HomeMy WebLinkAboutWaterfront Development - Volume III Final Supplement to Envi W
VOLUME III
w, ,
6
SUPPLEMENT TO
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 82-2
L FOR
THE WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT
5
PREPARED BY:
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
I PARK PLAZA, SUITE 500
IRVINE, CA 92714
1
L
PREPARED FOR:
i+ CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
2000 MAIN STREET
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648
CONTACT PERSON: CATHERINE 0`HARA
PHONE: (714) 536-5271
JULY 18, 1988
November 11, 1987, summarized in Section 4 .10 and included in
wr Exhibit L of the SEIR, the operation of the proposed
development for the 'first 25 years of the Waterfront project
will generate an estimated net revenue of One Hundred Twenty-
one Million Eight Hundred Twenty Three Thousand Dollars
($121,823,000.00) in ongoing taxes and fees, after payment of
all ongoing general fund expenditures for added police, fire,
public works and administrative expenses generated by the
project. Included in these sums is some $10,000,000 .00 of
affordable housing funds from the 20% set aside on tax
a increment revenues, which can and must . be utilized to
increase the community's supply of decent and affordable
housing.
�.. The City has determined that the public benefits
referenced in Paragraph I above, the availability of utility
services, and the opportunity for an increased customer base,
combined with the significant revenues which flow to the City
and the Redevelopment Agency from the project, adequately
{ offset any incremental increase in energy usage.
3 . Yiew_Impacts.
Because of the intensity and building height of the
r. structures contemplated as part of the project, there will be
some impairment of certain views, along with increased
density. Such impairment will be limited to certain inland
viewpoints; none of the project is to be located on the
coastal side of Pacific Coast Highway, and ocean views from
this major thoroughfare will be unaffected. Project design
{ will still afford various inland view opportunities, and will
maintain ocean visibility from much of the area surrounding
the project site, including Pacific Coast Highway. In
addition, erection of the hotel structures and portions of
the residences will actually create new views ' and enhance the
opportunities for enjoyment of views from those sites.
i
The City has determined that elimination of current
blighted structures, and the fiscal effects of the project,
r including an anticipated rejuvenating effect on the downtown
area, will outweigh any unmitigated impairment of views .
Moreover, the opportunity for greater numbers of visitors to
come to the ocean area will in some respects enhance overall
ocean view enjoyment, which countervails the limited view
impairment of certain segments, from certain vantage points ,
surrounding the project site,
�,. The lower density alternative in the EIR (see Final EZR,
pa. 132-33) would have some limited view-preserving effects,
but would not achieve the visitor-serving objectives of the
i� Downtown Specific Pan or Local Coastal Plan to the same
extent. Moreover, such lower-scale development would not
+ produce the same level of public revenues achieved by the
�.+ Exhibit B -4- (0715)
Ire
` project as proposed, and would entail many of the same
environmental effects . On balance, the City has determined
that such a reduced scale development would not provide the
overall benefits of the proposed project.
4 . Air Quality.
.. The project will result in regional air quality
impacts. Impacts from construction are largely mitigated to
a level of nonsignificance. The regional impact comes
instead from daily trip generation from operation of the
project.
To the extent that regional air quality impacts are the
�.. result of auto or other vehicle emissions, mitigation
measures for controlling such emissions are not within the
jurisdiction of the City. Any measures in this regard would
have to come from the California Air Resources Board or South
Coast Air Quality Management District. To an extent,
however, the City does have jurisdiction over controlling the
intensity of land uses, from which daily trips are
generated. in this area of its jurisdiction, the City finds
that the regional incremental air quality impacts of the
+ ' project are outweighed by the elimination of blight, by the
.. replacement of aged, deteriorating, and substandard
structures with new first-class commercial, recreational, and
I ' residential facilities, by enhancement of access to coastal
resources, and by increased City and 'Redevelopment Agency
revenues from the project. This finding is made with
recognition that mitigation measures have been required for
the project to ease air quality impacts, including
ventilation on stationary emission sources and a
transportation. Moreover, the commercial portion of the
planned project is a destination-oriented complex, which
�•+ should minimize the need for visitor trips once visitors are
at the center. Further, locating residential uses close to
i surrounding employment centers can help to ameliorate the
i, existing housing-jobs imbalance in Orange County and minimize
the number of miles workers cCnm.ute to places of employment,
'thereby offsetting to some extent traffic and regional air
quality concerns . Additional design features to enhance
pedestrian accessibility, and the proximity of commercial
facilities to the hotel and residential uses, will also serve
to decrease the number of trips generated.
Given the. many public benefits from the project
referenced above, the City has determined that the adverse
�., regional air quality impacts are acceptable.
8/159/065580-0001/005
I
6w
6w Exhibit B -5- (0715)
i
MY1�
1 _
IMi
1r
, . go FINAL SEIR_MITIGATION MEASURES
�M
1
Ld
k '
�rI
I '
IM•
Ilr
F
1
'W
I
UA
1
Ir+
i�.
i
i
IW
t
MITIGATION MEASURES
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 82-2
Soils
1. The Waterfront project shall conform to mitigation measures
included in the Downtown Specific Plan EIR 82-2.
2. Subject to approval by the Departments of Community
�++ Development and Public Works, the developer shall incorporate
recommendations provided by Irvine Soils Engineering, Inc.
t (in their June 29, 1984 limited geotechnical investigation
L Job No. 2561-00, Log No. 4-6086) into project designs, plans
and specifications for each phase of the overall project.
3 . Prior to the issuance of grading permits for each project
phase, a supplemental geotechnical investigation based on the
specific proposed design shall be performed to confirm
subsurface conditions (liquefaction hazard zones and ground-
•+ water levels) , and provide supplemental recommendations, as
appropriate, for final design of each structure and for the
proposed residential development.
4 . Design provisions such as pile foundation systems shall be
required to permit structures to withstand liquefaction
without serious consequences . If significant liquefaction
hazard zones are identified in the supplemental geotechnical
investigation, the development plan shall be revised prior to
issuance of building permits for each phase, to avoid these
areas or the hazard shall be mitigated by densification of
the liquefiable soil or other recognized techniques .
w, 5 . All structures shall be designed in accordance with the
seismic design provisions of the Uniform Building Codes to
f promote safety in the event of an earthquake.
6. if verified as being required by a qualified soils engineer,
existing fill materials and disturbed, loose soils shall be
removed and replaced with competent material. For each
phase, such reports shall be submitted to, and approved by,
the City Engineer prior to issuance of grading permits . All
site preparation, excavation, and earthwork compaction
operations shall be performed under the observation and
testing of soils engineer(s) .
WetlandsL On Eite
7. Subject to the approval of the Coastal Commission, and as
agreed upon by City staff and State Department of Fish and
�'. Game staff, the amount of wetland area that shall be
mitigated for is .8 acres.
Planning Commission
Resolution No. 1397
Exhibit A
8. To mitigate for the loss of the on-site wetlands, the applicant
I" shall prepare a detailed restoration plan that complies with
Coastal Act requirements and Department of Fish and Game
criteria. Further discussions with the Coastal Commission,
too determine
and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will be necessary to
determine the most appropriate restoration site, the type of
wetland to be restored, the monitoring plan, and other
considerations. These issues shall be clarified prior to
�`" Coastal Commission review of a Coastal Development Permit for
the affected phase of the project.
i. 9 . Full mitigation of the .8 acre site shall be completed prior to
the subject wetland site being altered by the proposed
project. No development permit for grading, construction or
otherwise, shall be issued for the impacting phase until full
mitigation has been accomplished. The mitigation measure(s) is
, . subject to the approval of the City, the California State
Department of Fish and Game and the California Coastal
Commission.
The restoration plan shall generally state when restoration
w, work will commence and terminate, shall include detailed
diagrams drawn to scale showing any alteration to natural
landforms, and shall include a list of plant species to be
w
used, as well as the method of plant introduction (i .e. ,
seeding, natural succession, vegetative transplanting, etc. ) .
This condition does not preclude fulfillment of the mitigation
requirement through the q g payment of an in lieu fee, consistent
with the Coastal Commission's adopted wetlands guidelines and
1 the Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program.
10. Prior to the alteration of the on-site wetland area, a coastal
development permit shall be obtained from the California State
4.0 Coastal Commission.
1 11. Subsequent to Coastal Commission and Regional Water Quality
6. Control Board approval of an appropriate wetlands mitigation
plan, and prior to the filling of the on-site wetland area, a
1 404 permit from the Corps of Engineers shall be obtained.
I
W
r 12. Prior to any alternation of the overall project site by grading
�. or filling activity, a hydrological analysis of the drainage
patterns affecting the on-site wetland area or adjacent wetland
area shall be conducted by the developer. such analysis shall
determine the drainage effects on the wetlands portion of the
site. ' No develop- ment, grading or alteration of the project
site shall occur which affects the wetlands or adjacent
wetlands without fully analyzing the affects on the on-site
i
w.
Exhibit A -2- (0751d)
IIL
1r
wetland and adjacent wetlands. The developer shall provide
law evidence to the City and to the Department of Fish and Game
that the project's runoff management system -will deliver
approximately the same amount of freshwater urban runoff to
�., these wetlands as under existing conditions, and in
approximately the same seasonal pattern. This evidence shall
include (a) a hydrological analysis comparing the existing and
# post-project water supply, and (b) drawing s and a description
of the runoff conveyance system in sufficient detail for a
qualified engineer to judge its adequacy. The State Department
of Fish and Game shall be consulted regarding alteration of the
• drainage pattern of the site which may affect the
above-mentioned wetlands. The developer shall provide the
Community Development Department with a written report subs-
L tantiating compliance with this mitigation measure prior to
submittal of grading plans or permit issuance for each phase.
� 13 . If the developer proposes to increase or decrease the water
supply to the wetlands east of Beach - Boulevard, or to change
the seasonal pattern, the developer shall provide, in addition
to the evidence required in mitigation measure #12, a biolo-
gical analysis demonstrating that there would be no significant
adverse impacts on the wetlands or associated wildlife.
LInd Use
14 . The developer shall enhance the property fronting Pacific Coast
L Highway and Beach Boulevard with a graduated/meandering
landscaped setback of not less than 25 feet for residential and
} 50 feet for commercial, from curbline, along the distance of
L the entire frontage. Such enhancements shall be depicted in
the approved site plan for each commercial phase. The intent
of this landscaped setback is to provide a visual and aesthetic
buffer for the property to the east. Appropriate landscaping
L amenities shall be included, to the approval of the Planning
Director.
15. Prior to the issuance of building permits for Phase I, the
developer shall screen the mobile homes at Pacific Mobilehome
Park (at the western portion of the project site) by means of a
six foot high block wall (the length of which to be determined
by further acoustical study) on top of a one and one-half foot
high berm. Substantial mature landscaping shall also be
provided to the approval of the Planning Director. The purpose
L of this wall is for aesthetic screening and noise attenuation.
15 . The developer shall complete the site plan review process
established within the Conditional Use Permit regulations to
ensure compatibility with all elements of the City's General
Plan and the Local Coastal Program established by the Coastal
Commission.
W
,, Exhibit A -3- (0751d)
t •
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Condnued)
EASE
w. 5. Changes to Estimated Phasing........................................................... 46
a) Dates........................................................................................... 46
+ b) Phasing Order..............................................................................46
w.. c) Sub—Phases................................................................................. 46
F. Special Problems....................................................................................... 46
1. Limited information.. 46
2. Infirm and Elderl ...............................................................................46
a) Personalized Relocation Cocrdination............... ...........................47
b) Special Park Relocation Criteria....................................................47
c) Relocation to Senior Citizen Housing ...........................................47
3. Tenant's Mortgage Uens.....................................................................47
' 4. Coach Acceptance Criteria at Other Parks............................................4T
+. S. Moving Older Coaches.........................................................................48
6. Costs of Relocation............................................................................ 49
V
1
W
w ADDENDUM A
DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE,LSA ASSOCIATES,INC.
ADDENDUM B
SURVEY OF ORANGE COUNTY MOBILE HOME PAR)G,
TALLEY AND ASSOCIATES,INC.
ADDENDUM C
LISTING OF MOBILE HOME PARKS WITHIN A FIFTY MILE RADIUS
OF THE CITY OF HUNTIyGTON BEACH
1
ADDENDUM D
PHASING ANALYSIS,FUSCOE,WILLIAMS,LSNDGREN &SHORT
ADDENDUM E
ORIGINAL.TENANT QUESTIONNAIRE
ADDENDUM F
s-• REVISED TENANT QUESTIONNAIRE
ADDENDUM G
MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION
OUT—OF—AREA MOBILE HOME PARKS
ADDENDUM H
ar« ADDMONAL INFORMATION TO THE IMPACT OF CONVERSION REPORT
M
IV
w
IMPACT OF CONVERSION REPORT
t 1. INTRODUCTION
4
A. Purpose of Impact of Conversion Report
This is an Impact of Conversion Report submitted by RLM Properties' Ltd.
(hereinafter referred to as "RLM Properties".) The subject of this report is the
Driftwood Beach Club Mobilehome Park located on Pacific Coast Highway west of
t Beach Boulevard in the City of Huntington Beach.
4
The City of Huntington Beach adopted in 1982 a mobile home park conversion
ordinance, Article 927 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, to govern the
,r. change of use of mobile home parks within the City. This Impact of Conversion
Report is prepared pursuant to Article 927 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance
Code. It fulfills the following purposes:
1. To provide the Planning Commission with information about the impact of
the proposed conversion on the park tenants,as required under Article 927.
2. To assist in identifying more accurately the particular needs of the park
tenants and therefore providing the opportunity to develop a Relocation
Assistance Plan that may more effectively mitigate the impacts of the
�., conversion on the park tenants.
�w
B. Conformance to Article 927
This Impact of Conversion Report meets or exceeds all minimum requirements as
established by Article 927.1
C. Action Requested of the Planning Commission
It is requested that the Planning Comnussion, pursuant to a public hearing, find
that this Impact of Conversion Report is adequate pursuant to Article 927 of the
Huntington Beach Ordinance Code.
L
untmgtoa beach t "nano;Coft,S.92M.4(g,Dommber 1992 and amended July 1984.
2 Huntington Beath ordinance Code,S.9M7, Action by Plana inS C.ommiz ion,tk=mber 1982 and amended July
1W
tow
Ir. -
11. METHODOLOGY
r
A. Purpose of questionnaire
Questionnnaires were prepared and served upon park tenants on May 15, 1987.
.. Each tenant was requested, by letter dated May 15, 1987, to complete the
questionnaire and return it to RLM Properties. The purpose of the questionnaire
_ was as follows:
1. To obtain the most accurate information possible as to the various
demographic statistics required to br contained in the Impact of Conversion
Report by Article 927 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code.
a�
2. To obtain the most accurate information ppoossible as to the various
dem, aphis statistics for the benefit of the.Planning Commission when it
., consirs the impact of the proposed conversion upon the park tenants.
3. To obtain information as to the economic profile of the park tenants, not
only as required under Article 927, but to enable RLM Properties and the
City to accurately assess the possible requirements pertaining to Low and
{ Moderate Income Housing,pursuant to various municipal and state laws.
4. To assist in identifying more accurately the special problems of the park
tenants and therefore providing the opportunity to develop a Relocation
! Assistance Plan that may more effectively mitigate the impacts of the
&W conversion on the park tenants.
S. To identify problems relating to medical, employment, or other personal
4" requirements that may need to be considered when specific relocation
assistance to individual tenants is being administered pursuant to an
approved Relocation Assistance Plan.
B. Response of Park Tenants
4" Questionnaires were served to all park tenants on May 15, 1987 (along with the
initial service of the Notice of Intent to Convert) and a Relocation Coordinator was '
retained by RLM Properties to be available to answer questions and assist tenants
w in completing the questionnaire. Additionally, an open meeting for tenants was
held by the Relocation Coordinator on June 10, 1987 to answer questions regarding
i the questionnaire. Further, questionnaires were again distributed to all park
tenants on June 23, 1987 (Second Request), and on July 14, 1987 (Third and Final
Request). See Addendum E of this report.
A random telephone survey of 25 tenants conducted on July 15.20 found that 21
�.• tenants had completed the questionnaires and forwarded them to the tenants' legal
representative, and 4 tenants refused to complete the questionnaire. It was
concluded that the great majority of tenants had completed the questionnaires and
untingtoo Mdt Urdtaamv .9270.4(f)(WH),D=mbw 1992 and amended July 1984.
IIr
2 '
IMPACT OF CONVERSION REPORT
SECTION II. METHODOLOGY(C0ndnu@d)
+�.• forwarded them to their legal representative, confirming earlier statements made
by tenants at the previously referenced June 10, 1987 open meeting with tenants_
As of the date of this filing, a total of 36 questionnaires were returned by the 237
tenants to RLM Properties,representing a response rate of approximately 15%.
In response to the applicant's question to the City Staff questioning the
acceptability of an Impact of Conversion Report not containing information on the
make-up of existing households due to the non-cooperation of the ark tenants,
Mr. Douglas N. La Belle, Director of Community Development and DeputyCity
Administrator of the City of Huntington Beach stated:
'The information in Item (ii),qt
ousehold information] however,depends largely on the
cooperation of the residents. is certainly in the residents' best interest for them to
provide that information since it may lead to approval of a more eaningful relocation
assistance plan. If the residents choose not to make that information available,however,
staff does not see any way to require the developer to provide it.
t
It is staffs opinion that if the developer can prove,through evidence of repeated requests,
that he made a reasonable attempt to solicit the information, then the Impact of
Conversion Re Drt maybe accepted and found adequate without the information in Item
ii) toousehold 'information}. With the submittal of such proof, we may accept the
mpact of Conversion Deport for transmittal to the Planning Commission without the
household information."
` In a joint effort between the Staff of the City of Huntington Beach and RLM
Properties, a meeting was held on August 21, 1987 among representatives of the
park tenants, RLM Properties, City Staff, a City Councilman and two Planning
Commissioners. The questionnaire was discussed at length. No resolution was
reached as to the questionnaire or any part thereof. Representatives of the park
tenants refused to make available the questionnaires that had been completed by
park tenants and forwarded to them. Despite the repeated requests and
encouragement lr+ the City Staff, the tenants and their representatives refused to
cooperate in providing the information requested.
In response to requests by the City Staff and the park tenant representatives, RLM
Properties subsequently prepared a revised questionnaire with questions limited to
only the specific minimum requirements of the City's mobile home conversion
` ordinance (Article 927) and forwarded it to City Staff on August 27, 1987. City Staff
subsequently forwarded the revised questionnaire to park tenant representatives.
See Addendum F to this report. As of the date of the submittal of this document,
none of the revised questionnaires have been completed and forwarded to Rut
Properties by park tenants or their:representatives.
t..
C. Demographic Profile -- LSA Associates, Inc.
Since the response rate of the questionnaires was low, it was determined by RLM
Properties that it was appropriate to utilize other additional sources of information
+� in order to provide -a comprehensive Impact of Conversion Report. RLM
Properties retained the services of an independent consulting firm to research
sty ot Huntingtoa partmcat o(Commuaity Derelopmeat,Mr.Dou&W N.La Belle to the Robert Mazer
Corporation,July 20,1987.
3
IMPACT OF CONVERSION REPORT
SECTION 11. METHODOLOGY fCondawdf
+� available sources of information and to prepare a demographic profile of park
tenants. This Demographic Profile, prepared by Associates,Asates, Inc. is a primary
source of'demographic and economic information concerning the park tenants.
;,. The firm utilized three primary sources of information;
I. The Mobile Home Park Survey performed by the City of Huntington Beach
in 1982. (See Section IV-G,page 11)
r
2. The above referenced questionnaires.
3. The tenant files of RLM Properties which contain substantial information
from lease agreements, tenant application forms and Department of
Housing registration certificates.
For further information,see the Demographic Profile prepared by L,SA Associates,
Ins dated August 10, 1987, which is attached hereto as Addendum A and
incorporated herein by reference as if full}� set forth in this Impact of Conversion
#' Report.
{*r' D. Mobile Home Park Survey—Talley and Associates, Inc.
r The consultin; firm of Talley and Associates, Inc. conducted a comprehensive
�.. survey of mobile home parks within Orange County. A detailed survey form was
mailed to the 232 known mobile home parks in Orange County. 126 parks,
representing 54% of the parks in the county, responded. Statistics compiled and
w summarized in the report include the availability of mobile home spaces, coach
acceptance criteria,park characteristics and rental rates.
For further information, see the Survey of Orange County Mobile Home Parks
prepared by Talle a August
-and Associates, Inc. dated 26, 1987, which is attached as
hereto as Addendum B and incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth in
this Impact of Conversion Report.
r
w
bM
4
b
I
1..
III. DESCRIPTION OF THE PARK
A. Location Map
6w
r�
ix
i �
W
M
x G o
� z m
� g v
ATL4NTA AVFNUE
r
i
I.t
DRIFTWOOD BEACH CLUB
MOBILEHOME PARK
I `
W
' A�F
Ciro `
PACIFIC OCEAN
I4
N
s
�\ ���� � �{ � r ��,,,:r" ,aY Tx •�' (tn" '�3�ar��, 1�.. x�j���� k as ���1"'j ���} d$�
E' �s. ,L�.era ��!� 4.1 ...� � .t�• � � ���
� �f � �°f,�'j' ���. ��t��`� pyll.=! � 't, £ °�t # j `•� ,nd f {°,!fit
t
Air
y�`� � �' �f t� a ��1�y��' I • �
roT ,
r �
i yaj /
• ��f ,� � r �+k., .';•'pie�f{ �x,! � `�{p f� �i
leF +
it 3 1,
y
IMPACT OF CONVERSION REPORT
SECTION III. DESCRIPTION (Continued)
C. Site Photos
\� ja
T
. lllll
fit 049 1.
a �
Typical street--Driftwood Beach Club Mobilehome Park
v � raxxfq�+ i'��� s e'e z��i � ��� �.�+- •r^�.. 'rr r �:r y .., x —
a
t
Typical street--Driftwood Beach Club Mobilehome Park
7
IMPACT OF CONVERSION REPORT
SECTION lit. DESCRIPTION(Continued)
D. Site Plan
1�
•i1��
-----------
1---------------------
--------------------------
-------------------------- `
! {i
1
■ ■ ■ + }
■ ■ ■ ■ � t 1 rl ! ' ' iT
= i
{ ■ ■N !
6s { ■ t : O� / I ■ 1 1
= Z / }
� e _
1
i /
r ; a ■ 1 1 +
� � 1
r
� 1
j 1 IRV
Ire %
IMPACT OF CONVERSION REPORT
SECTION Ill. DESCRIPTION(C'ondnusd)
V '
- E. Description of the Mobile Home Park
The Driftwood Beach Club Mobilehome Park occupies a total of approximately 18
acres on the north side of Pacific Coast Highway between Beach Boulevard and
Huntington Street in Huntington Beach, California. The property provides a total
of 239 mobilehome spaces and a common recreation facility. The common facility
consists of a swimming pool with a sun deck and shuffleboard courts, and an
appproximately 2,000 square foot meeting: room with adjacent library room and
bzIliard room containing a billiard table. The meeting room is part of a larger
Structure, the balance of which is operated as a public restaurant and bar facility,
called the "Driftwood Restaurant". There is also a park manager's office and other
miscellaneous offices in the building. There are also three miscellaneous
utility/laundry structures on the site and two areas for recreational vehicle storage
with a total capacity for approximately twenty vehicles.
L .
L
L
L
w 9 •
I�.
w IV. HISTORY OF THE PARK
A. Construction--1963
The construction of the mobilehome park began in early 1963 and the first
occupancies occurred in late 1963. By April 1964 there were approximately 14
occupied spaces of the total of 166 spaces constructed at that time (space # s 1
through 24:6). By Julyy 1965 approximately one half of these spaces were occupied.
In later years two additionatphases were added, consisting of 29 spaces on the
r,. westward side of the property (space #'s 301 through 329) and later 44 spaces on
the south-eastern portion of the site (space #'s 401 through 444). The park is
currently occupied by 237 tenants, one park manager employed by RLM
6. Properties,and one space is vacant(for a total of 239 spaces).
No substantial additions to the property have occurred since the original
6A construction.
B. The California Coastal Act---1976
The California Coastal Act of 1976, which applies to all coastal property in the
state,said in the act:
'Me Legislature further finds and declares that the basic goals of the state for the coastal
zone are to:
Maximize ,'-?-*c acce to and along 1he a
recrr,ationat ODD rtgnities in thr,cogstal zone consistent with sound resouISM
4 cons rvati - iples and constitutignally pEotecte� rights of private
i property owners.
&.sure priority for goasta.j:dependeent and coastal-related development over
other development ra the coast."
In furtherance of these goals, the City of Huntington Beach adopted the Coastal
1 Element in 1990 and the Downtown Specific Plan rn 1983 which were subsequentl
+.� approved by the California Coastal Commission in March of 1985. (See Section l
L,page 15.)
C. Adoption of the Huntington Beach General Plan--12 f 1976
L The Huntington Beach General Plan was the culmination of several years of effort
by both local citizens and city staff and was adopted following lengthy public
hearings. Further, this General Plan is founded on a Policy Plan adopted in
ti
ornia rublic Resourm Code,Division 20,California Coastal Act of 1976(as amendod through 2l86),Chapter 1.
Uction 3W01.S(c&d).(Emphssh added.)
10
6*
IMPACT Of CONVERSION REPORT
ti. SECTION IV. HISTORY OF THE PARK(Condnwd)
The leasehold estate and all improvements were acquired in 1978 by RIM
Properties, a California limited partnership. Robert L Mayer is the general
partner of RIM Properties.
E. Adoption of the Coastal Element of the City of H.B.--8f 198Q
�+ Pursuant to the requirements of the California Coastal Act of 1976, the City of
Huntington Beach prepared the Coastal Element, which is a land use plan for the
coastal area of the City. Adoption of this plan followed over two years of effort by
the City staff and a 17-member citizen advisory committee, as well as several public
meetings where"...hundreds of people attended and spoke.."g
In the Coastal Element the property was designed as "Mixed Uses --
�' Commercial/Support Recreation."
{ ' Quoting from the Coastal Element:
"Ibe 62 acre area located between Delaware Street [Huntington Street] and Beach
Boulevard is owned by the City of Huntington Beach and leased to the Huntington
Beach Inn and Driftwood Mobile Horne Park and Golf Course. This area has been
designated as commerciallsupport recreation to reflect e3dsting uses find apotential
future site of a,nsaj����eIciayreg&3d � evelgpMent_to comp�ment
th&*IX Beach. .
F. Amendment to the Coastal Element of H.B.--8/1982
This amendment to the land use plan of the coastal area was adoptted pursuant to
public hearings and debate and provided for the following changes: °
1. A conceptual alignment of Walnut Avenue bisecting the property.
' 2. The establishment of High Density Residential use north of Walnut.
Iw 3. The continuance of the designation Commercial/Support Recreation for the
i portion between Walnut Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway.
G. City of Huntington Beach Mobile House Park Survey---1982
In 1992 the City of Huntington Beach conducted a detailed demographic survey of
all mobile home parks in the City. The purpose of the survey was to develop a data
base that would assist the City in evaluating the potential impacts of conversions on
park tenants and the mitigation measures that might be prescribed in an ordinance.
The Driftwood Beach Club Mobilehome Park tenants were represented in the
survey with 48% of the tenants responding.]
Ld
Slivatingtoo Beach=talElement,as adopted August,1980 Paragraph 13.1,page 6,'Cltizeu Partiapation
9 Huntington Beach Coastal Elcment,as adopted Au a.I9W.paragraph 10.4.4,page 13L (�pha:is added.}
L€ 10 Huntington Beach Coastal Element,u,ameoded Auyfust;19�5iguure 10$p age I d of Coovctsloa
4 11 Soe a ppendiz a of the report by LSA,Incorporatod p u!t is Pa Report.
�'' 12
IMPACT OF CONVERSION REPORT
!Iw SECTION N. HISTORY OF THE PARK(C"dnuod)
H. Article 927--1211982
After extensive planning sessions and public hearings,m December of 1982 the City
adopted Article 927 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. As stated in the
u
Article:
'The mobilehome pazk residential zone is hem by established as an overlay zone to
permit the application of mobilehome zone to parcels of land developed with
mobilchome parks and zoned with a primary underlying zoning designation. mm
reasonable and Ftg�ec trans_ ltion_�be present mobitehome park use to
the t �s permitted to the underlying zoning�districts
This Impact of Conversion Report has been prepared pursuant to this Article 927.
1. Adoption of Main—Pier Project Area--11/1983
Following approximately a decade of planning and public debate, in November of
1983 the City of Huntington Beach formally adopted the Main-Pier Redevelopment
Project and Downtown Specific Plan. The Downtown Specific Plan established for
the property two sets'of zoning designations, the "Permanent Underlying Zoning"
to guide the future redevelopment of the property, and the 'Temporary Overlay
Zoning" to accommodate the present uses until redevelopment occurred. These
zoning classifications are described more fully in paragraphs I and 2 below:
1W
i 1. Permanent Underlying Zoning
The subject roperty Ties within both District #8b (High Density Residential) and
District #e9 Co nunerclallRecreation)which are the Permanent Underlying Zoning
regulations or the property. They are described as follows:
a) Qistriq J8: High 12ensity,Residential:
6" "..shall be limited to permanently attached residential uses —that will
provide a population base to help support the commercial and office uses in
the Downtown area."14
�r
b) D+strict J9-_CommerciaVE!1.rreaiion:
" .large, coordinated development that is beach-oriented and open to the
public_to include hotels,motels,restaurants and recreational facilities."1s
r" a uvdalyta aoniag u permanent an&dwd high deaaity resideat W sad oD mtnerda1hrCreation per the Downtown
speafic P1aa. See p-& . ph J below.
U Hua�uis ) Or Once Code,S.9270,'Applicadoa o(Artide'.December 1992 sod amended July 196d.
1d aragraph 4.10 aid 4.10.01,Downtown Specific Plea,November.19�81 (Emphasis added.)
t,. 15 Ptragrapb 4.11 and 4.1141.Downtown Specific Plan,Now-ember,M,
13
Yr
IMPACT OF CONVERSION REPORT
16W SECTION IV. HISTORY OF THE PARK{Continuedf
"CHANGE OFU USE
Please take Notice that the owners,agents,employees, and representatives of Driftwood
Mobile Home Park will not, do not, shall not and cannot make any representations,
ra 6A guarantees,waraties or promises as to or regarding the continued usability or use of
Driftwood Mobile Hoene Park as a mobile home park. A chan2t Qf We may occur
sometime in the future._Lessor shall maintain the right to change the use of
Driftwood Mobile Homg Eark as a mobile home nark.*16
2. Tenant Meeting--2/1985
On February 11, 1985 a meetin; of all tenants was held to answer questions
regarding the lease. At that meeting a Certified Court Reporter was present and a
certified transcript of the meeting was later prepared. At that meeting Mr. Floyd
Farano, Esq.,representing RLM Properties,stated:
"gust a few words concerning the change of usc. a warrant o
'v a d al a moba
home a They don't know just exactly how long its going to continue
in cxistence_Presently,however,there are no definite and immediate plans to change the
4 Use. a
Ment ea projfCt area, and therefore, the Taster Plate
the Qjy of Hjjntii3Zton B
v middy oft j,Property:"'
L Certification of Local Coastal Plan by the State---3/1985
In March of 1985 the California Coastal Commission approved and certified the
City's Coastal Element (see Section IV-1 , page 12) as the Local Coastal Plan of the
City of Huntinggtton Beach. The action by the Coastal Commission followed
considerable deliberation and public hearings on a state level. This transferred to
the City the authority to issue coastal permits which was previously,held by the
�.. Coastal Commission. The zoning regulations of the Downtown Specific Plan are
incorporated into the approved Local Coastal Plan. The Local Coastal Plan
t established as a policy obJcct:vc the "(ilncreased numbers of hotel/motel rooms and
restaurants in the Coastal Zone"2D
L
M. Additional Disclosures to New Tenants After 5/1 f 1985
The purchase and financing terms that a tenant may choose to enter into to acquire
a coach at the park are a matter of individual negotiation on the part of the tenant;
the park owner has no part or control in those arrangements. However,It has been
the intent of RIM Properties to clarify the legal rights and limitations appurtenant
to the ownership of a mobile home at the Driftwood Beach Club. As existing
tenants sold their coaches after May 1, 1985 and new owners came into the park, 1t
anuary 31,1985.paragraph 4.page 2 (Emphasis added}
19 Hahn&Soncm&Certified Court and Deposition Reporters ty Suzanne Smash.CSR 5737;page 16-17.(Emphasis
added
1.. 2ALncai Plan oC the City of Huntington Beach(Coaatsl>~kmeat).Section 33 as amended through 7anuary.1S84.
tw
15
a�
IMPACT OF CONVERSION REPORT
SECTION IV. HISTORY OF THE PARK{Condowdf
was possible that either the sellingAarty
dad not fully disclose all the material facts
regarding the Downtown SMyread'the"documentation
ific d the possible conversion of the park, or
the new purchaser did not given to him by the seller.
Therefore, RLM Properties took the following additional steps after May, 1985, -
which are described in paragraphs 1 through 4 below, to help ensure that new
buyers were fully informed when making their purchase:
1. Execution of Same Leases
t
New tenants were required to execute a new but identical Lease,rather than simply
being allowed to assume the existing lease and and then potentially not reading It.
i4 2. Detailed Disclosure Form
A detailed disclosure form was delivered to these new tenants advising them to
seek legal counsel and again advising them of the existence of the redevelopment
zoning and the potential for the conversion of the park at some time in the future.
Further, this form required that the buyer sign the form to warrant that they did
low not rely upon anyone's statements regarding the continued existence of the park.
3. Nonce of Non--Renewal of Lease
In late 1986, potential new tenants desiring to move into Driftwood were given a
notice advising them that it was probable that the lease would not be renewed past
the expiration date of May 1, 1990,since there was the possibility that at some time
the park owner would decide to redevelop the property.
�~ 4. Advice to Potential Lenders
Lastly, in early 1987, potential new tenants desiring to move into Driftwood were
' also given a form requesting that they advise their potential lender of the facts of a
potenrial conversion before concluding the financing of their purchase.
N. Notice of Intent to Convert & Questionnaire---5'1987
L„ RLM Properties decided on May 15, 1987, to seek conversion of the park to other
uses consistent with the Downtown Specific Plan. On that date a Notice of Intent
1 to Change the Use of the park was served to every park tenant and an application
to remove the MH Temporary Overlay Zoning designation was filed with the
Department of Development Services of the City of Huntington Beach. Also
served to every tenant was a questionnaire that they were requested by a letter
i dated May 15, 1987 to complete in order to provide the park owner with
+.• information to assist in the preparation of this report and the Relocation
Assistance Plan. (See Section II-A,page 2.)
t
w
�" 16
IMPACT OF CONVERSION REPORT
SECTION III. HISTORY OF THE PARK(Condnued)
0. Relocation Coordinator Retained-5/1987
A Relocation Coordinator was retained by RLM Properties for the purpose of
answering any questions tenants might have and to be available to assist tenants in
completing the questionnaire.
W P. Tenants' Informational Meeting--6/1987
r ° On June 10, 1987, the Relocation Coordinator representing.RLM Properties and a
representative of the City of Huntington Bcach met with park tenants in an open
forum to answer questions and provide additional information regarding the
questionnaire distributed to all tenants on May 15th. At that meeting it was stated
by tenants that they had completed the questionnaires and given them to the
attorney for the Driftwood Tenant's Association, and park management should
contact that attorney to obtain the questionnaires. This legal representative of the
' Tenant's Association has refused to answer or respond to any of RLM Properties'
+� multiple phone calls and letters for a period now extending to five months.
Second Request for Questionnaire-6/1987
On June 23, 1997 a second request and questionnaire was distributed to all park
tenants. See Addendum E.
' R. Third and Final Request for Questionnaire--7f 1987
On July 14, 1987 a third and final request and questionnaire was distributed to all
park tenants. See Addendum E.
S. Random Telephone Survey---711987
A random telephone survey conducted on July 16-20 found that out of 25 tenants
contacted, 21 tenants had completed the questionnaires and forwarded them to the
tenants'legal representative, and 4 tenants refused to complete the questionnaires.
It was concluded that the great majority of tenants had completed the
questionnaires and forwarded them to their legal representative, confirming the
statements made earlier by tenants at the Tenant's Informational Meeting held
June 10, 1987 and described in paragraph P above.
T. Meeting of Representatives--8/1987
In a joint effort between the Staff of the City of Huntington Beach and RLM
Properties, a meeting was held on August 21, 1987 among representatives of the
�• park tenants, RLM Properties, City Staff, a City Councilman and two Planning
Commissioners. The questionnaire was discussed at length. No resolution was
reached as to the questionnaire or any part thereof. Representatives of the park
L.. tenants refused to make available the questionnaires that had been completed by
17
rI
IMPACT OF CONVERSION REPORT
SECTION IV. HISTORY OF THE PARK(Continued]
park tenants and forwarded to them. Despite the repeated requests and
encouragement by the City Staff, the tenants and their representatives refused to
cooperate in providing the information requested.
U. Revised and Simplified Questionnaire--8/1987
�.• In response to requests by the City Staff and the park tenant representatives, RLM
Properties subsequently prepared.a revised questionnaire with questions limited to
only the s cific minimum requirements of the City's mobile home conversion
ordinance{Article 927) and forwarded it to City Staff on August 27, 1987. City Staff
subsequently forwarded the revised questionnaire to park tenant representatives.
See Addendum F to this report. As of the date of the submittal of this document,
ta= of the revised questionnaires have been completed and forwarded to RLM
Properties by park tenants or their representatives.
�+ V. Additional Meetings of Tenant Representatives and City Staff---
9/1987 to Present
During September 1987 through approximately the date of this report several
additional meetings were held between City Staff and representatives of the park
tenants. Alternatives for relocation assistance and conceptual plans for a
relocation mobile home park were discussed. Those discussions have been helpful
in assisting RLM Properties and the City Staff in the creation of a Relocation
Assistance Plan which will be submitted separately from this document.
I
4W
L
r
1
a
�W
'' 18
6. V. REASONS FOR PROPOSED CHANGE
f
A. Declining Housing Quality
The housing stock at the ]2riC od Beach Club Mobilehome Park.J p-Igaggr able
fQ continue-to,sustain the increasing demands bein pia yQQn_it. A number of
factors are combining to soon create a rapid decline in the quality of housing at the
site. Further, this projected degeneration in the character of the park can be
' expected to engender an acceleration of the changes in demographics that are a
w. significant cause of the problem, therefore increasing the severity of the problem in
a shorter period of time. This will present an increasing burden on community
services and a Aev_ele Urban �ing-ditroMain the future if not dealt with now
pursuant to the proposed conversion.
These conclusions are based on the follaxing factors which are also graphically
s�
depicted on page 21.
I Demographic Trends---Demands for Mainstream Housing
The demographics of the park are changing. Original tenants are being replaced
with younger tenants, more of whom have children. The 1982 Mobile Home Park
Survey statistics indicated an average age of approximately 54 years while the 1987
Questionnaires indicated an average age of_approximately 53 years--an ppnup1
decrease of over 2 years in average tenant age, Concurrently,average family size is
projected to continue increasing as well. The result is a sig Mcant change inthe
tenant profile to an entry-Ievel housing consumer who ten sd to place much more
intense demands upon the coach, the park infrastructure and community services.
Further, since these tenants are at the first housing cycle stage, they have an
expectation of very long-term permanency of the housing stock. In sffect. the
a a a demand a
mainstream. conventional housing--features that-the -subject pT4pgDY_il not
16, desig=5 to provide. Morever, as the quality of the housing stock declines and
i older tenants leave the park, the rate of change n the demographics will accelerate,
exacerbating the problem.
2. Original Use---Transitional Housing
+ HistoricalIy, many mobile home parks, including the subject pro erty, were
designed to provide transitional housing, generally for persons in the ]= cycle of
housing needs. This profile of tenant maintained a relatively light Ievel of usage of
.� the coach, the park infrastructure, utilities, and community services. Also, long
term land planning policy generally viewed mobile home parks as temporary uses,
awaiting future urban growth that would eventually create a higher and better
permanent use of the land. Therefore, mobile home parks were typically not
designed to withstand a high-intensity, entry-level tenant profile that had
expectations of long-term permanency of the housing stock.
�` sting tenant app inuon p Proputies further sub:tantiata this tread
4 IMPACT OF CONVERSION REPORT
SECTION V. REASONS FOR PROPOSED CHANGE(Cerrdawdf
3. Physical Limitations Aging Housing Stock
a) Age of Coaches
As described previously, the park was constructed beginning is 1963 and is now
approximately 25 years old. Similarly, a great number of the coaches in the park
! were manufactured in 1970 or earlier, and the average age of coaches in the park is
�., approximately 19 years. (See Section VI-B-1,page 36.) In many eases, aging of the
coaches is accelerated by the salt air at the location which corrodes and rusts metal.
Additionally, mobile home construction methods used in the 19ffs and 1970's are
not to current codes or safety standards. As a result, many of the coaches are or
will soon be reaching their maximum useful life and it will become increasingly
difficult and expensive to maintain the quality of the housing stock at the site.
b) Restrictions on Replacement of Coaches
State law prevents the park vender from controlling the quality at the housing at the
w park by efectively prohibiting the park owner from requirin that new or existing
tenants replace an existing old coach with a new coach . Further, the pp0000r
• condition of surrounding coaches together with the price demanded by a selling
tenant strongly discourages a new tenant from buying an old coach and then
replacing it with a new coach. In effect, the park owner has no means to counter
the irreversible decline in the quality of the housing stock at the park because.
improvements can only be made at the individual election and expense of each
tenant, events which are unlikely at best. This economic disincentive to make
im rovements will simply worsen as space rent and other costs rise, which is more
fully discussed in the following sections of this report.
Moreover, replaccment of the older coaches with newer coaches is soon to be
permanently prevented by federal regulations due to the park's location within a
flood zone. (See Section V-D, page 2 .)
c) Age of Infrastructure--Restrictions on Replacement
As is explained in detail in the followin; sections of this report, the utility
infrastructure of the park is nearing its maximurn useful life and will soon require
complete reconstruction. This needed reconstruction (if it were permitted by flood
�6w zone regulations) would cause an Increase in average space of
approximately $295 per month 3 Worse still is the fact that federal flood zone
regulations will effectively prevent this needed reconstruction from occurring (see
Section V D, page 24), ultimately resulting in the inability to reliably provide
essential utility services to park tenants.
4. Economic Problems---Rising Costs to Tenants
Increasing coach maintenance expenses, increasing park infrastructure
b" maintenance expenses, the potential rise in rental rates if utility system
oms o e esidenc7 INN).S.79&71 effective Janusry 1.1987.
3 Future rental rates�y�d May,1990 are estimares oaty. Actual rates would be baud on market ooaditions at the time,
r„ which may be higher than those rates depicted on the graph on tha following paw
'70
W
IMPACT OF CONVERSION REPORT
SECTION V. REASONS FOR PROPOSED CHANGE (Continued)
PROJECTED SPACE RENT
(Avg.Rent in 1987 = $350/spaoe/month)
1.3
1.2
1.1
1
N
N 0.9
O�
C
C N Qg
7
y Q7
Q6
Q5
OA
Q3
Q2
m
Q1
i
97 88 89 90 91 Years31987-2000 95 96 9n 98 99 00
EM Avg.Rents per Existing Leases Avg.Rents After Reconstruction of Utilities
(Shown with 5%inflation peryear. Not a guarantee,
actual tents.in response to market conditions,may be higher.)
PROJECTED DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS
70
60
50
0
a�
r
C_
40
N
O
Q
30
20
4 L
10 a a
E } i
6
z
0
87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 % 97 98 99 00
- Years 1987-2000
Average Age Residents M Age of Parr Average Age Coaches
LLJ (declines @ 1.5 yearslyear)
21
i IMPACT OF CONVERSION REPORT
r.. SECTION V. REASONS FOR PROPOSED CHANGE fCondnotdj
i
I,d reconstruction did occur and external market pressure on space rental rates will
serve to drive the basic cost of housing at the subject park to an uneconomic level
' from the tenants' perspective. The cost of alternate housing in other conventional
markets will be comparatively lower, making the subject property an undesirable
housing choice from an economic standpoint.
F
B. Condition & Life Expectancy of Infrastructure
As stated previously, the park was constructed beginning in 1963 and is nearing
,,. twenty five years in age.
The majority of mobile home parks in the City were constructed in the years
between 1959 and 1965. Mobile home parks were often viewed as temporary uses
and park developers were sometimes able to have development standards of the
time reduced for mobile home parks. As a result, many parks including the subject
troperty are substandard according to current development regulations and, in
act, may never have been in full compliance with any development standards.
' Park management has experienced several failures of underground systems in
,.� recent years, including sewer line stoppages and leaks, and severe water line
corrosion necessitating repeated replacement of valves. The existing infrastructure
is near its useful life and park management estimates that within five years (30 year
life of infrastructure) the existing mobile home Park will require a complete
redesign and reconstruction of the underground utility system. This is a result of
the following factors:
w
1. Prc Title 18 Construction
+w The existing system was constructed prior to the adoption of the existing standards
which govern mobile home park development, Title 18 of the California
Administrative Code. Therefore, the underground improvements were not
constructed in compliance with these minimum standards.
± 2. Antiquated Building Codes
4.
The existing system was constructed when a two decades earlier version of the
Uniform Building Code and Uniform Plumbing Code was being used.- It can be
r concluded that the improvements do not meet the more stringent standard of
modern construction.
1
3. Inadequate Design Capacity
The utility infrastructure was built in 1963 when the average size of a mobile home
was approximately500 square feet. Over the years the sizes of mobile homes have
increased substantially and many mobile homes in the park are in excess of 1,400
square feet. The average size of mobile homes at the park is estimated at 1,170
square feet, more than twice the typical size at the time the utility infrastructure
`` 22
IMPACT OF CONVERSION REPORT
SECTION V. REASONS FOR PROPOSED CHANGE[Condnned)
was constructed. These larger homes create a substantial increase in demand upon
the utility infrastructure which greatly exceeds its original design criteria. This
increased demand creates an increase in maintenance costs and speeds the ultimate
demise of the system.
4. corroaivity of Site Soils
Due to the influx of subsurface salt water at the site,the soil is corrosive in nature.
+ ° In a soil investigation of the site by Irvine Soils Engineering,Inc.,it was stated:
"In general, based on the indicated chloride concentration, the on-site soils are
considered to have a moderate corrosion potential on mild grade steel. Soils with an
electrical resistivity of the magnitude measured for the on-site soils are conductive to
potentials evere electroly is-tune corrosion. Asa result,consideration should be
given to protecting underground metallic facilities from the on-site soils or to the use of
r non-metallic materials that are not subject to electrolytic-type corrosion. A corrosion
consultant should be considered to provide expert advic�r on the corrosive potential of the
site soils on any critical underground facilities planned
The underground water system was constructed of unprotected metallic pipe, and
extreme corrosion damage has already been experienced. It is clear that no
consideration of this problem was made when the system was constructed in 1%3.
S. Uncompacted Fill Soil at Site
Irvine Soils-En ineering, Inc.conducted several test borings at the site for their soil
investigation. Quoting from the report:
"Fill soils were encountered in all borings ranging in depth from 1 to 10 feet below
i., existing grades. Fill material consisted primarily of firm to stiff silty clays and loose to
medium dense silty to clayey sand and sand Theft sod in general exhibit low
strengths and modaratc lohigh,cow usiNlitics."r
The borings are conclusive evidence of the fact that the existing site was poorly
compacted at the tirne of construction. As a result, shifting and settling soils will
place an increasing) heavier load on already corroded and deteriorated facilities.
460 Management has already experienced several sewer pipe failures caused by sail
movement.
w
C. Coate is Displacement of Tenants to Upgrade Infrastructure
s °
A complete reconstruction of the infrastructure (if permitted by flood zone
regulations, see Section V-D, page 24) will necessitate closing the park on a
t . temporary basis as essential services would be disconnected for extended periods of
time. Additionally, virtually all coaches would have to be temporarily moved to
'-' allow access and construction of underground systems and feeder connections
r
Umatod CiMechnicaloveaugat-on, n*soils Entineeting,Inc,June 29,1994.page 22. (Emphasis added.)
W 4 Limited Co xechnial investigation,Irvine Soils Engintcriog,Inc.,June 29,1%1.page 3. (Emphasis adde(L)
23
IMPACT OF CONVERSION REPORT
SECTION V. REASONS FOR PROPOSED CHANGE(Condnwd)
•;,,� located between and underneath existing coaches.
4 The costs to reconstruct the utility systems are projected as follows:
Estimated Cost of Utility
' Infrastru=re ReconstrUgiQ
Utility Reconstruction
at$12,000 per space S2,868,004.00
Laundry Rooms&Clubhouse 48,000 00
Tempo Moving&Resetting
Coaches S1,2W per space 286,800.00
Miscellaneous Repair
&Landscapin @$450 per space 107,5W.00
Contingency(a 5% 165,500.00
Construction Loan Points
' and Interest 274,W.00
�.. Rental Loss
9 months @$500 average 1,075
Pemmnent Loan Fees
TOTAL COSTS $4,97Z,000.00
t ; Amortized over 10 years @ 12% $70,616.001month
LW
Average Cost Per Space _,_ 5295.00/month
' This additional rental cost would have a serious and deleterious impact on the
tenants and the future viability of the park. See Section V-A-3&4, page 20 for a
discussion of this potential impact and page 21 for a graphic depiction of the
projected future rental rates.
r
D. Flood Plain Regulations
t _ 1. Overview:
The Federal Emergency Management AF�,ency administers the National Flood
Insurance Program. The purpose of the program is to identify potentiaUy
hazardous flood plain areas, promote comprehensive planning. and building
regulations in those areas, and provide flood insurance to residents m the affected
areas. The City of Huntington Beach is a participant in the program'and portions
j of the city, including all of the subject site, hs within potential flood zones. The site
is Iocated in flood zone A-12 with a projected 100 year flood level of 11 feet above
sea level. The subject site has an elevation of approximately 2 to 8 feet above sea
level,meaning that in the event of a 100 year flood,water can be expected to rise 3
to 9 feet above the existing ground,depending on the location within the park.
``� 24
IMPACT OF CONVERSION REPORT
SECTION V. REASONS FOR PROPOSED CHANGE(Condnued1
i 2. Regulations
V
The City of Huntington Beach has adopted regulations for new and existing
structures in flood zone areas as required under the Federal Rules and Regulations
of the National Flood Insurance Program. The primary regulations affecting the
subject mobile home park are described below.
a) Anti—Flotation AnchoE System
In the subject flood zone area the following is required:
"(1) All mobilehomes and additions to mobilebomes shall be anchored to resist
flotation,oollapse,or lateral movement by one of the following methods:
(i) By providing an anchoring system designed to withstand horizontal forces of 15
i►. pounds per square foot and uplift forces of 9 pounds per square food or
(u) By anchoring the unit's system to comply with the Department of Housing and
s.
Ikwelopment's Mobilehome nstruction and Safety Standards.
(2) The installer or state agency responsible for regulating the placement, installation
and anchoring of individual mobilehome units shall furnish ceNcation of compliance
with the above standards to the Director of Detielopment Services.
By virtue of their age, few if any of the coaches were constructed or installed
pursuant to these standards. Unrestrained movement of mobile homes within
flood waters at the site may pose a serious threat in the event of a flood.
r b) R2od12m2fjnX-of t!t 1i fm
In the subject flood zone area it is required that:
"(1) All new and replacement water supply and sanitary sewage systems shall be
desl ed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of flood waters into the system and
discharge from systems into flood waters.
(2) On-site waste disposal systems shall �e located to avoid impairment to them or
contamination from them during flooding."
The existing sewer and water system was not constructed to these standards. In the
event of a flood, a failure of the sewer system and contamination of flood waters
and the water system will occur. This health hazard that can only be corrected by a
complete reconstruction of the water and sewer system.
f
1
uotiaggtton �naaec ion 969A1g(t) January 1991 Also sx Rules wad Regulations of the National
Flood rasumnce Program.Section 19103(b1(S). (FR VoL 41.4207 10-16-76)
7 Huntiagt oa Bach Ordinanm Code Section 1 d) Januaryry U1 Also see Rules and Regulations of the National
Flood rW raaca Program,Soaion 1910.3(a}(U Y�.Vol.4�,t2W.10-26-76)
25
a
i.r
IMPACT OF CONVERSION REPORT
" SECTION V. REASONS FOR PROPOSED CHANGE{Confinutod]
e) Restriction !2nIn tallinrAnY While Ngmes_Aftcr.211Of88:
In the subject flood zone area the following regulation is scheduled to ggo
' into effect on September 30, 1988. It will affect any new or used mobile homes to be
placed in czi�tln mobile home parks as follows:
[For alI mobile homes to be placed within Zones Al-A30, it shall be required that] "(i)
stands or lots are elevated on compacted fill or on pilin so that the lowest floor of the
mobile Lome will be at or above the base flood level,(ii�adequate surface drainage and
access for a hauler are provided,and (iii)in the instance of elevation on pilings,lots are
large enough to permit steps,pilin8 foundations are plated in stable soil no more than
ten feet apart, and reinforcement is provided for pilings more than six feet above the
ground level
' The above regulation will require placing any homes moved into the park after
+w September 30, 1988 on pilings or fill dirt approximately 3-9 feet above existing
grade levels idepending upon the location within the park), either of which 1s
economically infeasible and impractical. In effect, federal regulation wi11 prohibit
the replacement and upgrading of deteriorated coaches at the Driftwood Beach
Qub beginning in late 1988,and the result will be an irreversible depreciation of the
F housing stock at the park.
} d) Reconstruction 9f UtilitylylteM Prevented
As referenced previously in this document, the utility infrastructure at the park will
soon require major reconstruction. Ho-%-cver, in the subject flood zone it is
required that:
.for existing mobile home parks and mobile home subdivisions where the repair,
reconstruction or improvement of the streets,utilities and pads equals or exceeds 50"0 of
F the value of the streets, utilities and pads before the repair, reconstruction or
improvement has commenced,that (i)stands o:lots are elevated on compacted fill or on
dings so that the lowest floor of the mobile home will be at or above the base flood level,
(ii) adequate surface drainage and access for a hauler are provided, and (ui) in the
instance of elevation on pilings,lots are large enough to permit steps,piling foundations
arc placed in stable soil no more than ten feet agart,and reinforcement is provided for
pilings more than six feet above the ground level.
�., Due to the above regulation, it will be economically infeasible and an impracticality
to make the necessary improvements to the park's infrastructure.
gRulesaadRc;u uous atjo—" Flood tmumoce Prot/w Soctioo l9lD3(cXS&6). (FiL.VoL 41.0297,10-26-
76)
9 Rules and Regulstloas of the Natioosl Flood Insurance P m,section 1910 cx�. (F R Vol.41,*207,10-26-76)
Ira Also see Huntington Beach Ordinance Code Section 969A11 f)(7),Ianuary,l
s
id
IMPACT OF CONVERSION REPORT
ir. SECTION V. REASONS FOR PROPOSED CHANCE(Condnwd)
3. Conclusions--Flood Zone Regulations
As a result of the park's location in a flood zone the following conclusions are
evident:
a) In the event of a flood, a very dangerous condition would exist due to the
P
lack of flotation tie-downs on the coaches at the park.
a,r b) In the event of a flood, a health hazard would exist due to the non-
floodproof water and sewer system.
c) After September 30, 1988 it will be unfeasible to move any new or used
coaches into the park. As a result, the quality of the housing stock is forced
to continue to depredate with time.
d) The near term need to perform sizable utility system reconstruction will
=le
the park's permanent conversion to other uses as it will then be
to meet flood zone regulations at this site and operate as a mobile
home park.
L
E. Earthquake Safety
The City of Huntington Beach General Plan identified the subject property as an
area of moderate earthquake potential.14 Since September of 1985 the Housing
Land Community Development Department of the State of California has certified
mobile home seismic safety systems pursuant to Title 25 of the California
r Administrative Code. Due to the age of the coaches at the park, it is unlikely that
�.. any of the coaches at the Driftwood Beach Club have been installed with seismic
safety systems.
r
Conversion of the park will allow future construction that will meet all modern
earthquake safety standards and therefore increase public safety in comparison to
current uses.
F. Non—Conforming Use
+�• The existing mobile home park is not constructed to current planning standards.
As noted earlier, the park was constructed in 1963. In 1970, a special mobile home
park ordinance established the MH zoning district and set new development
standards for mobile home parks. If this property were to be utilized as a mobile
home park on permanent basis, then the park should be constructed to modern
standards including parking and storage as contained in current City ordinances.
,
10
untiogtoo bcach GeDmilo, vted Decomber 1976 and amended through March,1979.`GeotafiRinl t.and Usa
Capability Map,figum 2-S,page 23-24
I •
L 27
L
IMPACT OF CONVERSION REPORT
SECTION V. REASONS FOR PROPOSED CHANCE (Contrnued)
W
G. Opportunity to Increase Housing in the Coastal Zone
In its current use, the property provides only.a fraction of the housing units
otherwise possible pursuant to the underlying zoning.
H. Public Access to Coastal Resources:
As described previously, the California Coastal Act of 1976 stated that the basic
goals of the state for the coastal zone are to maximize ublic access and
recreational opportunities and assure priority for coastal-related development over
other development
In its current use as a mobile home park the subject property does little to achieve
the goals of the state in improving access and enjoyment of coastal resources by the
W ppubli'c. However,by converting the park to those uses envisioned by the Downtown
Specific Plan, exceptional opportunities for recreation, tourism and enjoyment of
the coastal resources will be created to the greater public benefit.
1. Extension of Walnut Avenue
As described earlier in Section N•I on page 14, the City has determined that the
extension of Walnut Avenue from Lake Street to Beach Boulevard is an important
relief for traffic on Pacific Coast Highway. This will become increasingly important
i., as the revitalization of the downtown area continues. Within the next five to ten
years, the extension of Walnut Avenue will become a necessity. This will bisect the
property, eliminatin; the clubhouse and pool facilities, disrupting utility systems
and access, and requiring the removal of a number of coaches.
The extension of Walnut Avenue to Beach Boulevard can be accomplished more
appropriately pursuant to an orderly,phased conversion of the park as proposed.
�r
Ir
V
omia rubLc Rcaourct r—ibion 20,Glifomia Coastal Act of 1976(as amended throuth 2",Chapter 1,
�+ Section 30001S
28
IMPACT OF CONVERSION REPORT
SECTION V. REASONS FOR PROPOSED CHANGE(Cmdnwd)
L
G ummaaeasqnj .
L
The previously stated reasons for the proposed change can be summarized as
follows:
L
1. The housing stock at the Driftwood Beach.Club Mobilehome Park is no
i longer able to continue to sustain the increasing demands being placed upon
it. A number of factors are combining to soon create a rapid decline in the
quality of housing at the site. This will present an increasing burden on
community services and a severe urban planning dilemma in the future if not
L. dealt with now pursuant to the proposed conversion.
2. The existing utility infrastructure vstill soon require replacement. The cost to
park tenants of the reconstruction will be substantial both in terms of the
temporary closure of the park as well as future space rental necessary to
recover the improvement costs.
3. Due to the park's location in the flood plain, federal and municipal
regulations prevent the reconstruction of the utility system, due to the
severe and infeasible requirements applied. Further, in 1988 these same
�►.. regulations will make it impossible to replace aging coaches in the park with
new coaches.
4. Other public safety concerns exist including the the potential flood hazard
and earthquake safety at the park_
5. The property is built pursuant to outdated planning regulations.
`" Opportunity exists to enhance public access and enjoyment of the coastal
resources and ingrease the housing stock in the coastal zone.
L 6. Within the next five to ten years, redevelopment of the downtown area will
neccessitate the extension of Walnut Avenue through the property to Beach
Boulevard. The impact of that event can be more appropriately mitigated
pursuant to an orderly,phased conversion as proposed.
L
La
a.
29
l.r '
L VI. CONVERSION IMPACT
A. Tenant Profile
h"
1. Age of Tenants
r.
w
AGE OF TENANTS
1]0
110
LW Ln 100
r
Z
W
D
VA
O 70
60
l�r
s0
` +0
{1 30
20
10
0
<11& 1&40 41.50 51-W 61-70 >70
Age in Year
The 1982 City of Huntington Beach Mobile Home Park Survey indicated that the
W population in the park tends to be elderlywith 66%of the tenants being 60years of age
or older. However,the 1987survey indicated a shift towards ayounger population that
is also evident from comparisons of the changes in length of residency and household
size.The above age distribution equates to 55%of the tenants being age 60 or over and
45% being younger than age 60.
Jill
Source: LSA Associates hw. (See Addendum A)
4
30
t
L IMPACT OF CONVERSION REPORT
SECTION VI. CONVERSION IMPACT (Continued)
L
Ld A. Tenant Profile (Continued)
2. Household Size
V
6* HOUSEHOLD SIZE
130
120
114
� 100
6. D
W
N �
s
I ti
L O 74 «
�0
L
40
r
30
W
20 •
to +'
Q
SINGLEPERSON 7WO PERSONS 3*PERSON'S
it
Although one and two person households predominate, the 1987 data indicates an
increase in the percentage of households of three or more persons over the 1982 City
of Huntington Beach Mobile Home Park Survey data. This trend is substantiated by
the shift towards ayounger population described on the previous page and the sizeable
turnover of occupants in recent years described on the following page.
Source. LSA Associates, Inc. (See Addendum A)
31
w
IMPACT OF CONVERSION REPORT
SECTION VI. CONVERSION IMPACT (Continuad)
I
t4
A. Tenant Profile (Continued)
3. Length of Tenancy
Iw
LENGTH OF TENANCY
1Zo
w
110
sm
� o
0 90
x
W
D
x
w 70
O
SO
f
20
10
0
5 or fm SA 10-14 15-19 19or mom
Tcnaoq in Years
fir..
The 1982 City of Huntington Beach Mobile Home Park Survey data had indicated at
the time that 43%of the tenants had been located in the park for more than ten years.
However,the 1987 data shows a significant trend towards shorter lengths of tenancy,
6. in fact the data substantiates the conclusion that the park has undergone a 50%
turnover in occupants within the past five years.
6..
Source: LSA Associates, Inc. (See Addendum A)
32
6.
f IMPACT OF CONVERSION REPORT
W SECTION V1. CONVERSION IMPACT (Continued)
I •
A. Tenant Profile (Continued)
Ld 4. Type of Tenant
w+ Seasonal
60
r.
Permanent
L.
1 S. Occupancy Status
W
Renter-Occupied
i" (Investor Unit) 1
1
W
1
1
� 1
W 1
• (K211) Owner-Occupied
V .
Source: LSA Associate., Inc. (See Addendum A)
33
W
C IMPACT OF CONVERSION REPORT
SECTION Vt. CONVERSION IMPACT (Continutd)
#A
A. Tenant Profile (Continued
6. Reported Household Grocs Income
k
�a
REPORTED HOUSEHOLD GROSS INCOME
4
! 50
� a
s
w
�+1 z
w
O
]0
6d
20
L
1 10
LA
� z
0
G <K510 S6S-i0,4 SIQ41S.6 513.6.19.5 S1RS-M0 smo-U! $3z".6 W-54;.1 >545,100
L+ [acme is 1.000's
It is estimated that 50%of the households have a gross income above$20,000 per year.
It is also estimated that 90% of the households fall into the categories of Low or
Moderate Income as defined by the.County of Orange.
I
Source: LSA Associates; Inc. (See Addendum A)
34
i
IMPACT OF CONVERSION REPORT
Lj SECTION VI. CONVERSION IMPACT (Condnu#d)
I
to
A. Tenant Profile (Continued)
• °r'' T. Health Status
6d
too
HEALTH STATUS
Disability mn)
i
.M
maw) No Serious Disability
f
1W The 1982 City of Huntington Beach Mobile Home Park Survey indicated that 82%of
the tenants have no serious disability. Tenant files show nothing to the contrary. Due
to the significant turnover of occupants and the trend towards a younger population in
the park in the past five years, it is possible that the percentage of tenants with
disabilities has declined.
r-
Source: I.SA Associaiex Inc. (See Addendum A)
r«
35
L.
IMPACT OF CONVERSION REPORT
SECTION VI. CONVERSION IMPACT (Continued)
ti.
B. Mobile Home Profile
1. Age of Coaches
{ .
AGE OF COACHES
4
90
x 7D
li
O
60
0
so
�0
I +
� 10
L
� 13Yun b10Yean 11•SSYean ]6.7AYun "11+Yun
�kw
The average age of the coaches in the park is 19 years and a large majority of the
coaches are over 15 years old.
Source: LSA Associate-� Inc (See Addendum A)
36
IMPACT OF CONVERSION REPORT
�+ SECTION VI. CONVERSION IMPACT (Continued)
t
B. Mobile Home Profile (Continued)
2. Type of Coaches
1.r -
TYPE OF COACHES
Mo
6. 190
180
170
� 160
,n "0
= 140
� G �
u 1Z0
4
O 110
J lar
9Q
Ib
70
60
40
r 30
10
0
SINCIX WIDE DOU2LE WIDE 'TRIPLE WIDE
Of the 33 single wide coaches,21 are 21 years of age or older, 11 are 16 to 20 years of
6. age,and i is 14 years of age. The four triple wide coaches are 11 years old or less. The
} double wide coaches span the range of ages illustrated on the previous page.
w.
` Source. LSA Associate.; Inc. (SeeAddendurn A)
6
37 - •
r
IMPACT Of CONVERSION REPORT
SECTION V1. CONVERSION IMPACT (Continued)
B. Mobile Home Profile (Continued)
3. Living Area of Coaches
w
LIVING AREA OF COACHES
w
70
N ao
d
1.r sa
w '
0
r .
30
20
w to
0 ,
<5% MIN aoa%9 t,tno-t.t�,
Gross Square Fect
+� The average gross living area of the coaches at the park is estimated at 1,170 square feet
and 74% of the coaches are less than 1,400 square feet in size.
Ir. •
w
6
Source. LSA Associate., Inc. (See Addendum A)
38
6
IMPACT OF CONVERSION REPORT
�,. SECTION VI. CONVERSION IMPACT(Continued)
I
;,. C. Space Availability in a 50 Mile Radius
+kr
1. Compilation of Mobile Home Parks —50 Mile Radius
Article 427 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code specifies that the park owner
shall pay the costs of relocating the mobile home to another park within 50 miles
from the City of Huntington Beach. Utilizing records available from the State
Deppartment of Housing and Community Development and the Recorders Offices
of the Counties of Orange, Los AngIles, San Bernardino, Riverside and San Diego
County, a List of mobile home parks within a 50 mile radius was compiled and is
included as Addendum C to this report. A total of 756 mobile home parks were
identified within the 50 mule radius.
2. Talley Survey of Orange County Mobile Home Parks
The consulting firm of Talley and Associates conducted a survey of mobile home
parks within Orange County, the results of the survey are included as Addendum B
to this report. A survey form was mailed to the 232 known mobile home parks in
�.: Orange County, with 126 parks, representing S4% of the parks in the county,
responding.
Statistics compiled in the report include the availability of mobile home spaces,
coach acceptance criteria,park characteristics and rental rates.
3. Projected Space Availability and Coach Acceptance Criteria
The Talley survey compiled figures of currently empty spaces, expected additional
W empty spaces over the next 12 months (based on park management's experience
with attrition and turnover), park management's plans for expansion over the next
12 months, and known empty/repossessed coaches (which often result in the
opportunity for purchase and /or removal). Those figures presented in the Talley
report based on the 54% response rate are extrapolated for Orange County (232
r , parks) and the total 50 mile radius(756 parks) and are summarized below:
era
Orange County
Ptol!:gtcd Space Availability- 12 Month Period
Ili
Current Projected
Empty Em ty an a!ion Empty Merid
Qaaches TQLa1
101 166 567 204 1,038
�R
W 39
{ IMPACT OF CONVERSION REPORT
►r SECTION VI. CONVERSION IMPACT(Continued]
4
r.
50 Mile Radius
Erpicod Spam wallah lisp► 12 Month !cdQd
Current Projected-
r.+ Empty Em ty nsion Empty Potential
Spaces o-5 a I=I
330 540 1,848 666 3,384
�+ As can be seen from the above data, a significant pool of spaces does exist within
Orange County and 50 mule radius in total. Within the 50 mile radius, a total of 870
empty spaces are projected to exist over the next 12 month period.
Coach acceptance criteria was also compiled in the Talley Survey. It was
determined that approximately26% of the parks in Orange County accepted used
coaches based on varying criteria at age and condition. Since the criteria vary, it is
difficult to precisely quantify the number of spaces available based on the specific
age and conditions of the coaches at the Driftwood Beach Club, but it appears
reasonable to conclude that most all the coaches in the park fit into one or more
�+ criteria within this 26% of the parks accepting used coaches. Further, it is likely
that the percentage of parks acceptin& used coaches will increase as one moves
outside o Orange County into the 550 mile radius.
Therefore,utilizing the figure of 26% on the previous statistics, it can be estimated
that at least 226 empty spaces in parks accepting used coaches will be available
within the next 12 months within a 50 mile radius of Huntin&ton Beach. Further,
with projected expansions and vacated coaches, the potential total rises to 880
spaces. This figure is for a one year period, but in fact-the conversion will occur
1 over a period of several years thus multiplying the expected spaces available for
�+ relocation by a significant amount, see paragraph 4 below. (Also see Section VI-F-
4,page 47 for a further discussion of the Coach Acceptance Criteria Issue.)
4. Phasing of Conversion
The closure of the mobile home park is proposed to occur in phases over the next
several years. (See Section VI-E, page 44.) In 19K only a total of 19 spaces are
proposed to be converted, and since one is already vacant, only 18 relocations are :
projected. This represents only a very small fraction of total spaces available during
the next 12 month period. The Iargest phase is projected to be 89 spaces in mid
1990,and given the time period to Prepare for this and other alternatives available,
it is clear that the proposed relocation program is feasible.
40
IMPACT OF CONVERSION REPORT
SECTION VI. CONVERSION IMPACT(Continued)
S. 50 Mile Radius Map
\ r �''�� •
J •00
.M.
.. ..mow u ..
—
r �'•� ...� ��' -... ,::_. ... —';ter..' • — �'—^ `�:.�'. __ �� yy . n.
_Zil
�XAIJZ no
ram, r�..Y l'�w'7..fsw/ ,r �' 'a ,f v'''., r —i•a, y.,• 1 � _ — w
• �` 'fir,.
50 MILE RADIUS
OF THE
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
41
IMPACT OF CONVERSION REPORT
i.f SECTION VI. CONVERSION IMPACT(CaN&rwd)
1
�., 6. New Relocation Park
t • It has also been proposed that the City of Huntington Beach Redevelopment
Let Agency developp land within Huntington Beach sufficient to acxomodate
approximately 100 mobile homes. In the event that such development is
f . economically possible, the addition of these spaces specifically for the purpose of
relocating coaches from the Driftwood Beach Qub will dramatically lessen the
reliance upon vacant spaces within the 50 mile radius.
+... 7. Outside 50 Miles —Other Opportunitles
Many mobile home parks caist in areas outside the 50 mile radius, and RLM
w Properties has proposed to pay the cost of relocating any coach to any point within
the State of California if so desired by the tenant. Many of these parks accept older
coaches and in fact offer significant incentives such as free introductory rent,
payment of relocation costs, and attractive common recreational amenities to
attract tenants. Also, park rent structure in these outlying areas is t,
lcalIy
dramatically lower than rents in Orange County. A sample of unsolicited
1 advertisements received by RLM Properties for such parks is included in
i" Addendum G to this report.
i
D. Overview of Alternative Housing Markets
iw
1. Introduction
The housing market in Huntington Beach and Southern California in general is
robust,offering a wide spectrum of alternatives in addition to mobile homes. Some
iW tenants may choose to relocate to other conventional forms of housing, and in fact
the experience of other park owners in conversions is that a large percenta&e of
tenants choose on their own to relocate to other conventional housing options.
40 Following is a brief overview of local housing segments that are practical
opportunities for many tenants.
2. Rentals
1 Huntington Beach contains a large base of apartment units. Vacancy rates are
presently moderate, on the order of 5 . 10%, and as a result there is a relatively
bountiful selection of available units. There arc in excess of 26,000 units within the
City in the 2-4 units and 5+ units categories', and as a result it is estimated that
there are at least 1,500 units available for rent at the present time, Expanding the
area of consideration to just Orange County presents a potential rental pool in the
tens of thousands.
i
Housing cmeat the Huatiaqo—alkidiGeneml Plan,November 1979,Paragnph 2.=page 15 (Sou=
� + • Huntingm Beach 19"spcdal Ckwus)
A '
42
IMPACT OF CONVERSION REPORT
1.. SECTION VI. CONVERSION IMPACT(Condnaed)
a
Typical rental rates for most apartments in the area are estimated as follows:
Representative Anartmcnt Rental Rates
` 1 Bedroom $525-$7251mo.
2.Bedroom Sb00-S8501mo.
w 3.Bedroom $750-$1,500/mo.
3. For—Safe Housing --Affordable Units
The City of Huntington Beach has historically had a sizable number of
condominium developments built offering units in affordable price ranges. Similar
opportunities exist in many parts of Orange County and Southern California.
14 4. On—Site Housing Planned to be Developed
RLM Properties plans to construct on-site multi-family attached housing units.
Pursuant to the Relocation Assistance Plan,a written guarantee of the right of first-
refusal to reside in the new housing units plus additional economic incentives will
be offered to all park tenants.
5. Senior Citizen Housing
Iw The C; of Huntington Beach and other surrounding communities have man
apartment and condominium housing developments designed and operated for
sensor citizens, many offering affordability programs. The City of Huntington
Beach directly administers at least one affordable program located within the City.
6. Redevelopment Agency Relocation Assistance Program
4W
The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach has established a
program to assist residents to redevelopment areas who are displaced to find
4" replacement housin&. Though not intended to substitute for this Relocation
i Assistance Program,it s expected to be helpful for some tenants of the park..
I�
i '
43
A
IMPACT OF CONVERSION REPORT
l.. SECTION VI. CONVERSION IMPACT(Cantinuod)
i..
E. Phasing Plan
1. Introduction
In order to minimize the impact on park tenants, RLM Properties has planned a
phased closure of the park rather than an immediate bulk conversion. This will
allow many tenants of the park to remain for several more years past the expiration
of their leases. More importantly, as a result of this phasing the actual number of
,M relocation actions underway in any given month will icall be a small fraction of
the total number of coaches ai the park, feasibility
manageabilily of the Relocation Assistance Plan and,he gQOycr2ign 4f-the 7ark is
by phasing.
As described more fully below,a professional engineering consultant was utilized to
r+
create a phasing plan,and estimated dates and affected coaches are detailed.
2. Engineer's Plans
The civil en ineering firm of Fuscoe, Williams, Lindgren & Short conducted a
mapping and analysis of the park and the utilityinfrastructure. From this they
developed phasing plans based on the following criteria:
a) Accommodation of the future development phasing contemplated by RLM
Properties.
b) Minimum disruption of existing utility systems and the ability to maintain
w basic services to remaining coaches.
c) Maintaining proper access, traffic circulation and functional groupings of
coaches in remaining phases.
The detailed phasing diagrams are included as Addendum D to this report. The
diagrams depict the remammng phases of the park as redevelopment of the property
occurs.
+•» On the following page is a table which summarizes the estimated phased conversion
of the park based on the engineer's plans and the projected redevelopment
schedule for the property.
1w
a
A
i
IMPACT OF CONVERSION REPORT
SECTION Vt. CONVERSION IMPACT(Condaued)
i
3. Estimated Phasing of Conversion
Park Spa=.&Mbers J_QtgIQunt Fzt1matgdpate of Closure
306-315
321-329 19 1111988s
11-19
200-204
316,320,401
65-120
301-305
317-319
272-290 89 5/1990
1-10
400 431-441 21 5/1991
• 20-64
6# 206-270 78 511992
402-430
442-444 32 511993
*Ibe first group of 19 coaches are scheduled to be relocated 18 months after the
�,. filing of the Notice of Intent to Convert.
4. Sic Month Advance Written Notice
A minimum of six months prior to the date that the specific phase of the park will
be closed, all affected tenants will receive a written notice advising them of the
definite date of closure. If relocation assistance per the approved Relocation
Assistance Plan has not been previously arranged with the affected tenants, the
E program will be put into effect during this six month period.
w •
4
l
45
IMPACT Of CONVERSION REPORT
+� SECTION VI. CONVERSION IMPACT(Cmdnwd)
t
too 5. Changes to Estimated Phasing
The estimated dates of phased closure as shown in the above table are the most
w, accurate estimates available at this time but may be subject to change. Changes in
future development plans may alter the phasing plan previously outlined. RLM
Properties reserves the right to modify the planned phasing of the conversion of the
park in the foUming ways:
a) RACE
•» The actual dates of phased closure may differ from the dates shown in the previous
table. The precise date shall be that provided in the six-month notice described
previously, but in no event prior to November 1988 (18 months from the Notice of
Intent to Change Use).
b) Qhasin¢ Order
4" It is anticipated that the phasing will proceed generally from Huntington Street
towards Beach Boulevard and the above table represents that program, but it is
possible that the order of phasing may change as a result in changes in planned
�•+ redevelopment phasing.
c) ub—
It is possible that only a portion of a phase shown in the engineer's diagrams may
be closed while some tenants are allowed to stay longer if development conditions
permit.
i F. Special Problems
1. Limited Information
�.r
As stated in the Introduction and Methodology sections of this Impact of
Conversion Report, the process can give the park owner the opportunity to more
accurately assess the particular needs of the park tenants. However, as discussed
under Section 1I:Methodology of this report,an extremely low response rate to the
questionnaires distributed to the park tenants was experienced. 'Therefore, unique
problems and individual cases cannot be addressed at this time with specificity.
• Still,some generalized issues are discussed below.
2. Infirm and Elderly
Tenants who are later identified by the ark cmaer to be in need of specialized care
will receive special consideration at the time of the conversion of the phase in
which they-are located. Special consideration may include the following efforts
beyond the generalized measures of the approved Relocation Assistance Plan:
46
IMPACT OF CONVERSION REPORT
�•► SECTION VI, CONVERSION IMPACT(Continued) .
a) Personalized Relocation Coordination
l A full-time relocation coordinator will be assigned to the park and spectral personal
efforts such as assistance in moving arrangements; communication and
coordination with other family members, etc.will be provided.
b) Special Park Relocation Criteria
Additional efforts may be undertaken to arrange moving the tenant's mobile home
to a park located as conveniently as possible to the tenant's family and/or physician.
e) Relocation l,4 SAnIg Ci1lizgn HOUSiRQ
Special efforts may be made to assist the tenant with relocation to a senior citizen's
or affordable housing project..
3. Tenant's Mortgage Liens
A significant portion of tenants have financed the purchase of their mobile home
�.. with funds from institutional lenders. A number of those cases are for sums ranging
from S25,000 to $50,000, see the LSA report for more information. The purchase
r and financing terms that a tenant may choose to enter into to acquire a coach at the
park are a matter of individual negotiation on the part of the tenant; the park
owner has no part or control in those arrangements. Still, the tenant's mortgage
y , lien may present a difficulty in certain cases; however, some mitigating efforts are
froposed in the Relocation Assistance Plan. See the Relocation Assistance Plan
or more details.
+�. 4. Coach Acceptance Criteria at Other Parka
# As discussed in greater depth in Section VI-C-3 on page 39 and The Orange County
{y, Mobilehome Park Survey which is Addendum B to this report, approximately 26`To
of the mobile home parks in Orange County will accept used coaches. It can be
expected that this percenta;e will increase as one moves out of Orange County to
other areas within the Samile radius. The difficulty of coach acceptance criteria at
other parks can be partially mitigated by the following:
a) Some parks do not maintain specific criteria but prefer to judge the relative
condition of the coach. Still more parks, though publicly stating a policy
based on age, are amenable to negotiation based on condition.
.; b) It has also been proposed that the City of Huntington Beach
Redevelopment Agency develop land within Huntington Beach sufficient to
accomodate approximately 100 mobile homes. In the event that such
development :s economically possible, coach acceptance criteria is not
expected to be an issue with respect to these spaces.
c) Not all tenants of the park will be relocated to another mobilehome park. A
variety of other options exist, both under the formal Relocation Assistance
47
14PACT OF CONVERSION REPORT
SECTION Vt. CONVERSION IMPACT(Coadnued)
Plan, and as a result of private negotiation. Experience of other park
owners in conversions is that a large percentage of tenants relocate to other
conventional forms of housing.
k
d) The conversion of the park will be phased over a number of years. Asa
result of this phasing the actual number of relocation actions underway in
' any given month will typically be rather small, making the task of finding
r.+ parks that will accept a given coach more manageable.
e) Over the years of phasing, a natural attrition will occur as some tenants will
choose to make alternate arran ements and leave the park early. This
attrition will lessen the task of locating spaces in parks with flexible
acceptance criteria.
There are a significant number of spaces in parks outside the 50 mile zone
that will accept any coach, and they often provide substantial incentives
including comparatively low rents, free rents for an introductory period,
moving costs, etc. and attractive recreational facilities such as golf courses,
lakes, etc. RUM Properties has proposed to pay the cost of relocating a
coach to any park within the State of California, not just within the 50 mile
radius. On the basis of other park owner's past experience in conversions,
some tenants of Driftwood will choose these alternatives, thereby lessening
the demand for spaces in parks within the 50 mile radius that accept used
coaches. See Addendum G for examples of unsolicited advertisements
received by RLM Properties.
S. Moving Older Coaches
In some cases the greater age and poor condition of a coach may make it difficult to
move the coach a significant distance. The reader is reminded of all the other
various alternatives detailed elsewhere in this report to emphasize the fact that not
. all difficult to move coaches will need to be relocated. But in any event, most all
coaches can be moved if special precautions and efforts are taken: In some cases,
custom improvements such as brick veneers, etc.will have to be removed and then
repaired upon rc-instaIlation.
It has also been proposed that the City of Huntington Beach Redevelopment
Agency develo land within Huntington Beach sufficient to accomodate
approximately ?00 mobile homes. In the event that such development is
�.. economically possible, it is anticipated that any coach may be moved this short
distance. And, even if not relocated within Huntington Beach, difficult to move
coaches may.be relocated when possible to close by parks so that transportation
damage is minimized. In most all cases, damage resulting from transportation can
be repaired.
r., 43
' IMPACT OF CONVERSION REPORT
1.r SECTION VI. CONVERSION IMPACT(Condnwd]
i
6. Costs of Relocation
P The cost of relocating the coaches from The subject property includes the following
items:
Cost of disconnection and break doAm of the mobile home.
a.. Cost of transportation of the mobile home to the new mobile home park.
Cost of transportation of readily movable appurtenances to, and contents of,
the mobile home to the new mobile home park. Whether an"appurtenance"
is"readily movable"would be determined by the contractor licensed by the
State of California to perform these tasks.
Costs of set up of the mobile home and all readily movable appurtenances
and utility hook-ups at the new mobile home park.
4kW The costs vary depending on the type of coach, condition, the appurtenant items
and the distance of the move. However, estimates can be made considering the
average conditions found at the Driftwood park and .assuming a move not
exceeding fifty miles. Additional reserves are also assumed in the following
estimates for the costs of moving personal property, overnight lodging,
miscellaneous repairs and improvements at the new location and a contingency for
unforseen expenses.
' F—sftgJedCosJA 2f Rtlocatioll
Eingig Wide Muble W
__�sk Triple wide
Break down,Move&Set up $1,$00 $3,500 $4300
l.+ Personal property&Lodging S00 600 700
Mist Repairs& Improvement 400 5 650
Subtotal 52,700 -t,650 $5,600
Contingency _-00 0 40
Total $3,000 $5,000 $6,000
Since the great majority of coaches at the park are double wide coaches it is
reasonable to conclude that the average cost of relocation of coaches at the subject
park is$5,000.
Ir.
ti.
49
io
f '
low
w
iw
Lsa
I -
i.�
F The following list of items have not been repreduced due to their bulk.
These items can be reviewed at the City of Huntington Beach Planning Offices
`r (Attention Catherine O'Hara) . These reports are herewith incorporated by
reference into SEIR 82-2.
ADDENDUM A
DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE, LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
ADDENDUM B
i SURVEY OF ORANGE COUNTY MOBILE HOMES PARKS,
rw
TALLEY AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
ADDENDUM C
1 LISTING OF MOBILE HOME PARKS WITHIN A FIFTY MILE RADIUS
OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
ADDENDUM D
PHASING ANALYSIS, FUSCOE, WILLIAMS, LINDGREN & SHORT
ADDENDUM E
ORIGINAL TENANT QUESTIONNAIRE
ADDENDUM F
! REVISED TENANT QUESTIONNAIRE
ADDENDUM G
MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION
+ OUT-OF-AREA MOBILE HOME PARKS
ADDENDUM H
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO THE IMPACT OF CONVERSION REPORT
W
EXHIBIT E
i�
4
4..
1�
VOLUME III
i� TABLE OF CONTENTS
tir
A. - Planning Commission Resolution
+. B. - Statement of Overriding Considerations
;M C. - Final SEIR Mitigation Measures
D. - Comment Letters and Response to Comments (May 12, 1988)
E. - Comment Letters and Response to Comments Received at Planning
Commission Hearing (June 22, 1988)
w` F. - addendum to Final SEIR 82-2
j
lad
3
wl
I
w
s
1}
t
11..+
1
A. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION
f
�M
4
RESOLUTION NO. 1�97
1 .
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMISSION OF THE
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 82-2
ii (SEIR 82-2) FOR THE WATERFRONT PROJECT TO BE
LOCATED IN DISTRICTS 8B AND 9 OF THE DOWNTOWN
SPECIFIC PLAN
Iwo
WHEREAS, the Waterfront Master Plan and related entitle-
ments, and Supplemental Environmental Impact. Report No. 82-2 have
been prepared; and
The City of Huntington Beach was the lead agency in the
preparation of the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report; and
�,. All persons and agencies wishing to respond to notice duly
given have been heard by the Planning Commission either through
written notice or during a public hearing on June 8, 1988, and such
responses and Comments as were made were duly noted and responded
to,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission
of the City of Huntington Beach as follows:
v SECTION 1. The Planning Commission does hereby find that
s Supplemental Environmental Impact Report No. 82-2 has been
S« completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality
Act and all state and local guidelines therefore.
SECTION 2 . The Planning Commission has considered all
significant effects detailed in Supplemental Environmental Impact
4».
Report No. 82-2, together with existing and proposed measures to
mitigate such significant effects . (Exhibit A attached hereto. )
SECTION 3 . The Planning Commission further finds that
L. through the implementation of the aforementioned mitigation
J measures, the majority of the potentially adverse impacts
*� associated with the Waterfront project can be eliminated or reduced
to a level of insignificance.
W
it
i
rr
SECTION 4 . The Planning Commission • finds that the
1 benefits accruing to the city, both economically and socially, by
virtue of implementing the Downtown Specific Plan through the
t Waterfront Master Plan override the unmitigatable effects detailed
i1 in Supplemental Environmental Impact Report No. 82-2 and the
� . attached statement of overriding considerations (Exhibit B attached
k.e hereto) .
SECTION 5. The Planning Commission of the City of
Huntington Beach does hereby adopt and certify as adequate
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report No. 82-2 and recommends
that the City Council adopt and certify as adequate Supplemental
hot
Environmental Impact Report No. 82-2.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City
of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 8th
f day of June, 1988, by the following roll call vote:
w
AYES: LEIPZIG, LIVENGOOD, SLATES, ORTEGA, BOURGUIGNON, SILVA
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: HIGGINS
ABSTAIN: NONE
ATTEST:
Irr
�.
Mike Adams Victor L ipzi
E Planning Commission Secretary Planning Commission Chairman
1..
(0606d-2)
r
L
rr.
B. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
w� SUPPLIIMETAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 82-2
STATEMENT OF OVERP.IDING CONSIDERATIONS
The final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 82-2
for the Waterfront Development Project identifies certain
Awl unavoidable adverse significant environmental effects. CEQA
Guidelines Section 15093 requires the decision-maker to
� . balance the benefits of a proposed project against its
unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether the
project should be approved. If the decision-maker concludes
that the benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable
adverse environmental effects, the effects may be considered
acceptable.
+ Here, the City of Huntington Beach does find that the
., benefits flowing to the City and its residents from the
project outweigh the significant adverse environmental
effects which remain after the project's mitigation measures
are implemented. Primary among such considerations are the
elimination of blighted conditions existing in the Main-Pier
Redevelopment Project Area, development of first-class
tourist/commercial and recreational facilities of benefit to
the City and persons throughout the region, and the project's
furtherance of the Downtown Specific Plan and Local Coastal
Plan's objectives for increasing access to coastal and ocean
,w amenities . Another important consideration is the
significant amount of revenue which will result to the City
and the Redevelopment Agency from the project, which revenues
can be used to improve service levels, construct capital
facilities, provide additional affordable housing, and for
{ other important public' purposes.
The final EIR identifies four separate unavoidable
adverse environmental impacts. (Egg Section 5 .0, Exhibit 'K"
to Addendum for Final Supplemental Impact Report 82-2, dated
May 12, 1988. ) These are:
1. Exposure of additional people and
structures to potential geologic
hazards, including grounshaking,
liquefaction, and soil settlement.
2. Increased energy consumption as a
result of higher intensity development.
�. 3 . Aesthetic and view impacts,
particularly from the public beach to
the south of the project site, and
along Pacific Coast Highway.
4 . Regional cumulative air quality impacts
as a result of the additional daily
�+ trips generated by project operation.
Planning Commission
Resolution No. 1397
Exhibit B
•M
Each of these effects is lessened by the mitigation
\M measures suggested in the Supplemental EIR, which measures
will be required and incorporated into the project. The
, : reasons the City has determined that the remaining effects of
each such impact is "acceptable" given offsetting project
M' benefits is discussed below.
' 1. Addit,ignal`Exoosure to,Geolocig JJaardg.
The geologic study conducted by Irvine Soils
! Engineering, Inc. concludes that the site is suitable for the
Irr proposed development, provided that the conclusions and
recorrmendations included therein are implemented into
project-designing construction. (B= Appendix "B" , Page 10 . )
4bo Such inclusion is a specific condition of approval of the
project and the EIR. Thus, although the City does recognize
4 that the site bears some above-average seismic and soils
risk, such risks will be minimized by extra care in design
and construction techniques.
Of course, the entire City is located within the
Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone, and to an extent all City
residents are subject to seismic risks in locating themselves
near the City's ocean amenities. Any development approved
within the City therefore creates some degree of this type of
environmental effect. In the General Plan, Downtown Specific
Plan, and Local Coastal Plan, the City and Coastal Commission
have opted for a program designed to enhance and encourage
use and enjoyment of the beach. Any project allowing more
people to choose such enjoyment of necessity allows more
people to take the risks which are unfortunately inherent in
the geologic makeup of the City's location.
Further, the dangers posed by such geologic hazards will
be mitigated to a large extent by features incorporated into
the project. For example, architectural design calls for
construction of all major structures upon pilings, which will
be grounded in denser sand layers. Further, design will call
for dewaterirg measures, such as basements and other
structural modifications, to , offset most dangers posed by the
relatively high groundwater table in the area. All
structures must conform to seismic safety requirements in the
Uniform Building Code. Most important, the EIR calls for
supplemental investigations for liquification, groundwater,
and other specific hazards prior to final design for any
specific phase of the project. Such investigations require
the indentification of hazards zones. Once identified,
W building on any such zones should be avoided, or if
necessary, required to include the mitigating construction
techniques .detailed above.
'Exhibit B -2- (0715)
{r
Countervailing what geological risks remain after
mitigation are the benefits of eliminating the existing
conditions of blight on the project site and replacing the
' aged, deteriorating, and substandard structures with new
4• first-class commercial, recreational, and residential
facilities.
46o. Related to the foregoing considerations is the fact that
the project will greatly enhance the public's opportunities
for access to and recreational opportunities in connection
� with the City's prime ocean frontage. Without question, this
ocean locality is one of the premier benefits the City has to
offer. The climate, wide sandy beach, water temperature, and
waves characteristic of Huntington Beach have become a focal
point not only for City activity, but much of its cultural
identity.
�. In following the enhancement programs outlined in the
General Plan, Downtown Specific Plan, and Local Coastal Plan,
the City has determined that the unmitigated risk of
incidence of seismic or geologic disturbances is outweighed
by the daily enjoyment of the coast by a broader portion of
the population.
2. Increased Energy Consumption.
The project results in higher density use on the
site than that which currently exists . As a result, energy
use undoubtedly will increase.
This incremental increase of energy use is not expected
to cause any serious impact. Local utilities have indicated
1 that the capacity does exist to serve the project. Utility
providers are currently aware of City growth anticipations,
W and are planning for it. ?lo existing utility provider's
service capacities will be exceeded by the incremental
increase caused by the project. Nevertheless, higher density
will lead to more regional energy consumption, and increased
levels of local services demand.
offsetting this will be the public benefits of the
project referenced in paragraph 1 above. In addition, the
project will provide an influx of new residents, visitors,
and businesses which will provide a broader customer base for
utility providers. As to other City services, the EIR does
not identify any need for additional fire staff or equipment,
and the EIR identifies a need of only 1.5 additional police
r. services personnel.
These impacts are offset by the significant amount of
revenues which will flow to the City and the Redevelopment
Agency from the project. According to a study done by
Laventhol & Horwath, Certified Public Accountants, dated
Exhibit B -3- (0715)
Igo
Circulation .
�r
Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for each phase
t of the commercial portion of the project, the developer shall
provide a Transportation Systems Management Plan to the Community
Development Director. At minimum, the plan shall include the
following: (see items 17-23)
17. The provision of bus or shuttle services to regional
activity centers within the County shall be provided to
E hotel visitors.
i�
18 . The provision of shuttle services to local activity
centers, including Main Street and the City and State
�., beaches, shall be provided to hotel visitors.
19 . The provision of at-grade and elevated crosswalks to
facilitate pedestrian access to beach amenities.
20. Employee use of public transportation shall be promoted by
L
selling bus passes on-site.
21. The provision of bus shelters, benches and bus pockets
( near the proposed project, subject to review by the Orange
�. County Transportation District.
22. The provision of monitored or gated security facilities at
all project parking facilities to control use.
23 . The provision of a southbound left turn lane at the
intersection of Huntington Street/PCH to improve the flow
of left turning traffic.
' Tr_aff}aLCiXculation:
rr
24 . Prior to approval of each subsequent phase beginning with phase
3 of the project, the Planning Commission shall determine the
need to conduct a traffic study. This determination will be
made in consideration of original technical assumptions and
changed traffic or land use conditions. If an additional study
is required, the study shall include summer and non-summer peak
hour conditions. The study shall be based on local conditions
utilizing local statistics and recent traffic counts. The
traffic analysis shall be used to determine if additional
significant impacts exist which were not addressed in final
SEIR 82-2.
W P a rlt im:
25 . Prior to approval of each phase of the project, the Planning
Commission shall determine the need to conduct a parking
study. This determination will be made in consideration of •the
parking ratios applied to previous phases and performance
therof..
w
Exhibit A -4- (4751d)
iw
Air OuAlity
11r
26 . Dust suppression measures, such as regular watering and early
' paving of the road shall be implemented by the project
proponent at each phase to reduce emissions during construction
and grading.
la, 27. All parking structures shall be ventilated, in conformance with
the Uniform Building Code .stardards, to reduce vehicle emission
levels within the facility. The ventilation plans shall be
approved prior to issuance of building permits for each parking
structure.
28 . Prior to the issuance of Certificate' s of Occupancy for each
be, commercial development phase, a Transportation System
Management (TSM) plan, as approved by the Planning Director,
shall be implemented and shall include the following components:
a. The provision of bus or shuttle services to regional
activity centers within the County for hotel visitors.
b. The provision of shuttle services to local activity
centers including Main Street and the City and State
beaches during the summer peak periods.
60
C. The provision of at-grade crosswalks and elevated
crossings to facilitate pedestrian access to beach
amenities.
d. A program to promote employee use of public
*Mb transportation, including the sale of bus passes on-site.
e. The provision of bus shelters, benches and bus pockets
near the proposed project .
Afchaeoloay
L 29 . For each development phase of the project a qualified
paleontologist, listed with the County of Orange, shall attend
the pre-grade meeting with the contractor, developer and City
representative to ensure cooperation for the paleontological
monitoring .
30. For each development phase of the project a qualified
paleontologist, listed with the County of Orange, shall be
retained to monitor grading to salvage any fossils exposed by
construction activity.
31. For each development phase of the project, if any
archaeological or historical materials are found during grading
w or construction, all work shall cease immediately and a
qualified archaeologist shall be contacted in order that the
appropriate mitigation measures can be taken.
4
Iw
LI Exhibit A -5- . (0751d)
I�
32. For each development phase of the project, any fossils
collected during grading of the Project shall be curated with
an appropriate museum facility.
it i:..109 d
33 . All phases of the project shall conform to mitigation measures
specified in EIR 82-2.
34 . The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) requires that
developments within the Special Flood Hazard Zone elevate any
habitable areas of a dwelling unit to or above the expected
level of flooding for a 100-year event. Non-residential
habitable structures must be elevated or flood proofed to FEMA
,+ standards . The project shall comply with all mandated FEMA
standards. Compliance shall be verified prior to the issuance
of building permits for any phase of the project.
35 . For each phase, positive surface gradients shall be provided
adjacent to all structures so as to direct surface water
run-off and roof drainage away from foundations and slabs ,
� toward suitable discharge facilities . Ponding of surface water
shall not be allowed on pavements or adjacent to buildings .
36 . Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for any phase, a
grading plan shall be submitted to and approved by the
Departments of Community Development and Public Works.
Noise
The following measures shall be implemented unless noise analyses,
�+ performed by a registered acoustical engineer and approved by the
Director of Community Development, determine that the construction
of all or some of the following measures is not warranted.
37. Prior to the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for each
commercial phase, and subject to approval of the Planning
Director, a six foot masonry wall shall be constructed adjacent
to existing and proposed residential properties along Walnut
Avenue. Other sound attenuating design features subject to the
approval of the Planning Director may be implemented in
addition to the masonry wall .
38 . Prior to the issuance of building permits for any residential
phase, an acoustical assessment shall be conducted documenting
that the proposed six foot sound walls are adequate to reduce
noise levels to 65dHA or less in private outdoor living areas
(i .e. patio areas) of residence only. Additionally, the
assessment shall identify the measures necessary to insure that
indoor noise levels will be 45dHA or less, as required by the
California Noise Insulation Standards .
j�, Exhibit A -6- (0751d)
iM
39 . Prior to the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for each
residential phase, and subject to the approval of the Planning
Director, a six foot masonry wall shall be constructed adjacent
�` to proposed residential properties along Beach Boulevard.
Other sound attenuating design features may be constructed
subject to the approval of the Planning Director.
w 40. Prior to the issuance of building permits for any commercial
phase, an acoustical study shall be prepared addressing the.
guest rooms in the hotel. The study shall identify all
measures necessary to reduce noise levels in guest rooms to
45dBA or less per the California Noise Insulation Standards.
Subject to the approval of the Planning Director, the
recommended mitigation measures shall be incorporated into the
w. project,
41. Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for each phase, a
landscaped berm shall be constructed between the masonry wall
and the curb edge for noise attenuation.
42. Sweeping operations within all of the parking structures shall
w be restricted to daytime hours, between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00
p.m. , Monday through Saturday and 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m, on
Sundays.
43 . A textured parking surface, such as asphalt or textured
concrete, shall be used in all of the parking structure to
jr reduce tire squeal. Compliance with this condition shall be
verified prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy
for each parking structure.
44 . Design of the parking structure shall incorporate one of the
c
following noise attenuation options:
W a . Enclose the parking structure's sidewall •parallel to the
residential area.
b. Allow openings in the structure's sidewalls and place a
masonry wall on the top level of the structure parallel to
the residential areas.
ce Incorporate other sound attenuating design features to the
approval of the Planning Director.
v' 45. For each development phase that includes a parking structure, a
minimum 130 foot separation between the residential and parking
structure uses shall be maintained, or other sound attenuating
design features may be incorporated to the approval of the
Planning Director. All approved building plans shall reflect
the 130 foot separation.
j„,, Exhibit A -7- (0751d)
is
Licht and Glare
46. All lighting fixtures in the commercial portion of the project
shall be directed so as to prevent "spillage" onto adjacent
residential uses.
47. The residential site plan shall be modified to move or reorient
the six f units noted on pages 96 and 97 in the DSEIR as being
�+ affected by shadows for periods of more than four hours .
Public v'
(A. Water)
48 . The project shall conform to the City of Huntington Beach Water
w System - Design Criteria . In addition, separate water lines
j shall be installed for each phase providing a domestic/potable
water supply system and a landscape watering supply system.
� Compliance with this requirement shall be verified prior to the
issuance of building permits for each phase.
r
w, 49 . The following water conservation measures for the internal use
of water shall be included in the project: low flow shower
heads and faucets; low flush toilets; insulation of hot water
lines in water recirculating systems; compliance with water
conservation provisions of the appropriate plumbing code;
reduced water pressure.
50. The following water conservation measures for the external use
of water shall be included in the project: conservation
designs utilizing low water demand landscaping (Xeriscape) ;
�. berming to retain runoff for irrigation; utilization of drip
irrigation where feasible; and irrigating only during off peak
hours (late evening) . Additionally, any water oriented amenity
within the project shall be so designed as tobe a self-
contained natural or artificially filtered system which- reuses
water internal to the system.
51. Adequate water supply shall be provided to the site consistent
with alternatives described in a letter dated October 20, 1987,
City of Huntington Beach (Appendix F) , pursuant to the DDA.
(B. Gas and Electrical Utilities)
52. Building construction shall comply with the Energy Conservation
Standards set forth in Title 24 of the California Adminis-
trative Code.
53 : The developer shall consult with the Southern California Gas
Company during the design phase to ensure efficient development
and installation of natural gas facilities. Methods of energy
+� conservation techniques that shall be considered include:
L
Exhibit A -8- (0751d)
it
f
a. Energy efficient concepts in building layout, design and
orientation, such as the use of solar water and space
heating technologies. `
16& b. Comprehensive planning for landscaping to complement new
structures and parking lots, thereby minimizing heating
and cooling energy use.
C. walls, ceiling, floors, windows and hot water lines should
be insulated to prevent heat loss or gain per Title 24
regulations.
(C. Fire)
+� 54 . The project developer shall work closely with the City of
Huntington Beach Fire Department to ensure that adequate fire
safety precautions are implemented in the project. All site
plans, floor plans and elevations for each phase are subject to
the review of the Fire Department.
55. The project developer shall provide the full range of fire and
life safety systems in all buildings as recommended by the City
of Huntington Beach Fire Department. This provision will aid
in reducing the potential manpower required in a major
+r emergency.
(D. Police)
56 . The developer shall work closely with the police department to
ensure that adequate security precautions are implemented in
the project. The provision of adequate security precautions
shall include construction phases of the project. Such
security shall include construction fences and private security
patrol. Police services to the development shall be enhanced
through the provision of adequate street lighting, clearly
marked street names and building numbers and security hardware.
R
,. (E. Transit)
57. Site plans of the proposed project shall be forwarded to the
OCTD as they become available for each phase. The plans will
be reviewed in terms of their conformance to the OCTD Design
qua Lu-fg. Bus Faril.itieN .
58 . In order to ensure accessibility and available transit service
for employees and patrons of this development, the following
transit amenities shall be incorporated in this project as
�. "project betterments" and shall be the responsibility of the
developer. These measures will also provide incentives for bus
ridership and lessen impacts on air quality. Implementation of
these measures shall be verified prior- to the issuance of
Certificate of Occupancy for each phase.
LW
�, Exhibit A -9- (0751d)
a. The existing bus stops shall be preserved or upgraded, and
� bus turnouts provided, if determined by the City Traffic
Engineer and OCTD to be necessary based on traffic volumes,
speeds and roadway cross sections.
b. Paved, handicapped accessible passenger waiting areas,
including a bus shelter, shall be provided at each stop.
NMI c. If deemed necessary by the City Traffic Engineer and OCTD,
the area adjacent to the turnouts must be able to accom-
modate a passenger waiting area complete with a bus shelter
�. and bench.
d. A paved, lighted and handicapped accessible pedestrian
accessway must be provided between each stop and the
project buildings.
(F. Oil Wells and Oil Product Pipeline)
59 . The project proponent shall comply with the most current
California State Division of Oil and Gas standards and
6W requirements for the reabandonment of the seven on-site wells .
60 . If any abandoned or unrecorded wells are uncovered or damaged
during excavation or grading, remedial cementing operation may
be required. If such damage occurs, the DOG's district office
shall be consulted.
61. Efforts shall be made to avoid building over any abandoned
well . If construction over an abandoned well is unavoidable, a
DOG approved gas venting system shall be placed over the well .
L+ The site plan and/or venting system shall be reviewed by the
City' s Fire Department.
62. If after consulting with the owner of the underground gas/oil
line located on-site, it has been determined that a conflict
between the project and the underground pipeline facility
L exists, the subject pipeline (Exhibit E, Addendum to Final SEIR
82-2) shall be relocated under the Pacific Coast Highway/Beach
Boulevard right-of-way area, or under the public parking lot
area along the west side of Beach Boulevard, or under the open
space area in front of the proposed Waterfront project,
whichever is most feasible.
L Egcio-Economic Effects
63 . A minimum of six months prior to the date that a specific phase
W of the park will be closed, all affected tenants shall receive
a written notice advising them of the definite date of
closure. If relocation assistance per the approved. Relocation
Assistance Plan has not been previously arranged with the
+ affected tenants, the program shall be put into effect during
this six month period.
Exhibit A -lo- (0751d)
f 64 . Consistent with program 8.5.2.5 of the City's Housing Element
Fa of the General Plan, the applicant an/or City staff shall meet
with the mobile home park tenants and coach owners to explain
conversion process and relocation assistance.
bob 65. Consistent with program 8.5.2.6 of the Housing Element, the
City or Redevelopment Agency shall assist in relocation of
persons affected by this redevelopment project.
ant
66. The developer shall comply with all aspects of Article 927 of
! the Municipal Code, including an approved Relocation Assistance
Plan which shall include a Mobilehome Acquisition and
Relocation Benefits Agreement executed by the Redevelopment
Agency , RLM Properties, Ltd. , and the Driftwood Beach Club
Mobile Homeowners Association, Inc. - the Mobile Home Overlay
Zone, an ordinance enacted to require rezoning on change of use
of a mobile home park to comply with certain
requirements/standards prior to initiating such a change in use
O"' (see Appendix for a provisions of Article 927) .
67 . Prior to closing any portion of the mobilehome park, the
++ developer shall provide a relocation coordinator who will
provide general relocation assistance to all tenants with
special emphasis on assisting special needs groups identified
in the SEIR. Availability of such a relocation assistance plan
shall be to the approval of the City Council and shall be
incorporated into the Relocation Assistance Program required by
Article 927 of the Municipal Code.
68. Per the provisions stipulated in the approved Relocation
f Assistance Plan, the developer shall pay the cost of relocating
�• a mobile home coach, when the age and condition of the coach
allows feasible relocation.
NITIGATIQU MEASURES ADOPTED I.N ENVIF -
(AHPROVED By RES,Q3 UNION NO-.�5-291 ON_ X= 18 ,_ 1983)
r
!aeolovy._Soils and Seismicity
1. State law requiires soil studies be prepared prior to any
construction in the Alquist Priolo Special Study Zone (see
W Figure 4a) . While the Specific Plan area is not included in
this zone, geologic and soils studies shall be required at the
Director ' s discretion on a project by project basis. This will
assure that new development be conditioned to mitigate for
circumstances which actually exist at the proposed location.
Depending on the results of these studies mitigating measures
will be required, including but not limited to: buffers,
special grading, special foundations, subdrains, drainage
swales, dewatering devices, retaining walls, and landscaping of
manufactured slopes.
Exhibit A -ll- (0751d)
1 + Biotic Resources
Jr 2. The Special Plan contains landscape and open space requirements
for new development which will ensure that in most cases
development will provide more vegetation than exists at
present. The Coastal Element contains a policy which requires
the preservation of existing mature trees to the maximum extent
feasible. This policy will be endorced within the Specific
Plan area and will result in healthy mature trees being
incorporated into the design of projects.
The potential wetland along Beach Boulevard is protected by
provisions in the Specific Plan which require conservation
easements to be placed on wetland areas. In the event that the
wetland is found by the California Department of Fish and Game
to be severely degraded pursuant to Sections 30233 and 30411 of
the Coastal Act, other restoration options may be implemented
in conformance with the Coastal Commission's "Statewide
Interpretive Guidelines for Wetlands and Other Wet
Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas ."
+� Qrcuiation
3 . Within the scope of the Specific Plan some mitigation Treasures
�. are possible. Many of these measures have already been
incorporated into the Plan. They consist of the proposed
t cul-de-sacs, the Atlanta-Orange arterial, the Walnut Avenue
extension and the PCH re-striping project. An additional
alternative is the possibility of creating a one-way street
system along Walnut and Olive Avenues . These streets could
possibly be connected by a "couplet" into the Walnut Avenue
extension. Such a system would probably not be needed until
significant development occurs in the Plan area. While this
option would reduce the congestion moving parallel to PCH, it
would not relieve the traffic problems of Beach Boulevard,
Goldenwest and other north-south carriers, and would require
careful study to provide adequate mitigations for surrounding
�. residential neighborhoods.
Climate and Air Ouality
4 . Because the major source of air pollution in this project is
the automobile, mitigation measures need to focus on reducing
vehicular traffic. The Specific Plan covers an area that is
currently zoned in traditional commercial and residential
designations. The new zoning provides for mixed use districts
which allow combinations of residential, commercial and office
uses in the same area . This is hoped to reduce out-of--project
travel, as shopping, work and entertainment are provided within
a convenient distance. The reduction of automobile trips will
L. also reduce related emissions .
1
L Exhibit A -12- (0751d)
5. Other mitigation measures include encouraging the use of public
transportation, bicycles and walking . The Specific Plan
outlines complete bicycle and pedestrian systems as well as
recommending bus shelters and a transit layover area along PCH.
ArchagolQav
6 . Prior to construction on or near the midden site (ORA 1.49 as
identified in 1973 archaeological survey
) ,y) , an archaeological
survey (record search) should be conducted by a professional
archaeologist to assess the significance of the site with
recommendations on how to protect any valuable resources . If
deemed necessary by the archaeologist, a trained observer may
be required to be present during grading to ensure any
significant resources are protected.
public Health and Safety
A. Flooding:
7. The present drainage system and its planned improvements should
�•► be sufficient to accommodate run-off due to new development.
As projects are built, the drainage fees assessed for the
development will be used to implement the master planned
drainage improvements. If additional facilities are needed for
a specific project, they would be required as a condition of
project approval.
i
8. The Federal Emergency Management Agency has required the City
to adopt Flood Plain Development Regulations . These
regulations require that devel6pments within the Special Flood
Hazard Zone elevate any habitable areas of dwelling units one
foot above the expected level cf flooding which could occur in
a 100 year storm. Commercial buildings need not be elevated
w. but can instead be flood-proofed. The flooding levels are
depicted on the Flood Insurance Rate Map.
H. Noise:
9 . Development within noise impacted corridors can be shielded by
sound barrier walls and berms, by special construction
materials and techniques, and by eliminating building openings
on the sides which face toward the noise source.
,. Noise impacts from pumping units can be mitigated by replacing
ball and plunger pumps with a less noisy type, or by
constructing sound barrier either around the wells, or around
the development.
These mitigation measures can be applied to each development as
it is approved, so that specific localized problems can be met
'M without imposing overly restrictive conditions on all
development within the Specific Plan area.
Exhibit A -13- (0751d)
16s
En-ezay Use. Conzervation and Production -
4.1
10. The plan is designed to promote- more efficient use of energy.
Many of the impacts of the Plan in terms of efficient energy
usage are decidedly positive. Nevertheless, new development
will consume additional energy. Specific energy-conserving
measures can be required at the time of development approval.
pub The following measures could reduce energy consumption:
a) Provisions for alternate forms of energy such as solar
.. could be incorporated into projects .
b) Passive solar energy measures could be incoporated into
project design and siting.
c) Reduced intensitive of residential and commercial
a
development could also result in energy savings.
AAeSthetics
&INS 11. Most of the aesthetic impacts of the Plan are positive.
Potential impact related to loss of views along the bluffs or
to the siting or design of new buildings are addressed in the
Plan, including: development standards that require wide,
landscaped setbacks and graduated height limits; the creation
and preservation of view corridors through staggered building
envelopes and breezeway requirements; development of a
landscaped blufftop; the restoration and protection of the
municipal pier; and the creation of parkways and landscaped
medians.
12. At the Director 's direction, shadow studies will be required
for buildings taller than six stories.
£ire
13 . Depending on the nature of future development, additional fire
equipment and personnel should be added. Public safety and
fire protection considerations are reviewed before issuing
permits for new higher density residential or office/commercial
projects.
Police
14 . Depending on the amount and nature of future development,
additional police personnel and equipment to serve the Specific
Plan area may be needed.
w
Exhibit A -14- (0751d)
D. COMMENT LETTERS AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 82-2
FOR
THE WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT
CLEARINGHOUSE #87091612
May 12, 1988
rr.
6M
k
4.r
RESPONSE 10 Cod MS
k
�* INTRODUCTION
Comments were received from various public agencies and City of Hun-
tington Beach bodies concerning the Draft SEIR. These comments are provided
in the following section. Each comment is numbered for easy reference. A
response to each comment has been formulated to cover concerns, questions and
clarifications requested within each comment.
Reference is made to SEIR sections and to the supplemental information
provided in the Addendum to the SEIR. Whenever necessary, notations in the
SEIR and Addendum will be made in the Final SEIR for easy reference.
k
6
L
i
L
i
60
C "sElE_L EHERS RECEIVED
L
t
w
L
1
V
r
V
i
L
6o
i
Iw '
1I
L
HJ MNI GTON BEACH
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
FEE 2 9 1988
P. 0. Box 190
HunVn-ton Beach,CA 92W fOUTHERtt C FORA
M,. AffOCIATIO(I Of GOVERWEfTf
600 fouth Commonwealth avenue -bite 1000.Lor Angeler•California •90005 .213/385.1000
i..
February 17, 1988
Ms. Catherine M. O'Hara
City of Huntington Beach
Department of Community Development
2000 Main Street
' Huntington Beach, CA 92648
boo
SUBJECT: WATERFRONT PROJECT - DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT 82-2 (SLAG FILE NO. OR-50964-EDR)
Dear Ms. O'Hara:
Thank you for submitting the Draft Supplement to Environmental Impact
Report 82-2 for the Waterfront Development. Staff has reviewed this
document and offers the following comments.
The DEIR does not sufficiently address the population, housing, and i-A
employment issues requested in our correspondence to you on September 14,
1987. The DEIR is lacking a quantitative analysis of the project (phase by
60 phase) to the regional plans and policies contained in SCAG-82 Modified.
It is unclear from the inconsistencies in the Project Description Section
4" (No. 3) if the Developer is proposing to build commercial/.retail facilities
and if so, in which phase. This is important in evaluating the project's i-B
consistency with SCAG's plans and policies in terms of support services to
the residential and hotel uses.
w
The Circulation Section (No. 4) does not analyze the traffic generation and
circulation from the proposed residential development. These numbers will
be significant in light of the proposed residential density of 36 units per 1-C
acre and the fact that in just considering the hotel developments, all six
(6) intersections will operate below the acceptable level of service during
peak hours. The daily trip information provided in the air quality section II 1-0
under project emissions also demonstrates that the proposed residential I
development will have a significant impact. It would be considerably
easier to evaluate the proposed traffic impacts if the traffic generation
and circulation was broken ' down by phase and all six (6) phases were I-E
considered. Without this information, the true traffic impacts as well as
air quality impacts cannot be discerned.
The'Air Quality Section (No. 4.5) is lacking a quantitative analysis of the 1-F
project in terms of.air quality standards and control measures of the 1982
6w
;� 1758i lc
Ms. Catherine M. O'Hara
Page 2
February 17, 1988
L Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), and therefore a finding of consistency { 1-F z`
with the Plan is not possible. `
There is no discussion of mitigation measures for population, housing and +
L employment growth in excess of SCAG-82 Modified. The mitigation measures
for this project will become apparent when the analysis described above is
completed. In addition, the mitigation measures that are provided for
�., traffic and air quality impacts are vague in terms of responsibility for
implementation, method of implementation, scope of each measure, and a i-G
qualification of each measure to each phase of development. Finally, there
needs to be an emphasis on transportation management, Jobs/housing balance,
regional transportation system impacts, and a perceivable relationship to
the community land uses in the formation of the mitigation measures.
Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on this project. SCAG would
appreciate the opportunity to review on the Final Environmental Impact
Report when it is available.
If you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance in this
project, please contact myself or Alene Garreton at (213) 385-1000.
Sincerely,
PATRICIA NEMETH
Environmental Planning Director
PH:AG:ilc
Wdi
t
�.. 1758ilc
JIM
Environmental Board
l CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
ri%riwn>%AL Post Office Box 190 Huntingtoi Beach, California 9���i,3
HU�lTiiiG+ON BEACH
February 25, 1988 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
L Vic Leipzig, Chairman F« 2 9 ,9P8
Planning Commission P. 0. Box 190
2000 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 9264A
Huntington Beach, California 92548
Dear Chairman Leipzig:
The Huntington Beach Environmental Board approves of the resort
facility (Mayer Project) in concept with stipulations on key :
issues.
Ld
The report stipulates the EIR is intended to be used for the
entire project (to be built over an 8-10 year period) .
i" Essentially the document needs to be more specific, with studies 2-A
to be completed and included in the EIR, and not at some
projected date.
W" A separate focused EIR should be considered for each phase of the
project, thus eliminating speculation and projects based upon 2-B
studies not yet undertaken.
On the following pages please find the Board' s concerns.
&W If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
Thank you.
iw Si rel
ncy,
60
Corinne Welch, Chairperson
Ld Huntington Beach Environmental Board
-'e L_Z�,
cltimari-Brown, Chairperson
L Ad Hoc Committee
Dean Albright, member
L Cindy Doe, member
Irene Alferi, member
Joan Siegel, member
cc: Planning Commission
Environmental Board Liaisons
f�
LW
OOLOGYZ90119
The geophysical investigations should be completed as part of the
EIR instead of. in a mitigated measure to be concerned with at a
future date.
Considering the geologically sensitive seismic activity of the
area, it seems prudent to base proposals and mitigation measures
+r on the actual height of the hotel rather than a hypothetical 1984
project proposal. Has consideration been given to the effects of
doubling the hypothetical five-eight story proposal and if so,
where is the data?
The project is proposed for a 13 story hotel, but Phase I of the 2-C
EIR is based on a hypothetical five to eight story hotel, two to
four story condominiums and townhouses, and one to two story
commercial structures.
L DRAFT EIR - page 128, 5.0
` The project would result in additional people and structures
L being subjected to potential geological hazards, mainly as a
result of seismic occurrences. These hazards include ground
shaking, liquefaction and soil settlement. It would be advisable
to base the studies on current and updated projects and studies
considering the seriousness of this issue.
CIRCULATu
The draft analysis does not provide adequate documentation nor
detailed description of traffic circulation for the following
L reasons.
The traffic data is supported by April 1985, and February 1987
W collection of traffic movement. Huntington Beach is a beach
community. The proposed project is across from the beach on
Pacific Coast Highway. It is obvious that peak traffic problems 2-D
will occur in the busy summer months. A summer data base is
necessary versus off-peak seasonal data. The traffic study
should be based on site in Huntington Beach in the peak summer
months.
i�
Walnut Street will not be extended to Beach Boulevard during
Phase I. How will this affect Pacific Coast Highway? When will
L it be functionable and in place? How will traffic be candled
during construction of Phase II, etc.? Will Lake Street handle 2-E
the traffic? If the project does not include the entire six
phases, it should be mandatory that Walnut be completed to Beach
Boulevard to alleviate any traffic congestion.
1
V
The proposed Walnut Street exit into Beach Boulevard is several
hundred feet North of Pacific Coast Highway. Thereby it is too
close for signalization. This would cause stacking up of cars
from Pacific Coast Highway onto Beach, and from Beach onto
Pacific Coast Highway. 2-F
An alternative would be to reroute Walnut Street into Sunrise and
place a signal at that intersection. There are median cuts on
Beach Boulevard at the present time.
The Hamilton Street extension has been proposed to connect with
Walnut Street. This has not been considered in the EIR. With 2-G
the serious impact on the downtown, it would seem mandatory that
a credible study be completed.
BIOTIC RESOURCES-
km Upon investigation, it is noted that these wetlands belong to the
State of California as posted on the property. Therefore how can
the City of Huntington Beach allow developers to build on 2-H
�.. property they do not own, and property that is designated State
wetlands? .
LThe mobilhome park has storm drains and surface channels to bring
their run off from the entire mobilehome park into the weltands
area West of Beach Boulevard.
The City of Huntington Beach has curb cuts with storm drains on
Sunrise providing drainage from Sunrise and Beach Boulevard into 2_1
the wetlands area.
W
There are drainage cuts on the West side of Beach Boulevard to
receive run off into the wetlands, so it appears that the
wetlands runoff from this area does supply water to the East side
of Beach Boulevard wetlands.
It is recognized that a restorable wetlands does exist. DRAFT
EIR, Page 30 - The project proposed does not satisfy all of the
criteria which states must be satisfied:
+6d 1. The wetland to be filled is so small (e.g. less than one
acre) and so isolated (i.e. not contiguous or adjacent to a
wet land, that it is not capable of recovering and
maintaining a high-level of biological productivity without 2-J
major restoration activities.
2. The wetland must not provide significant habitat value to
wetland fish and wild life species and must not be used by
any rare or endangered species. (for example such a parcel
would be completed surrounded by commercial, residential or
6' industrial developments that are incapatable with the
existence of the wetland and a significant habitat area.
2
6d
3. The most feasible way to achieve a wetland restoration
project in connection with the small wetland is to fill the
wetland and mitigate. by restoring another wetland off site.
4. Restoration of a parcel to mitigate for the fill must occur
at a site that is next to a larger, contiguous wetland area
providing a significant habitat value to fish and wild life
` which would benefit from the addition of more area.
5. In addition such restoration must occur in the same general
region.
ALLOWABLE USES IN WETLAND "Section 30223 of the Coastal Act"
, . states that diking, filling, or dredging of wetlands and other
water areas shall only be permitted for certain specifically 2-J
defined uses, none of which are applicable to the Waterfront
project. This restriction applies even in cases where there is
no feasible, less environmentally damaging alternative, and where
L feasible mitigation can be provided to minimize adverse impacts. "
With reference to Item 1 above, the area in question is based on
.8 acres with a restorable area of 1.4 acres, for a total of 2.2
acres of wetlands. The total acreage of 2 .2 thereby indicates
that the proposed project does not satisfy all of the criteria
stated.
Considering the irrevocable loss of wetlands, an in-lieu fee does
not seem to be a viable option to restoration on site. The
Lot feasibility of designing a compatible project within the natural
setting should be encouraged.
LThe grading of the project should take into consideration the
natural runoff into the wetlands West of Beach Boulevard thereby 2_K
maintaining the continuity of the flow of water into the wetlands
East of Beach Boulevard. The survival of the wetlands East of
Beach Boulevard is dependent upon this water source.
WATER
A study regarding on-site storm drains, including connections
with city storm drains and flood control channels should be
+r. completed prior to the project's development and included in the 2-L
EIR. "A hydrology study will have to be done to properly
evaluate the impact on the storm drain facilities. " (please note
letter to Debora Baer from Eric Chalcnne, City of Huntington
Beach, October 20, 1987. )
With regards to Phase I, what storm drains are going to be
utilized for run off, - and are these same storm drains to be 2-M
continued throughout the-project?
yI 3
(f
Imo+
iu
AESTHETICS
EIR, page 85 - "Due to its greater height than the surrounding
development, the proposed project will significantly impact
existing visual experiences from the City beach area. . " The
building height is incompatible with existing buildings in
adjacent resort cities such as Seal Beach, Newport Beach and 2-N
Laguna Beach, therefore a project of this height (13 stories)
b- will degrade the view from the view from the proposed Pacific
Coast scenic highway. `
�.. Due to the height of the North facade of the buildings,
consideration should be given to an artistic mosaic configuration 2_0
to maintain a visual experience from the inland side of the city.
i.,
i
3
V
1
f
6w
6w
a
V
Ir.
;,LATE 00 CAUFORNIA—.OFFICE of THE GOVERNOR GEORGE DEUXMFJ1AN• Coo.+.na
s
OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH ;. .
401AW TENTH STREET .
!ACRAMENTO, CA 95814
+� February 29, 1988 '""TON BEACH
ENT SERVICES
Catherine O'Hara 3 ;uA
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Hu-
I
Subject: Waterfront Project
i SCH# 87091612
Dear Ms. O'Hara:
1
The State Clearinghouse Submitted the above named draft Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) to selected state agencies for review. The review period is
closed and the comments of the individual agency(ies) is(are) enclosed.
Also, on the enclosed Notice of 0=pletion, the Clearinghouse has checked
which agencies have commented. Please review the Notice of Completion to
ensure that your comment package is complete. If the package is not in
order, please notify the State Clearinbhouse Lmnediately. Your eight-digit
State Clearinghouse n=ber should be used so that Ave may reply promptly. �
t-
Please note that recent legislation requires that a responsible agency or W
other public agency shall only make substantive comments on a project which a
are within the area of the agency's expertise cr which relate to activities Ui
which that agency must carry out or approve. (AB 2583 , Ch. 15140 Stats. p
1984.) v
These ca=ents are forwarded for your use in preparing your final EIR. If
., you need more information or clarification, we suggest you contact the
commenting agency at your earliest cotreaience.
L Please contact Keith Lee at 916/445-0613 if you have any questions regarding
the enviroemental review process.
LSincerely,
DELvid C. enUkaamp
Chief
LA office of Permit Assistance
cc: Resources agency
Enclosures
W
i 'ri!�. �alifwnia THE RESOURCES AGE14CY 00: CAMU"
W
Memorandum
TO : Dr. Gordon F. Snow Noe J FEB 2 2 1988
Assistant Secretary for Resources
Subpct: DSEIR (82-2) The Waterfront
Ms. Cathreine O'Hara Development, City of
City of Huntington Beach Huntington Beach,
2000 Main Street Orange County
t~ Huntington Beach, CA 92648 SCH 137091612
i )m : Nparimont of caniwvation--o f+ct of tho Dk"tcw
■r
'Me Department of Conservation's Division of Oil and Gas has reviewed the
subject Draft Supplement Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR), and has the
following comments for your consideration.
Presently, there are 7 abandoned wells located within the project area.
V The approximate location of these recorded wells are plotted on map n=ber
134 of the Division of Oil and Gas.
16" If any structure is to be located over or in the proximity of a previously
abandoned well, there is the possibility that the well may need to be reabandoned.
r - Section 3208.1 of the Public Resources Code authorizes the State Oil and
f Gas Supervisor to order the reabandonment of any previously abandoned Well
when construction of any structure over or in the proximity of the well
could result in a hazard. The cost of reabandonment operations shall be
the responsibility of the owner of the prop?rty upon which the structure
will be located. Written approval from the State Oil and Gas Supervisor
is required prior to plugging or abandoning any well.
4w 3--A
+w Furthermore, if any abandoned or unrecorded wells are uncovered or d a4L
during excavation or grading, remedial cementing operations may be Naired; �
If such damage occurs, the Division's district office should be c ' -=. 2
for the purpose of obtaining information on the requirements and ~ =oval'•.
to perform remedial cementing operations.
R Although future problems from oil and gas wells that have been a nconed
or reabandoned to the Division's current specifications are renot4,. ue,
nevertheless, suggest that an effort be made to avoid building over any j
abandoned well. If construction over an abandoned well is unavoidable,.+
we suggest that an approved gas venting system be placed over the well.
To insure proper review of building projects within the subject area, the
6 Division has provided the City of Huntington Beach a "Construction Project
Site Review and Well Abandonment Procedure" packet. The procedures outline
the information that a project developer must submit to the Division for
y„ review. Developers should contact the Huntington Beach Building Department
.for a copy of the site review packet.
Because of the previous land use, the soil Within the project area should
' be tested for possible soil contamination resulting from old oilfield practices. 3-B
If contamination is present, the Regional Water Quality Control Board should
be contacted for proper soil disposal.
Dr. Gordon F. Snow
M--. Cathreine O'Hara
w.
Page 2
+r The scope and content of information that is germane to the Division's
responsibility are contained in Section 3000 et seq. of the Public Resources
Code (FRC) , and administrative regulations under Title 14, Chapter 4 of
41NO the California Administrative Code. 3-C
• If you have any questions, please contact Ken Carlson at the Division district
Lot office in Long Beach. The address is 245 West Broadway, Suite 475, Long
Beach, CA 90802; phone (213) 590--5311.
1
w
r.+ Dennis J. O'Bryant
Envirom-penta1 Program Coordinator
cc: Ken Carlson. Division of Oil and Gas, Long Beach
Bob Reid, Division of oil and Gas, Sacramento
LC:WO:mv
L
1 -
i
e of Callfornio The Resources Agency
Mer' or and urn
6.
To 1 . Projects Coordinator Date : February 22, 1988
Resources Agency
2 . City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
I rn Department of Fish and Game
cr: Draft Environmental Impact Report ( EIR) : waterfront Project,
Orange County - SCH 87091612
The Department of Fish and Game (Department) biologist familiar
iw with the project site has reviewed the Draft EIR for the
Waterfront Project describing the potential environmental impacts
resulting from development of resort hotels, recreational
facilities , restaurants, and residential development on a
44 . 4-acre site in Huntington Beach. This Draft EIR is a
Supplemental EIR updating a previous EIR prepared for the Downtown
Specific Plan (EIR 82-2 ) . We have the following comments:
Clarification is needed regarding acreage of wetlands that would
be affected within the project site. The project document
indicates that 1 .7 acres of wetlands will be impacted. Previous
wetland surveys conducted by the Department indicate the presence
of 2 . 2 acres of wetlands. Therefore, prior to the preparation of 4-A
a Final EIR it will be necessary for the Department and the
U.S . Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to make such a
determination; subsequently, the Final EIR should be appropriately
amended.
It is the Department' s policy that no project should result in the
net loss of either wetland acreage or wetland habitat values.
Although the Draft EIR suggests a number of potential areas where
the impacts to wetlands may be compensated, it will be necessary
for the USFWS and the Department to evaluate each proposed site 4-B
' and determine its acceptability prior to finalization of the
1.. document. The preferred mitigation site should be restored and
functioning as a fish and wildlife habitat prior to or concurrent
with any alteration within the project site .
The Final EIR must also contain the estimated amount of urban
run-off from the site flowing into the wetland. As outlined in
the Draft EIR section on mitigation measures, the Department
�+ requires that a hydrological analysis be completed in order to
determine - if the proposed development would result in significant 4-C
impacts to the flow regime' to the wetlands on the downcoast-side
of Beach Boulevard. These wetlands consist primarily of
pickleweed and support a nesting population of Belding' s savannah
sparrows (State-listed endangered species) as well as foraging
areas for California least terns ( a State- and Federally-listed
'" endangered species ) .
In summary, the Draft EIR is inadequate in its present form to
satisfy the requirements of the California Environmental Quality 4-C
Act and must, therefore , undergo modifications regarding wetland
acreage, mitigation site selection, and hydrological factors prior
'. to certification.
Diversion or obstruction of the natural flow or changes in the
channel , bed, or bank of any river, stream, or lake will require
notification to the Department as called for in the Fish and Game 4-D
Code. This notification (with fee) and the subsequent agreement
must be completed prior to initiating any such changes .
Notification should be made after the project is approved by the
*� lead agency.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this
project. Department personnel would be pleased to meet with the
project sponsor and appropriate regulatory agencies to discuss our
concerns and seek resolution of the outstanding issues . If you
have any questions, please contact Fred Worthley, Regional Manager
of Region 5, at 245 W. Broadway, Suite 350, Long Beach,
CA 90802-4467 or by telephone at (213 ) 590-5113 .
' Fete Bontadelli
Director
460
w.
AWPI, e%-r2:.LIFORIWA GEORGE DEUKMEXAN.Governor
C '%-IFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD
E 04TA ANA REGION `
60�9 INDIANA AVENUE, SUITE 200
RIVERSIDE. CALIFORNIA 92506 ; !'
ONE:(714)782-4130 ■,_�
`r April 4, 1988
' Ms. Catherine O'Hara ��'" NCH
w+ City of Huntington Beach DEVrLt (VICES
2000 Main Street
' Huntington Beach, CA 92648
DEIR WATERFRONT PROJECT, SCH #87091612 L90
� Dear Ms. O'Hara:
We have reviewed the Draft Supplement-2 to the Environmental
Impact Report for the above project. We have the following
Litt comments:
1. In this EIR, mitigation measures have not been specified.
rr The Regional Board has concerns for water quality and beneficial
uses in the area of the Huntington Beach waterfront development.
Therefore, a stipulation for mitigation projects that restore
4 equivalent wetlands benficial uses within the local area is 5-A
requested. Mitigation projects that do not provide habitat
, . equivalent to the impacted area, or that are located in remote
areas, will of course do nothing to prevent the loss of local
populations.
2 . Runoff from the impacted wetlands area has the potential to
�+ affect drainage sloughs and other wetlands areas, and also to
impact on water quality in the drain area. Regional Board staff 5-e
requests specific comments to the impacts of the waterfront
development on changes in runoff drainage patterns and their
impacts on .water quality in adjacent areas.
r
3 . Seven oil wells abandoned 1925-1967 are located on the
porject site. These wells should be reabandoned according to
present D.O.G. requirements; this work should be approved by the 5-C
Huntington Beach Fire Department under the s• -er<,isicn of
Fire Protection Specialist Oil Field Inspector.
4 . A Chevron oil product pipe line is located on the site. The
w►+ nature of the product transported by this pipeline is not clear.
If the product is crude petroleum, we have no comment. If a
refined petroleum product such as gasoline is transported through 5-D
the pipeline in this Development area, we need to know the rate
of flow and the pressure under which the material will be moved.
I "
w
We recommend that this .pipeline be replaced by a double walled
ti pipeline if it transports other than crude product. If the 5-0
pipeline will be relocated elsewhere, this comment is superfluous.
Sincerely,
Anne Knight
+r- Environmental Specialist III
cc: Keith Lee, State Clearinghouse
;,. Enclosure: SCH form
Huntington Beach Fire Department
NW
1
i.+
L
I.J
be
fir+
I .
I
Ir
I
I
RESPONSE TO CENTS
r � -
I
sr
V
L
1
6r
C
iM
yr
i
4.r
r
V
RESPONSE TO COMMUffS
I-A Section 11 (Socioeconomic Effects) includes a discussion of popula-
tion, housing and employment on page 125 of the Draft SEIR. The
reader may have overlooked the discussion regarding consistency
with SCAG forecasts.
As stated in the Draft SEIR, the project conforms with SCAG '82
Modified estimates for employment, population and housing. The
project comprises 12% of employment projections, 8% of population
projections and 4% of housing projections for the year 2000. Also,
�., if the Draft City Projections (2/87) are utilized, the project com-
prises only 0.6% of the projected increase in employment in the
City of Huntington Beach through the year 2000.
i
Projections for housing availability are discussed on pages 122 and
123. This discussion analyzes the housing starts anticipated by
2010. For the seven cities analyzed, all of which are located
+� within or near RSH 38, it is predicted that a 195 increase in
available housing will occur by the year 2000.
i.. Combined with two other major projects approved (MacDonald Douglas
and Main Pier) , the cumulative projects combine to provide the
following percentages of SCAG 82 projections:
SCAG 82 Cumulative Projects x of SCAG-82
Employment 15,900 7,886 48%
Population 31,000 8,587 28%
'r Housing 20,000 2,850 14%
The Waterfront project, by itself, has the following effects:
SCAG 82 Proiect % of SCAG ,82
Employment 15,900 1,850 11.6%
Population 31,000 2,450 7.9%
Housing 20,000 875 4.3%
1-B Page 4 of the text has been modified and is now consistent with
page 5. The 99,000 square feet of specialty retail restaurants has
been changed to read 99,000 square feet of commercial .
�. With these points clarified, page 5 gives an accurate phasing of
the project.
ra., •
F
I
A
T
rLL
Y
1-C As shown in Table C and discussed on page 31 of the traffic impact
L analysis, daily and peak hour trips. have been generated for 895
residential units. This represents the maximum number of units
considered by the applicant. In addition, Tables 12 and 12.a
L illustrate the project trip assignment. In these tables it is
evident that peak hour trips to and from the residential develop-
ment are included in the overall peak hour traffic analysis.
1-D Please note that the project includes seven (7) phases, of which
all seven (7) have been included in our assessment of potential
traffic impacts. In the overall Master Plan traffic analysis, the
build-out of 'the Waterfront will not create any adverse traffic
impacts with respect to the annual average traffic conditions. If
the total development traffic contribution will not create
w unacceptable conditions to the overall circulation system (only
slightly modified with a restriped roadway), then the traffic
conditions of the individual phases will not create any unaccept-
able traffic conditions.
I-E Pages 70 and 73 of the text will be modified in the Final SEIR to
reflect the significant effects of the project on air quality. The
L following changes are hereby incorporated into the document:
Page 70 - change the following sentence to read: The impacts
L associated with project related traffic will be somewhat
counterbalanced by future improvements in auto emissions rates
or implementation of mitigation measures.
Page 73 - Change the last sentence (Level of Significance) to
read: Implementation of mitigation measures will substantially
reduce the impacts associated with the project, however the
L project will significantly add to the degradation of regional
air quality, on a cumulative basis.
It should be noted that both the hotel and residential land uses
exceed SCAQ140 Criteria (Table 6) not only for residential uses as
implied by the comment. The discussion of impacts in Section 4.5
analyzes total project emissions, rather than the emissions per
phase due to the project's relatively short-term build-out and the
fact that most effects will be apparent within the next five to
eight years. There appears to be little practical need to document
phase by phase incremental increases in the project's contribution
2
I
V
to regional air contamination because most impacts will occur
within the relatively near future.
I-F A quantitative - analysis of project emissions was completed using
the URBEMIS model developed by the California Air Resources Board
(CARE). The results of the analysis for the year 2000 are included
in Appendix J. The project was determined, via comparison of
project emissions to AQMD threshold criteria (Table 6) , to have
+� significant impacts on air quality within the region. Mitigation
measures were included to minimize these impacts. These mitigation
measures incorporate recommended SCAQMD and AQMP control measures.
An unavoidable adverse affect has been noted. In addition, please
see corresponding acknowledgement of the effects on air quality in
Cumulative Impacts and Unavoidable Impacts sections (5.0 and 8.0,
respectively).
I-G The AQMP utilized growth projections provided by SCAG (82 Modified)
in determining the emissions for _anticipated development within the
basin. The SCAG projections are based on information provided by
the individual cities regarding local population projections based
on the build-out of the General Plan. The City of Huntington Beach
provided SCAG with this information. At that time, the project
site was designated as commercial/mixed use development; it is
currently the same designation. The proposed project is consistent
L with land uses allowed under this designation which was partially
used as the basis for City wide growth forecasts, and thus is
consistent with growth projections for the City. Please also see
response I-A.
i. .
2-A Consistent with the City's desire to provide the appropriate level
of Information to enable the public and decision makers to make
informed opinions of the project's environmental effects, an
Addendum to SEIR 82-2 has been provided. With this supplemental
information, all concerned parties will have the latest and most
: . extensive information available consistent with the intent of CEQA
to provide thorough documentation of all potential environmental
effects and mitigation to reduce those effects.
2-B Each subsequent phase of the project will receive an environmental
review prior to the City's making a determination as to whether the
Final SEIR, acting as a Program EIR, adequately covers all .poten-
tial environmental consequences of the project. It is premature to
3
4
determine, at this point in the project development process, wheth-
er each subsequent phase will require a full EIR review.
2-C The Geology, Soils and Seismicity Section of the SEIR (Section 4.1)
contains documentation of the geologic and soils conditions of the
property. In addition, Mr. Perry has indicated (letter dated March
18, 1988, refer to Exhibit B of the Addendum) that the findings and
recommendations in the 1984 geotechnical report are valid and
appropriate for the currently proposed Waterfront development, per
the current project description (Section 3.0) . Conclusions of the
letter indicate that, from a geologic standpoint, the project area
is suitable for the proposed development, provided that the con-
clusions and recommendations presented in the geotechnical report
(1984) are incorporated into the design, plans and specifications
for the project, as outlined in the SEIR "Construction Recommen-
dations" Mitigation Measures, soils and geologic studies shall be
performed to confirm known conditions and foundation design assump-
tions for each development site on the property. Until specific
,.., building sites are prepared for specific phases, further geologic
or soils studies would be premature, since they would of necessity
entail speculation as to specific sits, and their consequent speci-
fic soils or geologic characteristics.
2-D A supplement to the traffic analysis has been provided discussing
seasonal variations in traffic. This analysis is included as
Exhibit C in the Addendum to final SEIR 82-2. The study includes
empirical data and findings related to the potential effects of
summer period traffic on the arterial network. Additionally, the
study considers the effects of the additional traffic added by the
project to the circulation network. The supplemental study and
conclusion included in the report are herewith incorporated into
L this response. There were no additional significant environmental
impacts discovered in this study.
2-E As indicated in the text of the traffic study, Walnut Street will
be constructed to a point approximately 250 feet east of its inter-
section with Huntington Street. The impacts of this construction
have been addressed as part of the study, with no adverse impacts
�., occurring along Pacific Coast Highway due to this arterial
addition. Walnut Street would be constructed to Beach Boulevard in
the east during construction of Phase 2 of the project. During
construction of Phase 2, the roadway element provided for Phase 1
development will be adequate to accommodate the Phase 1 traffic.
4
L
V
4.
That is, no additional circulation system is planned or warranted
iw to accommodate Phase 1 traffic during the construction of Phase 2.
It should be pointed out that the extension of Walnut Street from
Sixth Street to Beach Boulevard is part of the City of Huntington
Beach Circulation Element Amendment 84-1, June, 1984, for which a
Negative Declaration was granted. Therefore, the Walnut extension
is not solely a Waterfront project design component, but is also a
City approved project implementing the City's General Plan.
2-F The original alignment of Walnut Avenue used in site plan develop-
ment and traffic impact analysis is based on the alignment provided
in the City of Huntington Beach Circulation Element Amendment 84-1,
June 1984, for which a Negative Declaration was granted. Also see
La 2-E, above. Additionally, locations of the future street that do
not affect the wetlands site were rejected due to necessity of
keeping the Walnut Avenue intersection a minimum distance from PCH.
►r
The current alignment is at that minimum.
2-G At the request of the City, the traffic study assumed the extension
of Walnut to Beach Boulevard to terminate as a T-intersection. The
extension of Walnut Street through to Hamilton has not been
considered as it is not a funded project at this time. However,
the extension of Walnut Street through to Hamilton would provide
some relief to east/west through traffic parallel to Coast Highway.
Therefore, the assumption made regarding the termination of Walnut
in the traffic study presents the worst case condition and assumes
that the traffic using Walnut will have to leave Walnut at Beach
and continue along Coast Highway.
2-H The site was previously owned by the State of California as a
future right-of-way for a Beach Boulevard/PCH interchange, as
verified by the County Assessor's Parcel Maps. The wetlands, in
addition to the remainder of the waterfront project site, is now
owned by the City of Huntington Beach. The signage stating "State
Property - No Dumping," was not removed when the City took over
ownership. The signs have since been removed.
2-1 The wetlands analysis provided in section 4.2 of the SEIR
acknowledges the tie between the two wetland areas, via a small
drain pipe under Beach Boulevard. The comment is valid and is
Ow hereby acknowledged and included in the Final SEIR. However, this
comment does not alter conclusions in the SEIR.
.r 5
bw
L
L
L
L 2-J The proposed project (principally the extension of planned Walnut
Avenue) will displace a functioning wetland area of .8 acres, which
is to be fully mitigated consistent with Department of Fish and
L Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
and Coastal Commission regulations and policies. As stated in the
SEIR and reiterated in a letter from the Department of Fish and
Game (DFG, April 21, 1988), in the Addendum. A wetlands mitigation
site with appropriate buffering zone will be created and func-
tioning prior to or concurrent with any alteration of the on-site
wetland. This will be done to avoid a piecemeal approach of im-
L pacts to wetland resources. The project satisfies all criteria in
this respect, and will result in fully mitigating the impacts on
Lthe site, which is smaller than one acre.
The mitigation process outlined in the SEIR is feasible, and re-
quired of the developer. This procedure is a common practice when
the area of loss is less than one acre. Prior to any disruption of
the wetland site, the wetland mitigation program must be completed
and be fully acceptable to the responsible regulatory agencies
mentioned immediately above, as well as the City. Additionally,
�. prior to authorization to proceed with the phase of development
that may affect the wetland site, an environmental evaluation will
be performed to determine if further environmental effects could
6" occur that were not covered in the Final SEIR. It is a requirement
of this project that the wetland impacts be fully mitigated accord-
ing to the program outlined in the Final SEIR Biotic Resources
Section 4.2, in coordination with all responsible agencies, and as
'w clarified by the letter from DFG (April 21, 1988) . If the impact
is not mitigated according to this program with resulting addition-
al impacts not mentioned in the Final SEIR, ,a new EIR would be
fir• required.
2-K As specified in the SEIR Biotic Resources MItigation Measures, a
L hydrologic analysis is required prior to any disruption in flow or
change in the amount of flow through the drainage pipe under Beach
Boulevard. See page 27 of the SEIR.
This mitigation is emphasized in the correspondence from the
Department of Fish and Game included in Exhibit I of the Addendum.
The comment is acknowl.edged. Please also refer to response to
�. comment 24 above and response to comments to the DFG letter dated
February 22, 1988. Additionally, Exhibit G of the Addendum
�, 6
I.r
v
describes the overall drainage system conditions on the property
,�. and the site specific studies and improvements required for
subsequent phases.
L 2-L A preliminary infrastructure study for the Waterfront project was
prepared by Fuscoe, Williams, Lindgren and Short in December, 1487
(refer to Exhibit A - Addendum). The water facilities indicated in
the report are based on Alternative C of the Kennedy/Jenks/Chilton
+� report (see pages 103 and 104 of the SEIR). Alternative C is con-
sidered the preferred alternative for the Waterfront project. This
alternative consists of extending an 18-inch waterline from the
b, downtown 20-inch waterline from the intersection of Olive and 3rd
across Lake Street, and down the future Walnut Avenue alignment to
the Waterfront site. This 18-inch line would extend in Walnut
Avenue to Beach Boulevard, and a 12-inch line would have to be
constructed in Beach Boulevard, Pacific Coast Highway, Huntington
Street to (Pacific Coast Highway) and, presumably, in the mid-
block connector road between Walnut and Pacific Coast Highway.
Phase I hotel would have to be served from the west, and future
phases could build incremental extensions of the Walnut Avenue
water line.
W
To further define the infrastructure required for the project, the
following mitigation measures are required by the City of Hun-
LW tington Beach Public Works Department, (see Exhibit F, Addendum):
- Off-site water mains shall be constructed from Olive Ave-
L nue/3rd Street to the project site. If Walnut Avenue is con-
structed from Lake Street to Huntington Street in conjunction
with this tract, an 18-inch main is necessary in Walnut Avenue
and 12-inch mains in PCH, lake and Huntington. Otherwise, an
ko 18-inch main shall be constructed in a Olive/3rd/Lake/PCH, and
12-inch mains in Huntington Street (PCH to Walnut) and Walnut
Avenue (Huntington Street to the southeasterly tract boun-
dary) .
- On-site water facilities shall be located in vehicular
travel ways and dedicated to the City.
7
f`
W
L
L
' This information is being provided to clarify the process by which
�. drainage requirements will be handled throughout the phased devel-
opment of the project.
Lm 2-M Please see Addendum Exhibit A: Infrastructure Study For the Water-
front. This report includes a description of the various water,
sewer; and stormwater improvements that will be implemented with
the project. See also the Public Works Conditions of Tentative
L-' Tract Map I3045 (Addendum Exhibit F) and the supplemental Water,
Wastewater and Drainage Report (Addendum Exhibit G) for a quan-
tified explanation of the infrastructure improvements that will be
�.. implemented with the project. To summarize, Site I/Phase I devel-
opment will be constructed independently of other phases. However,
as the project is built over time, each subsequent phase will be
tied into Phase I. All infrastructure improvements will be master
planned as indicated in the conditions of approval and in the
Infrastructure Study (Exhibits F and A, respectively).
I
u 2-N The project's impact on the proposed Scenic Corridor (PCH) is
discussed on page 47 of the document. It is stated that the height
and size will significantly modify the existing viewscape, and that
the project's design and architecture would attempt to minimize
this impact.
5
2-0 The term "artistic mosaic configuration" used in this comment is
ambiguous. It is not clear what an artistic mosaic configuration
consists of. However, the project design will be reviewed and
approved by the Architectural Review Committee of the City of
Huntington Beach. They will determine if the project's architec-
ture will require additional modification to improve the visual
quality surrounding the project area.
3-A The comments are acknowledged, and are being provided to the ap-
plicant. To insure proper handling of the abandoned wells, the
L, comment letter is also being forwarded to the Building Inspection
Officer of the City's Community Development Department.
A marginal note will be placed adjacent to Mitigation Measure #46
in the Final SEIR alerting the readers to the comment letter. The
reabandonment procedures outlined ip the comment letter are a
refinement of Mitigation Measure #46 which states, "The project
L proponent will comply with current DOG standards and requirement
for the reabandonment of the seven on-site wells."
L 8
L
I
W
611
r. 3-B Soil testing will occur throughout the construction period of the
project for every building site within the project's boundaries.
Regulations currently in effect, enforced by the City Fire Depart-
meet, County Department of Health Services and the Regional Water
Quality Control Board would automatically apply to any contaminated
soil found at the site. These agencies would ensure full mitiga-
tion of the potential environmental effects of on-site contamina-
tion.
An ongoing cleanup of a site at the southwest corner of the prop-
erty, formerly a gas station site, is currently in progress. Any
additional contamination resulting from oil pipeline or oil well
leaks would be handled under current regulations, according to DOG
procedures relating to abandonment of wells, as mentioned in re-
sponse to comment 3-A.
The project proponent is being provided with a copy of DOG's letter
to ensure awareness of the procedures outlined in comment 3-B.
3-C Comment acknowledged and forwarded to the applicant.
4-A Please see Exhibit I, Addendum, for clarification of the comment.
In addition, please see response to comment 4-C for an explanation
of the mitigation program required prior to any disturbance of the
wetlands area.
4-B Full mitigation of any disturbance of the area identifies as wet-
lands shall occur prior to grading on the affected area. The
mitigation program shall be consistent with all DFG, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Coastal Commission and City of Huntington Beach
IW policies and conservation programs.
Please also see response to comment 4-A, and Exhibit I for a full
explanation of the amount of wetland that is required to be res-
tored prior to any development activity on the wetland site. The
mitigation program, as clarified immediately above, fully mitigates
any potential loss of wetlands consistent with the provisions
�`'' outlined in DFG's letter dated April 21, 1988 (Exhibit I, Adden-
dum) .
r., 4-C The SEIR specifies that a hydrologic study shall be done prior to
any disturbance of the wetland or existing drainage system altera-
� 9
1.r
1r
i tion. Included in the Mitigation Measures on page 27, Adjacent
;. Wetlands, measures #1 and #2, the developer is required to maintain
existing flows or provide beneficial enhancement to the adjacent
wetlands.
" In response to comment 4-C, Mitigation Measure #1 is hereby amended
to read: "Prior to any alternation of the site by grading or fill-
ing activity, a hydrological analysis of the drainage patterns
affecting the wetland area or adjacent wetland area shall be con-
ducted by the developer. Such analysis shall determine the drain-
age effects on the wetlands portion of the site. No development,
.. grading or alteration of the site shall occur which affects the
wetlands or adjacent wetlands without fully analyzing the affects
on the on-site wetland and adjacent wetlands. The developer shall
provide evidence to the City and to the Department of Fish and Game
that the project's runoff management system will deliver approxi-
mately the same amount of freshwater urban runoff to these wetlands
' as under existing conditions, and in approximately the same sea-
sonal pattern. This evidence shall include (a) a hydrological
analysis comparing the existing and post-project water supply, and
(b) drawings and a description of the runoff conveyance system in
6d sufficient detail for a qualified engineer to judge its adequacy.
The State Department of Fish and Game shall be consulted regarding
alteration of the drainage pattern of the site which may affect the
above-mentioned wetlands. The developer shall provide the Com-
munity Development Department with a written report substantiating
compliance with this mitigation measure prior to submittal of
grading plans for permit review and/or permit issuance."
With this refined mitigation measure, and in conformance with DFG's
letter clarifying affects on the wetlands (DFG 4-21-88) , there are
�► no significant effects anticipated resulting from the project. The
SEIR adequately discusses all potential effects and provides thor-
ough mitigation for each effect.
4-D Comment acknowledged. Comment will be forwarded to the applicant
for compliance.
5-A Comment acknowledged and herewith included in the Final SEIR. All
wetland areas being considered are to be within the local area for
those reasons specified in the comment.
V
5-B Please see response 4-C for response to this comment.
10
L
1..
4
5-C Comment acknowledged and forwarded to the applicant and Huntington
Beach -Fire Department.
5-D Exhibit E, Addendum to Final SEIR 82-2, includes a map showing the
pipeline's location. The pipeline will be relocated prior to
constructicn of the final hotel phase. The pipeline will be relo-
cated into the PCH/Beach Boulevard right-of-way, the 50 foot dedi-
cated open space/sidewalk setback fronting along PCH or Beach or
within the City owned beach parking lot on the south side of PCH.
• Relocation will be completed prior to Phase IV construction of the
final hotel site, consistent with State Fire Marshall regulations.
Until a specific location site is chosen, risk assessments and
alternative assessments would of necessity entail speculation as to
a specific site and speculation as to its consequent impacts and
characteristics. This pipeline
i p p presents no on-site facilities
after relocation. This project will be finalized prior to
construction on the affected site and will receive separate envi-
ronmental review.
The pipeline is a direct service line from offshore, primarily
transporting unrefined oil . Occasionally, the pipeline transports
refined oil products, approximately 109. of the operating time of
� . the pipeline, (teleconference Pat Novell , City H.B. Fire Depart-
ment) . Relocation into PCH or Beach Boulevard right-of-way will
provide a controlled site, totally under City control and permitt-
ing authority, thereby minimizing the potential for disruption. No
i adverse environmental effects resulting from this pipeline reloc-
ation are anticipated. City ordinances and state guidelines recom-
mend avoiding building over abandoned wells. If this cannot be
avoided, venting of gases emanating from the wells is required by
these regulations. Because the project must comply with these
regulations, no impacts are anticipated, and no further environmen-
tal review is required.
W
LW
W
lI
W
W
L.+
W
t COMMENT LETTERS AND RESPONSE TO
COMMENTS RECEIVED AT PLMNING
C"ISSION HEARl -G 4UNE 22, 1988
i�
i
t
f
Ir.
I
1
Ir
i
SAO
I
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
RECEIVED AT PLANNING COMMISSION
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 82-2
+� FOR
THE WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT
CLEARINGHOUSE /87091612
tow
1 '
�r
1
1
'`' JUNE 22, 1988
6 °
Irr
SPOHSE TO COMMENTS
INTRODUCTION
The following response to comments were received at the City of Hunt-
ington Beach Planning Commission hearing which was held on June 22, 1988. In
general , the comment letters were substantially reiterations of previous
conments which were responded to in the May 12, 1988, Response to Comments
(see Section D) or in the Addendum Report (Section F) . These comments have
been included in order to provide additional clarification of issues,
although no new information is introduced and no new significant effects are
identified.
I
i
r
�.J
I '
r
Ira
I
Lr
k '
W
COME#iT LMERS RECEIVED
r
f
LO
k
4w
si
4
4w
�r
i
�r►
a
V
1,.
�jB
Environmental Board
�.. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
HL-%11% 10%IF4(H Post Office Box 190 • Huntington Beach, California 9264E
d
LM* June 7, 1988
V4 � �
Vic Leipzig, Chairperson JUL 1 :; 19g8
Huntington Beach Planning Commission AN
2000 Main Street r�
Huntington Beach, California 92648 718191101111121112i31415j6
Dear F'x. Leipzig:
I �
iw The Environmental Board's Ad Hoc Committee on the Mayer
Waterfront project met last week to review the DRAFT EIR.
We respectfully submit the following comments regarding LSA's
response to our letter.
I. With regards to the response to our request for separate
1b* focused EIR's for each stage of the development, we would
like to reiterate our understanding that this EIR describes 1-A
the impact of Phase I only and that subsequent phases will
necessitate separate reviews and will, therefore, go through
the HOP/EIR process.
2. Geology
F _ We have reviewed the Perry letter referred to in 2-C and are
' still concerned about the effects that the potential
liquefaction of the soils during an earthquake will have on
the buildings' structural integrity. We site the recent 1-B
r Mexico city earthquake where buildings built to modern
jla earthquake standards were destroyed due to soil
liquefaction. We suggest that this incident be studied and
the safety findings be incorporated in the building design.
3. Traffic - 2D
In reference to the Addendum Traffic Impact Analysis:
Understandably a summer traffic statistics study could not
be gathered in Huntington Beach that would avail itself for
�•+ this response, it is disappointing that foresight did not
allow ' for such information collecting and hopefully for
future phases 'this Huntington. Beach traffic information will 1-C
be available. In order to extrapolate from Newport Beach
traffic patterns on PCH, conditions must be parallel in
nature. Even if the number of cars are greater (i.e.
L
Vic Leipzig Page 2 June 7, 1988
I
LO Superior/PCH intersection) we are dealing with faster moving
traffic with fewer traffic lights, virtually no pedestrian
I traffic, the absence of a significant commercial corner and
no scenic view. one is not moving through a downtown of a
city. Therefore, a significant margin of error should
certainly be considered.
Secondly, the summer statistics presented a daily traffic
increase of 20-28%, with peak p.m. hour variation set at 4-
� . 9% greater traffic flow. it is claimed that the project's 1-p
compounded increase will not result in significant traffic
problem congestion, however, no discussion has been given to
the fact an entertainment center will attract peak hour
w movie goers, that the downtown stores will be closing with
customers seeking egress, and new restaurants will certainly
attract a dinner clientele. All of the above rust be
' considered in the peak hour analysis.
With reference to the practicality of the industry to not
E focus traffic studies on recreational summer traffic
conditions, we, the Environmental Board, are certainly
interested in the economic benefits of the downtown
renovations and for the pecple who live in Huntington Beach
so that they may also enjoy the beach during the normal 1-E
beach going summer hours. It is not simply a bedroom
community that is interested in economic stability and peak
hour ingress or egress, but most clearly a high priority for
residents of Huntington Beach is the guarantee their right
to enjoy their own community's assets.
We suggest that industry standards are lacking in this
scenario and these concerns must be addressed. Quite
interestingly, an additional comment in the traffic analysis
claims that by "focusing . on mitigation for recreational
summer conditions, the project' would encounter more use by
non-resident recreational visitors and that this would be a 1-F
' negative factor. " Are we naive to believe the project's
focus is directed toward off season residents who are not
interested in the beach or that the economic incentive for
i the hotels and entertainment areas are not too indeed
40.W encourage outsiders into Huntington Beach?
3. Regarding the minimum distance of Walnut from PCH, we would
like to submit the possible consideration on aligning Walnut
Street with Sunrise at the Northern boundaries of the
property to Beach Boulevard. This would allow unobstructable 1-G
traffic flow adjacent to the project without interference
and additionally mitigate impact on the wetlands areas.
w
ti
W
Vic Leipzig Page 3 June 7, 1988
4. Wetlands
The LSA response to co=ents assumes concurrent of the
various agencies involved (DFG, USFWS, USACI, CC) with the
�+ designation of the wetland areas at 0.8 acres. This is not
consistent with the fact when a current onsite wetlands t-H
determination has not yet been undertaken. Designation of
.� 1.4 acres of degraded wetland as non-wetland area has yet to
be determined by all of the concerned agencies.
f In addition, the importance of drainage water implementing
the wetlands to the East of Beach Boulevard is under
estimated. Rather than "a small drain pipe" under Beach
Boulevard, the wetlands site actually employees two drainage
4.+ culverts which deliver significant run off to contiguous
wetland areas. Additionally, the quality of the runoff may
be negatively impacted by the development.
We also concur with statements by the DFG on the importance
of maintaining the quantity and quality of water flow, and
therefore, the importance of a proper hydrological study for
the wetlands Easterly of Beach Boulevard.
Furthermore, the restoration of the wetland area and
+� inclusion of this restored area into a park-like setting,
has not been discussed. Is it not inconsistent with a
resort area? The restoration of the on-site wetlands would
satisfy the stipulation that restoration take place within
the local area (CA Regional Water Quality Control Board -�
letter, April 21, 1988) and be consistent with wetlands
preservation criteria (Environmental Protection Act
guidelines, 404 0(1) , FWS, and DFG policies, Coastal Act
requirements, Sec. 30--233 (a) (f) (highest priority) . Ample
evidence has not been presented for financial gains
+� offsetting loss of this environmentally sensitive area.
kw
I . • Vic Leipzig Page 4 June 7, 1988
4
5. Aesthetics
� In response to our comment requesting an artistic mosaic
configuration, as shown in the Waterfront slide
presentation, the North face of the tower in Phase I i-K
presents a blank , white monolithic appearance to the
neighborhood facing it. Hopefully, this will be rectified.
' Thank you for your consideration, and if you have any further
�.. questions, please feel free to contact me.
Si J erely,
r.
Corinne Welch
Chairperson
Huntington Beach Environmental Board
Gail Altimeri-Brown, AdHoc Chairman
Dean Albright, member
Irene Alferi, member
Joan Siegal, member
Mark Conley, member
Corinne Welch, member
i ' cc: Ruth Finley, Liaison
a.. Peter Green, Liaison
Tom Mays, Liaison
W
t
So.
i
i
TOMPKINS & PARRINGTON
1 ATTORNEYS AT LAW
CMMC17 A. TOMPKINS. JA. 320 NORTH GANRICLO AVCNUC 1816) 280-3727
TmOMAS C. WARRINGTON 12,31 183.3107
WILLIAM W. MORRIS POST OrR1cf !O= *so
j ALMAMSRA. CALIFORNIA 91802-0589
June S. 1988
OAW
Planning Commission
City of Huntington Beach
�•. 2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
w
RE: Waterfront Development
Driftwood Beach Club
Dear Commission Members:
1
This office represents one of the residents of the Driftwood
Beach Club, Mr. Russell Otting, who has been a part time resident
of the Driftwood Beach Club owning his own mobile home for many
. years. On behalf of Mr. Otting, I object to the proposal being
considered by the City of Huntington Beach (City) to amend the
City's long term lease with R.L.M. Properties to permit
destruction of the mobile home park and the affordable housing
which this park provides in the community.
1 In reviewing the draft Supplement to Environmental Impact Report
82-2 for the proposed development, there are several areas which
raise concerns as to why the City would proceed with this project
in view of the environmental risks. These areas are as follows:
6,
1. Liquefaction
The Supplement identifies a substantial risk of liquefaction
in the event of an earthquake with liquefaction observed during
the 1933 earthquake. Since mobile homes are constructed with
their own internal framework and may not be as subject to
earthquake damage as buildings which may be constructed on the 2-A
Site, the risk of earthquake damage and personal injury may be
less if the mobile home park is maintained. Since this area is a
LW high risk area, why should the City permit the risk to be
increased by permitting a dense multi-story development?
W 2. Existing Wetland
a The Supplement is confusing and unclear on the proposal to
restore the existing wetland area which is a part of the Site.
Although the area is now degraded, it is a wetland which may be 2-B
feasible for restoration. Since the City has fee ownership, it
W
may be more feasible for restoration and expansion of the wetland
6a
I Planning Commission
6d City of Huntington Beach
Page 2
�i if the mobile home park is maintained and the density- of the of
developed area not increased. This is particularly the case when
compared to the extension of Walnut Ave. which would introduce
additional noise and pollution next to the wetland. If the
mobile home park were maintained, the extension of Walnut Ave.
may not be required. 2-8
�•• No alternative to the restoration is clearly identified although
several potentials are discussed. The "Conclusions" at page 8 of
the "Biology/Wetlands Assessment" is not a final conclusion, but
only a statement of alternatives.
3. Low and Moderate Housing
The City has created a valuable resource of affordable
housing in the mobile home park which is a nearly vanishing
species within the Southern California coastal areas. Your
studies incorporated into the supplement have identified over
half of the residents of very low income households as defined by
a Orange County, The mobile home park is also located within a
redevelopment project area which requires that 20% of all tax
increment to be used to increase and improve the supply of low
and moderate income housing. The removal of this mobile home
park is contrary to the goal of increasing such supply in your
own community compared to relocating your low and moderate income
+ , residents outside the City of Huntington Beach. 2_C
410 The Supplement describes the increase in housing that is proposed
as a part of this development, but the rent level and what
l percentage of such units will be affordable by low and moderate
64 income households is totally ignored. Undoubtedly, the
commercial development will increase the need for low and
I moderate income housing to provide for those who will be employed
at the hotels and restaurants. However, I am sure that the
housing proposed does not include sufficient affordable housing
to provide for such employees.
Until the housing issue and its affordablity is addressed, the
destruction of the mobile home park should not be allowed.
4 . Pro-iect Alternative
y The list and discussion of project alternatives is merely a
V summary without analysis and an attempt to support the project 2_D
being proposed. A more thorough and unbiased analysis is
required.
L
t
.r
i
Planning Commission
City of Huntington Beach
Page 3
Sincerely,
i.. vz.
omas- E. Parrington
TEP:oc
L
cc: Russell Otting
o .
L&
0
i
W
R
W
G
W
I
�e
1�1
�I
�IN
I '
�r '
LW
RESPONSE TO CCMENTS
w
r
I
f
I
k
�N
L
W
�M
6w
60
6J
1-A This comment was addressed at the Planning Commission hearing which
was held on June 22, 1988. Each subsequent phase will be reviewed
by City staff to determine applicability of SEIR 82-2.
1-B This comment was addressed at the Planning Commission hearing which
was held on June 22 , 1988. It is not anticipated that the project
area would be adversely affected by liquefaction as a result of a
maximum credible seismic event. Refer to response to comment 2-A.
1-C This comment was addressed at the Planning Commission hearing which
was held on June 22, 1988. Also addressed in Addendum Exhibit C
Seasonal Traffic Analysis and Mitigation Measures.
1-D Future cumulative traffic figures were based on data identified in
the Downtown Specific Plan EIR. In addition, the incremental
increase in future traffic volumes will need to be studied further
in subsequent analyses, as required in conditions of approval of
the CUP and mitigation measures.
1-E The comment was addressed at the Planning Commission hearing which
was held on June 22, 1988. Also addressed in Addendum Exhibit C
1 Seasonal Traffic Analysis.
1-F Comment noted. In addition, there are no alternative industry
standards to be used for this scenario.
1-G She realignment of Walnut Street as suggested in the response to
comment (i .e. realigning Walnut Street with Sunrise along the
northern project boundary) would not accomplish the City's objec-
tives for the area. Please see Response to Comments (May 12, 1988)
comments 2-E, 2-F and 2-G. In addition, the impacts to the wetland
which would occur as 'a result of the proposed alignment of Walnut
4. Street as identified in the Final SEIR have been mitigated. Refer
to Section 4.2 Biotic Resources in the Final SEIR. Also see Re-
sponse to Comments (May 12, 1988) 2-I, 2-J, 2-K, 4-A, 4-8 and 4-C.
1-H As noted in the Biology Wetlands Assessment (Section 4.2 and
Appendix D of Final SEIR), LSA verified an earlier determination
regarding the designation of the wetland area which was made by the
4
1
W
e _ '
Department of Fish and Game. Please also see Response to Comments
(May 12, 1988) 2-I1 2-J, 2-K, 4-A, 4-B and 4-C.
1-I This is a reiteration of previous comments. Please refer to miti-
gation measures outlined in the Biotic Resources - Section 4.2 of
the Final SEIR which addresses these impacts to the wetland area.
14 See Section B, Statement of Overriding Consideration which
acknowledges the effects of the project and addresses the benefits
6* which would be accrued to the City as a result of the project.
' 1-K The effects of the project are acknowledged and addressed in the
�.. Statement of Overriding Considerations (Section B).
2-A The Final Supplemental EIR addresses liquefaction for the entire
site. The report acknowledges certain geotechnical conditions
occurring on the property and in the general vicinity. The
F . response to comments clarifies these issues and further describes
the mitigation (design of foundations and subfoundations) that will
low be required in order to construct the project. She Final SEIR goes
on to acknowledge a certain amount of risk associated with building
p a comparatively higher density project should a greater than maxi-
L mum credible seismic event occur. There is mitigation attached to
the project which substantially lessens the potential effects.
G
2-B The issue has been addressed in the Final SEIR and the Response to
Comments (May 12, I988) . On-site mitigation would be less desir-
able because of the small size of the restorable wetland. Please
L refer to Response to Comments (May 12, 1988) 2-I, 2-J, 2-K, 4-A, 4-
B, 4-C, 6-G and 6-H.
2-C The relocation assistance plan attached to the project, existing
City affordable housing programs, and existing supply of market
housing substantially mitigate these effects. As the comment
suggests, there are ongoing affordable housing programs (as men-
L tioned in the Final SEIR) which include the 20% set aside of all
tax increment within the redevelopment project area for affordable
housing programs. No environmental impact issues are brought up by
the comment and none are brought out in the analysis in the Final
tow SEIR.
' 2-D The discussion has been clarified and expanded in the Addendum to
L the report (See Section F - Addendum) .
r
V
G
4
W
I
F. ADDENDUM—ADDENDLIM—TO FINALSUR 8 -
v
I
L
11I
two
I.r
I
�.f
f
L
i
L
i
+- Environmental Assessment
Transportation Engineering
Resource Management
Community Planning
Lsa Environmental Restoration
6d
ADDENDUM
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT 82-2
FOR
THE WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT
SCREENCHECK #87091612
May 12, 1988
L
W
• ❑ 1 Park Plaza, Suite 500 Irvine, California 92714 • (714) 553-0666
W 0 157 Park Place 9 Pt. Richmond, CaVornia 94801 • (415) 236-6810
j.. Lsa
TABLE OF-CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
EXHIBIT A: INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY FOR THE WATERFRONT; PREPARED BY
FUSCOE WILLIAMS LINDGREN AND SHORT CIVIL ENGINEERS
EXHIBIT B: GEOLOGY AND SOILS; PREPARED BY IRVINE GEOTECHNICAL
CONSULTANTS, INC
EXHIBIT C: SEASONAL VARIATIONS IN PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY TRAFFIC
VOLUMES; PREPARED BY LSA ASSOCIATES INC. (MEMORANDUM
TO LES EVANS, APRIL b, 1988)
i.,
EXHIBIT D: IMPACT OF CONVERSION REPORT
EXHIBIT E: EXISTING UNDERGROUND PETROLEUM PIPELINE
EXHIBIT F: TENTATIVE TRACT 13045, CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL; MEMORANDUM
W
FROM BILL PATAPOFF TO MIKE ADAMS
EXHIBIT G: SUPPLEMENTAL WATER, WASTEWATER AND DRAINAGE REPORT
ADDENDING SECTION 4.9, PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
L.
EXHIBIT H: SUPPLEMENTAL DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATE SITES CONSIDERED
EXHIBIT I: LETTER DATED APRIL 21, 1988: DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME:
REGARDING WETLANDS MITIGATION AND CLARIFICATION OF WETLAND
ACREAGE; AND VST LETTER DATED APRIL 25, 1988, DOCUMENTING
CONVERSATIONS WITH DFG STAFF.
EXHIBIT J: ADDITIONAL NOISE ASSESSMENT AND REFINEMENT OF MITIGATION:
ADDENDUM TO SECTION 4.79 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY.
EXHIBIT K: CHANGES MADE TO DRAFT SEIR 82-2 AS A RESULT OF RESPONSE TO
COMMENTS
6w
i..
Vd
L
INIRODUCTION
This Addendum to Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 87-2 (SEIR 87-
2) has been prepared to provide the public and decision makers with addition-
al information and analysis of the environmental effects of the project
L described in SEIR 87-2. New information is being provided and supplemental
analysis covering traffic circulation conditions, public services and soils
conditions are provided to ensure full disclosure of all pre-existing site
L conditions, post-development conditions and refined mitigation measures.
This Addendum is referenced in SEIR 87-2 Response to Comments and margi-
nal notes in applicable sections of the Final SEIR. The information and
analysis included in this Addendum are to be reviewed by the decision making
bodies with the Final SEIR prior to making a decision on the project, as re-
quired by CEQA Guidelines Section 15164.
iW
IW '
L
f
L
L
1..
Lsa
EXHIBIT A
L.
F
r
jM
L
W -
W
FUSCOE-
L w1uUms
UNDGREH .
& SHORT
az.!U Engine•land Sunv),ors
INMASTRUCTURE STUDY FOR THE WATERFRONT
THE ROBERT MAYER CORPORATION
+r, DEMMER 1, 1987
L
L
L
E
1
L '
L
L
r •
W
L 2500 Rcdwij At+enue•Suite 100•Santa Ara;Califomia 92-05•Phone(714)250.1500 FAX(714)250.7120
INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY FOR THE WATERFRONT
" THE ROBERT MAYER CORPORATION
r.
Introduction
This is an infrastructure study for the Waterfront Project at Beach Boulevard
and Pacific Coast Highway in Huntington Beach. This conceptual study shows
sewer, water, storm drain and street elevaticrs to support future development
' of the Waterfront Project. The street grades are conceptual in nature and
,
+.• could fluctuate as much as a foot upon further refinement of the site plans.
i Walnut Avenue
The horizontal alignment of Walnut Avenue has been coordinated with the city.
The construction of Walnut Avenue would require purchase and removal of several
coaches from the mobile hone park northerly of the Waterfront Project.
Huntington Street will have to be extended northerly to the Walnut Avenue
right-of-way and Huntington Street from the north would have to be tied in on
an interior basis to Walnut Avenue. Walnut Avenue would not have to be extended
northwest at this time and could be extended when Huntington Beach Company
lands develop.
Drainage
There are three low points on Walnut Avenue where storm drains need to be
placed. The Walnut Avenue/Huntington Street intersection is a low point that
intercepts water from the west, Huntington Beach Land Company property, and to
the northeast, the mobile home park. From that intersection, a 54-inch lire
would run along the north property line of the Waterfront Project to the
existing 54-inch storm drain on the north property line. Two other storm
drains need to be constructed from Walnut Avenue, northerly,. to the 48-inch
,. line along the northerly property line of the site. One of which would start
at Walnut Avenue intersection with the interceptor road mid-site Pnd travels
through the future residential property and the third storm drain would pick up
water at Walnut Avenue and Beach Boulevard. The existing 45" RCP end 54" TCP
storm drains along the north property line appear to be adequately sized to
intercept tributary run-off. The storm drains confluence with a 60" RCP storm
drain, which travels north to Atlanta. The £0" RCP may not be able to carry
the in:reased flow, which is due to zoning and hydrology criteria changes.
Further studies are needed to determine the maximum capacity of'the existing
storm drain system and the Atlanta pump staticn, along with other- possible
alternatives (i.e. . parallel storm drains, direct outflow to the DO1 channel
(east side of Beach Boulevard) and a storm drain system in Huntington Avenue).
134.1202 M-1017
L
Page 2
Sewer Facilities
A 12" sewer line needs to be constructed on Walnut Avenue (city facility) and
a 15-inch line through the mid-site connector road across Pacific Coast
Highway and delivered to an existing 54-inch coast trunk sewer. This sewer
will serve by gravity all of the commercial development between Pacific Coast
L Highway and Walnut Avenue. The residential properties will have to have a
private sewer connection facility with a pump station pumping into the city
sewer in Walnut Avenue. This sewer pump station would be"required due to the
low elevations of the existing site and, as a result of the tremendous cost.
required to fill the residential site to a level where a gravity sewer would
work.
Water Facilities
A 20" water line to be constructed in the Spring of 1986 will provide water to
k+ Third and Olive. The water facilities indicated on our infrastructure plan are
based on Alternate C of the Kennedy-Jenks-Chilton Report of December 1986.
They consist of extending an 18-inch water line from the downtown 20-inch water
Lw lime from the intersection of Olive and 3rd across Lake Street and down the
future Walnut Avenue alignment to the Waterfront site. This 18-inch line would
extend in Walnut Avenue to Beach Boulevard and a 12-inch line would have to be
constructed in Beach Boulevard, Pacific Coast Highway, Huntington Street to
(Pacific Coast Highway) and, presumably. in the mid-block connector road
between Walnut and Pacific Coast Highway. Phase I hotel would have to be
served from the west and future phases. could build incremental extensions of
the Walnut Avenue water line. When Huntington Beach Company land develops
their property to the west. they would extend the 12-inch water line in Pacific
Coast Highway northwesterly to loop around their project. There are several
alternatives for looped water feed - one of which is to bring the water line
down Huntington Street from Atlanta. For Phase 1. however, this loop system
may not be required.
Grading
At this time with conceptual site plans, import of approximately 130,000 cubic
" yards is desirable in order to lift the Walnut Avenue and commercial building
sites to approximately Pacific Coast Highway level for views of ocean. An
average of two feet of fill was figured for the residential property. Further
study with product types and in-depth design can be performed to determine if
amount can be reduced.
L
L
134.1202 Al-1017
L
�. PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE FOR WALNUT AVE % WATER- DVI-04. 1202
FRONT DEVELOPMENT 11/25/S7
D.VALLE
ITEM UNIT QUANTITY RATE AMOUNT
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
i.m WATER I MPROVEI"ENTS
16" CP1L*vC STEEL L.F. 4S60.00 100. 00 486000.0,
1w 12" CML`xC STEEL L.F. 6800. 00 45.00 '_706000. 00
a Subtotal . . . t:929000. 00
SEWER I NF'ROVEMENTS
140 10" Sewer Main L. F. 700.00 3}$.00 26600. 00
12" Sewer Main L.F. 1050. 00 43.00 45150.00
15" Sewer ;lair~ L.F. 400. 00 50.00 20000. 00
£EWER MFNNOLE EA. 7.00 2500.00 17500.00
SEWER MANHDLE - SPECIAL EA.
1.00 5000.0o 5000. CIO
r Subtotal . . . $114.250.00
r
STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS
Ir
1 V" R. C. F'. Pipe L. F. 160. 00 54.00 6640. CMG
W24" R.C.P. Pipe L. F. 1050.00 72.00 75600.00
�a 27" R.C.F. Pipe L.F. 670.01 81 .00 54270.00
30 R.C.F. pipe L.F. 1810.00 90.00 IE2900.00
� 36" R. C.P. pipe L.F. 370.00 1 OS.00 715960. 00
. 54" R.C.F. Ripe L.F. 530.00 185. 00 S9050. 00
45" R. C.P. FIFE L. F. 70.00 140. 00 9800. 00
�1 Subtotal . . . T449 9220.00
1.J
WALNUT AVE- UNIT COST L.F. 2400.00 256.00 686400.CO
FOUNT. AVE. (HALF ST. ) UNIT COST L.F. 400.00 125.00 50000.00
4a PCH - TURN POCKET-UNIT COST L.F. 1000.00 55.00 55000.00
PCH - SIDEWALK - UNIT COST L.F. 2500. 00 20. 00 50000. 00
BEACH BLVD.- WIDEN- UNIT COST L.F. 1000.00 55.CIO 5.5000.00
BEACH BLVD-EXTEND S.D. & ADD C.S L.S 1 . 00 A:-*0.00 4300.00
1.&
Subtotal . . . T900,700-00
210%. Contingency. . . T451 ,234. 01
Total Costs. . . $2,707,404.00
iI
i
I
i
t i
Infrastructure Study
� R
WAUPff
TYPICAL SEC I AL SECTKM
IL
.rr M ..� .av r` '���\ a \SO r f \\\ S}f / y ij�"rr'•y} \ '� \
I •.�`•ts"+r /''�•' ��� r'% f 1 f � �.� MY �l � r �• \ '1� 1 •`r r X \ \\ y� +
p
f � r . .r /JJ)`. \` O\f�`y�'�\^'��' � 'Gw •\�, 1� �s4-L r -• •' '/!�%', ' 'y""�.l" �4.�4�' ' -� wa.,\ ,\
1� �r � .. �r ,• ,/' � \l { ~ V,/y• v �� J\ +�•y�,� ,iw_ w.�•r..,�..,• ,'y C iil� �(y�\,\a,
j.._'i J \r�^•�j� ,w. '•�\`S \ra
a *"`•»� . � ��„rl.• �,a„� I.�v�1� +r"�-.r. T~��_�_t�, "� �•'��,� �' �1,��/ �`"'+• �iy`�i�►� '\1
'' 1 `` i ::il�_• _;:'�� fir• V �v`•r ,+ •,��, i �.� % �.
'r,+.r.v +,..,.w ~��• 1 1
C �."" '� •�; • � . • ..ate ..:�, .. +f \��, . :..:1: ....r .�-. ��� .C;f t,` '�•.`e'er �J. } w. . +. l•..� �+��. .zyJ I" �i�.' ... .:S•A t. \\ \
Mm
ac\ � � � ' •r.. : „ ' r L �-;ri•}:� x way 1]V'; � tt• ►• •.i � - ~ ., -y yr. e \\ �4 \\
"1 _. 1 •a f ... V � r.i t �; •!'C i � v •lleL�- 1` ys�•� j �++ II� 'J� ,- - �r��'. _> ..L:r i� ��A � � \
`_�`" - _. _ _. .....�� , •tea .
6��I,• IiA—r .y -�._r t' ��aa..„--y--..����•C :,� �4,'!a ►a�u.a'rT •s. I _ .i.�a..lw. �"•iY",_. ':
•� , -•- _• 1'-� - .µ~ + ���-•��+ter---•�l���i\ �—+ re\�r' ������ �a •.•a 1 1r���ti��r�r� ��� 'i��� ������r.r1 •..• •.-»��ti�wr
Lnim Mf_
,O M•MM �; T
i
No Scale f
r
Smite,Fuscoe. %M111ems. Undgren. Short. Dec. 1987 k
I
LW
EXHIBIT
a
f �
1.. IRVINE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
SOIL ENGINEERING&ENGINEERING GEOLOGY
3 TM
March 18, 1988
The Robert Mayer Corporation Job No: 02-3530-001-01-00
660 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1050 Log No: 8-9127
Newport Beach, California 92658
Attention: Mr. Shawn K. Millbern
Project Manager
it
SUBJECT: THE WATERFRONT
Geology and Soils
Huntington Beach, California
REFERENCE: Irvine Soils Engineering, Inc. , 1984, Limited
+� Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Hotel ,
Commercial and Residential Development, Pacific
Coast Highway and Beach Boulevard, Huntington Beach,
California, June 29, 1984, Job No: 2561--00, Log No:
4-6086 .
Dear Mr. Millbern:
Please be advised that the referenced investigation was performed
with the knowledge that, as stated in the report in the descrip-
tion of the proposed development, " . . . the proposed development,
as presently planned, is tentative, and major changes are
possible. " We therefore performed exploratory borings in number
and depth sufficient to prepare a report that would be valid for
a more intense project. As a result, the findings and recommen-
dations of this 1984 report are valid and appropriate for the
currently proposed Waterfront development, which include several
structures many stories taller than the 5 to 8 stories referenced
In the 1984 report's description of the proposed development.
Our referenced report recommended that phase-specific supplemen-
tal investigations be performed as each phase is developed. This
;M recommendation was made as a matter 'of standard industry practice
and is typically required by the building and safety department
of the local jurisdiction to reconfirm the findings of the
A SUBSIDIARY OF THE IRVINE CONSULTING GROUP,INC.
15 MASON • IRVINE.CA 92716 • (714)951-8686 •(213)630-8032
' The Rob ation Job No: 02-3530-001-01-00
j„ N IRY14 VoQTEQ4t9=?_CONSULTANTS, INC.
p30yeENDINEERING 8 ENGINEERING GEOLOGY
1
i tw
L
0
L Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation in the precise location of
each structure. These supplemental studies are normally per-
formed in cooperation with the structural engineer to assist in
the detailed structural design of a building. Given the concep-
tual nature of the future phases of the project at this time and
L the fact that the primary purpose of such supplemental investiga-
tion will be to reconfirm known conditions and foundation design
L recomnendations as detailed in the 1984 report, •to perform addi-
tional studies at this time would yield no additional useful
information. It should also be noted that the findings of our
1984 investigation showed a very consistent geological structure
across the entire site and significant variations causing a major
change in foundation design criteria are not encountered in
future supplemental investigations.
Ocr 1984 report describe the fact that the site is near the
Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone and therefore the site is subject to
possible seismic shaking and sail liquefaction events. It should
be noted that this fault zone runs through much of Orange and Los
Angeles Counties, and this conditions is not a particularly
unusual quality of this site. Indeed, the possibility of seismic
L events and the proper structural design to reasonably withstand
those events is a standard practice in the Southern California
LA building industry. As stated in the report "Design of struc-
tures should comply with the requirements of the governing juris-
I'l dictions and standard practices of the Structural Engineers
Association of California. " Given such compliance, it is our
opinion that the seismic conditions at the site do not in any way
preclude development of The Waterfront project as proposed.
i
A SUSSIQIARY OF THE IRVINE CONSULTING GROUP.INC.
�.r
15 MASON • IRVINE.CA 92718 •(714)951.8686 •(213)630-8032
�r.
The Robert Mayer Corporation Job No: 02-3530-001-01-00
March 18, 1988 Log No: 8-9127
Page 3
;.. In conclusion, I quote and restate the following from our 1984
Limited Geotechnical Investigation, "From a geological stand-
' point, it is our opinion that the site is suitable for the pro-
posed development provided that the conclusions and recommendations
presented in this report are incorporated into the project
L
designs, plans and specifications.
,
�.. We trust this provides the information needed at this time. If
you have any questions, please call .
Very truly yours ,
IRVINE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
ad
W��-._ 44��
4+ Robert D. Perry
Vice President and General Manager
k
RDP:rlr
Distribution: (2) Addressee
cc: Mr. Rob Balen
..k
{
i..
1
i
r
L
Lsa
EXHIBIT C
a.
ftd
W
W
w
fir.
i.r
i.r
Lsa
ADDENDUM�
THE WATERFRONT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
SEASONAL VARIATION IN TRAFFIC VOLUMES
L
i
lei
IYr
W
VLsa
DA DEHD04
THE WATERFRONT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
SEASONAL VARIATION IN TRAFFIC VOLUMES
For purposes of disclosure, LSA has conducted research to empirically
+0 determine the extent of daily and peak hour seasonal variations along Pacific
Coast Highway. Surer traffic counts are not available from the City of
Huntington Beach. However, the City of NToport Beach's 1986 Traffic Flow Map
presents daily traffic volumes along Coast Highway for the summer and non-
summer periods. LSA collected the daily traffic count data used in the
preparation of the Traffic Flow Map from the City of Newport Beach. Daily
traffic counts for summer and non-suirm er periods, presented in hourly
increments, were collected for two locations along Pacific Coast Highway: 1)
Coast Highway between Superior Avenue and Prospect Street, and 2) Coast
Highway between Orange Street and the Santa Ana River. These locations were
'~ selected as they are the count stations closest to the border of the City of
Huntington Beach. Figure I presents 24 hour traffic volumes for the summer
and non-summer periods for the two count station locations.
A review of Figure 1 indicates that variations in total daily traffic do
exist between summer and non-summer periods. Total daily traffic can be 20%
to 28% greater in the summer period. However, PM peak hour variations are on
the order of four percent to nine percent greater in the summer period.
Intersection analysis, typically conducted for development related
studies and presented in the original LSA waterfront traffic study, considers
the impacts of project traffic during the AM and the PM peak hours. These
i are the peak conditions commonly used for design purposes. Seasonal
r.. variations during the peak hours are addressed in this evaluation.
The AM peak hour shows little variation with respect to seasonality. At
+a Coast Highway between Superior and Prospect, non-summer traffic volumes peak
in the morning during the hour between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m., with a total
two-way volume of approximately 3,200 vehicles per hour (vph). At this time,
the summer hourly traffic volume is approximately 2,600 vph. The summer
morning peak occurs one hour later, however the summer AM peak hour volume is
also approximately 3,200 vph. At Coast Highway between Orange and the Santa
Ana River, the summer AM peak hour also occurs one hour later than the non-
summer period. However, the non-summer AM peak hour traffic volume is
slightly greater than the summer AM peak hour traffic volume. Therefore, AM
peak hour traffic volumes do not exhibit great variations with respect to
W season.
Seasonal differences do develop during the PM peak hour. At Coast
Highway between Superior and Prospect, the PM peak hour occurs during 5:00
Seasonal Traffic Volume Variations
Selected Locations on Pacific Coast Highway lsa
Coast Highway Coast Highway
Between Superior and Prospect Between Orange and Santa Ana River
4.500 4.500
4.000 4,000
3.500 3,500
3,000 3.000
w
g S �
2.500 ; 0 2.500 i
0 >
i
a 2,000 s. �; LL 2.000
r 1.500 -y F 1.500 ,
I
1.000
?� 1.000
500 500
0 _ O
12-1 AM 3-4 6-7 9-10 12-1 PM 3-4 6-7 9-10 12-1 AM 3-4 6-7 9-10 12-1 PM 3-4 6-7 9-10
TIME TIME
_Non-Summer 110/2 018 6 1 Summer(6121186) Non-Summer(10/7166) Summer (8/19186)
Notes:
1. Total daily traffic on Coast Highway between Orange and the Santa
Ana River is 39,800 trips during the non summer period and 51,100
trips during the summer period.
2. Total daily traffic on Coast Highway between Superior and Prospect
is 45,000 trips during the non summer period and 53,800 trips
during the summer period.
3. Daily traffic (24 hour total) is 20% to 28% greater in summer.
4. Afternoon peak hour is 4% to 9% greater in summer.
W
1..
Lsa
p.m. and 6:00 p.m. for both non-summer and summer periods. The summer PM
peak hour is approximately nine percent greater than the non-summer PM peak
hour at this location. At Coast Highway between Orange and the Santa Ana
River, the summer PM peak hour occurs between 4:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. and is
approximately four percent greater than the non-summer PM peak hour, occur-
ring one hour later.
It is evident that more significant seasonal variations do exist in
daily traffic volumes. The volumes illustrated in Figure I indicate that the
total daily traffic can be 20% to 28% greater in the summer months. However,
the vast majority of this increase in traffic volume occurs outside of the
w
peak hours, not aggravating the most congested periods.
The congestion effects of an increase in traffic volumes due to seasonal
variations have been tested at the intersections studied as part of the
L4 Waterfront traffic analysis. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analy-
sis was conducted for the Phase I and Master Plan buildout conditions, assum-
ing both a four percent and a nine percent increase in PM peak hour traffic
volumes. No increase in AM peak hour volumes was made, as the data does not
support an increase.
All existing, 199I Background and Master Plan PM peak hour traffic
volumes were increased by four percent and nine percent. These increases
were conducted for both the destination resort hotel trip generation con-
dition and the ITE hotel trip generation condition. The results of this
L analysis are presented in Tables A and B for the destination resort hotel and
ITE hotel trip generation conditions, respectively.
Based on the data supplied in Figure 1, the results of the ICU analysis
and our professional experience, certain conclusions and observations can be
made with respect to seasonal variations in daily and peak hour traffic
volumes.
• Although daily traffic volumes can increase by 20% to 28% in the
summer months, the AM and PM peak hours are only slightly affected.
ar The AM peak hour shows negligible variation, while the PM peak hour
exhibits a four percent to nine percent increase during the summer
months. The actual majority of the seasonal variation occurs out-
side of the peak hours during the period between 10:00 a.m. and
4:00 p.m. This increase is reflective of recreational beach traf-
fic, comprised primarily of non-resident visitors.
• With the increase in PM peak hour ambient traffic of four percent
and nine percent, the maximum ICU volume to capacity ratio increase
to any intersection is 0.06, less than the equivalent of a level of
Table A
Intersection Capacity Utilization
Sensitivity Test Summary Sheet
.....................................................................................................
11DN-SUMMER I 5W..HER 4% P.M. I SUMMER 9% P.M. ]
I [ P.M. PEAK HOUR IPEAK HO1;R INCREASEIPEAK HOUR INCREASE[
[ INTERSECTION [ ICU I LOS I ICU I LOS I ICU I LOS [
...................................................................................................1
]HUNTIRVON AVENUECHIS)realST HIGHWAY(E/W) I I I I I I I
BACKGROUND 1991 f 0.41 I A I 0.45 I A I 0.50 ] A I
] BACKGROUND 1991 + PHASE 1 PROJECT I D.S1 I A I 0.52 I A I 0.54 I A I
I MASTER PLAN BUILDOUT [ 0.6: I B I 0.64 [ 8 I 0.67 I B I
[ MASTER PLAN BUILDOUT+PROJECT [ 0.67 [ 8 [ 0.69 [ 8 I 0.71 I C I
1-...................*...v.....I..................................................................
(BEACH BOULEVARD(N/S)/COAST HIGHUAY(E M I I I I I I I
I BACKGROUND 1991 I 0.58 [ A ] 0.59 ] A I 0.62 i 8 ]
] BACKGROUND 1991 + PHASE 1 PROJECT ] 0.59 I A I 0.61 ] B [ 0.63 ] 8 [
I MASTER PLAN BUILDOUT [ 0.64 [ B ] 0.66 I 8 [ 0.69 [ B [
[ MASTER PLAN BUILDOUT+PROJECT ] 0.66 [ 8 I 0.68 I 8 I 0.71 I C [
...................................................................................................I
ILAKE STREET(%/S)ICOAST HIGHWAY(E/W) I I ' I I I I I
I MUSTER PLAN BUILDCUT I 0.81 I D ] 0.84 I D I 0.57 [ 0 I
I MASTER PLAN BUILDOUT+PROJECT ] O.B6 ] D I 0.89 ] a ] 0.92 ] E ]
[........................................................................................I..........1
ISIXTH/MAIN STREET(%/S)/COAST HIGHWAY(E/W) I I I I I I I
I MASTER PLAN BUILDOUT [ 0.61 ( B I 0.63 I 8 I 0.66 I B I
I MUSTER PLAN BUILDOUT+PROJECT I 0.64 ( 8 I 0." I 8 I 0.68 I B I
y� .....................................................................................................
NOTE: ASSUMES AUSTIN-FOUST ASSOCIATES, DESTINATIOW RESORT HOTEL TRIP GENERATION RATES FOR
THE PROPOSED WATERFRONT PROJECT.
1.:
lr.
Ire
Table 8
Intersection Capacity Utilization
Sensitivity Test Summary Sheet
E '
V
E .....................................................................................................
w.. I I H0H-S''"ER I SWER 4% P.M. I SLW84ER 9% P.M. I
I I P.K. PEAK HOUR {PEAK HOUR INCREASEIPEAK HOUR INCREASEI
I INTERSECTION I ICU { LOS { ICU ] LOS I ICU I LCS I
IHUNTIN.-TON AVENUE(N/S)/COAST HIGHI:AY(E/W) I I ] ] ] ] ]
I BACKGROUND 1991 I 0.47 [ A I 0.48 I A ] 0.50 [ A I
[ BACKGROUND 1991 • PHASE 1 PROJECT I 0.52 ( A ] 0.54 ] A ] 0.56 [ A I
MASTER PLAN BUILDOUT I 0.62 [ B I 0.64 I B I 0.67 [ 8 I
I MASTER PLAN BUILDOUTfPROJECT I 0.60 { B I 0.71 I C I O.T3 { C I
----•-•-•-----•---------------------------------------------------••-------------------------------
1.+ ISEACIi BOULEYARO(N/3)1CCAST H1CRUAY(E/W) I I i I I I i
I BACKGROUND 1991 I 0.53 I A I 0.59 I A I 0.62 , B I
I BACKGROUND 1991 + PHASE T PROJECT I 0.59 [ A I OAT I B I 0.63 I B ]
I MASTER PLAN BUILDOUT I 0.64 [ B I 0.66 I B I 0.69 I 8
I MASTER PLAN BUILDOUT0ROJECT { 0.67 [ B I 0.69 I 8 I 0.71 I C
...................................................................................................
{
ILAKE STREET(N/S)/COAST HIGHWAY(E/W) I I I I I I I
MST1:R pLAN BultawT I O.a1 I a I o.0 I D I 0.v I a
MASTER PLAN SUILDOUT+PROJECT 0.87 I D 0.90 D 0.93 I E I
[...........-------....._................................................,_....._._._,._............
ISIXTH/MAIN STREET(N/S)/COAST HICHWAYCE/W) I I I I I I [
{ MASTER PLAN SUILCOUT ] 0.61 B I 0.63 I B I 0.66 [ 8
I MASTER PLAN 8UILDOUTtPROJECT [ 0." I 8 { 0.66 ( 8 { 0.69 I B I
.....................................•..........................................:....................
NOTE: ASSURES ITE TRIP GENERATION MANUAL, 3RD EDITICN HOTEL TRIP CENERATION RATES FOR
FOR THE PROPOSED WATERFRONT PROJECT.,
11.
I�
i.J
1~
W
W
i
Lsa
Lr
service change (level of service change - 0.10) .
E
L With the increase of four percent and nine percent to the AM peak
hour traffic volumes, one intersection, Coast Highway/Lake Street,
could require mitigation measures. However, as indicated previous-
ly, the City policies and transportation engineering industry
standards indicate that traffic impact assessments consider the
annual average peak hour traffic conditions. To provide mitiga-
tions for conditions that occur during only summer months may be
economically prohibitive and could only serve to encourage more use
by non-resident recreational visitors.
It is not practical , nor is it accepted practice within the in-
dustry, to focus analysis and design standards on recreational peak
4 summer traffic conditions. The focus of the traffic analysis is on
W that time period that affects the most number of City residents at
the most important time period of their vehicular use, which is the
weekday AM and PM peak hours.
W AP/sn(RMC701)
4
41
Fr
r
L
I '
r
EXHIBIT 0
LW
�r
6t
i
lua
A
f
L
1Y.r
t
6r
L
i
60
IMPACT OF CONVERSION REPORT
DRIFTWOOD BEACH CLUB MOBILEHOME PARK
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA
FEBRUARY 15, 1988
+r- Prepared by:
RLM Properties, Ltd.
t
W
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This is an Impact of Conversion Report submitted by RLM Properties, Ltd. The
subject of this report is the Driftwood Beach Club Mobilehome Park located on
F : Pacific Coast Highway west of Beach Boulevard in the City of Huntington Beach.
The City of Huntington Beach adopted in 1982 a mobile home park conversion
ordinance, Article 927 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, to govern the
change of use of mobile home parks within the City. As stated in the introduction
to the Article:"The purpose of the mobilehome park zone is to establish a means of
providing a reasonable and proper transition from the present mobilehome park
use to the uses permitted in the underlying zoning district." The uses permitted in
the underlying zoning districts at the subject property are permanently attached
High Density Residential and Commercial/Recreation.
6d This Impact of Conversion Report is prepared pursuant to Article 927 and fullfills
all the requirements of the ordinance.
1
This Impact of Conversion Report sets forth the following:
W HISTORY OF THE PARK:
A detailed chronological history of the park and the significant public
regulatory actions affecting the property to date.
REASONS FOR PROPOSED CHANGE:
* Changing demographic trends together with an irreversibly aging housing
stock leading to a rapid decline in the quality of housing at the site and a
severe urban planning dilemma in the future.
* An aged park utility infrastructure in need of reconstruction. The cost to
park tenants of the reconstruction would be substantial in terms of both
the temporary closure of the park and the future space rent increases
f necessary to recover the cost of reconstruction.
* The park's location within a flood plain, whereby federal and and
municipal regulations will in 1983 prevent the replacement of the aging
coaches in the park with newer coaches. Further,these same regulations
�.. make it economically infeasible to reconstruct the utility system.
a * The additional public safety concerns that exist due to the potential flood
and earthgake hazards at the park.
1
fiW
Iw.
* The park's non-conformance with existing planning standards.
4
The opportunity that exists to increase housing at the coast and improve
public access to coastal resources.
* The future need to extend Walnut Avenue through the site to serve the
traffic circulation demands of the downtown area.
r
~ CONVERSION IMPACT:
A comprehensive demographic sun-ey of the tenants and a summary of the
Red impacts of the conversion upon the tenants of the park as required by
Article 927.
1 '
IRV Further, an extensive survey of other mobile home parks within Orange
County and a detailed phasing plan that clearly demonstrates the feasibility
of the phased conversion of the paxk within the framework established by
W
Article 927 of the Huntington Beach Code.
I�.
REQUEST FOR ACTION
1 ' PJM Properties, Ltd. requests that the Planning Commission of the City
+� of Huntington Beach find that this Impact of Conversion Report is
adequate pursuant to Article 927 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance
Code.
r.+
LAW
M
i.1
{
A
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
IMPACT OF CONVERSION REPORT
V PAGE
1. INTRODUCTION
► A. Purpose of Impact of Conversion Report.....................................................1
►,. B. Conformance to Article 927.........................................................................1
C. Action Requested of the Planning Commission...........................................1
11. METHODOLOGY
A. Purpose of Questionnaire.............................................................................2
BResponse of Park Tenants................... .............2
+►� C. Demographic Profile -- LSA Associates, Inc...............................................3
D. Mobile Horne Park Survey--Talley and Assciates, Inc................................. 4
�+ 111. DESCRIPTION OF THE PARK
A. Location Map ...............................................................................................5
S. Aerial Photo................................................................................................6
wC. Site Photos...................................................................................................7
D. Site Plan.......................................................................................................8
' E. Description of the Mobile Home Park
1V. HISTORY OF THE PARK
A. Construction..............................................................................................10
B. The California Coastal Act--- 1976..........................................................10
C. Adoption of the HB General Plan---12f 1976............................................10
{ 1. Goals and Policies of the General Plan............................................... 11
............................
2. General Plan Designation for Property................................................ i l
D. Acquistion by RLM Properties--1/1978................................................. 11
E. Adoption of the Coastal Element for HB-8/1 980...................................12
F. Amendment to the Coastal Element of HB---8 f 1982................................12
G. City of HB Mobile Home Park Survey-1982...........................................12
H. Article 927-1211982 13
..............................................................................
I. Adoption of Main—Pier Project Area--11/1983 .....................................13
1. Permanent Underlying Zoning............................................................13
a) District#8: High Density Residential..........................................13
k� b) District#9: Commercial f Recreation............................................13
2. Temporary Overlay Zoning PH) ........................................................14
J. Master Plan of Circulation--6 f 1984.........................................................14
i -
E -
1�i
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cootl►utd)
Wr
PAU
l
#,. K Written Leases f Notifications---1/1985.....................................................14
1. Tenant Notification--1/1985............................................................14
f 2. Tenant Meeting--2 f 1985..................................................................15
a.. L. Certification of Local Coastal Plan by the State---3/1985......................„.15
M. Additional Disclosures to New Tenants After 5/1f1985.............................16
f 1. Execution of Same Leases..................................................................16
... 2. Detailed Disclosure Form...................................................................16
3. Notice of Non—Renewal of Lease........................................................16
4. Advice to Potential Lenders................................................................16
N. Notice of Intent to Convert &Questionnaire----3/1987.............................17
O. Relocation Coordinator Retained --5 f 19 f 87...........................................17
P. Tenant's Informational Meeting-6/1 987.............................
�• Q. Second Request for Questionnaire--6 j1987............................................ 17
R. Third and Final Request for Questionnaire---7/1987................................17
S. Random Telephone Survey----7j1987........................................................17
�+ T. Meeting of Representatives--8 j1987.......................................................18
U. Revised and Simplified Questionnaire--8/1987........................................18
V. Additional Meetings of Tenants & City Staff--9/1987 to present............18
V. REASONS FOR PROPOSED CHANGE
A. Declining Housing Quality.........................................................................19
1. Demographic Trends---Demands for Mainstream Housing...............19
2. Original Use--Transitional Housing................................................19
3. Physical Limitations--Aging Housing Stock ....................................20
a) Age of Coaches........................................................
b) Restrictions on Replacement of Coaches......................................20
e) Age of Infrastructure-- Restrictions on Replacement.................20
4. Economic Problems -- Rising Costs to Tenants............ ...................20
B. Condition do Life Expectancy of Infrastructure.............................................22 1. Pre—Title 18 Construction..................................................................22
2. Antiquated Building Codes..................................................................22
r" 3. Inadequate Design Capacity.................................................................22
4. Corrosivity of Site Soils........................................................................23
S. Uncompacted Fill Soil at Site...............................................................23
C. Costs & Displacement of Tenants to Upgrade Infrastructure......................23
D. Flood Plain Regulations..............................................................................24
1. Overview..............................................................................................24
2. Regulations.........................................................................................25
a) Anti—Flotation Anchor System .....................................................25
b) Floodproofing of Utilities.............................................................25
c) Restriction on Installing Any Mobile Homes After 9/30/98...........25
d) Reconstruction of Utility System Prevented....:.............................26
3. Conclusions---Flood Zone Regulations...............................................27
f
u
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
i
,,. E. Earthquake Safety.. ....................................................................................27
F. Non—Conforming Use................................................................................27
G. Opportunity to Increase Housing in the Coastal Zone.................................28
H. Public Access to Coastal Resources............................................................28
i. Extension of Walnut Avenue.......................................................................28
J. Summary of Reasons for Proposed CF.ange................................................29
VI. CONVERSION IMPACT
A. Tenant Profile............................................................................................30
w�. 1. Age of Tenants....................................................................................30
2. Household Size...................................................................................31
1 ; 3. Length of Residency............................................................................32
w. 4. Tenant Profile .....................................................................................33
5. Occupancy Status ................................................................................33
6. Reported Household Gross Income...............
�+ 7. Health Status.......................................................................................35
B. Mobile Home Profile..................................................................................36
1. Age of Coaches...................................................................................36
2. Type of Coaches..................................................................................37
3. Living Area of Coaches... ...................................................................38
C. Space Availability in a 50 Mile Radius..........................................................39
I. Compilation of Mobile Home Parks --30 Mile Radius.......................39
2. Talley Surrey of Orange County Mobile Home Parks......„...................39
3. Projected Space Availability do Coach Acceptance Criteria....................39
4. Phasing of Conversion........................................................................ 40
S. 50 Mile Radius Map............................................................................41
1 6. New Relocation Park............................................................................42
7. Outside 50 Miles -- Other Opportunities........................:................... _ 42
D. Overview of Alternative Housing Markets....................................................42
1. Introduction.........................................................................................42
2. Rentals................................................................................................42
3. For—Sale Housing --Affordable Units...............................................43
4. On—Site Housing Planned to be Developed..............
5. Senior Citizen Housing........................................................................43
6. Redevelopment Agency Relocation Assistance Program......................43
Phasing Pan..............................................................................................
44
1. Introduction........................................................................................44
2. Engineer's Plans.................................................................................44
3. Estimated Phasing of Conversion........................................................45
4. Six Month Advance Written Notice ...45
...................................................
w
L
W
NOT A PART:
I
\ � I
I
\ � I
I
\ APPRO M H OVERLAY
\ EM
CEeCO iPTIRIT LAYAILABLE `\ I
�\ \ NOT APART �
\ \ I
` \ I
` \ I
\ \
\ I
NOT APART \\\ ,�`\
M H OVEMLAT I
\ \\\ \\ DESO IPETX10ANC T AYAFOILALA BLE I
I
\ I
\ \ I
\ \\ I d
\ , I
1¢c AREA I
\ _ NOT A PART!
\ APPOOX.M H AVAILABLE
\
ZOW-MCI LEGAL I DEBn 01 AVAIIPT1LABB LE
I
I
I
I
SITE PLAN _ I
11
I
Driftwood Beach Club Hobllehome Park
21462 Pacific Coast Hl gheay
Huntington Beach. Ca. 92640 �� f
OWNER: a
I
RLM Properties. LTD_
C/O The Robert Mayor Corp. b , .660 Newport Center Dr. Suite 1060
Boa art , \��
No art Beach. Co. 9265E-8680 \
I
I
I
I
Existing Underground
Petroleum Pipeline
�\ 1
(Gulf Oil Corporation) ,
"4
17
94
F
9
1
• �O1fiA,
e
i M
_ _. . .. . Gees _
�1. ! CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION
+" From
To Mike Adams Bill Patap ofi
6" Subject Tentative Tract 13045 pate February 18, 1988
"Waterfront"
The Public Works Department has the following requirements and concerns regarding
r.r Tentative Tract 13045; ,
1. Walnut Avenue shall be Constructed to full width including the median
Improvements from Huntington Street to the tract's southeasterly boundary.
iuntington Street shall be constructed to Public Works standards.
ne developer shall design and construct the connection between Huntington Street
- Walnut Avenue and the existing Huntington Street alignment.
16. 4. The access to the Harbors and Beaches' service road shall be Maintained with an
approved connection from Walnut Avenue.
1
L 5. The developer shall Install the required traffic signal conduit at the intersection of
Walnut and Huntington.
' S. On-street parking shall be prohibited on all public streets surrounding the project.
7. Additional right-of-way shall be dedicated on P.C.H. southeast of Huntington
Street to accommodate a right turn lane to be constructed by the developer in
., conjunction with this tract.
S. The traffic signal at P.C.H. and Huntington Street shall be relocated per City and
CalTrans standards.
9: All P.C.H. improvements shall meet CalTrans criteria.
10. The right-of-way radius at Walnut Avenuc and Huntington Street p 32'.
11. The on-site sewer system shall be private.
l2. The connection to either the 24" or 54" O.C.S.D. trunks in P.C.H. or the beach
perking lot, respectively shall be approved by the O.C.S.D.
�aw���OrtiC,;
13. An underground drainage system from Tract 9580 to the west side of
Walnut/Huntington shall r ' constructed per Public Works standards. ' �
- 14. In order to properly size `-"a drainage system for the entire Waterfront
development project, a hydrology/hydraulic analysis shall be aleted for the
tributary area to the Atlanta storm drain pump station. if : medial measures
to either the existing drainage system or pump station are d.- ed necessary, they
shall be completed at the appropriate phase of the project.
Memo to Mike Adams
Tract 13045
February 18, 1988
Page 2
60 15. Off-site water mains shall be constructed from Olive Avenue/3rd Street to the
project site. if Walnut Avenue is constructed from Lake Street to Huntington
Street in conjunction with this tract, an 18" main is necessary In Walnut Avenue
and 12" mains in P.C.H., Lake and Huntington. Otherwise, an 18" main shall be
constructed in a Olive/3rd/Lake/P.C.H., and 12" mains in Huntington Street
(P.C.H. to Walnut) and Walnut Avenue (Huntington Street to the southeasterly
tract boundary).
16. On-site water facilities shall be located In vehicular travel ways and dedicated to
the city.
17. Landscaping (Including public R/W) shall be installed per the downtown guidelines
and maintained by the developer/hotel operator.
r.,
18. Grading plan end soils report shall be submitted to and approved by the Public
Works Department.
19. Vehicular access rights to all streets surrounding the tract shall be dedicated to the
city except at approved driveway locations.
1•+ WAP:lw
cc: Les Evans
1
�r
h
�a
64
I .
6
L
4
I '
�i
Lsa
1
EXHIBIT G
i�
I..
r
L
L
b-0 ' s
4
SUPPLEMENTAL WADER. -WASTEWATER ANO
pRAINAGE REPQRT_ADDENDUM TO SECTION 4.9
PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
Existing Setting
r..
The project site currently drains in a northeasterly direction away from
Pacific Coast Highway and toward the north. The existing golf course, cen-
tered amongst the mobile home park, is the lowest area on the property and
therefore acts as a percolating area for trapped run-off. Secondary run-off
is accomplished to the north by an existing 60 inch RCP (Reinforced Concrete
Pipe), stubbed at the project. An existing collection channel parallels the
northern project boundary and intercepts a majority of the run-off and con-
veys it to the 60 inch pipe. Huntington Street and other areas immediately
adjacent to the project area also drain into this channel . Existing 48 and
54 inch RCP parallel the northern project boundary. In addition, an existing
30 inch RCP parallels the project area at Beach Blvd.
Outside of the project area, a larger drainage basin is also tributary
to the 60 inch RCP and interceptor channel . The boundaries of the drainage
basin are roughly Pacific Coast Highway on the west, Lake Street and Atlanta
Avenue on the north, and Beach Boulevard on the east and south. The existing
60 inch RCP delivers the runoff from this drainage basin northerly to a City
maintained Atlanta pump station, which in turn delivers the runoff to the
Orange County Flood Control District Channel DOI, which is ultimately deli-
vered to the Santa Ana River.
Effegts of—Implementation of Project
Implementation of the project will require the installation of an
improved underground storm drain system. This system would convey all the
runoff from the project area to the existing 60 inch RCP located at the
northern boundary of the project area.
Improvements to the system would include the installation of a 54 inch
L line from the intersection of Walnut Avenue and Huntington Street. This is a
low point in the project area that intercepts water fron the west (Huntington
Beach Land Company property) and northeast- (mobile home park) . From the
intersection of Walnut Avenue and Huntington Street, a 54-inch line would run
• along the northern project boundary to the existing 54-inch storm drain. Two
other storm drains need to be constructed from walnut Avenue, northerly, to
the 48-inch line along the northerly property line of the site, one of which
ka would start at the Walnut Avenue intersection with the interceptor road mid-
site and travels through the future residential property and the second storm
drain would pick up water at Walnut Avenue and Beach Boulevard. The existing
L
w. Lsd
r..
RCP and 54" RCP storm. drains along the north property line appear to be
adequately sized to intercept tributary run-off. The storm drains would
L confluence with the existing 60" RCP storm drain. The 60" RCP, however, may
not be able to carry the increased flow, due to zoning and hydrology criteria
changes (See Appendix F, Infrastructure Study, Dec. 1987) .
6"
The total amount of runoff delivered to the pipe will exceed that which
reaches it Currently and, therefore, will affect the other areas within the
L drainage basin by reducing the capacity of this pipe available to serve those
area. Further studies are needed to determine the maximum capacity of the
existing storm drain system and the Atlanta pump station.
A hydrology study, prepared for the Waterfront project by Fuscoe,
Williams, Lindgren and Short, in November, 1987, utilized 25-year event flows
to the existing 60 inch RCP and assumed that all flows above that level would
+� travel overland. The 25-year analysis also assumed ultimate development of
all the drainage basin properties. This study shows a 25-year capacity of
116 cfs in the pipe and ultimate developed flows from the entire drainage
basin of approximately 190 cfs.
Phase I of the project will install a portion of the ultimate project
storm drain system. It will include pickups at Huntington Street and Walnut
Avenue plus a 54 inch RCP pipe along the existing collection channel and 54
inch stub-out. The existing 60 inch RCP will be the primary storm drain
utilized for run-off in the project area. The current channel is undersized
L. and inadequate both for existing flood flows, as is the . Phase I run-off
(Appendix F, letter of February 19, 1987).
A 12 inch sewer line on Walnut Avenue and a 15 inch line at the mid-site
connector road across from PCH would need to be constructed for the project.
These lines would deliver to the existing 54 inch (OCSD) coast trunk sewer.
L This would be a gravity sewer for all the commercial development between PCH
and Walnut Avenue.
The residential area will need a private sewer connection facility with
L a pump station pumping into the city sewer in Walnut Avenue. This sewer pump
station would be required due to the low elevations of the existing site.
L The following mitigation measures are required by the City of Huntington
Beach Public Works Department:
The on-site sewer system shall be private:
W
II
I.r -
L.. Lsd
The connection to either the 24 inch or 54 inch O.C.S.D. trunks in
P.C.H. or the beach parking lot, respectively shall be approved by the
L 0.C.S.D.
An underground drainage system from Tract 9580 (residential area) to the
�•• west side of walnut/Huntington shall be constructed per Public Works
standards to Atlantic and Bear.
In order to properly size the drainage system for the entire Waterfront
development project, a hydrology/hydraulic analysis shall be completed
for the tributary area to the Atlanta storm drain pump station. If any
remedial measures to either the existing drainage system or pump station
are deemed necessary, they shall be completed at the appropriate prase
of the project.
LA
L,
i1
Y!
Lr
Li
L
t
L
r
I�r
160
Lsa�.�
w..
XHIBIT H
bd
,bw
u
Ld
60
t
E
i.�
It =
L Lsa
L
, . SUPPLEMENTAL DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATE SITE CONSIDERED AND REDUCED SCALE/
L REDUCED DENSITY [ALTERNATIVE #4} SECTION 6.0
Introduction
E
�• Consistent with CEQA and recent California Court Decisions (Goleta and
Mount Shasta), the discussion included in the SEIR is hereby amended to in-
clude additional information and consideration of alternate sites and reduced
scale Alternative #4. This discussion is being provided to ensure that the
public and decision makers have before them a complete analysis of all al-
ternatives, including alternate sites. Because there are no alternate sites
available within the City of Huntington Beach which attain the objectives of
the project, there is no comparative analysis among sites. The discussion
below is limited to an explanation of the consideration given to alternate
sites (which might have met project objectives), and the survey done by City
a. Planning Department staff which attempted to locate an alternate site. In
addtion, the discussion of Alternative 04 is expanded to include a fiscal
impact analysis which documents the reduced revenues to the City which would
result from a reduced project.
Alternate Sites Survey
'w Early in the SEIR process, alternate sites were discussed among staff
and the SEIR consultants (LSA) . At that time, no alternate sites could be
` found, and none were discussed in the SEIR. This supplemental information is
i" being provided to document further attempts by City staff to. locate alternate
sites. The City Planning Department performed a methodical survey of poten-
tial sites in late March and early April of 1988 which would attain the basic
i" objectives of the project in response to comments received during the public
review of the Draft SEIR, and in response to two recent court decisions
L expanding the scope of alternatives analysis.
The conclusion of the staff survey (Teleconference, Catherine O'Hara,
April 14, 1988) indicates that there is no site within the City which attains
Lthe following project objectives:
. Coastal access for a similar amount of visitors and community
members, consistent with the Local Coastal Program.
L - Destination oriented site which would have the site amenities
f necessary to attract resort visitors and recreation facility users.
• Consolidated property ownership or control of a large enough parcel
to master plan a resort-oriented hotel complex.
`f
1M '
I
�rr
Lsa
T _
1 Provide economic benefits to the City's General Fund and tax incre-
L ment to the Redevelopment Agency similar to projected revenues for
the project.
• Eliminate blight in the Downtown Specific ' Plan area, and better
utilize currently under utilized sites consistent with the goals of
redevelopment for the downtown area.
Ito Provide the opportunities for a net addition of 656 dwelling units
within the coastal zone.
i Possible sites along Huntington Beach's coast frontage were studied in
this survey. The Pacific Coast Highway area between Huntington Street and
Main Street was examined for a possible site. However, there were no sites
r which would be large enough for the proposed project. In addition, signifi-
cant land use conflicts would be present, considering the scale of adjacent
land uses, sites in this area would nct benefit from the mitigating site
design components (separation of uses by proposed Walnut Avenue on the pro-
ject site, combined with other design features further iterated in the Land
Use Section of the SEIR) afforded by the Master Plan approach at the subject
site. Additionally, site amenities would be substantially changed should the
site locate closer to the downtown area which has a number of poorly main-
tained urban type uses, which would be detrimental to the resort atmosphere
at the subject site.
i
6r The physical site constraints and ownership patterns limiting the size
of available sites would substantially affect the opportunity to master plan
a resort/destination oriented facility. Other constraints, including the
need to consolidate properties, relocation of many .individual businesses and
residences, and potentially protracted condemnation, would add additional
� . fiscal restraints to the physical constraints outlined above.
q
The site contains a master planned residential community providing for a
maximum of 894 new dwelling units. This would provide a net increase of 656
dwelling units (considering the displacement of existing mobile home park
units numbering 258 units) within the Coastal Zone. Similar site size,
locational and physical constraints, as described above for the hotel/com-
mercial complex, would affect the residential component.
In addition to the site considerations above, the opportunity to extend
planned Walnut Avenue through the property would not occur, not attaining a
major objective for the City in completing the planned arterial network of
the City's General Plan.
For the reasons stated above, an alternate site was not identified.
I
L
Lsa
I�.
REDUCED SCOPUREDUCED DENSITY ;-REDUCTION IN NET REVENUES TO,THE CITY
This analysis is provided to quantify the reduction in net revenues
accruing to the City using the reduced scope alternative (Alternative #4
discussed in the Alternatives Section of the Draft SEIR (Section 6.0). This
.• lower density Alternative would have some limited impact reductions in views
and aesthetics, air quality and energy consumption. However, the reduced
effects that would be gained by reducing the scale and density of the project
j are offset by reduced public benefits including: increased housing opportun-
ities, increased visitor access to the coastal area, attainment of redevel-
opment objectives and substantial revenues to the City. Because the revenues
produced by the project are a key objective of the City, it is appropriate to
include in the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) an estimate of
the fiscal impact of the reduced scale/reduced density Alternative #4) that
was discussed in the report. The following projections have been proposed
based on the methodology and assumptions used in the fiscal impact analysis
by Laventhol & Horwath (please see Exhibit L of this Addendum) that was the
source of the projection used in the fiscal impact analysis report in Section
4.10 page 117 of the Draft SEIR. Following the methodology of this prior
analysis allows a meaningful comparison between the two alternatives.
' For this reduced scale/reduced density alternative (Alternative #4,
Section 6.0, p. 129), the following assumptions are used:
• A four story 150 room all suite hotel with surface parking
I�r • A two story 125 room motel with surface parking
• A two story 100 room motel with a restaurant and surface parking
+ 180 two story apartments
ire 60 single family homes
• Walnut Avenue per City's General Plan.
f Revenue and value projections for the hotel rooms is reduced propor-
tionately by the fewer number of rooms and an estimated 33% reduction in room
revenue due to the lack of additional public facilities (meeting rooms,
' restaurants, lounges, etc.) characteristic of the first class and above
�,. hotels assumed in the original Laventhol & Horwath projections. Revenue and
value projects for the multifamily units are reduced proportionately for the
fewer number of units, while revenue and value assumptions for the single
family homes were assumed at triple that of the multifamily units on a per
unit basis.
The fiscal impact is estimated as follows and is summarized on the page
�l thereafter in the same format as used in the SEIR.
6W
1.r
1
Lsa
SEDUCED SCALE/REDUCED DENSITY
ONE-TIME IMPACT FEES
Fee/Assessment Amount
School District Fee S 302,000
Downtown Specific Plan 43,000
Park Development Fee 354,000
Community Enrichment Fee 172,000
Water 33,000
Sewer 72,000
Drainage 329,000
Sanitation District 833,000
1 Plan Check 80,000
Building Permit 123,000
Miscellaneous 11000
Total One-time Impact Fees $1,908,000
ON-GOING REVENUES
+ Fee/Assessment Amount
Property Tax - Existing $ 150,000
Property Tax - Incremental* 13,580,000
Sales Tax Revenue 1,826,000
f Utility Tax 1,782,000
Business license Fels 33,000
Hotel Occupancy Tax 10,443,000
Total On-going Revenues $27,814_,000
ON-GOING EXPENDITURES
On-going General Fund 56,449.000
Expenditures
f
SAND PAYMENTS
Total Land Payments $6,358,000
Property Tax-Incremental and Hotel Occupancy Tax 'figures are net of
projected developer reimbursements negotiated with the City.
I
F '
�..
Lsa
6*
It should be noted that such an analysis does not explicitly calculate
that cost of the relocation assistance to be provided to residents of the
mobile home park on the site. This cost, when considered in light of the
lower net fiscal benefit of this reduced scale/reduced density alternative,
will have a sizeable effect upon the net benefit of this alternative to the
City.
t
too
L.r
t`
�v
I
ir
it
I
iW
Lsa
t
SUMMARY FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS ALTERNATIVE 4
Assures:
• A four story 150 room all-suite hotel with surface parking
• A two story 125 room motel with surface parking
• A two story 100 room motel with a restaurant and surface parking
4W 180 two story apartments
• 60 single family homes
• Walnut Avenue per City's General Plan
REDUCED SCALE/REDUCED DENSITY
(From page
OA& Reduced Proposed 119 of Final
One-Time Impact Fees _Scale/Density -Project SEIR)
a
School District Fee S 302,000 S 1,508,000
Downtown Specific Plan Fe 43,000 43,000
Park Development Fee 354,000 1,159,000
Community Enrichment Fee 172,000 172,000
Water Connection Fees 33,000 142,000
Sewer Connection Fees 72,000 307,000
Sanitation District Connection Fees 833,000 3,515,000
•� Drainage Assessment 329,000 3299000
Plan Check Fees 80,000 508,000
Building Permit Fees 123,000 782,000
Miscellaneous 1 ,000 4,000
Total $ 1,908,000 $ 8,469,000
Lob
r
I
11.r
1.r
I
!..
Lsa
Reduced Proposed
25 Year Total Impacts ScalejDensi Project
One Time Impact Fees: $ 1,908,000 $ 8,469,000
Ongoing Net Revenue:
� . (Property Tax, Transient Occupancy Tax,
Sales Tax and other Misc. revenue,
net of developer reimbursements) 27,814,000 130,531,000
Ongoing General Fund Expenditures:
(Added Police, Fire, Public Works,
Administration and other mist.) (6.449,0001 I17,177,0091
�. Total Net Fiscal Impact Over 25 Years: $ 23,273,000 121,823,000
Land Payments (to City of Huntington Beach) 6,358,000 22,799,000
Total Net Revenue to the City 28,496,000 138,82I,000
TOTAL NET REVENUE TO ALL JURISDICTIONS S 0.065.000 S 144,622,000
I
I
1
P '
Lsa
n i
7 R
Y
1
1
W
T
� L
F
W
STATE Of CAUFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN. GO.vrno,
( DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
a45 W. Broadway, Suite 350 RECEIVED
long Beach, CA 90802-4467 BY L.S.A., INC.
f $213) 590-5113
APR 25 1988
PM
' April 21, 1988
L
I Robert W. Balen, Associate
LSA
1 Park Plaza, Suite 500
Irvine, CA 92714
Dear Mr. Balen:
1
' The Department of Fish and Game (Department) has reviewed your
March 28, 1988 letter regarding the wetland on the Waterfront
Project site. If agreeable with other resource agencies (U.S.
11.r Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Arny Corps of Engineers, and
Coastal Commission) the Department would accept 0.8 acres of
wetland as the final figure for mitigation.
We recommend that a hydrological analysis of runoff from the
subject property to the wetland on the east side of Beach
Boulevard be completed. This was stated in paragraph 4 of our
► original comments and remains our Fosition.
Finally, we maintain that the wetland mitigation site (with
appropriate buffer zone ) should be created and functioning prior
to or concurrent with any alteration within the project site.
This is necessary to avoid a piecemeal approach on projects
involving scattered wetland parcels.
We remain available to work with our staff and the resource
agencies to identify the most appropriate and feasible off-site
�4 wetland mitigation area. Please call Ms. Esther Burkett, Wildlife
Biologist, at ( 714) 537-0606 if you have any questions.
+� Sincerely,
Fred kJorthley
Regional Manager
Region 5
1.r
cc: E. Burkett
J. Fancher, USFWS
�.► W. Woodruff , CC -
P. Zander, Vail Speck Taylor, Inc.
1r
;rr
UailSpeck Taylor.Inc.
60 Carnegie Centre
2530 Red Hill Avvnue
Santa Ana California 92705
(714)250-5533 April 26, 1988
Mr. Robert W. Balen
ISA
} 1 Park Plaza, Suite 500
Irvine, CA 92714
Subject: April 21, 1988 letter From the of Fish and Game
I
Dear Mr. Balen:
j We have received a copy of the letter from the Department of Fish azxi G&ne
responding to correspondence you sent to DEG rsquesttng clarification of
the 's positian on the degraded wetlands present on the site of
The Waterfront project in Huntingt= Beach. Cn the evening of April 8,
JW 1988, I had an extensive cotversation with Esther Burkett, the DEG wildlife
biologist for the area, in which we discussed these points, and I wanted to
make sure one point in particular was understood clearly.
�•� We had discussed whether it was the intention of the Department to preclude
develc meat over the entire project site until the offsite wetlands
restoration was begun or whether it was the intention that the wetland
restoration site be created and functioning prior to or ---- rent with any Esther alteration of the existing degraded wetlands on the site. assured
re that the latter was the case and that those phases of development
planned which do not impact the wetlands site could proceed. "Alteration"
is a term used in Section 30233 of the Coastal Act referring to development
in wetlands identified by the Department of Fish and Game. Therefore, the
reference in the April 21 DEG letter ncculd not be misconstrued to mean
6 that no development at all can proceed on the entire progtct site until
restoration is begun.
I hope this assists you in preparing lour response to carments for the
final Supplemental EIR for nie Waterfront project. If you have any
questions in this regard, please call.
Sincerely,
LVail Speck Taylor, Inc.
1.. Peter F. Xander
Attad-ment
cc: Steve Bone, The Robert Mayer Corporation
1 Sean Milburn, The Pnbert Mayer Corporation
1«
A Land Use Services Company
Projeet Processft•Development PlanninS and Design•Natural Rewurce Management
. La
6o Lsa
6*
r `
>w
I •
�r
1..
i
1,r
�u
�d
i
t`
7M
i
Lsa
ADDITIONAL. NOISE ASSESSMENT AND REFINEMENT OF MITIGATION:
w
ADO MQUM.JkSECTION 4.7,_EUBEIC HEALTH AND SAFETY
Existing-Setting
+.. The setting for the project is described beginning on page 77 of the
SEIR, This description is expanded herein to better analyze the effects on
residences within the proposed project and the guest rooms of the hotel which
are treated as if they were residences for the purpose of impact analysis.
As shown in Table 6 (Page 78 of the SEIR), both the residential and
hotel uses would be within Noise Tone 1. These Noise guildelines for Zone I
uses are 60 dBA and 55 dBA, daytime and nighttime, respectively. These
guiideline are used to determine land use compatibility near noise producing
r sources.
m acts
i Construction related noise, noise emanating from parking structures, and
mechanical sweeper noise impacts and standards are discussed in the SEIR,
{ pages 79 through 81. The effects of roadway noise are described in the
original EIR produced for the Downtown Specific Plan (FEIR 82-2) noted that
noise exposure along PCH, Beach Boulevard, and other ground transportation
corridors exceeded the base levels considered acceptable for residential uses
(above 65 dBA - Noise Element of the City's General Plan).
u.
In order to more fully describe all aspects of noise effects on the
project, the following table has been included to show the effects of roadway
noise:
Distance from Centerline to Contour Value (ft.)*
L 65 dBA CNEL 6OdBA (CNEL)
Beach Boulevard '159 342
lei PCH 226 487
Walnut 82 176
*Based on cumulative traffic volumes and traffic speed.
. The following paragraphs and mitigation measures have been expanded from
those included on page 82 and 83 of the SEIR and FEIR 82-2 to address this
issue.
r
w+
1
w
Lsa
Without some type of barrier, the 60dBA CNEL Noise Value limits iden-
tified in the Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance and the 65 dBA CNEL Noise
Value limits (exterior) set by the City's General Plan would be exceeded at
adjacent residences (including hotel uses) along the perimeter of the high-
ways (Beach Boulevard, PCH) along walnut Avenue. As stated in the original
"'' EIR, any development within noise impacted corridors will be subjected to
unacceptable noise levels (pp. 37, 4384, 80-2). Mitigation factors which
would reduce these effects are as follows:
• The construction of the hotels and related structures along PCH
y will shield the proposed residences on-site from the effects of
roadway noise created by traffic on PCH.
- Proposed setbacks, berms, fences, and on-site buffering will sig-
nificantly reduce roadway noise contours values extending from the
centerline of the streets.
On-site placement of the residential buildings and other site
�.• improvements are only conceptual at this point in time (it is
required that a Conditional Use Permit be approved prior to con-
struction of this phase of the project) . Site design will take
into account the noise impacts described herein. Placement of
improvements and the extent of buffers required to reduce the
effects of roadway noise are a required design component for the
project, and furthermore, are required by the State of California
`' Uniform Building Code which mardates exterior noise levels of 65dBA
and interior noises levels of 45dBA.
The following noise mitigation measures (incorporated in this SEIR
82-2 by reference) required by EEIR 82-2 (p.37) include:
I) Development within noise impacted corridors can be shielded by
sound barrier walls and berms, by special construction materi-
als and techniques, and by eliminating building openings on
the sides which face toward the noise source.
2) Noise impacts from pumping units can be mitigated by replacing
' ball and plunger pumps with a less noisy type, or by con-
structing sound barriers either around the wells, or around
the development.
3) These mitigation measures can be applied to each development
as it is approved, so that specific localized problems can be
met without imposing overly restrictive conditions on all
• development within the Specific Plan area.
s
a. •
1
61
LSB
t '
Mitigation -Required by SU R 82-2
Attenuation of any noise in excess of City criteria (Noise Ordinance and
General Plan) shall be achieved through the following measures.
22. A six foot masonry shall be constructed adjacent to existing
and proposed residential properties along Walnut Avenue which
' will act as a noise barrier or other sound attenuating design
features subject to the approval of the Planning Director.
Ibw 23. A landscaped berm shall be constructed between the masonry
wall and the curb edge for noise attenuation.
24. Restrict sweeping operations within the parking structure to
daytime hours, between 7 a.m. and 8 p.m.
25. A textured parking surface, such as asphalt or textured con-
crete, shall be used in the parking structure to reduce tire
squeal .
26. Design of the parking structure shall incorporate one of he
following noise attenuation options:
a. Enclose the parking structure's sidewalls, and place a
masonry wall on the top level of the structure parallel
to the residential areas.
�+ b. Allow openings in the structure's sidewalls, and place a
masonry wall on the top level of the structure parallel
to the residential areas,
c. Or other sound attenuating design features, to the ap-
proval of the Planning Director.
27. Maintain a 130 foot separation between the residential and
parking structure uses for other sound attenuating design fea-
tures, to the approval of the Planning Director.
1
i
1
Lsd
a
l.r
1
6dditionai Mitigation -Added As A Refinement Of The Above Mitigation and FEIR
82-2 Mitigation
22A. A six foot masonry wall shall be constructed adjacent to
proposed residential properties along Beach Boulevard which
will act as a noise barrier, or other sound attenuating design
features shall be constructed subject to the approval of the
Planning Director.
228. An acoustical assessment shall be conducted prior to the
as issuance of building permits for the residential portion of
the project, documenting that the six foot sound walls are
adequate to reduce noise levels to 65dBA or less in private
outdoor living areas (i .e. patio areas) of residences only.
Additionally, the assessment shall identify the measures
necessary to insure that indoor noise levels will be 45dBA or
less, as required by the California !Noise Insulation Stan-
dards.
22C. An acoustical study shall be prepared prior to issuance of
6w building permits addressing the guest rooms in the hotel . The
study shall identify all measures necessary to reduce noise
levels in guest rooms to 45dBA or less per the California
Noise Insulation Standards.
LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE_8FTER.MIT GATION
There will be no significant impacts after all sound attenuating mitiga-
tion measures are implemented.
t
w Lsa
1
XHIEIT K
a
I �
•.r
W
6 .
6W
rr.+
CHANGES MADE TO DRAFT SEIR_82-2 AS-8 RESULT
"�- OF RESPONSE TO.COMMENTS
�., The following pages of Draft SEIR 82-2 have been changed to reflect
responses to comments received after circulation of the document.
I
W
1
�r '
�Yr
Irw
PAW
irw
PUBLIC REAM
_MD SAFETY (CONT'DI
w
POTUMAL ADVERSE IMPACTS MITIGATION MEASURES
L Certain project related activities Avenue which will act as a noise
and facilities, such as building barrier or other sound attenuating
construction, parking structures and design features subject to the
sweepers, will generate on-site noise approval of the Planning Director.
levels that would occasionally exceed
the Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance 22, A six foot masonry wall shall be
k (60 dBA noise limit) adjacent to constructed adjacent to existing
�•+ residences along Walnut Avenue. and proposed _residentials pro-
perties along Walnut Avenue which
1 will act as a_noise barrier or
iw other sound attenuating design
features,, subject to—the-approval
i
Qf—the-Planning Ditector.
22A.A six foot masonry wall shall be
constructed adjacent to_proposed
r §idential properties along
�•+ Beach Boulevard which will act
as a noise barrier, or other
sound attenuating design features
shall be constructed subject to
the approval of the Planning
Director.
2?B.As acoustical assessment shall
be conducted prior to the issuance
of building permits, for the
iw residential portion of the pro-
ject, documenting that the six
foot sound walls _are _adeguate to
reduce noise levels to 65dBA or
less in private_outdoor living
aregia o ar a
residences only,__ Additionally,
the assessment shall identify
,the mealures necessary to insure
that indoor noise levels will be
�. 45Dba or less, as reouired by
xiii
f
L..
!I
L
I,
L
L..
r the California Noise Insulation
Standards.
22C.An_acoultigal;Judy. �hal1 be
i.. r ar d rior o Is uance of
building permits addressing the
f quest_rooms i n jhe hotel . The
L, stud—shall _identify_all measures
necessary'_ to reduce not„ge lev_els
jn guest rooms to 45dBA or less.
per the California Noise Injul-
ation Standards.
23. A landscaped berm shall be con-
4.0 structed between the masonry
wall and the curb edge for noise
attenuation.
24. Restrict sweeping operations
within the parking structure to
daytime hours, between 7 a.m.
and 8 p.m.
25. A textured parking surface, such
as asphalt or textured concrete,
shall be used - in the parking
structure to reduce tire squeal .
26. Design of the parking structure
shall incorporate one of the
following noise attenuation op-
tions:
1 a. Enclose the parking struc-
ture's sidewall parallel to
the residential area.
b. Allow openings in the struc-
ture's sidewalls and place
a masonry wail on the top
level of the structure par-
allel to the residential
areas.
x i v
4
E
1
1
I
Computer Model distributed by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). The
results of. the analysis for the year 2000 are shown in Table 5 and in Appen-
dix J.
The emissions generated by the project were then compared to threshold
emissions criteria developed by the SCAQMD, in their April , 1987, version of
the Air Quality Handbook. This compariscn is illustrated on Table 6.
The comparative analysis shows that the project will significantly
exceed SCAQMD threshold criteria for carbon monoxide emissions and, to a
lesser degree, total organic gas and nitrogen oxide levels. SCAQMD has
r.+ established these criteria for determining thresholds of significance for air
quality impacts. These threshold levels are shown in Table 6. According to
SCAQMD guidelines, if the proposed project exceeds the threshold criteria,
mitigation measures should be proposed. The impacts associated with project
related traffic will be somewhat counter-balanced by future improvements in
auto emissions rates.
MMUT„ION MEASURES
Air quality impacts are projected to occur with the project. The hotel
*r complex proposed as a component of this project is designed as a destination
resort complex with most amenities within walking distance of the site. The
air quality impacts associated with visitor trips would be reduced with this
�. type of land use if a Transportation System Management (ISM) program is in-
stituted, especially during summer months. Also, many of the staff employed
by the hotels will utilize public transportation or bicycles, due to their
lack of private transportation.
In accordance with SCAQMD guidelines, the following measures are in-
cluded to mitigate both short-term and long-term air quality impacts.
12. Dust suppression measures, such as regular watering and early
paving of the road shall be implemented by the project proponent to
reduce emissions during construction and grading.
13. Parking structures will be ventilated, in conformance with the
Uniform Building Code standards, to reduce vehicle emission levels
within the facility.
14. A Transportation System Management (ISM) plan will be initiated and
�. will include the following components: .
• Provide bus services to regional activity centers within the County
for hotel visitors.
70
3
• Provide shuttle services to local activity centers including Main
�.. Street and the City and State beaches during the summer peak
period.
. Facilitate pedestrian access to beach amenities, , via at-grade
crosswalks and elevated crossings.
• Promote employee use of public transportation.
• Provide bus shelters, benches and bus pockets near the proposed
project.
LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
The project will generate emissions which exceed SCAQMD threshold cri-
teria. These emissions will provide an incremental increase to degradation
of future regional air quality and will not be individually noticeable in the
region. Imp emen,jation of mitigation measures will substantially r�sduce the
+« Impactsassociated with the„pro_ 1. however the nroi ct will_signi€icanfly
add to the degradation of air ouality, on a cumulative basis.
60
I..
6.
6*
73
Wa
�r.
5.
0 UNAVOIDABLE S HP C S
There are some environmental impacts which cannot be totally eliminated
through mitigation measures. The following list identifies significant
environmental effects that could occur as a result of the proposed develop-
ment.
• The project would result in additional people and structures being
subjected to potential geologic hazards, mainly as a result of
seismic occurrences. These hazards include groundshaking,
liquefaction and soil settlement.
Energy consumption in the area will increase as a result of higher
intensity development.
. The oroject would result in aesthetic and view impacts effecting
surrounding sites, including the public beach to the south of—the
project site, across Pacific_ oast Highway.
• Cummulative air quality impacts will occur based on the incremental
addition of pollutants to the reaion's air basin.
�r.
is
a�
1r.
Lsa
1r+
EXHIBIT L
The attached report is summarized in Section 4.10 of the SEIR.
�r.
f
i
+I
1�I
IMF
I
Laventhol &Horwath 650 Town Center Drive
Suite 1100
Certified Public Accountants Costa Mesa. CA 92626
(7I4) 55"244
Mr. Stephen Bone
Executive Director
The Robert Mayer Corporation
660 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1050
Newport Beach, California 92660
Re: The Waterfront Fiscal Impacts to the City of Huntington
Beach
k. Dear Mr. Bone:
As you know, the firm of Laventhol & Horwath ( "L&H" ) has
previously conducted the following studies:
1. "Survey of Operating Characteristics and Financial
Projections for a - 50-Acre Parcel of Property - Huntington
L Beach, California - March 1986. " This report utilized what
were considered to - be reasonable financial operating
assumptions to generate prospective financial information
L for the hotels, specialty retail center, health/fitness
center and apartments included in The Waterfront master
plan. As noted in said report, the prospective financial
information provided was based upon a survey of operations
and financial characteristics of similar land uses and not
upon a formal market study. Laventhol & Horwath' s
proprietary Real Estate Planning Model ( "REPMOD" ) was
utilized in this study.
2. "Fiscal Impact Analysis for a 50-Acre Parcel of Property,
L Huntington Beach, California, March, 1986. " This study
focused on a detailed analysis of the marginal and fixed
costs of - the fire, police and public works departments of
the City .of Huntington Beach and the estimated fiscal
revenues and costs of the proposed project on the City.
This study included interviews with the City department
heads and an analysis on a department by department basis of
i.a the current and projected fiscal operations.
Since the issuance of those reports, there have been several
L modifications to the project components making up the masterplan
for The Waterfront, as well as to the timing thereof. You have
requested L&H to update our REPMOD computer model to reflect such
L -changes. You have requested that we use the same modeling
assumptions contained in our previous reports described above
except as follows:
A member of Horwath&Horwath Intemalonal with affiliated offices worldwide.
1. With respect to the four hotel uses, you have provided us
with operating and development assumptions, which you
believe are reasonably characteristic of the type of hotel
products contemplated. L&H has reviewed these assumptions
based upon our knowledge of the current lodging industry.
We believe they are reasonably reflective of the operating
and development characteristics of similarly situated hotel
products.
W 2. The health club concept originally contemplated during our
initial reports is now defined as a multi-recreation club
with nine tennis courts. As such, we have modified the
L number of tennis and limited memberships to reflect this new
concept utilizing national health club average membership
statistics and local tennis club membership data. Health
club construction cost assumptions have also been revised to
reflect adjustments in architecture and engineering costs,
construction period interest and contractor's overhead and
profit.
L
3. The amount of retail square footage originally contemplated
has been downscaled in the current development plan.
4, Pursuant to your request, we have held the number of retail
improvement parking spaces at 450. Construction cost
assumptions have also been revised to reflect adjustments in
parking structure hard costs, architecture and engineering
costs, construction period interest and contractor's
overhead and profit.
�+ 4. Apartment construction cost assumptions have been modified
to reflect adjustments in architecture and engineering
costs, construction period interest and contractor's
overhead and profit.
= 5. To account for additions and modifications to the original
fiscal impact assumptions, L&H reviewed current municipal
fee and permit schedules. Based upon our findings, L&H has
incorporated School Fees into our fiscal impact model and
modified Sanitation District Fees and Building Permit Fees
to reflect current schedule charges.
This update is based on estimates, assumptions and other
r.+ information developed from our previous research of the market,
our knowledge of the real estate and hospitality industries and
information provided by The Robert Mayer Corporation regarding
proposed agreements and expected revenues and expenses associated
with The Waterfront. Some assumptions inevitably will not
materialize and unanticipated events and circumstances may occur;
. therefore, actual results achieved may vary from those described
in the report and the variations may be material.
Further, we have not been engaged to evaluate the effectiveness.
w of management, and we are not responsible for future marketing
w
i
6. efforts and other management actions upon which actual results
will depend.
�. We have no obligation to revise our report for events and
circumstances occurring subsequent to November 11, 1987, the last
day of our fieldwork.
We did not ascertain the legal and regulatory requirements
applicable to this project, including zoning, other state and
local government regulations, permits and licenses. Further, no
W effort has been made to determine the possible effect on this
project of possible energy shortages or of present or future
' federal, state or local legislation, including any environmental
�•. or ecological matters or interpretations thereof.
Since this analysis of fiscal impacts is based upon existing
operating characteristics of similar land uses and not upon an
assessment of market demand for such uses, the actual results
achieved will be different from the financial and fiscal figures
contained herein, and such differences could be substantial, even
if the proposed master plan is completed as contemplated herein.
Our report is intended solely for the use of The Robert Mayer
L. Corporation in their planning discussions with The City of
Huntington Beach. Otherwise, neither the report nor its contents
may be referred to or quoted in any registration statement,
L prospectus, appraisal, loan document or other agreement or
document without our prior written approval.
LO
L November 11, 1987
f
Id
L
lad'
L
L
6W INTRODUCTION
The updated REPMOD analysis is based upon the following project
descriptions and completion dates for The Waterfront development:
Phase Description Completion
+w 1 300 room first class "hotel Year 3
2 25,000 square foot GBA health/recreation
center with 9 tennis courts Year 5
3 500 room conference hotel Year 5
4 250 room all suite hotel Year 7
5 75,000 square foot GLA retail/commercial
+w center Year 7
6 400 room luxury hotel Year 9
6W
7A .220 apartment units Year 4
7B 220 apartment units Year 5'
7C 220 apartment units Year 6
L 7D 215 apartment units Year 7
Other modeling assumptions relating to the development,
w operations and financial performance of each component of the
Waterfront project are presented in Appendix A.
Based upon The Waterfront's development program, annual fiscal
impact statistics were generated for 25 years. The fiscal impact
to the City has been summarized into three categories: one-time
i impact fees, on-going revenues and on-going expenditures.
W Summary totals for these three categories and the total net
fiscal impact to the city from the Waterfront project is
presented below. Land payments associated with The Waterfront
y„ development, which constitute revenue to the City, are provided
in Appendix B.
ONE-TIME IMPACT FEES
The construction of the proposed facilities will generate impact
k" fees to the City of Huntington Beach in the year construction
begins. The cumulative one-time revenues generated from the
proposed development are estimated to be $8, 469,000. A breakdown
of these revenues by fee/assessment category is as follows:
1
L
1�r
Amount
Fee/Assessment (Rounded to Nearest Thousand)
School District Fee $ 1,508,000
Downtown Specific Plan 43,000
Park Development Fee 1,159,000
Community Enrichment Fee 172,000
Water 142,000
Sewer 307,000
Drainage 329,000
L. Sanitation District 3,515,000
Building Permit Fee 782,000
Plan Check Fees 508,000
L Miscellaneous Fees 4,000
Total One-Time Impact Fees S 894694000
Note: With the exception of the building permit and -plan check
fees (which are predicated on construction costs subject
to inflation), all one-time impact fees have been held
constant over the 25 year modeling period.
ON-GOING REVENUES
The operation of the proposed development will create on-going
revenues to the City in the form of existing and incremental
property taxes, incremental sales taxes, transient occupancy
taxes, utility taxes and business license fees. The cumulative
�•• on-going revenues generated from the first 25 years of The
Waterfront project are estimated to be $130, 531,000. A breakdown
s of these revenues by category is as follows:
la
Amount
Fee/Assessment ,Rounded to Nearest Thousand)
L Property Tax - Existing $ 150,000
Property Tax - Incremental* 50, 867,000
' Sales Tax Revenue 12,736,000
�W Utility Tax 6,365,000
Business License Fees 142,000
LHotel Occupancy Tax* 60,270,000
Total On-going Revenues $130,531,000
Property Tax-Incremental and Hotel Occupancy Tax figures are
net of developer reimbursements negotiated with the City.
The incremental increase in property taxes reported above is the
result of assessment valuation increases as the project is
developed. All incremental property tax will accrue directly to
�,. the City of Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency. The existing
L
�4r
ti
w" property tax revenues currently accruing to other agencies are
frozen at their present levels. -
+� Of special note are the two largest categories, hotel occupancy
tax (Transient Occupancy Tax or "T.O.T. " ) and property tax ( "Tax
Increment" ) . The T.O.T. is based on the City's current rate of
six percent. As you know, many cities have T.O.T. rates of eight
to eleven percent. Should the City of Huntington Beach elect to
increase its T.O.T. rate, the T.O.T. revenues generated by the
project should increase. Also, the tax incremental revenues
presented above are based upon estimated project construction
cost (not a contractor's estimate) as an indication of assessed
value and held to the statutory two percent increase per year,
�- If all or a portion of the project changes title, we would expect
tax incremental revenues to be positively affected.
ON-GOING EXPENDITURES
The proposed development will cause the City to increase its
general fund expenditures in order to maintain current public
service levels. To identify the subject project's impact on the
City' s general fund, L&H modified the findings of its analysis of
general fund expenditures presented in the March 1986 "Fiscal
Impact Analysis for 50-Acre Parcel Property, Huntington Beach,
California. " to reflect the revised project characteristics
!r. referenced above. The general fund expenditure analysis employs
L&H's best estimate of the fixed and marginal cost portion of all
general fund categories. Through this analysis, the marginal
cost portion (the portion that is likely to vary as a result of
new development) of all general fund categories is expressed as
an annual expenditure amount per acre for commercial land uses
and per dwelling unit for residential uses. The summarized
annual expenditures on a per unit basis are estimated to be as
follows:
La Expenditure Commercial Use Residential Use
General Fund $2, 600 Per Acre $460 Per Dwelling Unit
1..
Based upon the commercial and residential improvements identified
in the development program and the aforementioned per unit
expenditures, the total on-going expenditures attributable to the
Waterfront over the first 25 years of the project are estimated
to be $17,177,000.
TOTAL FISCAL IMPACT
1 •
As currently proposed, The Waterfront project will generate an
- estimated $3,333,000 in annual net revenue in year 12 (The first
year in which all project land uses have reached stabilized
occupancy) . As , presented below, the subject development will
generate an estimated $121,823,000 to the City during the first
25 years of the project. A detailed annual breakdown of the
total fiscal impact to the City is presented in Table 1. This
figure does not include any secondary impacts on local business.
THE WATERFRONT
TOTAL NET FISCAL IMPACT DURING FIRST 25 YEARS
One Time Impact Fees $ 8,469,000
On-Going Revenues* 130, 531,000
On-Going Expenditures (17, 177,000)
4
Total Net Fiscal Impact $121,823,000
,.. * On-going revenues is net of developer reimbursements negotiated
with the City.
6. One-time and recurring land payments associated with The
Waterfront will provide additional revenue to the City over and
above the $121, 823,000 in total fiscal impact. As presented in
Appendix B, one-time and recurring land payments are expected to
total $22,799,000 over the first 25 years of the project.
Lh
t
i
�u
r.r
Ld
t
t r _ -
TABLE 1
THE WATERFRONT
PROSPECTIVE FISCAL IMPACTS FROM THE PROPOSED PROJECT (SO00)
(PAGE 2 OF 2)
T4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
ONE-TIME IMPACT FEES
....................
SCHOOL DISTRICT FEE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
DMMTOHII SPECIFIC PLAN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PARK DEVELOWNT FEE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
COMMUNITY ENRICHMENT FEE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
WATER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SEWER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
DRAINAGE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SANITATION DISTRICT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BUILDING PERMIT FEE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PLAN CHECK FEE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
MISCELLANEOUS FEES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
.....................................................................................
TOTAL ONE-TIME FEES 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0
ONGOING REVENUES
.................
PROP TAX - EXISTING 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
PROP TAX - NEW INCREMENT ' 1"1 2640 2560 3461 3532 4221 4304 4395 4413 4573 4663 4759
SALES TAX REVENUE 603 627 652 673 70S 733 763 M WS 0.",d •..92 925
UTILITY TAXES 301 314 326 339 353 367 381 397 413 429 4" 4"
BUSINESS LICENSE FEES 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAX • 2317 3031 3152 3653 3799 4803 4995 5195 5403 5619 564E 6078
TOTAL 019-GOING REVENUES 5135 6625 7064 8145 5403 10138 10461 10194 11137 11492 11aS9 12242
ON-GOING EXPENDITURES
.....................
GENERAL FUND 790 821 854 W 924 961 9" 1039 1081 1124 1169 1216
.....................................................................................
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 790 821 854 888 924 961 999 1039 1081 1124 1169 1216
■satrwwstrwaaarswaaasarsaarswassswssasrasrsrsass■wrasaaaaassasaasesass■rsswerssasrswa ,
TOTAL FISCAL IMPACT 43iS 5804 b1SD 7256 7479 91" 9461 9754 10056 103M 10690 11026
CUMULATIVE 24603 30406 36556 43812 51291 60468 69929 MU 89739 100107 110797 121W3
asarrarsasawrrsrrarrsssatatssrraaasart*rss■arresrassasarsssswrwsrssarrawsrsasaas■:■ss
MEMO:
- -TOTAL LAND PAYMENTS $35 608 633 658 6" 712 740 770 801 633 8" 900
CUMULATIVE 14595 157" 15836 t6494 f7179 17M 18630 19400 20201 21033 21899 22799
• NET Of DEVELOPER REIMBURSEMENTS NEGOTIATED WITH THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH.
TOTALS MAY NOT AOD DUE TO ROUNDING.
THE COWENTS AND ASSUMPTIONS CONTAINED IN THE ADJOINING REPORT ARE AN INTEGRAL PART OF THIS PROSPECTIVE STATEMENT,
SOURCES LAVENTHOL AND HORVATN.
TABLE 1
THE WATERFRONT
PROSPECTIVE FISCAL IMPACTS FROM THE PROPOSED PROJECT (5000)
(PAGE 1 OF 2)
2S YEAR
TOTAL 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
ONE-TIME IMPACT FEES
....................
SCHOOLDISTRICTFEE 1508 38 0 389 333 353 340 50 0 0 0 0 0 0
DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN 43 3 0 10 14 7 7 3 0 0 0 0 0 0
PARK DEVELOPMENT FEE 1159 0 0 292 292 292 285 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
COMMUNITY ENRICHMENT FEE 172 15 0 47 27 34 30 20 0 0 0 0 0 0
WATER. 142 18 0 43 35 28 14 24 0 0 0 0 0 0
SEWER 'SOT 39 0 94 32 61 29 52 0 0 0 0 0 0
DRAINAGE 329 22 0 81 79 62 57 29 0 0 0 0 0 0
SANITATION DISTRICT 3515 450 0 1080 336 705 343 600 0 0 0 0 0 0
BUILDING PERMIT FEE 782 92 0 21S 57 124 82 211 0 0 0 0 0 0
PLAN CHECK FEE 508 60 0 139 37 80 53 137 0 0 O 0 0 0
MISCELLANEOUS FEES 4 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
------------...----------....---..................
...--------...----------.....,-----...------...---
TOTAL ONE-TIME FEES 6469 73T 0 2390 1222 1753 1240 MY 0 0 0 0 0 0
ON•G01NG REVENUES
.................
PROP TAX - EXISTING 150 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 . 6 6
PROP TAX - NEW INCREMENT * 5o867 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 562 138S 1413 1711
SALES TAX REVENUE 12736 0 0 36 45 121 140 312 394 471 502 526 555 580
UTILITY TAXES 6365 0 0 22 29 E2 99 145 163 225 246 259 276 2"
BUSINESS LICENSE ZEES 142 0 0 1 1 4 4 6 6 7 7 7 7 7
HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAX * 60270 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 660 1685 1807 2228
....................................................................................................
TOTAL ON-GOING REVENUES 1 303]1 6 6 65 81 212 248 469 5" 709 1993 3867 4063 4821
ON-GOING EXPENDITURES
............
GENERAL FUND 17177 0 0 8 68 224 S61 522 611 649 675 702 730 759
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 17177 0 0 8 68 224 361 522- 611 649 675 T02 730 759
iatttnnaa■f its iiiaiiaaaasiiimi#iiOiiiiiassaiiffsiaiasiasieaiiiiiias!#ssssisssiaisaii###!!silai#!!e!■
TOTAL FISCAL IMPACT 121823 743 6 2446 123i 174t 1t2T 1074 -42 60 1307 3165 3333 4%2
CUMULATIVE 743 ' 749 3195 4430 6171 7298 8372 8330 8389 %97 12862 16195 20257
aiseas!semis;aassaasissiifiiiissiaaaa sass!aasaaiimssiaaKiss*5&somas■ssssss#aa#s#sa msseessnnmssm Osman
DEMO:
*'.'TOTAL LAND PAYMENTS 227W 200 200 2496 2472 2633 2535 424 424 500 500 520 541 S62
CUMULATIVE 200 400 2E95 5370 5003 10539 10%3 11387 11887 12387 1290T 134448 14010
• NET OF DEVELOPER 1EIMSURSEMENTS NEGOTIATED WITH THE CITY OF HUNTINGION BEACH.
TOTALS MAY NOT ADO DUE TO ROUNDING.
THE COMMENTS AND ASSUMPTIONS CONTAINED IN THE ADJOINING REPORT ARE AN INTEGRAL PART OF THIS PROSPECTIVE STATEMENT.
SOURCE& tAVENTHOL AND HORUATH.
Lr
3
w.
APPENDIX A
300 ROOM HOTEL IN PHASE 1
Size:
+r Number of Keys 300 Keys
Number of Acres 3.1 Acres
i .
4w Parking Requirements:
Number of Spaces 330 Spaces
i
Development Costs:
Construction Costs $65,000 per Key
Parking Construction Costs $8, 500 Per Space
f Furniture, Fixtures & Equipment $15,000 Per Key
�+ Contingency 10% of Hard Costs
Architectural & Engineering 5%
F Professional & Misc. Fees 2%
Pre-Opening Expense $3,000 Per Key
P , Occupancy Levels:
w Year 1 58t
Year 2 62t
Year 3 71%
f Stabilized 71%
W
Average Daily Rate (1987 Dollars) $90.00
Other Revenue as a Percentage of Rooms Revenue:
Year 1 63%
Year 2 66t
Year 3 68t
Stabilized fib$
Operating Exp. as a Percentage of Total Revenue:
Year 1 70.Ot
Year 2 68.0%
' Year 3 66.0%
�.. Stabilized 65.0%
FF&E Replacement Reserve as a Percentage of Total Revenue:
Year 1 1$
Year 2 2$
f Year 3 3%
w .Stabilized 3%
Fixed Charges:
Property Taxes 1.09% of Construction Value
+�► Insurance 0.45 per $100 of Construction Value
i
i
f
HEALTH/FITNESS' CENTER IN_PHASE. 2
Size:
*� Number of Acres 5 Acres
Number of Tennis Courts 9
r ' Number of Racquetball Courts 0
Pool Length 25 Meter
Building GBA 25,000 SF
Efficiency 901
jM Net Usable Area 22, 500 SF
Total Number of Tennis Memberships 540
+ Total Number of Limited Memberships 1,460
Membership Turnover Rate 10-1
Parking Requirements:
Ratio - 1,000 SF per space
�+ Number of Spaces Required 110 Spaces
+ Development Costs:
Construction Costs $48 Per SF of GBA
Swimming Pool $125,000
Tennis Courts $26,000 Each
Parking Construction Costs $8, 500 Per Space
Interior Improvements/Equipment $40 Per SF Usable Area
Contingency 101 of Hard Cost
Architectural & Engineering 5%
Professional & Misc. Fees 2$
+ Absorption Schedule:
j„ Projected Sell-out Period 24 Months
Initiation Fees &Dues:
Average Initiation Fees Tennis $400
Limited $100
Average Monthly Dues Tennis $80 Per Month
Limited $30 Per Month
Other Revenues:
+ Pro Shop lit
Food & Beverage 19%
Lessons 81
Other Revenues 14$
`r Operating Expenses:
General Operating Expenses 66% of Membership Dues
Pro Shop Expenses 80$ of Sales
Food & Beverage Expenses 75%� of Sales
Open Memberships/Collection Loss 5% of Total Revenues
�.+ Management Fee: 5% of Effective Gross Income
W
500 ROOM HOTEL IN PHASE 3
Size:
Number of Keys 500 Keys
' Number of Acres 5.2 Acres
Parking Requirements:
f Number of Spaces 550 Spaces
Development Costs:
� . Construction Costs $68,000 Per Key
Parking Construction Costs $8,500 Per Space
�" Furniture, Fixtures & Equipment $15,000 Per Key
Contingency 10t of Hard Costs
t Architectural & Engineering 5*
W Professional & Misc. Fees 2t
Pre-Opening Expense $3,000 Per Key
LOccupancy Levels:
Year 1 561-
Year 2 60-1
Year 3 66$
Stabilized 701
Average Daily Rate (1987 Dollars) : $80 1st Year
�+ $85 Thereafter
Other Revenue as a Percentage of Rooms Revenue: 64.0%
Operating Expenses as a Percentage of
Total Revenue:
Year 1 80.0$
Year 2 76.0*
Year 3 75.0%
Stabilized 74.0%
FF&E' Replacement Reserve As a Percentage of
Total- Revenue:
Year 1 it
Year 2 2%
Year 3 3%
Stabilized 31
Fixed Charges: 1.091 of Construction Value
Property Taxes SAS per $100 of Construction Value
Insurance
i
{ 250 SUITES IN PHASE 4
LW
Size:
�.. Number of Keys 250 Keys
250 Suites
F Number of Acres 2.6 Acres
Parking Requirements:
Number of Spaces 275 Spaces
Development Costs:
Construction Costs $55,000 Per Key
1 Parking Construction Costs $8, 500 Per Space
Furniture, Fixtures & Equipment $12, 500 Per Key
Contingency 10% of Hard Costs
1 Architectural & Engineering 5%
�. Professional & Misc. Fees 2%
Pre-Opening Expense $3,000 Per Key
Occupancy Levels:
Year 1 60%
Year 2 65%
Year 3 70%
Stabilized 74%
Average Daily Rate (1987 Dollars) $85 lst Year
6o $95 Thereafter
f Other Revenue as a Percentage of Rooms Revenue: 15%
Operating Expenses as a Percentage of
Total Revenue:
Year 1 651
Year 2 62$
Year 3 58t
Stabilized 56%
FF&E Replacement Reserve as a Percentage of
Total Revenue:
Year 1 1$
Year 2 2$
Year 3 3%
Stabilized 3%
Fixed Charges:
Property Taxes 1.09% of Construction Value
w Insurance 8.45 Per $100 of Construction Value
., RETAIL IN PHASE 5
r Size:
Number of Acres 2.0 Acres
Gross Building Area (GBA) 83,373 SF
� . Efficiency
Gross Leasable Area (GLA) 75,000 SF
- Restaurant 15,000 SF
- Shops 60,000 SF
�.• Parking Requirements:
Ratio - 1,000 SF GLA Per Space
Number of Surface Spaces Required 450 Spaces
Development Costs:
Construction Costs $52.00 Per SF GBA
Parking Construction Costs $8,500 Per Space
Tenant Finish Allowance $10.00 Per SF GLA
Contingency 10% of Hard Costs
Architectural G Engineering 5%
�. Professional G Miscellaneous Fees 2%
j Absorption Schedules:
Percentage of Space Preleased 351
t ,
Projected Lease-up Period For Remaining Space: 12 Months
Leasing Commissions: '
3 Year Leases (5$ + 5t + 5%) 15$ Total
5 Year Leases (5t + 5% + 5% + A$ + 23%
L Lease Terms:
Minimum Lease Rates - Restaurants $15.00 Per SF GLA
Minimum Lease Rates - Shops $19.20 Per SF GLA
Percent of 5 Year Lease Rates:
r Restaurants 100%
W Shops 60%
Percent of 3 Year Lease Rates - Shops 40*
Sales Per SF - Restaurants $250 Per Sr
&W Sales Per SF - Shops $200 Per SF
r Percentage of Tenants:
Renewing Leases 67%
Lease Terms Triple Net W/Annual 5$ Adj .
• Common Area Maintenance Charges Passed Through
Operating Expenses Passed Through
Releasing Commissions:
Turnovers 1001 of Original Rate
Renewals 50% of Original Rate
Re-Lease Tenant Improvements:
+•� Turnovers 100% of Original Rate
Renewals 50$ of Original Rate
Allowance for Vacancy/Collection Loss 5% of Revenue
f Management Fee: 5% of Effective Gross Revenue
I
400 ROOM HOTEL IN PHASE 6
1 •
r.a Size:
Number of Keys 400 Keys
Number of Acres 4.1 Acres
ikw Parking Requirements:
Number of Spaces 440 Spaces
'r Development Costs:
Construction Costs $84,400 Per Key
1 Parking Construction Costs $8,500 Per Space
L, Furniture, Fixtures Equipment $27, 600 Per Key
Contingency 10% of Hard Costs
Architectural a Engineering 5$
Professional a Miscellaneous Fees 2%
Pre-Opening Expense $3,000 Per Key
Occupancy Levels:
ibd Year 1 551
Year 2 60-1
i Year -3 63%
wr Stabilized 69%
71%
Average Daily Rate (1987 Dollars) : $120 ist Year
$130 Thereafter
Other Revenue as a Percentage of Rooms Revenue: 44.0%
Operating Expenses as a Percentage of
r Total Revenue:
w.+ Year 1 85.0$
Year 2 '83.0t
Year 3 .81.0%
Stabilized 79.01
FF&E Replacement Reserve as a Percentage of
Total Revenue: _
Year 1 - 1$
Year 2 2%
Year 3 3!k
�+ Stabilized . 31
Fixed Charges:
Property Taxes 1.09$ of Construction Value
Insurance 5.45 Per $100 of Construction Value
W
i
+..
I
F ,
APARTMENTS IN PHASE 7A - 7D
a
'-' Size:
Number of Acres 25 Acres
' Number of Units 875 Units
6d Average Size 860 SF
Net Rentable Area 752,500 SF
Efficiency 871
Gross Building Area 864,940 SF
Density 35 Acre
Site Area 25 Acres
Parking Requirements:
Ratio Parking Spaces Per Unit 2 Per Unit
Number of Surface Spaces Required 1,750 Spaces
Development Costs:
f Construction Costs $39.00 Per SF GBA
Parking Construction Costs $8,500 Per Space
Amenities $2,000 Per Unit
Contingency 10% of Hard Costs
Architectural 6 Engineering 5t
Professional 6 Miscellaneous Fees 2%
Absorption Schedule:
w+ Projected Absorption 220 Units Per Year
j Average Rental Rate: $890 Per Unit
Operating Expenses:
General 23% of Revenue
Property Taxes 1.09% of Construction Value
Allowance for Vacancy/Collection Loss 5% of Rental Revenue
F
Management Fee 5% of Effective Gross Income
v.
r '
I
FISCAL IMPACT ASSUMPTIONS
One Time Revenues to Huntington Beach:
School Fees $.25 Per SF for Comml/Indust.
$1.50 Per SF for Residential
W
Downtown Specific Plan Fee $831 Per Acre
�.+ Park Development Fee $817 Per Studio Unit
$1,096 Per One Bedroom Unit
$1, 662 Per Two Bedroom Unit
Community Enrichment Fee $.10 Per SF Bldg Area
Water $60 Per Dwelling Unit/Hotel Room
$300 Per Commercial Acre
Sewer $130 Per Dwelling Unit/Hotel Room
�►+ $645 Per Commercial Acre
Drainage $7,000 Per Acre
Sanitation District $1, 500 Per Dwelling Unit/Hotel Room
$250 for each 1,000 Sq. Ft.
of comet./indust. floor area
Building Permit Fees $519.60 + $3.00 Per Each
f Additional $1,000 in Excess of $100,000
Plan Check Fees 65% of Building Permit Fees
F
W Miscellaneous Planning Fees $4, 296
, - Ongoing Revenues to Huntington Beach:
Property Tax Rate 1.08762% of Assessed Value
n Sales Tax Rate 1$ of Taxable Sales
Utility Tax Revenues:
Utility Tax Rate 5% of Utility Costs
�.. Annual Residential Utility Gas $210
Water 34
Electric 229
Total $473
Annual Hotel Utility Expenditures Utility Expenditures Are
Projected at 7.7% of
Room Sales.
ibw
i
Annual Retail Utility Expenditures $1.47 Per SF
Annual Health/Fitness Center
Utility Expenditures $1.47 Per SF
Business License Fee Revenues
Business License Fee $37. 50 + 3.75 Per Employee
in Excess of Three Employees
Average Number of Employees:
Hotel 1 Employee Per Room
Hotel With Conference Facilities 1. 25 Employees Per Room
Retail 1 Employee Per 400 SF
Restaurant 1 Employee Per 150 SF
Health Club 36 Employees
Occupancy Tax Revenues:
Occupancy Tax Rate 6$ Room Sales
Ongoing Costs to Huntington Beach:
Residential :
General Fund Expenditures $460 Per Unit
Commercial:
General Fund Expenditures $2, 600 Per Acre
I
APPENDIX B
LAND PAYMENTS
Pursuant to the proposed development and disposition agreement
4" and proposed land lease agreement between RLM Properties and the
Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach, the
proposed Waterfront development program will generate a total of
$22,799,000 in one-time and recurring land payments to the City
during the first 25 years of the project. An annual breakdown of
these land payments are as follows:
ko
Year 1 S 200,000
Year 2 200,000
L+ Year 3 2,498,000
Year 4 2,472,000
Year 5 2,633,000
L Year 6 2,535,000
Year 7 424,000
+ Year 8 424,000
Year 9 500,000
Year 10 500,000
Year 11 520,000
Year 12 541,000
Year 13 562,000
Year 14 585,000
Year 15 608,000
L Year 16 633,000
Year 17 658,000
Year 18 684,000
6W Year 19 712,000
Year 20 740,000
Year 21 770,000
Year 22 801,000
Year 23 833,000
Year 24 866,000
Year 25 900,000
L
Total One-Time & Recurring
Land Payments S22,799,000
P
bw
11
W
I+
.NMI