The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutASCON - General Plan Amendment 87-4 - GPA 87-4 - Environment RESOLUTION NO. 5957 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ADOPTING HUNTINGTON BEACH LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM, AMENDMENT NO. 88-3 WHEREAS, after notice duly given pursuant to Government Code S65090 and Public Resources Code SS30503 and 30510, the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach held public hearings to consider the adoption of the Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program, Amendment No . 88-3 , and sucHi amendment was recommended to the City Council for adoption; and The City Council , after giving notice as prescribed by law, held at least one public hearing on the proposed Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program, Amendment No . 88-3 , and the Council finds the proposed amendment is consistent with the certified Huntington Beach Coastal Land Use Plan and Chapter 6 of the California Coastal Act; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach that the Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program, Amendment No. 88-3 , as set forth on Exhibit "A" , attached hereto, and by this reference incorporated herein , is hereby adopted . BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that pursuant to Coastal Commission Regulations S13551 (b) , Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 88-3 will take effect automatically upon 1 - 5957 Coastal Commission approval pursuant to Public Resources Code 5§30512 , 30513 and 30519 . PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 21st day of November 1988 . M or ATTEST : AP OVED AS TO FORM : City Clerk City Attorney RE ED AND APPROVED : INITIATED AND APPROVED: {i 4J41&A City Administrator Acting Direc or of Community of Development be 2 - 5957 • EXHIBIT A_ • COMPLETE ORDINANCE IS AVAILABLE IN THE ORDINANCE BOOK ORDINANCE NO. 2968 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING SECTION 9061 OF THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ORDINANCE CODE TO PROVIDE FOR CHANGE OF ZONING ON REAL PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON . 868 ACRES SOUTH OF HAMILTON AVENUE AND WEST OF MAGNOLIA STREET ( ZONE CHANGE NO . 87-14 ) WHEREAS , pursuant to the . State Planning and Zoning Law, the Huntington Beach Planning Commission and Huntington Beach City Council have had separate public hearing's relative to Zone Change No . 87-14 wherein both bodies have carefully considered all information presented at said hearings , and after due consideration of the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission and all evidence presented to the City Council , the City Council finds that such zone change is proper , and consistent with the General Plan . NOW, THEREFORE , the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does ordain as follows : 1 SECTION 1 . The following described real property, generally located approximately 1 , 000 feet south of Hamilton Avenue and 1 , 100 feet west of Magnolia Street is hereby changed from LUD-0-CZ-FP2 (Limited Use District Combined with Oil Production-Coastal Zone-Floodplain ) to Q-LUD-0I-CZ-FP2 (Qualified Limited Use District Combined with Oil Production and Drilling-Coastal Zone-Floodplain ) : In the City of Huntington Beach , County of Orange , State of California, and being that portion of the northeast one-quarter of the southeast one-quarter of Section 13 , Township 6 South, Range 11 West , S . B . B . &M . , in the Rancho Las Volsas , as shown on the map filed in Book 51 of Miscellaneous Maps at Page 7 , in the Office of the County Recorder of Orange County , more particularly described as follows : Commencing at the intersection of the centerlines of Hamilton Avenue and Magnolia Street; Thence along the centerline of Magnolia Street , South 0004012411 east 1319 . 49 feet; Thence leaving said centerline , south 89032 ' 53 " west 1098 . 42 feet to the true point of beginning; 1 - ;9C3 5957 1 � NO. 5957 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) T COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, CONNIE BROCKWAY, the duly appointed, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 21st day of November 19 88 by the following vote: AYES : Councilmembers: Kelly, Green, Erskine, Mays , Winchell , Bannister NOES: Councilmembers : Finley ABSENT: Councilmembers: None City Clerk and ex-officio Verk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California f 5957 REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL. ACTION Date February 21, 1989 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Submitted by: Paul E. Cook, City Administratorv�" ;v I Prepared by: Mike Adams, Director of Community Development Subject: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 87-4/ENVIRpNMENTA L. IMPACT REPORT NO. 87-5 (ASCON) ' Consistent with Council Policy? [ ] Yes ( ) New Policy or Exception y F Alternative Actiofl�, Attachments; Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, , STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Transmitted for consideration is General Plan Land Use Element Amendment- No . 87-4 and Environmental Impact Report No . 87-5 . This is a request by ASCON Properties to amend the general plan on 39 ,4 acres on the southwest corner of Hamilton Avenue and Magnolia Street from Public, Quasi-Public, Institutional to 33 acres of Medium High Density Residential (750 units) and 6 .4 acres of General Commercial . RECOMMENDATION: Planning_Commisa Qn.__Actionand Rggomme�r ation on January 18 , 1989 ; A MOTION BY LEIPZIG AND SECOND BY ORTEGA TO APPROVE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 87-4 WITH MODIFIED DESIGNATION OF 20 ACRES LOW DENSSITY RESIDENTIAL AND 20 ACRES MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL FAILED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Leipzig, Ortega, Higgins NOES: Kirkland, Williams, Bourguignon ABSENT: Slates ABSTAIN: None A MOTION BY KIRKLAND AND SECOND BY WILLIAMS TO APPROVE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 87-4 WITH THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF 39 ,4 ACRES OF MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL FAILED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kirkland, Williams, Bourguignon NOES: Leipzig, Ortega, Higgins ABSENT: Slates ABSTAIN: None r ,!t; 0i C�'e t;u WIH }Ili3-!:l Ally 03M3338 f A MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY LEIPZIG TO APPROVE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 87-5 AND RECOMMEND CERTIFICATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES : Higgins , Leipzig, Kirkland, Williams, Bourguignon NOES : Ortega ABSP,NT: Slates ABSTAIN: None A MOTION BY ORTEGA AND SECOND BY LEIPZIG TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE APPLICANT '. S REQUEST FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 87-4 WITH NO ALTERNATIVE LAND USE RECOMMENDATION DUE TO INABILITY TO REACH A CONSENSUS VOTE, PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES : Ortega, Leipzig , Higgins, Kirkland, Bourguignon NOES: Williams ABSENT: Slates ABSTAIN: None Staff Recommendation The planning staff recommends that the City Council certify Environmental Impact Report No . 87-5 and approve General Plan Land [Jse Element Amendment No . 87-4 by approving the attached Resolution B. The recommended land use designation is 39 .4 acres of Medium Density Residential . ANALYSIS: This General Plan Amendment and Environmental Impact Report have been processed pursuant to an agreement entered into with ASCON Properties by the City Council on July 20, 1987 . The agreement was for a cooperative effort between the property owner and the City in order to expedite clean-up of the site with private funds . The agreement established a process whereby ASCON Properties would initiate the necessary steps to cause the site to be cleaned-up. That process involves preparation of a Site Characterization Plan, a Site Remedial Action Plan and eventually clean-up of the site. ASCON has retained the firm of Radian Corporation to prepare those documents . The Remedial Action Plan must be approved by the City and all appropriate State agencies . Approval of the plan will be accompanied by an EIR to analyze and mitigate the impacts of site clean-up. In return for forward movement- on ASCON' s part to prepare those documents , the agreement obligated the City to prepare a General Plan Amendment and EIR to determine an appropriate land use for the ASCON site, once remediation has been completed. General Plan Amendment No . 87-4/Environmental Impact Report No . 87-5 was prepared to fulfill that obligation . 'J- 3 RCA 2/21/89 -2- (2019d) Ij The EIR which was prepared started with the underlying assumption that the ASCON site was fully remediated to a point which would allow human habitation. With that assumption, a range of land use alternatives (including the applicant ' s request of High Density Residential and General Commercial , ) were analyzed. As explained in the attached Planning Commission staff reports and EIR, it was found that existing street capacity as well as all other infrastructure in the area was adequate to accommodate any of the alternatives at acceptable levels of service. It was also found, however, that the ASCON site is surrounded by a unique mix of land uses which would both impact and be impacted by development on the ASCON site. The-. residents in the adjacent area expressed a strong preference for a Low Density Residential or public park use on the site, as opposed to the applicant ' s request for High Density Residential and General Commercial . Certainly, High Density and Commercial uses could be deemed incompatible with the single family subdivisions, high school and community park which exist on two sides of the ASCON site. On the other hand, staff is concerned that Low Density Residential, with its emphasis on backyard recreation, would be incompatible with the Edison generating facility, tank farms and industrial park which exist on the other two sides of the ASCON site. in consideration of the extremes of land uses which surround the ASCON site, the capacity of infrastructure in the area, and the need to provide a variety of housing types in the City, staff has recommended a land use designation mid-way between the applicant ' s request and the desires of the adjacent homeowners . The staff recommendation is to deny the applicant ' s request for commercial on the site, and to designate the entire site for Medium Density Residential . This designation would permit a maximum of 630 units . Depending upon the zoning which is. ultimately adopted for the site, it could also allow a progression of densities, from lower density on the eastern and northern portions of the property, to higher density on the southern and western portions . This designation will allow the arterials in the vicinity to continue to function at acceptable levels of service, while at the same time allowing for the provision of a variety of housing types . In considering any land use designation on the site, it must be understood that no construction can take place until full site remediation has occurred . That remediation process is proceeding concurrently with the processing of this General Plan Amendment . At this point in time, ASCON' s consultant, Radian Corporation, has completed preparation of the Site Characterization Report . That report is presently being reviewed by the City' s consultant, Woodward-Clyde. If the Characterization Report is found to be adequate, a Remediation Feasibility Study, Remedial Action Plan, Conditional Use Permit/Environmental Impact Report for excavation, site clean-up and site testing will all follow as subsequent steps . Only after those steps have been completed to the satisfaction of the City and State can the City consider any conditional use permit for residential development on the site. A Sequence of Events table in the attached January 18 , 1989 Planning Commission staff report depicts that process . D-T RCA - 2/21/89 -3- (2019d) a ENVIRONMENTAL _STATUS: Pursuant: to Section 15060 of the California Environmental Quality Act- , an Environmental Impact Report (EIR 87-5) was prepared for General Plan Amendment NO. 87-4 . The EIR was circulated through the State Clearinghouse and posted for a forty-five (45) day public rc:!v.i.ew period ending on June 11, 1988 . The City Council must act to certify Environmental Impact Report No . 87-5 before acting on General Plan Amendment No . 87-4 . lUNDING SOURCE: No funds required . ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: The City Council may approve the applicant ' s request for 6 .4 acres of General Commercial and 33 acres of Medium High Density Residential by approving the attached Resolution A. The City Council may also approve a Low Density Residential or Industrial designation as covered by Environmental Impact Report No . 87-5 . ATTAC[IMENT.$ : I ArE�a Map 2 . Resolution A - Applicant ' s request 3 . Resolution B - Staff recommendation 4 . City-ASCON Agreement dated July 20 , 1989 5.. Recent .letters received 6 . Planning Commission Staff Report dated January 18 , 1989 7 . Environmental Impact Report No . 87-5 MA : HS :gbm ItCA -- 2/21/89 -4- (2019d) r- �i r4� a .. _ _ .....,�_.....�.__._. . _ _ ..�.�.. _ ._..___•. •-. .- .... ....-_�._ _. . - ... - _...... .-_.._ .._...._ i:.._.� a,"..i.. ... ..,.tA i�_`•r _ . - - KrattlM �Otip� a i afar.' :_•K: ,~ �` .. - U U xx Pm Li LL north •'._•.. ._ __..._ _^. o � no scale lop ,CPS huntington beach planning ' . g dwisign f'1 Applicas%4s Request RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH APPROVING LAND USE ELEMENT AMFNDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN NO. 87-4 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach desires to update and refine the General Plan in keeping with changing community needs and objectives; and A public hearing on adoption of Land Use Element Amendment No. 87-4 to the General Plan was held by the Planning Commission on January 18 , 1989 ; and Thereafter the City Council , after giving notice as prescribed by Government Code Section 65355 , held at least one public hearing to consider Land Use Element Amendment No, 87-4 ; and At said hearing before the City Council all persons deslr- Lnq to be heard on said amendment were heard, NOW, THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach pursuant to provisions of Title 7 , Chapter 3 , Article 6 of California Government Code commencing with Section 65350 , that Land Use Element Amendment No . 87-4 consisting of the fo.l..low.iny change is hereby adopted as an amendment to the Land Use Diagram thereof : 1 . That the ASCON property consisting of 39 .4 acres located on the southwest corner of Hamilton Avenue and b Magnolia Street be redesignated from Public, Quasi-Public, Institutional to 6 .4 acres of General Commercial and 33 acres of Medium High Density Residential . PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of , 1989 , by the following roll call vote : AYES : NOES : ABSENT : ABSTAIN: ATTEST : Ci.ty Clerk Mayor RLVIEWED AND APPROVED APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Administrator ,Z� /a �� City Attorney u� 1-g-fig INITIATED AND APPROVED: vim+ i Dire or o Community Development - 3 B SfaA: Recomwwn 1lien RESOLUTION NO . A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH APPROVING LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN NO. 87-4 WHEREAS , the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach desires to update and refine the General Plan in keeping with changing community needs and objectives; and A public hearing on adoption of Land Use Element Amendment No . 87-4 to the General Plan was held by the Planning Commission on January 18 , 1989 ; and Thereafter the City Council , after giving notice as prescribed by Government Code Section 65355 , held at least one public hearing to consider Land Use Element Amendment No, 87-4 ; and At said hearing before the City Council all persons desiring to be heard on said amendment were heard, NOW, THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach pursuant to provisions of Title 7 , Chapter 3 , Article 6 of California Government Code commencing with Section 65350 , that Land Use Element Amendment No . 87-4 consisting of the Eollow.inq chariye is hereby adopted as an amendment to the Land Use I)iagram thereof : 1 . That the ASCON property consisting of 39 . 4 acres located on the southwest corner of Hamilton Avenue and Magnolia Street be redesignated from Public , �- 3 -9 Quasi-Public, Institutional to Medium Density Residential . i PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of 1989, by the following roll call vote: AYES : NOES : ABSENT : ABSTAIN: ATTEST : City Clerk Mayor REVIEWED AND APPROVED APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Administrator City Attorney (,zZ:4%,:A$� Ow INITIATED AND APPROVED: i Dir ctor of Community Development flACTuM F:Da4e A5 MeA6412£l> • "F'I20M Tb? aF �'enclz/wa l I J D-3 Jo �Ra1�lT �Ac:� �Fb.�P Gates �M�DM�i�1' • I Ie ' 2n N�TU c i er,cR.�wq l I o? To 2 ' tpTl\-,IN INCT ! wAtA.- 5 '�2 �I WVAL�- vie tcnln f I a 8°1 After recording mail t( ' Office of the City Clerk, City(. Huntington Beach . 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 EXEMPT AGREEMENT BETWEEN ASCON PROPERTIES AND C6 THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH FOR A PROGRAM FOR REMEDIATION AND A PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this day of , 1987 , by and between ASCON PROPERTIES ( "PROPERTY OWNER" ) nd the CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ( "CITY" ) . R E C I T A L S WHEREAS, PROPERTY OWNER owns that certain approximate 39 . 4 acre parcel situated at the Southwest corner of Magnolia Street and Hamilton Avenue in the City of Huntington Beach , State of California , ( "said site ' ) ; and, WHEREAS , said site has previously been used as a dump for oil field waste products and landfill , and is currently zoned LUD-0 ( Limited Use District ) combined with oil production and designated for special study in the City ' s General Plan; and, WHEREAS , said zoning and land use designation have been placed on the property because of the unique use , presenting a need for special study; and , WHEREAS , PROPERTY OWNER seeks to divide said site into three parcels for financing purposes prior to cleanup, excavation and development; and , WHEREAS , a cooperative effort between PROPERTY OWNER and the CITY will expedite cleanup of the site with private funds; and , WHEREAS, ON April 4 , 1987 , the City Council -of the CITY gave its Approval to PROPERTY OWNER for Tentative Parcel Map 86-422 of said site , for financing purposes only, on the Condition , among others , that : RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY CALIFORNIA Y - 3' I� -145PM AU G `^� �+ COUNTY -1- ) u y RECORDER 87.-479865 Concurrent with the submission of the Parcel Map for . acceptance, and prior to any development , grading -or excavating of any material on the site, including removal of liquids , the owner shall enter into an agreement with the City which addresses a program for remediation of the site . The agreement shall be executed prior to approval and recordation of the Parcel Map. " NOW, THEREFORE , in consideration of the mutual promises and agreements made by PROPERTY OWNER and CITY herein , PROPERTY OWNER and CITY do hereby agree as follows : I . PROPERTY OWNER hereby agrees : A . To cause the entire site to be characterized prior to approval of a Conditional Use Permit for the issuance of permits for any development and/or excavation/grading , including removal of liquid surface oil ; B . To test the berms along Hamilton Avenue and Magnolia Street as part of the Site Characterization Plan; C . To test for contamination levels .in the air , soil , surface water and groundwater as part of the Site Characterization Plan; D . To inventory all hazardous materials on-site and develop an Emergency Business Plan as part of the Site Characterization Plan and to submit both items to the Huntington Beach Fire Deapartment for approval subject to the requirements set forth in Chapter 17 . 58 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code; E . To allow the City access to the site for testing purposes, if requested, subject to .PROPERTY OWNER ' s prior written consent which shall not be unreasonably withheld; 'D _ 3 - /3 -2- 01.741 J003 ' F. To prepare a Remedial Action Plan that will evaluate the impact that site remediation will have on the community and environment : 1 . Said Plan shall also address mitigation of annoying odors emanating from said site ; 2 . If deemed appropriate, an Interim Remedial Measure to eliminate such annoying odors shall be prepared to address the removal of styrene wastes and liquid sur- face oil ; provided , however , such measures shall not be implemented without prior approval by the Department of Health Services in accordance with an approved Plan; G. To comply with an approved Site Remedial Action Plan in accordance with a time schedule approved by the appropriate governmental agencies ; H. To submit a Title Report to determine fee ownership; and, I . That the Parcel Map is for financing purposes only , and that such condition may only be removed by the City Council pursuant to Condition #8 of the Conditions of Approval For Tentative Parcel Map #86-442 . II . CITY hereby agrees : A. To process the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change re- quest submitted by PROPERTY OWNER, under the CITY ' s General Plan Amendment scheduled for hearing by the Planning Com- mission in November 1987 , if reasonably possible; B. To cause to be prepared an Environmental Impact Report eval- uating the impact of the proposed projtiebk outlined in the General Plan Amendment request; C. To add a "Q" zoning designation ( "qualified" zoning and related use ) , which will cause any new land use designa- tion and zoning to revert to the existing land use and -3- 87-479861 zoning , pursuant to the terms , provisions and conditions of the Development Agreement, referred to in I•I .F „ below; D. Separate and apart. from II . B. , above, to cause to be pre- pared an evaluation of the impact which site cleanup will have on the environment , which said evaluation is to be addressed through a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study and Remedial Action Plan; E. To process the necessary entitlement application for site cleanup; F. To negotiate and enter into a Development Agreement pur- suant to Sections 65864 , et seq. , of the Government Code of the State of California with PROPERTY OWNER which will address , among other things , the ( 1 ) entitlement and uses of said site and the timing thereof , and ( 2 ) conditions of cleanup of said site ; and, G . To process a Permit for a one and one-half ( 12 ) acre oil production site (with 0-1 zoning ) at the Southwest corner of the subject property. The establishment and operation of such site and use shall be subject to such applications and permits as are required by CITY and State , the proces- sing of which shall commence by the CITY upon recordation of this Agreement and appropriate application by the PROPER- TY OWNER; provided, however , that prior to the issuance of a Drilling Permit , an analysis of the drilling site and/or appropriate area shall be conducted and submitted to the Department of Health Services and the CITY. III . This Agreement shall be executed by PROPERT-Y-.pWNER and CITY. Upon execution of this Agreement by PROPERTY OWNER and CITY, CITY shall permit acceptance and recordation of the Parcel Map requested by PROPERTY OWNER. -4- 87.-479865- IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement -on the day herei nabove first indicated, at Hun e h, C if rnia: - ASCON PROPERTIES , INC . : . PR RT WNER Y R ATTEST: �,I.IGIA hL W,ENTWORTN AP ED AS TO FORM: EIT'Y CURK • CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY n PROVED: D RECTOR F EVELOPMENT SERVICES STATE OF CALIFORNIA ss: 8 .-479865 COUNTY OF ORANGE ) On this 19th day of August i9 87 , before me, a Notary Public in and for said County and State, personally appeared _ Jack Kelly known to me to be the Mayor and Connie A. Brockway known to me to be the Deputy City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, the municipal corporation that executed the within instrument, known to me to be the persons who executed the within instrument on behalf of said municipal corporation and acknowledged to me that such municipal corporation executed the same. BETFTEIAL BARILALA - Bette Bari la PuWk_Cdll�orma OMNGE COUNTY +� R&E:Notary omm. Exp. Jan. 8, 1990 �. 41 -D, 3 No ary's Si ature . L 4)to NATIONAL NOTARY ASSOCIATION•23012 Ventura BNd.•P.O.Box 4825•Woodland Hills.GA 91364 -5- 1_ 3/ ^ �. a�j l ek r .`?-�.,---C.t�`� �j�r �Z'C.L:�-�,C: .�"•"c,L, ice`_ . RECEIVED F E 8 0 61989 DEPARTMENT OF � , l7 D- 3 ------•• �; Y1 RECE1 , ED "�p.N 1 e i9aa w pEPAWA� NT Of January 15, 1989 Planning Commissioners City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main St . Huntington Beach , CA 92648 Commissioners, Regarding General Plan Amendment No. 87-4, before you January 18, 1989, my wife and myself feel very strongiy regarding the applicant ' s proposal . We have been residents of Huntington Beach for the past 25 years at the same location near the applicant ' s property. Tne area is primarily single family residence and the quality of living has been such where we' re happy to say we have totally enjoyed raising our family in the area. Your action on this proposal could change all this. PLEASE PLEASE, don ' t give up the single family life style which our area presently has. Multiple units, in any fashion, will translate into heavy traffic , increased noise, increased pollution, and a 1 i ►<e. 'You folks are the decision makers when it comes to "Planning" +or our City and our community. Have concerns for the community and our quality of living. VOTE FOR LOW DENSITY HOUSING WITH NO COMMERCIAL. Thank you so much for your consideration. ck and Lenore Kirkorn 9122 Kahului Dr , Huntington Beach, CA 92646 .!`I n l 'J V I L January lA TO : Planning Commissioners City of 'tuntinpton Reach I am pleased to take this opportunity to respond to the Aston Prnperties , Tne . General Plan Amendment proposal No . 87-5. As the PlAnninF Commission knows , State law prohibits the City from making, land use decisions based on the economic needs of the developer . City CPneral Plan amendments must be based only on sound planning And most importantly land use compatibility considerations . To amend the General Plan based , even in part , on an attempt to accomoc}ate Aston Properties' economic desires , would open the City to an exponsivo and eventually undefendable response to a law suit , Much of the information in the E . T . R. is hypothetical and incomplete (extent of clean up still unknown ) . Tf this reneral Plan amendment was approved , and later clean up information showed the site not practical for development , the property owner could win a lawsuit if the City attempted to '"down zone." the property. :Without complete clean up information , any land use decision on the subject property is premature . The safest , option for the City would be to wait for all necessary • information on site clean up to be determined prior to making a decision on the General Plan amendment . Or atloast approve a land use density extremely low , so that a lawsui.t would not be initiated for 'clown zoning" . As you are aware, the Developer ' s contention that the site clean up would cost atloast $1.0 , 000 , 000 is unverified . Fven if we use such unsubstantiated costs , a low density designation which 311owi 252 homes , wotil!i result in a cost per unit of only S. 39. 682 , This is An amount that could definitely be factored into houses oh ' the site. which would likely ,sell in the $400 , 000 price range . And by the time tho houses were constructed some time in the future, the house prices would be even higher , making the $39 , 682 even et smaller factor in the cost of construction . Low density housing coul(i be hut'fered from the land uses on the west side of the subject site with several alternative solutions such as : 1 ) large rear yards with substantial tree planting along the west property line ; or 2 ) a buffer zone such as a linear park ; or 1 ) n hoavily landscaped pedestrian/bike trail which would link to Edision Park. In ttse best interest of the City, it is reque4tsd thatthe Planning Commissioners faithfull discharge their responsibilities under California land use law,., to determine the most comvati,ble land desipnation for the site which is in concert with the present surrounding uses , and irrespective of the developer' s financial needs , Sincerely, — 3 -)9 '0 • �� Donn 3 lineser, 9.362 Malahine Drive Huntineton RAart}, 03 Huntington Beach Fountain Valley Board of REALTORS' Inc. R E A LTO R' 8101 Slater Avcnue• Huntington Beach,CA 92647 4(714)847.6091 0 FAX(714)841.3375 October 3, 1988 The Honorable Victor Liepzig and Members of the Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE: Agenda Item C-3. General Plan Amendment 87-4/EIR#87-5 Regarding Ascon Landfill Honorable Commissioners: On Tuesday, October 4,you will consider approval to amend the land use designation on the Ascon Landfill site. Your decision will have an important impact on our City -- an impact beyond the proposed development itself because it may provide the only opportunity in the foreseeable future to clean up this hazardous waste property. While Ascon is on the Superfund list. it has been assigned such a low priority by the governmental agencies that it is doubtful that public funds will ever be allocated to clean up this site. Yet, our local residents live with nuisance daily and I expect it has a much higher priority for them! It appears that there is now an opportunity to clean up the site through private investment. Obviously, since clean up is such a costly process. some "incentive" may be necessary to persuade a private party to assume the financial responsibility. I believe that the "public benefit" to be gained through the clean up merits your special consideration. I would also like to address the issue concerning the "type of housing" that is being proposed. Sometimes, local residents are not entirely "comfortable" with the idea that a different type of housing might be constructed in their neighborhood. I live in a custom home here in Huntington Beach that is directly across the'street from a condominium complex and. from my own experience. I can testify that the condominium project. in my neighborhood -- because they have an association that maintains the exterior of the buildings as well as the property, is better maintained than some single family homes! Every community needs to provide a variety of housing opportunities for its residents. One of the best exwnples I can think of is the City of Irvine which has achieved national recognition as an outstanding master planned community. In Irvine. evezv neighborhood has gv— element of housing -- apartments. condominiums, and single fancily homes. A nicely designed, well maintained multi-family housing project is not a detriment to a neighborhood. I hope you will make every effort to work with the developer to try to insure that the project is economically feasible so that they can afford to assume the financial responsibility for the cleanup effort. I see a unique opportunity this evening for a "win-win" resolution which would be beneficial to the property owner as well as the entire community! 9an cerely, %homaker Board President aO / JS/JAS/km T J�-3 OFFICERS JAN SHOMAKER. President-PHYLLIS RHYAN,First Vice President TOM VAN 7'ovL. Se00nd V;co President•RALPH. CARPUTNERS.Serretary•Treasurer LILA NOWELL -JAMES RIGHEIMER -JAMES E.MORRISSEY a MARY LU HUGHES a LENITA ARNOLD WILL WOODS. Executive Vice President a JUDITH A. SEVERY.Vice Presioent/Public Affairs huntington beach department of community development sTAFF REPOR11 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Community Development DATE: January 18, 1989 SUBJECT: ' GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 87-4/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 87-5 APPLICANT: Ascon Properties, Inc. DATE ACCEPTED: 21572 Surveyor Circle January 19 , 1988 Hunt . Beach, CA 92646 MANDATORY PROCESSING DATE: REQUEST: To change the land use January 19, 1989 designation to General Commercial and to Medium ZONE: LUD-0-CZ-FP2 High Density residential . (Limited Use Combined with Oil Production within LQCAT. ,X: Southwest corner of the Coastal Zone and Magnolia Street and Floodplain District) Hamilton Avenue. GENERAL PLAN: Public, Quasi- ACREAGE: 39 .4 acres Public, Institutional EXISTING USE: Non operating Ascon Landfill 1 . 0 SUGGESTED ACTION: Recommend to the City Council certification of Environmental Impact Report No . 87-5 and approval of General Plan Land Use Element Amendment No . 87-4 (39 .4 acres of Public, Quasi-Public, Institutional designation to Medium Density Residential) and adopt Resolution 1405 . 2 . 0 GENERAL INFORMATION: General Plan Amendment No. 87-4 is a request to amend the land use designation on the Ascon site from Public, Quasi-Public, Institutional to General Commercial and Medium High Density Residential designation. The proposal specifies approximately 6 .4 acres of commercial land use at the southwest corner of Hamilton Avenue and Magnolia Street surrounded on the west and south by about 33 acres of residentially designated land. The applicant is proposing about 83 , 000 square feet of commercial use and up to 750 dwelling units on the residentially designated land. A-F M•23C i 3 A ENV I RfJNMEN AL STATUS: Pursuant to Section 15060 of the California Envi"ronment.al .Quality Act , an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) 87-5 was prepared for General Plan Amendment No . 87-4 . Because the California Coastal Commission . is also acting as a responsible agency in this case, the Elk was circulated through the State Clearinghouse and posted for a forty-five (45) day public review period from May 5, 1988, through July 11, 1988 . 4. 0 ' ISSUES AND ANALYSIS: The applicant ini.tia•lly requested 6.4 acres of General Commercial, and 33 acres of High Density Residential (up to 900 units) on the 39 . 4 acre site. The -request was based on the ..applicant's estimated need for such density in order to secure financing for site clean-up: EIR 87-5 which was prepared for the project indicated that impacts. from the requested project were minimal . Traffic, which was expected to be a significant issue was found to be mitigatable to .acceptable service levels ..with standard street and intersection widenings in accordance with 'adopted arterial classifications. A •market study was conducted and determined that the trade area could support as much as 150, 000 square feet of additional retail area, nearly double the app•lc.ant' s requested 83 ,000 square feet . Staff was concerned about the establishment of retail space in such close proximity to Edison High School and Edison Community Park, but felt that impacts could be minimized through restrictions on .tenant occupancy types In. analyzing the app.licant.' s request , staff ' s principle concern was . in establishing a land. use which could be deemed compatible with surrounding land uses . Staff felt.. that a high density use was. not consistent with the low density areas to• the north and east of the project . Nor was low density felt to be compatible with the power plant and industrial uses- to the south and west of the project . In order to deal with the extremes of land uses on- either end of the project site, staff recommended a Medium .Density designation on 33 acres of the site, and restricted General Commercial on 6 .4 acres . It was felt that these designations would allow for a range, of product types and densities which could be deemed compatible with surrounding uses . At the October - 6, 1988 Planning Commission meeting, for which the item was origin•a'1ly agendized, the .Commission directed staff to .conduct a public workshop in order .to solicit public input. The workshop" was held on November 2, 1988 . The result of the workshop was a finding of overwhelmiiig . public preference for a .low density or park use on the site. . Reasons cited were a desire to retain the single family character of the area and to -minimize traffic increases in the area ,aa " -3 Staff Report - 1/18/89 =2- (1875d) After the November 2, 1988 public workshop, the amendment request was advertised for public hearing on December 6, 1986 . On December 1, however, the applicant submitted m letter requesting continuance of the item in order to prepare information relative to sito clean-up cost estimates . On December 6, 1988, the Commission continued the item to a study session on Janu@ry 9 , 1989, and @ public hearing on January 24 , 1989 . At the January 4 , 1969 study session, the applicant submitted a Site Characterization Report prepared by Radian Corporation, as well as a cost estimate for site clean-up prepared by Protek Environmental, Inc. Those reports estimated a maximum volume of 750, OOO cubic yards of contaminated soil on the site, and an estimated remediation cost of $10 to $15 million. In addition, the applicant has submitted an estimated cost of �l million for clean-up of the acid pit on the site. Based on the above estimates, the applicant has revised his requested land use amendment to a density figure which he feels is warranted by the newly determined economics of site clean-up. Rather than 900 units on 33 acres at a density of 27 units per acre (High Density) he has reduced his request to 750 units on 33 acres, at a density of 22 units per acre (Medium High Density) . He has retained his request for 6 . 4 acres of General Commercial . This revised request will generate approximately 8, 395 average daily vehicle trips, for a 9 . 5 percent reduction from his earlier higher density request which generated 9 , 280 trips . They also feel that with this reduced density they can provide a substantial green belt along the eastern property boundary, as well as limit building heights to two stories on the perimeter, and three stories on the interior of the project . Along with the applicant ' s revised request, staff has also prepared a revised recommendation. The original staff recommendation was for 33 acres of Medium Density Residential and 6 . 4 acres of restricted General Commercial . Due to public input regarding concerns about traffic increases , staff is recommending that the commercial portion of the request be denied . This will also alleviate compatibility concerns related to a commercial use at the proposed location. The revised staff recommendation will permit a maximum of 630 units on the entire 39 .4 net acres (15 units per acre on 42 . 0 gross acres) . This number of units would generate approximately 3 , 717 average daily vehicle trips for a 43 . 9 percent reduction from the previous designation recommended which would have generated 6 , 625 trips . The revised staff recommendation would generate only 1, 172 more daily vehicle trips than a 252 unit, 6 unit per acre low density project . Although recognizing that the staff recommendation will not totally satisfy either the surrounding residents or the applicant, it is felt to be a reasonable compromise between the two positions . The staff recommendation will provide the neighborhood with a project which will cause a reasonable increase in demand on the City° s infrastructure, including the carrying capacity of the streets and, therefore, may be more compatible with all of the existing surrounding uses . The recommendation also provides the applicant 1)-3 .�� Staff Report - 1/18/89 -3- ( 1875d) with a substantial number of residential units on the property which should be adequate to secure continued financing for site clean-up. The recommendation also recognizes the uncertainty which exists regarding ultimate site clean-up costs . If, after site clean-up commences or concludes , clean-up costs are proven to be higher than anticipated, the applicant may request a new General Plan Amendment for a higher density designation. In order to clarify the permitting process for the Ascon site, a Permitting Sequence of Events table (Attachment 2) has been prepared . The table begins with the City Council ' s resolution to allow the applicant to file for a General Plan Amendment, while at the same time beginning the site remediation study process . As the table shows , after the General Plan Amendment/EIR, no further development entitlement may occur until after the site has been remediated and tested for safety for habitation. After that point, further entitlements for residential development may be considered. It is important to note that most of the events for both site remediation and development will require public hearings as part of the approval process . 5 . 0 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council certification of Environmental Impact Report No . 87-5 and approval of General Plan Land Use Element Amendment No . 87-4 and adopt Resolution 1405 . The recommended land use designation is Medium Density Residential . AT- CHMENTS: 1 . Area map 2 . Ascon Site Permitting Sequence of Events 3 . Resolution No . 1405 4 . Recent letters received from surrounding neighbors 5 . Staff report dated January 4 , 1989 6 . Staff report dated December 6, 1988 7 . Staff report dated October 4 , 1988 8 . EIR 87-5 and Addendums HS : kla _ 3 .a4 ! Staff Report - 1/18/89 -4- (1875d) i 'n,a.ra Avt.u� F1 r� I I Fit t SCAod �� i 'lI � Eamon wvh x�a„ I =, o Idiom R/w I I i C X. fd,von 0•,�r•t,na Mint ' '' � ■ I I I li Lng ih ••,•• o I U ale . as huntington beach Ian • Planning dw�sion V ASCON SITE PERMITTING SEQUENCE OF EVENTS t W Jan. 1989 Jan. 1990 Jan. 1991 Council Resolution to Process General Plan Amendment/EIR Remediation Work Pla?n Site Characterization Remediation Feasibility Study" CUP/EIR for �CaVdtlOn= Si to Cl2dn=2 SiteTestena Zone Change to In21MOt G.P.= �1P/TTR Building �permits Oates conceptual only " Public Hearing for Adoption/Approval (1882d) RESOLUTION NO. 1405 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH , CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN NO. 87-4 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach, California desires to update and refine the General Plan in keeping with changing community needs and objectives; and WHEREAS, amendments to the Land Use Element are necessary to accomplish refinement of the General Plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommends the following amendments to the Land Use Element : 1 . That the Ascon site consisting of 39 .4 acres located on the southwest corner of Hamilton Avenue and Magnolia Street be redesignated from Public, Quasi-public Institutional to Medium Density Residential . WHEREAS, a public hearing on adoption of Land Use Element Amendment to the General Plan No. 87-4 was held by the City Planning Commission on January 18, 1989, in accordance with provisions of the State Government Code; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach, California, hereby approved said amendment to the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said amendment to the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach is recommended for adoption by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California . PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach, California, on the 18th day of January, 1989, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: . ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission Planning Commission Chairman ( 1874d) �_ 3 • "�7 December 27 , 1988 Hal Simmons Planning Division City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mr . Simmons ; I am writing to you because I cannot attend the January 3, 1989 meeting to consider General Plan Amendment 87-4 . My thinking is that a High Density plan of up to 900 dwelling units will adversely impact the immediate area . It is not science fiction to project that 1800 automobiles will exit the development in search of freeway access, much of that traffic to flow past the fire station and Edison High School which we in the neighborhood know to be already a congested though manageable scene. High Density Residential . Is that really the only and best answer to development? Does it in any way take into consi- deration the quality of residence in the proposed project and in the nearby neighborhoods? Please list us among those who very much oppose the ASCON plan and would favor single family dwellings or a gentler (and we think, saner) usage of the land. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Ellie Wiesel , RECJEITE JA n Berney iesel 4 198e 21392 leet Lane OF:14kry�FNr OF Huntington Beach, CA 92646 tiT �8 �V 3 RESOLUTION NO. 1405 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH , CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN NO. 87-4 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach, California desires to update and refine the General Plan in keeping with changing community needs and objectives; and WHEREAS, amendments to the Land Use Element are necessary to accomplish refinement of the General Plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommends the following amendments to the Land Use Element: 1 . That the Ascon site consisting of 39 . 4 acres located on the southwest corner of Hamilton Avenue and Magnolia Street be redesignated from Public, Quasi-public Institutional to Medium 'Density Residential . WHEREAS, a public hearing on adoption of Land Use Element Amendment to the General Plan No. 87-4 was held by the City Planning Commission on January 18, 1989, in accordance with provisions of the State Government Code; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach, California, hereby approved said amendment to the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said amendment to the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach is recommended for adoption by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California . PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach, California, on the 18th day of January, 1989 , - by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission Planning Commission Chairman (1874d) a December 27, 1988 Hal Simmons Planning Division City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear- Mr. . Simmons; I ain writing to you because I cannot attend the January 3, 1989 meeting to consider General Plan Amendment 87-4 . My thinking is that a High Density plan of up to 900 dwelling units will adversely impact the immediate area. It is not science fiction to project that 1800 automobiles will exit the development in search of freeway access , much of that traffic to flow past the fire station and Edison High School which we in the neighborhood know to be already a congested though manageable scene. High Density Residential . Is that really the only and best answer to development? Does it in any way take into consi- deration the duality of residence in the proposed project and in the nearby neighborhoods? Please list us among those who very much oppose the ASCON plan and would favor single family dwellings or a gentler ( and we think, saner) usage of the land. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely ,,/ ��_• G'U LG� R.'ECEIVEDJ Ellie Wiesel JA Berney iesel 41988. 21392 leet Lane oF:•Ak,�FNr Huntington Beach, CA OF 92646 �- 3 huntington beach department of community development -0 sra f f REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Community Development DATE: January 4 , 1989 SUBJECT: ASCON GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT - STUDY SESSION On December 6, 1988, Planning Commission action on General Plan Amendment No . 87-4/Environmental Impact Report No . 87-5 was continued to a study session on January 4 , 1989 . The purpose of the continuance was to allow the applicant sufficient time to complete the Site Characterization Report and related economic information. Attached is the final Site Characterization Report for the Ascon site, as prepared by Radian Corporation. The report addresses Soil/Waste Investigation, Hydrogeologic Investigation, Air [nvestigation, and Pathways for Human Exposure to Site c.o6taminants . In very brief summary, the report concludes that the t:ut:al waste volume on the site is 691, 000 cubic yards and that there is some evidence of potential for the migration of contaminated groundwater off-site. Pit F provides the most potential for air emissions as a health concern. Also attached is a letter to Ascon Properties from Protek Environmental , Inc . In the letter , Protek estimates that there are between 530 , 000 and 750, 000 cubic yards of contaminated soil on the Ascon site . Based on that estimate,. they further estimate the cost of remediation, by the Bio-Remediation method, to be $10 to $15 million . Staff has not thoroughly reviewed the new data which has been presented, nor does staff have the expertise to do so. Copies, however have been forwarded to Woodward-Clyde, the City' s review consultant . Although Woodward-Clyde will not be prepared to discuss the characterization .report as early as January 4 , the applicant, Radian and staff will be prepared to answer questions and note items to be researched further . D_ 3 . A-f M-23C It is important to note that the Site Characterization Report is not submitted herein for approval . Rather, approval of that report will come only after a thorough review and comment period by Woodward-Clyde and all other appropriate public agencies. The Site Characterization Report is submitted now only as a means of roughly assessing the extent and cost of clean-up required in order to determine project economics related to a future land use designation . ATTACHMENTS: L . Site Characterization Report 2 . Letter from Protek Environmental, Inc. dated December 6, 1988 HS : kIa I�S Study Session - 1/4/89 -2- (1833&) huntington beach department of community development • STAf f E ORT P , TO: Planning Commission FROM: Community Development DATE: December 6, 1988 SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 87-4/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 87-5 (ASCON) - CONTINUED FROM OCTOBER 4 , 1988 SUGGESTED ACTION: Continue General Plan Amendment No. 87-4 until January 3, 1989 . BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At the October 4 , 1988 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission requested that ASCON provide information relative to site clean-up cost estimates as a means of validating the need for high density residential on the site as a funding mechanism. To date, ASCON has been unable to provide that information. On December 1, 1988, ASCON ,,.requested that staff recommend a continuance of the amendment until January 3 , 1989 so that they can provide more information on site clean-up. They feel that Radian will have the Site Characterization Report completed and available at that. time. Staff concurs with ASCON' s request . Staff required that ASCON reimburse the City for a special mailing, informing the residents that a continuance was being requested and that the item may be continued at the discretion of the Planning Commission . The mailing went out on Friday, December 2, 1988, and should be received on Monday or Tuesday. The staff report which had been prepared prior to receiving the request for continuance is attached for the Commission' s information in case the continuance is not granted. RECOMMENDATION: Continue General Plan Amendment No. '87-4 until January 3 , 1999 . ATTACHMENTS: 1 . Letter Requesting Continuance 2 . Staff Report as _3 HS:gbm (1700d) A-F M-23C Ascon Properties, Inc. 21 S72 surveyor Circle Huntington Beach. California 92646 (714) 960.5471 December 1 , 1988 Mr. Hal Simmons Planning Department City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mr. Simmons, Due to unforeseen delays in finalization of the Ascon Characterization Report it will not be ready for the December 6th Planning Commission hearing. Ascon Properties therefore asks that you withdraw Ascon' s request for General Plan Amendment scheduled for public hearing on December 6, 1988 and reschedule our hearing for the January 3, 1989 Planning Commission session. Inasmuch as the local residents have been notified to attend this Tuesday ' s meeting Ascon will cover the costs associated with any notification of this cancellation which the City sees fit to perform. Please accept our apologies for any problems which this . request may cause. Yours ul hn S . Lindsey ice President JL:mb huntington beach department of community development • STA f f -REPORIE TO: Planning Commission FROM: Community Development DATE: December 6, 1988 SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 87-4/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 87-5 APPLICANT/ Ascon Properties, Inc. DATE ACCEPTED: PROPERTY 21572 Surveyor Circle January 19, 1988 OWNER: Huntington Beach, CA 92646 R 4E UEST: To change the land use MANDATORY PROCESSING DATE: designation to General January 19, 1989 Commercial and to High Density Residential ZONE: LUD-O-CZ-FP2 (Limited Use combined with IIOCATION: Southwest corner of Oil Production within the Magnolia Street and Coastal Zone and Hamilton Avenue Floodplain District ACREAQE: 39 . 4 acres GENERAL PLAN: Public, Quasi-Public Institution EXISTING USE: Non-operating Ascon Landfill 1,. 0 SUGGESTED ACTION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council certification of Environmental Impact Report No . 87-5 and direct staff to process General Plan Land Use Element Amendment No . 87-4 with a concurrent zone change and return to the Commission in approximately eight (8) weeks . The recommended land use designation is 39 . 4 acres of Medium Density Residential . The zone change specifies an overall density of 10 units per acre and a maximum unit count of 394 units . 2 . 0 GENERAL INFORMATION: General Plan Amendment No . 87-4 is a request to amend the land use designation on the Ascon site from Public, Quasi-Public, Institutional to General Commercial and High Density Residential designation. The proposal specifies approximately 6 .4 acres of commercial land use at the southwest corner of Hamilton Avenue and Magnolia Street surrounded on the west and south by about 33 acres . of residentially designated land. The applicant is proposing approximately 83 , 000 square feet of commercial use and up to 900 dwelling units on the residentially designated land . �S C . A-F M 23C AND ANALYSIS : On October 4 , 1988 , the Planning Commission continued General Plan • Amendment No . 87-4 and EIR No . 87-5 until the meeting of December 6 , 1988 . The decision to continue this item was based on the Commission ' s desire for additional information. The Commission requested more public input and they also requested that the applicant supply them with data concerning site cleanup. Specifically, the Commission requested economic information on site cleanup costs and general information on cleanup measures and procedures . This information was requested by the Commission as the applicant is justifying his proposal for commercial and high density residential uses on the basis of . the necessity to obtain adequate financing for cleanup of the site . The applicant has indicated, however, that no solid economic data can be developed until further site investigation has been completed. A public workshop was held on November 2, 1988 to receive public comments . Staff reviewed the procedures for general plan amendments and summarized the staff recommendation for general commercial and medium density residential at the subject site. The applicant presented information on the status of the site cleanup and related procedures as well as possible development concepts . Comments from the public included statements addressing the following issues . 1 . Questions concerning the adequacy of the EIR traffic data relative to traffic volumes and safety issues . A specific comment was that summer traffic volumes should have been analyzed rather than the February data that was used. The attached letter from Willdan Associates responds to that concern . 2 . Mixed comments concerning the need for site cleanup versus retaining the existing site conditions . Some neighbors discounted the need for site clean-up, while others felt it should be remediated as soon as possible. 3 . Concern regarding the need for commercial services at the corner of Hamilton and Magnolia . Comments were that commercial at that location would be incompatible with the high school , and that there were adequate shopping opportunities already in the area . 4 . Comments expressing a strong desire for single family residences at the subject site. Additional comments included the desirability of a greenbelt area along the westerly and southerly property lines to buffer new low density residences from the adjacent land uses in those areas, rather than building inward oriented attached units as proposed. -D- 3 Staff. Report - 12/6/88 -2- (1681d) • v The consensus of public opinion opposed the intensity of the applicant ' s proposal and the staff recommendation and stated that aesthetic and design issues will not mitigate the negative impacts to the surrounding neighborhoods . Following the Planning Commission discussions of October 4 , 1988, and the public workshop of November 2, 1968, it appears than there are four land use designation alternatives. &ItexnAtive One. The first Alternative is the applicant ' s proposal for General Commercial on 6 .4 acres and high density residential up to 900 units on approaimately 33 acres . Z1R 87-5 was prepared to analyze potential impacts* og tha project . The EIR identifies several impacts which can be considered adverse. However , the EIR states that these impacts are either insignificant or can be mitigated to insignificant levels . Although staff reviewed the identified impacts, the analysis focused on issues of land use compatibility and traffic impacts . The information supplied in the EIR suggests that land use impacts -can be mitigated through site development design and zoning considerations on subsequent zone-change actions . Traffic data supplied in the EIR and addenda suggest that the addition of a right-turn lane and two through lanes would mitigate increased traffic volumes . Alternative TMo . The second alternative emerged from the input at the public workshop on November 2, 1988. Although some individuals expressed different opinions and many various alternatives are possible, apparently the general consensus of the participants at the workshop was a low density residential land use designation at the subject property with a possible greenbelt on the west and south to buffer the new residences from adjacent industrial land uses . Major concerns of the neighbors included the intensity of residential development and the traffic impacts to the area. According to the neighbors, the adverse impacts generated by the increased density and traffic volumes cannot be mitigated through design and aesthetic considerations of the project site and/or adjacent roadways . Residents believe the proposed project will have an adverse impact on the overall quality of life in the area. Many residents expressed concern over the prospect of a commercial land use designation at the corner of Hamilton and Magnolia . The individuals expressed doubt regarding the need for more commercial in the area as well as the appropriateness of commercial near the school and park. . Alternative Three. The third alternative is the staff ° s original recommendation. The staff recommendation was a general commercial designation of 6 .4 acres and a medium density residential ® designation, not to exceed 450 units, on the remainder of the parcel . This recommendation was based on 1) standard land use � _ :3 Staff Report - 12/6/88 -3- (1681d) planning principles where densities in an area are progressively increased rather than jumped directly from low to high, and 2) compatibility concerns for surrounding industrial and residential land uses . Additional concerns included an increased ability to mitigate density and aesthetic concerns with a medium density designation . Information supplied in the EIR suggests that traffic impacts can be mitigated more easily with medium density development on the site. Finally, commercial market analyses indicate there is some unmet commercial needs within the vicinity of the project area . Alternative Four (New Staff Recommendation) . After numerous staff discussions and receipt of considerable public input, staff has prepared a revised alternative which is an attempt to address the neighborhood ' s, the applicant ' s and the City' s concerns . The staff ' s new alternative recommends that the commercial designation at the corner of Hamilton and Magnolia be eliminated and that the land use designation on the entire 39 .4 acre parcel be changed to medium density residential . However, the actual developed density should be midway between low and medium density. in order to establish a reduced medium density with the General Plan Amendment , staff suggests that a zone change could be initiated noncurrent with the General Plan Amendment . The zone change would specify an overall density of 10 units/acre and provide a maximum unit count of 394 units for the subsequent development of the site. This density would permit the development of a single family residential project with reduced lot sizes of approximately 3500 square feet (35 x 100 foot lots) . The zoning designation would specify that specific conditions be applied to the medium density residential and that a maximum unit count be established. One suggestion for the zone change is (Q)-R2-(10)-O-CZ-FP2 (Medium Density Residential with conditions and unit count not to exceed 10 units per acre combined with oil production with the Coastal Zone and Floodplain District) . This type of project should address many of . the concerns of the neighborhood while still allowing the applicant to demonstrate some reasonable progress to his lenders . In the future, should the applicant obtain specific information on cleanup costs that justify increased density, the applicant could request that the zoning be changed to allow up to 15 units per acre . This would require a new public hearing for the zone change, but would not necessitate a new General Plan Amendment . 4 . 0 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council certification of Environmental Impact Report No . 87-5 and direct staff to process General Land Use Element Amendment No. 87-4 with a concurrent zone change and to return to the Commission in approximately 8 weeks . The recommended land use designation is 39 .4 . acres of Medium Density Residential . The zone change specifies an overall density of 10 units per acre and a maximum unit count of 394 units . 1q 6 6 Staff. Report - 12/6/88 -4- (1681d) L o ALTERNATIVE ACTION: The Planning Commission may approve the applicant ' s proposal with findings and conditions. of approval or the Planning Commission may approve the neighborhood alternative with findings and conditions of approval . ATTACHMENTS: 1 . Letters received from surrounding neighbors . 2 . Communication from Willdan Associates . 3 . Staff Report of October 4 , 1988, and related attachments . MA:HS:RL: gbm Staff Report 12/6/88 -5- (1681d) HAM I LTON PROPERTIES 9421 LEILANI DRIVE HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92646 (714) %2-4271 November 16 , 1988 RECEIVED Mr. Mike Adams, Director Department of Community Development N�V � 1 1988 City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street sr Huntington Beach, CA 92648 ATTENTION: PLANNING COMMISSION SUBJECT: Ascon Public Workshop General Plan Amendment 87-4 EIR 87-5 Dear Mr. Adams: This letter is being written in response to comments and recommenda- tion made by you and your staff during the subject workshop. Lased on review of EIR 87-5 , we have come to the conclusion that research information presented in the EIR by Urban Research Associa- tion regarding 6.4 acres of general commercial use is inadequate and certainly does not give supporting data for building a neighborhood shopping center at this location . Specifically, the EIR systematically ignores several small shopping centers and office buildings in the general vicinity that collectively absorbs all of the demand for service commercial and office space in this sector of Huntington Beach. The following locations should have been part of the study: LOCATION LAND USE Hamilton east of Newland Industrial/office/commercial Hamilton and Bushard Commercial Bushard and Banning Commercial Bushard and Brookhurst Commercial/office Brookhurst and Hamilton Commercial/office Brookhurst and Atlanta Commercial/office Those of us that live , work and own property in Huntington Beach know, that the future status of Edison HIgh School is in question . It seems that other uses for the school site should have been analyzed and their impacts quantified as part of the EIR process . Very truly your , "D- 3 K. A. Reynolds for Hamilton Properties V -kv WILLDAN ASSOCIATES ❑ ENGINEERS & PLANNERS RECEIVEiQ Nov ; 1988 °F of err. ':T November 18, 1988 Ms. Ruth Lambert City of Huntington Beach Community Development - Planning Division 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Subject: ASCON Property General Plan Update 87-4 EIR Dear Ms. Lambert: -Turnincl movement traffic counts for this project were taken in February '-- 1988. The validity of these February counts was questioned during the public hearing on October 4, 1988. The City of Huntington Beach experiences a large increase in traffic during the summer months due to the attraction of its beaches. The February counts were, therefore, thought to be low. Although 24-hour traffic counts may be 10 to 15 percent higher during the summer months, the peak hour turning movement counts do not experience beach-generated traffic fluctuations. Recreational traffic, such as beach-gen- erated traffic, spreads over the hours between the morning and evening peak to avoid peak hour congestion. Turning movement counts were taken during the morning (7 a.m. - 9 a.m. ) and evening (4 p.m. - 6 p.m. ) peak hours. The peak hours experience the highest hourly volume of a day and is created by commuter traffic. School-generated traffic also occurs during the morning peak hour. February peak hour turning movement counts are, therefore, more valid than summer counts, resulting in higher traffic volumes. For these reasons, we feel that our analysis, which was based upon February peak )lour turning movement counts, is valid and that summer peak hour turning movement counts are unwarranted. J_ 3, 51 PARKWAY SOUTH•SUITE 200•INDUSTRY,CALIFORNIA 91746-3499•(213)695-0551 •FAX(213)695-2120 November 18, 1988 If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Barry Dee or myself at (213) 695-0551 . Very truly yours, WILLDAN ASSOCIATES Rob Miyasaki Associate Engineer copy: Randy Nichols RYM:yn J N 9602 L.3/Traf huntington beach department of community development STAff EP OR TO: Planning Commission FROM: Community Development DATE: October 4 , 1988 SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 87-4/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 87-5 i ApPLICANT: Ascon Properties , Inc. DATE ACCEPTED: 1 21572 Surveyor Circle January 19 , 1988 Hunt . Beach, CA 92646 MANDATORY PROCESSING DATE: REQUEST: To change the land use January 19 , 1989 designation to General Commercial and to High ZONE: LUD-O-CZ-FP2 Density residential . (Limited Use Combined with Oil Production within LQCATION: Southwest corner of the Coastal Zone and Magnolia Street and Floodplain District) Hamilton Avenue. GENERAL PLAN: Public, Quasi- AGREA E: 39 . 4 acres Public, Institutional EXISTING USE: Non-operating Ascon Landfill GGESTED ACTION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council certification of Environmental Impact Report No . 87-5 and approval of General Plan Land Use Element Amendment No . 87-4 and adopt Resolution 1405 . The recommended land use designation is 6 .4 acres of General Commercial and 33 acres of Medium Density Residential . 2 . 0 _ GENERAL INFORMATION: General Plan Amendment No . 87-4 is a request to amend the land use designation on the Ascon site from Public, Quasi-Public, Institutional to General Commercial and High Density Residential designation. The proposal specifies approximately 6 .4 acres of commercial land use at the southwest corner of Hamilton Avenue and Magnolia Street surrounded on the west and south by about 33 a-cres of residentially designated land. The applicant is proposing about 83 , 000 square feet of commercial use and up to 900 dwelling units on the residentially designated land. -3 C -3 A-F M-23C 3 ..0 SURROUNDING LAND USE, ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS: North of Subject Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Open Space Recreation 'LONE.: RA-FP2 (Residential Agriculture- Floodplain) and CF-R-FP2 (Community Facilities-Recreation-Floodplain) LAND USE : Edison Right-of-Way, Edison Community Park �. ._4 _,Subjec Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential ZONE: R1-CZ-FP2 (Low Density Residential- Coastal Zone-Floodplain) LAND USE: Single family residences south of Subject Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Industrial Energy Production ZONE: M2-O-CZ-FP2 (Industrial combined with Oil-Coastal Zone-Floodplain) LAND USE: Edison Generating Plant, Oil Storage Tanks GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION : General Industrial ZONE: M2-0-CZ-FP2 and M1-A-O-CZ-FP2 ( Industrial and Restricted Manufacturing combined with Oil- Coastal Zone-Floodplain) LAND USE: Industrial buildings 4 `Q_ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Pursuant to Section 15060 of the California Environmental Quality Act , an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) 87-5 was prepared for General Plan Amendment No . 87-4 . Because the California Coastal Commission is also acting as a responsible agency in this case, the EIR was circulated through the State Clearinghouse and posted for a forty-five (45) day public review period from May 5, 1988, through July 11 , 1988 . A list of those agencies and interested persons were solicited for comments . Of those notified, the following persons/agencies responded with comments : 1 . Huntington Beach Environmental Board 2 . Henry W. Bohman 3 . County Sanitation Districts of Orange County 4 . California Coastal . Commission 5 . City of Huntington Beach; Public Works -D- 3 � Staff Report - 10/4/88 -2- (1368d) . 6 . Southern California Edison Company 7 . City of Huntington Beach; Community Services 8 . Southern California Gas Company Copies of the comments and staff ' s responses are included in Attachment 5 of this staff report . On July 20, 1987 , the City Council entered into an agreement with Ascon Properties, Inc. to process a general plan amendment for the property in order to help expedite the cleanup of the - site. However, no commitment was made by Council for future zone change proposals or development on the site until the site has been remediated and is no longer contaminated. Ascon Properties, Inc. subsequently submitted a general plan amendment request to the City to change the land use designation on the subject property from Public, Quasi-public, Institutional to High Density Residential and General Commercial . The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that an EIR be prepared for all general plan amendments . After the competitive bidding process, Environmental Impact Report No. 87-5 was prepared by Willdan Associates . The EIR analyzes the applicant ' s proposal for a land use designation of 6 .4 acres of general commercial and 33 acres of high density residential to permit up to 900 dwelling units. The subject site is presently a non-operating landfill which contains hazardous waste. The EIR addresses the impacts of the general plan amendment request only and assumes a clean site prior to development . Site clean up will be addressed in a separate environmental document . `— The EIR analyzes the proposed project and four alternative land use scenarios . In addition to the commercial/high density residential project proposal , the alternatives include: Alternative 1 : Low Density Residential of approximately 266 dwelling units Alternative 2 : Light Industrial Complex consisting of up to 662, 112 square feet of space Alternative 3 : Commercial/Medium Density Residential including 6 .4 acres of commercial and about 450 dwelling units Alternative 4 : City-owned or leased maintenance/storage facility The project and the alternatives are evaluated for several potential environmental impacts . These impacts include 1) population/ demographics, 2) geology, soils and topography, 3) air quality, 4 )hydrology, 5) noise, 6) light and glare, 7) land use and planning considerations , 8) petroleum resources, 9) traffic and circulation, 10) water supply, 11) sewer facilities, and 12) fiscal impacts . The EIR identifies several of the above impacts which can be considered adverse. It should be noted, however, that these impacts are either insignificant or can be mitigated to insignificant levels . The following is a summary of the identified impac 5 Staff Report 10/4/88 -3- ( 1368d) Sys and Geolo4v. The project site is located in a seismically active region and is subject to seismically induced problems . Adherence to adopted building and seismic codes and standards will reduce risks to acceptable levels . Increased Air Pollution. The vehicular traffic generated by the proposed project will result in increased air pollutant emissions . Due to the fact that the additional pollutants generated comprise a very small portion of regional emission, this impact is considered insignificant . In addition, no significant micro-scale, localized pollutant increases are expected to result if traffic movement is maintained at efficient levels . Hydrology. The proposed project will introduce a substantial amount of impervious surfaces to the site which will increase the amount of stormwater runoff . Implementation of the necessary drainage improvements should adequately mitigate any potential impacts to an insignificant level . Increased Noise Levels . Oil recovery operations and increased vehicular traffic will increase noise levels in the immediate vicinity of the project site. Increases in vehicular noise will be within locally adopted standards and will not adversely impact residential land uses . Implementation of the recommended mitigation measures and the provisions of the Huntington Beach Oil Code will reduce noise associated with oil operations to an acceptable level . .Light and Glare . The effects of project lighting and . other sources of night-time illumination will be minor and can easily by mitigated to an insignificant level . L�_nd i1�g Compatibility. Potential land use incompatibilities may occur depending upon the type, design and intensity of future development on the project site. Mitigation measures are proposed and are readily implementable, to reduce impacts to acceptable levels . Petroleum Resources . Environmental and safety concerns associated with oil recovery operations on the site can be adequately addressed through existing provisions of applicable state and local regulations . Increased Traffic Volumes . The proposed project will have the adverse impact of generating additional traffic and contributing to an increase in traffic volumes on local roadways . Mitigation measures are proposed to maintain an acceptable level of service on affected streets . Public Services and Utilities . The proposed project will result in an increased demand upon public services and utilities . Mitigation measures are proposed which will maintain adequate service to the project area and reduce any adverse impacts to an insignificant level. . -D_ 3. s6 Staff Report - 10/4/88 -4- (1368d) Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No . 1405 recommending adoption and certification of Environmental Impact Report No . 87-5 and addendum documentation. .5_,_O COASTAL STATUE: The subject site is located in the appealable portion of the Coastal Zone . A general plan amendment on this property will constitute an amendment to the City' s Local Coastal Plan. If the general plan amendment is approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council , it will be forwarded to the Coastal Commission for final approval . The request is consistent with those objectives and policies contained in the Coastal Element of the City' s General Plan that specifically address the Ascon- or "rotary mud dump" site. General Flan Policy 4f (§3 . 6 . 2 . 6) encourages "the conversion of the rotary mud dump on Hamilton and Magnolia to new uses if the contents of the dump are found not to be dangerous to public health, safety, and welfare, or if all harmful deposits are decontaminated. " 6 . 0 REDEVELOPMENT STATUS: Not applicable. Z,_Q SPECIFIC PLAN: Not applicable. 8 . 0 SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE: Not applicable. 4_,_Q_. ISSUES AND ANALYSIS: General Plan Amendment No . 87-4 is a request to change the land use ' designation of the subject property to 6 .4 acres of General Commercial and 32 . 6 acres of High Density Residential . The applicant proposes to locate approximately 83 , 000 square feet of commercial use on the commercial portion of the property and to site up to 900 residential units on the remainder of the parcel . The EIR for the project addresses all of the impacts related to the project . The staff report, however, focuses on the issues of land use compatibility and traffic impacts . Land Use Compatibility The applicant has requested a substantial increase in density and- intensity on the subject property. The ultimate land use selected will have impacts on the surrounding uses, as well as be impacted• by the surrounding uses such as the Edison power plant . One component of the requested land use designation is a 6 .4 acre commercial node at the intersection of Magnolia Street and Hamilton Avenue. The EIR for the project included a market feasibility study for that proposal . The study analyzed the existing retail development within the trade area and made estimates of future retail demand . Information was derived using demographic measures for the trade area, benchmark Staff Report - 10/4/88 -5- ( 1368d) household demand figures for Orange County, and actual retail sales for the area . The study concluded that the trade area could support as much as 150 , 000 square feet of additional retail space in five (5) key tenant categories . These categories included 1) grocery, 2) drug store, 3) restaurant, 4) bank, and 5) hardware. The study suggests the commercial uses be developed at a neighborhood scale to appeal to the immediate area as there appears to be some unmet demand . In accordance with the findings of the market study, the applicant has suggested uses such as a specialized grocery store, a drug store, small shops, and a restaurant which would be patronized by the surrounding neighborhoods . Although these uses may be appropriate for the area, some commercial uses could create unfavorable impacts to the neighborhood. Liquor stores, game arcades and convenience markets may constitute an attractive nuisance for high school students or may generate litter in the community park across the street to the north. Consequently, the types of commercial uses will need to be scrutinized prior to future entitlements . With appropriate selection of commercial uses, it is staff ' s assessment that the commercial component of the request is reasonable and probably beneficial to the surrounding neighborhood. The residential component of the request is somewhat more difficult to assess . As indicated in the EIR, the adjacent neighborhoods in the area are generally low density residential . The applicant has requested high density residential on the majority of the Ascon site . This density would not generally be considered to be compatible with the surrounding low density uses . Concerns would include the aesthetics of the project in terms of building height, bulk and intensity. A high density residential project would certainly provide a substantially different appearance than the existing single family neighborhoods . On the other hand, low density residential (Alternative 1 in the EIR) may not be entirely appropriate for the site either . As noted in the EIR, adjacent uses to the south and west of the project include oil storage tanks for the Edison power plant , the power plant itself , and an industrial park. These are not uses which would be considered to be desirable next to low density homes . Single family homes are characterized by fairly large yard areas for outside recreation . Single family home owners in this area would be impacted by occasional odors and noise from the adjacent uses , and periodic complaints could be anticipated. A medium or high density residential development on the site, however , would be less impacted by the power plant and industrial park. This is because attached unit projects are less"out-door" oriented in nature . Rather than backyards , such projects may feature enclosed recreation areas where residents would not be impacted by outside odors or noises . In this case, a medium or high density project may be appropriate for the site. -D- S$ Staff Report - 10/4/88 -6- (1368d) Apart from residential and commercial uses , the EIR also analyzed light industrial as an alternative land use for the site. This alternative would be compatible with the Edison and industrial uses to the south and west, but would not be considered to be compatible with the low density residential to the east . An industrial land rise wo►ild generate additional truck traffic in the area and would have the potential to generate additional noise and odors . Additionally, this site is remote from the freeway and has no rail. access . Staff would prefer to retain the Gothard corridor and McDonnell Douglas area to the north as the City' s two important industrial areas and avoid the creation of a large isolated industrial area in the southern portion of the City. From a land use compatibility standpoint, it appears that the requested commercial designation, and some form .of attached residential project are the most appropriate uses for the Ascon site . . Ideally, densities should be lower on the eastern portion of the site, with higher densities to the west . If site area is not sufficient to achieve a progression of densities, an alternative method of achieving compatibility with the low density to the east would be to continue the Edison greenbelt area, in a slightly reduced width, from the area south of Ascon along the eastern edge of the site . This would create a landscape buffer area that would hide the higher density units . Berming and other means could also - be employed. With these measures an overall density of 15 units per acre (Medium Density) may be the most desirable for the residential portion of the site, though higher densities could be mitigated as well . As a final note on land use, the fiscal impacts to the City were assessed in the EIR. According to the analysis in the EIR, the Commercial/Medium Density Residential alternative yields the most positive cost/revenue ratio. The fiscal analysis , however, only measures costs and revenues associated with the completed development . It should also be recognized that there will be very substantial costs associated with clean-up of the hazardous waste site prior to construction. The applicant has requested high density residential and commercial as a means of privately financing that clean-up . A lower density development on the site may require additional public expense for site clean-up, thereby offsetting the fiscal benefits predicted by the Environmental Impact Report ' s fiscal impact analysis of the project . There are, however, no public funds presently available for immediate clean-up of the site. Traffic I.miacts Traffic: impacts frorn the proposed project are also a concern. The increase in traffic resulting from the proposed commercial and high density residential units will impact the surrounding area . Traffic analysis from Addendum 2 of the EIR estimated that approximately 60% of the traffic generated by the proposed commercial use will be new trips (Attachment 6) . The remaining 40% are estimated to be 69 Staff Report - 10/4/88 -7- (1368d) "pass-by" trips . A "pass-by" trip is a trip made on the way to another destination. The estimates for total daily trips generated by the proposed commercial use is 6, 615 . Of these trips 40%, or 2 , 645 , are presumed to be pass-by trips . The number of new trips generated by the proposed use are estimated to be 3 , 970 . The daily trips estimated to be generated by the high density residential are calculated at 5 . 9 trips per unit (900 units) to equal about 5 , 310 daily trips . The total number of new trips generated by the proposed project is estimated to be approximately 9 , 280 trips per day. Traffic impacts to four intersections are also analyzed . These intersections are 1) Magnolia Street and Atlanta Avenue, 2) Magnolia Street and Hamilton Avenue, 3) Magnolia Street and Banning Avenue, and 4 ) Bushard Street and Hamilton Avenue . These intersections are analyzed for the existing traffic levels, 1993 estimated traffic levels with and without the project, and 2005 estimated traffic levels with and without the project . Calculations are made at each intersection at AM and PM peak times to estimate the level of service using volume/capacity ratios (Table B, Attachment 6) . with one exception, all the intersections have a level of service of "C" or better as required by City standards . The one exception is the Magnolia Street and Hamilton Avenue intersection at PM peak times in 2005 with the project . A "D" level of service is projected at this intersection, exceeding City standards . However, the mitigation measure proposed in the EIR will reduce the traffic impacts and bring the level of service up to a "C" measurement . The mitigation measures proposed in the EIR to reduce the traffic impacts at the above intersection include an additional eastbound through lane on Hamilton Avenue and a westbound right-turn lane onto Magnolia Street . The second eastbound through lane on Hamilton Avenue would be in keeping with the City' s Master Plan designation of a primary arterial highway. This lane would require the widening of the south side of Hamilton Avenue to a half street width of 42 feet along Magnolia Street . The widening would retain the eastbound bike lane on the south side of Hamilton Avenue. The westbound right-turn land can be restriped on the existing roadway width from approximately 100 feet east of Magnolia Street to Magnolia Street . This would require the termination of the future median on Hamilton Avenue along this distance. By eliminating the future median, the westbound bike lane can be retained on the north side of Hamilton Avenue . The alternatives studied by the EIR would have fewer traffic impacts to the surrounding area . Trip generation rates project the following : Alternative One, Low Density Residential : 2 , 685 daily trips (266 units @ 10 . 1 daily trips/unit) D-3 . �° f Staff Report - 10/4/88 -8- (1368d) Alternative Two, General Industrial : 4 , 635 daily trips (7 trips/1000 square feet) Alternative Three, General Commercial and Medium Density Residential : 6 , 625 daily trips (79 . 1 daily trips/1000 square feet for commercial and 450 units @5 . 9 daily trips/unit) Alternative Four, Maintenance/Storage Facility: 90 daily trips (3 . 9 daily trips/employee) . Staff ' s review of the applicant ' s proposal raises two major concerns . These are the compatibility of proposed and existing land uses and the potential traffic impacts . Market analysis information suggests that there is some unmet demand for certain types of commercial within the vicinity of the subject site. Traffic analysis information identifies an increased traffic volume from the commercial and residential project components . Environmental , traffic, and fiscal information suggests that a commercial/medium density alternative would reduce potential impacts to the area and require fewer mitigation measures . The above information suggests that the most beneficial scenario is Alternative 3 (Commercial and Medium Density Residential) . This alternative would seem to be environmentally superior in that it would help to balance concerns of land use compatibility and traffic impacts , provide some commercial services to the immediate area , and provide more affordable housing opportunities within the area . It must be noted, however, that the applicant ' s request for high density residential can in fact be satisfactorily mitigated from both a traffic and land use compatibility standpoint . Staff ' s recommendation for Medium Density Residential is based solely on standard land use planning principles in which densities in an area are progressively increased rather than jumped directly from low to high. The applicant has requested the high density designation because he feels it is necessary in order to obtain adequate financing for clean-up of the site . If the Commission determines that clean-up of the site justifies High Density, they can certainly approve that designation with the knowledge that it can be mitigated . 10 . 0 _RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council certification of Environmental Impact Report No . 87-5 and approval of General Plan Land Use Element Amendment No . 87-4 and adopt Resolution 1405 . The recommended land use designation is 6 . 4 acres of General Commercial and 33 acres of Medium Density Residential . Staff Report - 10/4/88 -9- ( 1368d) AT ACHMENTS 1 . Area Map 2 . Resolution No . 1405 :3 . Letters received from surrounding neighbors 4 . EIR No . 87-5 5 . Comments to EIR and Responses 6 . Addendum 2 (Traffic Analysis) 7 . Amendments to EIR Pursuant to Response to Comments uIISS : RL: gbm "D Staff. Report. - 10/4/88 -10- (1368d) .n..r f wf Yr I •� Al K.ttIM xGoa o fifimn IiQh Sth a U IL ldlbr/COeuwuntr P'afk _ F t7 O ••:'• �••1.�:•: ........... .rn :. X•. •:• act � �. Es�.on Q.n.rul�Q al.nl IL �rJ U U north n0 scale lop GPAf;'7 huntington beach Plannin g div' i �s�on RESOLUTION NO. 1405 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH , CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN NO. 87-4 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach, California desires to update and refine the General Plan in keeping with changing community needs and objectives; and WHEREAS, amendments to the Land Use Element are, necessary to accomplish refinement of the General Plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommends the following amendments to the Land Use Element: 1 . That the Ascon site consisting of 39 .4 acres located on the southwest corner of Hamilton Avenue and Magnolia Street be redesignated from Public, Quasi-public Institutional to 6.4 acres of General Commercial and 33 acres of Medium Density Residential . WHEREAS, a public hearing on adoption of Land Use Element Amendment to the General Plan No. 87-4 was held by the City Planning Commission on October 4 , 1988, in accordance with provisions of the State Government Code; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach, California, hereby approved said amendment to the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said amendment to the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach is recommended for adoption by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California . PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach, California, on the 4th day of October, 1988, the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: 3 4 Secretary, Planning Commission Planning Commission Chairman ( 1368d) Monday , 9/26/88 Beach Planning Commission �0 : Huntington9 ( ATTENTION Hal Simmons ) FROM : Louis and Bette Kastorff 21801 Kiowa Lane Huntington Beach ,CA. 92646 1988 SUBJECT : General Plan Amendment No .87-4 cr.r.�;�..,., .. ( Ascon Property Site ) This is being written in protest of and as an obj'ec`t-fon to the above subject . We would all like to have the Ascon site cleaned up , but not at the expense of the impact that such a project would generate . We would .'rather leave the site as is than have .such a plan as 87-4 put upon us . It is not the fault of the surrounding residence if Ascon Proper+: ties made an error in judgement on the purchase of said land . It appears that with such a request as General Plan Amendment No . 87-4 , Ascon is looking for something to help them get the financing neces- sary to clean up the site and make a healthy profit . What happened to the Super Fund ? We all know a profit needs to be made on any project , but amendment 87-4 is not at all practical for the area . More General Commercial is . not need at Magnolia and Hamilton . There is general commercial* already at Brookhurst and Hamilton , one mile east . At Bushard and Hamilton , 1 /2 mile east , at Magnolia and Atlanta , northeast and northwest corners , 1 /2 mile away , all of which normally have vacancies . There is also Edison High School diagonally across Magnolia and Hamilton from the Ascon site . There is at Magnolia And Hamilton a community park , a fire station and a senior high school . Magnolia street has been connected to the Pacific Coast Highway and traffic has increased a thousandfold and is continuing to increase . Hamilton street and the Santa Ana River Bridge make Hamilton very heavily traveled , because of being the most southerly route to and from Costa Mesa . The City has and is looking at connecting Hamilton to Beach Blvd . More traffic . If 900 dwellings are permitted it could mean +Or- 1800 cars aday more . Magnolia and Hamilton does not need any more help generating traffic ; it ' s doing it all by it ' s self. 900 dwellings is equal + or - 30 units per acre . Ridiculous ! The surrounding neighborhoods equal + or - 10/acre . We hope the City lanning C mm ` ssion will reject this request . Louis'. Kastorf. Bette Kastorff- r -,•Y� � `,ate � -u ' cam" i f .-: • �- � - . .. �fu �fl ��or�3cl a, A9.2-tyb' ED s�p��,,,,` 6�,� . ce, l ci f� cc p 1988 uo F04C je 'AUNIT�rl SOLO PY1©RI XSC c /'I PLANNINTIISION o7 _ y. C, f CrvVtrn � eVO1(i ( S-e ^' - . C17 Ov1e -LJA ' 0 h I S U✓1 like /rJ 1y ! h I c Q n Q irca. U% i c I c� tv SC kept 50- Le., r/ i 5 ( � Sc�ssi c r, 7�h e- C�. T c C� c>l c��. n c 6- s - r11 Ve v-I-c:. /on �1 O li •'! 1 5 lc�c u ci h e C/a vrt P > vL 4 : o 6 n 1', c O n 1 5 ;vx pa 1 Y Vrst nCCs c jnimedI x(c GAA a L"le VL 1 Q 1-c 4:5.- . - y (}�hanp 9 7 2 77 ! r fY G✓I�/L Ar�-n -Z7 Y 00 l(Uw ,�f y � y � T w01 yfAf -1�-/)Y JACK & LENORE KIRKORN 9122 Kahului Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92646 r i Lcj DCP f IYITyTG��7�DF PLA GEVEIUP&4ENT �- �, Ec L.: Ci 1 c-� N G DVi o! E' p t�_� Ck Tf s(-,c -R - _ Cv c, �A, i ` 'C \ Vim: f� a , n,, , ( 4, _ t y II �.� ru P�`Z ( IV,Ear 11 n C. r� vv Cz 1 C'- �L � -k e c( 4 D 5L � _ V 9-7 C 6 3 . 110 COMMENTS RECEIVED REGARDING EIR 87-5 AND RESPONSES TO. COMMENTS r HUNTINGTON BEACH ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD Runtington Beach City Hall 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 July 11 1988 Catherine O'Hara Planning Department Huntington Beach City Hall 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 Dear Catherine: The Huntington Beach Environmental Board has the following. comments on the ASCON EIR 87-5. By commenting on this document, the Board' does not make any speculation at this time if the site is now, or in the future, suitable for building. All comments, except where noted, assume a totally cleaned-up site prior to construction. Chapter 2 If the site cannot be cleaned up, alternatives #2 or #4, or a AD combination of the alternatives should be considered. "No Project" should be listed as an alternative. Alternative #4 does not constitute a "No Project" alternative since a maintenance yard is a change in use, though not a change in zoning. Chapter 3 3 . 1 Geology, Soils and Topography We concur with the EIR that a detailed geotechnical report will be required to assess on-site constraints. 3 . 3 Hydrology The site hydrology may have to be reassessed after cleanup occurs since the cleanup may require a different final grading plan than the developer anticipates. 3 . 4 Noise It is not reasonable to assume that people living near the beach, particularly during summer months, would keep their windows closed. An alternative to B.2 should be developed. � � 3 Catherine O'Hara -2 July 1, 1988 3.9 Traffic and Circulation The intersections of Newland and Hamilton, and Newland and Atlanta should be considered in the traffic study. The suggested mitigation would be to reduce the rating of level D (E at peak periods) to C for intersections of Magnolia and Atlanta. Magnolia and Hamilton would require removal of the bicycle lane and on street parking. The lanes are heavily used by cyclists going to and from the beach and the Santa Ana River Trail. Removal of these lanes would cause a safety hazard. 3 . 11 Utilities We encourage the developer to incorporate the water conservation measures listed on Page 3-87 and 3-88. Chapter 4 . 0 The "No Project" alternative listed on 4-4 is only environmentally superior if the site is cleaned up. Also on Page 3-89, there is identified one significant undeveloped 40 acre parcel, whereas on Page 4-5 the document states that there are no other vacant sites of this size in the southern Huntington Beach area, a contradiction. other than the above comments, the Environmental Board finds the document to be adequate in assessing the project's environmental impacts. Si erely, A4041SOWWWWWW Corinne Welch, Chairperson Environmental Board Joan Siegal Chairperson, Ad Hoc Committee Jeff Cross, member Lee Weider, member cc: Ruth* Finley, liaison Peter Green, liaison Tom Mays, liaison Tom Livingood, liaison RESPONSES TO COMMENTS R ECEIVED Huntington Beach Environmental Board AUG 17 1988 DEPARTMENT OF Comment #1 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DIVISION Chapter 2 If the site cannot be cleaned up, Alternatives #2 or #4, or a combination of the alternatives should be considered. "No Project" should be listed as an alternative. ' Alternative #4 does not constitute a "No Project" alternative since a maintenance yard is a change in use, though not a change in zoning. Response A City-owned or leased maintenance/storage facility was chosen as the "No Project" alternative, since such a use is consistent with the current General Plan land use designations and it Is not reasonable to suppose that the project site would remain unaltered, as in the typical "No Project" sense. Comment #2 3. 1 Geology, Soils and Topography We concur with the EIR that a detailed report ort will be re- quired to assess on-site constraints. Response .No response required. Comment #3 3.3 Hydrology The site hydrology may have to be reassessed after clean-up occurs since the clean-up may require a different final grading plan than the developer anticipates. Response So noted. Comment #4 3.4 Noise It is not reasonable to assume that people living near the beach, partic- ularly during summer months, would keep their windows closed. An alternative to B.2 should be developed. - 3 . Response As discussed on Page 3-34 of the Draft EIR, this mitigation alternative recommends that all buildings should have windows that are closable, not fixed shut, combined with a mechanical ventilation system to ensure adequate air flow. Residents could close or open windows as they wish to reduce noise or to capture ocean breezes. Mitigation Measure B.1 recommends the preparation of a detailed acoustical study to develop specific site ' design features and building modifications necessary to achieve compliance With the City's exterior and interior noise standards. This would provide adequate noise mitigation for on-site residents. Comment #5 3.9 Traffic and Circulation The intersections of Newland and Hamilton and Newland and Atlanta should be considered in the traffic study. The suggested mitigation would be to reduce the rating of level D (E at peak periods) to C for intersections of Magnolia and Atlanta. Magnolia and Hamilton would require removal of the bicycle lane and on-street parking. The lanes are heavily used by cyclists going to and from the beach and the Santa Ana River Trail. Removal of these lanes would cause a safety hazard. Response Our scope of work provided for the analysis of four critical intersections within the study area. The four critical Intersections identified for analysis by the City's Traffic Engineering Department were Magnolia Street/Atlantic Avenue, Magnolia Street/Hamilton Avenue, Magnolia Street/Banning Avenue and Bushard Street/Hamilton Avenue. The Newland Street/Hamilton Avenue and Newland Street/Atlantic Avenue Intersections were not identified as critical intersections for analysis. Comment #6 3.11 Utilities We encourage the developer to incorporate the water conservation mea- sures listed on Page 3-87 and 3-88. Response No response required. Comment #7 Chapter 4.0 The "No Project" alternative listed on 4-4 is only environmentally superi- or if the site Is cleaned up. Also on Page 3-89, there is identified one significant undeveloped 40-acre parcel, whereas on Page 4-5 the docu- ment states that there are no other vacant sites of this size in the southern Huntington Beach area, a contradiction. T`3. 75 y Response With respect to the first sentence, the EI R assumes, throughout the entire analysis, that the site has been properly cleaned up. With respect to the second sentence, this contradiction is acknowledged and has been corrected. The reference on Page 3-89 to an undeveloped 40-acre site is accurate, however It is designated for low-density residential development and it is assymed that the site will develop in that manner, due to continuing heavy demand for such housing in Huntington Beach. The discussion on Page 4-5 has been revised to Indicate the absence of properly designated, undeveloped sites of similar size, which are as suitably located for the subject project. C�.41- Elk' V- s PkiIC .c -IkA UL 0 CIS ,�► -rvkA a4 At �kj . SJ I ` 1 UyAk ILD �-3 -t� air c : UWuI--,. � . doo d94 fy.21 AA t4yt4-"- tA�1� 6L � ... 4 c� luab &k cil Lk.1" a- - aAj U4-dt Z1,1V R� 0 Wr� a.,s �LP &41- .78 MUA a sY �_ �ax � Mr. Henry W. Bohman Co11 UWn% #1 Clean-up of the toxic materials is number one priority. Response Acknowledged. Comment #2 The clean-up must be made safe for the surrounding residences and safe for the eventual people who will occupy the grounds. Response Acknowledged. Comment #3 Further "High Density" in an area that Is going to be overrun with "High Rise" hotels and related tourist trips is ludicrous if it were not so serious. If the clean-up permits, I believe the area should be residen- tial the same as the surrounding neighborhoods. By the time this project Is completed, single- family homes will be in the $500,000 and up class. The nine acres for commercial is satisfactory. Response Mr. Bohman's opinions do not relate specifically to the adequacy of the EI R. No further response is required. Comment #4 If there is consideration for a density higher than residential, I believe that a limit of one story for garage and two stories for living space is a maximum height permissible. if there is fill ground added (similar to Atlanta and Magnolia) then two stories maximum should be permissible. Response Due to the extensive street separation between the project site and surrounding residential development, and the absence of existing scenic views across the site, the potential for significant visual impacts is considered minimal. Mitigation measures discussed on Pages 3-47 and 3-48 include both zoning and site planning considerations which will provide the City with considerable discretion in addressing and prevent- ing significant visual impacts. �9 - 3 Comment #5 Also, I believe that townhouses are much more desirable then condos: A. The buyer Is a true land owner and will keep the property (invest- ment) desirable. B. Condos on the other hand represent nothing more than buying "Air Space". The Association and all its political ramifications can break a condo owner with wild unnecessary expectations or the lack of proper cash reserves to cover exterior maintenance (roofs, paint, etc. ) . Response Mr. Bohman's opinion does not address the adequacy of the EIR, there- fore, no response Is required. Comment #6 In conclusion, I do not believe that a "Carte Blanch" High Density Zoning is the best solution for the residents of Huntington Beach for the Ascon Landfill property. Response Mr. Bohman's opinion I.s noted. -D_ 3 .go ••�""• a•• COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS I OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P.O. BOX 8127, FOUNTAIN VALLEY,CALIFORNIA 92728-8127 10644 ELLIS, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92706-7018 (714) 962-2411 June 20, 198$ -7) City of Huntington Beach Department of Community Development 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Attention: Catherine O'Hara Subject: Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report (EIR) 87-5 for the Ascon Property This is in response to your letter dated May 23, 1988 which is notification of completion of subject Draft EIR and establishment of public review and comment period from May 27, 1968 to July 11, 1988. The County Sanitation Districts of Orange County (CSDOC) does have facilities in both Hamilton Avenue and Magnolia Avenue as shown on pages 3-83 and 3-84 of the Draft EIR. However, the 24 inch diameter vitrified clay pipe (V.C.P. ) sewer in Hamilton Avenue is decommissioned at the present time. The Draft EIR mentions this line as alternative No. 1 on page 3-84 for receiving flow from the project. CSDOC does not allow direct connections from private or commercial development into the trunk sewers. Flow would have to be received by a local sewer, such as from a City of Huntington Beach line and then into our trunk lines. For this reason, if alternative No. 1 is pursued as a viable alternative, arrangements would have to be made between the City and CSDOC for this 24 inch line to be deeded to the City of Huntington Beach for ownership, control and maintenance. Otherwise no connections for use of this line would be granted. Alternative No. 3 can be eliminated because it is identical to alternative No. 2. Alternative No. 2 should read "connection to the Miller,-Holder trunk via an existing manhole in Magnolia Avenue". Thank you for the opportunity to commen4oma's Draft R 87-5, Ascon Property Project. . awes Director of Engineering TMD:bz ENG/ENVIRON:L46.1 �J County Sanitation Districts of Orange County Comment $1 This is in response to your letter dated May 23, 1988, which is notifica- tion of completion of subject Draft EIR and establishment of public review and comment period from May 27, 1988', to July 11 , 1988. The County Sanitation District of Orange County (CSDOC) does have facili- ties in both Hamilton Avenue and Magnolia Avenue as shown on Pages 3-83 and 3-84 of the Draft EiR. However, the 24-inch diameter vitrified clay pipe (V.C. P. ) sewer in Hamilton Avenue is decommissioned at the present time. The Draft EIR mentions this line as Alternative No. 1 on Page 3-84 for receiving flow from the project. CSDOC does not allow direct connections from private or commercial development into the trunk sewers. Flow would have to be received by a local sewer, such as from a City of Huntington Beach line and then into our trunk lines. For this reason, if Alternative No. 1 is pursued as a viable alternative, arrange- ments would have to be made between the City and CSDOC for this 24-Inch line to be deeded to the City of Huntington Beach for owner- ship, control and maintenance. Otherwise, no connections for use of this line would be granted. Response The description of the 24" V.C.P. line in Hamilton Avenue, in Page 3-82, has been revised to reflect its present decommissioned status. The discussion of Alternative #1 , on Page 3-84, has been revised to clarify the restriction against private connections to CSDOC trunk sew- ers which necessitates an arrangement whereby the City of Huntington Beach would assume ownership, control and maintenance of the 24" line in Hamilton Avenue. Comment lit Alternative No. 3 can be eliminated because it is identical to Alternative No. 2. Alternative No. 2 should read "connection to the Miller-Holder trunk via an existing manhole in Magnolia Avenue." Response Text has been so revised. - 3 8a- STAT" Of CAIIFOO"—THE RESOURCES AGENCY GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION - -[M COAST AREA ✓VEST MOADMIAY. SUITE 3W �" 507; G RECEIVED ' Jill 15 1968 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT July 12. 1988 PLANNING DIVISION Department of COmmunity Development. 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Attention: Catherine O'Hara Reference : Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report 87-5 for the Abcon Property, SCM* 87102103 . near Ms . O'Hara, Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the referenced DEIR . Due to our heavy work load and shortage of staff, we can not provide more detailed comments; at this time, however , we will evaluate the project in detail when - the City applies for. an LCP amendment . Our general comments are as follows : 1 . The appropriateness of the land use on this site can not be evaluated or commented until the other two environmental documents , as mentioned in the appendix, are prepared . According to the City LCP the land use designation can not be changed unless adequate clean up of the site is feasible. Therefore. the two referenced environmental documents which need to demonstrate the feasibility aspect of the project first . 2 . The cumulative impact of this project on traffic and circulation seem to be some what sketchy. Tn addition to the impact on the adjacent road in the study area the ETR need to evaluate cumulative imparts on roads outside the study area of the project , which may have implication on public_ access to the beach and wetlands . Such impacts need to be addressed adequately . For these perspectives low density (identified as environmental superior) or industrial land use designation which would have less traffic generation may be a more appropriate alternative. 3 . The traffic/circulation section suggests widening the roads by eliminating the bicycle lane and parking in order to mitigate traffic . rage 2 O'Hara The F.IR needs to evaluate the impacts on safe alternative transportation and recreation access ( i . e . , parking, bicycle travel ) as well as propose mitigation to impacts . 4 . Under the oil use discussion, there needs to be a discussion of consistancy with LCP energy policies and CZ zoning regarding development and consolidation of new oil facilities . Thanks again for this opportunity, if you have any questions regarding this matter don ' t hesitate to call me at our Long Beach Office . Sincerely Praveen Gupta Staff Analyst 6414A PG/sm 8� �-3 California Coastal Commission Comment #t The appropriateness of the land use on this site cannot be evaluated or commented until the other two environmental documents, as mentioned in the appendix, are prepared. According to the City LCP the land use designation cannot be changed unless adequate clean up of the site is feasible. - Therefore, the two referenced environmental documents which need to demonstrate the feasibility aspect of the project first. Response Comment does not address this EIR. No response required. Comment #2 The cumulative impact of this project on traffic and circulation seems to be somewhat sketchy. In addition to the impact on the adjacent road in the study area, the EIR needs to evaluate cumulative Impacts on roads outside the study area of the project which may have implication on public access to the beach and wetlands. Such Impacts need to be addressed adequately. For these perspectives, low density (Identified as environmental superior) or industrial land use designations, which would have less traffic generation, may be a more appropriate alternative. i ... Response The "study area" was defined as the area upon which traffic analysis would be performed. Only those roadways within the "study area" were therefore . reviewed. Traffic disperses with distance. The farther away from the project site, the less the traffic impacts are. Roadways outside of the "study area", therefore, were not analyzed because the traffic impact on those roadways would be minimal. Comment #3 The traffic/circulation section suggests widening the roads by eliminating the bicycle lane and parking in order to mitigate traffic. The EIR needs to evaluate the impacts on safe alternative transportation and recreation access (i.e. , parking, bicycle travel) as well as propose mitigation to Impacts. Response The elimination of the bicycle lane at critical Intersections was proposed as a possible mitigation measure to increase roadway capacity. Bicyclists would be required to exercise more care and might also experience some loss in comfort due to the loss of the bicycle lane. Bicycles, however, are vehicles and are subject to the same regulations as motor vehicles. Bicycles have the legal right to use a roadway whether or not a bicycle lane is provided. There are existing roadways that do not provide bicycle lanes that are established bicycle routes. Even upon roadways on which bicycle lanes are provided, a bicyclist must exercise caution and merge in with motorized vehicles when crossing an intersection. Acquisition of additional rights-of-way would be required to maintain the existing bicycle lanes and provide increased capacity at the intersections. This would maintain recreational access on the streets where mitigation measures required the elimination of bicycle lanes. Elimination of parking in the vicinity of critical intersections was also proposed as a possible mitigation measure. Roadways are constructed for the safe and efficient movement of traffic. On-street parking is often allowed on the non-traveled section of a roadway where it is safe to do so. At locations where additional roadway capacity is needed for the safe and efficient movement of traffic, the removal of on-street parking is necessitated. Acquisition of additional right-of-way would be required in order to retain on-street parking and provide adequate roadway capacity at critical intersections. Back-up residential units adjoin the majority of the arterial roadways _ within the study area. There Is, therefore, minimal use of the on-street parking in these areas. Commercial businesses adjoining the arterial roadways within the study area provide adequate off-street parking. The majority of the existing on-street parking is in the vicinity of the high school. This parking accommodates the overflow of vehicles gener- ated by the high school. Any additional vehicles parked for the recrea- tional use of the bike lanes is negligible. The proposed elimination of parking In front of the high school on the north side of Hamilton Avenue requires a 100' extension of an existing red curb. This would result in the loss of approximately five parking spaces. The west side of Magnolia Street would also require a 100' elimination of parking from Hamilton Avenue. Comment #4 Under the oil use discussion, there needs to be a discussion of consis- tency With LCP energy policies and CZ zoning regarding development and consolidation of new oil facilities. Response The text of report section 3.8, Setting, has been revised to add the following sentences to the third paragraph: "Establishment of new oil operations on the subject parcel could be considered as consistent with the policy for establishment of oil operations expressed in Section 11 of Article 969.9 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code ("CZ" Coastal Zone Suffix). The 3 86 proposed location for the oil operations is adjacent to similar exist-ing oil operations and existing oil storage on the Southern Califor- nia Edison property. If properly developed and maintained, the small-scale proposed oil operations would not cause significant damage to the environment, nor disruption to existing and future social aesthetic or economic concerns." An additional mitigation measure has been added to both Section 3.6 and Section 3.8, to read as follows: "Design, development and maintenance of the oil operations shall conform to all requirements for such uses specified for the Coastal Zone (Article 969.9, Section 12 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code).. in addition, the applicant shall file a request for a Condi- tional Use Permit, which , includes a characterization analysis. If the analysis indicates contamination with harmful deposits, the applicant shall provide for cleanup of the site prior to the issuance of any permit." • CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION To: Catherine O'Hara From ; Bill Patapoff Assistant Planner Principal Engineer Subject: A.SCCN DRAFT EIR Date : July 12, 1988 After reviewing the Hydrology and Sewer Sections of the ASOON Draft Eir, I have the following ounit nts, referred to by page nurber: 3-17, 2 1, 3rd line should read, "this earthen channel is awned .. . ." 3-17, 2 2, 6th line should read, "fie nearest City operated pump station Figure 4: lhe-map is wrong. The Newland Pump Station is located about west of Surveyor Circle, at the Huntington Bead Channel. 3-20, P 1, 4th line should read, , ,. . , operated by the City of Hunt- ington Bead'►." 3-82, 2 2, 6th line, the 24" is an abandoned CSDOC force main and cannot be used to collect sewage. 3-82, 2 3, 4th line should read, "Wo existing 12" asbestos cement pipe lines . .. . .. ." 3-84, 1? 2, the 24" VCP force main is abandoned; it belongs to CSDOC and cannot be used for sewage. The City will not assume mainten- ance of this line. 3-84, IQ 3 and 2 4, %hy do they say the same thing? 3--84, another sewer alternative is to construct adequately sized facilities in Hamilton and/or Magnolia and connect to the Miller-Holder Trunk. BP:ik R� IV ED. I.EPAV0..,cN T 0F' .CoMhk_•r; i j OEV"P_MEKTi Plwvw«va co11SIOM g - 3 City of Huntington Beach - Mr. Bill Patapoff, Principal Engineer Comment #1 Page 3-17, paragraph 1 , 3rd line should read, "This earthen channel is owned. . . " Response Text has been so revised. Comment #2 page 3-17, paragraph 2, 6th line should read, "The nearest City operat- ed pump station. . ." Response Text has been so revised. -Comment #3 Figure 4: The map is wrong. The Newland pump station is located about 1/2" west of Surveyor Circle at the Huntington Beach Channel. Response Figure 4 has been so revised. Comment #4 Page 3-20, paragraph 1 , 4th line should read, ". . .operated by the City of Huntington Beach." Response Text has been so revised. Comment #5 Page 3-82, paragraph 2, 6th line, the 24" line is an abandoned CSDOC force main and cannot be used to collect sewage. Response Text has been so revised (see response to Comment #1 by the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County) . Comment #6 Page 3-82, paragraph 3, 4th line should read, "Two existing 12" asbes- tos cement pipelines. . . " `D 3 . 89 Response Text has been so revised. Comment #7 Page 3-84, paragraph 2, the 24" VCP force main is abandoned, it be- longs to CSDOC and cannot be used for sewage. The City will not assume maintenance of this line. Response Text has been revised to indicate that the City would not assume maintenance of that line. Comment #8 Page 3-84, paragraphs 3 and 4, why do the say the same thing? Response Text has been revised to eliminate repetition. Comment #9 Page 3-84, another sewer alternative is to construct adequately sized facilities in Hamilton Avenue and/or Magnolia Street and connect to Miller Holder trunk. Response The text has been revised to specify this alternative as an additional mitigation measure. 40 -3 , Southem CoNom/e Edloon Company 7323 ROLSA AVENUE WESTMINSTER. CALIFORNIA 92663 October 19, 1987 M. 0. MARTIN ` TELEOHONL MANAGER. HUNTINGTON BEACH 17141 899.0255 Catherine M. O'Hara , Ass 't Planner City of Huntington Beach . Dept . of Community Development P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, Calif. 92648 Subject : Environmental Impact Report. #87-5/General Plan Amendment #87-4/ (Ascon Property Site) Dear Ms . O' Hara : This is to advise that the subject property is located within the service territory of the Southern California Edison Company and that the electric loads of the project are within parameters of projected load growth which Edison is planning to meet in this area. Unless the demand for electrical generating capacity exceeds our estimates, and provided that there are no unexpected outages to major sources of electrical supply, we expect to meet our electrical requirements for the next several years . Our total system demand is expected to continue to increase annually; however , excluding any unforeseen problems, our plans for new generation resources indicate that our ability to serve new loads during peak demand periods will be adequate during the decade of the ' 80 's . Current conservation efforts on the part of Edison ' s customers have resulted in energy savings . Optimization of conservation measures in this project will contribute to the overall energy savings goal . In addition to the above, the Southern California Edison Company has two comments regarding the proposed project; they are: o The subject project is located immediately adjacent to a major generating facility owned and operated by the Southern California Edison Company. This facility can sometimes produce "a certain amount of noise that would be objectionable to future adjacent property owners. If possible, in the proposed development plans , a Q) buffer zone should be established to mitigate any 3 possible inconvenience to future property owners . , Catherine M. O'Hara Page 2 o The subject proposed oil production facility causes a concern if slant oil drilling is proposed under the generating station. The integrity of the station, which has the capability of serving 1 . 5 million Edison customers would be put in jeopardy due to the anticipated subsidence that we expect to occur due to the Massive sands formation located immediately under the station. I hope this information will be of assistance to you. If you have any questions , please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, MDM:ct � -39 � Southern California Edison Company Comment #1 The subject project is located adjacent to a major generating facility owned and operated by the Southern California Edison Company. Our main concern is that the plant, as a noise generator and stated in the EIR, controls the background ambient noise level during the late night and early morning hours. If a residential development is constructed on the northerly and easterly property line, there will be a strong possibil- ity of community noise complaints in the future. At the present time, there is several hundred yards between the plant property line and the nearest residential area. This project would greatly reduce our buffer zone. We request that the proposed development plans include additional noise protection (buffer zone) which the developer will create to mitigate any possible inconvenience to future property owners. Response This list of mitigation measures -on pages 3-47 and 3-48 includes recom- mendations for the establishment of intensive buffer zones along the perimeter of the site and between the proposed .residential uses and the commercial and oil operation uses. The buffering techniques used to mitigate potential conflicts between the on-site oil operation and adjacent residential uses will also further separate the residential .area from the Edison facilities. The proposed oil operations site would also provide �- some buffering from the Edison generating facilities. Comment #2 The subject proposed oil production facility causes great concern if slant oil drilling is planned under the generating station. The integrity of the station, which has the capability of serving 1 .5 million Edison customers, would be jeopardized due to subsidence that would occur from the massive sands formation located immediately under the station. Response The first paragraph under the discussion of impacts in Section 3.8 has been modified to clarify that all directional drilling would take place within the confines of the project site boundaries. Comment #3 We are concerned that residential use adjacent to our generating station could bring on new restrictions or regulations in the future. Thus, we would like to see the City approve a non-residential land use for the subject property. Alternatives B and D appear appropriate, i.e. , proposing light industry or a City maintenance yard. Response _ 13 Comments are noted. —� . Comment #4 Plumes from the power plant could cause an objectionable aesthetic Impact. This would result in complaints from the residents, especially if there were a problem at the plant causing an unusual plume. This issue was not addressed In the EI R. Response The discussion In the first paragraph on page 3-15, indicates that "The Southern California Edison generating station stack plumes are highly buoyant and rise many hundred feet such that they create negligible Impacts near the smokestacks themselves. Comment #5 Edison owns, operates and maintains transmission lines and rights-of-way on the south and north sides of Hamilton Avenue. We suggest that the EIR address the impact of the project on. the operation and maintenance of our adjacent transmission lines and property. Also, we request that appropriate mitigation measures Include dust control during the project construction to minimize extra transmission line insulator washing, and measures necessary to avoid impacts to our . tenant, the City of Huntington Beach, which operates a City park. In addition, specific project plans using or impacting our' rights-of-way must be .reviewed and approved by Edison to avoid Interference with our facilities. Response Two sentences have been added to the text of the discussion of impacts under Compatibility to the North in Section 3.6, as follows: "Future development along the Hamilton Avenue frontage would not affect the Edison transmission lines on the north side of Hamilton Avenue. The existing overhead lines and poles along the south side of Hamilton Avenue and along the west side of Magnolia Street, however, may be temporarily relocated to allow for construction vehicle access and/or construction of a sidewalk along the site frontage." Dust control measures which will be implemented during construction activity are adequately described on page 3-9, under "A. Construction Impacts". Potential impacts to the park are also adequately discussed under the heading of "A. Compatibility to the North" under Section 3.6. An additional mitigation measure has been added to Section 3.6 (page 3-48) as follows: "The developer shall coordinate with all affected utility purveyors, during the construction plan review process, to determine what measures will be needed to maintain existing service levels during and following construction." i COMMENTS RECEIVED, NO RESPONSE REQUIRED The following comments did not specifically address the adequacy of the EI R or any particular portions of the EI R. Therefore, no response Is required. ,95 �- 3 ICE; �- t'. _ ...:d,:�iC !• `,; ;:;,.+Y1:3."'..L,3�ri11�Cdflyh;/,.9,qp' ,!,.) 400 - 7- 6 - - 7 Y y P7-s-- )1Y y u Ao'In , JACK do LENORE KIRKORN 9122 Kahului Drive j Huntington Beach, CA 92646 i-. STATE OF G1tIE0ftHLA-0FF10E C* THE GOVERNOR GEORGE DEUKMEAAN, Governor -OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH 4W TENTH STREET AMENTO, CA 958I4 Catherine O'Hara REC.EIVED July il , 1988 City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street ,1_1 14 1988 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 DEPARTMENT Of COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DIVISION SubJeet: Draft EIR 87-5/General Plan Amendment NO. 87-4 SCH# 871102103 pear Ms. O'Hara: The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named environmental document to selected state agencies for review. The review period is closed and none of the state agencies helve comments. This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please call Keith Lee at 916/445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. ghee contacting the Clearinghouse in this matter, please use the eight-digit State Clearinghouse number so that we may respond promptly. Sincerely, David C. Nunenkamp Chief' Office of Permit Assistance _ 3 . 97 H CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATIONE I I , To Catherine O'Hara FromJim B. Engle, uperintendent Assistant Planner . Park__Develop b Recreation Subject DRAFT EIR 87-5/GENERAL Date July 18, 1988 PLAN AMENDMENT 87-4 I am in agreement with the draft Environmental Impact Report 87-5 regardi,09 the Ascon property. A high density (R-4) development would have an impa= on the already highly used Edison Community Park, especially the outdoor facilities. The most obvious means of mitigating this potential problem would be to supply recreation amenities and open space within the project area. A projected population of 900 to 1 ,000 would indicate a need for a neighborhood park or open space (if its a private community) , but the amount of acreage needed in the area should be weighed against the fact that Edison Community Park does exist to the immediate north of the proposed development and will be utilize? by these residents. JBE:mb r 3302e RECEIVED I I I I 1 91989 DEPARTMENT OF COIr*-I'.JN1TY oEVEIOPAIEKr."'u1NN1NG DIVISION 4) .99 s SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA gaS COMPANY ORANGE COLOM Onn M • P. n SM W34. ANAHEMA. CAUFOOM 926033334 Oct: 22, 1987 City of Huntington Beach Drpt. of Community Dev. 2000 Main St. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Attn: Catherine M. O'Hara Subject: EIR - 87-5, General Plan Amendment 87-4 This letter is not to be interpreted as a contractual commitment to serve the proposed .project, but only as an information service. Its intent is to notify you that the Southern California Gas Company has facilities in the area where the above-named project is proposed. Gas service to the project could be served from an existing main as shown on the attached atlas sheet without any significant impact on the environment. The service would be in accordance with the Company's policies and extension rules on-file with the California Public Utilities Commission at the time contractual arrangements are made. The availability of natural gas service, as set forth in this letter, is based upon present conditions of gas supply and regulatory Aplicies. As a public utility, the Southern California Gas Company is under the jurisdiction of the federal regulatory agencies. Should these agencies take any action which affects gas supply or the condition under which service is available, gas service will be provided in accordance with revised conditions. Estimates of gas usage for non-residential projects are developed on an individual basis and are obtained from the Commercial-Industrial Ai'rket Services Staff by calling (714)634-3173. Residential (System Area Average) Yearly Single-family 1095 therms/year/dwelling unit Multi-family 4 or less units 640 therms/year/dwelling unit Multi-family 5 or more units 580 therms/year/dwelling unit These estimates are based on gas consumption in residential units served by Southern California Gas .Company during 1975 and it should not be implied that any particular home, apartment or tract of homes will use these amounts of energy. This is particularly true due to the State's insulation requirements and consumers' efforts toward energy conservation. Estimates of gays usage for non-residential projects are developed an an individual basis and are obtained from a Market Services Staff representative by calling (714)634-3173. We have developed several programs which are available, upon request, to provide assistance in selecting the most energy efficient appliances or systems for a particular project. If you desire further information on any of our energy programs, please contact this office for assistance. Sincerely, 9-- D. C. Moore Technical Supervisor LA:du Attachment TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ADDENDUM ADDENDUM 11 INTRODUCTION The analysis of the initial traffic study of EIR 87-5 shall be superseded by the following: Upon further review by City staff, four points in the initial analysis were reevaluate. These points include: -- The need to account for "pass-by" trips of the proposed shopping center; -- An updated trip generation rate for the proposed residential develop- ment; -- The change in trip distribution after Hamilton Avenue is constructed to Beach Boulevard; and -- A revision to the growth rate used in the cumulative analysis. "PASS-BY" TRIPS The initial analysis of the proposed project did not account for the "pass-by" trips of the shopping center. A "pass-by" trip is a trip that is made on the way to the primary destination. Therefore, a "pass-by" trip, in this case, is not generated by the proposed shopping center, but captured from the existing traffic stream. A 40 percent reduction due to these "pass-by" trips was made to the total trips generated by the proposed shopping center. TRIP GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION A trip generation rate for a single-family detached house was used in the initial analysis for the proposed residential development. Further clarification indicated a residential condominium is more comparable to the type of residential development proposed for the project site. The revised trip generation rates and the number of trips generated by the proposed project are reflected in Table A of this Addendum. This table reflects a significant decrease in the traffic volumes generated by the pro- posed project. The trip distribution was initially assumed to be 35 percent to the north and west, and 15 percent to the south and east. The majority of the trips gener- ated by the proposed project were assumed to travel on Magnolia Street to the north and south, Hamilton Avenue to the east and Atlanta Avenue to the west. After identifying that Hamilton Avenue will be constructed to Beach Boulevard, a modification to the trip distribution was made. Figures A and B show the distribution pattern used for the years 1993 and 2005, respectively. It was assumed that Hamilton Avenue would be construct- ed to Beach Boulevard after 1993, the primary access to the proposed shop- ping center would be on Hamilton Avenue and the primary access 'to the proposed residential development would be Magnolia Street. �D - 3 16 a- Table A Trip Generation of the Proposed Development Trips Daily Trips AMAM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use G en. Vital In Out In Out Land Use Size/Units Factors Rate Total Rate Total Rate Total Total Rate Total Rate Total Total Shopping Center - Code 820 83,600 SF 1,000 SF 79.1* (6,615) 1.32' (110) 0.54* (45) (155) 3.35* (280) 3.47* (290) (570) 40% Reduction due to "pass-by" trips -(2,6451 - (45) -(20) - (65) -(110) -(115) -(225) Subtotal: (3,970) (65) (25) (90) (170) (175) (345) Multi-Family Attached Housing - Code 230 900 DU 1 DU 5.9 (5,310) 0.07 (65) 0.37 (335) (400) 0.38 (340) 0.19 (170) (510) Oil Operators - Code 170 0.8 Acre 1 Acre 2.6 (5) 1.6 (0) 0.90 (0) (0) 0.66 (0) 0.66 (0) (0) Note: All trip generations calculated from Trip Generation, Fourth Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1987, and rounded to the nearest five vehicles. ' Trip generation rate obtained from equations provided in Trip Generation. d a W ADAMS ST INDIANAPOLIS AVE CLOUD-HAVEN OR 35% ATLANTA 010%/15% AVE 30% 25%/1o% x � o o 20%/15% a a � a NAAULTON 2 O /O ` (PLANNED)_ _ AVE O 20%/20�L a A,C I' ` ,C J Project Site BANNING AVE 0 0 9ST a a 15% r Legend 4b 00% DIRECTION## DISTRIBUTION (BY PERCENT) 00%/00% SHOPPING CENTER/RESIDENTIAL DISTRIBUTION(BY PERCENT) 3 north no scale E!R for Ascon Property GPA 87-4 � 1993 Figur / WILWAN ASSOCIATES Trip Distribution A ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS ADAMS ST J ((AA !D � INDIANAPOUS AVE CLOUD-HAVEN OR 35% ATLANTA .0%/5% AVE 30% A a � � K a 3+ 0%/25% z HAMILTON AVE 2 O% U W 30%/_ 3_00 z0�Z0% 10 2�3 Project Site BANNING AVE C°�`rT � d d Z 15% tik,� Qy� �J O� Legend 4b 00% DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION (BY PERCENT) 00%/00% SHOPPING CENTER/RESIDENTIAL DISTRIBUTION(BY PERCENT) north no sea le C— iifor Ascon Property GPA 67-4 2005 Figure WAzC \V WILLDAN ASSOCIATES Trip Distribution B ENGINEERS ANO PLANNERS CUMULATIVE GROWTH RATE The growth rate in the initial analysis was two percent per year. Upon further consideration, the growth rate was changed to indicate a two percent per year growth rate to the project occupancy year of 1993, and a, one per- cent per year growth rate from 1993 to the horizon year of 2005. TRAFFIC ANALYSIS With these four revisions, the traffic volumes of the proposed development decreased significantly. The updated Intersection Capacity Utilization ( ICU) calculations attached to this Addendum reflect these reductions. A summary of these revised Levels of Service (LOS) and Volume/Capacity (V/C) ratios are indicated in Table B for both 1993 and 2005. As seen in Table B , the decreased traffic volumes reduced the V/C ratios significantly. The intersection of Magnolia Street and Hamilton Avenue in the 2005 "with project" scenario is the only unacceptable LOS in the analysis. This, then, eliminates the need for the mitigation measures discussed in the initial analysis. MITIGATION MEASURES To mitigate the intersection of Magnolia Street and Hamilton Avenue in the 2005 "with project" scenario, a second eastbound through lane and a west- bound right-turn lane on Hamilton Avenue is needed. The second eastbound through lane on Hamilton Avenue would be in keeping with the City's Master Plan designation of a primary arterial highway. This lane woLIld require the widening of the south side of Hamilton Avenue to a half street width of 42' along Magnolia Street. The widening would retain the vostbound bike lane on the south side of Hamilton Avenue. The westbound right-turn lane can be restriped on the existing roadway width from approximately 100' east of Magnolia Street to Magnolia Street. This would require the termination of the future median on Hamilton Avenue along this distance. By eliminating the future median, the westbound bike lane can be retained on the north side of Hamilton Avenue. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The analysis of this Addendum indicates fewer traffic impacts of the proposed development than initially revealed. The Addendum analysis indicates that all foirr critical intersections operate at acceptable LOS in the project occupancy year 1993. In this horizon year 2005, only the intersection of Magnolia Street and Hamilton Avenue operates at an unacceptable LOS of I'D" during the PM peak period. The mitigation measures presented in this Addendum would reduce the LOS of this intersection to "C" during the PM peak period to. better accommodate traffic flow. . 106 Table B Summary of Volume/Capacity Calculations Existing 1993 W/O 1993 W/ 2005 W/O 2005 W/ Peak Traffic Project Project Project Project Intersection Period LOS* V/C** LOS* V/C** LOS* V/C** LOS* V/C** LOS* V/C** Magnolia St. AM A 0.57 B 0.63 B 0.68 8 0.67 C 0. 73 E Atlanta Ave. PM B 0.61 B 0. 70 C 0.76 C 0.73 C 0.79 Magnolia St. AM A 0.45 A 0.48 A 0.57 A 0.52 B/B1 0.61/0.671 & Hamilton Ave. PM B 0.62 B 0.67 C 0.77 C 0.74 D/C1 0.84/0.771 Magnolia St. AM A 0.20 A 0.21 A 0.23 A 0.22 A 0.24 6 Banning Ave. PM A 0.32 A 0.34 A 0.37 A 0.37 A 0.39 Bushard St. AM A 0.47 A 0.53 A 0.55 A 0.56 A 0.58 b Hamilton Ave. PM A. 0.57 B 0.64 B 0.67 B 0.68 C 0.71 * LOS - Level of Service description ** V/C - Volume/Capacity (percent of intersection utilized) 1 With mitigation ek uu INTERSECTION CAPACI1i UTILIZATION CALCULATION .00ATION:MAGNOLIA STREET AND ATLANTA AVENUE CITY OF: 4NTI'16TON BEACH PEAK HR.:7:00 - 8:00 AM COUNT DATE: ?2/18/38 CALC. BY:J. !.TA6AKI CALC. DATE: 26-3ep-98 LANES CAPACITY VOLUMES 'J/C MOVEMENT ------=----------- ------------------- ------------------------------:-----=-----------------------------=------- 1993 W/0 1993 WJ 1993 4/0 1993 4/ 1993 W/ EXI';ING PRMSED: EXISTING FRCPCSED: EXISTING PROW'ECT PROJ'ECT EXISTING PROJECT PROJECT PROJECT : (PROP. LN -------- ------------------------------'----- ----------- ------------- ------------- ---------------------------------- - ----------------------- - V8 LEFT 1 1 1501) 1500 : �i 56 109 + 0.04 + 1.07 + 0.07 + ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NB THRJ 32U0 11200 : 11 342 46B : 0.12 . 0.14 . 0.18 . 0.18 . ---- ------'-------------------'------------------------- `19 RIGHT U 0 U 0 : 82 96 qb : 0.00 0.00 . 0.00 . 0.00 . - ---- ---- --- ---- :-------------------:------------------------------. ------------------------------------------ 58 EFT l : 15CO 1500 50 66 65 : 0.07 0.04 . 0.04 0.04 . ------------------------------'------------------------------------------- SB THRU '- -I : 3;00 32U0 : 532 585 s31 : 0.18 + O. + 0.21 + 0.21 + ------------- -------------:-------------------:------------------------------:------------------------------------------- SB RIGHT U : 0 0 : 44 48 48 : 0.00 . 0.00 . 0.00 0.0 ----------------,-----------i---- -----------,--1------'----------T--------.---'--------------------------n----------- EB LEFT I 1 .5:.0 1500 1.9 111 31 0.08 0.09 . ..09 0. 10 ----------------------------'-------------------:-------------------- EB THRU2 2 : 32U0 3200 : 191 441 441 0.16 + 0.18 + 0.19 + 0.19 + ----------------------------:-------------------:------------------------------:------------------------------------------- EB RIGHT 0 i 0 0 : 130 143 159 : 0.010 0.00 !.00 0.1'10 .. ._-------------------------- -------------------:------------------------------:------------------------------------------= »0 LEFT 1 1 : 15iA 1500 : 133 162 162 : 0.09 + 0.1! + 1.).11 + 0.11 4. ------------------------------ ------------------------------------------- fl THRU ' : 3200 3200 : 234 288 288 : 0.19 u.13 Q.13 0.13 . -----------------------------:-------------------:------------------------------:------------------------------------------- iB k11jHT 0 0 : 0 0 : 75 114 114 : 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 . --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CLEARANCE 0.10 + ).10 0.10 + 0.10 + ----------------------------------------------------------------- ICU VALUE 0.57 0.63 0.5B 0.08 ----------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL OF SERVICE A B 9 B ----------------------------------------------------------------- NOTES: - 3 , /o$ PREPARED BY: NB = NORTHBOUND, SB = SOUTHBOUND, EB = EASTBOUND, WILLDAN ASSOCIATES NB = WESTBOUND 12900 CRCSSROADS PARKWAY SOUTH, SUITE 200 + DENOTES CRITICAL V/C UTILIZED TO DETERMINE ICU VALUE AND INDUSTRY, CALIFORNIA 91746-3499 LEVEL OF SERVICE: (213) 695-'i551 (1) INCLUDES PROPOSED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS. xi INTERSFCT76N CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION IOCAIION:MAbNOLIA STREET AND ATLANTA AVENUE C1TY OF: AW l N6TON BEACH PEAK HR.:5:00 - 6:00 PM COUWDATE.- 02/18/?9 CALL. 3Y:J. :7AgAKI CALL: DATE: 17-2=SeD=88 ----------- ____ =______________=_____=______-_____=_=___________---____=______=_____ LANES ; CAFfiCtTY VOLUMES MOVE;IENT ------------------;-- =__=-=__-____=--;=-_-____--=_=--=---------=---=;-_--------=------=------==-_-_------------- 1993 W/0 1993 W/ ; I443 W/U 1,993 W% 1993 lit EXIST!Q PROPCSEO: MTING PROPOSED; EXISTING PROJECT PROJECT ; EXISTING PROJECT Ph EET PROJECT (PROP. LN ---------------------------- ------=------------ --=-=--=--=------------------- ----------- MB LEFT 1 1 : 1500 1500 ; 1i3 124 168 ; 0.08 . 0.08• . 0:11 . 1).:1 . ----------------------------,-------_._--_- - ---------------------- - -- - ------- NO 1HRU 2 = �:00 a200 ; 481 529 650 ; 0.18 + 0.20 r 0.24 + 0.24 + --- --=-==-=------------------' NB RIGHT 0 0 : 0 0 92 119 119 : 0.00 . 0.00 . 0.00 . -- ----------- --- ---; -------------=---, ------------------- --- --------------------------------------- 58 LEF' ; 1540 1500 127 175 175 ; 0.08 + 0.12 + 0.12 + 0.12 + --------------------' SB 1HRU 2 2 ; 3200 1200 ; 92 431 610 ; 0.16 . 0.18 . 0.24 : 0.24 . ----------------------- SB RIGHT 0 145 145 ; 0.00 . 0.00 . O:CO : 0.00 . -------------------------- -'---------------=-- - = _-=-=---------------'--------------------------------------=---= EB LEFT I 1 1500 1500 ; 165 116 116 ; 0.07 + 0.08 + 0.08 . 0.:u8 -----'-------------------- EB THRU 2 2 ; 3.04 3�00 Q. 397 412 412 ; 0.16 0.19 0.21 + 0.21 + ---------------------------- -------- =_---___------------=------'---------------------_-------------=------- EB RIGHT 0 0 0' 0 ; 116 128 205 : 0.00 0.00 0:00 !1.00 . -----------------------------' ---_-,__- --=-----------------' WE LEFT 1 1 1500 1.500 109 131 131 ; 0.07 0.09 0.09 + 0.09 + ----------------- =----__-' _:_____:__------------------;---------------------------=- ;B TH9U 2 2 ; 200 2-00 ; d66' 534 534 0.18 + 0.21 + 0.21 0.21 . ---------- -- ----------------'---------------- =-'__---_-__---_----------------- ------------------------------------------- WE R:GHT 0 0 : 0 0 16f 132 132 ; 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 . CLEARANCE 0.10 ► 0.10 + O.PO + 0.10 + ICU VALUE 0.61 0.70 0.76 0.16 ----------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL OF SERVICE B B C C --------------------------------------------------------- NOTES: �- PREPARED BY: NB = NORTHBOUND, SB = SOUIHBOUND, EB = STBOUND Q MILLOAN ASSOCIATES MB-= WESTBOUND - 3�' d 7 12900 CROSSROADS PARKWAY SOUTH, SUITE 200 r-DENOTE8-CRIT-ICAI V/C UTILIZED TO DETERMINE ICU-VALUE AND INDUSTRY, CALIFORNIA 91746-3499- LEVEL-OF SERVICE. (213) 695-0551 (t) INCLUDES PROPOSED INTERSECIION' IMPROVEMEWIS. 'YIERSECTICN CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION �OCATION:MAGNOLIA STREET AND HAMILTON AVENUE CITY OF: HUNTINGTON BEACH PEAK HR.:7:0+) - 8:00 AM COUNT DATE: 02/16/88 :ALI'. BY:J. 7TAGAKI CALC. DATE: 22-Sep-88 LANES CAPACITY 'VOLUMES ; VIC '10VEME!IT ------------------,-------------------,------------------------------,------------------------------------------- 1993 �/O 1993 %/ ; 1993 W/O 1993 W/ 1993 A/ EXISTING PROPOSED: TXIST!NG PROPOSED; EXISTING PROJECT PROJECT EXISTING PROJECT PROJECT PROJECT (PROP. LN ------------------------------=--==----- '13 LEE 1 1 1500 1500 ; 17 19 79 1 0.01 . 0.01 . 0.05 . 0.95 . ---------------------------;-------------------.------------------------------ ------------------------------------------- 'IB fHRU - 2 3200 >20U ; 167 190 358 1 q.0b + O.Ob + 0.14 + 0.14 + - --------------------------- -------------------I------------------------------'------------------------------------------- ';B R 13HT ') 0 ,) 1 9 10 77 ; 0.00 . 0.00 . 0.00 . 6.00 . ------------------------------'------------------------------------------- SS LEFT 1 1 I 1500 1500 1 163 179 179 1 0.11 + 0.12 + 0.12 + 0.12 + ---------------------------'-------------------;------------------------------I-------- S8 THRU. 2 - ; 3200 3240 ; 185 210 256 I O.i�b 0.07 0.08 0.08 . --- --------------------------'-------------------1-------------------------------1------------------------------------------- 53 RIGHT 1 I 11`1q0 1500 I 37 41 67 0.02 . 0.03 . 0.04 . 0.0, ---------------------- --------------------I------------------------------I-------------------------------------- ED LEFT 1 I 1500 11100 1 33 3b 47 ; 0.02 + 0.02 + 0.03 + �i 0 ------- --- - -----------------;-------------------1------------------------------ E" THOU 1 U 1600 1600 1 230 253 258 I 0.15 . 0.17 . 0.17 . 0.17 ---- -- --------------------------------------I----------------------------- ------------------------------------------- E8 RIGHT 0 0 : 0 q ; 13 14 18 ; 0.00 . 0.00 . 0.00 . 0.70 . ------------------------------ ------------------------------------------- 98 LEFT 1 1 1500 1e.00 ; 22 24 37 ; 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 . - -- ---------'- -- -- ----------;------------------------------I------------------------------------------- 0 THRJ 2 2 I 3200 3200 I 140 209 222 I 0.16 + 0.18 + 0.18 + 0.18 + ----------------------------1-------------------'------------------------------1------------- 0 RIGHT 0 0 ; 0 0 1 320 352 352 1 0.00 . 0.00 . 6.00 . 0.00 . .--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CLEARANCE 0.10 + 0.10 + 0.10 + 0.10 + ----------------------------------------------------------------- ICU VALUE 0.45 0.48 0.57 0.57 --------- ------- ------------- --------------------------------- LEVEL OF SERVICE A A A A ----------------------------------------------------------------- NOTES. b �' 0 PREPARED BY: NO = NORTHBOUND, SB = SOUTHBOUND, EB = EASTBOUND, " WILLDAN ASSOCIATES WB = WESTBOUND 12900 CROSSROADS PARKWAY SOUTH, SUITE 200 + DENOTES CRITICAL VIC UTILIZED TO DETERMINE ICU VALUE AND INDUSTRY, CALIFORNIA 91746-3499 LEVEL OF SERVICE. (21-l! 695-0551 (1) INCLUDES PROPOSED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS. INTERSECTION CAPAC:TY UTILIIAT;CN CALCULATION LOCATION:MAGNOL'A STREET AND HAM','-TON AVENUE CITY OF: HUNTINGTON BEACH PEAK HR.:5:01) - 0)l) PM COUNT DATE: 02/16/8B TALC. 9Y:J. ;'AGAKI CALC. DATE: 22-Sep-S8 �ANES CAPACITY 'VOLUMES V/C MOVEMENT -----------------'-------------------:------------------------------'------------------------------------------- 1993 W/0 1993 W/ 1993 W/O 1993 A/ :993 W/ C1157;NG PROPOSED; ll S TING FROPOSED: EXISTING PROJECT PROJECT EXISTING PROJECT FROJECT PROJECT (PROP. L,1 \6 LE=? 1 1500 1500 : :7 19 71 : 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.05 . --------- -----------=-'-------------------:--------------- ?!8 THRU : '200 3200 ; 246 239 374 : 0.09 + 0.10 + 0.13 + 0.14 + - ----------------------------:-------------------;------------------------------ ------------------------------------------- "B R;GNT C 0 0 : 35 39 73 : 0.00 0.00 0.00 -1.00 . ;B L'FT 1 1 1`.•00 1500 247 272 272 : 0.:6 - 0.19 0.13 +. 0.13 + .. -- -------------------------- -------------------:------------------------------;------------------------------------------- 5B 'HR;1 _ _ ':':0 3200 201 232 419 : 0.06 . 0.07 . - 0.13 0.13 . -- - -- ---- - -- -----'-------------------'------------------------------:------------------------------------------- SB R13HT : 1 11100 1500 ; 21 23 91 : 0.01 0.02 . 0.06 . ().^6 . ---- - - -------- ---------- --;----;----------`---;------------------------------;------------------------------- E8 LEFT : 00 1 00 .8 42 121 ; 0.03 + 0.03 + 0.03 + 0.118 + C3 TiR ' l :600 1600 : 245 210 305 : 0.17 ).18 0.22 . 0.22 . .--------------------------:------------------- ------------------------------:------------------------------ ------------- E3 R;Gs11 0 0 1 : 21 23 49 0.v0 0.00 0.00 0.00 . -------------------------------' -------------------;------------------------------;-------------- ---------------------------- �8 LEFT 1 1 1500 1500 ; 31 34 102 ; 0.02 . 0.02 . 0.07 . 0.07 . --------------------------=----------------------------------- 0 THRU : : 32';0 3200 : 472 519 553 ; 0.24 + 0.26 + 0.27 + 0.%7 + ----------------------------.-------------------.----------------------------- NB RIGHT c 0 0 0 ; 290 319 319 ; 0.00 . 0.00 0.00 0.00 . --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CLEARANCE 0.10 + 0.10 + 0.10 + 0.10 + ----------------------------------------------------------------- ICU VALUE 0.62 0.67 0.77 0.77 ----------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL OF SERVICE B B C ----------------------------------------------------------------- NOTES: PREPARED BY: NB = NORTHBOUND, SB = SOUTHBOUND, EB = EASTBOUND, WILLOAN ASSOCIATES WB = WESTBOUND 12900 CROSSROADS PARKWAY SOUTH, SUITE 200 + DENOTES CRITICAL V/C UTILIIED TO DETERMINE ICU VALUE AND INDUSTRY, CALIFCRNIA 91746-3459 LEVEL OF SERVICE. (213) 695-0551 (1) INCLUDES PROPOSED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS. :NTERSECTION CAFACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION LOCAT!CN:MASNCLIA STREET AND 3ANNING AVENUE CITY OF: HUNTINGTON BEACH PEAK HR.:?:JO - 3:00 AM COUNT DATE: 02/18/88 (:Alf.. BY:J. 1.AGAk1 CALC. DATE: 21-Sep-28 LANES CAPACITY VOLUMES )/C yOvE"ENT -------------------;-------------------;------------------------------ 1993 W/O 1993 W/ ;993 W/0 1?93 W/ 1993 W/ EXIST;NG PROPOSED; EXISTING PROPOSED: EXISTING PROJECT PROJECT EXISTING PROJECT PROJECT PROJECT (PROP. L N NS LEFT ; 1500 1500 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + ------------------------------------------------;------------------------------;------------------------------------------- '18 'HRU 2 :2:0 3200 84 98 11B 0.03 + 0.03 0.�; 0.0; . ----------------------------;-------------------;------------------------------;------------------------------------------- NB F1SHT 0 0 0 ii 11 12 12 0.00 0.00 4,00 0.00 . ----------------------------;-------------------;-------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB LEFT 1 1500 1500 L9 43 43 0.03 + 0.03 O.J3 0.03 . _. .- - -----' ------------------'-------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB 74"U 200 3200 179 212 266 ; 0.06 0.07 + 0.08 + 0.08 + ------------------; ' "3 ".:HI 0 J 0 0 0 0 0 ; 0.00 . 0.00 . 0.00 . 0.00 . ;- --- -.-...-- -------------------------------; --------------------------- ------- ---- - 1.3 1 a T 0 ? J 0 0 0 0 : 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0 _... - --:---------- ---------;------------------------------;-------------------------------------- E8 THRU J 0 0 0 ; 0 0 0 ; 0.00 0.00 0.00 0. ---------------------------'-------------------'------------------------------ -------- C3 SIGHT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 J.00 . -----------------------------:-------------------;------------------------------'------------------------------------------- u8 LEFT 2 11000 3000 ; 93 102 102 ; 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03% . ----------------------------;-------------------;------------------------------ ----------------------------=-------------- 9B TH`U 0 0 0 0 ; 0 0 0 ; 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 . ------------------------------ ------------------------------------------- 48 RIGHT : 1500 1500 63 59 69 0.04 + 0.05 + 0.05 + 0.05 + --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CLEARANCE 0.10 + 0.10 + 0.10 + 0.10 + ----------------------------------------------------------------- ICU VALUE 0.20 0.41 0.23 0.23 ----------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL OF SERVICE A A A A ----------------------------------------------------------------- NOTES: PREPARED BY: NB = NORTHBOUND, SB = SOUTHBOUND, EB = EASTBOUND, WILLDAN ASSOCIATES WO = WESTBOUND 12900 CROSSROADS PARKWAY SOUTH, SUITE 200 +DENOTES CRITICAL V/C UTILIZED TO DETERMINE ICU VALUE AND INDUSTRY, CALIFORNIA 91746-3499 LEVEL OF SERVICE. (213) 615-0551 (I) INCLUDES PROPOSED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS. 4 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION LCCATION:MAGNOLIA STREET AND BANNING AVENUE CITY OF: HUNTINGTON BEACH PEAK HR.:5:00 - 6:00 FM COUNT DATE: 02/18/80 CALL. BY:J. ITAGAKI CALL. DATE: 21-Sep-88 LANES ; CAPACITY ; VOLUMES ; VIC MOVEMENT ------------------;-------------------;------------------------------'---------------------------------- 1993 W/0 1993 W/ ; 1993 Y/0 1993 4/ 1993 W/ Ex1STING FROFOSED; EXISTING PROPOSED, EIISTING PROJECT PROJECT ; EXISTING PROJECT PROJECT PROJECT (PROP. L'I - ---------------- ------------------ '4B LEFT I I ; i500 1.500 ; 0 0 0 ; 0.00 . 0.00 . 0.00 . 0.00 . ----------------------------- -------------------;------------------------------;------------------------------------------- '1B THRU 2 ; 3200 3200 ; 211 316 393 ; 0.10 + 0.12 + ).14 0.14 + ------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------------------------- NB RIGHT 0 0 ; 0 ; 56 62 62 ; 0.00 . 0.00 . 0.1,10 . 0.00 . ---------------------------- -------------------;------------------------------;------------------------------------------- SB LEFT 1 ; 1500 1500 ; 92 101 101 ; 0.06 + 0.07 + 0.07 + 0.07 + ------------------------------------------- S9 THRU 2 ; 3200 3200 ; 120 143 195 ; 0.04 0.04 0.06 . 0.06 . - ---..-... - ------- - -----;-------------------;------------------------------;------------------------------------------- 5B RISHI 0 0 ; 0 0 ; 0 0 0 ; 0.00 . 0.00 . 0.00 0.00 . ------------------------------ ------------------------------------------- IB LOFT 0 ------ - 3..; 0 -------;------------------n --O ---- + ---- + ---- + 0 + --- . EB TNRJ 0 0 ; 0 0 ; 0 0 0 ; 0.00 . 0.00 . 0.00 . 0.00 .. -----------------------------;------------------- ------------------------------'------------------------------ E3 RIGHT 0 0 ; 0 0 ; 0 0 0 ; 0.00 . 0.00 . 0.00 . 0.00 . -------------------------------------------------;------------------------------;------------------------------------------- NB LEFT 2 2 ; 3000 3000 ; 17 19 19 ; 0.01 0.01 0.01 . ----------------------------;-------------------;------------------------------;------------------------------------------- WB THRU 0 0 ; 0 0 1 0 0 0 ; 0.00 . 3.00 . 0.00 0.00 . ------------------------- ----'- a RIGHT 1 1 ; 1500 1500 ; 79 87 97 ; 0.05 + 0.06 + 0.06 + 0.06 + --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 'CLEARANCE 0.10 + 0.10 + 0.10 + 0.10 + ----------------------------------------------------------------- ICU VALUE 0.32 0.34 0.37 0.37 ----------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL OF SERVICE A A A A ----------------------------------------------------------------- NOTES: PREPARED BY: NB = NORTHBOUND, SB = SOUTHBOUND, ES = EASTBOUND, WILLDAN ASSOCIATES WB = WESTBOUND 12900 CROSSROADS PARKWAY SOUTH, SUITE 200 + DENOTES CRITICAL V/C UTILIZED TO DETERMINE ICU VALUE AND INDUSTRY, CALIFORNIA 11746-3499 LEVEL OF SERVICE. (213) 695-0551 (1) INCLUDES PROPOSED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS. INTERSECTION CAPACITY CTl'IZATION CALCULATION �7CA'!CN:6' Sa�rD S-:EET :AND HAMILTON AVENUE CITY OF: HUNTINGTON BEACH PEAK. hR.:7:00 - 3:00 �y COUNT DATE: 02/16/88 CALC. 31:J. I'AGAXI CALC. DATE: 21-Sep-88 LANES CAPACITY VOLUMES ; '1/C KVEMENT ------------------------------ ------------------------------------------- 1993 W/0 1993 W/ ; 1993 W/O 1993 W/ 1993 Y/ EX;S?I'!6 PRCPOSED; EXISTING PROPOSED; EXISTING PROJECT PROJECT ; EXISTING PROJECT PROJECT PROJECT (PROP. LN NB L'=T 1 ; 11,00 1500 ; 66 73 73 ; 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.05 . ------------ .------...-------;------------------- ------------------------------;--------------- ---------------------------- 14B 12") :200 ; 192 214 214 ; 0.08 + 0.08 + 0.08 + 0.08 + ----------------------------------------'------------------------------;------------------------------------------- NB R;SHT J 0 0 52 57 57 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 •--------------------------- ------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB LEFT 1 ; 15^0 1500 ; 183 224 224 0.12 + 0.15 + 0.15 + 0.15 + -- -- --- -, -------- ----------------------------- S8 'Iiqu ,,200 221 251 251 0.12 . 0.13 . 0.13 . 0.1., . ..--------------------------;-------------------;------------------------------;------------------------------------------- ;5 RI0H1 0 ; 0 0 155 171 171 ; 0.00 . 0.00 . U.00 . 0.00 . ----- ------------------------;------------------- ------------------------------;------------------------------------------- EB LEFT 1 ; 1500 1500 ; 71 78 78 ; ).05 0.05 + 0.05 . 0.� - --------;-------------------;------------------------------;--------------------------------------- 0 EB IHRJ 2 ; j2 IV,0 3200 ; 461 50/ 579 ?.1: + 0.17 . 0.19 + 0.1 ---------------------'------------------------------------------- fB RIGHT 0 0 0 33 36 36 ; 0.00 0.00 . 0.00 0.00 . NB LEF: i .°•J0 1 00 12 �5 ,5 1.Oc + 0.02 ;.02 + 0.02 + ---------------------------'-------------------,------------------------------'------------------------------------------- a THRI., 2 ; 12C0 3200 ; 326 359 385 ; 0.13 0.14 + 0.15 0.15 . ------------------------------------------ WB R;G51 0 0 ; 0 0 78 94 94 ; 0.C•0 0.00 0.00 0.00 . - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CLEARANCE 0.10 + 0.10 + 0.10 + 0.10 + ----------------------------------------------------------------- ICU VALUE 0.47 0.53 0.55 0.55 ----------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL OF SERVICE A A A A ----------------------------------------------------------------- NOTES. PREPARED BY: NB = NORTHBOUND, SB = SOUTHBOUND, EB = EASTBOUND, WILLDAN ASSOCIATES WB = WESTBOUND 12900 CROSSROADS PARKWAY SOUTH, SUITE 200 + DENOTES CRITICAL VIC UTILIZED TO DETERMINE ICU VALUE AND INDUSTRY, CALIFORNIA 91746-3499 LEVEL OF SERVICE. (713) 695-0551 (1) INCLUDES PROPOSED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS. INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION LOCATION:SUSHARD STREET AND HAMILT04 AVENUE CITY OF: HUNTIN67ON BEACH PEAK HR.:5:00 - 6:00 PM COUNT DATE: 02/16/88 CALC. 3Y:J. ITA6AK1 CALC. DATE: 21-Sep-83 LANES CAPACIT`! ; VOLUMES MOVEMENT --------------------------------------;------------------------------;------------------------ 1993 SI/0 1993 W/ ; 1993 W/0 1993 W/ 1993 ill FXISTING PROPOSED; E1IST916 PROPOSED; EI;ISTIYG PROJECT PROJECT EXISTING PROJECT PROJECT PROJECT. (PROP. LN VB LEFT I 1 ; 1500 1500 35 39 39 0.02 . 0.03 0.03 . 0.03 . -------------'------------------------------------------- 118 iHRU _ ; 3200 3200 194 222 212 ; 0.07 + 0.08 + 0.08 + 1.08 + - - ---- -- --; - ---------------;------------------------------'------------------------------------------- I18 RIGHT 0 0 ; r, J ; 2-629 29 ; 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 . ------------ --- ---------- -'--------------------'--------------------------- :------------------------------------------- S8 LEFT ; 1500 1500 ; 138 1168 168 ; 0.09 + 0.11 + 0.11 + k1,11 + ---------------:-------------------;------------------------------;------------------------------------------- 53 TI1RU' 1 1 3100 3100 ; 151 171 171 ; 1.06 . 0.V7 . 0.07 . 0.07 . SD RIGHT J 0 9 0 46 51 51 ; 0.00 . 0.00 . 0.0-0 0.00 . ---------- -----------------I-------,-`--------�(-�-:---- -- T-J LEFT . l , 1�00 1,100 `)I 41 JD 50 1 0.07 + .CJ + 0.0J------- 7+ 0�0J--+ '- ----------------- -------?-• E3 THRU _ I 3200 3200 ; 297 327 396 ; 0.11 . 0.12 . 0.14 . 0.14 . _....------ -- -- ---;-------------------'------------------------------'--------------------- ED R:GHT 0 0 ; 0 0 ; 51 56 56 ; 0.00 . 0.00 . 0.00 . 0.00 . - - -- --- ----------------'-------------------;------------------------------;------------------------------------------- A8 ;If: 1 : : 1500 t500 ; 84 92 92 ; 0.06 . 0.06 . 0.06 . 0.06 . - ----------------------;------------------------------------------- - --------------------; -------- I we TIIRi; 1 : J200 3200 616 744 946 ; 0.28 + 0.31 + 0.35 + 0.35 + ------------------------------;------------------------------------------- AD RIGHT 0 0 ; 0 0 ; 215 263 263 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 . CLEARANCE 0.10 + 0.10 + 0.10 + 0.10 + ----------------------------------------------------------------- ICU VALUE 0.57 0.64 0.67 0.67 ----------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL OF SERVICE A B B B ----------------------------------------------------------------- NOTES: PREPARED BY: NB = NORTHBOUND, SB = SOUTHBOUND, EB = EASTBOUND, WILLDAN ASSOCIATES WB _ WESTBOUND 12900 CROSSROADS PARKWAY SOUTH, SUITE 200 + DENOTES CRITICAL VIC UTILIZED TO DETERMINE ICU VALUE AND INDUSTRY, CALIFORNIA 91746-3499 LEVEL OF SERVICE. (213) 695-0551 (1) INCLUDES PROPOSED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS. INTERSECT ICH CAPACITY .j?IL11A?ION CALCULATION + LJCAT!34:MA31^.L;A STREET AND ATLArTA AVE"UE CITY OF: NUNTINGTON MACH FF.AK HR.:':!)," - 9:'.!!J* AM COUNT DATE: 02/13/88 ,A1.C. ?1:'. IA GAK; CALC. DATE: 22-Sep-88 LANES CAPACITY VOLUMES ; V/C MOVEMENT ------------------;------------------- ------------------------------;------------------------------- 2005 W/0 11005 wl 2405 410 2005 W/ 2005 W/ EXISTIX3 FROPCSED; EXISTING F'ROFOSFD; EXISTING PROJECT PROJECT ; Ez1STIV6 PROJECT PROJECT PROJECT (PROP. LN ----------------------------'-------------------'----------------------------- -------------- ------------------ --------,------------------- ------------------------------ ------ ----------------------- ---------------------------------- 19 LE.'? 1 i ; 1500 1500 ; 51 63 116 ; 0.03 + 1.04 + 0.08 + 0.08 + -------------------'------------------------------'------------------------------------------- YB ?HRU 2 = 3200 3240 ; 311 383 509 ; 0.12 0.15 0.19 0.19 . ----------------------------;-------------------;------------------------------;------------------------------------------- Ns R:OHT ? ; !) 0 ; 82 101 101 ; 0.00 0.00 . 0.00 . 0.00 . ---------------------- -------------------;------------------------------;------------------------------------------- S9 LEFT ; 1 ; 1J1010 1500 ; 50 62 52 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.04 . --------------- ---------------,------------------- ------------------------------;------------------------------------------- S9 Ti1RU < : 3230 3200 1 JJL 555 101 0.13 + 1,22 + 0.24 + 0.24 + -------'-------------------;------------------------------'------------------------------------------- SB RIGHT 1) C ; !) 0 ; 44 54 54 ; 0.00 0. 0 . 0.00 . 0.0' . ....-_....--.-_---------....--:--------------------;------------------------------,-------------------------------------- 9 LEFT 1 ; 1500 :5C0 119 147 147 0.08 . 0.:0 . 0.10 . --------' -------------------;------------------------------'--------------------------------------- L'B THRL' ��Q 3�00 ; 391 482 S82 ; 0.16 + u.2U + ).21 + O.L' + ---- --------- --------------,-------------------;------------------------------ ------------------------------------------- E Do RIGli1 0 ) 0 ; 13U 160 176 ; 0.00 . 0.1)0 . .0.00 . 0.00 .. ----------------------------,-------------------,------------------------------ ------------------------------------------- ;9 LEFT 1 1 1150 1500 ,J3 164 164 0.09 + 0.11 + 0.11 + 0.11 + ------------------------------;-------------------;------------------------------ ----------------------------- ;9 THRU 2 ; 7200 1.•200 234 283 288 0.10 . 0.12 . 0.12 . 0.12 . ---------------------------- -------------------;------------------------------;------------------------------------------- �B RIGHT ;) 0 ; 0 0 ; 75 93 93 ; 0.00 . 0.00 . 0.00 . 0.00 . ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------7----------------------------------------- CLEARANCE 0.10 + 0.10 + 0:10 + 0.10 + --=-------------------------------------------------------------- ICU VALUE 0.57 0.61 0.73 0.75 ----------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL OF SERVICE A 8 C C ----------------------------------------------------------------- NOTES: PREPARED BY: N8 = NORTHBOUND, SO = SOUTHBOUND, EB = EASTBOUND, • WILLDAN ASSOCIATES NO = WESTBOUND 12900 CROSSROADS PARKWAY SOUTH, SUITE 200 + DENOTES CRITICAL V/C UTILIZED TO DETERMINE KU VALUE AND INDUSTRY, CALIFORNIA 91746-3499 LEVEL OF SERVICE. (21:) 695-0551 (1) INCLUDES PROPOSED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS. :NTEPSECT12M CAPACITY UTILI:AT'.C;1 CALC;.'LAT1P.N LOCATICN:4ASNOLIA STREET AND ATLANTA AVENUE CITY CF: 4UNTINGTON BEACH PEAK HR.:5:CO - 6:`.'f► P11 CGUNT CATE: 02/1818 CALC. BY:J. 1TAGAKI :ALC. ZATE: :2-Seo-38 LANES CAPACITY ; VOLUMES ; //C MOVEMENT ------------------'-------------------;------------------------------'------------------- ----------------------- 2005 W/O 2005 A/ _005 Ri'l 2005 +I/ :005 M/ EXIST16 PROPOSED: EYISTI`IG PROPOSED: EXISTING PROJECT PROJECT ; EXISTING PPOJEC-7 PROJECT PROJECT. (PROP. _3 'IB LEFT ' . 1 11500 1500 ; 113 139 183 ; . 0.03 0.:)9 0.12 + 12 + --------------------------'-------------------;------------------------------;------------------------------------------- NB THRU _ ' : :200 5200 ; 481 592 713 (),IS + O.Z: * 0.26 0.26 . NB RIGHT------ .t 0 0 9 ; 92 113 113 1 0.';0 0.00 0.00 0.00 . ----------------,--------------------------------------------------;------------------------------------------- SB LEFT 1 1 1500 1500 ; l27 157 157 ; 0.08 + 0.10 + 0.10 0.10 . ---- ------------------;-------=----------------------;----------------------------------------- SB THRU 2 : 32:�C 3200 3�2 483 662 ; 4.16 ).�0 4._� + 0.26 + ----;--- ---------------------'------------------------- -S9 RIGHT 0 0 : 0 0 ; 132 162 162 : 0.00 1.00 1).00 0.00 . - -----------------;-------------------;------------------------------;---------;----------+----------;------:---: [9 LEFT 1 1CIOJ 1500 ; 1015 13V 130 ').07 0.09 0.09 :i ':9 ------------------;------------------------------'------------------------------------------- -B THRU 0�; 71OO ' :9' 469 489 0.16 + 0.2: - - -- ---'-------------------;-------------------------------;------------------------------------------- E6 9;1JHT '► 0 0 ; 116 143 220 -- ------ -------------------'------------------------------------------- :B LEFT 1 : 1509 1500 : 109 134 134 ; 0.07 . 0.09 . 1).19 + 0.-)9 + ----;------------------------------------------- WB THRU i : '200 3200 ; 466 575 575 0.19 + 0.22 + 0. 2 0.22 . -----------------------------.-------------------,------------------------------;------------------------------------------- VB RIGHT 0 1 : 0 0 : 101 124 124 ; 0.00 . 0.00 0.00 0.00 . --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CLEARANCE 0.10 + 0.10 + 0.10 + 0.10 + ----------------------------------------------------------------- ICU VALUE 1.61 0.'3 0.79 0,79 ----------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL OF SERVICE 8 C C C ----------------------------------------------------------------- NOTES: PREPARED BY: NB = NORTHBOUND, SB = SOUTHBOUND, EB = EASTBOUND, WILLDAN ASSOCIATES WB = WESTBOUND 12900 CROSSROADS PARKWAY SOUTH, SUITE 200 + DENOTES CRITICAL V/C UTILIIED TO DETERMINE ICU VALUE AND INDUSTRY, CALIFCRNIA 91746-3499 LEVEL OF SERVICE. (213) 695-0551 (1) INCLUDES PROPOSED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS. INTEESECT:GN CAPACITY 'JTfll'.ATICN CALCULATION • LOCATION:MAGNOLIA STREET AND HAMILTON AVENUE CITY OF: HUNTINV ON °EACH PEAK Hk.:7:4(' - 3:(:0 AM COUNT DATE: 02/16/88 ;:Alf.. PY:J. CALC. DATE: 26-59o-88 LANES CAPACITY VOLUMES MOVEMENT ------------------1-------------------:------------------------------;------------------------------------------- 1 2005 W/O 2005 A/ 2005 4/0 2005 'i/ 2005 W/ EX1311':G PROPOSED: EXISTING PROFOSW EXISTING PROJECT PROJECT : EXISTING PROJECT PROJECT PROJECT !PROP. LN --------------------- NB LEFT i 1 1500 1500 : 17 21 91 0.01 0.01 0.05 . 9.05 . ----------------------------:----------------=-- ------------------------------;---------------- --------------------------- 4B THRU 2 7200 3200 167 206 374 0.06 * 0.07 + 0.14 + 0.14 + ------------------------------------------------:------------------------------'------------------------------------------- 18 RIGHT 11 78 : 9.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 . -----------------------------;------------------- ------------------------------ --------------------------------------- EB LEFT 1 1 1500 1500 163 197 197 : 0.11 + 0.13 + 0.13 + 0.13 + ---------------------------- -------------------:------------------------------ ------------------------------------------- ;B 14RU .' 1100 3200 1 1B5 228 2b4 0.06 . 0.07 . 0.08 . 0.08 . ------------------ ------------------------------ -------------------------------------------- �R RIGHT 1 1 : 1500 1500 :7 46 72 0.02 . 0.03 . 0.05 . 0.0` - ----- ;-- -- -------------:------------------------------;-------------------------------------(-- SD LEFT 1 : 1500 1500 : 33 40 51 0.02 + 0.03 + 0. + 1. ------------ --------------: -------------------:------------------------------:------------------------------------------- ED T!IRU 1 2 : 1600 3200 : 230 2B3 :88 : 0.15 . 0.19 . 0.19 . 9.10 . -------------------------------------------:------------------------------:------------------------------------------- ED RIGHT 0 0 : 0 C : 13 lb 20 : 0.0) 0.1'.0 0."0 ),I . ------------------------------:------------------------------------------- AB LEFT 1 1 : 1500 1500 : 22 27 40 0.01 . 0.02 . 0.03 . 0.03 . ------------------------------'------------------------------------------- ".B THRU 2 1 : 7200 '100 : 190 234 247 : 0.16 + 0.20 + 0.20 + 0.08 . ----------------------------:-------------------:------------------------------:----------------------- -------------------- :dB RIGHT 0 1 : 0 1500 : 310 394 394 : 0.00 . 0.00 . 0.00 . 0.26 + --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CLEARANCE 0.10 + 0.10 + 0.10 + 0.10 + -----=----------------------------------------------------------- ICU VALUE 0.45 0.52 0.61 0.67 ----------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL CF SERVICE A A B X E5 ----------------------------------------------------------------- NOTES: -D - 3 . `�g PREPARED BY: NB = NORTHBOUND, SB = SOUTHBOUND, EB = EASTBOUND, WILLOAN ASSOCIATES WB = WESTBOUND 12900 CROSSROADS PARKWAY SOUTH, SUITE 200 + DENOTES CRITICAL V/C UTILIZED TO DETERMINE ICU VALUE AND INDUSTRY, CALIFORNIA 91746-3499 LEVEL OF SERVICE. (113) 695-0551 (1) INCLUDES PROPOSED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS. ;4TERSE:T104 :APACI?Y UTILIZATION CALCULATION LOCAT:CN:MA69OLIA STREET AND NA3ILTCY AVENUE CITY OF: UNT!NGTON BEACH PEAK HR.:5:00 - 6:-i0 PM COUNT DATE: 02/16/88 CaIC. BY:J. ITAGAK: CALC. DATE: 26-32p-58 L;t1ES CAPACITY ; ,VOLUMES MOVEMENT ------------------'-------------------;------------------------------;--------------------------------- 7005 'A/0 2005 W/ 2005 +1'0 2005 'Ai 205 A/ PRCPOSED; -EXI;TT!:6 PROPCSED: EXISTING PROJECT PROJECT ; EXISTIN6 PROJE PROJECT PROJECT (PP.OP. LV NB LEFT 1 1 1500 1500 ; 17 21 73 ; 0.01 . 0.ell! 0.05 0.05 . --------------------------- .--------------------;------------------------------;------------------------------------------- '1B THOU 1 1. '200 3200 : 246 04 399 : 0.09 + 111.1: + 0.!5 + 0.15 + ------------------------------------------------;------------ ------------------;------------------------------------------- '19 RIGHT 1) 0 ') 0 ; 35 43 77 ; 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 . -----------------------------,-------------------;------------------------------;------------------------------------------- 38 LEFT 1 ; :rl00 1500 ; 247 IV05 305 ; 0.16 + 0.20 + 0.20 + 0.20 + ------------------------------------------------:------------------------------:------------------------------------------- 3B TN4U 2 2 3200 3200 ; 201 248 435 0.06 . 0.09 . 0.14 . 0.14 . ----------------------------;-------------------;------------------------------;------------------------------------------- SB RIGHT 1 : ; 1cl00 1500 : 21 26 94 ; 0.01 . 0.02 . 0.06 . 0.101% . -------------------------;-------------------;------------------------------;---------------------------------------- --- c9 LEFT 1 1 ; :50C 1500 ; 38 47 ' 1?6 ; �!.03 + 0.03 0.08 + 0.08 + ----------------------------;-------------------;------------------------------;---------------------- E9 T;, U 1 2 ; :600 ;200 ; 245 302 3.!7 ; 0.11 0.21 . 0.24 . - -------------------------;-------------------;------------------------------;----------------------------------------- �B RIGHT ) 0 : 0 1) ; 21 26 52 ; 0.00 . 0.')0 . 0.00 . --------------;------------------------------;------------------ .0 LEFT 1 1 : 1500 1500 ; 31 38 106 ; 0.02 . 0.03 . (1.07 0.07 . ::3 THRv ;200 3200 ; 472 581 615 ; 0.24 + 0.29 + 0.?0 + 0.!9 . - - ------- -----------------------------------------------------=--:------------------------------------------- 05 RIGHT 0 1 : 0 1500 : 290 357 357 : 0.00 . 0.00 . 0.00 . 0.24 + --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CLEARANCE 0.10 + 0.10 + 0.10 + 0.10 + ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1CU VALUE 0.62 0.74 0.94 0.77 -------------------------=--------------------------------------- LEVEL OF SERVICE B C D C ----------------------------------------------------------------- NOTES: - T _ PREPARED BY: NB z NORTHBOUND, SB - SOUTHBOLND, EB = EASTBOUND, WILLDAN ASSOCIATES WD = NESTBOUND 12900 CROSSROADS PARKWAY SOUTH, SUITE 200 + DENOTES CRITICAL V/C UTILIZED 10 DETERMINE LCU VALUE AND INDUSTRY; CALIFORNIA 91746-3499 LEVEL OF SERVICE. (2)3) 695-0551 11) INCLUDES PROPOSED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS. INTERSECT:CN CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION LOCATION:"AGNOLIA STREET AND BANNINS AVEVUE CITY OF: 411 1N6TON BEACH PEAK HR.:7:00 - 8:00 AM COUNT DATE: 01/18/88 CALL. BY:J. ITAGAKI CALC. DATE: 21-Sep-98 LANES ; CAPACITY ; VOLUMES ; 7/C MOVEMENT ------------------;-------------------;------------------------------;-------------------------------- 1005 N/O 2005 W/ ; 2005 W/O 2005 A/ 2005 W/ EXISTING PROPOSED: EXISTING PROPOSED; EXISTING PROJECT PROJECT ; EXISTING PROJECT PROJECT PROJECT : (PROP. LN ---------------------------- ------------------- ------------------------------ ------------------------ ------------ ----- NB LEFT 1 1 : icl00 1500 : 0 0 0 : 0.00 . 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + ----------------------------'-------------------;------------------------------ -------------------- 48 THRU 3200 : 84 103 123 : 0.03 0.04 . 0.04 . 0.04 . ----------------------------:------------------- --------=---------------------;------------------------------------------- NB RICH' 0 0 : 0 0 : 11 13 13 : 0.00 . 0.00 . 0.00 . 0.00 . ------------------------------ ------------------------------------------- -?q LEFT : 1 ; 15010 1500 : 39 48 48 : 0.03 + 0.U3 0.03 . 0.03 . ------------------------------;-------------------:------------------------------;---------------------------------------------------------------- ft n THRU : 1200 3200 ; 178 220 274 : 0.06 0.07 0.09 + 0.09 + - -----------------------;-------------------:------------------------------ ------------------------------------------- "S RIGHT 0 1) ; 0 0 : 0 0 0 0.00 . 0.00 ).00 . 0.00 . --- - -- -----------;------------------------------;-------------------------------- --- ---- - ED Lm :1 0 ; 0 0 : 0 0 0 : 0.00 + 0.00 • 0.00 r 0 ------------------------------ ------------------------------------- ED TKRU 0 0 : 0 0 : 0 0 0 : 0.00 . 0.00 . J. ,O . ----------------'----------------------------`,--------- - FS RIGHT 0 ) ; 0 0 : 0 0 0 : 0.00 . 0.00 . 0.% . 0.00 -----------------------------'---------------------------------------------------:-------------------------- ;i8 LEFT 1 1 : 3000 3000 : 93 114 114 : 0.03 0.04 . 0.04 . 0.04 . ----------------------------:-------------------:------------------------------:------------------------------------------- W9 TI1RU 0 0 : 0 0 : 0 0 0 : 0.00 . 0.00 0.00 . 0.00 . -----------------------------;-------------------:------------------------------:--------------------- Ww8 RIGHT 1 : : 1500 1500 : 63 77 77 : 0.04 + 0.05 + 0.05 + 0.05 + --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------=------------------------ CLEARANCE . 0.10 + 0.10 + 0.10 + 0.10 + ----------------------------------------------------------------- ICU VALUE 0.20 0.22 0.114 0.24 ------------------------------------------------------- --------- LEVEL OF SERVICE A A A A ----------------------------------------------------------------- NOTES: (o;LV PREPARED BY: NO = NORTHBOUND, SB = SOUTHBOUND, EB = EASTBOUND, NILLDAN ASSOCIATES WB = WESTBOUND 12900 CROSSROADS PARKWAY 50UTH, SUITE 200 + DENOTES CRITICAL V/C UTILIZED TO DETERMINE ICU VALUE AND INDUSTRY, CALIFORNIA 91746-3499 LEVEL OF SERVICE. (213) 695-0551 (1) INCLUDES PROPOSED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS. INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION L30TION:MASNOLIA STR£E.T AND',BANNING AVENUE CITY OF:. HUNTINGTON BEACH PEAK HR.:5:00.- 6:.00 PM' COUNT DATE: 02J18128 CALC. BY:J. IIAGAKI. CALC. DATE: 21-Sep-88 LANES CAPACITY: VOLUMES 7/C MOVEMENT ------------------;--------------------;------------------------------;---------------------------- :005 W/O 2005 W/ ; 2005 aIO 2005 W/ 2005 M/ EXISTING PROPOSED.:. EX'(S:TING. PROPOSED�' E-XI.STING PROJECT PROJECT ; EXISTING PROJECT PROJECT' PROJECT (PROP. LN NB LEFT 1 1 150 1.500. ; 0 0 0 ; 0.00 0.00 . 0.1.00 0.00 . -------=--------------------:-------------------;------------------------------;-------------------------------------- '!E THRU i 2. ; 3200 3200. ; 271 374 411 ; 0.1.0 + 0.13 + 0.15 +. 0.15 + -------------- --------------'-------------------;------------------------------ ------------------------------------------ :B RIGHT ) 0 0 0. ; 56 69 69 0.00 0.00 . 0.00 0.00 . ------------------------------'-------------------;------------------------------ -------------------------------------- So LEFT 1 1 ; 1500 1500 92. 113 113 ; 0.06 + 0.08 + 0.08 + 0.08 + - --- -- -------------------;----------------------------------------------------;------------------------------------------- SB T;;4U ; '200 1200 ; 120 1148 200 ; 0.04 0.09 0..05 0.06 . -------------------------------;------------------------------- -------------------;------------------------------------------- SB R:GH1 0 0 ; 0 0' 0 0 0 ; 0.00 0.00 0.00 .. 0.00 . '------------------------------;------------------------------------------- EB LEFT 0 -----;-----------------0-;-------0----------0---------0-;----0-00-±-----O-O--------0_00-`-----,_00-+ �. EE THRU 0 0 ; 0r 0 ; 0 0 0 ; 0.00 . 0.00 . 0.00 . 0.00 . ------- -----------'-------------------'------------------------------;-------------------------------------- EB RIGHT 0 ; 0 0• ;' 0 0 0 ; 0.00 . 0.00 0.00 0.00 . -----------------------------;-------------------;------------------------------;------------------------------------------- �B LEFT 2 T000 3000 ; 17 21 21 ; 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 . ----------------------------;-------------------I------------------------------;------------------------- MB THRU 0 0 ; 0 0 ; 0 0' 0 ; 0.00 0.00 . 0.00 . 0.00 . ------------------------------------------- 48 RIGHT 1 ; 1500 1500. ; 79 97 97 ; 0.05 + 0.06 + 0.06 + 0.06 + --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CLEARANCE 0.10 + 0.10 + 0.10 + 0.10 + ----------------------------------------------------------------- ICU VALUE 0.1'2 0.31 0.39 0.39 ---------------------------------------------------=------------- LEVEL. OF SERVICE A A A A ----------------------------------------------------------------- NOTES: PREPARED BY: NB = NORTHBOUND, SB = SOUTHBOUND, EB = EASTBOUND, WILLDAN ASSOCIATES MB = WESTBOUND 12900 CROSSROADS PARKWAY SOUTH, SUITE 200 + DENOTES CRITICAL V/C UTILIZED TO DETERMINE ICU VALUE AND INDUSTRY, CALIFORNIA 91746-3499 LEVEL OF SERVICE. 1213) 695-0551 (1) INCLUDES PROPOSED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS. INTERSEGTIJM CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION LOCATION:PUSHARD STREET AND HAMILTON AVE,%E CITY OF: HUNTINGTON BEACH PEAK HR.:7:00 - 8:00 AM COUNT DATE: 02/16/88 CALC. BY:J. I;AGAK1 CAM DATE: 21-Sep-88 LANES CAPACITY VOLUMES V/C MOVEMENT ------------------;------------------- ----------------------------- -------------------------------------------- 2005 W/0 2005 'A/ ; 2005 W/0 201,15 W/ 2005 W/ EXISTING PROPOSED: EXISTING PROPOSED; EXISTING PROJECT PROJECT EXISTING PROJECT PROJECT PROJECT (PROP. L N NB LEFT 1 1 ; 1500 1500 : 66 82 82 : 0.04 0.05 0.05 . 0.05 . ----------------------------;-------------------:------------------------------'----------------- NB THRU : 3200 3200 : 192 236 236 0.08 + 0.09 + 0.09 + 0.09 + ---------------7------------:-------------------:------------------------------:-------------------- ----------------------- 14B RIGHT 0 0 ; 0 0 : 52 64 64 : 0.00 0.00 0.00 0. 0 ----------------------------:-------------------:------------------------------:------------------------------------------- SB LEFT 1 1 ; 1500 1500 : 183 225 225 : 0.12 + 0.15 + :,15 + 0.15 + ----- _ -- - ----;-------------------,------------------------------,------------------------------------------- S9 THRU 3200 3200 : 221 272 272 : 0.14 0.15 . 0.15 . 0.15 . --- ---- - -- --------------- ----'------------------------------;------------------------------------------- SB RIGHT u 0 � 0 : 155 192 192 ; 0.00 J:00 . 1.00 0.00 . - --- -'-- ---- -------------'------------------------------:------------------------------------------- CB :CF1 : 1 ; 1500 1500 : 71 87 87 : 0.05 0.06 0.06 u -----:------------------------------:--------------------- CIS 13U _ 2 ; 3200 3200 : 461 Sb8 640 : 0.15 + 0.19 + 0.:1 + 0. ----------- ----------------;-------------------;------------------------------;------------------------------------------- E9 RIGHT 0 0 ; 0 0 : 33 40 40 ; 0.00 . . 0.00 . 0.00 0.00 . ----------------=-----------:-------------------:------------------------------'------------------------------ ;B LEFT I 1 : 11,00 1cl00 : 32 39 39 : 0.02 + 0.03 + 0.03 + 0.03 + ------------------------------ ------------------------------------------- 90 THL' : 3200 3200 : 326 402 428 : 0.13 . 0.16 . 0.16 . 0.16 . ----------------------------:-------------------:------------------------------'---------------- WB RIGHT 0 0 ; 0 0 : 78 96 96 : 0.00 . 0.00 . 0.00 . 0.00 . --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CLEARANCE 0.10 + 0.10 + 0.10 + 0.10 + ----------------------------------------------------------------- ICU VALUE 0.47 0.56 0.58 0.58 ----- ----------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL OF SERVICE A A A A ----------------------------------------------------------------- NOTES: PREPARED BY: NB = NORTHBOUND, S8 = SOUTHBOUND, EB = EASTBOUND, WILLDAN ASSOCIATES WB = WESTBOUND 12900 CROSSROADS PARKWAY SOUTH, SUITE 200 + DENOTES CRITICAL V/C UTILIZED TO DETERMINE ICU VALUE AND INDUSTRY, CALIFORNIA 91746-3499 LEVEL OF SERVICE. (2131 695-0551 (1) INCLUDES PROPOSED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS. INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION 10CATION:BUSHARD STREET AND HAMICTON AVENUE CITY OF: HUNTINGTON BEACH PEAK HR.:5:00 - 6:01 PM COUNT DATE: 02/16/88 CALC. BY:J. :TAGAKI CALC. DATE: 21-Sep-88 LANES CAPACITY ; VOLUMES ; '//C AOVEMENT ------------------;-------------------:------------------------------:------------------------------------------- 2005 WIG 2005 W/ 1 2005 W/O 2005 N/ 2:05 W/ EXISTING PROPOSED: EXISTING PROPOSED: EXISTING PROJECT PROJECT ; EXISTING PROJECT PROJECT PROJECT : (PROP. LN .B LEFT 1 1 ; 1500 1500 : :5 44 44 : 0.02 0.33 0.03 0.03 . ----------------------------:----------------�U-:------------------------------:------------------------------------------- `1B THRU 3200 3200 : 194 2,',9 239 1 0.07 + 0.08 + 0.08 +. 0.08 + ----------------------------;-------------------:------------------------------:------------------------------------------- 43 RIGHT 0 0 : 0 0 : 26 32 32 : 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 . -- - ---------------------:----=--------------;------------------------------;----------------------------- SB LEFT 1 1 1cl00 1500 : 138 170 170 : 0.09 + 0.11 + 0.11 + 0.11 + -------------------:------------------------------:--------------------- SB THRU 2 : 1100 3200 : 1�1 186 186 ; 0.06 0.09 . 0.08 . 0.03 . --- ------------- - -- - - ---- -- --- ----------------- ------ S3 .41"AlT 0 0 : 0 0 : 46 g7 57 : 0.00 O. U . 0.00 . 0.00 . - --- ---- ;---- -- ----- -----'------------------------------;------------------------------------------- E1 ;EFT 1 : 1500 1500 45 56 56 : 0.03 + 0.04 + 0.04 + 0.04 + ;... -------- -------------;------------- ;------------------------------:---------:--------------------------------- ED THRU 2 ? : 3200 3"00 : 297 366 435 : 0.11 0.13 0.16 . 0.16 . ------------------------------;-------------------:------------------------------;------------------------------------------- E3 RIGHT 0 0 ; 0 0 : 51 63 63 : 0.00 . 0.00 . 0.00 . 0.00 . - -----------------------------:-------------------:------------------------------:----------------------------- -------------- tlH LEFT : : 1590 1500 : 84 103 103 0.06 . 0.07 . 0.07 0.01 . -----------=-----------------:-------------------:------------------------------:------------------------------------------- 38 THRU 2 2 : 3200 3200 : 676 B33 935 1 0.29 + 0.34 + 0.38 + 0.38 + -------------------;------------------------------:------------------------------------------- OB RIGHT 0 0 : 0 0 ; 215 265 265 : 0.00 . 0.00 . 0.00 . 0.00 . -----.. .--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CLEARANCE 0.10 + 0.10 + 0.10 + 0.10 + ----------------------------------------------------------------- ICU VALUE 0.57 0.68 0.71 0.71 ----------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL OF SERVICE A B C C ----------------------------------------------------------------- NOTES: PREPARED BY: NB = NORTHBOUND, SB = SOUTHBOUND, EB = EASTBOUND, WILLOAN ASSOCIATES NB = WESTBOUND 12900 CROSSROADS PARKWAY SOUTH, SUITE 200 +DENOTES CRITICAL V/C UTILIZED TO DETERMINE ICU VALUE AND INDUSTRY, CALIFORNIA 91746-3419 LEVEL OF SERVICE. (213) 695-0551 (1) INCLUDES PROPOSED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS. AMENDED PORTIONS OF' EIR 87-5 PURSUANT TO RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED .1. 3 HYDROLOGY AUG 17 '~ DEPARTMENT' OF Settl�c COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENi PLANNING DIVISION As shown in Figure 4, the site is located southwesterly of the Intersection of Hamilton Avenue atid, Magnolia Avenue, adjacent to the Huntington Heach Channel. This earthen' channel facility is owned and operated by the Orange- County Environmental Management Agency (OCEMA) . It is a regional system, designated as Facility No. D01 , extending from its confluence with the Tal.bert Channel near the Santa Ana River, through the City of Huntington Beach and into the City of Fountain Valley to Talbert Avenue. The facility drains a total area of 3,010 acres of primarily developed watershed, approximately 2 ,900 of which are upstream of the subject site. Various studies conducted by the OCEMA have concluded that the existing Huntington Beach Channel capacity is far below that required to adequately protect adjacent improvements from flooding during periods of heavy rainfall. The overall watershed slopes gradually from north to south and has an aver- age gradient of four feet in one thousand, however the channel slopes in the lower reaches on the system are much flatter. These reaches are significant- ly influenced by the tidal level at the ocean outfall of the Talbert Channel and several pump stations along the Huntington Beach Channel are necessary to maintain conveyance of the channel flow. The nearest City operated pump station is the Newland pump station located just west of the subject site, at the intersection of Hamilton Avenue and Newland Street. This pump station is considered severely undersized for current drainage volumes. Several privately owned pumps are located in the area as well. 1-he subject site contains several depressed areas which act as sumps during rainstorms. No drainage facilities presently exist to collect or control runoff. The entire site is classified as within Zone Al2 on the Flood Insurance Rate Map prepared for the City by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. This means that a one percent or greater chance exists for flooding in any given year. Furthermore, potential storm intensity is heavy, considered to i)e the level of intensity experienced about once every 100 years. The base flood elevation is' 11 . The City of Huntington Beach has, therefore, added the FP2 suffix to the site's zoning designation, which signifies the flood hazard present and which establishes specific regulations for the use and development of properties within such districts to ensure Federal flood insur- ance eligibility for affected property owners. The surrounding streets were designed to carry minor amounts of runoff, due to the flat character of the area which necessitates heavy reliance on pump stations and subsurface drainage facilities. A 60-inch storm drain currently lies beneath Hamilton Avenue, adjacent to the project site. It drains west to the Newland Pump Station, This drain is also considered undersized for existing and future drainage conditions. No storm drain system presently exists within Magnolia Avenue in this area. 3-17 the Huntington Beach Channel directly via a private pump station, or to an expanded off-site system in Hamilton Avenue and possibly Magnolia Avenue, which would then become tributary to the Newland pump station operated by the City of Huntington Beach. An evaluation as to the feasibility and cost effectiveness of these two possible alternatives should be conducted and coordination with the design team for the Huntington Beach Channel improvements should be established as soon as possible. 1. i_ro%ion control devices will be utilized, if necessary, during grading to mitigate the effects of increased runoff at points of discharge. Devices may include temporary berms, culverts, sandbagging or desilting basins. 3. A water quality maintenance program can be implemented to mitigate the impact of urban runoff on surface water quality over the long term. A suitable program is outlined in ."Water Pollution Aspects of Street Surface Contaminants" prepared by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. This program provides recommendations for street cleaning and preven- tion of pollutant generation. Its implementation rests with local agen- cies, the project Homeowner's Association, if any, and individual resi- dents. u. Future development of the site will be subject to approval of a develop- ment permit, in accordance with Section 969.6.19 of Article 969.6 of the Huntington Beach Municipal code (Standards of Construction for the FP2 Area) . Site development plans will also have to comply with flood- hroofinq re(lulations set by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (Fi=MA) to enstire eligibility for federal flood insurance. 3-20 week nights. This additional park usage would be a negative impact, since this is clearly a hfavily used facility, having accommodated some 330,000 visitors in 1987. The outdoor sport court facilities, including tennis, racquetball and basketball courts, are completely in use nearly every night throughout the weekend, especially during good whether. Additional demand on these facilities, therefore, would create longer waiting periods and potential conflicts among people waiting to use the sport courts. Future development along the Hamilton Avenue frontage would not affect the Edison transmission lines along the north side of Hamilton Avenue. The existing overhead lines and poles along the south side of Hamilton Avenue and along the west side of Magnolia Street, however, may need to be temporarily relocated to allow for construction vehicle access and/or for construction of a sidewalk along each frontage. B. Compatibility to the South The southern site boundary borders a large triangular shaped parcel, on which lie three oil storage tanks associated with the Southern California Edison Company electrical generating facility located southwest of the subject site along Pacific Coast Highway. The. proposed project would result in the development of high density residential dwelling units adjacent to two of the oil storage tanks. These dwelling units would not adversely affect the storage tanks, however, future residents in these homes could be subject to undesirable views of the tanks and occasional petroleum odors from the tanks. C. Compatibility to the East The eastern boundary of the project site, abutting Magnolia Avenue, would be developed with commercial uses at the northeast corner and high density , multi--family dwellings along the remaining two-thirds of the Magnolia Avenue frontage. Directly opposite the subject site, along the cast side of Magnolia Avenue (approximately 120 feet away) are existing single-family neighborhoods, with eleven homes abutting Magno- lia Avenue on their side elevations. These homes are primarily two- story models, without windows facing Magnolia Avenue. Due to the substantial physical buffer provided by Magnolia Avenue, there would be no direct interface conflicts between the single-family neighborhoods to the east and future commercial and multi-family uses on the subject site. As discussed earlier, potential negative visual impacts 1 Bob Werth, City of Huntington Beach Community Services Department, March 2 . 1988. I4,, �-3 3-45 could result to residents of two-story homes with windows facing Magno- lia Avenue. Positive or negative visual impacts would depend on how attractively the subject site is developed, Including how the street frontage is treated, height, bulk and style of buildings and how well off-street parking, loading, internal circulation and outdoor recreation areas are screened and oriented away from Magnolia Avenue. New retail and service commercial uses at the corner of Magnolia Avenue and Hamilton Avenue would provide convenient and beneficial shopping opportunities not presently available to residents in the neighboring subdivisions to the east. D. Compatibility to the West The western portion of the site, as proposed, would be developed with high density, multi-family dwellings along approximately three-fourths of the west boundary, with the southwest corner of the site utilized for oil production activities. Adjacent land uses include a recently developed, low-rise light Industrial park fronting on Hamilton Avenue and a segment of an Orange County Flood Control District concrete drainage channel along the southern half of the west boundary line. Additional Southern California Edison Company oil storage tanks are • located just west of the flood control channel. Residential development would be considered compatible with the adjacent light industrial park and the flood control channel. Substantial setbacks and intensive landscaping would, however, be necessary in order to sufficiently buffer the multi-family units from the visual impacts of the flood control channel, oil storage tanks and the industrial park. E. Compatibility Within the Project Site Interface conflicts between residential and commercial or industrial uses are always possible, due to the privacy, security, odor and noise sensi- tive aspects of residential uses. Careful consideration will , therefore, be required in the design and treatment of the interfaces between the proposed high density, multi-family residential area and the proposed commercial and oil production area which would abut the residential area. Other site planning considerations for the proposed high density resi- dential uses include separation and buffering from the traffic .effects of both Magnolia Avenue and Hamilton Avenue and provisions of on-site recreation facilities to reduce some of the demand on the Edison Commu- nity Park facilities. F. Coastal and Regional Planning Considerations The proposed land use designations would require an amendment to the Coastal Element of the Huntington Beach General Plan, since this element currently designates the subject site for public, quasi-public and insti- tutional uses. Such an amendment would require approval by the Huntington Beach Planning Commission and City Council, with final approval by the State Coastal Commission, pursuant to Chapter Three of � - 3 ' jag 3-46 the Coastal Act. Zone changes to implement the amended land use designations would be required to permit specific development plan approvals. The zone change would follow the same review/approval process as the amendments to the land use designations. The proposed land use designations would be consistent with the Housing Element of the General Plan, specifically by addressing 'demand for additional housing in the coastal zone and by providing high density housing near Industrial and commercial uses to achieve a larger percent- age of affordable housing units, while consolidating homes near employ- ment and shopping centers. The proposed General Plan Amendment would not significantly affect the various regional planning efforts by the Southern California Association of Governments, due to the relatively small size and scope involved. The potential 900 dwelling units would house approximately 2,475 persons, representing an Increase of 1 .2 percent over the SCAG 1982 modified forecasted 1995 population for the City of Huntington Beach and a .7 percent increase over the 1995 forecast for Regional Statistical Area 38. These projections are being revised in conjunction with the preparation of SCAG's updated Growth Management Plan, which projects continued strong growth throughout Orange County, through 2010. Mitigation Measures Since the subject project involves only general land use designations and not a specific development proposal, it is possible only to provide recommenda- tions to guide future site planning to avoid or minimize the potential land use Impacts Identified In the preceding discussion. Specific design features which a(](iress certain interface, buffer or streetscape issues will be imposed through the City's plan review process at a later date, when precise develop- ment plans ':ire available and appropriate zoning controls are in place. Rec- ommended site planning and zoning considerations include the following: 1 . A more restrictive commercial zone district, such as the C-1 (Neighbor- hood Commercial) District, would prohibit automotive uses and outside storage uses, would limit the size of an individual use to 3,200 square feet, would require much deeper landscaped setbacks along the street frontages and along the residential district boundary (20 feet compared to 10 feet) than in the C-2 or C-4 Zones. A C-1 Zone for the proposed commercial area would ensure lower intensity development than potential development in the C-4 Zone, but would preclude the establishment of many desirable commercial uses such as a health club, a bank or a department store, which would be allowed in a C-2 or C-4 Zone. 2. R-1 , R-2 or R-3 Zoning for the residential area would decrease the potential number of dwelling units substantially, thus reducing the increased demand on the Edison Community Park facilities and reducing total vehicular trip generation. 3. A Planned Residential Development (PRD) suffix should be added to the base residential zone district, since the provisions of a PRD suffix include greater attention to site planning details and higher development ' 3-47 standards, compared to the development standards In the base zones �.- alone. Conditional Use Permit approval by the Planning Commission is also mandatory, providing greater discretionary authority to the City to impose special design features which address specific concerns such as buffering against roadways and commercial and industrial uses, type, size and orientation of outdoor recreation areas, building separations, etc. 4. Site planning recommendations to protect future households from the visual and noise impacts along the interfaces between the streets and the commercial and industrial uses include: a) Extensive landscaped setbacks along all such edges. Six- to eight- foot high decorative masonry walls (or combined berms/walls) at the boundaries, with intensive landscaping consisting of fastgrow- ing, evergreen, screen-type trees and shrubs within the setbacks, would effectively screen and buffer homes from the adjacent streets and hon-residential uses. b) Off-street parking, loading, storage and circulation areas within the proposed commercial area should be oriented away from the residen- tial areas to the greatest feasible extent. c) Outdoor patio areas and windows should be minimized along the two street frontages. Additional exterior wall insulation should be added to reduce interior noise levels in accordance with the recom-mendations of an acoustical consultant. d) Building heights within the proposed commercial area should be limited to the 30 feet, consistent with the height limitation in the R-2, R-3 and R-4 Zones. S. A future multi-family residential district should contain active outdoor recreation facilities, such as tennis, racquetball or basketball courts to reduce the demand for such facilities at the already heavily used Edison Community Park facilities. 6. Automotive service uses and outdoor storage areas should be oriented away from either street frontage and should be completely screened from the abutting residential district and from the two streets. 7. All utility services shall be provided through underground connections. 8. The developer shall coordinate with all affected utility purveyors, during the construction plan review process, to determine what measures will be needed to maintain existing service levels during and following construction. 9. If the requested General Plan amendment or some other amendment is approved for the subject site, the City should notify the Southern California Association of Governments, to update their regional growth forecasts. -D 3 ' i3O 3-48 3.8 - PETROLEUM RESOURCES Setting As of December 31 , 1986, California's estimated recoverable (proven) oil reserves totaled 5.5 billion barrels. Included In this figure were 4.6 billion barrels from on-shore fields and 913.2 million barrels from off-shore fields. The estimated on-shore reserves in the Huntington Beach area at this time were 32.835 million barrels, while the estimated off-shore reserves were 51 .070 million barrels. The Huntington Beach oil field, discovered In 1920, is the State's fourth largest, with approximately 1 ,082 producing wells in opera- tion during 1986. Consistent with State-wide trends, oil production in the Huntington Beach area has declined recently due to A combination of crude-oil price declines and significant delays in both State and federal off-shore development. During calendar year 1986, the Huntington Beach oil field area's production decreased by over 970,000 barrels compared to the 1985 level. Nine on-shore i wells were abandoned in 1986. The project site contains no known abandoned wells, nor are any oil wells i currently being installed. Oil reserves below the subject property have not been documented, however, several wells have been producing oil for the last 20 years on the adjacert property, approximately 200 feet north of the proposed well sites. Several oil storage tanks are found on adjacent parcels, providing fuel for the Southern California Edison electrical power generating facility located just to the southwest, along Pacific Coast Highway. Impacts The subject property owner has expressed the intent to drill and operate several oil wells on an approximately .86-acre site, at the southwest corner of the subject property. Three wells would be drilled initially to determine the strength of this oil reserve. if a large supply is available at a reasonable drilling depth, the owner would drill additional wells, the maximum number to be determined by the City of Huntington Beach, through a plan review pro- cess. All directional drilling would occur within the confines of the project site boundaries. It has been estimated that on-site wells could produce approximately 100 barrels of oil per day. This level would decrease over time as reserves are depleted and subsurface pressures decrease. At 100 barrels per day, five wells would produce 500 barrels per day and 182,500 barrels per year. In comparison to oil reserves and production levels throughout the Huntington Beach oil field area, several (four to six) additional producing wells at the subject site would consume a small and insignificant fraction of the local petroleum resources. 1 72nd Annual Report of the Oil and Gas Supervisor, 1986, California epartment of onservation, Division of Oil and Gas., 2 Mr. Rich Bolinski, Tower Petroleum, April 18, 1988. 3 3-62 � 3,11 -- UTILITIES Setting A. Sewer Facilities Sewage collection and treatment facilities for the project area are cur- rently provided by the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County (CSDOC). The subject site Is located in CSDOC Service District No. 11 . Wastewater treatment is handled at the CSDOC Joint Works Facilities, Treatment Plant No. 2, located in Huntington Beach. Existing facilities available to collect sewage generated from future development include the Miller Holder trunk line located beneath Magnolia Avenue. This is a major trunk line, measuring 72" in diameter north of Hamilton Avenue and 78" south of Hamilton Avenue. Flow direction is south. The Miller Holder trunk Is In CSDOC District 3. A 24" V.C.P. pipeline, located beneath Hamilton Avenue, is presently decommissioned and out of service. Flow direction is east. This trunk line is in CSDOC District No. 11 . B. Water Facilities Water supply facilities to the project area are provided and maintained by the City of Huntington Beach Department of Public Works. Supply sources include both local groundwater wells (±70%) and imported water �..- from the Metropolitan Water District (±30%). Two existing 12" asbestos cement pipe lines, which could serve the subject site, are located adjacent to the site, one beneath Hamilton Avenue and one beneath Magnolia Avenue. Currently, local water pressure is excellent, averag- ing approximately 70 psi. C. Natural Gas Natural gas is supplied to the project area by the Southern California Gas Company. Service to the project site could be provided by an existing four-inch gas main line located at the center of the intersection of Magnolia Avenue and Hamilton Avenue. D. Electricity Electricity is provided to the project area by the Southern California Edison Company. Service to the project site could be provided through connection to existing overhead facilities located along both street front- ages. 3-82 . Y TABLE 30 Estimated Water Consumption for Project and Alternatives Consumption Annual Factor Consumption (Acre Feet/ (Acre Feet/ Alternative Year/Acre) Year) 1 . (Project) 31 ac. High Density 4.3 133.2 Residential 6.4 ac. Neighborhood Comm. _ 4.4 28.2 2. 38. ac. Low Density Residential 2.7 102.6 3. 31 ac. Medium Density Residential 3.6 116.6 6.4 ac. Neighborhood Commercial 4.4 28.2 144.8 4. 38 ac. General Industrial 5.0 190.0 5. 38 ac. City Maintenance Yard .4 15.2 1 Consumption Factors obtained from comparison of several Municipal Water ✓ Master Plans. C. Natural Gas The Southern California Gas Company has indicated that they can meet the demand for natural gas at the project site, if developed in accor- dance with the proposed land use designations. The service would be in accordance with the policies and extension rules on file with the Califor- nia Public Utilities Commission at the time contractual arrangements are made. As a public utility, the Southern California Gas Company is also regulated by federal regulatory agencies. If these agencies take any action which affect gas supply or the condition under which service is available, gas service will be provided in accordance with revised condi-- tions. Except for short-term, construction-related impacts which will affect local traffic and other utilities, no significant or adverse impacts related to natural gas facilities are anticipated. D. Electricity The Southern California Edison Company has stated that ". . .the electric loads of the project are within parameters of the projected load growth 3-85 - 3 • ram which Edison is planning to meet in this area."' Unless demand for -- electrical energy exceeds Edison Company estimates and provided that there is no unforeseen outages or interruptions of major sources of electrical supply, it is anticipated that electrical demand requirements for Edison's service area will be met for the next several years. Except, for short-term, construction-related Impacts, which may affect local pedestrian and vehicular circulation, no significant or adverse Impacts related to electrical supply are anticipated. Mitic�. anon Measures Although no significant or adverse impacts related to utilities have been Identified, various conservation measures to reduce the consumption of water and energy supplies, thereby minimizing loads on utility facilities, are either required by law or recommended by utility purveyors, as follows: 1 . To reduce loads on water and sewer facilities, the following measures are required by State law: a) Health and Safety Code Section 17921 .3 requires low-flush toilets ind urinals in virtually all buildings asfollows: "After January 2, 1983, all new buildings constructed in this state shall use water closets and associated flushometer valves, if any, which are water-conservation water closets as defined by American National Standards Institute Standard A112.19.2, and urinals and associated flushometer valves, If any, that use less than an average of 1-1/2 gallons per flush. Blowout water closets and associated flushometer valves are exempt from the requirements of this sec- tion. " b) Title 20, California Administrative Code Section 1604(f) (Appliance Efficiency Standards) estaBlishes efficiency standards that give t o maximum flow rate o all new showerheads, lavatory faucets, and sink faucets, as specified in the standard approved by the Ameri- can National Standards Institute on November 16, 1979, and known as ANSi A112.18.1M-1979. c) Title 24 of the California Administrative Code Section 2-5307(b) a i ornia Energy Conservation Standards for New u (dings prohibits the installation of mixtures unless the mane acturer has certified to the CEC compliance with the flow rate standards. 1 Letter to City of Huntington Beach, October 19, 1987. -D _3 - 134 0 3-86 d) Title 24,. California _Administrative Code Sections. 2-5352(i) and (') address ress pipe insu at on requirements, which can reduce water use before hot water reaches equipment or fixtures. These require- ments apply to steam and steam-condensate return piping and recir- culating hot water piping in attics, garages, crawl spaces, or unheated spaces other than between floors or In Interior walls. Insulation of water-heating systems Is also required. e) Health and SafetX Co_ de.. Section 4047 prohibits installation of resi- dential water softening or 56UItoning appliances unless certain conditions are satisfied. Included Is the requirement that, in most lnstarices, the Installation of the appliance must be accompanied by Water conservation devices on fixtures using softened or conditioned water. f) Government Code__Section 1800 specifies that lavatories in all public facilities constiOUtted after January 1 , 1985, be equipped with self-closing faucets that limit flow hot water. 2. Water conservation measures which 'should be implemented where applica- ble, include: a) Interior: -- Supply linepressure: Water pressure greater than 50 pounds per square Inch (psi) be reduced to 50 psi or less by means of a pressure_reducing valve. -- DrInkin4 fountains: Drinking fountains be equipped with se closing valves. -- Laundry facilities: Water-conserving models of washers be used. -- Restaurants_: Water-conserving models of dishwashers be used or spray emitters that have been retrofitted for reduced flow. Drinking water be "served upon request only. -- Ultra-low-flush toilets_: 1-1 /2 gallon per flush toilets be installed in all new construction. b) Exterior: -- Landscape with low water-using plants (xeriscape) . -- Minimize use of lawn by limiting it to lawn-dependent uses, such as playing fields. When lawn is required, use warm season grasses. -- Group plants of siinilar water use to reduce over-irrigation of low-water-using plants. �-3 !35 3-87 -- Provide information to occupants regarding benefits of low- water-using landscaping and sources of additional assistance. -- Use mulch extensively in all landscaped areas. Mulch applied on top of soil will Improve the water-holding capacity of the soil by reducing evaporation and soil compaction. -- Install efficient irrigation systems that minimize runoff and evaporation and maximize the water that will reach the plant roots. Drip irrigation, soil moisture sensors, and automatic Irrigation systems are a few methods of increasing irrigation efficiency. -- Use previous paving material whenever feasible to reduce surface water runoff and to aid in ground water recharge. -- Grade slopes so that runoff of surface water is minimized. -- Investigate the feasibility of using reclaimed waste water, stored rainwater, or grey water for irrigation. -- Encourage cluster development, which can reduce the amount of land being converted to urban use. This will reduce the amount of Impervious paving created and thereby aid in ground water recharge. 1 3. Energy conservation measures to reduce demand for electricity and natural gas include: a) Compliance with Title 24 of the California Administration Code (California Energy Conservation Standards for New Buildings). b) Orientation of buildings and roof planes to maximize solar exposure for rooftop-mounted solar water heating panels. c) Orientation of buildings, architectural features and landscaping treatments which maximize shade available to indoor living spaces during summer months and which maximize sunlight available during winter months. -1-� 3 . 1 36 3-88 Alternative Sites No other sites are readily available for consideration as an alternative location for the proposed project. Only one other undeveloped site of approximately 40 acres is found in the southern Huntington Beach area, however it is planned for low-density residential development and is not sited at the intersection of two arterial streets. If a mixed use project of the type and size proposed Is to be permitted In this area, the subject site is the most feasible location. 4-5 Basically, three methods of collecting sewage from the project site are available; they are as follows: 1 . Connection to the 24" V.C.P. line in Hamilton Avenue. The CSDOC prohibits direct connections from private or commercial development Into their trunk sewers. Flows must be received by a local sewer. Therefore if this alternative is pursued to accommodate the project, arrangements would have to be made between the City and CSDOC for this 24" line to be deeded to the City of Huntington Beach for ownership, control and maintenance. However, the City has stated that they will not assume maintenance of this line. 2. Connection to the Miller Holder trunk through construction of a new manhole. 3. Construction of adequately sized facilities in Hamilton Avenue, to connect to the Miller Holder trunk. In each case, sewage would flow through the Miller Holder trunk, to the Joint Works Treatment Plant No. 2. Usage of the Miller Holder trunk, which is In a different CSDOC service district than the subject site, would require a syecial financing arrange- ment between CSDOC Service Districts 3 and 11 . Except for short-term construction-related impacts on local traffic and other utilities and a minor, incremental Increase in odors released at the Joint Works Treatment Plant No. 2, no significant or adverse impacts relative to sewage collection and treatment are anticipated. B. Water Facilities A comparison of annual water usage requirements for the proposed land uses and the four alternatives discussed in Section 5.2, is presented in Table 30. According to the City's Water Engineering staff, existing water supply sources are adequate to meet any of these annual demands. Special consideration regarding number and location of fire hydrants, pressure boosters for fire flow requirements, etc. will be determined during construction plan check. Except for short-term construction impacts that will affect local traffic and other utilities, no significant or adverse impacts relates to water facilities are anticipated. Mr. Bob Jordan, County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, April 13, 1988. 3-84 r octuber z 1988 G C� (if"J John E r s k i n Huntington Fie.ach City Council Cl Huntington Beach, CA 92648 COYHt1NTl(�,O1O,VF�(�r .CO(IN(1 'II r. Me . Ersk i n, Ol fl(;L I am unable to attend the meetings on October 3rd and 9th c:onc-erning the zone change and land use element amendment regarding the Ascon Property Site located on the southwest corner of. Hamilton Avenue and Magnolia Street in Huntington Beach . I , along with my family, reside adjacent to the Ascon Property on Adelia Circle, and we feel very strong that the proposed zone change and land use element amendment change would severely affect our quality of life.. Edison Community Center , Edison High School, the new housing tract at Magnolia and Atlanta, and the relatively new Beach Access on Magnolia has increased the traffic in this primarily single family residential area on relatively narrow Magnolia and Hamilton Streets . The thought of increasing this traffic by 1800 plus vehicles, for a high density development of 900 units, seems to be asking for trouble . That is only considering the vehicles . Whl-kt about services for these 900 more families? The services are already taxed to cause long waits at all near by grocery stores . I remember several years ago that there was a great deal of consideration of. the Mola Development of 700 units on the southeast corner of Adams Avenue and Beach Boulevard, which a.re major access roads . The consideration of that many units on two of the most major streets in our city and on a similar size property was careful and deliberate . How can there be any consideration of this significant zoning change on lesser streets in a strictly residential area? We implore you to consider that we the neighbors of this problem shouldn ' t have to suffer because the owners of the Ascon Property were willing to speculate on something that a high density zoning change would have to finance . Clean-up of this property has not even started, the testing has not been completed and analyzed, yet the Ascon Property owners want to have maximum unit zoning per acre so that their speculation, sometime in the future, may make them rich people . T am not against a zoning change or development of this property but lets consider the surrounding area, the people that use the park , the children that attend the school , and the residents of the surrounding area . Please consider the community needs not just the pocketbook of the owners of the Ascon Property, Sincerely, Sue Sc weiger Community Resident ( 714 ) 964-0058 �- IV 13 October 1988 0, OC v O c��, O 00 G�� v�� Mayor John Erskine �& /1C 2000 Main Street �'i,� �O Huntington Beach, CA 92648 0,,c2� RE: Ascon Property, Inc. - Development vs Toxic Waste �F 9cti (Magnolia and Hamilton) Dear Mayor Erskine: I am a Huntington Beach resident concerned about the ultimate outcome of the property now owned by Ascon Property, Inc. The intent of this letter is to suggest an alternative to the contro- versial proposed development, that could possibly benefit all interested parties . First, it is my observation that Ascon, because of their future tip hill struggle, might be interested in selling the property. The vocal and local residents are only interested in cleaning up the waste and doing away with the eyesore. Therefore, I am proposing a new agenda item for the December 6th Planning Commission meeting: 1 . The City of Hungtington Beach offer to purchase the property from Ascon Properties, Inc. for recreational development. 2 . Property purchase to be financed by municipal bonds and repaid by the city' s development of the mineral rights, i.e. oil wells. This resourde development is compatible with the proposed land use. 3 . With the city owning and developing the site, a new priority could be established in order to receive "Superfund" money since the propoerty is already eligible. Although the suggestion is overly simplified, I believe the concept is workable and a win-win solution for everyone. Mayor, please support this proposal and let it be your legacy to Huntington Beach when you leave office. I would be very interested in hearing from you and/or would appreciate a short meeting on this matter if your schedule permits . Respectfully, se ph G. Kalina 21881 Oceanbreeze Lane . 1440 � U Huntington Beach, CA 92646 D- 714-964-6498 0 CTO BER 24 , 1988 KERRI RY KEARSO P: 20871 Hurter Ln. Huntington Beach, Ca. 92646 Huritingtori Beach City Council 2000 Main Street Iuntington Beach, Ca. 92648 Dear H.B. City Council: I am a residence of Huntington Beach and I am very concerned with the location of the toxic waste dump on the corner of Hamilton and Magnolia. I used to live in the neighborhood across the street from the waste and every time I turned on the water, it always smelled like sewer water. It' s not a very healthy way to live. I now live on Atlanta and Bushard, but I still want to complain because I know how the residence of the neighborhood by the dump, feels. I just want to know if you can do something to get rid of it, because the location is just aweful I mean, there are obviously other dumps around located in safer and healthier spots, and it won' t be too hard to take the toxic waste and drive to the dumps to get rid of it. It' ll be a lot safer to have the waste dump on Hamilton and Magnolia, removed from the sight in 1untington Beach. Thank you very much for your time. Sincerely, W -C- k9YUR-,ICA,1� Kerri R. Rynearson �)-3 . 20531 Queens Park Lane Huntington Bch. Ca 92646 November 10, 1988 City Council 2000 W. Main St . Huntington Bch. Ca 92648 Dear Sir; The toxic waste dump has been stored near Edison High School for several years . As an attending student, I am concerned for the following reasons : 1 . Leaks could cause cancer, Typhoid fever, Meningitis or Sleeping sickness etc. . . 2 . Earthquake - could cause a major catastrophe if it created a crack in the tank. The High School as well as the surrounding homes would be jeopardized. The City could contact the State Environmentalists to make sure they are abiding by the "Clean Air Act" . You could also offer to buy the land from the waste dump, so that it could be moved to a more desolate area. Please let me know if there is anything that can be done? A concerned citizen . Respectfully, J es C. Gibson, Jr. � C E 0 d E D NOV 2.8 1%8 f�a- C[T.Y OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ' CITY, COUNCIL OFFICE RECEIVED :x DEC q 1988 Environmental Assessment �k Transportation Engineering LCOMMDEPARTMENT or Resource Management sal UNITY DEVELOPNE31 Community Planning ..... . _ �{: Environmental Restoration December 23, 1988 Mr. Bruce Gilmer Public Works Department City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 SUBJECT: ASCON PROPERTY TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS ADDITIONAL ISSUES Dear Bruce: As I indicated to you during our telephone conversation yesterday morning, LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA) had the opportunity to meet with John Lindsey of Ascon Properties, Inc. on November 21, 1988 to discuss comments to the .Qraft Focused EIR 87-5 for the Ascon Property: General Plan Amendment 87- 4, located on the southwest corner of Magnolia Avenue/Hamilton Avenue in the City of Huntington Beach. John indicated to us that three traffic related concerns have been expressed regarding the proposed project. These issues are as follows: 1 . Seasonal Variation in Traffic Volumes - The traffic analysis prepared by Willdan Associates, as well as the independent analysis performed by LSA on behalf of Ascon utilized winter peak hour traffic volumes. The comments suggested that summer counts would be more appropriate for analysis purposes in order to reflect a worst case condition. 2. parking - Residents in the neighborhood adjacent to the proposed project have expressed concern that insufficient on-site parking will be provided, resulting in residents of the Ascon residential project parking on Hamilton Avenue and adjacent local streets. 3. Magnolia Avenue/Hamilton -Avenue Accidents - Concern has been expressed that a high number of accidents occur at the intersection of Magnolia Avenue/Hamilton Avenue, and that the addition of traffic generated by the proposed project will result in increased numbers of accidents. Each of these issues are discussed in detail below, based upon our telephone conversation. E7 I Park Plaza, Suite 500 • Irvine, California 92714 • (714) 553-0666 O 157 Park Place • Pt. Richmond, California 94801 a (415) 236-6810 Lsa SEASONAL YARIATION IN TRAFFIC VOLUMES The issue of seasonal variation in traffic volumes has previously '+ surfaced in the City of Huntington Beach as part of the preparation and processing of the Waterfront Development. As part of the preparation of The Waterfront Traffic Impact Analysis, conversations with the City Engineer :.r indicated that City policy, as well as traffic engineering industry standards► dictate that traffic assessments be made of average annual traffic b conditions. When the issue of seasonal variation in traffic volumes was raised by the Planning Commission, we provided the City with an analysis of seasonal variations in traffic volume, contained in Attachment A. Subsequent to its review of this analysis, staff and the Planning Commission concurred that significant seasonal variations among peak hour volumes do not occur and that winter peak hour traffic volumes are appropriate for use in traffic impact analyses. As the City staff and Traffic Engineer assisted in the review of this analysis for The Waterfront Development, we believe you would concur with the appropriateness of the non-summer baseline counts used in the traffic analysis for the Ascon project. In addition, the winter traffic counts were taken during the month of February, while Edison High School was in session. Due to the proximity of Edison High School to the intersection of Magnolia Avenue/Hamilton Avenue, higher traffic volumes would be expected at this intersection while school is open as opposed to summer months when school is not in session. From this standpoint, the winter peak hour traffic counts for the intersections in the vicinity of the Ascon project would tend to represent a worst-case condition as compared with summer counts. PARKING At this time, Ascon Properties has not developed detailed plans for the proposed project. According to Noble and White Associates, the architectural firm designing the project, the worst case residential development would consist of 900 units, of which approximately 130 would be one bedroom units, 560 would be two bedroom units, and 210 would be three bedroom units. According to City of Huntington Beach parking requirements, which require one bedroom units to have 1 .5 spaces per unit, two bedroom units to have 2.0 spaces per unit, and three bedroom units to have 2.5 spaces per unit, the residential portion of the project would be required to have 1,840 parking spaces. The 83,600 square foot commercial portion of the project would be D _3 . !yy 2 • r7 v .. Z Lsa Al r. required to have 418 spaces at the City requirement of one space per 200 square feet. Y, As we discussed, local residents feel that the City parking requirements for multi-family residential units are inadequate, and you tend to concur. However, without a detailed site plan for the project, or without a proposed number of parking spaces for the project, no analysis can be done at this time. Therefore, per your recommendation, we would suggest that a condition be placed on project development that prior to site plan approval , a parking study be prepared to determine the adequacy of the proposed parking given. the proposed product type and intended market segment. &CIQENJ INFORMATION As you indicated during our telephone conversation, the City has performed research regarding accidents reported at the intersection of Magnolia Avenue/Hamilton Avenue. This research indicates that there are not an extraordinarily high- number of accidents at this intersection. In fact, as you further indicated, Caltrans funding for the addition of left turn phasing at this intersection has been denied twice due to the inability to demonstrate sufficient accident rates at the intersection. It should be noted that the proposed mitigation measures for project development, including widening to provide a second eastbound through lane and restriping to provide a westbound right turn lane, would provide additional intersection capacity, thereby minimizing the potential for accidents due to capacity constraints. In addition, you indicated that the project may also be responsible for changes in signal timing and phasing to provide left turn phasing, thereby further decreasing the potential for accidents due to unprotected left turn movements. If you have any questions or comments regarding this analysis, please feel free to call me at 553-0666. Sincerely, .fi M. Kevin Fincher Project Manager ` MKF/--(ASP801) { Attachment p: cc: John Lindsey, Ascon Properties, Inc. 1 s i. L ATTACHMENT A MLYS15 Of SEASONAL VMIATIONS IN TRAFFIC VOLUMES (Excerpt from Supplement to Environmental IMRict Report 82-2 for the 1 Waterfront Development, prepared by LSA Associates, Inc. , July, 1988) We have conducted research to empirically determine the extent of daily and peak hour seasonal variations along Pacific Coast Highway. Summer traffic counts are not available from the City of Huntington Beach. However, the City of Newport 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-summer 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 1 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 considers the impacts of project traffic during the AM and the PM peak hours. These are the peak conditions commonly used for design purposes. Seasonal variations during the peak hours are addressed in this evaluation. The AM peak hour shows little variation with respect to seasonality. At 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 season. r 1 r Seasonal Traffic Volume Variations Selected Locations on Pacific Coast Highway LEM Coast Highway Coast Highway Between Superior and Prospect Between Orange and Santa Ana River I i 4,0010 -� 4.000 3.500 3.500 ! - i 3.000 3.000 -+ C2,500 C 7.300 -i 2.000 � � y � 2.000 r r f,SOO '1 t 1.SOG I I.OnO 1.000 500 SOO O O 17 1 nM S I• O Irl 17 I'M , 1. , IU 12 1 wM 3 f. 9 In I% 1 r`M 1 • 'f, ! ♦ 10 TIME TIME . _Man-tuwrnar (101201461 iwnm.r I!/21/Sa) 110170841 n1191461 1. Total daily traffic on Coast Highway between Orange and the Santa �1 Ana River is 39,800 trips during the non summer period and 51,100 V 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 L during the summer period. u 3. Daily traffic (24 hour total) is 20% to 28% greater in summer. 4. Afternoon peak hour is 4% to 9% greater in summer. tp'i t Lsa Seasonal differences do develop during the PH peak hour. At Coast . Highway between Superior and Prospect, the PH peak hour occurs during 5:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. for both non-summer and summer periods. The summer PH peak hour is approximately nine percent greater than the non-summer PH peak hour at this location. At Coast Highway between Orange and the Santa Ana River, the summer PH peak hour occurs between 4:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. and is approximately four percent greater than the non-summer PH 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 1 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 peak hours, not aggravating the most congested periods. 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 "h summer months, the AM and PH peak hours are only slightly affected. The AM peak hour shows negligible variation, while the PH 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. • It is not practical , nor is it accepted practice within the in- dustry, to focus analysis and design standards on recreational peak summer traffic conditions. The focus of the traffic analysis is on that time period that affects the most number of City residents at s` the most important time period of their vehicular use, which is the weekday AM and PH peak hours. �. Cam. .1� 3 :.s MINUTES CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Council Chamber, City Hall Huntington Beach, California Tuesday, February 21 , 1989 A tape recording of this meeting is on file in the City Clerk's Office. Mayor Bannister called the regular meetings of the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach to order at 7 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Green, Winchell , Bannister, Mays, Silva (MacAllister arrived 8:10 p.m.) (Erskine arrived 8 p.m. ) Absent: None PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND INVOCATION The Flag Ceremony, Pledge of Allegiance, and Invocation were conducted by Civil Air Patrol , Air Force Auxiliary Squadron #68, Costa Mesa/Huntington Beach, Mark Biddle, Color Guard Commander. PROCLAMATION - COMMUNITY COLLEGE _ MONTH - FEBRUARY - "GO NEST WEEK" EBRUARY 12-18. 1989 Mayor Bannister presented a proclamation designating the month of February as "Community College Month" and February 12-18 as "Go West Week" to Judith Valles, President, Goldenwest College. PRESENTATION - CERTIFICATE OF OUTSTANDING SERVICE - DeARMEY. EAGLE SCOUT Mayor Bannister presented the Certificate of Outstanding Service to Michael J. De Armey for his contribution to the Seniors' Outreach Program which enabled him to attain the rank of Eagle Scout. PUBLIC COMMENTS No one came forward to speak at this time. (Redevelopment Agency) PUBLIC HEARING - CONTINUED OPEN TO 3/6/89 - RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY NO 161 - MAIN-PIER PROJECT AREA - PHASE I OIL INTERESTS - EMINENT DOMAIN - H & 0 OIL CO - QND & 3RD STREETS) The Mayor announced that this was the day and hour set for a public hearing continued open from February 6, 1989 to consider adoption of Resolution of Necessity relative to acquisition of surface oil interests in connection with completion of the Phase I Project within the Main-Pier Project Area as amended. - (121 & 123 2nd Street, 120 & 122 - 3rd Street - A.P. 024-166-02 & 09) r Page 2 - Council/Agency- Minutes - 2/21/89 The City Administrator recommended this item be continued to March 5, 1989. A motion was made by Green, seconded by Bannister, to continue the open public hearing regarding the Resolution of Necessity No. 161 to March 6, 1989. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Green, Winchell , Bannister, Mays, Silva NOES: None ABSENT: MacAllister, Erskine (City Council) PUBLIC HEARING - CONTINUED OPEN TO 3/6/89 - RES OF INTENT 5968 - VACATION OF PORTIONS OF 17TH STREET/MANSION AYE/PINE STREET & ALLEYS IN BLOCKS 1901 AND 1902 LOCATED IN TRACT 12 The Mayor announced that this was the day and hour set for a public hearing continued open from February 6, 1989 pursuant to Resolution of Intent No. 5968 adopted December 19,1988 to vacate street and utility easements in Tract 12. The easements in question are in the undeveloped area southeast of the Civic Center and generally bounded by 17th Street, Utica Avenue and Lake Street. The City Clerk announced that she had received a communication from Southern California Gas Company regarding the matter December 30, 1988. The City administrator recommended this item be continued to March 5, 1989. A motion was made by Mays, seconded by Green, to continue the open public hearing on Resolution of Intent No. 5968 to vacate street and utility ease- ments in Tract 12 to March 6, 1989. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Green, Winchell , Bannister, Mays, Silva NOES: None ABSENT: MacAllister, Erskine REGULAR ORDER OF AGENDA SUSPENDED The Mayor announced that two councilmembers had requested the item concerning the public hearing on Ascon Properties (GPA 87-4 and EIR 87-5) be delayed until they could attend. Councilmen MacAllister and Erskine would be late. On motion by Mays, second Silva, Council unanimously approved suspending the regular order of business as shown on the agenda, to move immediately to the Public Cable Television Authority Public Hearing, to the Consent Calendar, then back to the Public Hearing regarding ASCON Properties, as Councilmen MacAllister and Erskine were detained. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Green, Winchell , Bannister, Mays, Silva NOES: None ABSENT: MacAllister, Erskine Page 3 - Council/Agency Minutes - 2/21/89 (City Council) PUBLIC HEARING - RES NO 5985 - ADOPTED - RATIFICATION OF RESOLUTION 1289-1 OF THE PUBLIC CABLE TELEVISION AUTHORITY - SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN PUBLIC CABLE TELEVISION AUTHORITY - KBI_ CABLE INC & KBLCOM 19 The Mayor announced that this was the day and hour set for a public hearing to consider a settlement agreement between the Public Cable Television Authority, KBL Cable Inc. , and KBLCOM, Inc. , providing for transfer of ownership and con- trol of the Cable Communications Franchise to KBL Cable Inc. , and its parent, KBLCOM Incorporated, for amendment of the franchise, and for expansion of the cable franchise until the year 2004. The Deputy City Administrator/Economic Development presented a staff report. Carl Pilnik, PCTA consultant, presented a brief report and stated he was present to answer questions. The Mayor declared the hearing open. There being no one present to speak on the matter and there being no protests filed, either oral or written, the hearing was closed by the Mayor. The City Clerk presented Resolution No. 5985 for Council consideration - "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH APPROVING RESOLUTION NO. 1989-1 OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE PUBLIC CABLE TELEVISION AUTHORITY APPROVING A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PUBLIC CABLE TELEVISION AUTHORITY, KBL CABLE, INC. , AND KBLCOM, INC. PROVIDING FOR TRANSFER OF OWNER- SHIP AND CONTROL OF THE CABLE COMMUNICATIONS FRANCHISE TO KBL CABLE INC. AND ITS PARENT, KBLCOM, INC. FOR AMENDMENT OF THE FRANCHISE AND FOR EXTENSION OF THE CABLE FRANCHISE UNTIL THE YEAR 2004 ALONG WITH A CABLE SYSTEM UPGRADE TO BE COMPLETED NOT LATER THAN DECEMBER 31, 1996." A motion was made by Winchell , seconded by Green, to adopt Resolution No. 5985 incorporating new language at the end which reads: ". . . along with a cable system upgrade to be completed not later than December 31 , 1996." There is an inclusion on Page 2, paragraph 4 of the Resolution which reads: ". . .and further requires transferees to complete an upgrade of the cable system no later than December 31 , 1996 and post a $7,000,000,000 "security instrument" therefor." As requested by The Deputy City Attorney, Jerome Ramsey, Vice President of KBLCOM, Inc. , represented on the record on behalf of KBLCOM, Inc. , that with respect to the parol evidence rule that the letter dated February 17, 1989 may be used to interpret the language in the settlement agreement. AYES: Green, Winchell , Bannister, Mays, Silva NOES: MacAllister, Erskine ABSENT: None CONSENT CALENDAR - (ITEM REMOVED) The City Administrator requested that the item pertaining to the Jacquelyn Lane Enhancement Project be removed from the Consent Calendar and considered separately. t ! Page 4 - Council/Agency Minutes - 2/21/89 CONSENT CALENDAR - (ITEMS APPROVED) On motion by Winchell , second Green, Council approved the following items, as recommended, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Green, Winchell , Bannister, Mays, Silva NOES: None ABSENT: MacAllister, Erskine (City Council/Redevelopment) MINUTES - APPROVED - Approved and adopted minutes of adjourned regular Council/Agency meeting of January 17, 1989, regu- lar Council/Agency meeting of January 17, 1989, adjourned regular Council/ Agency meeting of January 26, 1989 and adjourned regular Council/Agency meet- ing of January 30, 1989, as written and on file in the Office of the City Clerk. Mayor Bannister and Councilman Silva abstained from the January 30, 1989 minutes. (City Council) ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD APPOINTMENT - APPROVED - RICHARDSON Appointed Roy H. Richardson to a term on the Environmental Board to expire June 30, 1989 to fill the vacancy created by the resignation of Lee Wieder. (City Council) NOTICE OF COMPLETION - APPROVED - TRAFFIC CONTROLLER REPLACE- MENT PROJECT - STEINY & COMPANY - CC-708 - Accepted work completed by Steiny & Company in an amount of $81 ,562.30 relative to traffic controller replace- ment at various locations and authorized the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion. (City Council) NOTICE OF COMPLETION - APPROVED - DOWNTOWN HATER TRANSMISSION PIPELINE - MLADEN BUNTICH CONSTRUCTION COMPANY - CC-699 - Accepted work com- pleted by Mladen Buntich Construction Company in the amount of $2,003,104.35 on the construction of the downtown water transmission pipeline improvements and authorized the City Clerk to file the Notice of Completion. (City Council) NOTICE OF COMPLETION - APPROVED - TRACT 12206 - J T MOODY - S/S PEARCE - E/O BOLSA CHICA - Accepted improvements dedicated for public use, released the Letter of Credit for Faithful Performance Bond and Monument Bond and instructed the City Clerk to notify the developer and the City Treasurer to notify the bank of this action. (City Council) PARCEL MAP 87-177 - APPROVED - FRANK GIBSON - N/S TALBERT - E/O GOTHARD - Approved final parcel map, accepted offer of dedication pursu- ant to the mandatory findings set forth by the Zoning Administrator and instructed the City Clerk to execute same and release to the County for processing. (City Council) NOTICE OF COMPLETION - APPROVED - RECONSTRUCTIONS & IMPROVE- MENTS OF VARIOUS LOCAL STREETS/ARTERIAL HIGHWAYS & ALLEYS - DISTRICT #272 MODERN ASPHALT INC - MSC-270 - Accepted work completed by Modern Asphalt, Inc. , in the amount of $751 ,754.35 for reconstructions and improvements of various local streets, arterial highways and alleys, District #272 and instructed the City Clerk to file the Notice of Completion and approved reduction of the retention to 5%. Page 5 - Council/Agency Minutes - 2/21/89 cc�ty Hut I R(EM MUM" QO M_R"� - AMoMOTMG - NM AMTfEM - SETS DATE OF 4/3009 FOR H[EARUG PROTESTS ' 0,23JECT9o�^,IS M f�!U 1 00 F_ R0,P o,Va(4 - "A RESOLU- TIITA OF THE CX7V MUKCIIL OF TGIF CIITV OF H0VKjGTM'a—BEACH FIICj®IING 900 DFCLAREMG THAT CFRTAXN NEEDS GRC.� X HCl THE CHT ,, A_3 G BBESSH A00 REFUSE DFMSIITED W PUBLIIC MAYS 00 PRIIVATfE PROP ERTV ARE A PURL EC 0 HSAX[E: X30 FENEMG THE THN E FOR H EARHOG PROTESTS A00 CMFCTIIMS TO THE 93ATEN-207 THEREOF. (My Coauwci l) HXSTORIIC RFSO RUS ( RD AP X07N[EOTS - APPRWED - VAO/HK E/ GRIFFIN - Approved the appointment of April Van Hie to fill Nancy Burg's unexpired term on the Historic Resources Board (6/30/91) and approved the appointment of Idabelle Griffin to fill C. Sheldon Thorne's unexpired term on the Historic Resources Board (6/30/91) . (City round l) NKSMRRC RZ_5O=FS BARD ACCEPTED - TPORN E Accepted, with regret, the resignation of C. Sheldon "Tony" Thorne from the Historic Resources Board. (Ci tH Ca mci l) MEAN VR EN [ESTATES MOKLE K=E PARK - CC-754 - CMSULTAMY AGRFFFI(ENT - APP ED - FLORIIAN =TXM E1Z AS=�XATFS - SIITF PLAO-MIIMG - (EaGHN EFR- XKG �h LAODSCAP(E ARCHET(ECTMRAL SIERURC[ES - PROF(ESSRCAAL LIIAffiIILETV HOSURAXE REBUCTIIM - APPROVE D - Approved and authorized execution of an Agreement between the City and Florian Martinez Associates for site planning, engineer- ing and landscape architectural services for development of the Ocean View Estates Mobile Home Park - Phase II9 and approved a reduction in the Pro- fessional Liability Insurance from $500,000 to $250,000. (City Council) XMCR(EASF IIVA ALLOTNIU-1T - APPEEED - NA7ZARDO;IDS MSTF DIISPOSALS - Approved and authorized a $35,000 increase in budget allotment for Account 420594 to fund hazardous waste disposals. (City Council) BID ANARD - APPMUED - =UTER SfERVXCFS CORPORATHM - FXTRA- ORDXNARY TRAFFIIC SIICUAL PAXWT(ENAWC( MIT - Accepted low bid of Computer Services Corporation to perform all extra-ordinary work on the City of Huntington Beach' s Traffic signals, rejected other bids and approved and authorized execution of the necessary agreement. (City Council) BID ANARD - APPROVED - TRAFFXC SK(PAAL =HFIICATEMS - NAROER AVENUE - PAUL GARDNER CORP - CC-756 - Accepted low bid in the amount of $421 ,531 submitted by Paul Gardner Corporation for traffic signal modifica- tions on Turner Avenue at Magnolia, Newland, Edwards, Springdale, Graham, Bolsa Chica and Algonquin, hold bid bonds on the lowest three bidders until execution of contract and filing of bonds and directed the City Clerk to notify the unsuccessful bidders and return their bid bonds, approved and authorized execution of the appropriate contract and authorized the Finance Director to encumber $7,500 to cover anticipated project "incidentals." The bids were as follows: Paul Gardner Corporation $421 ,531 Steiny and Company 423,621 Signal Maintenance Inc. 436,460 Page 6 - Council /Agency Minutes - 2/21/89 (City Council) RESERVOIR HILL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH BLACK & VEATCH ENGINEERS - APPROVED - ARCHITECTS - CC-721 Approved and authorized execution of an Amendment to the Agreement between the City and Black & Veatch Engineers, Architects, increasing the compensation fromle $112,600 to $168,000, relative to engineering services on the Reservoir Hill Assessment District. (City Council) FOURTH OF JULY EXECUTIVE BOARD APPOINTMENT - APPROVED - HANEY Appointed James F. Haney to fill Don MacAllister's unexpired term on the Fourth of July Executive Board (12/31/90). (City Council) PURCHASE AGREEMENTS - APPROVED - ACQUISITION OF THREE MOBILE- HOMES IN PACIFIC TRAILER PARK - Approved and authorized execution of purchase agreements with three coach owners in Pacific Trailer Park for acquisition of their mobile homes. (Redevelopment Agency) RES NO 170 - ADOPTED - DRAFT REDEVELOPMENT PLAN/DRAFT EIR & OWNER PARTICIPATION RULES FOR AMENDMENT #1 TO THE OAKVIEW REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT - "A RESOLUTION OF THE HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY APPROV- ING THE DRAFT AMENDED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN, APPROVING THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, APPROVING THE RULES GOVERNING PARTICIPATION AND PREFERENCES BY OWNERS, OPERATORS OF BUSINESSES, AND TENANTS FOR AMENDMENT NO. ONE OF THE OAK- VIEW REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT. AND AUTHORIZING DISTRIBUTION OF THE DRAFT AMENDED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TO ALL AFFECTED TAXING ENTITIES AND RESPONSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL AGENCIES." (City Council) AGREEMENT FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES - APPROVED - MUNICIPAL PIER PLAZA DESIGN - RON YEO - Approved and authorized execution of an agreement between the City of Huntington Beach and Ron Yeo, FAIA Architect, Inc. , for engineering design services for the Municipal Pier Plaza and Beach Accessway in an amount not to exceed $20,000. (City Council) BID AWARD - CONTINUED TO 3/6/89 - JACQUELYN LANE ENHANCEMENT PROJECT - NEFF CONTRACTING CORP - CC-736 The City Clerk presented a communication from the City Administrator pertain- ing to the Jacquelyn Lane Enhancement Project. The City Administrator recommended that the item be continued to March 6, 1989. A mot ion was made by Winchell , seconded by Green, to continue the item pertaining to the Jacquelyn Lane Enhancement Project to March 6, 1989. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Green, Winchell , Bannister, Mays, Silva NOES: None ABSENT: MacAllister, Erskine Page 7 - Council/Agency Minutes - 2/21/89 (City Council) PUBLIC HEARING - RE S NO 5984E - ADOPTED - GENERAL PLAN AMEND- MENT !87-4 - EIR 87-5 - CERTIFIED - AS(ON. PROPERTIES - .SW CORNIER HAMILTON/ MAGNOLIA. The Mayor announced that this was the day and hour set for a public hearing to consider the following: SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment No. 87-4/Environmental Impact Report No. 87-5. APPLICANT: Ascon Properties LOCATION A 40 acre parcel located- on the southwest corner of Hamilton Avenue and Magnolia Street PR PO AL: Amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan to allow up to 6.4 acres of General Commercial and up to 33.6 acres of Medium-High Density Resi- dential to permit up to 750 dwelling units. An alternative residential scenario is for 600 dwelling units. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposal is covered by Environmental Impact Report No. 87-5 which will also be considered by Council COASTAL STATUS: This project is in the Coastal Zone. After Planning Commission and City Council action, this Land Use Element Amendment must be acted on by the California Coastal Commission as an amendment to the City' s Local Coastal Program. The City Clerk announced that all legal requirements for notification, publi- cation and posting had been met, and that she had received communications in opposition from Louis & Bette Kastorff, Ray Carlson, Jeanne Neal , Fritz and Gisela Roscoe, Gordon Neal , Helen Hill , and Huntington Beach Tomorrow; a communication from Maxine Kachad stating her opposition to apartments and support for homes and condominiums. The Director of Community Development presented a staff report. Councilman Erskine arrived at the meeting at 8 p.m. Hal Simmons, Senior Planner, discussed medium density compatible land uses and service levels. Councilman MacAllister arrived at the meeting at 8: 10 p.m. Paul Ryan, employed by Woodward-Clyde Consultants, presented an update of the site characterization study. Kathy Head, Consultant, Keyser-Marston Associates, discussed density in relation to cleanup. Richard Harlow, representing Ascon, addressed Council and gave a presentation regarding the Ascon Agreement. Page 8 - Council /Agency Minutes - 2/21 /89 RECESS - RECONVENE The Mayor called a recess of Council at 8:15 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 8:25 p.m. The Mayor declared the hearing open. Richard Loy, Newport West Tract homeowner, stated his opposition .to apartments and commercial development which he believed would be an attractive nuisance across from Edison High School and generate traffic. Dr. Robert Winchell , Professor of Geology, California State at Long Beach, and registered geologist in California, requested that Council refuse to certify the EIR and deny the General Plan Amendment. He spoke regarding earthquake, geologic, and flooding hazard and requested the area remain open space. Robert K. Loy addressed Council in opposition to the proposal . He spoke regarding the Keyser-Marston Report. He stated his desire to keep the high level of service the residents in that neighborhood have enjoyed and that he would not oppose the project as vehemently if it were low density. Beverly Garnett spoke in opposition, and cited traffic impact and stated that she believes there is a demand in the area for apartments. T. K. Brimer spoke in opposition to the density bonus to allow for removal of toxic waste cost. Herbert Ahn spoke in opposition to the building of any housing structures duel* to the safety of potential . residents. Pete Fallena spoke in support of low density for the proposed project. David Johnson spoke in support of the project and stated his main concern was to clean up the hazardous waste. John Engh spoke in opposition to the project and expressed his concern regard- ing flooding. Henry Bohrman spoke in opposition to commercial zoning stated that he pre- ferred R-1 residential in keeping with the surrounding area. Dr. Douglas Cable, resident of Newport West Tract and specialist in infectious diseases, spoke against the proposal . He supports open space or if develop- ment is approved that it be low density. Norma Van Der Molen stated she preferred open space and suggested a golf course. Tom Wickstrom, owner and operator of a manufacturing facility located in Carlsberg Business Park, expressed his support for development and cleanup of the site; he presented an informal petition listing approximately 19 signatures in support. Rath Carruthers opposed the General Plan Amendment. His concern included the financial aspects and Ascon' s ability to clean the site. He spoke regarding a San Diego court decision dated November 3, 1988 upholding the City Council ' s denial in a similar situation. Page 9 - Council/Agency Minutes - 2/21/89 Phyllis Carruthers stated her concern for the safety of children and that the Environmental Impact Report called for a 25 mph traffic speed for children which she believed would cause a gridlock. Warren Hall spoke in support of the proposal and stated that he believed this was an opportunity to rid the city of the toxic wastes. Beverly Titus opposed the proposal and adoption of the Environmental Impact Report. She stated her belief that the public was being given inaccurate information in the bulletin distributed by Ascon Properties. She recommended a continuation of the public hearing based on inadequate information to reach a decision on density. Chris Alford spoke in opposition and stated he believed that Ascon properties would profit by R-1 development. Marie Evans, resident of Pacific Ranch, thirty years experience in the health field including Director of National Safety Chapter in the Bay area, spoke in support stating her concern with health issues, primarily children and urged that the toxic wastes be removed. Steven Clark, engineer in a local health care company, opposed the proposal and spoke regarding cleanup provisions. Anne Hinkey spoke in opposition to the proposal and stated that she believed the reasons rentals were requested was that disclosure would not be required of the developer. Steven Rakhshani spoke in support and stated he believed the city needed to work with the developer on cleanup of the site. Reese Moneyhun spoke in opposition stating he believed that approving high density would constitute a subsidy to- Ascon Properties. Joan Rakhshani spoke in support of the proposal and stated she believed the site- should be cleaned up for safety and health reasons. Tom Livengood, representing Huntington Beach Tomorrow, addressed Council in opposition of the proposed plan. He presented statistics to Council which related to the Ascon General Plan Amendment 87-4. Marguerite Watson spoke in opposition to the project. She stated she believed that there is a conflict of interest. among the elected officials and citizens for slow growth. She suggested waiting for other available options rather than promoting growth at any cost. Bill Crispin addressed Council and spoke in support of the project and in favor of site cleanup which would eliminate a major hazard. Gisela Roscoe spoke in opposition to the high density request. Bob Wilson spoke in support of the project and in favor of site cleanup. Roy Carlson spoke in opposition to the project and any increase of apartments in the area. Jim Fast spoke in opposition to the project and stated that he preferred low density. Page 10 - Council/Agency Minutes - 2121189 Sue Schweiger spoke in opposition to the project and stated that she did not believe the traffic study was adequate. I* Chuck Taylor spoke in favor of the General Plan Amendment stating that the city should work with the developer and that he was concerned with the prox- imity of the site to the school . He stated that the City should work with the developer for site cleanup. Steve Anderson spoke in opposition to the project and did not believe the city should allow a high density in order for the developer to solve their problem of the existing toxic waste site. Rusi Alamshaw spoke in opposition to the project and against high density due to the traffic impact. Charlene Wilson addressed the Council in support of the proposed plan and presented an informal petition with approximately 108 signatures in support. Charles Gant, Newport Beach resident, spoke against high density; he believed the zoning should be a combination and that consideration of the matter should be continued. Bruce Jackson spoke in opposition to the General Plan Amendment stating that he did not agree with the economics presented by the developer. Rob Mally stated he believed the state should be involved in the cleanup of the site. There being no one present to speak further on the matter and there being no o further protests filed, either oral or written, the hearing was closed by the Mayor. RECESS - RECONVENE The Mayor called a recess of Council at 10 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 10: 10 P.M. The Director of Community Development presented a staff report. A motion was made by MacAllister, seconded by Erskine, to approve the General Plan to be amended to show a maximum of 600 residential units for sale on the subject property, staff to work with developer to develop and prepare a development agreement to work out the details of (a) a site cleanup, (b) a development plan that would provide the highest compatibility with the sur- rounding area, (c) if the project projected cost of cleanup is less, then the projected number of units would be reduced accordingly, and (d) direct staff to investigate the possibility to include the project within a redevelopment area so as to assist the developer to reduce the cost of cleanup. Following discussion, an amendment to the motion was made by Mays, seconded by Winchell , to amend the General Plan to have 20 acres low density residential and 20 acres medium density residential . The motion failed by the following roll call vote: 0 AYES: Green, Winchell , Mays NOES: MacAllister, Bannister, Silva, Erskine ABSENT: None Councilman MacAllister withdrew his motion. Page 11 - Council/Agency Minutes - 2/21/89 A motion was made by MacAllister, seconded by Erskine, to certify EIR 870-5, to approve the General Plan Land Use Element Amendment No. 87-4 by adopting Resolution No. 5984B, which includes the statement that medium density resi- dential be on the property, with the additional wording by the City Attorney to add "and certifying EIR No. 87-5" to the title and to add to the end of paragraph 1 in Resolution No. 5984B ". . .Be it further resolved that EIR No. 87-5 is hereby deemed certified. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: MacAllister, Bannister, Silva, Erskine NOES: Green, Winchell , Mays ABSENT: None A motion was made by Green, seconded by Mays, that this change in land use designation is conditioned on the property owners provision of a financial guarantee that the toxic remediation will be performed immediately. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Green, Winchell , Mays, Silva, Erskine NOES: MacAllister, Bannister ABSENT: None A motion was made by Erskine, seconded by MacAllister, to direct staff to bring back the following issues that need to be embodied in the agreement: to include paragraph II.F. of the Agreement Between Ascon Properties And The City of Huntington Beach For A Program For Remediation And A Plan Of Development, which reads: To negotiate and enter into a Development Agreement pursuant to Sections 65864, et seq. , of the Government Code of the State of California with Property Owner which will address, among other things, the (1 ) entitle- ment and uses of said site and the timing thereof, and (2) conditions of cleanup of said site; and, if the site cleanup cost is less than the estimated $15,000,000 that that dictates density, (3) if a settlement is reached or court award gained in a law suit that is pending against the prior owners that inures to the City' s benefit, and (4) the state consent order that the cleanup be done pursuant to the state standards in that consent order. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: MacAllister, Green, Winchell , Bannister, Mays, Silva, Erskine NOES: None ABSENT: None (City Council) BUDGET AMENDMENT - APPROVED - CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS The City Clerk presented a communication from the City Administrator informing Council that funds are available from new revenue to consider a budget amend- ment to finance unfunded capital improvements. The. Deputy City Administrator/Administrative Services presented a staff report. A motion was made by MacAllister, seconded by Mays, to (1 ) authorize the transfer for $1 ,600,000 from the General Fund (Utility Tax Revenues) to the Capital Improvement Fund, to (2) appropriate $1 ,600,000 in the Capital Page 12 - Council /Agency Minutes - 2/21/89 Improvement Fund for the reconstruction of the Municipal Pier, and to (3) increase appropriation for refuse collection costs from $3,500,000 to $3,900,000. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: MacAllister, Green, Winchell , Bannister, Mays, Silva, Erskine NOES: None ABSENT: None (City Council) ORD NO 2991 - INTRODUCTION APPROVED - RES NO 5987 - ADOPTED - CITY TREASURER'S SALARY - AD HOC COMMITTEE APPOINTED - WINCHELL/SILVA The City Clerk presented a communication from the City Administrator trans- mitting proposed Ordinance No. 2991 and Resolution No. 5987 relative to the City Treasurer' s salary. The City Clerk presented Ordinance No. 2991 for Council consideration - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING CHAPTER 2.16 OF THE HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL CODS CONCERNING THE CITY TREASURER." The City Clerk presented Resolution No. 5987 for Council consideration - "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH SETTING COMPEN- SATION FOR THE CITY TREASURER." (Interim salary $2500 per month) The City Administrator presented a staff report. A motion was made by Mays, seconded by Silva, to (1) approve introduction of Ordinance No. 2991 after reading by title, to (2) adopt Resolution No. 5987, and to (3) appoint an ad hoc Council committee to meet with the City Administrator and report back to the full Council with recommendations regarding duties and responsibilities and for- establishment of a salary com- mensurate with the assigned duties and responsibilities. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: MacAllister, Bannister, Mays, Silva, Erskine NOES: Green, Winchell ABSENT: None Mayor Bannister appointed Councilwoman Winchell and Councilman Silva to the ad hoc Council committee. ORDINANCE NO 2984 - ADOPTED - TRAINING STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC SAFETY DISPATCHERS The City Clerk presented Ordinance No. 2984 for Council consideration - "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ADOPTING RECRUITMENT AND TRAINING STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC SAFETY DISPATCHERS. On motion by MacAllister, second Mays, Council adopted Ordinance No. 2984, after reading by title, by the following roll call vote: AYES: MacAllister, Green, Winchell , Bannister, Mays, Silva, Erskine NOES: None ABSENT: None ' Page 13 - Council/Agency Minutes - 2/21/89 ORDINANCE NQ_2985 - ADOPTED - COUNTY SEWER FEE PAYMENT The City Clerk presented Ordinance No. 2985 for Council consideration - "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING SECTION 14.36.909 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO COUNTY SEWER FEE PAYMENT. (Conforms to County requirement that fees can no longer be delayed until final inspection but must be paid "up front.") On motion by MacAllister, second Mays, Council adopted Ordinance No. 2985, after reading by title, by the following roll call vote: AYES: MacAllister, Green, Winchell , Bannister, Mays, Silva, Erskine NOES: None ABSENT: None ORDINANCE NO 2986 - ADOPTED - SURPLUS PROPERTY - EXEMPTS TRANSFERS OF CITY PROPERTY TO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY The City Clerk presented Ordinance No. 2986 for Council consideration - "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING SECTION 3.06.010 OF THE HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE CONCERNING SURPLUS PROPERTY." (Exempts transfers of city property to the Redevelopment Agency from being declared surplus through resolution prior to disposition) On motion by MacAllister, second Mays, Council adopted Ordinance No. 2986, after reading by title, by the following roll call vote: AYES: MacAllister, Green, Bannister, Mays, Silva, Erskine NOES: Winchell ABSENT: None ORDINANCE NO 2987 - ADOPTED - ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE SALES The City Clerk presented Ordinance No. 2987 for Council consideration - "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ORDINANCE CODE BY AMENDING SECTIONS 9220.1(b), 9220.2(d), 9220.14(b), 9510.01(c), 9530.01(c), 9645.1(a)(6) AND ADDING THERETO SECTIONS 9636.1 ." Code Amendment 88-5 (Alcoholic Beverage Sales) On motion by MacAllister, second Mays, Council adopted Ordinance No. 2987, after reading by title, by the following roll call vote: AYES: MacAllister, Green, Winchell , Bannister, Mays, Silva, Erskine NOES: None ABSENT: None (City Council) PLANNING COMMISSION APPOINTMENT - ED MOUNTFORD On motion by Erskine, second Bannister, Council unanimously ratified the appointment of Ed Mountford as Councilman Erskine's appointee to the Planning Commission. (Emergency appointment approved February 6, 1989 until posting requirements of Maddy Act met) Page 14 - Council /Agency Minutes - 2/21/89 (City Council) DIRECTION TO STAFF TO DRAFT TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION PLAN WITH CONDITION NOT TO WIDEN WALNUT AVENUE BETWEEN SIXTH STREET AND LAKE STREET IN THE MAIN-PIER REDEVELOPMENT AREA - APPROVED On motion by MacAllister, second Bannister, Council unanimously approved direction to staff to present a new traffic and circulation plan to Council with the condition that Walnut Avenue would not be widened. CITY ATTORNEY TO DRAFT ORDINANCE - RE: COUNCIL EXPENSES On motion by Bannister, second MacAllister, Council unanimously approved direction to have staff return with an ordinance to increase the CPI factor from 50% to 100% each year subject to analysis. Councilman Green requested comparison studies of other cities. The City Administrator stated that the report is being prepared at this time and that the City Attorney should base the Resolution on what other cities do. Councilmembers Mays and MacAllister will work with staff on the issue. (City Council) RES NO 5988 - ADOPTED - OPPOSE AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN The City Clerk presented Resolution No. 5988 for Council consideration - "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH OPPOSING ADOPTION OF THE AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN AND URGING THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE CITIES OF ORANGE COUNTY TO VOTE AGAINST ITS ADOPTION." A motion was made by Mays, seconded by MacAllister, to adopt Resolution le No. 5988. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: MacAllister, Bannister, Mays, Silva NOES: Winchell , Erskine ABSTAIN: Green ABSENT: None OC SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 3 AND BOLSA CHICA COALITION APPOINTMENTS - BANNISTER/ERSKINE A motion was made by Erskine, seconded by MacAllister, to make a determination that the need to take action on the issue of Orange County Sanitation District No. 3 and Bolsa Chica Coalition appointments arose subsequent to the agenda being posted as specified in Government Code Section 54954.2(b)(2) . The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: MacAllister, Green, Winchell , Bannister, Mays, Silva, Erskine NOES: None ABSENT: None Page 15 - Council/Agency Minutes - 2/21/89 A motion was made by Bannister, seconded by MacAllister, to amend the following appointments effective February 21 , 1989 as follows: QC S nitation District No. 3 Wes Bannister - primary John Erskine - alternate ad hoc Bolsa Chica Coalition Committee Wes Bannister - primary John Erskine - alternate The motion carried unanimously. ORANGE COUNTY CENTENNIAL - HUNTINGTON BEACH FOURTH OF JULY PARADE RECOGNIZED i Councilman MacAllister announced that the 4th of July parade has been officially recognized by the Orange County Centennial . HUNTINGTON BEACH VISITORS AND CONVENTION BUREAU - BUDGET SUGGESTIONS Councilman MacAllister stated that the Huntington Beach Vistors and Convention Bureau will present a letter to the City Council prior to budget review, regarding suggestions, ideas, and finances for this Fiscal Year 1989-90. USE OF FUNDS - PUBLIC TELEVISION CABLE AUTHORITY CONTRACT Councilman MacAllister requested the approintment of one or two Councilmembers to serve with him to review use of money arising from PCTA contract and return with recommendations and ideas. Councilman Mays requested the PCTA funds be reviewed by full Council .. ADJOURNMENT - COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY The Mayor/Chairman adjourned the regular meeting of the City Council and the regular meeting of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach to 6 p.m. , Monday, February 27, 1989, in Room B-8, of the Civic Center Complex. Clerk of the Redevelopment Agency and City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California ATTEST: City Clerk/Clerk Mayor/Chairman :r ' RESOLUTION NO. 5984 B j A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON j BEACH APPROVING LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN NO. 87-4 AND CERTIFYING EIR #87-5 1 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach desires to update and refine the General Plan in keeping with changing community needs and objectives; and A public hearing on adoption of Land Use Element Amendment No. 87-4 to the General Plan was held by the Planning Commission on January 18, 1989; and Thereafter the City Council, after giving notice as prescribed by Government Code Section 65355, held at least one public hearing to consider Land Use Element Amendment No, 87-4 ; and At said hearing before the City Council all persons desiring to be heard on said amendment were7heard, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach pursuant to provisions of Title 7, Chapter 3, Article 6 of California Government Code commencing with Section 65350, that Land Use Element Amendment No . 87-4 consisting of the following change is hereby adopted as an amendment to the Land Use Diagram thereof : That the ASCON property consisting of 39 .4 acres located on the southwest corner of Hamilton Avenue and Magnolia Street be redesignated from Public, Quasi-Public, Institutional to Medium Density Residential . BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that EIR No. 87-5 is hereby deemed certified. -1- 5984E 7 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 21st day of February 1989, by the following roll call vote: r AYES: MacAllister, Bannister, Silva, Erskine NOES: Green, Winchell, Mays ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor REVIEWED AND APPROVED: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Administrator V111— City Attorney INITIATED AND APPROVED: ,L � , Directo of ommunity Development -2 5984E Res. No. 5984B STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) z I, CONNIE BROCKWAY, the duly appointed, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 21s t day of February 19 89 by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: MacAllister, Bannister, Silva, Erskine NOES: Councilmembers: Green, Winchell , Mays ABSENT: Councilmembers: None City Clerk and ex-offici Jerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California HAIGHT, BROWT� & BONESTEEL LAWYERS 201 SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD TELECOPIER SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 90401 5 HUTTON CENTRE DRIVE, SUITE 900 (213) 393-1581 SANTA ANA, CA 92707 P.O. BOX 680 (714) 754-1100 TELEX 705837 SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 90406 - - (213) 458-1000 IN REPLY REFER TO: Mr. Moriarty Mr. Song Santa Monica C/N 38214 June 20, 1990 Huntington Beach City Clerk's Office v 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 _ _ rn h Z-1 n Attn: Ms . Kate Whitney O x Re: Ascon/Steverson Landfill Dear Ms . Whitney: c' I wish to express my extreme gratitude for your help in researching the Ascon/Steverson Landfill file contained in your, office. Your assistance in this matter has been extremely beneficial, and hopefully the documents which were copied from the files will be beneficial in resolving my client's case. Enclosed herein is a check in the amount of $88 . 75 which is the balance due on the photocopying and certification of documents which were received June 18, 1990 . Could you please send us an invoice indicating that the amount of $88 . 75 was due and paid for photocopying of documents . Our client requires documentation on all expenses . Again we wish to express our appreciation for your assistance and cooperation in this matter. Should any questions arise please do not hesitate to contact me at the above phone number for Santa Monica office, extension 475 . Very ly yours, Gary K. ong -- Para al to Deni J. Moriarty HAIGHT, BROWN & BON TEE GKS: jb:C997 Enclosure: Check amount $88 . 75 ' APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL _� -�-- RE CIE T FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION I- ITY Date December 4 , 1989 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Submitted by: Paul Cook, City AdministratoAtc— Prepared by: Mike Adams, Director, Community Developme it Subject: CODE AMENDMENT NO. 89-13; AND RESOLUTION NO. AGREEMENT AND ACCEPTANCE OF COASTAL COMMISSION'S MODIFICATION TO LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 89-1 � -/A- 30o2 s Consistent with Council Policy? [ ] Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception 609�L Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions,Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE• Transmitted for your consideration is Code Amendment No. 89-13 to amend Article 969 . 9 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code (HBOC) which reflects a change recommended by the California Coastal Commission as part of their approval of Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 89-1. Local Coastal Plan Amendment No. 89-1 was approved by the Coastal Commission on October 11, 1989 for Huntington Beach General Plan, Land Use Designation change from Public, Quasi Public, Institutional to Medium Density Residential (7-15u/gac) for an approximately 40 acre parcel located at the southwest corner of Magnolia Street and Hamilton Avenue owned by Ascon Properties, Inc. RECOMMENDATION• Staff recommends that the City Council approve Code Amendment No. 89-13 by adopting Ordinance No. 30-Z5, and adopt Resolution No. 6 o95� ANALYSIS• On February 21, 1989, the City Council approved General Plan Land Use Amendment No . 87-4 to change the land use designation on an approximately 40 acre parcel (Ascon site) from Public, Quasi Public, Institutional to Medium Density Residential (7-15u/gac) . Since the subject location is within the purview of the Coastal Commission, an amendment to the City' s Local Coastal Program was necessary. Code Amendment: Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 89-1 was approved by the Coastal Commission on October 11, 1989 with the requirement that Article 969 . 9 of the HBOC regarding Coastal Regulations be amended. This change is represented as Code Amendment No. 89-13 which relocates the requirement for a Conditional Use Permit for any development on b Plo 5/85 the site and a site characterization analysis, from Section 969 . 9 .22 Public, Quasi Public and Institutional to Section 969 . 9 .23 Residential-Low, Medium and High Density Districts . This will make the Coastal Regulations consistent with the approved General Plan Land Use Designation (Coastal Element) of Medium Density Residential . In addition the following language is added to Section 969 . 9 .23 Residential-Low, Medium and High Density Districts : "If an inventory conducted by the California Department of Fish and Game of plant and associated animal species on the rotary mud dump reveals the presence of wetlands, and the necessary clean up destroys them, mitigation in the form of restoration on another site or in-lieu fees must be provided by the owner of the site consistent with the requirements of the Coastal Conservation Zone pursuant to Section 969 .7 .6 of the Implementing Ordinances" . Resolution: Section 13544 . 5 of the Coastal Commission Regulations require the local government to accept and agree to modifications recommended by the Coastal Commission to the Local Coastal Program. These recommendations must be accepted within six months by resolution. Adopting the Code Amendment to amend Section 969 . 9 .22 and 969 . 9 .23 , and adopting the Resolution to agree and accept Coastal Commission modifications will result in finalization of the General Plan Land Use Amendment for Medium Density Residential on the Ascon site. Resolution No. 6 e911 formally conveys the Council ' s acceptance of the Coastal Commission' s Land Use Plan Amendment . FUNDING S URCE• Not applicable. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: Do not adopt Ordinance No. 30a5 and Resolution No. 6e591 . A consequence of this action will be to void the Coastal Commission' s approval of local coastal Program No. 89-1 after April 11, 1990 . ATTACHMENTS: 1. Ordinance No. 30,15 2 . Resolution No. PC:MA:SH: lab RCA 12/4/89 -2- (4109d) �yt;•e+tE to Pu3:;.h tN 0 A4,0D FotKcr, ®r (>,-ucs of Ina Suporrpr Cowri of OrOnQo 6tsvnty. California. Ijum"r A-6214. 48100 29 SOPIOr"blilt. f0ff. end A-24531. Oatod I June. 1063 STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of Orange ►,,,.c b.c. •e�.�■^o � ., ,,.. ..r,,.�, ► t.a.„ waft 10 x.cok~.reM I am a Citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen years. and not a party to or interested in the below entitled matter I am a principal clerk of the Orange Coast DAILY PILOT, with which is combined the NEWS-PRESS, a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published In the City of Costa Mesa. County of Orange. State of California. and that a Notice of Public Hearing of which copy attached hereto is a true and complete copy, was printed and published in the Costa Mesa, Newport Beach, Huntington Beach, Fountain Valley, Irvine. the South Coast communities and Laguna Beach issues of said newspaper for 1 time consecutive weeks to wit the issue(s) of ENVIRONMENTAL PUBLIC NOTICE. STATUS:This action is Cov- NOTICE OF ered by previously approved PUBLIC HEARING Environmental Impact Re- rt No. Novembe r 22 198 9 CODE AMENDMENT p COASTAL4 STATUS: The NO.89-13 property is located in the (TO AMEND ARTICLE non-appealable portion of 969.9,COASTAL the Coastal Zone. The sub- , ject code amendment Is a OF THE requirement of the Coastal HUNTINGTON BEACH Commission as part of their ORDINANCE CODE action to approve Local t98 NOTICE IS HEREBY Coastal Program Amend- GIVEN that the Huntington ment No.89-1. Beach City Council will hold ON FILE: A copy of the a public hearing in the Coun- proposed request is on file in cil Chamber at the Hunt- the Community Develop- 198 ington Beach Civic Center, ment Department, 2000I 2000 Main Street, Hunt- Main Street, Huntington ington Beach, California,on Beach,California 92648,for the date and at the time in- inspection by the public. 198 dicated below to receive and ALL INTERESTED PER- consider the statements of SONS are invited to attend all persons who wish to be said public hearing and ex- heard relative to the appli- press opinions or submit cation described below. evidence for or against the i DATE/TIME:Monday,De- application as outlined t declare, under penalty of perjury, that the Icamber4, 1989,7:00PM above. If there are any foregoing Is true and Correct. APPLICATION NUMBER: further questions please call Q C ode A ndme t No. Ascon Laura Phillips, Associate Planner or Ruth Lambert, Properties,Inc. LOCATION: Forty acre Assistant Planner at parcel at the southwest cor- 536-5271. Executed On November 22 198 Connie Brockway, City Ha of Magnolia Street andCity at Costa Mesa, California. Hamilton Avenue Clerk, 14/ or Huntington REQUEST: To amend Beach 714/636-5227 Article 969.9 (Coastal Zone DPublished Orange Coast Suffix) of the Ordinance aily Pilot November 22, Code pursuant to require- 1989 'Coastal of the California W730 Signature Coastal Commission's ac- tion on Local Coastal Pro- gram Amendment No.89-1. PROOF OF PUBLICATION GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor±r.STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY a; CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION o,?,e � SOUTH COAST AREA e ys 245 WEST BROADWAY, SUITE 380 LONG BEACH, CA 90802 prs '(213) 590-5071TTT IMPORTANT PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE Subject- Major Amendment Request No. . 89-1 to the City of Huntington Beach Certified Local Coastal Program. This request consists of a proposal to change the Land Use Designation of a site located on the southwest corner of Hamilton Avenue and Magnolia Street in the City of Huntington Beach, Orange County from Public, Quasi-public, institutional to I..nrul i'.atm nnnc itv Dorirlon+inl vw..+ ..y .+ .......+: . Date: October 11 , 1989 � Time: 9:30 a.m. item lla Place: Ramada Inn-Old Town 2435 Jefferson St. San Diego HEARING PROCEDURES People wishing to testify on the above item may appear at the hearing or may present their concerns by letter to the Commission on or before the hearing date. Copies of all correspondence will be provided to the Commission if received in the district office in Long Beach at least 24 hours prior to the hearing. Written comments may be of any length; oral testimony may be limited to five minutes or less for each speaker, depending on the number wisrl►-ily to be heard. No one can predict how quickly the Commission will complete agenda items or how many will be postponed to a later date. The Commission begins each session at the time listed and considers each item in order, except in extraordinary circumstances. For additional information, please contact the district office at (213) 590-5071 . 1854D (13S NnH RE UEAFOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Ct-C C7 Rl r\ i�ior_ rn Date July 5, 1989' ? ^ � Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members —� , Submitted by: Paul E. Cook, City Administrator Prepared by: Michael Adams, Director' of Community Developm nt Subject: RESOLUTION NO. 60`/3 : HUNTINGTON BEACH .T.ncAT. cOA T T. PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 8.9-1 L,.PPROVED BY CITY COUNCI'. 7 - 5- Consistent with Council Policy? [VT Yes [ ] New Policy or Excepti n ..� Z±v- ri-ry 6LER Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative'Actions, ttachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE• Pursuant to the California Coastal Act, Resolution No. 1-Gy3 states that the City of Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 89-1 is consistent with the Certified Huntington Beach Coastal Land Use Plan and Chapter 6 of the California Coastal Act. RECOMMENDATION• Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution No .G,043 and forward to the California Coastal Commission. ANALYSIS: Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 89-1 is a request to amend the Huntington Beach Local Coastal Plan with the recently approved Ascon General Plan Amendment . Resolution No. (-0 is in accord with the California Coastal Act which states Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 89-1 is consistent with the Certified Huntington Beach Coastal Land Use Plan and Chapter 6 of the California Coastal Act . Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 89-1 consists of General Plan Land Use Element Amendment No. 87-4 . General Plan Amendment No. 87-4 was approved and Environmental Impact Report No. 87-5 was certified by the City Council on February 21, 1989 . At that time, the City Council modified the applicant ' s original request and approved a land use designation of medium 'density residential for the project site with a maximum of 630 dwelling units . P10 5/85 1 1 • • ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The general plan amendment was evaluated under Environmental Impact Report No. 87-5 which only addresses the impacts of the general plan amendment request and assumes a clean site prior to development . Site clean up will be addressed in a separate environmental document. FUNDING SOURCE: Not applicable. ATTACHMENTS. 1. Area Map 2 . Resolution No . 66 .3 3 . February 21, 1989 City Council Minutes MA:REL: lab Per RCA 7/5/89 -2- (2975d) .n.rn Ave j 1 I 1 wuil.�n 'I . Kala x�to,t a 1 Edwan t4ph gC},OCy U Edl.on Cominunity PaAc {� U I 1� I !l —JU ��0• 9 a • w ,. Ed,wn aan.r.tlnq V1a+t a U north no scale AdRI huntington beach planning division . g soon w Page 7 - Counci 1 /Aq,1"_'y Minutes = 2/21 /89 [City Council? - PUBLIC HEARING - RES NO 59848 ADOPTED = GENERAL.PLAN',tAMEND MENT 87-4" EIR 87-5 CERTIEIE12 ASCON`PROPERTZES , SW-CORNER HAMILTON/ 1 MA N L a . The Mayor announced that this was the day and hour set for a public hearing to consider the following: B E T: General Plan Amendment No. 87-4/Environmental Impact Report No. , 87-5. APPLICANT: Ascon Properties LOCATI A 40 acre parcel located on the southwest corner of Hamilton Avenue and Magnolia Street PROPOSA Amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan to allow up to 6.4 acres of General Commercial and up to 33. 6 acres of Medium-High Density Resi- dential to permit up to 750 dwelling units . An alternative residential scenario is for 600 dwelling units . ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposal is covered by Environmental Impact Report No. 87-5 which will also be considered by Council COASTAL STATUS: This project is in the Coastal Zone. After Planning Commission and City Council action, this Land Use Element Amendment must be acted on by the California Coastal Commission as an amendment to the City' s Local Coastal Program. s The City Clerk announced that all legal requirements for notification, publi- cation and posting had been met, and that she had received communications in opposition from Louis & Bette Kastorff, Ray Carlson, Jeanne Neal , Fritz and Gisela Roscoe, Gordon Neal , Helen Hill , and Huntington Beach Tomorrow; a communication from Maxine Kachad stating her opposition to apartments and support for homes and condominiums . The Director of Community Development presented a staff report. Councilman Erskine arrived at the meeting at 8 p.m. Hal Simmons , Senior Planner, discussed medium density compatible land uses and service levels . Councilman MacAllister arrived at the meeting at 8: 10 p.m. Paul Ryan, employed by Woodward-Clyde Consultants, presented an update of the site characterization study. Kathy Head, Consultant, Keyser-Marston Associates , discussed density in relation to cleanup. Richard Harlow, representing Ascon, addressed Council and gave a presentation regarding the Ascon Agreement. 82 Page 8 - Counci 1•ency Minutes,.- 2/21/89 .4•_. ` ,. - �. RECESS . RECONVENE The'-Mayor -'cal led 'a recess 'of Council 'at :8:15 p.m.' The meeting•was°.reconvened at 8:25.p.m. The Mayor declared the hearing open. Richard Loy, Newport West Tract homeowner, stated his opposition to apartments and commercial development which he believed would be an attractive nuisance across from Edison High School and generate traffic. Dr. Robert Winchell , Professor of Geology, California State at Long Beach, and registered geologist in California, requested that Council refuse to certify the EIR and deny the General Plan Amendment. He spoke regarding earthquake, geologic, and flooding hazard and requested the area remain open space. Robert K. Loy addressed Council in opposition to the proposal . He spoke regarding the Keyser-Marston Report. He stated his desire to keep the high level of service the residents in that neighborhood have enjoyed and that he would not oppose the project as vehemently if it were low density. Beverly Garnett spoke in opposition, and cited traffic impact and stated that she believes there is a demand in the -area for apartments . T. K. Brimer spoke in opposition to the density bonus to allow for removal of toxic waste cost. Herbert Ahn spoke in opposition to the building of any housing structures due I to the safety of potential residents . Pete Fallena spoke in support of low density for the proposed project. David Johnson spoke in support of the project and stated his main concern was to clean up the hazardous waste. John Engh spoke in opposition to the project and expressed his concern regard- ing flooding. Henry Bohrman spoke in opposition to commercial zoning stated that he pre- ferred R-1 residential in keeping with the surrounding area. Dr. Douglas Cable, resident of Newport West Tract and specialist in infectious diseases , spoke- against the proposal ._ He supports open space or if develop- ment is approved that it be low density. Norma Van Der Molen stated she preferred open space and suggested a golf course. Tom Wickstrom, owner and operator of a manufacturing facility located in Carlsberg Business Park, expressed his support for development and cleanup of the site; he presented an informal petition listing approximately 19 signatures in support. Ralph Carruthers opposed the General Plan Amendment. His concern included the financial aspects and Ascon' s ability to clean the site. He spoke regarding a San Diego. court decision dated November 3, 1988 upholding the City Council ' s denial in a similar situation. 8:� Page 9 - Council /Ac y Minutes 2/21/89 Phyllis; Carruthers - stated her concern for the safety of childr en. and .that the Environmental Impact Report called for a °25 mph traffic speed for' 'chi 1dren which she believed would cause a gridlock. . I Warren Hall spoke in support of the proposal and stated that he believed this was an opportunity to rid the city of the toxic wastes . Qev�rly Titus opposed the proposal and adoption of the Environmental Impact Report. She stated her belief that the public was being given inaccurate information in the bulletin distributed by Ascon Properties . She recommended a continuation of the public hearing based on inadequate information to reach a decision on density. Chris Alford spoke in opposition and stated he believed that Ascon properties would profit by R-1 development. r Marie Evans , resident of Pacific Ranch, thirty years experience in the health field including Director of National Safety Chapter in the Bay area, spoke in support stating her concern with health issues, primarily children and urged that the toxic wastes be removed. Steven Clark, engineer in a local health care company, opposed the proposal and spoke regarding cleanup provisions. Anne Hinkey spoke in opposition to the proposal and stated that she believed the reasons rentals were requested was that disclosure would not be required of the developer. Steven Rakhshani spoke in support and stated he believed the city needed to work with the developer on cleanup of the site. Reese Moneyhun spoke in opposition stating he believed that approving high density would constitute a subsidy to Ascon Properties. ` Joan Rakhshani spoke in support of the proposal and stated she believed the site should be cleaned up for safety and health reasons. Tom Livengood, representing Huntington Beach Tomorrow, addressed Council in opposition of the proposed plan. He presented statistics to Council which related to the Ascon General Plan Amendment 87-4. Marguerite Watson spoke in opposition to the project. She stated she believed that there is a conflict of interest among the elected officials and citizens for slow growth. She suggested waiting for other available options rather than promoting growth at any cost. Bill Crispin addressed Council and spoke in support of the project and in favor of site cleanup which would eliminate a major hazard. Gisela Roscoe spoke in opposition to the high density request. Bob Wilson spoke in support of the project and in favor of site cleanup. Roy Carlson spoke in opposition to the project and any increase of apartments in the area. Jim Fast spoke in opposition to the project and stated that he preferred. low density. Page 10 Counci gency Minutes - 2/21/89 Sue Schweiger ' spoke In -,opposition to the project and stated :that she did not believe the traffic study was adequate. Chuck Taylor spoke in favor of the General Plan Amendment stating that the city should work with the developer and that he was concerned with the prox- imity of the site to the school . He stated that the City should work with the developer for site cleanup. Steve An MQn spoke in opposition to the project and did not believe the city should allow a high density in order for the developer to solve their problem of the existing toxic waste site. s Rusi Alamshaw spoke in opposition to the project and against high density due to the traffic impact. Charlene Wilson addressed the Council in support of the proposed plan and presented an informal petition with approximately 108 signatures in support. Charles Gant, Newport Beach resident, spoke against high density; he believed the zoning should be a combination and that consideration of the matter should be continued. Brace Jackson spoke in opposition to the General Plan Amendment stating that he did not agree with the economics presented by the developer. Rob Mally stated he believed the state should be involved in the cleanup of the site. There being no one present to speak further on the matter and there being no further protests filed, either oral or written, the hearing was closed by the Mayor. RECESS - RECONVENE The Mayor called a recess of Council at 10 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 10: 10 P.M. The Director of Community Development presented a staff report. A motion was made by MacAllister, seconded by Erskine, to approve the General Plan to be amended to show a maximum of 600 residential units for sale on the subject property, staff to work with developer to develop and prepare a development agreement to work out the details of (a) a site cleanup, (b) a development plan that would provide the highest compatibility with the sur- rounding area, (c) if the project projected cost of cleanup is less , then the projected number of units would be reduced accordingly, and (d) direct staff to investigate the possibility to include the project within a redevelopment area so as to assist the developer to reduce the cost of cleanup. Following discussion, an amendment to the motion was made by Mays , seconded by Winchell , to amend the General Plan to have 20 acres low density residential and 20 acres medium density residential . The motion failed by the following roll call vote: j AYES: Green, Winchell , Mays NOES: MacAllister, Bannister, Silva, Erskine ABSENT: None Councilman MacAllister withdrew his motion. Page 11 - Counci 11. ,ncy Mi nutes`-`2/21/89 A mot. on` was made bji"'`MacA'l 1 i:ster;`'=seconded -by'.Erski ne;:,:;to :certi fy. •6IR :870-5, to approve' the``General',-Pl'an' Land;Use Element Amendment,No :`87-4;,py., adopting Resolution -No. 5984B, whi ch�'i ncl udes -the statement' that 'medium` density resi- :..�.:.� dents al * be on the property, with the additional wording by the City Attorney to add "and certifying EIR No:- 87=511--to' the title and to add to the end of 1 paragraph 1 in Resolution No. 5984E ". . .Be it further 'resolved that EIR No. 87-5 is hereby deemed certified. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: MacAllister, Bannister, Silva, Erskine NOES: Green, Winchell , Mays ABSENT: None A motion was made by Green, seconded by Mays,., that this change in land use designation is conditioned on the property owners provision of a financial guarantee that the toxic remediation will be performed immediately. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES-. Green, Winchell , Mays, Silva, Erskine NOES: MacAllister, Bannister ABSENT: None A motion was made by Erskine, seconded by MacAllister, to direct staff to bring back the following issues that need to be embodied in the agreement: to include paragraph II.F. of the Agreement Between Ascon Properties And The City of Huntington Beach For A Program For Remediation And A Plan Of Development, which reads: To negotiate and enter into a Development Agreement pursuant to Sections 65864, et seq. , of the Government Code of the State of California with Property Owner which will address, among other things, the (1) entitle- ment and uses of said site and the timing thereof, and (2) conditions of cleanup of said site; and, if the site cleanup cost is less than the estimated $15,000,000 that that dictates density, (3) if a settlement is reached or court award gained in a law suit that is pending against `the prior owners that inures to the City's benefit, and (4) the state consent order that the cleanup be done pursuant to the state standards in that consent order. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: MacAllister, Green, Winchell , Bannister, Mays, Silva, Erskine NOES: None ABSENT: None Council) AMENDMENT- - The Ci rk resented a communication from the Administrator informing Council that fun s, re available from new r e to consider a budget amend- ment to finance unfu capital impro s. The Deputy City Administ it6tAdministrative Services presented a staff report. A motion was de by MacAllister, seconded by �Mays-, ..to (1) authorize the transfer r $1 ,600,000 from the General Fund (Utility Ta`X--kv#v s) to the Cap Improvement Fund, to (2) appropriate ' $1 ,600,000 in the Capital �S Page: 12 - ,Cotinci' ency Minutes :-•-2/21/89 Improvement_'%.Fund .;.fors:•. thee- reconstruction of a.the• Muni ci.pal - Pi er;;: -:;and/ to. 1 3)..-,1ft.rease�appropriatioh. _:fo,'r_: ref use. 'co 11ection .costs. -� from . $3,500,.0 0 to ,+900,000:diThe:motionf carried .by the. following roll°•..call vote:. AYES: :;MacAllister, Green, Wlnchell ; ,Bannister, Mays:, Silva, Erski NOES:, ' None. ABSENT:' None SCity Counci ) ORD NO 2991 - INTRODUCTION APPROVED - RE 7 - A PTED - CITY TREA U ESALARY - AD HOC COMMITTEEAPPOINTED - WIN HEIL/ ILVA The City Clerk resented a communication from the City Administrator trans- mitting proposed Ordinance No. 2991 and Resolution o. 5987 relative to the City Treasurer's salary. se'The City Clerk preted Ordinance No. 2991 for Council consideration - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CIW OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMErNDING CHAPTER 2.16 OF THE HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIkL CODE CONCERNING THE CIY`Y TREASURER." The City Clerk presented R,gsolution No. 5987 for Council consideration - "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY 0 HUNTINGTON BEACH SETTING COMPEN- SATION FOR THE CITY TREASURERO\" (Interim1"ary $2500 per month) The City Administrator presented`a staff eport. A motion was .made by Mays, seconded b Silva, to (1) approve introduction of Ordinance No. 2991 after readin � by title, to (2) adopt Resolution No. 5987, and to (3) appoint an ad hoc Council committee to meet with the City Administrator and report bacKr to the full Council with recommendations regarding duties and responsibil ties rand for- establishment of a salary com— mensurate- with the assigned dutfes anda responsibilities. The motion carried by the following roll call vote' AYES: MacAllister, Banni ter, Mays, Silva, Erskine NOES: Green, Winchell ABSENT: None Mayor Bannister appointed Councilwoman Winchell 'Nand Councilman Silva to the ad hoc Council committee. ORDINANCE N0 2 4 - ADOPTED - TRAININ A\ )S FOR PUBLIC SAFETY DISPATCHERS The City C,4k presented Ordinance No. 2984 for Council consideration - "AN ORDINANCE/OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF .HUNTINGT(*\ BEACH ADOPTING RECRUITMENT AND TRAINING STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC SAFETY DISPATCHER& On motion by MacAllister, second Mays, Council adopted Ordinance No. 2984, after reading by title, by the following roll call vote: AYES: MacAllister, Green, Winchell , Bannister, Mays, Silva, Erskine NOES: None ABSENT: None f .. STATWftT OF THE ACTION OF THE CITY CdkGIL Council Chamber, City Hall Huntington Beach, California Monday, July 5, 1989 Mayor Pro Tem Mays called the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach to order at 7 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: MacAllister, Green, Winchell , Mays , Silva, Erskine Absent: Bannister (City Council ) RESOLUTION NO. 6043 - ADOPTED - HUNTINGTON BEACH LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 89-1 The City Clerk presented a communication from the Director of Community Development transmitting Resolution No. 6043 adopting the Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program, Amendment No. 89-1 . The Director of Development Services presented a staff report. The City Clerk presented Resolution No. 6043 for Council consideration - "A RESOLUTION OF THE CTY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ADOPTING HUNTINGTON BEACH LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM, AMENDMENT NO. 89-1 ." On motion by Erskine, second MacAllister, Council adopted Resolution No. 6043 by the following roll call vote: AYES: MacAllister, Mays , Silva, Erskine NOES: Green, Winchell ABSENT: Bannister Mayor Pro Tem Mays adjourned the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at 9: 10 p.m. to Monday, July 17, 1989 at 5:30 p.m. in Room B-8, Civic Center. ATTEST: Connie Brockway City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California Connie Brockway City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) Tom Mays County of Orange ) Mayor Pro Tem City of Huntington Beach) I , CONNIE BROCKWAY, the duly elected and qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, California, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true and correct Statement of Action of the City Council of said City at their regular meeting held on the 5th day of July 1989. WITNESS my hand and seal of the said City of Huntington Beach this the loth day of July, 1989. Connie Brockway City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntin ton Beach, California Deputy APPROVED BY CITY COUNOIJ REQWE_ FOR CITY COUNCO ACTION D vember 21 1988 "Xlyo xs _ Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Submitted by: Paul Cook, City Administrato _6i—� / Prepared by: Mike Adams, Acting Director, GiQA 1 3I�d� I Subject: HUNTINGTON BEACH LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 88-3 Consistent with Council Policy? [X Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception 17 �. Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions,Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE• In accord with the California Coastal Act, Resolution No . 540— is being presented which states that the City of Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 88-3 is consistent with the Certified Huntington Beach Coastal Land Use Plan and Chapter 6 of the California Coastal Act. The Resolution will then be forwarded to the California Coastal Commission for processing . A Resolution is the means by which the City communicates actions with the Coastal Commisssion. RECOMMENDATION• Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program Amendment No 88-3 by adopting Resolution No . �• ANALYSIS• Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 88-3 is a request to the California Coastal Commission to amend the Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program consistent with the recently approved zone change for Ascon properties, Inc. The Amendment must be approved pursuant to a resolution adopted by the City Council following a public hearing. zone Change No . 87-14 and Negative Declaration No . 87-41) was acted upon. and approved by the City Council on October 3 , 1988 . Resolution No. is in accord with the California Coastal Act certifying that City of Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 8.8-3 is consistent with the Certified Huntington Beach Coastal Land Use Plan and Chapter 6 of the California Coastal Act . The amendment includes the zone change request acted upon by the City Council for Ascon Properties, Inc. The subject location and request is as follows : Location: 0 . 868 acre site at 21621 Magnolia Street (Southwest corner of Magnolia Street and Hamilton Avenue) . v P10 5/85 \ I Request: A request by Ascon Properties, Inc. , to rezone a 0 . 868 acre parcel from LUD-0-CZ-FP2(Limited Use District combined with oil facilities-Coastal Zone-Floodplain) to (Q)LUD-01-CZ-FP2 (Qualified Limited Use District combined with oil facilities and drilling-Coastal Zone-Floodplain) . ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposal was covered by Negative Declaration No . 87-41; no further environmental action is necessary. FUNDING SOURCE: Not applicable. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution No . MA:LP:gbm RCA - 11/21/88 -2- (1574d) tj, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH V 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK March 30, 1989 Institute of Government Studies University of California 109 Moses Hall Berkeley, California 94720 Pursuant to Section 50110 of the Government Code we are transmitting the following documents: ASCON LANDFILL PROJECT-GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT Reports. Copy of Resolution 5944 B. Minutes of City Council Meeting adopting RES # 5944B. If you have any questions , please call the Office of the City Clerk - (714) 536-5227. &4W4;_' 4912.0 Connie Brockway, CHC City Clerk CB:pm Enc. (Teiephone:714-536-5227) ;, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH " 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK March 30, 1989 Public Affairs Service University of California 405 Hilgard Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90024 Pursuant to Section 50110 of the Government Code we are transmitting the following documents: ASCON LANDFILL PROJECT-GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT Reports. Copy of Resolution 5944 B. Minutes of City Council Meeting Adopting RES #5944B. If you have any questions , please call the Office of the City Clerk - (714) 536-5227. Connie Brockway, CMC City Clerk CB:pm (Telephone: 714-536-5227) CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK March 30, 1989 Government Publications Section California State Library P. 0. Box 2037 Sacramento, CA 95809 Pursuant to Section 50110 of the Government Code we are transmitting the following documents: ASCON LANDFILL PROJECT-GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT Reports. Copy of Resolution 5944 B. Minutes of City Council Meeting Adopting RES #5944B. If you have any questions, please call the Office of the City Clerk - (714) 536-5227. Connie Brockway; .CMC City Clerk CB:pm-, enc. (Telephone: 714-536-5227)