Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCirculation Element Amendment 88-1 - Negative Declaration 87 PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLIC NOTICE l PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE OF,,-UMIC HEAF& CIRCULATION ELEMENT AMENDMDENT 88-1 MAIN STREET BETWEEN YORKTOWN/GARFIELD NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Huntington Beach City Council will hold a public hearing in the Council Chamber at the Huntington Beach Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, on the date and at the time Indicated below to receive and consider the statements of all persons who wish to be heard relative to the application described below. DATE:Tuesday, February 16, 1988 TIME: 7:00 P.M. SUBJECT: Circulation Element Amendment No. 88-1 in conjunction with Negative Declaration No. 87-52 APPLICANT:City of Huntington Beach LOCATION: Main Street between Yorktown Avenue and Garfield Avenue PROPOSAL:To amend the Circulation Element of the General Plan by reinstating Main Street as a primary arterial between Yorktown Avenue and Garfield Avenue. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS:The City Council will also consider Negative Declaration No.87-52 which assesses the environmental impact of the proposal. ON FILE:A copy of the proposal is on file in the Community Development Department,2000 Main Street,Huntington Beach. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. All applications, exhibits, and descriptions of this proposal are on file with the Office of the City Clerk, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, for inspection by the public. HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL, By: Alicia M. Wentworth, City Clerk, Phone: (714) 536-5405 Dated 1/27/88 Published Orange Coast Daily Pilot February 4, 1988 Th426 J.. r J I r � LL11 maw r....... ./ a� —4 - 9 1 1 l !1 'i J — I CF-C CF_E -. w M777-7, u t _ � i Authorized to Publish Advertisements of all kindsoding public . notices by Decree of the Superior Court of Orange County. C61itornta. Number A-6214. dated 29 September. 1961. and A-24831. dated 11 June. 1963. STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of Orange Pu1HK Not"AOvenl 0 covWed oy time efttdsvn is so in 7 point tuft 10 PMa CokoM width ' 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 C. Coast DAILY PILOT, with which is combined the �y CITY GOB NEWS-PRESS, a newspaper of general circulation, lqYI. printed and published in the City of Costa Mesa. �„ -- County of Orange. State of California, and that a Notice of P11b1 ; uPa r ink 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 o n e consecutive weeks to wit the issue(s) of Feb. 4 198 8 198 198 198 t 198 3 I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on Feb. 9 , 198 _a — at Costa Mesa, California. N Signature PROOF OF PUBLICATION DPO I- E UE N FOR CITY COUNCIPACTION ' � R Q O I �� ,.�Pw a as Date February 15, 1988 _( Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Submitted by: Paul E. Cook, City Administrator. Prepared by: Douglas N. La Belle, Director, Community Developmen Subject: CIRCULATION ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 88-1 IN CONJUNCTION WITH NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 87-52 Its 5851 Consistent with Council Policy? Yes ( ] New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Altern tiWMfkN-&PA1HJcfiMVr ts!'0Tj STATEMENT OF ISSUE: 'CITY C:LE4k Transmitted for your consideration is Circulation Element Ame MtT-88- conjunction with Negative Declaration No. 87-52, a request to amend the Circulation Element of.the General Plan by reinstating the primary arterial designation on Main Street between Yorktown Avenue and Garfield Avenue. RECOMMENDATION: Planning Commission action of January 20, 1988: ON MOTION BY SILVA AND SECOND BY PIERCE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 87-52 AND ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 1388, APPROVING CIRCULATION ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 88-1; THE PLANNING COMMISSION FURTHER RECOMMENDED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN AS PROPOSED BY CIRCULATION ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 88-1, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES; Silva, Pierce Liepzig, Livengood NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher, Higgins ABSTAIN: None Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council approve Negative Declaration No. 87-52 and adopt a resolution amending the General Plan as proposed by Circulation Element Amendment No. 88-1. I PIO 5/85 ANALYSIS: Circulation Element Amendment No. 88-1 is a request to amend the Circulation Element of the General Plan by reinstating Main Street as a primary arterial between Yorktown Avenue and Garfield Avenue. The primary arterial designation was removed from Main Street in 1976, in favor of extending Lake Street from Yorktown to Garfield. In 1979, however, the City Council decided to delete the Lake Street extension and retain Main Street as an arterial connector. The primary arterial status was never restored on the Circulation Plan, however. Restoration of Main Street's arterial status between Yorktown and Garfield Avenues is required in order for the City to be eligible for the Arterial Highway Funding Program, and to close a gap in the City's Circulation Plan. A complete analysis of Circulation Element Amendment No. 88-1 and environmental documentation for Negative Declaration No. 87-52 are attached to this transmittal. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposal is covered by Negative Declaration No. 87-52. Because the section of Main Street in question is already existing and substantially constructed to primary arterial standards, the environmental impacts of reinstating the arterial designation are minimal. Therefore, staff is recommending that a Negative Declaration be issued. Pursuant to environmental regulations in effect at this time, the Department of Community Development posted either verbal or written were received. Prior to any action on Circulation Element Amendment No. 88-1, it is necessary for the City Council to review and act on Negative Declaration No. 87-52. FUNDING SOURCE: Not applicable ALTERNATIVE ACTION: The City Council may deny Circulation Element Amendment No. 88-1 and Negative Declaration No. 87-52. ATTACHMENTS: 1. City Council Resolution No. 2. Area Map 3. Report: Circulation Element Amendment No. 88-1 (including environmental documentation for Negative Declaration No. 87-52) 4. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1388 � l j^ PEC:DLB:MA:LP:gbm RCA / 2-15-88 -2- (9954d) D)n Publish 2/4/88 . • NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARG CIRCULATION ELEMENT AMENDMENT 8 8-1 MAIN STREET BETWEEN YORRTOWN/GARFIELD _ NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Huntington Beach City Council will hold apublic hearing in the Council Chamber at the Huntington Beach Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, on the date and at the time indicated below to receive and consider the statements of all persons who wish to be heard relative to the application described below. DATE: Tuesday, February 16, 1988 TIME• 7: 00 P.M. SUBJECT: Circulation Element Amendment No . 88-1 in conjunction with Negative Declaration No. 87-52 APPLICANT: City of Huntington Beach LOCATION: Main Street between Yorktown Avenue and Garfield Avenue PROPOSAL: To amend the Circulation Element of the General Plan by reinstating Main Street as a primary arterial between Yorktown Avenue and Garfield Avenue ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The City Council will also consider 1� Negative Declaration No . 87-52 which assesses the environmental impact of the proposal . \ ON FILE: A copy of the proposal is on file in the Community Development Department, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. All applications, exhibits, and descriptions of this proposal are on file with the Office of the City Clerk, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, for inspection by the public. HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL By: Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk Phone (714) 536-5405 Dated 1/27/88 GOIDENWEST ST I "LtN wt t.l • '� 1,1' — - --� ' 1 W1flI T ` SI M.NI SI1 rn - - • - Cerff. sr cars l• —., sr� `_ • ST �•''��•� Y• ' -- ------ — LL1111JJ11LL 1�. huNTIN TON/l✓ DIM `e, It sl 1 rx,..Afir • _ -- �_sr --IrkDena— .+c „� c Y ffFT I H Al ul LL bL.VD NUNTINGION bEACN L ` 41k, Publish 2/4/88 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HG CIRCULATION ELEMENT AMENDMENT 88-1 MAIN STREET BETWEEN YORKTOWN/GARFIELD NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Huntington Beach City Council will hold apublic hearing in the Council Chamber at the Huntington Beach Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, on the date and at the time indicated below to receive and consider the statements of all persons who wish to be heard relative to the application described below. DATE: Tuesday, February 16, 1988 TI 7 : 00 P.M. SUBJECT: Circulation Element Amendment No. 88-1 in conjunction with Negative Declaration No . 87-52 APPLICANT: City of Huntington Beach LOCATION: Main Street between Yorktown Avenue and Garfield Avenue PROPOSAL: To amend the Circulation Element of the General Plan by reinstating Main Street as a primary arterial between Yorktown Avenue and Garfield Avenue ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The City Council will also consider Negative Declaration No . 87-52 which assesses the environmental impact of the proposal . ON FILE: A copy of the proposal is on file in the Community Development Department, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. All applications, exhibits, and descriptions of this proposal are on file with the Office of the City Clerk, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, for inspection by the public. HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL By: Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk Phone (714) 536-5405 Dated 1/27/88 • Publi*2/0?- NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING. p- _ _ l NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Huntington Beach City Council will hold a public hearing in the Council Chamber at the Huntington Beach Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, on the date and at the time indicated below to receive and consider the statements of all persons who wish to be heard relative to the application described below. DATE: , �'eibY(,bQ(y 11A TIME:, "7;O'er P•YY) . �'l l r1 GO(� i.lX1G.T!Off SUBJECT: Cirru1&4ion elennen4- ��menar"��" �°• J w i-�-1 tJ25a4i ve. p-G larcc-hon 1Jo . `��- 2 APPLICANT:n.E.,/ LOCATION: M4.,i ��'1�Gp �-y�,jQQ,n �o�K{D�n '•VenLLA-1 cinoL PROPOSAL - a4we_(j L4_ q,� CI r-r L4Q 4j c>n p _ a_ �ri rn a rY ar ker► a I b e�-�vv�n �/o Ck_v I'ri ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: a -COLA�G e ON FILE: A Copy 6C— �_ �2 D p0SA0 J 5 6n -E-�,-Q-- Cor 2cpa K4 mer+, 2•000 "oa n ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. All applications, exhibits, and descriptions of this proposal are on file with the Office of the City Clerk, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, for inspection by the public. HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL By: Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk Phone (714) 536-5405 Dated h 4 _ Huntington Beach Company 2110 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach Company P. O. Box 7611 San Francisco, CA 94120 Pacific Ranch Homeowners Association c/o Urban West Communities 520 Broadway, Suite 100 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Robert B. Lindky P. O. Box 2328 Oakhurst , CA 93644 I RSTGS Investment Group 2217 Mantle Lane Santa Ana, CA 92701 James M. Brown 221 Middlefield Drive V" San Francisco, CA 94132 Melvin F . Keller 4534 SW Hewett Blvd. Portland, OR 97221 Pearl N. Worthy 1002 Riviera Street Santa Ana, CA 92706 Weir Oil Co. , Inc . \� 401 20th Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Mola Development Corp. 8072 Adams Avenue Huntington Beach, CA 92646 T NOTICE TO CLERK TO SCHEDULE PUBLIC HEARING CC�� I ITEM G �.�lekv i 2 c� o.Zx� "V% cc&n3' T0: CITY CLERK'Su-'OFF ICE UQ9afiVt b e�lOtl'a+ion ��'DATE: 19� 7 FROM: 171AA61; -04 PLEASE SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING USING THE ATTACHED LEGAL NOTICE FOR THE f DAY OF 1986. v0's are attached AP's will follow No AP' s . Initiated by: Planning Commission Planning Department Petition * Appeal Other Adoption of Environmental Status (x) IR N NON Has City Attorney's Office been YES CN�O informed of forthcoming public hearing? Refer to ���� Planning Department - Extension . for additional information. * If appeal , please transmit exact wording to be required in the legal . IF COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT - PLEASE MARKlt ( ) ( ) APPEALABLE NOT APPEALABLE CIRCULATION ELEMENT AMENDMENT 88 - 1 Negative Declaration 87- 52 huntington beach planning division TABLE OF CONTENTS I . INTRODUCTION II . BACKGROUND III . HISTORY IV. ISSUES • Arterial Highway Funding Program • Traffic Volume • Right-of-Way Improvements • Future Actions/Issues V. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS VI . RECOMMENDATION APPENDIX - Initial Environmental Study �.b I . INTRODUCTION This document constitutes an amendment to the Circulation Element of the Huntington Beach General Plan and is the first amendment to this element for 1988 . The Circulation Element was adopted as a mandated element of the General Plan in December, 1986; this is the fifth amendment to the Circulation Element since its original adoption. The adopted Circulation Plan of Arterial Streets and Highways is presented in Figure 1. II . BACKGROUND In 1976, the primary arterial designation on Main Street between Garfield and Yorktown Avenues was removed from the Circulation Element of the General Plan. This action occurred in conjunction with several other Circulation Element changes in the vicinity designed to emphasize two traffic corridors serving the downtown area, one along the Main/Lake corridor and the other along the Gothard/Main/Seventeenth corridor. When the proposed Lake Street extension was deleted from the Circulation Element in 1979, a continued reliance on Main Street as an arterial connector was implied; however, no formal action was ever taken to reinstate Main Street ' s primary arterial status . The arterial designation needs to be restored in order to close a gap in the City' s arterial system and for the City' s Circulation Plan to be in conformance with the County' s Master Plan of Arterial Streets and Highways . (See Figure 3, page 9) Conformance with the County Plan is required in order for the City to be eligible for funding under the Arterial Highway Funding Program. AMENDMENTS CIRCULATION PLAN OF ARTERIAL 1.w aY• - STREETS AND HIGHWAYS S- S' J3�.2 6-f MS3PSADOPTED BY CITY © `,I RESOLUTION NO4368-DECEC 12,IL1976 J LEGEND: - FREEWAY STREET CAPACITYCITY OF a MAJOR 45.000 T\\x HUNTINGTON BEACH ° r 1 PRIMARY. 3a000 ORANGE COUNTY CALIFORNIA - SECONDARY 20,000 NOTE: 401.10 LINES INMATE EXISTING RIGHT Of vMT I j �\• I407 NECESSARILY ULTNATE RIGHT Of WAY i GASHED LINES ING 1 AREAS WHERE NO (I I\ RIGr.7 Of WAY EXISTS —4A arm I r N / N w. t�FIELO 3 A-Z g FWURE 1 III . HISTORY The 1976 removal of Main Street ' s arterial designation between Garfield and Yorktown Avenues was part of an overall response to a number of related traffic issues . Several five-way intersections, including Beach-Ellis-Main, Garfield-Gothard-Main, and Main- Utica-Seventeenth, were created by the diagonal alignment of Main Street and Seventeenth Street, and as a result, these intersections experienced significant traffic signal delay time. Other recognized circulation problems included the serious accident history on Gothard Street between Ellis and Garfield Avenues, and the use of Main Street as a thoroughfare to the beach as it narrows through residential areas south of Utica Avenue. The proposed solution to these problems was multi-fold, but essen- tially focused on creating two new north/south arterial corridors to serve the downtown area: Main/Lake and Gothard/Main/Seventeenth. Lake Street was proposed to be extended northward from its existing terminus at Yorktown Avenue to the intersection of Main and Garfield. Gothard Street was proposed to be realigned westward south of Ellis and intersect with Garfield Avenue via Crystal Street . Gothard would then connect with Main Street in the vicinity of Clay Avenue, and continue through to Pacific Coast Highway via Seventeenth Street . With these new connections, Main Street could then be vacated between Yorktown and Garfield Avenues (see Figure 2) . The two new arterial links would thus provide access to the beach, Civic Center and downtown commercial areas from North Huntington Beach while diverting traffic from residential portions of Main Street . Additionally, an undesirable five-way intersection at Gothard-Garfield-Main would be eliminated and the safety level of Gothard Street improved. In 1979 , the Lake Street extension was deleted from the General Plan in favor of retaining Main Street as an arterial between Garfield and Yorktown Avenues . It was felt that traffic volumes could be accommodated without the Lake Street extension, and that Main Street should be retained as the traditional "doorway" to downtown Huntington Beach. Southbound traffic from Main and Gothard could still be diverted away from residential parts of Main Street by directing traffic down Seventeenth Street south of Yorktown, while northbound traffic on Lake Street could be dispersed at Yorktown to a number of other north/south arterials .. It was also felt that existing commercial development at Main and Yorktown would be better served by the existing alignment of Main Street than by the Lake Street extension. Although the City Council, in March 1979 , amended the Circulation Element by deleting the Lake Street extension, no action was ever taken to reinstate Main Street as a primary arterial between Garfield and Yorktown Avenues . Circulation Element Amdmt -3- (9573d) 0 ,'_. AMENDMENTS ••� .CIRCULATION PLAN OF ARTERIAL nerd Gt• /�— STREETS AND HIGHWAYS 5- S-d�l3^% 6-rTI90 538� -..1 .; ADOPTED BY CITY CouNClL .I RESOLUTION NO 4368-DEC 12.1976 LEGEND CITY OF _ FREEWAY STREET CAPACTY �+ MAJOR 456000 HUNTINGTON BEACH PRIMARY 3000O ORANGE COUNTY CALIFORNIA � - SECONDARY . 20,000 -R NOTE - Sara LINES INDICATE ExiSTING RIGHT OF WAY ' I NOT NE:ESSARtLY ULTIMATE RIGHT OF WAY 1 DASHED TINES IN AREAS WHERE NO RIGHT OF aAr EXISTS bI I I L. \ .l , I I I ��•. c+ �\ deIf y ± l ' FIELD 3 `� 3 1 1 A'" FIGURE Z -4- IV. ISSUES Arterial Highway Funding Program The County Environmental Management Agency is currently in the process of amending its Master Plan of Arterial Streets and Highways to show the deletion of the Lake Street extension and the recon- nection of Main Street as a primary arterial between Beach Boulevard and Seventeenth Street . The City' s Circulation Plan is required to be in substantial conformance with the County' s Plan as a condition of the City' s participation in the Arterial Highway Funding Program (AHFP) . The program provides for the County to contribute 50% of the funding for eligible arterial highway improvements, such as widening and right-of-way acquisition, and for certain types of maintenance, such as resurfacing . Traffic Volume The relationship between traffic volume and roadway capacity is expressed by means of Levels of Service, which is a qualitative description of traffic flow. The concept of Levels of Service recognizes that there is an absolute limit to the amount of traffic that can travel through a given corridor, and that conditions rapidly deteriorate as traffic reaches that level . There are six levels of service which describe the quality of traffic flow and are defined as follows : Level of Service A - indicates no physical restriction on operating speed. Level of Service B - indicates a stable flow with few restrictions on operating speed. Level of Service C - indicates a stable flow, higher volume, and more restrictions on speed and lane changing. Level of Service D - indicates approaching unstable flow, little freedom to maneuver, and conditions tolerable for short periods . Level of Service E - indicates unstable flow, lower operating speeds than LOS D, and some momentary stoppages . Level of Service F - indicates forced flow operation at low speeds where the highway acts as a storage area and there are many stoppages . The City and County use LOS C for links (the portion of roadway between intersections) and LOS D for intersections as an acceptable Level of Service. Traffic volumes associated with various levels of service on different types of arterials are shown in the table on the following page. Circulation Element '.,rdmt -5- (9573d) �g Level of Service* Tvae of Arterial A 8 C D E F 4 lanes divided (Major) 24,000 27,000 30,000 33,000 36,000 — 4 lanes undivided (Primary) 16,000 18,000 20,000 22,000 24,000 -- 2 lanes undivided (Secondary) 5,000 7,500 10,000 12,500 15,000 -- * in maximum average daily traffic (ADT) The section of Main Street between Yorktown and Garfield Avenues is presently developed as a four lane divided highway, which carries an average traffic volume of approximately 15, 000 vehicles per day. Although Main Street is presently designated as a primary arterial between Beach Boulevard and Garfield Avenue, and was designated as a primary arterial between Garfield and Yorktown Avenues prior to 1976, it has been developed to major arterial standards in this area (i .e. , a divided highway with a 120 foot right-of-way) . Main Street was developed in this manner over a number of years, primarily due to land ownership patterns at the time of dedication and/or construction, and the historical perception of Main Street as a scenic entryway to the downtown residential and commercial areas . In light of these existing conditions, Main Street ' s capacity should be evaluated using major arterial standards on the above chart. An average traffic volume of 15, 000 vehicles per day indicates a Level of Service "A" , or an efficient level of operation. Projected traffic volumes for this segment of Main Street do not exceed 20, 800 vehicles per day, which also falls under Level of Service A. Land Use Existing land uses along this segment of Main Street include the Seacliff Village Shopping Center and Seacliff Office Park, the Pacific Ranch and Pier Pointe condominium complexes, and a number of undeveloped parcels and oil uses . On the west side of Main Street, the undeveloped parcels are zoned C2-0 (Community Business District combined with oil production) north of Seacliff Shopping Center, R2 (Medium Density Residential) between Clay Avenue and Holly Street, and R2 and C1 (Neighborhood Commercial) between Holly Street and Garfield Avenue. On the east side of Main Street, the undeveloped parcels are zoned R2 (Medium Density Residential) between Clay Avenue and Holly Street. General Plan designations in the vicinity are consistent with existing zoning. Right-of-Way Improvements The redesignation of Main Street as an arterial will not necessitate additional right-of-way dedication. Although full street improve- ments have not been installed along portions of the street, the full right-of-way width of 120 feet to 127 feet has been dedicated between Yorktown and Garfield. Circulation Element Amdmt -6- (9573d1)^ r From Yorktown Avenue north to Clay Avenue, Main Street is fully improved, including the median strip. The improvements fronting both the Seacliff Office Park and the Seacliff Village Shopping Center were completed in conjunction with the Pacific Ranch project, and included construction of the median from Clay Avenue to the Seacliff Office Park, and the installation of street lights in the Main Street median. From Clay Avenue to Holly Street, the pavement narrows, although there are still four lanes . There are currently no curbs, gutters, sidewalks or median improvements . The pavement will be widened, however, in conjunction with the Main Street Bikeway project currently in progress . From Holly Street to Garfield Avenue, the east side of Main Street is fully improved, including curbing on the east side of the median strip. These improvements were installed in conjunction with the Pier Pointe Condominiums . The west side of the street is unim- proved, however, the pavement will also be widened in conjunction with the bike trail project . Future Actions/Issues The reinstatement of Main Street as an arterial highway emphasizes the need to precisely plan the Gothard Street extension south of Ellis Avenue, particularly the intersection of Main and Gothard. The future alignment of Gothard Street was selected in 1976, and reaffirmed by Circulation Element Amendment 83-1 in 1983 . This alignment will result in more efficient traffic flow on Main Street and Garfield Avenue, as well as correct the problems with the existing alignment of Gothard, including a dangerous "S" curve, a grade change, and the five-way intersection with Main and Garfield. The tie-in of Gothard-Crystal with Main Street will need to be precise planned at a later date. A design for the proposed inter- section has not yet been adopted. V. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS Because the section of Main Street in question is already existing and substantially constructed to primary arterial standards, the environmental impacts of reinstating the arterial designation are minimal . Therefore, staff is recommending that a Negative Declaration be issued. Pursuant to environmental regulations in effect at this time, the Department of Community Development posted draft Negative Declaration No . 87-52 for ten days, and no comments, either verbal or written were received. Prior -to any action on Circulation Element Amendment No. 88-1, it is necessary for the Planning Commission and City Council to review and act on Negative Declaration No. 87-52 . Circulation Element Amdmt -7- . (9573d) , VI . RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission and City Council approve Negative Declaration No. 87-52 and approve by resolution Circulation Element Amendment 88-1 to reinstate Main Street as a primary arterial highway between Garfield Avenue and Yorktown Avenue. (See Figure 3) This designation will bring the City' s Circulation Element into conformance with the County' s Master Plan of Arterial Streets and Highways, and will complete a link in the City' s arterial system. MA:LP:gbm i Circulation Element Par_:lnnt -8- (9573d) �)-J AMENDMENTS I CIRCULATION PLAN OF ARTERIAL R rwM1 Cyr. 5f�45[M f.O.IKI STREETS AND HIGHWAYS �dy/y;; 6•>R I�S38S _ ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL © I RESOLUTION NO 4368-DE-12.!976 i LEGEND CITY O F i I _.-__. F R E_wAY STREET CAPACITY �. MA OR 45.000 HUNTINGTON BEACH -L -..r..,, PRIMARY 30.000 ORANGE COUNTY CALIFORNIA - SECONDARY 20.000 , a I NOTE. ----- SOLID LINES INDICATE EKISTIW. RiGNT OF WAY ' NO: NECESSARILt ULTIMATE RtGiiT DF MAY \ _ — De StiED LINES iNdCATE AREAS WHERE NO RIGr.T OF *AY EX,STi \ , 1 1 j •� r ' I I 11 1 7.r IEL 0 3 s A—J z u, a FIGU RE 3 —9— �� HE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION To Laura Phillips, Assistant Planner From ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES SECTION Subject ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION Date 12/10/87 FORM NO. 87-52 (Circulation Element Amendment No. 88-1) Applicant: City of Huntington Beach Community Development Department Planning Divisicn Request: Update Circulation Element of the General Plan to include Main Street extension between Garfield and Yorktown Location: Main Street between Garfield Avenue and Yorktown Avenue Back-p-round Staff has reviewed the environmental information form noted above and has determined that a negative declaration may be filed for the project. In view of this, a draft negative declaration was prepared and was published in the Daily Pilot and posted in the Office of the City Clerk for a ten (10) day public review period commencing 12/23/87 and ending 01/04/88 . If any comments regarding the draft negative declaration are received, you will be notified immediately. Recommendation The Environmental Resources Section recommends that the Planning Commi cai nn anri City Council approve Negative Declaration No. s7-99 finding that the proposed project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Mitigation Measures The attached mitigating measures will reduce potential environmental effects resulting from the project and are recommended as conditions of approval. Respectf lly submitted, C erine Miller O'Hara Assistant Planner CMO:gbm `7960d) APPEND 1 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM (To Be Completed By Lead Agency) I. Background 1. Name of Proponent �LLtt 4 L 141 QCI 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent QA 67.2-&-IA (o - .Z 3. Date of Checklist S4.bmitted �lir'i 16127 4. Agency Requiring Checklist 0 &/eytl "" ""''"",� S. Name of Proposal, if applicable hiYwjat4ay\ �I�ent.Q + 14�A1U_IId.mwf �D. BS'� �mvivmwv!}af Az-,e4.6mQA ND. 81-57— ll, Environmental lmpocts (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.) Yes mcry� Plo I. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures.? b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? _ c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? e, Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? f. Changes in deposition or erosion of bench sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? + 115 �w1 Yes Maylbe No g. Exposure of people or property to geolo- gic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? _ 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? C. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course of di- rection of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage pat- terns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, in- cluding but not limited to temperature, y dissolved oxygen or turbidity? —4- f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct odditioru or with- drawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supp lies? _ i. Exposure of people or property to water re- lated hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? 116 Yes No 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrvbs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, v rare or endangered species of plants? 11 C. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species.' d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? S. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)? X b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a sub- stantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? • 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? I G��GtclQ otic �{� a►tit�ldiu eat- w i 11 brig i o am f n mama— b'e'A"�14 �� d5 k7 '. u,D Gt+ l` � .=r 1� Yes Maybe No b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involves a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? b. Possible interference with an eff gency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan.' II. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? 12. housing. Will the proposal affect existing hous- ing, or create a demand for additional housing? 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing parking facilities, a demand for new parking? X c. Substantial impact upon existing transpor- tation systems'. d. Alterations to present patterns of circula- tion or movement of people and/or goods? e. Alterations to waterborne, roil or air traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 7� 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered govemmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? C. Schools? 118 Yes Ma be 1`b d. Parks or otter recreational focilities? e. Maintenance of public focilities, including roncis? f. Other governmental services? IS. Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? b. Substantial increase in demand upon exist- ing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy'. 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? _ b. Communications systems? C. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? 7� e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? 17. 1-iurnan Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities'. 20. Cultural Resources. a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic orctxoeological site? 119 )Lei fyo b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or oesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? c. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical charge which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or socred uses within the potential impact area? 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wild- life population to drop below self sus- taining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate . important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short- term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively con- siderable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Ill. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation IV. Determination (To be completed by the Lead Agency) 120 On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the envirorrnent, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case — because the mitigation measures described an an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environ- ment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Date T gnature �— For hI �, (Note: This is only a suggested form. Public 4nci/es*,M4/e d dev ix t -i format for initial studies.) 121 cT � RESOLUTION NO. 1388 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING CIRCULATION ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 8 8-1 TO THE GENERAL PLAN, DESIGNATING MAIN STREET A PRIMARY ARTERIAL BETWEEN GARFIELD AVENUE AND YORKTOWN AVENUE. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach desires to update and refine the General Plan in keeping with changing community needs and objectives, and WHEREAS, said amendment will bring the Circulation Plan of the City of Huntington Beach into conformance with Orange County' s Master Plan of Arterial Streets and Highways, and WHEREAS, a public hearing on adoption of Circulation Element Amendment No. 88-1 to the General Plan was held by the planning Commission on January 20, 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 hereby adopts 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. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach, California, on the 20th day of January, 1988, by the following roll call vote: AYES: + NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Mike Adams, Secretary Planning Commission Chairman 3 0�..