Comments to Draft EIR: 1) Several references are made as to source data provided by Michael Baker International,. but no qualifying explanation is provided. Since this must be some sort of private consulting firm what are their qualifications to provide such data. Why haven't appropriate Government agencies specifically chartered to provide source data been used as references? Furthermore, what pedigree does Michael Baker International, have in using their data in the past as compared to actual achieved results? 2) Paragraph 2.6.1: " ..............lower level of growth that is reasonably forecast based on the Huntington Beach Traffic Model, which was updated for the 2013 Circulation Element Update, and accounting for existing conditions within the city of Huntington Beach and the goals and policies of the existing General Plan (1996)" . Comment: Since it is quite obvious to those who travel Huntington Beach Streets this statement needs lots of work; starting with a new Huntington Beach Traffic Model that takes in to account the obvious impact of the new high density housing traffic increases that seem to have caught everyone off guard!. 3) Transportation/Traffic: "General Plan Update Goal CIRC-1: The circulation system supports existing, approved, and planned land uses while maintaining a desired level of service and capacity on streets and at critical intersections.". Comment: It isn't happening now so what makes you think it will be alright in the future? You can't keep up with the needs for infrastructure maintenance with robbing peter to pay Paul so how will this be accomplished in the future. Fiscal trends for both city and State would seem to argue for the contrary. What new resources will be made available that don't exist now? 4) "ERC-15.C: Evaluate participation in Orange County Water District's recycled water program, and explore opportunities for the city to produce its own recycled water for use within the community." Comment: This is very important; very effort should be made to fully participate in Orange County Water District's recycled water program to the maximum extent possible. 5) "ERC-13.F: Support Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) feasibility studies" Comment: Seriously object to this statement, neither the City Council nor the residents/electorate has authorized such an effort. The City has no role to play in providing and ensuring public utilities. This is presumptuous and needs to be stricken from the EIR and considerations in Item 8. - 433 HB -648- the General Plan Update unless the Electorate has authorized this new concept for Public Utilities. Ted Ross 8111 Falmouth Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Sent from Mail for Windows 10 xB -649- Item 8. - 434 From: Ted Ross To: Villasenor, Jennifer Subject: RE: Draft GP & EIR Comments Date: Monday, June 12, 2017 4:15:41 PM Jennifer, In this email I'll try to recall my comments made at the last meeting you hosted and were provided verbally at first; then I'll be going back to complete my review now that I understand the organization of the documents to be reviewed better. Volume 1 Draft General Plan: 1. Page 1-2 "Key Facts" inserted data. Comment on the source; "4) Stanley R. Hoffman Associates" was included without qualifications to provide such data. You would be far better served by using know qualified sources for reference data such as State and Federal entities that specialize in providing such data. 2. Page 1-4 Paragraph on "Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy" & sentence : "The RTP was adopted in 2017 and is 3. updated every four years to address regional transportation needs. The General Plan must be consistent with these regional planning efforts." Comment: Since Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is not an elected entity perhaps you need to state how the RTP is actually authorized and how The Huntington Beach General Plan must be consistent with it? I do not believe the electorate has ever been asked to concur with this arrangement? 4. Page 2-24. "Table LU-1 General Plan Distribution of Land Uses". Comment: Data source is unreferenced and should be added for clarity. 5. Page 2-25. "Table LU-2 General Plan Development Capacity". Comment: Data source is unreferenced and should be added for clarity. 6. Page 3-19. "Figure CIRC-4" Comment: How is the data shown in Figure CIRC-4 subject to change by OCTA updated? Perhaps this should be time dependent in some reference so updates can be easily made to reflect the latest OCTA plans & implementation of Bus routes? 7. Page 4-15. "Figure CIRC-4". Comment: Data source is unreferenced and should be added for clarity. 8. Page 4-22. "Table ERC-6 Current and Forecasted Energy Use". Comment: For the data set 2005 & 2012 Data source is unreferenced and should be added for clarity. 9. Page 4-38. "Paragraph dealing with "Goal ERC-13. Increase both distributed generation and utility renewable energy sources within municipal and community -wide practices. Sub -item F) "Support Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) feasibility studies." Comment: Seriously object to this statement, neither the City Council nor the residents/electorate has authorized such an effort. The City has no role to play in providing and ensuring public utilities. This is presumptuous and needs to be stricken from the EIR and considerations in the General Plan Update unless the Electorate has authorized this new concept for Public Utilities. As stated in the GP it appears that City staff has assumed that this is a suitable objective and that it should be favored. This just isn't the case and places the City in a potential high risk position for assuming utilities rate control and providing for common consumption in times of economic peril! 10. Page 8-6. "LU-P.10. Affordable Housing Ensure that Huntington Beach has a sufficient supply of housing for individuals and families of all incomes, including extremely low - and very low-income residents. Meet or exceed the target number of affordable units specified in the city's Regional Housing Needs Allocation." Comment: I thought this was settled by Mike Gates, City Attorney, that the City of Huntington Beach is not Item 8. - 435 HB -650- subject to the implied reference to the Kennedy Commission; "target number of affordable units specified in the city's Regional Housing Needs Allocation. 11. Page 8-32. "ERC-P.13. Community Choice Aggregation". Comment: Seriously object to this statement, neither the City Council nor the residents/electorate has authorized such an effort. The City has no role to play in providing and ensuring public utilities. This is presumptuous and needs to be stricken from the EIR and considerations in the General Plan Update unless the Electorate has authorized this new concept for Public Utilities. As stated in the GP it appears that City staff has assumed that this is a suitable objective and that it should be favored. This just isn't the case and places the City in a potential high risk position for assuming utilities rate control and providing for common consumption in times of economic peril! (repeat!). Comments to Draft EIR Volume 2: (Continued from prior email dated 6/7/2017) 1. Page 2-34. "MM4.10-5 Prior to issuance of construction permits, applicants for new development projects within 500 feet of noise -sensitive receptors will implement the following best management practices to reduce construction noise levels". Comment: This is the item I spoke to during the last public review where I pointed the potential damage to infrastructure roads from construction noise generated by hauling trucks inducing long -term cumulative structural fatigue to roadways by low frequency sound caused by trucks during the hauling process. This can be mitigated by in part the use of specifications requiring trucks be equipped with Air -ride suspension systems. 2. Where items flagged in my General Plan comments have corresponding items within the EIR Volume 2 these comment have direct applicability to those items also. Ted Ross 8111 Falmouth Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Villasenor. Jennifer Sent: Monday, June 12, 2017 11:26 AM To: Ted Ross Subject: Re: EIR Comments Hi Ted, Hs -651- Item 8. - 436 Thank you for your comments on the EIR. They will be responded to in writing in the final EIR. Also, we had the website fixed. However, if you have further comments, please send them directly tome. Thank you. Jennifer Sent from my iPad On Jun 7, 2017, at 2:49 PM, Ted Ross <tedross_0077(@msn.com> wrote: Sorry but there wasn't an indication that the web page for collecting comments was working properly??? tedross_0077CL msn.com Comments to Draft EIR: 1) Several references are made as to source data provided by Michael Baker International,. but no qualifying explanation is provided. Since this must be some sort of private consulting firm what are their qualifications to provide such data. Why haven't appropriate Government agencies specifically chartered to provide source data been used as references? Furthermore, what pedigree does Michael Baker International, have in using their data in the past as compared to actual achieved results? 2) Paragraph 2.6.1: " ..............lower level of growth that is reasonably forecast based on the Huntington Beach Traffic Model, which was updated for the 2013 Circulation Element Update, and accounting for existing conditions within the city of Huntington Beach and the goals and policies of the existing General Plan (1996)" . Comment: Since it is quite obvious to those who travel Huntington Beach Streets this statement needs lots of work; starting with a new Huntington Beach Traffic Model that takes in to account the obvious impact of the new high density housing traffic increases that seem to have caught everyone off guardl. 3) Transportation/Traffic: "General Plan Update Goal CIRC-1: The circulation system supports existing, approved, Item 8. - 437 HB -652- and planned land uses while maintaining a desired level of service and capacity on streets and at critical intersections.". Comment: It isn't happening now so what makes you think it will be alright in the future? You can't keep up with the needs for infrastructure maintenance with robbing peter to pay Paul so how will this be accomplished in the future. Fiscal trends for both city and State would seem to argue for the contrary. What new resources will be made available that don't exist now? 4) "ERC-15.C: Evaluate participation in Orange County Water District's recycled water program, and explore opportunities for the city to produce its own recycled water for use within the community." Comment: This is very important; very effort should be made to fully participate in Orange County Water District's recycled water program to the maximum extent possible. 5) "ERC-13.F: Support Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) feasibility studies" Comment: Seriously object to this statement, neither the City Council nor the residents/electorate has authorized such an effort. The City has no role to play in providing and ensuring public utilities. This is presumptuous and needs to be stricken from the EIR and considerations in the General Plan Update unless the Electorate has authorized this new concept for Public Utilities. Ted Ross 8111 Falmouth Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Sent from Mail for Windows 10 HB -653- Item 8. - 438 From: Gino J. Bruno To: Villasenor, Jennifer Cc: Hess. Scott; Wilson, Fred Subject: Comments to General Plan Update EIR Date: Monday, June 12, 2017 11:09:11 AM Ms. Villasenor, regarding the EIR ancillary to the General Plan Update (GPU), and particularly Section 4.14 ("Transportation/Traffic"): As I understand it, the city's current General Plan was last comprehensively updated in 1996. [Agenda for the Planning Commission meeting of June 13, 2017] At page 4.14-5, the EIR describes the "Performance Criteria" that was used, and how the Average Daily Traffic [ADT] volumes date back to the 1996 General Plan. At page 4.14-1, the EIR states: "The existing ADT volumes are from a comprehensive count program conducted in the spring of 2014, and supplemented by traffic counts conducted in 2012, 2013, and 2016. A comparison of observed planning area -wide traffic count data was performed for the years 2005 and 2014. The results indicate that, on average, daily vehicle trip levels throughout the planning area decreased by approximately one percent in that time period." And so, 2005 was compared with 2014, and a conclusion was reached that there was a decrease in average daily traffic. Questions: 1. Why was the year 2005 used in this comparison, rather than the year 1996 when the General Plan was last updated? 2. Where in the EIR (if at all) is the actual "comparison of observed planning area -wide traffic count data [that] was performed for the years 2005 and 2014" so that one may verify that the comparison was indeed between "apples and apples"? Section 4.14.3.2 reads in full: "This analysis did NOT identify any effects found NOT to be significant for transportation/traffic resulting from implementation of the General Plan Update." [Emphasis supplied] With the double negatives, I read this as saying, "This analysis DID identify effects found to be significant ...." Question: If the analysis DID identify effects found to be significant, does the EIR reflect how those "significant" effects would be mitigated (in addition to the reconfiguration of the three intersections of Gothard & Center, Brookhurst & Adams, and Beach & Heil)? If so, please indicate where. Thank you Item 8. - 439 HB -654- Gino J. Bruno Huntington Beach HB -655- Item 8. - 440 ECEI V Et...., Serving: Anaheim Brea Buena Park Cypress Fountain Valley Fullerton Garden Grove Huntington Beach Orange County Sanitation jistri f i 10844 Ellis Avenue, Fountain Valle , CA 927�QQ,8,'',, 714.962.24J U19 AW101: June 13, 2017 Jennifer Villasenor Planning Manager, City of Huntington Beach Community Development Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Irvine SUBJECT: Draft EIR for the City of Huntington Beach General Plan Update La Habra La Palma Orange County Sanitation District (Sanitation District) has reviewed your Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (PE1R) for the Huntington Beach General Los Alamitos Plan Update. Newport Beach The Sanitation District is requesting that the City of Huntington Beach model the Orange Regional Collection System while modelling for the local sewer impacts as physical developments are planned. Please use the following flow factors to Placentia estimate current and future flows for projects: Santa Ana ': • 727 gpd/acre for estate density residential (0-3 d-u. /acre) Seal Beach • 1488 gpd/acre for low density residential (4-7d.u. /acre) • 3451 gpd/acre for medium density residential (8-16 d,u./acre) Stanton 5474 gpd/acre for medium -high density residential (17-25 d.u./acre) Tustin 7516 gpd/acre for high density residential (26-35 d.u./acre) • 2262 gpd/acre for commercial/office Villa Park 3167 gpd/acre for industrial 2715 gpd/acre for institutional County of ©range • 5429 gpd/acre for high intensity industrial/commercial Costa Mesa 150 gpd/room for hotels and motels Sanitary District Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the proposed General Midway City Plan Update through 2040. If you have questions, or for more information, Sanitary District please contact me at (714) 593-7331. Irvine Ranch Water District Yorba Linda Ann Crafton Water District Principal Financial Analyst Planning Division AC:sa http://project/sites/Planning/CEQAlExternally Generated/2017 Comment Letters/20170609 City of Huntington Beach Draft EIR-General Plan Update,docx Our Mission: To protect public health and the environment by providing effective wastewater collection, treatment, and recycling. HB -656- tem 8. - 441 PublicWorks Integrity, Accountability, Service, Trust Shane L. Silsby, Director June 14, 2017 NCL-2015-025 Jennifer Villasenor, Planning Manager City of Huntington Beach Community Development Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Subject: Notice of Availability of a Draft Program EIR for the Huntington Beach General Plan Update Dear Ms. Villasenor: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Notice of Availability of a Draft Program EIR for the Huntington Beach General Plan Update. The County of Orange Flood Program Support/Hydrology Section reviewed the document and offers the following comments for your consideration: 1. It is the goal of the Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD) to provide 100- year flood protection. To provide for this goal, OCFCD attempts to design facilities to convey I00-year flows where feasible. Many of OCFCD's facilities are a mixture of segments built at different times. Improvements of deficient OCFCD facilities are programmed through the OCFCD's Seven -Year Flood Control Projects Plan. OCFCD's Seven -Year Flood Control Projects Plan is reviewed annually and revised based upon Countywide prioritization; it is possible that the design and construction of channel improvements might be postponed or delayed and not constructed for many years. Hence, mitigation of any adverse impacts resulting from the project should not rely solely on a potential OCFCD improvement project. 2. The Project Area is tributary to the Orange County Flood Control District's (OCFCD) facilities. A map/exhibit should identify and indicate these regional flood control facilities that will likely be impacted by the proposed project. Drainage Facility Base maps that depict existing local and regional drainage facilities owned by the Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD) are available for review at http://www.ocflood.cot-m/'docs/drawings 3. All work within or adjacent to any OCFCD right-of-way for flood control facilities should be conducted so as not to adversely impact channel's structural integrity, hydraulic flow conditions, access and maintainability. Furthermore, all work within 300 N. Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA 92703 www.ocpublieworks.com P.O. Box 4048, Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048 714.667.8800 1 In€o@OCPW.ocgov.com HB -657- Item 8. - 442 OCFCD's right-of-way should be conducted only after an encroachment permit for the proposed work has been obtained from the County. For information regarding the permit application process and other details please refer to the Encroachment Permits Section link on OC Public Works' website http:,"/www.ocpublicworks.coin/ds/permits/encroachment permits Technical reviews and approvals for the proposed work will be accomplished within the permit process. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Sahar Parsi at (714) 647-3988 or Robert McLean at (714) 647-3951 in Flood Programs, or Linda Smith at (714) 667-8848 in Development Services. Sincerely, Laree Alonso, Manager, Planning Division OC Public Works Service Area/OC Development Services 300 North Flower Street Santa Ana, California 92702-4048 Laree.alonso@ocpw.ocgov.com cc: Sahar Parsi, OC Flood Programs Robert McLean, OC Flood Programs 300 N. Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA 92703 www.ocpublicworks.com P.O. Box 4048, Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048 Item 8. - 443 HB -658- 714.667.8800 1 Info@OCPW,ocgov.com From: Mike Ferguson To: Villasenor, Jennifer Subject: Comment on the GPU and EIR updates: Delaware Street residential traffic impact Date: Thursday, June 22, 2017 6:45:55 AM Per hU://www.huntingtonbeachca.gov/government/del2artments/planning major/g ne eral-P-],a—n-- update.cfm, this will comment on the GPU and EIR updates. I live on Delaware Street between Memphis and Indianapolis. I have long suffered reduced quality -of -life and property value due to increased traffic supporting increased downtown business activity and residential density. I have long argued against this uncompensated taking, i.e., absent judicial review through condemnation proceedings. This argument has lately assumed the form of criticizing a Bicycle Corridor Improvement Program (BCIP) funding proposal, which I apprehend is a thinly veiled civic enterprise design that would further abuse Delaware Street residents and property owners by an uncompensated taking. That is, quality -of -life and residential property value on Delaware Street would be further sacrificed and degraded for the benefit of downtown business interests, if not civic enterprise, absent just compensation. While I would favor re -directing noisy Delaware through -traffic to commercial arterial streets, e.g., Beach Boulevard, I doubt that promoting Delaware as a bicycle boulevard will achieve that end. I suspect it more likely that funding is sought to perfect the City's claim to a wider street width, ostensibly to pave sidewalks, e.g., using a cynical, alarmist interpretation of the ADA. This I apprehend as little more than a ruse to eventually re -purpose Delaware as a secondary arterial, its former designation in the MPAH, despite the absence of traffic noise mitigation in the residential neighborhood. This seems to me planning absent constitutionally required consideration for residents, confirming my view that this design is an unlawful taking. I am pleased that OCTA no longer routes large, noisy, underutilized buses past my Delaware residence. But I suspect that change resulted more from the Orange County bankruptcy than residents' complaints. Either way, that change made residential use more tolerable. I have not examined plan updates in detail, because I suppose that economic development is preferable to decline. I also suspect it inevitable that economic pressure will ultimately prevail, and Delaware residential property value will continue to be sacrificed to downtown trade. But I did note that it appears Delaware has been downgraded from secondary arterial to collector, a welcome change reflecting reality, since Delaware fails to meet requirements for use as a secondary arterial. If a bicycle corridor would improve my residential property value, I might support that use if it involved no perfecting of a wider street width. The existing width seems adequate to stripe for bicycle lanes, and sidewalks will (eventually) be installed as a condition of new construction. A resort to condemnation would confirm my suspicion that Delaware is aggressively planned for through -traffic, that I consider an abuse of the residential zoning. In 1905, when the Vista del Mar subdivision was recorded, the platted width of Delaware Street was arguably designed to support a commercial thoroughfare. But my understanding is that the City has persistently directed development otherwise, failed to timely perfect a wider width, and Delaware property owners have arguably paid the price. Now, a century later, not only are Delaware property owners denied commercial use on a street with traffic that impairs residential value, their property value is expropriated to support downtown development by bearing a through -traffic burden absent corresponding benefit. I would argue that is an abuse HB -659- Item 8. - 444 of the subdivision map, that allocated the street less for public use than more direct benefit to subdivision property owners, i.e., not to support downtown profiteering absent compensation. In the 1905 horse -and -buggy era, when sidewalk paving for pedestrian use was a higher priority than paving between curbs, I doubt that the subdivision map intended to invite the noise, nuisance, and hazard of modern motor vehicle through -traffic. Since I am unfamiliar with the plan details, I would value counter -argument to my impression that the plan might demonstrate. I have seen some signs of an ambivalent drift toward down - zoning Oldtown to more upscale residential use, e.g., McMansions. That residential value is impaired by through -traffic. As I note the coastal changes over some time, it seems undeniable that density has increased, density increases will continue, traffic must necessarily increase to support that increasing density, and Delaware Street residential value will remain under threat of sacrifice to support increased coastal development density. The best planning might manage is to balance economic development against preserving, if not promoting, the quality -of -life necessary to retain, if not attract, residents to support it. Item 8. - 445 HB -660- CITE' OF FOUNTAIN VALLEY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 10200 SLATER AVENUE • FC)I;,i (,ILO` V.-ILLLY. C,J 927n,4-4736 . (1-14) 543-4425. FAA` (1714) 593-4325 June 26, 2017 Jennifer Villasenor, Planning Manager City of Huntington Beach Community Development Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 SUBJECT: NOA of Draft Program EIR for Huntington Beach General Plan Update (EIR No. 14-001)(State Claringhouse No. 2015101032) Dear Ms. Villasenor: ECEIVE epl, of community Developmre Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Program Environmental impact Report (EIR) for the Huntington Beach General Plan Update. Our understanding is that the Draft Program EIR for the General Plan Update will identify and analyze the potential environmental impacts associated with a city initiated comprehensive update to the General Plan for an approximate 25-year planning horizon to 2040. Following our review of the Draft Program EIR for the Huntington Beach General Plan Update, we have the following comments/concerns: 1. The City of Fountain Valley is concerned with the impacts on Fountain Valley roadways throughout the City due to the addition of 105,000 daily trips. There is already considerable traffic generated from Huntington Beach that travels Fountain Valley streets to access the 1-405 and other cities and areas east of Fountain Valley. A comprehensive traffic analysis of all Fountain Valley arterials and intersections needs to be conducted to evaluate the potential impacts. In addition, evaluation of Garfield/Gisler bridge construction should be considered to address traffic impacts generated from the proposed project as well as to address existing traffic impacts due to a lack of a balanced, regional traffic network. 2. Truck traffic, especially on Talbert Avenue, needs to be evaluated to address impacts of additional truck traffic that will be generated by the proposed traffic as well as addressing existing impacts of truck traffic on Talbert Avenue and abutting land uses that originates in Huntington Beach accessing 1-405 in Fountain Valley. Once again, thank you for the opportunity to review the Draft Program EIR for the Huntington Beach General Plan Update. Should you have any questions about our comments, please don't hesitate to me at (714) 593-4431 or email at steven.avers@fountainvalley.org. Sinc�fely, Steven Ayers Planner HB -661- Item 8. - 446 Kathleen Treseder 61 Murasaki St, Irvine CA 92617 619-459-9493 treseder@stanfordalumni.org July 3, 2017 Ms. Villasenor City of Huntington Beach Community Development Department 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 jillasenor@surfcity-hb.org Dear Ms. Villasenor, I am Professor and Chair of the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at UC Irvine. I have researched and taught climate change science for 22 years. I am writing to express my strongest possible support for the Huntington Beach General Plan item ERC- P.13: a feasibility study of a Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) plan. If Huntington Beach adopts CCA, the community will likely choose sustainable energy like solar, wind, and geothermal power. Currently, CCA is cheaper than conventional energy plans. Moreover, free market competition and advances in sustainable energy technology will probably cut CCA prices even further. Sustainable energy use will help Huntington Beach meet state -mandated reductions in. greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to future climate change. Based on current rates of climate change, sea level rise will cause 2-foot floods in Huntington Beach by 2030 (see attachment). In fact, we predict this with 100% certainty. Within Huntington Beach, a fair amount of coastal land lies below 2 feet, and is at risk for flooding. Specifically,130 people live in 67 homes with a total property value of $120 million. However, reductions in greenhouse gas emissions can slow the rate of sea level rise and protect this coastland. Altogether, CCA is a cost-effective way for Huntington Beach to avoid future property damage from sea level rise. I strongly endorse this approach, and I appreciate that the city is considering it. Sincerely, Kathleen Treseder Item 8. - 447 HB -662- Selected water level: 2 feet. May occur from sea level rise, coastal flooding, or both. What's at risk on land below 2 feet?` • Population: 130 • Homes: 67 • Property value: $120 Million 2 feet in historical context 3.4 • Highest observed area flood: 2.4 feet in 2005 • Statistical 1-in-100 year flood height: 2.3 feet • Most recent flood over 2 feet observed in: not in record Unnatural Coastal Floods' About two-thirds of U.S. coastal flood days since 1950 would not have met the National Weather Service's local definition of flooding without the few inches so far of human -caused, climate -driven sea level rise. Rising seas = more floods` • Huntington Beach, CA has already experienced about 3 inches of sea level rise over the last 90 years of records. Climate change is projected to drive much more rise this century. • This raises the starting point for storm surges and high tides, making coastal floods more severe and more frequent. couldWhen a 2 -foot flood as • Likelihood by 2030: 100%-100% • Likelihood by 2050: 100%-100% • Likelihood by 2100: 100%-100% �- -- 111 r -. Social vulnerability (e.g. from low income) compounds coastal risk. Land below 2 feet is colored according to the legend. Surging Seas uses high -accuracy lidar elevation data supplied by NOAA. Map reflects a uniform sea level and/or flood height. Individual storm surge, tidal or rainfall events cause more complex and uneven water surfaces. 1 Floods and sea level rise are relative to local high tide lines circa 1992 (mean higher high water across 1983-2001). 2 Values exclude sub-2-ft areas potentially protected by levees, natural ridges, and other features. Surging Seas 3 Climate Central estimates risk by combining local sea level rise projections with flood height risk statistics based on historic data. 4 Flood risk projections and history are based on records from the NOAA water level station at Los Angeles -Outer Harbor, 15 miles Sea L4WBJRfSe T s &Atf8Jy5IS by from Huntington Beach, from 1923 to 2013. 5 Strauss, B. H., Kopp, R. E., Sweet, W. V. and Bittermann, K., 2016. Unnatural Coastal Floods. Climate Central Research Report. CLIMATE CENTRAL 6 Sea level projections are localized, and local flood risks projected, based on methods from Tebaldi et al. 2012 (Environmental Research Letters). HB -663- Item 8. - 448 For more methods, limitations, full citations, see source: riskfrnderorg duu0. Coastal Risks for Huntington Beach, CA, Climate Central, 71212011 What causes sea level to rise? • A warming ocean: Thermometer and satellite measurements show that the ocean has been warming for more than a century. Water expands as it warms, and the only way the ocean can go is up and out. • Shrinking ice: Warmer air and water temperatures are causing global glaciers and ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica to melt or to break off into the ocean. Adding water or ice from land to the ocean raises sea level, and is by far the biggest future threat. • Sinking land: In some places, coastal land is sinking, due to a variety of slow, long-term processes not linked to current climate change, or due to pump extraction of water or fossil fuels from underground formations. What causes climate change? • The main activity causing climate change is the burning of fossil fuels, which emits heat -trapping pollution. • Leading scientific bodies agree: Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research concludes that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver.' Can sea level rise be slowed? • Major cuts in heat -trapping pollution through measures such as a swift global transition to a clean energy economy, climate -friendly agriculture, and protecting forests would reduce future sea level rise. Does sea level rise affect flooding? • Sea level rise raises the starting point for waves, tides, and storm surge, making coastal floods more severe and more frequent. • A February 2016 Climate Central analysis found that about two-thirds of U.S. coastal flood days since 1950 would not have met the National Weather Service's local definition of flooding without the few inches so far of human -caused, climate -driven global sea level rise. What does the future hold? • Some future sea level rise is inevitable due to pollution already in the atmosphere, forcing some adaptation. • Rapid cuts in emissions of heat -trapping pollution would increase the chances of limiting global sea level rise to near 2 feet this century, but continuing unchecked pollution could lead to a rise of more than 6 feetB • A 2-foot rise would mean widespread, dramatic increases in flooding, and submergence of the very lowest coastal places. A 6-foot rise would pose severe and in cases existential threats to major coastal cities worldwide. • Many places will be able to reduce sea level rise impacts by establishing defenses, accommodating floods, or relocating some development, at uncertain cost. • Pollution this century will lock in sea level rise for hundreds of years to come — likely far more than 6 feet on the current path. The final amount will depend on how rapidly the world community can reduce and then stop heat -trapping pollution. • Actions to curb heat -trapping pollution will reduce sea level rise, but some rise is unavoidable. • Learn more about the actions you can take yourself at sea level.climatecentral.org/flood-preparation • Make sure leaders in your community know your area's risks by sharing this fact sheet and riskfinder.org • Surging Seas can help your community participate in FEMAs Community Rating System. Contact us to learn more. • Climate Central offers tailored mapping, projections and analysis to meet the specific needs of cities, counties, states and businesses, using scenarios and data you can choose: contact sea ievel0climatecentral.org to learn more. Resources available for California • Sea Grant California: https://caseagrant.ucsd.edu/ • California Coastal Commission: Sea Level Rise: http://www.coastal.ca.gov/climate/sir/ • State of California: Coastal Conservancy Climate Change Projects: http://scc.ca.gov/climate-change/ • For a longer list see: sealevel.climatecentral.org/responses/plans Climate Central Climate Central is an independent nonprofit, nonadvocacy organization that researches climate impacts. Our web tools are based on peer -reviewed science and are included as resources on national portals such as NOAA's Digital Coast and the U.S. Climate Resilience Toolkit. Get more analysis at riskfinder.org 7 Statement on climate change from 31 scientific associations (2016), http://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/06282016.pdf (Accessed July 7, 2016). Learn more at http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ �a level pro'ections from Kopp et al. 2014 (Earth's Future) and more recent Antarctic research in DeConto and Item 8. - 449ture). For fullcitationsand methods visit: riskfmderora HB -664- urgring Seas Sea Level Rise Tools & Analysis by AV*CLIMATE fi,JCENTRAL South Coast Air Quality Management District 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4182 (909) 396-2000 • www.agmd.gov SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds Mass Daily Thresholds a Pollutant Construction b Operation' NOx 100 lbs/day 55 lbs/day VOC 75 lbs/day 55 lbs/day PM10 150 lbs/day 150 lbs/day PM2.5 55 lbs/day 55 lbs/day Sox 150 lbs/day 150 lbs/day CO 550 lbs/day 550 lbs/day Lead 3 lbs/day 3 lbs/day Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs), Odor, and GHG Thresholds TACs Maximum Incremental Cancer Risk > 10 in 1 million (including carcinogens and non -carcinogens) Cancer Burden > 0.5 excess cancer cases (in areas > 1 in 1 million) Chronic & Acute Hazard Index > 1.0 (project increment) Odor Project creates an odor nuisance pursuant to SCAQMD Rule 402 GHG 10,000 MT/yr CO2eq for industrial facilities Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutants d NO2 SCAQMD is in attainment; project is significant if it causes or contributes to an exceedance of the following attainment standards: 1-hour average 0.18 ppm (state) annual arithmetic mean 0.03 ppm (state) and 0.0534 ppm (federal) PM10 24-hour average 10.4 µg/m3 (construction)e & 2.5 µg/m3 (operation) annual average 1.0 m3 PM2.5 24-hour average 10.4 µg/m3 (construction)e & 2.5 µg/m3 (operation) S02 1-hour average 0.25 ppm (state) & 0.075 ppm (federal — 99th percentile) 24-hour average 0.04 ppm (state) Sulfate 24-hour average 25 µg/m3 (state) CO SCAQMD is in attainment; project is significant if it causes or contributes to an exceedance of the following attainment standards: 1-hour average 20 ppm (state) and 35 ppm (federal) 8-hour average 9.0 ppm (state/federal) Lead 30-day Average 1.5 µg/m3 (state) Rolling 3-month average 0.15 µg/m3 (federal) 'Source: SCAQMD CEQA Handbook (SCAQMD, 1993) b Construction thresholds apply to both the South Coast Air Basin and Coachella Valley (Salton Sea and Mojave Desert Air Basins). For Coachella Valley, the mass daily thresholds for operation are the same as the construction thresholds. d Ambient air quality thresholds for criteria pollutants based on SCAQMD Rule 1303, Table A-2 unless otherwise stated. Ambient air quality threshold based on SCAQMD Rule 403. KEY: lbs/day = pounds per day ppm = parts per million µg/m3 = microgram per cubic meter MT/yr CO2eq = metric tons per year of CO2 equivalents >_ = greater than or equal to > = greater than Revision: March2015 HB -703- Item 8. - 488 Exhibit 2 Item 8. - 489 HB -704- APPENDIX A LAND USE CLASSIFICATIONS AND ASSOCIATED FACILITY CATEGORIES THAT COULD EMIT AIR POLLUTANTS (1) Land Use (2) (3) (4) Classifications — Facility or Project Examples Key Pollutants"°"' Air Pollution permits'" by Activity' COMMERCIAL/ LIGHT INDUSTRIAL: SHOPPING, BUSINESS, AND COMMERCIAL Dry cleaners; drive -through restaurants; gas dispensing facilities; ♦ Primarily retail shops auto body shops; metal plating shops; and stores, office, photographic processing shops; Limited; Rules for commercial textiles; apparel and furniture VOCs, air toxics, including applicable activities, and light upholstery; leather and leather diesel PM, NOx, CO, Sox equipment industrial or small products; appliance repair shops; business mechanical assembly cleaning; printing shops ♦ Goods storage or handling activities, characterized by loading and unloading goods at Warehousing; freight -forwarding VOCs, air toxics, including warehouses, large centers; drop-off and loading areas; diesel PM, NOx, CO, SOx No storage structures, distribution centers movement of goods, shipping, and trucking. LIGHT INDUSTRIAL: RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ♦ Medical waste at Incineration; surgical and medical research hospitals instrument manufacturers, Air toxics, NOx, CO, SOx Yes and labs pharmaceutical manufacturing, biotech research facilities ♦ Electronics, electrical Computer manufacturer; integrated apparatus, components, and circuit board manufacturer; semi- Air toxics, VOCs Yes accessories conductor production ♦ College or university Medical waste incinerators; lab Air toxics, NOx, CO, SOx, lab or research chemicals handling, storage and PM10 Yes center disposal Satellite manufacturer; fiber -optics ♦ Research and manufacturer; defense contractors; development labs space research and technology; new Air toxics, VOCs Yes vehicle and fuel testing labs ♦ Commercial testing Consumer products; chemical labs handling, storage and disposal Air toxics, VOCs Yes HB -705- A-1 Item 8. - 490 APPENDIX A (1) Land Use (2) (3) (4) Classifications — Facility or Project Examples Key Pollutants"°"' Air Pollution permits'" by Activity' INDUSTRIAL: NON - ENERGY -RELATED Adhesives; chemical; textiles; apparel and furniture upholstery; clay, glass, and stone products production; asphalt materials; cement manufacturers, wood products; paperboard containers and boxes; metal plating; metal and canned food product fabrication; auto manufacturing; food processing; printing and publishing; drug, vitamins, ♦ Assembly plants, and pharmaceuticals; dyes; paints; manufacturing pesticides; photographic chemicals; VOCs, air toxics, including facilities, industrial polish and wax; consumer products; diesel PM, NOx, PM, CO, Yes metal and mineral smelters and Sox machinery foundries; fiberboard; floor tile and cover; wood and metal furniture and fixtures; leather and leather products; general industrial and metalworking machinery; musical instruments; office supplies; rubber products and plastics production; saw mills; solvent recycling; shingle and siding; surface coatings INDUSTRIAL: ENERGY AND UTILITIES ♦ Water and sewer Pumping stations; air vents; treatment VOCs, air toxics, NOx, Yes operations CO, Sox, PM10 Power plant boilers and heaters; ♦ Power generation portable diesel engines; gas turbine NOx, diesel PM, NOx, Yes and distribution engines CO, Sox, PM10, VOCs Refinery boilers and heaters; coke VOCs, air toxics, including ♦ Refinery operations cracking units; valves and flanges; diesel PM, NOx, CO, SOx, Yes flares PM10 ♦ Oil and gas Oil recovery systems; uncovered wells NOx, diesel PM, VOCs, Yes extraction CO, Sox, PM10 ♦ Gasoline storage, Above and below ground storage VOCs, air toxics, including transmission, and tanks; floating roof tanks; tank farms; diesel PM, NOx, CO, SOx, Yes marketing pipelines PM10 ♦ Solid and hazardous waste treatment, Landfills; methane digester systems; VOCs, air toxics, NOx, storage, and process recycling facility for concrete CO, Sox, PM10 Yes disposal activities. and asphalt materials CONSTRUCTION (NON - TRANSPORTATION PM (re -entrained road Limited; state dust), asbestos, diesel and federal off - Building construction; demolition sites PM, NOx, CO, SOx, road equipment PM10, VOCs standards Item 8. - 491 HB -706- APPENDIX A (1) (4) Land Use (2) (3) Classifications - Facility or Project Examples Key Pollutants"'"' Air Pollution permits'" by Activity' DEFENSE Ordnance and explosives demolition; Limited; range and testing activities; chemical VOCs, air toxics, including prescribed production; degreasing; surface diesel PM, NOx, CO, SOx, burning; coatings; vehicle refueling; vehicle and PM10 equipment and engine operations and maintenance solvent rules TRANSPORTATION VOCs, NOx, PM (re - Residential area circulation systems; entrained road dust) air parking and idling at parking toxics e.g., benzene, ♦ Vehicular movement structures; drive -through diesel PM, formaldehyde, No establishments; car washes; special acetaldehyde, 1,3 events; schools; shopping malls, etc. butadiene, CO, SOx, PM10 ♦ Road construction Street paving and repair; new highway VOCs, air toxics, including diesel PM, NOx, CO, SOx, No and surfacing construction and expansion PM10 ♦ Trains Railroads; switch yards; maintenance yards Recreational sailing; commercial ♦ Marine and port marine operations; hotelling Limited; activities operations; loading and un-loading; Applicable state servicing; shipping operations; port or VOCs, NOx, CO, SOX, and federal MV marina expansion; truck idling PM10, air toxics, including diesel PM standards, and possible ♦ Aircraft Takeoff, landing, and taxiing; aircraft maintenance; ground support activities equipment rules ♦ Mass transit and school buses Bus repair and maintenance NATURAL RESOURCES Limited'; Agricultural Agricultural burning; diesel operated Diesel PM, VOCs, NOx, burning requirements, ♦ Farming operations engines and heaters; small food PM10, CO, Sox, applicable state processors; pesticide application; pesticides and federal agricultural off -road equipment mobile source standards; pesticide rules ♦ Livestock and dairy operations Dairies and feed lots Ammonia, VOCs, PM10 Yes" Limited; ♦ Logging Off -road equipment e.g., diesel fueled Diesel PM, NOx, CO, Applicable state/federal chippers, brush hackers, etc. SOx, PM10, VOCs mobile source standards ♦ Mining operations Quarrying or stone cutting; mining; PM10, CO, Sox, VOCs, NOx, and asbestos in Applicable equipment rules drilling or dredging some geographical areas and dust controls HB -707- A-3 Item 8. - 492 APPENDIX A (1) Land Use (2) (3) (4) Classifications — Facility or Project Examples Key Pollutants"'"' Air Pollution Permits' by Activity' RESIDENTIAL Fireplace emissions (PM10, NOx, VOCs, CO, Housing Housing developments; retirement air toxics); Nov" developments; affordable housing Water heater combustion (NOx, VOCs, CO) ACADEMIC AND INSTITUTIONAL ♦ Schools, including Schools; school yards; vocational school -related training labs/classrooms such as auto Air toxics Yes/Nov recreational activities repair/painting and aviation mechanics ♦ Medical waste Incineration Air toxics, NOx, CO, Yes PM10 ♦ Clinics, hospitals, convalescent homes Air toxics Yes 'These classifications were adapted from the American Planning Association's "Land Based Classification Standards." The Standards provide a consistent model for classifying land uses based on their characteristics. The model classifies land uses by refining traditional categories into multiple dimensions, such as activities, functions, building types, site development character, and ownership constraints. Each dimension has its own set of categories and subcategories. These multiple dimensions allow users to have precise control over land - use classifications. For more information, the reader should refer to the Association's website at http://www.planning.org/LBCS/Generallnfo/. " This column includes key criteria pollutants and air toxic contaminants that are most typically associated with the identified source categories. Additional information on specific air toxics that are attributed to facility categories can be found in ARB's Emission Inventory Criteria and Guidelines Report for the Air Toxics Hot Spots Program (May 15, 1997). This information can be viewed at ARB's web site at http://www.arb.ca.gov/ab2588/final96/guide96.pdf. Criteria air pollutants are those air pollutants for which acceptable levels of exposure can be determined and for which an ambient air quality standard has been set. Criteria pollutants include ozone (formed by the reaction of volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides in the presence of sunlight), particulate matter, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, and lead. Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) combine with nitrogen oxides to form ozone, as well as particulate matter. VOC emissions result primarily from incomplete fuel combustion and the evaporation of chemical solvents and fuels. On -road mobile sources are the largest contributors to statewide VOC emissions. Stationary sources of VOC emissions include processes that use solvents (such as dry-cleaning, degreasing, and coating operations) and petroleum -related processes (such as petroleum refining, gasoline marketing and dispensing, and oil and gas extraction). Areawide VOC sources include consumer products, pesticides, aerosols and paints, asphalt paving and roofing, and other evaporative emissions. Nitrogen oxides (NOx) are a group of gaseous compounds of nitrogen and oxygen, many of which contribute to the formation of ozone and particulate matter. Most NOx emissions are produced by the combustion of fuels. Mobile sources make up about 80 percent of the total statewide NOx emissions. Mobile sources include on - road vehicles and trucks, aircraft, trains, ships, recreational boats, industrial and construction equipment, farm A-4 Item 8. - 493 HB -708- APPENDIX A equipment, off -road recreational vehicles, and other equipment. Stationary sources of NOx include both internal and external combustion processes in industries such as manufacturing, food processing, electric utilities, and petroleum refining. Areawide source, which include residential fuel combustion, waste burning, and fires, contribute only a small portion of the total statewide NOx emissions, but depending on the community, may contribute to a cumulative air pollution impact. Particulate matter (PM) refers to particles small enough to be breathed into the lungs (under 10 microns in size). It is not a single substance, but a mixture of a number of highly diverse types of particles and liquid droplets. It can be formed directly, primarily as dust from vehicle travel on paved and unpaved roads, agricultural operations, construction and demolition. Carbon monoxide (CO) is a colorless and odorless gas that is directly emitted as a by-product of combustion. The highest concentrations are generally associated with cold stagnant weather conditions that occur during winter. CO problems tend to be localized. An Air Toxic Contaminant (air toxic) is defined as an air pollutant that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or in serous illness, or which may pose a present or potential hazard to human health. Similar to criteria pollutants, air toxics are emitted from stationary, areawide, and mobile sources. They contribute to elevated regional and localized risks near industrial and commercial facilities and busy roadways. The ten compounds that pose the greatest statewide risk are: acetaldehyde; benzene; 1,3-butadiene; carbon tetrachloride; diesel particulate matter (diesel PM); formaldehyde; hexavalent chromium; methylene chloride; para-dichlorobenzene; and perch loroethylene. The risk from diesel PM is by far the largest, representing about 70 percent of the known statewide cancer risk from outdoor air toxics. The exhaust from diesel -fueled engines is a complex mixture of gases, vapors, and particles, many of which are known human carcinogens. Diesel PM is emitted from both mobile and stationary sources. In California, on -road diesel -fueled vehicles contribute about 26 percent of statewide diesel PM emissions, with an additional 72 percent attributed to other mobile sources such as construction and mining equipment, agricultural equipment, and other equipment. Stationary engines in shipyards, warehouses, heavy equipment repair yards, and oil and gas production operations contribute about two percent of statewide emissions. However, when this number is disaggregated to a sub - regional scale such as neighborhoods, the risk factor can be far greater. The level of pollution emitted is a major determinant of the significance of the impact. 'v Indicates whether facility activities listed in column 4 are generally subject to local air district permits to operate. This does not include regulated products such as solvents and degreasers that may be used by sources that may not require an operating permit per se, e.g., a gas station or dry cleaner. Generally speaking, warehousing or distribution centers are not subject to local air district permits. However, depending on the district, motor vehicle fleet rules may apply to trucks or off -road vehicles operated and maintained by the facility operator. Additionally, emergency generators or internal combustion engines operated on the site may require an operating permit. V' Authorized by recent legislation SB700. V" Local air districts do not require permits for woodburning fireplaces inside private homes. However, some local air districts and land use agencies do have rules or ordinances that require new housing developments or home re -sales to install U.S. EPA —certified stoves. Some local air districts also ban residential woodburning during weather inversions that concentrate smoke in residential areas. Likewise, home water heaters are not subject to permits; however, new heaters could be subject to emission limits that are imposed by federal or local agency regulations. "' Technical training schools that conduct activities normally permitted by a local air district could be subject to an air permit. HB -709- A-5 Item 8. - 494 191 Photo by Kinsee Morlan Tom Gent is co-owner of Wiseguy Brewing Co. Eric Larson, executive director of the San Diego County Farm Bureau, said he's already heard from several farmers who say they turn new breweries away. He said while there are a lot of farms in the county, there aren't many farms filled with animals. "We have a relatively small amount of livestock because land is expensive here and livestock tends to be raised on inexpensive land;" he said. 'So we're producing a lot of beer here, but not enough animals to eat the spent grain." Item 8. - 513 HB _728_ ��000v00©0©0�0�I ■�0�©v0v00��00� w qm M SPAS 00000��0� �0000©000�00�'0 ©©�0©©0000000� ®®�0 r 0v0� • r ®� .: �• �t ®�00 ' 0000 :: 00 r r • �0©0000®v0000 • • o0��r� r 00�0�0v0 • r. 0000��0®v0�0® r 000©00v00©0v0 �o0v�0��00�00� TABLE 111 Project Passenger Car Equivalents e S'iZi �'111f�- 1 i _�- • • 0 m 2 -01 c'z0'6�0 as General Plan Designations Density'FAR Hoye for each de tsn.on.- in arc IeyeM hlox or c. oche-desiymwd on uc map or tv Sm,f,, Plan Residential Mixed Use +e. Low Density (max 7 dulec) = M-d Use Medium Densdy (max 15 dulac) - Medium High Density (max 25 du/ac) Open Space = Conservation - High Density(>Wdufsc) OS-P Palk Commercial OS-R Recreation Wit`- Neighbomocd (max 0.35 FAR) OS-W Water Recreation - General (max 1,5 FAR) 10 Shore Visitor Serving (max 0.5 FAR) Specific Plan - Of".(max 1.0 FAR) .sp Specfic Plan Overlay Industrial -mu Mixed Use Owner - Industrial (max 0.75 FAR) Public RT Research and Technology (max 1.0 FAR) = Public �roxw,an ml5s. coinmw�n axe Publid Semipublic (,rdedymg designation) Draft Proposed General Plan City of Huntington Beach aau o z.oyo Fn HB -787- Item 8. - 572