Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 83-3 - GRAHAM PLACE PROJECT - TH The Fieldstone Company,14 Corporate Plaza,Newport Beach,CA 92660(714) 851-8313 v January 3, 1985 � 'ram S City Clerk 7� City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: EIR 83-3 To whom It Ilay Concern: The City Council is scheduled to hear EIR 83-3 at its regular January 21 meeting. I respecfully request that this hearing be postponed until March 4 1985, to allow time for the Orange County Board of Supervisors to act on the findings of the Coastal Commission. Please let me know if this request can be accommodated. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, THE FIELDSTONE COMPANY A. S. Durham Project Manager ASD:eb cc: City Council James Palin, Director of Development Services Howard Zelefsky, Associate Planner Florence Webb, Senior Planner 21he Pieldsme Company, It Corporate Plans,Newport Beach,CA 92660(714) 851-8313 r January 3, 1985 City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: EIR 83-3 To Whom It May Concern: The City Council is scheduled to hear EIR 83-3 at its regular January 21 meeting. I respecfully request that this hearing be postponed until March 4 1985, to allow time for the Orange County Board of Supervisors to act on the findings of the Coastal Commission. Please let me know if this request can be accommodated. Thank you for your consideration. t Sincerely, THE FIELDSTONE COMPANY A. S. Durham Project Manager ASD:eb cc: City Council James Palin, Director of Development Services Howard 2elefsky, Associate Planner Florence Webb, Senior Planner 7/L� G�� N it 7(t(S1 5T,4: I`d6tl +t 4++i+r it; �{X °.y�� ¢¢' ��'�Y�J6�h'�r� „�>J�t,'1t' �!1� � k � f+��'1, t�fl�' P x p�' � ..•�__� �.0 i�..7!1f 1 i^^ I. r .1 i. � r � 1. l++flRi�n''{�+� �l�y/,`� � J•J 1 tll ��.{r.���t I�t�k��.•'S .'f;:�_,^�7, r 1 t^'�! t i ''d' +je � �y dt •l...S I['l111 �F '�'� �'�•w�.'r.,r i �.xsr....... .,• � JUS.PUSi4AE►" .�, .. I L'A'C j4d., 1FMETEq W 8212955 , • City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 I I,I,,,,I,I,I I,„I,►I I„I,,,,III Page 2 - Council Minutes - 9/4/84 Beverly Titus, Forrest Harold, Bill Bard, Ivan Legorutz, and Henry Borum urged Council to extend the moratorium prohibiting any use of the Ascon Landfill. Phillip_ Spiller, President of Ascon Landfill opposed the extension of the moratorium on the Ascon Landfill. He requested clarification as to the purpose of the moratorium. The City Attorney explained the .moratorium relationship to planning procedures. 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. Extensive discussion was held regarding the matter. The City Clerk presented Urgency Ordinance No. 2727 for Council consideration - "AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH IMPOSING A ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF THE PRESENT MORATORIUM ON THE EXCAVATION OF MATERIAL FROM THE ASCON LANDFILL." A motion was made by Finley, seconded by Bailey, adopt Urgency Ordinance No. 2727, after reading by title. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: _ AYES: Pattinson, MacAllister, Thomas, Kelly, Finley, Bailey NOES: None ABSENT: Mandic ' !e { RECESS - RECONVENE The Mayor called a recess of Council at 8:33 P.M. The meeting was reconvened at 8:38 P.M. J PUBLIC HEARING - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 83-3 - NOT CERTIFIED - GRAHAM PLACE PROJECT The Mayor announced that this was the day and hour set for a public hearing to consider Environmental Impact Report No. 83-3, an analysis of a General Plan Amendment and Pre-Zone request to redesignate 42.4 acres located in the unincorporated Bolsa Chica area of Orange County at the terminus of Graham Street between the Orange County Flood Control Channel and a point approximately 1400 feet south of Graham Street from planning reserve to low density residential. The applicant is requesting to pre-zone the property low density residential (R1). A copy of said Environmental Impact Report is on file the the Development Services Office. The City Clerk announced that all legal requirements for notification, publication and posting had been met, and that she had received no communications or written protests to the matter. Howard Zelefsky, Assistant Planner presented a staff report. Lynette Cervantes, representing Van Dell and Associates, presented a report regarding the matter. Page 3 - Council Minutes - 9/4/84 The Mayor declared the hearing open. Andy Durham, representing Fieldstone Company reminded Council that the public hearing was to consider the Environmental Impact Report and not the project. Lorraine Faber, President of Amigos de Bolsa Chica, stated that state agencies deemed the Environmental Impact Report inadequate. She stated that she believed the report was written in good faith but was premature. She referred to a letter from Signal Oil Company to the City Administrator dated August 30, 1984 urging Council to find Environmental Impact Report 83-3 to be inadequate. 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. Extensive discussion was held by Council. A motion was made by Finley, seconded by Thomas, to not certify Environmental Impact Report 83-3 as it was inadequate and premature. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: - MacAllister, Thomas, Finley, Bailey NOES: Pattinson, Kelly ABSENT: Mandic Mr. Durham inquired as to what could be done to make the Environmental Impact Report adequate. Mayor Kelly suggested he contact county and state agencies for suggestions. PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF CE 84-28 - DR NEIL FRIEDMAN - APPEAL GRANTED - CE 84-28 DENIED The Mayor announced that this was the day and hour set for a public hearing to consider an appeal filed by Thomas G. Harman, Attorney at Law, on behalf of Dr. Neil Friedman, to the Planning Commission's approval of Conditional Exception No. 84-28 granting a 47 space reduction in the required amount of parking for a proposed 56,000+ square foot medical office building on property zoned R5 (Office Professional) located on the south side of Newman Avenue, east of Beach Boulevard. The City Clerk announced that all legal requirements for notification, publication and posting had been met, and that she had received no communications or written protests to the matter. The Director of Development Services presented a staff report and aerial slides of the area. The Mayor declared the hearing open. Thomas Harman, Attorney representing Dr. Friedman, stated that he conducted a survey of patients- using the parking lot and that the survey showed patients F-i believed the parking to be inadequate. Clancy Yoder quoted Section 9791.11.1 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code pertaining to parking. He stated that he liked the project but believed the ordinance code should be followed. Page 15 - Council Minutes - 9/17/84 .� BUILDING AT OLD SHELL STATION SITE - MARINER STREET Councilman MacAllister requested staff to look into the complaint lodged by ki; Ralph LeMow opposing an office building and retail store complex on the old Shell site near his home on Mariner Drive. He requested staff to"look at the ingress/egress on Mariner Drive and the size of the building in relation to the size of the land. Councilman Thomas left the room. f EIR 83-3 - RECONSIDERED - RESCHEDULED AND CONTINUED TO 12/3/84 OR DATE BOLSA V CHICA APPROVED A motion was made by MacAllister, seconded by Finley, to reconsider action taken at the meeting of September 4, 1984 regarding Environmental Impact Report 83-3. The motion to reconsider carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: MacAllister, Kelly, Finley, Bailey, Mandic NOES: None ABSENT: Pattinson, (Thomas out of the room) . Councilman Thomas returned to the room. A motion was made by MacAllister, seconded by Kelly, to reschedule and continue consideration, of Environmental Impact Report 83-3 to either December 40 3, 1984 or after the Bolsa Chica status is determined, whichever happens first; and to request information from staff regarding discussion held by the Planning Commission regarding Environmental Impact Report 83-3. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: MacAllister, Kelly, Finley, Bailey, Mandic NOES: Thomas ABSENT: Pattinson LIBRARY FOUNTAIN - CONSERVATION METHODS - REPORT REQUESTED Councilman MacAllister requested a report from staff regarding the use of energy conservation ideas in conjunction with. the reactivation of the fountains at Central Library. Windmills and solar energy were possible sources mentioned. GOLF COURSE COMPLAINTS - REQUEST THAT CITY ATTORNEY OFFICE INVESTIGATE Councilman MacAllister requested that the City Attorney involve her office in the Meadowlark Golf Course issue pertaining to golf balls damaging residents property. STATE OF CALIFORNIA GEORGE DEULK-ME�JI`A'N.Gorrrno- STATE LANDS COMMISSION EXECUTIVE OFFICE 1807•13th Street KENNETH GORY,Controller Sacramento,California 96814 LEO T.McCARTHY,Lieutenant Governor JESSE R.HUFF,Director of finance CLAIRE T.DEDRICK Executive Officer F Of November 19, 1984 Ms Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk , City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 SUBJECT: Environmental Impact Report 1#83-3 Dear Ms. Wentworth: In response to your notice ( 8-23-84 ) of the publication of E. I .R. #83-31 this office phoned to request a copy of the document on 9-6-84. Having received no document, a second call was made to the phone number listed on the notice. This call, made on 11-6-84, was transferred to the Planning Department where John Lien of my staff left his name, address, etc. He was told that the document would be mailed that same day along with a status report on the hearing(s) . To date we have not received the specified mailing . Please send us a copy of E. I.R. #83-3 as soon as possible. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Sincerely, DWI T E. SANDERS Division of Research and Planning G r , The Fieldstone Company,14 Corporate Plaza,Newport Beach,CA 92660(714) 851.8313 U C_ < Y. N November 16, 1984 Z G 0 Rf � tn� c^ fa'�+rnm rs o City Clerk :.,. r City of Huntington Beach :x 2000 Main Street =? Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: EIR 83-3 To Whom It May Concern: The City Council is scheduled to hear EIR 83-3 at its regular December 3 meeting. I respectfully request that this hearing be postponed until January 21, 1985. Please let me know if this request can be accommodated. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, THE FIELDSTONE COMPANY A. S. Durham Project Manager ASD:eb cc: City Council James Palin, Director of Development Services Howard Zelefsky, Associate Planner Florence Webb, Senior Planner 1, Iyfa r:a._.r:frr'q�•1.�.t'.►rr.<•meryp�.L.•ar �/ti� •, ,� i r . J' � .s.a.• �S•..I15.• � ir, .Mr � A City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 >'•� �t �Am {4 i (.'.73 :'1 '�lt'!.I�.�� �!q.'�� �' ?� {� I I t, {yt ti, ��� !�' JrT i• ii- Page 15 - Council Minutes - 9/17/84 BUILDING AT OLD SHELL STATION SITE - MARINER STREET Councilman MacAllister requested staff to look into the complaint lodged by Ralph LeMow opposing an office building and retail store complex on the old Shell site near his home on Mariner Drive. He requested staff to% look at the ingress/egress on Mariner Drive and the size of the building in relation to the size of the land. Councilman Thomas left the room. / EIR 83-3 - RECONSIDERED - RESCHEDULED AND CONTINUED TO 12/3/84 OR DATE BOLSA v CHICA APPROVED A motion was made by MacAllister, seconded by Finley, to reconsider action taken at the meeting of September 4, 1984 regarding Environmental Impact Report 83-3. The motion to reconsider carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: MacAllister, Kelly, Finley, Bailey, Mandic NOES: None ABSENT: Pattinson, (Thomas out of the room) . Councilman Thomas returned to the room. �9 A' motion was made by MacAllister, seconded by Kelly, to reschedule and continue consideration of Environmental Impact Report 83-3 to either December 3, 1984 or after the Bolsa Chica status is determined, whichever happens first; and to request information from staff regarding discussion held by the Planning Commission regarding Environmental Impact Report 83-3. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: MacAllister, Kelly, Finley, Bailey, Mandic NOES: Thomas ABSENT: Pattinson LIBRARY FOUNTAIN - CONSERVATION METHODS - REPORT REQUESTED Councilman MacAllister requested a report from staff regarding the use of energy conservation ideas in conjunction with the reactivation of the fountains at Central Library. Windmills and solar energy were possible sources mentioned. GOLF COURSE COMPLAINTS - REQUEST THAT CITY ATTORNEY OFFICE INVESTIGATE Councilman MacAllister requested that the City Attorney involve her office in Ilk the Meadowlark Golf Course issue pertaining to golf balls damaging residents property. The Fieldstone Company, 14 Corporate Plaza,Newport Beach,CA 92660(714) 851-8313 f &e 9� 7 �y ems,, /.z/.� 1-7� September 10, 1984 City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: EIR 83-3 To Whom It May Concern: At its regular meeting on September 4, the City Council voted to not certify EIR 83-3 . Similar to the Planning Commission, the City Council did not cite any inadequacies of the report. Rather, the only objection expressed was the report' s timing vis-a-vis the overall planning activities for the Bolsa Chica. Because we feel that the Coastal Commission will take an action in the near future, thus resolving the Council' s concerns, we respectfully request that the City Council reconsider its action, and continue the matter to its December 3 meeting. Thank you for your attention. Sincerely, THE FIELDSTONE COMPANY A. S. Durham Project Manager ASD:eb cc: City Council James Palin, Director of Development Services Howard Zelefsky, Associate Planner a c Q h INC Y City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 The Fieldstone Company, 14 Corporate Plaza,Newport Beach, CA 92660(714) 851-8313 September 10, 1984 City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: EIR 83-3 To Whom It May Concern: At its regular meeting on September 4, the City Council voted to not certify EIR 83-3 . Similar to the Planning Commission, the City Council did not cite any inadequacies of the report. Rather, the only objection expressed was the report' s timing vis-a-vis the overall planning activities for the Bolsa Chica. Because we feel that the Coastal Commission will take an action in the near future, thus resolving the Council ' s concerns, we respectfully request that the City Council reconsider its action, and continue the matter to its December 3 meeting. Thank you for your attention. Sincerely, THE FIELDSTONE COMPANY A. S. Durham Project Manager ASD:eb cc : City Council dames Palin, Director of Development Services Howard Zelefsky, Associate Planner i V discussing litigation matters. ' RECESS - RECONVENE The Mayor called a recess of Council at 8:33 P.M. The meeting was reconvened at 8:38 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPORT REPORT 83-3 - NOT CERTIFIED - GRAHAM PLACE PROJECT The Mayor announced that this was the day and hour set for a public hearing to consider.Environmental Impact Report No. 83-3, an analysis of a General Plan Amendment and Pre-Zone request to redesignate 42.4 acres located in the unincorporated Bolsa Chica area of Orange County at the terminus of Graham. Street between the Orange County Flood Control Channel and a point approximately 1400 feet south of Graham Street from planning reserve to low density residential. The applicant is requesting to pre-zone the property low density residential (R1). A copy of said Environmental Impact Report is on file the the Development Services Office. The City Clerk announced that all legal requirements for notification, publication and posting had been met, and that she had received no communications or written protests to the matter. Howard Zelefsky, Assistant Planner presented a staff report. Lynette Cervantes, representing Van Dell and Associates, presented a report regarding the matter. The en.Mayor declared the hearing open. r Andy Durham, representing Fieldstone Company reminded Council that the public hearing was to consider the Environmental Impact Report and not the project. Lorraine Faber, President of Amigos Bolsa Chica, stated that state agencies deemed the Environmental Impact Report inadequate. She stated that she believed the report was written in good faith but was premature. She referred to a letter from Signal Oil Company to the City Administrator dated August 30, 1984 urging Council to find Environmental Impact Report 83-3 to be inadequate. 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. r Extensive discussion was held by Council. A motion was made by Finley, seconded by Thomas, to not certify Environmental Impact Report 83-3 as it was inadequate and premature. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: MacAllister, Thomas, Finley, Bailey 1 NOES: Pattinson, Kelly ABSENT: Mandic Mr. Durham inquired what could be done to make the Environmental Impact Report adequate. Mayor Kelly suggested he contact county and state agencies for suggestions. PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF CE 84-28 - DR NEIL FRIEDMAN The Mayor announced that this was the day and hour set for a public hearing to consider an appeal filed by Thomas G. Harman, Attorney at Law, on behalf of Dr. Neil Friedman, to the Planning Commission's approval of Conditional Exception No. 84-28 granting a 47 space reduction in the required amount of parking for a proposed 56,000+ square foot medical office building on property zoned RS (Office Professional) located on the south side of Newman Avenue, east of Beach Boulevard. The City Clerk announced that all legal requirements for notification, publication and posting had been met, and that she had received no communications or written protests to the matter. The Director of Development Services presented a staff report and aerial slides of the area. The Mayor declared the hearing open. ;B CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK September 6. 1984 The Fieldstone Company 13 Corporate Plaza Newport Beach, CA 92660 The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at its regular meeting held Tuesday. September 4, 1984, approved the Planning Commission's recommendation and did not certify Environmental Impact Report No. 83-3 (Graham Place Project). This is a final decision. You are hereby notified that pursuant to provisions of Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the State of California you have ninety days from September 6, 1984 to apply to the courts for judicial review. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact our office - 536-5227. Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk AMW:cb cc: City Attorney Gail Hutton Dir. of Development Services - James Palin (Telephone:714.536.5227) § 1094.5 SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS Part 3 Note 378 nmwlm for new• trim dr ante. 1'n•sr•od .. mine.) r.r no :,.inner had tw juriwdi.•tinn valirornin 1'urntplocnu lit Ln. .\ppealc W. and did not drivrntlttr mr.rits. \\'rstern Air (1:176) 127 t'nIA111r. :.Its. rli t'.A.:irl :."). ),lies lac. v, tobircki (1961) 12 Cal.Rptr. Trial court'a jodgnteut d.-uoug writ cif iIli. 101 V.A.-.r1399. mnndnre to compel tlireetor of ogrieultnre lrnet that letter diocharging senior typ- to net a.<idr hi% dreision revoking prtilinrt• ist eL•rk in offir•r of rnnnt% clerk Rtnted er's livensr ns nirerart pil.a in bn■inrs+t ••i Ihnt Nit-' w:tr guilt)• of mi•rr•nndurt in re- prat contra) wns revrr'49•d and roar rr• movint; ImWir ret•t.rd+ from the tiles awl ntnndcrl In Irial r,ntrt witli Jiret•linnn to mutilating and secrefiac them on various remand ettse to director fur purlto.c of dutch, whereas iu IrenrittR hefore county ,I rrr•nnsidering the prwrlty pre%innsly im• rit it Den iec t•ownsisr.lnn rvidrnre was in- Iwasitl, where it was found that norne of irrttluced only nit to whnt took pinee on site charges ngninst I+etitioner werr. not one of the dots. did lint rrqulrtt Nte dill• trupparted by evidenre. \\•initfirld v. Iriet r•unrt of nppertl nn nl•penl front judK- Director of Agriculture (llti_) lttb Col. ment nw•urding renior typi-t clerk writ td Rptr.019,29 C.A.311 20n. mandate, nftee roverning 11.•e Judgmeut of Proceeding for rrview of drnial by vont- the nuperior ourt, It, remand the matter misaioner of vorpnrntions of permit to to the (4•tnmit+sion for rt•.•oullideration, r•hnnge voting rights: of MLnrrhnldern whore there was a nimilnriti of farts sur- would he retnnndrrl to ►superior court for rounding retm.vnl of fire d.K•utncnls un :dl detertniuntinn whether there teas suli"Inn• (if lite dntey. l•ratt Y. Lrr.AllArlrs f_dnn• tint evidence to nnitpurt t..tamissiouet's ty Civil Memier Comminniou (1932) 2..13 fiudings, where court improperly deter. 11...1d 3,10S C.A'd 114. 1094.6. Judicial review; decisions of local agencies; petition; filing; time; record; decision and party defined; or- dinnnct:or resolution (a) Judicial review of any decision of a local agency, other than school district, as the term local agency is defined in Section 54951 of the Government Code, or of any commission, board, officer or agent t)lt reof, may be had pursuant to Section 10941) of this code only if the petition for writ of mandate pursuant to such section is filed °t:'ithin the time limits specified in this section. (b) Any such petition shall be filed not later than the 90th day following the date on which the decision becomes final. If there is no provision for reconsideration of the decision in any applicable provi- sion of any statute, charter. or rule, for the purposes of this section. the decisk� is final on the date it is made. If there is such provision for reconsideration, the decision is final for the purposc-s of this sec- tion upon the expiration of the period during which such reconsidera-. Linn can be sought; provided, that if iwonsideration is sotlg'ht pursu- ant to any such provision the decision is final for the purposes of this -;ration on the date that reconsideration is rejected. (c) The complete r(N'ord of the pr x•cccdings shall Its• prepnred by Ito! Ifxal a"PlIc•y or if', rcnlimis-:iml, 1)wird, officer, or agent which shade the derision and shall be riolivered to the petitioner within 90 days after he has filet) I written request therefor. The ltx•a) Agency may recover from the petitioner its actual costs for transcribing or otherwise preparing the record. Such record shall include the trap- . :ipt of iht. proceeding, ell pleadings, all notices and orders, any proposed decision by a hearing officer, the final decision, all admitted 674 Title 1 WRIT OF MANDATE § 1094.6 exhibits, all rejected exhibits in the possession of the local agency or Its commission, board, officer, or agent, all written evidence, and any other papers in the case. (d) If the petitioner files a request for the record ns specified in cuhriivisitm ((-) within 10 days after the dale the decision becomes fi- nal ttis provided in subdivision (b), the tittle within which a petition pursuant to Sec-tion 109-1.5 mny be filed shall he extended to not later than the 30th day following the date on which the record is either personally delivered or mailed to the petitioner or his attorney of rec- ord, if he has one. (e) As used in this section, decision means adjudicatory admin- istrative decision made, after hearing, suspending, demoting, or dis- missing an officer or employee, revoking or denying an application for a permit or a license, or denying an application for any retire- ment benefit or allowance. (f) In making a final decision as defined in subdivision (e), the local agency shall provide notice to the party that the time within which judicial review must be sought is governed by this section. As used in this subdivision, "party" means an officer or em- ployee who has been suspended, demoted or dismissed; a person whose permit or license has been revoked or whose application for a permit or license has been denied; or a person whose application for a retirement benefit or allowance has been denied. (g) This section shall be applicable in a local agency only if the governing board thereof adopts an ordinance or resolution making this section applicable. If such ordinance or resolution is adopted, the provisions of this section shall prevail over any conflicting provision in any otherwise applicable law relating to the subject matter. (Added by Stats.1976.c.276,p.581,§ 1.) Forms See West'e Califoruin Code Forms.Civil Procedure. LbrM References Adminivtrntive Lne• mtd l'roi4%lurr C.T.S. f ublir. Adminixtratl.e Bodier and C-722. Prat rtlure 1 193. Notes of Declslons In general I Iltnt public emplarmew rehttlans Itonnl Exhaustion of administrative remedlca 2 land exrin.ive juri,tAirtlon to determine w•hellwr the unfair pructlee chargett were Jnsorit4i. and, in view of traehrra' failure to r�lunntt their ndntinintrative remedies I. In general antler the Itntblit Art, trinl enurt erred in \t•hnnl Itttttrtra tmilnt.•rrl fr+-evint; of grnuting writ of tnnudate to rompel Pniser- trat•Itr.re tartaric. after 1-vinniuc ttf now intrwiew of district anti othrr% to rubtr ntbewd rear. whilr e-ourn.•t nrt;otintimim aalnri••r of rrrinin tenches,. Atnn+dnr Vail. w-err pending. nrguoldy wnm nn tutfair b•t lalnrntor,4 Axle'u t. Newlin praelicr iu viulutiuu of t1w Itoddn At-t so, 6971)1 151 Cul.11ptr. 724. 34 C.A;itl 251. 675 IN THE Superior Court OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 617 In and for the CountuntofOrange of Orange / Q _/ ( � 1 Ara-- 2e C4��/4 'C6 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PROOF OF PUBLICATION City Clerk PUBLIC HEARING ENVIROMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 83-3 GRAHAM PLACE PROJECT State of California ) County of Orange )ss ALICE PORCHE That I am and at all times herein mentioned was a citizen of YtIV>r�1tb��a the United States,over the age of twenty-one years,and that I "�be held by On City am not a party to,nor interested in the above entitled matter, Lehamber"oftb41;%u of Cao• that I am the principal clerk of the printer of the Beecb,`I � stioo r pom-. :Abe'Ith`dq HUNT. BEACH IND. REV. a newspaper of general circulation,published in the City of plu in the unm� HUNTINGTON BEACH 'lei of Ormp Couo01 .+iseo bt- f odCo �t7� Contra County of Orange and which newspaper is published for the ':na i yosot to 1100 disemination of local news and intelligence of a general charac- �o �d'O' ter, and which newspaper at all times herein mentioned had y°D��to pre:tooe and still has a bona fide subscription list of paying subscribers low density residential Ilttl.— and which newspaper has been established, printed and pub- m file is the vkonm°oD 4went: lished at regular intervals in the said County of Orange fora period exceeding one year, that the notice, of which the >mWla"7°" � annexed is a printed copy, has been published in the regular Carai gains isid�� and entire issue of said newspaper,and not in any supplement a83 3. thereof,on the following dates,to wit: . .mq be obta . i�oi at`the Clty'Clerk.2DW " 8tis'st:lluntinYtm Beeab.Cali(ar- . D• G1'ON BEACH'. 1984 lad.AUGUST 239 1984 :..:.-�.---- Rev.A36Gt3. I certify(or declare)under penalty of perjury that the forego- ing is true and correct. Dated at....GARDEN.GROVE.......................... California,this .24th.day o ug....19.. ...AL.ICE.P.ORCHE. �<<�• Signature Cw-� \1� MA www�• The Fieldstone Company, 14 Corporate Plaza,Newport Beach,CA 92660(714) 851-8313 August 29, 1984 y✓�� Cil�C'F jr!IFo City Council City of Huntington Beach '�i'jG 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: EIR 83-3 Members of the City Council : On Tuesday, September 4, the Council will be asked to consider certification of EIR 83-3, which concerns the 42 .4-acre parcel located at the southern terminus of Graham Street. As the applicant, I respectfully request that the Council consider the following: • The hearing is solely to address whether or not the EIR meets CEQA guidelines as an informational document. The two emotion-filled hearings before the Planning Commission were dominated by speakers supporting or attacking the merits of the project itself. It was not then, and is not now, appropriate to address site-specific issues; rather, such issues would normally be considered at the tentative tract map and/or conditional use permit stages . That consideration of the site-specific issues weighed heavily on the Planning Commission' s decision is evidenced by the fact that no informational deficiencies were cited in its recommendation that the EIR be denied certification. • The city' s planning staff has recommended certification of the EIR. The people who comprise that staff may well be the best qualified to interpret CEQA guidelines . • Certification of the EIR would serve to acknowledge only that a good faith effort at full disclosure has been made by the city-appointed EIR consultants, Van Dell and Associates. Certification would not, and could not, commit the City to go ahead with the project; it is only the first of many steps necessary to gain to proper entitlements . In summary, I ask only that the hearing focus on the EIR as the disclosure document it is meant to be. Many homeowners in the existing tracts adjacent to our parcel (i.e. , The Landing, Bolsa Landmark Homes, and Cal Classics By The Sea) have expressed an interest in speaking on behalf of our project. I have discouraged them from doing so Tuesday night, as that would only continue to cloud the issue. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully submitted, THE FIELDSTONE COMPANY A. S. Durham Project Manager 1 ASD:eb ,fib REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Date August 22, 1984 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson, City Administrator Prepared by: James W. Palin, Director, Development Services �o O Subject: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 8 3-3, GRAHAM PLA E PROJECT Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE : Transmitted for your consideration is Environmental Impact Report No. 83-3 which assesses the potential environmental affect of a proposed general plan amendment and pre-zone for 42.4 acres of property within the unincorporated Bolsa Chica area of Orange County at the terminus of Graham Street between the Orange County Flood Contro1 District Wintersburg Channel and a point approximately 1400 feet south of Graham Street. The pre-zone change is being processed concurrently with a general plan land use element amendment (LUE 84-1, Area 2 .1) to redesignate the subject property from planning reserve to low density residential. The general plan and pre-zone are preliminary steps taken by the applicant to request annexation of the site into the City of Huntington Beach. RECOMMENDATION : The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council not certify EIR 83-3 as presented to them onJune 19 , 1984 . As an alternative action, staff recommends that the City Council certify Final EIR 83-3 which has been completed in compliance with CEQA and the EIR Guidelines. ANALYSIS: Applicant: The Fieldstone Company 13 Corporate Plaza Newport Beach, California 92660 Request: Certification of EIR 83-3 (the Graham Place Project) . PIO 4/81 Location: Subject property is located in the unincorporated Bolsa Chica area of Orange County at the terminus of Graham Street between the Orange County Flood Control District Wintersburg Channel and a point approximately 1400 feet south of Graham Street. Planning Commission Action on June 19 , 1984: ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY MI RJAHANGI R, ENVI RON MENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 83-3 WAS FOUND INADEQUATE , WITH THE RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT IT NOT BE CERTIFIED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE : AYES: Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: Higgins, Schumacher ABSENT: None - ABSTAIN : Erskine Discussion : Final Environmental Impact Report No. 83-3 (Graham Place Project) has been prepared as an objective assessment of the individual and collective environmental impacts associated with the development of approximately 98 single family homes and approximately 114-119 townhomes. Specifically, the EIR addresses the approval of a general plan amendment and pre-zone which would redesignate 42. 4 acres from planning reserve to low density residential. The 42.4 acres are located in the unincorporated Bolsa Chica area of Orange County. The pre-zone would designate the property low density residential (R 1) . The City has the authority to designate land uses and pre-zone unincorporated areas within its sphere of influence. The EIR was prepared at the request of. the applicant (Fieldstone Company) after consultation with the Development Services Department staff regarding the potential impact associated with the proposed project. The environmental consulting firm of Vandell and Associates was engaged by Development Services Department to prepare the EIR. Section 15160 from State EIR Guidelines, requires that the City "provide adequate time for other public agencies and members of the public to review and comment on an EIR that has been prepared" . The draft EIR was distributed to the agencies and individuals listed on the attached distribution list. Persons reviewing the draft EIR were given 45 days to submit comments regarding adequacy to the City. Section 15006, State EIR Guidelines, states that the basic purposes of CEQA are to: v -2- 7-18-84 - RCA 1. Inform governmental decision makers and the public about the potential significant environmental effects of proposed activities ; 2. Identify ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced; 3. Prevent significant avoidable damage to the environment by requiring changes in projects through the use of alternatives or mitigation measures when a governmental agency finds the changes to be feasible; 4. Disclose to the public the reasons why a governmental agency approved the project in a manner the agency chose." In the staff ' s analysis, final EIR 83-3 is adequate to enable the City Council to accomplish the purposes stated above. Section 15012 of the State EIR Guidelines states that "environmental impact report is an informational document which, when fully prepared in accordance with the CEQA and State EIR Guidelines, will inform public decision makers and the general public of the environmental effects of the project they propose to carry out or approve . . . While CEQA requires that major consideration by given to preventing environmental damage, it is recognized that public agencies have obligations to balance other public objectives including economic and social factors, in determining how a project should be approved" . Section 15150 of the State EIR Guidelines states that, "an EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision makers with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes into account environmental assessments. An evaluation of environmental effects of a proposed project need not be exhaustive, for the sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in the light of what is reasonably feasible. Disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate. The courts have looked, not for perfection, but for adequacy, 'completeness and a ood faith effort at full disclosure" . EIR 83-3 meets the intent or the above sections of the State EIR guidelines. It should be noted that the applications for the land use element amendment and pre-zone change pertaining to Graham Place were accepted by the Department of Development Services on August 17, 1983. Section 15108 of the EIR Guidelines states, "with a private project , the lead agency shall complete and certify the final EIR as provided in Section 15090 within one year after the date when the lead agency accepted the application as complete" . "Section 15090 states the following, "the lead agency shall certify that: (a) the final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA; and (b) the final EIR was presented to the decision making body of the lead agency and that the decision making body reviewed and considered the information contained in the final EIR prior to .3 -3- 7-18-84 - RCA �� approving the project" . Environmental Status: After completing an initial study, the staff concluded that an EIR would be required to address the potentially significant effects of the proposed project prior to processing a general plan amendment and pre-zone. The scope and depth of information discussed in the EIR does satisfy the requirement of the California Environmental Quality Act for entitlements of use. Certification of .this EIR does not in any way obligate the City Council to carry out the project or any project alternatives which are described in the EIR. If in the future new or revised concepts or information becomes available they will be addressed environmentally either by modifying the EIR or conducting additional environmental assessment to a lesser degree. In conclusion, staff is requesting that the City Council certify that it has considered the information contained in the final EIR prior to the Planning Commission taking action on the land use element amendment and pre-zone. FUNDING SOURCE : Not applicable. ALTERNATIVE ACTION : As an alternative action, the staff recommends that the City Council certify the final EIR 83-3 which has been completed in compliance with CEQA and the State EIR Guidelines. This will allow the Planning Commission to take action on the General Plan Amendment and Pre-Zone Change request. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Planning Commission minutes dated June 19, 1984 2. Mitigation Matrix for Final EIR 83-3 3. Letter requesting continuance, dated July 24 , 1984 CWT :JWP: HZ:j lm 0960d A -4- 7-18-84 - RCA Minutes , H. B. Planning Commission June 19 , 1984 Page 6 3 . The proposed use shall comply with all fire and building codes prior to the sale or lease of automobiles within the existing building. 4 . No outside display of vehicles for sale or lease will be permitted. AYES: Higgins, Winchell , Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: . None ABSENT-- None ABSTAIN: None Applicant was advised of the appeal period and procedure . PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS : ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 83-3 (Cont. from April 24 , 1984) An- analysis of a general plan amendment and prezone request to redesignate 42 . 4 acres located in the unincorporated Bolsa Chica area of Orange County at the terminus of Graham Street between the Orange County Flood Control Channel and a point approximately 1400 feet south of Graham Street from planning reserve to low density residential, and to prezone the same property low density residen- tial (R1) . Commissioner Erskine announced that he will continue to abstain from discussion and voting on this item. Howard Zelefsky briefly discussed new information distributed to the Commission and informed the Commission of letters received from three state agencies in regard to the EIR. The Department of Fish and Game maintains its position that the EIR should not be certified (a position with which City planning staff disagrees) ; the Coastal Conservancy' s letter indicates that the project is not incompatible with the planning efforts in the Bolsa Chica; and the County EMA repeats its past concerns. Florence Webb updated the Commission on the status of ongoing plans for the Bolsa Chica and described the recently adopted City Council resolution outlining the City' s concerns in the areas of circula- tion, service delivery, land use planning , and ocean access. Tom Livengood directed that this resolution be circulated to interested groups in the community. Ms. Webb pointed out that an EIR is intended only to be a good faith effort to address environmental information available at the time it is prepared. In reply to the comments received in regard to the timing of the proposal , she said that any future information which may surface as a result of the County' s or the Conservancy ' s Q -6- 6-19-84 - P .C. �OF Minutes, H .B. Planning Commission June 19, 1984 Page 5 AYES : Higgins, Winchell/' ngood , Erskine , Schumach r , Mirjahangir/ NOES: None SENT: Porter A TAIN : None Marc Por r arrived a a meeting at this bin and took over t e hair (6 : p.m. ) . Because i was not yet 7 : 00 p.m. e hour f which the public hearing on nvironmental Impac Report No. -3 had been ad- vertised, Ch irman Porter d' ected that a on-public hearing item be heard t this ti ITEM NOT FOR PUB C EARING: SITE PLAN AMEND NT 0. 84-10 Applicant: A trans A request to p e leasing nd sal iles within an existing 13 , 165 square f of bui d ' in a d se development located on the east side and St a - roximately 1200 feet south of Heil Avenu Michael Adams ex fined th to rep r already is taking place in the subjec uilding Becau a the mixed use nature of the total pro) it is ec ssary t trade off the square footage which wi be use y e prop a au a ing for a like area elsewh e in t deve pment bu e p entage of commercial will emain a same - app ' atel percent out of a maximum allowable percen f has e ined that this transfer from one uite to r wil of affe t the onsite parking or other d elopm co ider ons within e project*. The Commission a ew the request and dis ussed the level of commercial ac v' t n this particular pr ' Commissioner Winchell not there appears t a gre deal of traffic congestion site, and st .€ was dir ed w the mix, perce e , a e comm rcial an eport back for Commissi s informat' ON MOTI ENGOOD AND S OND BY HIGGINS S L N AMENDMENT NO. 84 0 WAS APPROVED WI THE FOLLOWING ITIONS ND RESOL TION NO. 1263 WA PPROVED AS RE D TO PERMIT UTO LEAS NG WITHIN THE D ELOPMENT, BY FOLLOWING VOTE: CO DITIONS OF APP OVAL: The site plan and floor plans received and dated February 27 , 1984 , shall be the approved layout. 2 . All previous conditions of approval contained within Condi- tional Use Permit No. 80-16 shall remain in effect. -5- 6-19-84 - P.C. Minutes , H. B. Planning Commission June 19 , 1984 Page 7 t plans can be addr.(�ssed in the future , with the possibility of a new environmental documentation if such plans result in drastic changes in the existing conditions . Ms. Webb also explained the one-year deadline for the EIR, which expires August 17 , 1984 , and emphasized the need for action to be taken in some manner before that date so that the EIR does not automatically . -become approved. The public hearing was reopened. Lynette Cervantes from Van Dell & Associates explained the mitigation matrix and the other supplementary information sub- mitted, adding that these items will be incorporated into the _final EIR. Chairman Porter directed that the testimony given at -this meeting also be incorporated as part of the documenta- tion, by reference or in the file. Ms. Cervantes discussed the Woodward Clyde report for the area in regard to liquefaction, subsidence , and surface faulting. She said the report indicates that liquefaction is likely to occur in the area south of the subject property; that the sub- sidence rate for the subject property is only moderate ( . 2" -`for subject parcel, . 3" for the existing adjacent residential , and-l" per year for the oil fields) ; and surface faulting is not considered a problem on the site which is 1000 feet from the north branch of the Newport/Inglewood fault. Ms. Cervantes further informed the .'Planning Commission that her firm had held meetings with.. tne State agencies to try to ascertain precisely what they wanted altered in the EIR, and were given no specif1 mitigations or methodology; the overriding concern of those agencies was with the timing of the project. She expressed the opinion that this project would not preclude any of the planning options for the ,land use plan for the Bolsa Chica and noted that all of the impacts identified in the Woodward Clyde report are mitigable. Darlene Frost, Project Manager for Signal Lan6iark, said she felt that there is insufficient information in the EIR to make a determination as to whether the impacts have been adequately addressed. She questioned the City' s jursidiction over the project, conceding that the City does have a legitimate planning interest but the jurisdiction rests with the County and the Conservancy. Ms. Frost indicated that Fish and Game,'; in a recent letter to the Fieldstone Company , had said that••. 75 per- cent of the subject site is considered as wetlands by that agency. It was her contention that it is too soon in the planning process to approve the EIR and that any approval would be open to challenge; she urged to Commission to at least table - the- document until planning has been completed for the total : Bolsa Chica. A# -7- 6-19-84 - P .C . Minutes , H.B. Planning Commission June 19 , 1984 Page 8 Andy Durham, representing the Fieldstone Company , spoke in sup- port of the EIR, saying that it is consistent with both the Bolsa Chica. planning efforts and with the resolution adopted by the Huntington Beach City Council. In response to questioning from Chairman Porter, Mr. Durham said that his company is prepared to engageAn additional environmental assessment on the property at some point in the future during the entitlement stage if necessary. Rhoda Martyn speaking for the Amigos De Bolsa Chica, said that their review has found a number of important and substantive con- cerns still unaddressed: 1) the desilting basin ; 2) a critical lack-of; information on elevations ; 3) no response has been made to the comments of the Department of Fish and Game ; and 4) geo- technical concerns need to be addressed. She concluded by saying that-it is clear that the EIR does not meet the requirements of the law and further information must be provided before it is approved. Dick Harlow, representing Fieldstone, addressed some of the com- ments 'submitted. In speaking to the elevations , he noted that the bulkhead is really dependent on the adoption of one of the plans for the Bolsa Chica itself - as the area presently exists there is no need -for any fill to accommodate development on the subject prop- erty. z.He also expressed the opinion that the EIR is consistent with the'-County' s and the Conservancy' s plans. Dean Albrite spoke to protest what he termed the "giving away" of natural resources such as the Bolsa Chica in the State of Calif- ornia. There were no other persons to speak for or against the EIR, and the public hearing was closed. Very extensive discussion took place regarding the timing and pro- cessing of the EIR, the definition and treatment of wetlands , and the adequacy of the EIR in the areas of elevations , biological re- sources, geotechnical impacts , the desilting basin, etc. The Commission considered whether or not it is possible to certify the environmental document for this small parcel of the Bolsa Chica when the total planning for the entire area is not completed. Staff pointed out that the County has already certified an EIR for the total area, which will go before the Coastal Commission. Secretary Palin explained that the EIR under review here has been prepared as a first step in the process of annexation, although no application for annexation has been received by the City. If the EIR is certi- fied and the City adopts the requested General Plan amendment and prezoning, all three items (EIR, amendment, and zoning) would have to go before the Coastal Commission for certification, as this area is not a part of the City' s Local Coastal Plan and permitting auth- ority remains with the Coastal Commission unless and until the area falls within the City' s boundaries . -8- 6-19-84 - P.C . �� Minutes , H.B. Planning Commission June 19 , 1984 Page 9 In the discussion regarding elevations , Commissioner Livengood 'suggested modifying the EIR language to delete the word "minor" from the description. Ms. Cervantes indicated that as the property exists now there are minor alterations , but the testi- mony presented by the Amigos de Bolsa Chica was made in refer- ence to the possible tidal influence of a possible future ocean cut. She indicated that with the introduction of the tidal barrier there would be a difference, but the distance between the location of that barrier and the subject property should provide adequate space to take up those elevations and meet the existing grades. It was her opinion that merely changing the wording would not be sufficient to mitigate their concern. -In the discussion on wetlands , Commissioner Winchell said that the document assumes the Signal Bolsa definition of wetlands as . opposed to that of the Department of Fish and Game. By starting with that assumption, the impacts that might be true using the expertise of Fish and Game have not been addressed; these im- pacts should be included in the EIR also, or at least a reference made that Fish and Game does present a different definition of wetlands. In this regard, Howard Zelefsky clarified the contents of the letter from Fish and Game to the Fieldstone Company as saying regarding wetland acreage, utilizing perhaps 75 percent (or 30 acres) would have to be ensured. On the other hand, it is not possible to restore 30 acres due to surrounding development. Accordingly, Fieldstone' s restoration would occur offsite. " He noted that this information could be incorporated into the document and distributed to the community. Also in this regard, Florence Webb quoted the letter from the Coastal Conservancy (charged with the responsibility of preparing the Habitat Conservation Plan and acting as "middleman" in the Bolsa Chica planning process) as stating: "It is highly unlikely that the HCP and the Fieldstone plans would be incompatible . . only issues are the acres of wetlands Fieldstone must restore and the size and nature of. the settlement basin. " A MOTION WAS MADE BY HIGGINS AND SECONDED BY SCHUMACHER TO ACCEPT FINAL EIR 83-3 AND RECOMMEND IT TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR CERTIFI- CATION. MOTION FAILED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES : Higgins, Schumacher NOES : Winchell , Livengood , Porter , Mirjahangir ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Erskine Further discussion ensued concerning the adequacy of the informa- tion in the EIR, the time constraints imposed by law upon the processing of the EIR, and the desirability of action being taken which would enable the City Council to conduct public hear- ings prior to the August 17 date upon which the EIR would automatically be considered certified. Legal counsel advised that a finding of inadequacy with a recommendation to the City Council for denial would move the public hearing process ahead for Council consideration. �� -9- 6-10-84 - P.C . Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission June 19 , 1984 Page 10 ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 83-3 WAS FOUND INADEQUATE, WITH A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT IT NOT BE CERTIFIED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Winchell , Livengood, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: Higgins , Schumacher _ ABSENT:. None ABSTAIN: Erskine - i A MOTION WAS MADE BY WINCHELL TO ADD AS A FINDING TO THE ABOVE ACTION THAT A KEY REASON FOR FAILURE TO CERTIFY THE EIR WAS THE ABSENCE OF A FINAL LOCAL COASTAL PLAN FOR THE ENTIRE BOLSA CHICA AREA TO PERMIT IDENTIFICATION OF SPECIFIC, SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES; E.G. , BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES , ELEVATIONS, THE DESILTING BASIN , ETC. The motion was discussed by the Commission, and died for lack of a second. The meeting recessed at 8 : 20 and reconvened at 8 : 30 p.m. ZONE- CASE NO. 84-3/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 84-11 (Cont. from 6-5-84) Applicant: Ascon Properties Inc. To permit a change of zone from LUD-O (Limited Use District com- bined with Oil) to LUD-OI-Q (Limited Use District combined with Oil Production with a "Q" (Qualified) Suffix) for property located on the southwest corner of Hamilton Avenue and Magnolia Street. Howard Zelefsky reported that the notification problem has been corrected and all property owners within 2000 feet of the subject property have now been notified. Mr. Zelefsky reviewed the pro- posed conditions of approval for the "Q" Suffix in regard to limitation of the site area, sound proofing, and access , and called attention to the recommended change in conditions to require that drilling not proceed until final site characterization test results have been reviewed by the Planning Commission at a noticed public hearing. He informed the Commission that the -01 request is for an approximately one-acre portion of the site in the southwest cor- ner of the property; this site is 15 feet below the landfill and is an area where no prior dumping has occurred. The Commission duscussed the language of the moratorium and consid- ered whether or not oil drilling would constitute "removal , " ex- pressly prohibited by the moratorium on this property. The public hearing was opened. John Lindsey, Vice President of Ascon Properties Inc. , addressed the Commission in support of his proposal. He indicated that they plan 10 wells for the area, and agreed that nothing could take place -10- 6-19-84 - P.C. EIR 83-3 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH MITIGATION MATRIX JUNE 1984 Van Dell and Associates, Inc. �o Y EIR :SSCE/ COMMENT 6 DETERMINATION OF IMPLE- DEIR PAGE REF. RESPONSE REF. MITIGATION MEASURES ' ' ' 'SOURCE MENTATION AT THE TIME OF: Landform/ H-3, N-3 The project proponent should coordinate the timing Draft Grading permit p. 3-3 of development with the availability of suitable EIR fill material from Bolsa Chica dredging operations or flood control channel improvements. Landform/ A haul route for import earth which avoids, to the Draft Grading permit p. 3-3 extent feasible, existing residential areas should EIR be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer. Geotechnical/ K-6 If the potential for liquefaction is determined to Draft Tentative map/ p. 3-7 be high during subsequent more detailed studies EIR grading permit completed at the tentative map review level, appropriate foundation design, soil densification or other appropriate measures should be incorporated into the project's design. Geotechnical/ K-6 An evaluation of peat deposits on-site should occur. Draft Tentative map/ p. 3-7 If present, appropriate measures such as surcharging, . EIR grading permit removal or other mitigating measures should be implemented. Geotechnical/ F-5, K-6,-12 If additional geotechnical studies are required, their Draft Tentative map/ p. 3-7 findings and recommendations should be included in the EIR grading permit project's design in accordance with the provisions of the Alquist-Priolo Act. Geotechnical/ K-6 Subsidence should be taken into account when building Draft Grading permit/ p. 3-7 elevations are established and structural design is EIR Building permit conducted. Geotechnical/ F-5, K-6,-12 The findings and recommendations of other geotechnical Draft Tentative map/ p. 3-7 studies of the Bolsa Chica lowlands subsequently EIR grading permit completed for the County of Orange or other agencies should be reviewed by the City for their relevancy to this project. Water Resources/ I-3, 14, Maintain the infiltration capacity of the site and Draft Tentative map/ p. 3-18 J-15, K-13 improve the storage capabilities of the site by direct- EIR grading permit 0-2, Q-5 tang flow through small parks, grass-lined swales, or natural open space areas to reduce runoff before dig- charging offsite. 1 EIR ISSUE/ COMMENT & DETEMINATIUN OF 1:;Pi.E- DEIR PAGE REF. RESPONSE REF. MITIGATION MEASURES SOURCE KENTATION AT THE TIME OF: Water Resources/ J-13, K-3, The County may require the owner to improve that Draft Tentative,map, •'`'` p. 3-18 0-2, Q-5 portion of the Channel to its ultimate section. EIR The Wintersburg Channel should also be lined with rip-rap. Coordination between the City and County should occur to determine the responsibility of the proposed project in upgrading existing drainage facilities. Water Resources/ H-4, K-3, Allocation of funds by the applicant to contribute Draft Tentative map p. 3-18 0-2, Q-5 to the additional pumping capacity for the Slater EIR Pump Station. Permission must be obtained from the County and City of Huntington Beach to divert addi- tional drainage area into the Slater Channel. Water Resources/ Q-1 Building pads oust be one-foot above the 100-year Draft Tentative map p. 3-18 water surface. The potential for sea-flooding EIR above 100-year level should be investigated and safeguarded against. Water Resources/ I-4 Q-1 The need for a barrier (i.e., wall and/or berm) Draft Tentative map p. 3-19 Q-lA, 21 to mitigate the potential for tidal influence EIR should be evaluated. Water Resources/ I-4, 15 Sediments generated during construction from the Draft Grading permit p. 3-19 project can be reduced by a street cleaning program. EIR Water Resources/ P-1 Erosion control measures should be incorporated into Draft Grading permit p. 3-19 final grading plans for the project to minimize EIR increases in erosion and sedimentation during the construction phases of development. Water Resources/ P-1 Disruption or alteration of existing groundcover Draft Grading permit p. 3-19 and dike system in advance of grading should be EIR avoided. Clearing operations should be limited to the areas planned for immediate development.' Water Resources/ P-1 Timely seeding and re-vegetation of graded slopes, Draft Grading'permit p. 3-19 and use of temporary erosion control and sediment EIR collection devices during grading is recommended. Water Resources/ I-5 During construction, direct on-site drainage away Draft Grading permit p. 3-19 from any manufactured slopes and maintain all runoff EIR at a very low velocity utilizing methods such as gravel sandbags across curbs. V• �J . o EIR ISSUE/ COMMENT 6 ....... '•"c; z DETERMINATION OF IMPLE- DEIR PAGE REF. RESPONSE REF. MITIGATION MEASURES ""' SOURCE MENTATION AT THE TIME OF: Water Resources/ I-5 The applicant should maintain a private desilting Draft Grading permit P. 3-19 basin during construction activities. EIR Biological Construction equipment and earth materials should be Draft Grading permit Resources/ J-24, 1-24 confined to the project site and should not be permit- EIR p. 3-27 ted to encroach into other areas of the adjacent lowlands. 31ological Project grading and construction should be concen- Draft Tentative map Resources/ J-6, I-24 trated in the period between August 15 and December EIR p. 3-27 15 or a temporary, removable barrier should be erected at the project boundary facing the-lowlands. Biological The City of Huntington Beach should coordinate this Draft Tentative map/' Resources/ E-4, J-23 development with the County Local Coastal Program EIR Coastal Development p. 3-27 (LCP) for Bolas Chica to ensure adequate compensation Permit of moderately important habitat which would be' lost. The Applicant/Developer should be required to parti- cipate/contribute funding to this program in an equi- table manner as determined through further definition of wetlands during the LCP approval process. Biological A barrier should be erected along the eastern and Draft Tentative Map/Conditional Resources/ J-24, N-2, southern property line consisting of a high block wall EIR Use Permit (CUP) p. 3-27 which would provide a visual screen and noise .attenu- ation structure. Biological Native plants should be used in landscaped borders to Draft Tentative map Resources/ provide additional faunal habitats. EIR p. 3-27 Biological Night lighting should be shielded and directed away. Draft Tentative map/CUP Resources/ from any open space preserves. EIR p. 3-28 Biological Project implementation may require review and Draft Department of Resources/ approval by the California Department of Fish and EIR Fish 6 Game 1601/1603, p. 3-28 Game and Army Corps of Engineers. Permit Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 Permit 3 EIR ISSUE/ COM:•1ENT 6 DETERMINATION OF IMPLE- . DEIR PAGE REF. RESPONSE REF. MITIGATION MEASURES SOURCE MENTATION AT THE TIME OF: I Transpor- An additional project access point should be provided Draft CUP/Tentative map tation/Cir- to reduce traffic on Neargate to a level not-to-exceed EIR culation/ D-1 2,000 daily trips. Submittal of additional traffic p. 3-41 data at that time may be necessary to substantiate the reduction of traffic on Neargate to 2,000 ADT, which can be accomplished through various site plan modifications. Transpor- Direct access through.the project site to the proposed Draft Tentative map tation/Cir- regional bikeway along the Wintersburg Channel should EIR culation/ Q-23 assured. p. 3-41 Air Quality/ Prescribed watering techniques will be employed to Draft Grading permit p. 3-48 partially mitigate the impact of construction-gener- EIR ated dust. Air Quality/ Energy Conservation practices required by state energy Draft Building permit - p. 3-48 regulations will have the secondary effect of limiting EIR stationary source pollutantrt both on- ,and-off-site. Air Quality/ Vehicular emissions will be reduced through legisla- Draft Building permit p. 3-48 tive exhaust emission controls, and the extent to EIR which mass transit is provided and nearby employment centers are created. Noise/ 0-3 Proper noise attenuation can be achieved with the Draft Building Permit p. 3-55 improvement in exterior building shell materials 9IR structure. Noise/ 1-28 A preliminary acoustical engineering report or an Draft Tentative map, p. 3-55 update to the report prepared for this document EIR Building permit (Appendix G) should be submitted. Shielding may be by berms, walls, and combinations of these two screening elements. Noise/ During construction, internal combustion engine- Draft Grading permit, p. 3-55 powered devices should be adequately muffled and EIR Building permit pumps, compressors, and generators should be kept away from the existing residential areas. Trucking of fill dirt should be limited to weekday daylight hours and should be routed away from,existing residential areas as much as possible. a t� Z • 0- 1 e. EIR ISS& COMMENT a DETEKMINATION OF I'PL.E- DEIR PAGE REF RESPONSE REF MITIGATION MEASURES SOURCE MENTATION AT THE TI%IE OF r + rr Land Use/ Specific design of the proposed project (i a archi- Draft Site plan p 3-60 tectural treatments) will be evaluated in detail , EIR Tentative map during the site plan review, tentative tract map and planned residental development permit review process Land Use/ Adequate buffer areas, screening, setbacks, aesthetic Draft Tentative map p 3-60 treatments, etc , will minimize conflict between EIR proposed land use for the site and existing Bolas Chica open space Land Use/ Q-21 Coordination should be pursued regarding the linear Draft Tentative map p 3-60 park proposed by the County of Orange EIR Land Use/ Annexation to the City of Huntington Beach will Draft LAFCO and Orange p 3-60 require approval from the Local Agency Formation EIR County Sanitation Commission (LAFCO) annexation to the Orange County District Sanitation District #11 should occur concurrently Annexation with LAFCO proceedings Relevant Application for 1601 and/or 1603 permits from the Draft Department of Planning Department of Fish and Game may be required prior to EIR Fish L Game Proggrams/ implementation of the proposed plan 1601/1603 permits p 3-76 Relevant P-1 If determined applicable, ultimate development must Draft U S Army Corps Planning be in conformance with Section 404 permit requirements EIR of Engineers Proggrams/ of the U S Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 p 3-76 Permit Relevant A-4, E-2,3,4, Mitigation should include an effort for coordination Draft Tentative map/ Planning F-6, I-8, between the proposed plan and the progress of an EIR Coastal Develop- Pro rams/ 1-1, K-2 approved LCP by the Coastal Commission ment Permit p 3-76 �iR i�SCi'/ COPI?i�Vi 4 UETk:Kl1IiJAT1UN OF 1;;PLE- 6EIR PAGE REF. RESPONSE REF. MITIGATION MEASURES SOURCE MENTATION AT THE TIME OF: Relevant Annexation to City of Huntington Beach and Orange Draft LAFCO and Orange . Planning County Sanitation District #11 will be required. EIR County Sanitation Proggrams/ District p. 3-76 Annexation Visual/ A landscaped area and/or wall around the proposed Draft Tentative map Aesthetics/ K-21 development should be provided to act as a buffer EIR p..3-79 zone between urban scape and open• space. Visual/ Retention of open space areas within the developpment Draft Tentative map. Aesthetics/ should be provided to preserve grasslands and allow EIR p. 3-79 for recreation, as per Huntington Beach PRD Ordinance 59312.0. Visual/ Landscape buffering techniques should be utilized to Draft Tentative map Aesthetics/ K-21 soften the visual impact adjacent from roadways. EIR landscape plan �. 349 Visual/ Alternatives and/or special treatment methods should Draft Tentative map Aesthetics/ be developed to address concerns of adjacent residents -EIR p. 3-79 regarding the potential lack of continuity between attached housing and detached housing product. Visual/ Hydroseed as soon as possible after grad#ng. Draft Tentative map Aesthetics/ EIR p 3-79 Visual/ Use drought resistant plants which bland aesthetically Draft Tentative map/ Aesthetics/ with adjacent open space areas. EIR Preliminary p. 3-79 landscape plan Visual/ The precise landscape and irrigation plans should Draft Landscape plan Aesthetics/ indicate the installation of permanent irrigation EIR p. 3-79 systems to increase vegetation establishment and growth. Community Residential units should be equipped with a fire Draft Tentative map Services 6 sprinkler system as deemed necessary by the Fire EIR Utilities/ C-1, 2 Marshal. p. 3-82 - �V ~!J EIR ISSUE/ COMMENT L DETERMINATION OF IMPLE- DEIR PAGE REF. RESPONSE REF. MITIGATION MEASURES SOURCE MITTATION AT THE TI?SE OF: Community Fire retardant roof materials should be specified Draft Tentative map Services L for all units on building plans as deemed necessary EIR Utilities/ C-1, 2 by the Fire Marshal. p. 3-82 Community A fully operable water system to be approved by the Draft Tentative-map Services L Fire Marshal should be in place prior to any combus- EIR Utilities/ C-1, 2 tible construction. p. 3-52 e _ c Community The Fire Marshal should approve on-site circulation Draft Tentative map/ Services L system and eaergeney access provisions during the EIR Site plan Utilities/ C-1, 2 site plan/planned residential development review p. 3-82 period. Community The possibility of participating in an assessment Draft Tentative map Services L fund for the provision of fire protection services EIR Utilities/ C-1, 2 as approved by the Fire Marshal. r p. 3-82 + Community she provision of an on-site security system included Draft Tentative map Services L in the design and construction of the units could EIR Utilities/ C-1, 2 reduce the demand for police protection service. p. 3-83 Community The City should re-evaluate the need for additional Draft Tentative map Services L police protection services. EIR Utilities/ F-1 p. 3-85 Community The City may consider imposition of standby charges Draft Tentative map Services L or a special tax for the cost of additional police EIR Utilities/ F-1 protection required by the proposed project pursuant p. 3-85 to Section 53970 at seq. of the California Govenment Code. Community The Rainbow Disposal Company should be notified of Draft Building permit Services L development prior to construction. EIR Utilities/ p. 3-86 7 EIR ISSUE/ COMMENT 6 DETERMINATION'OF IM?L'c DEIR PAGE REF. RESPONSE REF. MITIGATION MEASURES SOURCE HENTATION AT THE TIME OF: Community If rubbish bins are used in the project,.the location Draft Tentative map/ . Services & and enclosure of bins as well as their size and'type E.IR Site plan Utilities/ of construction will also indicate that internal p. 3-86 streets and roadways should be designed to facilitate the maneuverability of refuse collection trucks. Community The applicant should consult with SCE representatives -Draft Tentative map Services 6 regarding current energy conservation measures. EIR Utilities/ P. 3-86 Community Supply and fireflow calculation', % t pically required Draft Building permit Services 6 for a project of this size should be reppaced and EIR Utilities/ approved by the Fire Department and the Iiater.Division p. 3-88 of the City of Huntington Beach. Community Measures to reduce the excessive use of water through Draft Building permit Services & conservation measures should be developed in conjunc EIR Utilities/ ,tion. p. 3-88 Community Mitigation for groundwater infiltration, if necessary, Draft Building permit Services & may be accomplished by constructing portions of the EIR Utilities/ sewer lines with plastic liners or plastic pipe. p. 3-88 Community Annexation to the City of Huntington Beach and Orange Draft LAFCO and Orange Services 6 County Sanitation District No. 11 will be required EIR County Sanitation Utilities/ to connect to existing sewer and storm drain facilities District p. 3-90 Annexation Community ImpProvements to the existing sewer facilities, specifi- Draft Tentative map Services 6 cally the Brighton Pump Station, may be necessary. EIR Utilities/ Prior to Improvement Plan approval a detailed wastewater p. 3-90 study should be undertaken which indicates either the adequacy of the existing system to serve the' site or specifies improvements to the existing sewer system to meet City requirements. V 4), V- ONV. .e EIR ISSUE/ COMMENT 6 DETERMINATION OF IMPLE- DEIR PAGE REF. RESPONSE REF. MITIGATION MEASURES SOURCE MENTATION AT THE TIME OF: Community Prior to annexation of the project area to Orange Draft Orange County Services 6 County Sanitation District No. 11. the Board of EIR Sanitation Utilities/ of Directors of the District will require assurances District p. 3-90 that annual charges for maintenance and operation Annexation of trunk sewer and treatment plant facilities could could be paid by the development. Community Conservation measures which would minimize the Draft Orange County Services & impact on District No. 11's sewer system should be EIR Sanitation Utilities/ considered and discussed with the District prior to District p. 3-90 annexation. Annexation Energy Subdivision and Street Design Draft Site plan/ Conserve- EIR Tentative map tion/ - Utility companies should utilize the same trenches p. 3-91 as much as possible when extending their respective services into the project area. - Bikeways should be provided with connection to major local routes. Site planning must ensure that incoming solar radiation is unobstructed. - Appropriate and well-placed landscaping can be used to moderate temperature. - Improved accessibility to bus service could encourage project residents to use mass transit as an alternative transportation mode. Energy Building Design Draft Conservation/ EIR p. 3-91 - All buildings constructed on the project site Building permit shall comply with Title 24, Energy Conservation Standards. - Orientation of the largest surface areas and the Site plan/ major openings of buildings toward the south Tentative map would maximize solar exposure and natural heat gain during the winter months and minimize heat , gain during the summer. 10 EIR ISSUE/ COMMENT & DETERMINATION OF IMPLE- DEIR PACE REF. RESPONSE. REF. _ _ �MITIGATION MEASURES SOURCE MENTATION AT THE TIME OF: Water Resources/ P-1 A Section 402 National Pollutant Discharge Elimina- Califor- California tion System permit will be required by the California nia Regional Regional Water Quality Board. Regional Water Quality Water Board Section Quality 402 Permit Board Cultural If any significant archeological or palentological Environ- Tentative map Resources/ Q-8, 9 resources are discovered during grading or development, mental a certified archeologist/paleontologist should Board, City determine their. significance and determine appropriate of Hunting- mitigation. ton Beach Biological Alternatives to a high block wall include a wrought The Site Plan/ Resources/ }i-5, I-4, iron fence or fence and berm combination, with Fieldstone Tentative map p. 3-27 Q-1, 18, 21 appropriate screening and landscaped areas. Company Land Use/ 0-1, 2, 3 Full compliance with the City of Huntington Beach Planning Building permit p. 3-56 Title 15 oil code is required (see attached oil code Commis- for details) . sioner Livengood 12 EIR ISSd/ COMMENT 6 DETERMINATION OF IMPLE- DEIR PAGE REF. RESPONSE REF. MITIGATION MEASURES SOURCE MENTATION AT THE .IM1E OF: - Attic fans or other ventilption devices should be installed for use ,during summer. - Two-zone heating systems would allow separate heating of living and sleeping areas. - Walls, ceilings, floors, windows and hot water lines should be insulated-to prevent heat loss or gain. - Active solar energy systems should be considered for use in heating domestic water and swimming pools. - Energy efficient lighting should be used rather then less efficient types of lighting. - Non-essential, ornamental lighting should be avoided. - Native and/or exotic plants that are adapted to the climate in the Huntington Beach area should be used exclusively in the landscaping of the proposed project to minimize water use and, in turn, energy consumption. Community Solar assist heating. for hot water systems and pools County Site plan/- Services S should be used in project design. of Orange Tentative map Utilities/ K-27 Community The recommendations of the State Department.of Water .. Depart- Tentative map Services b Resources related to water conservation and flood Mont of Utilities/ L-1 damage prevention should be incorporated in project Water design. Resources Visual/ Potential homeowners should be made aware of poten- Aminoil/ Tentative map Aesthetics/ 0-1 tial nuisance from oil field operation. Draft EIR Visual/ A noise study should be conducted at tentative tract Draft EIR Tentative map Aesthetics/ 0-3 map stage which will be used in site design. 11 • lj Ube Fieldstone Company, 14 f�.orporate Plaza,Newport Beach,CA 92 -8313 I1 July 24 , 1984 Mr. James W. Palin, Director Department of pevelopment Svcs. City of Huntington Beach P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: EIR 83-3 (Graham Place Project) Mr. Palin: As pez our conversation this afternoon, this is to request a continuance to September 4 , 1984, of the . above-referenced hearing before the City Council. The purpose. of our request is to. -allow the State Coastal Conservancy' s Habitat Conservation Plan for the Bolsa Chica to be further refined. We agree to waive, for 18 days, - the oYnt-year time limit placed on final determination of Environmental Impact Reports. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, THE FIELDSTONE COMPANY A. S. Durham Project Manager ASD:eb cc: Richard Harlow 'HUNTINGTON BEACH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES JUL 2 P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Publish NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT #83-3 GRAHAWPLACE PROJECT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, in the Council Chamber of the Civic Center, Huntington Beach, at the hour of 7.30 P.M. , or as soon thereafter as possible on_ _ Tuesday_ the . 4th_._ .. . day of September 19 84 , for the purpose of considering Environmental Impact Report No. 83-3, an analysis of a General- Plan Amendment and Pre.-Zone request to redesignate 42.4 acres located in the unincorporated Bolsa Chica area of Orange County at the temi.nus of Graham Street between the Orange County flood Control Channel and a point.approximately feet. south of Graham Street from planning reserve to low density residential . The applicant is requesting to pre-zone the property low density residential (Rl ). A copy of said Environmental Impact Report is on file in the Development Services Office. All interested persons are invited. to attend said hearing and express their opinions for or against said Environmental Impact Report #83-3 Further information may be obtained from the Office of the City Clerk, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California. 92648 - (714) 536-5227 DATED August 10, 1984 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH By: Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk The Fieldstone Company,14 Corporate Plaza,Newport Beach,CA 92660(714) 851-8313 May 18, 1984 City Clerk 5 c♦�;� N.- City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street 83� Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Appeal of Planning Commission Actions EIR 83-3 GPA 84-1 ZC 83-11 To Whom It May Concern: This letter is to request a refund of the appeal filing fee paid in connection with the above referenced actions. The Fieldstone Company is withdrawing its appeal, as the Planning Commission has reconsidered its actions. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, THE FIELDSTONE COMPANY A. S. Durham Project Manager ASD:eb The Fieldstone Company,14 Corporate Plaza,Newport Beach,CA 5,.u60(714) 851-8313 April 11, 1984 `'%,;, ��t%'r' �7 `•y City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Appeal of Planning Commission Actions EIR 83-3 GPA 84-1 ZC 83-11 To whom it may concern: This letter is to appeal the actions taken by the Planning Commission at its April 3rd meeting regarding Graham Place, the 42.4 acre parcel located at the westerly termination of Graham Street. The Commission found inadequate EIR No. 83-3 and voted to continue the matter until September 18 , 1984. In conjunction with that action, our proposed Land Use Element Amendment 84-1 (Area of Concern 2. 1) and Zone Change No. 83-11 were likewise continued to September 18, 1984. Our appeal is based on the following four issues: • The Commission did not allow time for a response from the EIR consultant to address its specific concerns. The consultant, Van Dell and Associates, has indicated that it will be able to bring the EIR to acceptable standards in a much shorter period of time. • Our proposal is fully consistent with both the pending County of Orange Land Use Plan and State Coastal Conservancy Habitat Conservation Plan. City Clerk April 11, 1984 Page 2 • The EIR evaluated the proposal as a land use amendment and zone change; the Planning Commission evaluated the proposal in far more detail than is required at this time. Specific implementation issues would normally be ad- dressed at the tentative tract map and condi- tional use permit stages. • The 5�-month continuance does not take into consideration the possibility that the Bolsa Chica planning issues may be resolved in a more timely manner. We hope to have a public hearing on this appeal at the earliest possible date. Thank you for your consid- eration. Sincerely, THE FIELDSTONE COMPANY A. S. Durham Project Manager ASD:pj cc: James Palin, Director of Development Services Howard Zelefsky, Assistant Planner City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 J �� CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH white city Attorney REQUEST FOR LEGAL SERVICES Canary City Clerk ea Pink City Administrator Goldenrod Departmental HUNTINGTON!{EACH DS 84 - 30 Date Request Made By Department April 4 , 1984 James W. Palin, Director Development Services INSTRUCTIONS: File request in the City Attorney's Office as soon as possible. Print or type facts necessary for City Attorney.Out- line briefly reasons for the request.Attach all information and exhibits pertinent to the subject. Type of Legal Service Requested: [ ] Ordinance [ J Insurance [ 1 Other [ ] Resolution [ ] Bonds [ ] Contract/Agreement [kl Opinion All exhibits must be attached,or this request will be returned to you. AMDEAL PERIOD FOR B]DNDI?dC OF [ 1 Exhibits Attached INADEQUACY FOR AN E I p EIF• No. 83=.3.,prepared for Fieldstone Development for an area adjacent to the Lolsa Chica in County territory was found to be inadequate to address all environmental concerns by the Planning Commission at its April 3, 1984 meeting. Please prepare an opinion to address the following: QUESTION: Does the normal 10-day appeal period for any action taken by the Commission apply to this finding of inadequacy?. It is imperative that we receive your response soonest, as the ex- piration of a normal appeal period would be April 13, 1984 , and it such appeal period applies here Fieldstond would need to know prior .o that date . Thank you. T P : df PS : Br MMS': mail out notices -iiday .his eek, so we Need. :Esranse by Friday the 6th no later than noon. If for Council Action, If not for Council action,desired completion date Signature: Agenda deadline 1 — April 19E _ Council meeting - PIO 12/79 F • ` CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH `'• �� � White city Attorney REQUEST FOR LEGAL SERVICES unary City clerk Pink City Administrator Goldenrod Departmental liUKTINGTON BEACH D S -2 31 Date Requnt Made By Department April 5, 1984 Jares W. Palin., Pirectcr evPl onment Servic`s INSTRUCTIONS: File request in the City Attorney's Office as soon as possible. Print or type facts necessary for City Attorney.Out- line briefly reasons for the request.Attach all information and exhibits pertinent to the subject. Type of Legal Service Requested: [ ] Ordinance [ ] Insurance [ 1 Other ( ] Resolution ( ] Bonds [ ] Contract/Agreement lCI Opinion All exhibits must be attached,or this request will be returned to you. [XI Exhibits Attached On April 3, 1984 the Planning Commission_ held a public hearin-c cr: Land Use Element Amend-nent 84-1 and Prezone Change No. 82-11. Area 2. 1, Graham Place, was detached _`_rom the amendment and continued. to a later Land Use Element Amend_-ment schE.:sled to be helyd on September 18, 19S4 The pre_one change applyin-g to Graham Place was also continued to that date. The a::Alicazt -lid not cnr_sent -'Co these continu'-anone. At 'Least lvit_i reference to tiie -front Lane? Use Element Amendment F4-1 , staff questions whet'?er the Planninq Commission acted properly in with. Section 5 . 1. 1 (6) of the City General Plan (attached) . Please provide a legal epinicr, on the following 1 . Can Area 2 . 1, Graham Place, of LUE 84-1 be deleted and cont-in-ued b1 the Planking Commission or must this item be sent to tip City Council as part of LUE 84-1 with Pla-ning Coraission ' s -_co,,_randa- tion to continue (per Section_ 5. 1. .1 (6) of the General Plan? 2. If Area 2 .1 .,ust go tc• the City Couricil as oarl of Lv.r 64--' would Prezone Chance 83-11 likewise be affected in terms of an automatic transmittal to Council? If not , and Area 2 . ' still must ^o up to Council, could Prezone Chan-a_ e 83-11 be a__realed to Council at this point? Since staff is p:-ep ^ring LUE 84- 1 fc transmittal t tt '-y Council �r o :e C:i,..� within the .nonth, we request to these questions as so-n as possible. Thank you. ,7,7P:CC:df Attachment If for Council Action, If not for Council action,desired completion date Signature-. Agenda deadlines r i 1 6 , 1984 -�"� ✓ ��-�i �--� Council meeting - , -J PIO 12/79 USE BALL POINT PEN ONLY -PRESS FIRMLY CASH RECEIPT • CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEAr-H^^ � P.O. Box711 HUNTINGTON BEACH.CALIFORNIA 92648 17141 536 5511 - CITY TREASURER - WARREN G. HALL y DEPT. ISSUING DATE �lZ� 7/ RECEIVED FROM 22?g ���G1 Pi�j '), ADDRESS FORp� —Q�C e4G7ge.✓s o•y AMOUNT RECEIVED CASH CHECK a.e.a. 6 �r _ .. RECEIVED BY ACCOUNT AMOUNT 0 GS• O - . e TOTAL J No. 279347 CUSTOMER ART-CRAFT BUSINESS FORMS — (714) 535.7 _ Rio.NO. 141610 DEPARTMENT USE IA,0,7,0,1 , I I - I I t I I I I I U I IA IC 1 6 7 Awt No. 12 M M D D Y Y M M D D Y Y 25 78 8 13 18 19 24 Oats Required -%(.ION MACH TERIAL Requested by Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk Approval .-QU I S I T I O N Approved by Contacted !RCHAS{NG For additional information call Betty Phone Phone , U27 L DATE Marrh 22_ 1 qR4 VENDOR sr P.O. ak e The Fieldstone Co H N I D 14 Corporate Plaza P 0 R Newport Beach, CA 92660 0 a. Destination Delivery within Confirm Plus Fri..Prepay&Add: Terms: days a'j UNIT DESCRIPTION Refund of appeal filing fee (EIR 83-3JGPA 84-IIZC 83-11 ) $165.00 Appeal was withdrawn TOTAL $ 165.00 RED.NO. AMOUNT REO.NO. AMOUNT RICO.NO. AMOUNT 2 � dUt'lL Ll•r�. P.O. BOX 1966 �17061 RAINCLEN LANE •17691 RAINGLERv' LANE Hl": 1..G:(1N BEACH, CAL 92649 HUNTIGTON PEACH, CAL 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CAL 92649 1C3-233-18. 163-251-04 163-2t;1-09 GE,.:RGE LUTZ CHRISTOPHER TOLAND WILLIAM JENSEN 18001HARTFIELD CIR 17591 RAINGLER LANE 17701 RAINGLEN LANE HUNTINGTON BEACH, CAL 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CAL 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CAL 92649 163-233-19 163-251-05 163-261-10 MICHAEL CIMARUSTI NORMAN PARKER JOHN MOSER 18011 HARTFIELD CIR 5292 ALLSTONE DRIVE 17732 GAINSFORD LANE HUNTINGTON BEACH, CAL 92649 I HUNTINGTON BEACH, CAL 92694 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CAL 92649 163-233-20 I 163-253-07 163-261-11 i ROBERT SPROUSE WILLIAM HUTTING LUIS FLORIAN 18021 HARTFIELD CIR 17631 RAINGLEN LANE 17722- GAINSFORD LANE HUNTINGTON BEACH, CAL 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CAL 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CAL 92649 163-233-21 163-261-01 163-261-12 RICHARD LUNDEN JERRY GOAR SIEGBERT FECHNER 17892 WHITFORD LANE 17641 RAINGLEN LANE 17712 GAINSFORD LANE HUNTINGTON BEACH, CAL 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CAL 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CAL 9264G 163-233-22 163-261-02 163-261-13 HENi..' MATZEN VAN HARTLEY BUDDY FAIN 17972 1411ITFORD LANE 17645 RAINGLEN'LANE 17706 GAINSFORD LANE HUNTINGTON BEACH, CAL 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CAL 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CAI. 92649 163-233-23 163-261-03 163-261-14 CECIL ANDERSON CHRISTOPHER BAIER 17651 RAINGLEN LANE WERNER FREUND 1796•c WHITFORD LANE HUNTINGTON BEACH, CAL 92649 17702 GAINSFOR.D LANE HUNTINGTON BEACH, CAL 92649 163-261-04 HUNTINGTON BEACH,. CAL92649 163-233-24 163-261-15 r JAa`fES WHITRIDGE LOUIS SIEGLE 17952 WHITFORD LANE 17661 RAINGLEN LANE MICHAEL KNAPP HUNTINGTON BEACH, CAL 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CAL 92649 17692 GAINSFORD LANE 163-233-25 163-261-05 ' HUNTINGTON BEACH, CAL 92649 163-261-16 CHRISTIANA NIBBE VERNE BENSON 17611 RAINGLEN LANE 17671RAINGLEN LANE KENNETH SMITH HUNTINGTON BEACH, CAL 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CAL 92649 17682 GAINSFORD LANE 163-251-01 163-261-06 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CAL 92649 163-261-17 NELSON MC CRADY ROBERT WORSHAM ROBERT MANN 17615 RAINGLEN LANE 17675 RAINGLEN LANE 17676 GAINSFORD LANE H0T INGTON-BEACH, CAL 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CAL 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CAL 92649 163-251-02 163-261-07 163-261-18 RICHARD DYER HOWARD BREEN LA VERN TORGESON 17621 RAINGLEN. LANE 17681 RAINGLEN LANE 17672 GAINSFORD LANE HUNTINGTON BEACH, CAL HUNTINGTON BEACH, CAL 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CAL 92649 163-251-03 163-261-08 163-261-19 i /(:&Z C �ii `_:. CI R J 4 I HUNTINGTON BEACH, .itl. 92649 UNTINGTON 'jcACH, CAL 92649 • HUNTINGTON BEACH, CAL 926< 1',:-261-20 of-it163-263-03 163-271-07 ' BOYD BARRETT DANIEL BURKE JAY ANDREWS 17656 GAINSFORD LANE 5361 BECK CIR 5282 ALLSTONE DRIVE HUNTINGTON BEACH, CAL 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CAL 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CAL 926= 163-261-21 1 163-263-04 163-271=09 KEITH INGRAM JOANNE FILZEN DONALD TROY 17652 GAINSFORD LANE 5372 BECK CIR 5272 ALLSTONE DRIVE HUNTINGTON BEACH, CAL 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACHX CAL 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CAL 926= 163-261-22 I 163-263-05 163-271-10 RONALD SLICK 5452 BANKTON DRIVE FLOYD BELSITO ROBERT PEPPER HUNTINGTON BEACH, GAL 92649 5382 BECK CIR 5262• ALLSTONE DRIVE 16 -262-18 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CAL 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CAL 926L 163-263-06 163-271-11 RACHELLE COOMBS ; HENRY HUNTINGTON ALBERT FIORE 5446 BANKTON DRIVE 5411 BANKTON DIRVE 5252 ALLSTONE DRIVE HUNTINGTON BEACH, CAL 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CAL 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CAL 926L 163-262-19 163-263-07 163-271-12 �fICHAEL NOON ROBERT CROSS EUGENE GORSUCH 5442 BANKTON DRIVE 5401 BANKTON DRIVE 5242 ALLSTONE DRIVE HUTINGTON BEACH, CAL 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CAL 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CAL 92: 163-262-20 163-263-08 163-271-13 ANTHONY GIGLIO BRIAN WHITE JOHN B014DEN 1 5432 BANKTON DIRVE 5305 FARMWOOD DRIVE 17561 BATES CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH, CAL 92649 I HUNTINGTON BEACH, CAL 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CAL 926= 163-262-21 I 163-271-02 163-271-15 J010 BAILEY WAYNE SHAW RONALD HIX 5422 BANKTON DRIVE 5301 FANWOOD DRIVE 17551 BATES CIR HUN-TINGTON BEACH, CAL 92649 j HUNTINGTON BEACH CAL 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CAL 926' 163-262-22 I 163-271-03' 163-271-16 +� REUBEN RESNIKOFF DENNIS KREIL WILLIAM YING 5412 BANKTON DRIVE 5291 FANWOOD DRIVE 17541 BATES CIR HL^3TIGTON BEACH, CAI. 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CAL 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CAL 9 163-262-23 163-271-04 163-271-17 MICHAEL ZIGICH DONALD NOBLE STEPHEN PSOORE 5321 CANDLE CIR 5281 FANWOOD DIRVE 17531 BATES CIR q HTP'1T NG W BEACH, CAL 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CAL 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH, C 163-271-OS 163-271-18 P.Ir 163-263-01 1%E_ JOHN KMME JACK COIBEST STEVEN GRINDER � 18241 DEWNIMD 5271 FAM400D 17521 BATES CIR POU=UN VALIZY, CAT, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CAL HUNTINGTON BEACH, CAL 163-263-02 163-271-06 163-271-19 CA L�`"q :r.• rlLic l,y�i �i:_:: .. _._ L.u�(: ii)7.1 !;HIIFORL LAI-i: 17892 FELSON CIR �iUNTINGTON BEACH, CAL 92649 •HUNTINGTON BEACH, CAL 92647 BEACH. CAL 92649 163-223-24 163-231-15 ft.)-:23-13 SONn] v 'jllcAfe/ l/. ,SIMati.S v BYRON ATKINSON JAMES KALLAL WII.*�R PARKER 17941 SHOREHAM 5682 GRIMSBY DRIVE I' 17882 FELSON CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH, CAL 92649 HUNTINTON BEACH, CAL 92649 HLNTINGTON BEACH, CAL 92649 163-223-25 163-233-01 163-223-14 JOHN FOELDI HAROLD WILLIAMS ALICE LOODER LI-01 17872 FELSON CIR -v 17962SHOREHAM LANE 17832 CARDIFF CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH, CAL 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CAL 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CAL 92649 163-223-15 y 163-231-01 163-233-02 JOAN ELMORE ✓ WILLIAM HILL EMIKO YOUNG 17891 DENVALE CIR 17942 SHOREHAM LANE 5702 GRIMSBY DRIVE HUNTINTON BEACH, CAL 92649 HUNTINGOTN BEACH, CAL 92649 HUNTINGOTN BEACH, CAL 92649 163-223-16* 163-231-02 163-233-03 V RAYMOND ARCHANBEAULT V GEORGE KING MARY MASON 17901 DENVALE CIR 17932 SHOREHAM LANE 5732 GRIMSBY DRIVE HUNTINGOTN BEACH, CAL 92649= HUNTINGTON BEACH, CAL 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CAL 92649 163-223-17 163-231-03 163-233-04 GEORGE SAITTA DARYL EVANS KENNETH HEALEY 17911 DENVALE CIR 17922 SHOREVkM LANE 18031 STARMONT LANE HLr,dT!NGOTN BEACH, CAI. 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CAL 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CAL 9266(_ 163-223-18 163-231-04 163-233-12 ANTAL LEMER v JOEL CINCOTTA v 17921 DENVALE 17912 SHOREHA,;1 LANE MARGARET GORDON 18041 STARr10NT LANE HUNTINGTON BEACH, CAL 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CAL 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CAL 92649 163-223-19 163-231-05 163-233-13 RICHARD FENZL CHARLES FINN v NAT AYCOX 17922 DENVALE CIR ! 17931 WHITFORD LANE 18032 HARTFIELD CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH, CAL 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CAL 92649 163-223-20 163-231-11 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CAL 92649 163-233-14 v PAUL KREIPL JACK RAVIN Y BUCK 17912 DENVALE CIR 17941 WHITFORD 180228022 HARTFIELD CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH, CAL 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH,, CAL 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CAL 92649 163-223-21 163-231-12 163-233-15 PATRICK SHIELD v JENS JENSEN v ✓ THEODORE CASEMENT 17902 DENVALE CIR 17951 WHITFORD LANE 180128012 HARTFIREL CIR HUNTINTON BEACH, CAL 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CAL 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CAL 92649 163-223-22 163-231-13 163-233-16 J JOHN JUAREZ V YVONNE FRY JAMES HARRIS ✓ 4062 W 59th PL. 17961 WHITFORD LANE 18002 HARTFIELD CIR LOS ANGELES, CAL 90043 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CAL 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CAL 163-223-23 163-231-14 163-233-17 175226RTtS CiR • GAINSF i ✓Rf f`(0 :.`:TiNGTON BEACH, _ ,L 92649 � 17632 AINSFORD LAIv HUNTINGTON BEACH, CAL 92649 3-'71-20 163-272-04 EU.1.RD JULINE Amigos De Bolsa Chica 17532 BATES CIR J7642AMES ORENSFORDDORFF 15467 Chemical Lane HUNTINGTON BEACH, CAL 92649 17642 GT NSBEAC LANE Huntington Beach, Cali.` HUNTINGTON BEACH, CAL 92649 163-271-21 163-272-05 92649 GREGORY HOFFMAN ✓ BRj*v WHITE ✓ ' 17542 BATES CIR 17646 GAINSFORD LANE HUNTINTON BEACH, CAL 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CAL 92649 163-271-22 163-272-06 JAMES CONTI SIGNAL COMPANIES ✓ 17552 BATES CIR 17890 SKY PARK CIR HUNTINGTONJ BEACH, CAL 92649 IRVINE, CAL : 163-271-23 110-015-24,28,29,45 163-151-15 DENNIS CHABALA 17531 TUSCAN CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH, AL 92649 163-271-24 JOSEPH JANDA METROPOLITAN WATER DIST 17521 TUSCAN CIR P.O. BOX 54153 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CAL 92649 LOS ANGELES, CAL 90054 163-271-25 110-015-25,26,27 ANNDREW ALLEGRETTI v/ !! 17511 TUSCAN CYR HUNTINGTON BEACH, ca 92649 163-271-26 CITY ''F HUNTINGTON BEACH ✓ C� Ck. , P.O. BOY. 190 � .55 lil.:NT,?:c;TON BEACH, CAL 92648 163-271-28 16.3`���` RUTH FEERER \ 5302 FANWOOD DRIVE HUNTINGTON BEACH, CAL 92649 163-272-01 ORVILLE ROSE 5292 FANWOOD DIRVE HUNTINGTON BEACH, CAL 92649 163-272-02 CHARLES GERNEIM v 5282 FANWOOD DRIVE HUNTINGTON BEACH, CAL 92649 163-272-03 Mike Knapp Department of Fish & czwe Environmental Board 350 Golden Shore 17692 Gainsford Lane Long Beach, CA 90802 Huntington Beacht CA 92647 . . Attn: R. MontgCmery �• ,:.�:._: County of Orange - EMA P.O. Box 4648 Santa Ana, CA 92702 Attn: Rn Tippita Amigo de Bolsa Chica 15467 Chemical Lane '• - Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Signal Conpanies 17890 Skypark Circle - Irvine, CA 99714 Attn: Darlene Frost r : Buddy Fain = The Landing Hameot mers r ' 17706 Gainsford Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92649 r �� -�:• t.•. Arninoil : :r 2120 Main Street, State 200 t Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Attn; Spence Sheldon Greg Vail & Associates _ 3140 Red Hill Ave. Suite 200 sJ ; Costa Mesa, CA_ 92626 r f ,Mf State Lands COnnLlssiOn d L 1807 13th Street Sacramento, CA 95814 k" ' Orange County Sanitation District 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain VAlley, California Attn Tan Dawes Publish--August 23,_.1984 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT #83-3 GRAHAM PLACE PROJECT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, in the Council Chamber of the Civic Center, Huntington Beach, at the hour of 7:3Q P.M. , or as soon thereafter as possible on_Tuesday _ the 4th day of September 1984 . for the purpose of considering Environmental Impact Report No. 83-3, an analysis of a General Plan Amendment and Pre-Zone request to redesignate 42.4 acres located in the unincorporated Bolsa Chica area of Orange County at the terr.�i.nus of Graham Street between the Orange County Flood Control Channel and a point.approximately 1400 feet. south of Graham Street from planning reserve to low density residential . The applicant is requesting to pre-zone the property low density residential (R1 ). A copy of said Environmental Impact Report is on file in the Development Services Office. All interested persons are invited. to attend said hearing and express their opinions for or against said Environmental Impact Report #83-3 Further information may be obtained from the Office of the City Clerk, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California. 92648 - (714) 536-5227 DATED August 10, 1984 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH By: Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk Signal La.'dmark, lnc. 3 COUNCIL AGENDA -.0 Skvoark Cirela I.v.na.California 92714 ITEM #D-2B T,lepnpne. 1:1a1 261.0360 Q p J /T August 30 1984 f 7 C � g � ��RA, � �R 4 - 4. 0 Charles W. Thompson City Administrator City of Huntington Beach �' �%9/g o ti 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Graham Place Project EIR No. 83-3 Public Hearing, September 4, 1984 Dear Charles : With regard to the forthcoming City Council hearing on the proposed Fieldstone Project known as Graham Place, EIR 83-3, Signal would like to be on record as deeply concerned about the adequacy of this EIR. We have previously commented at length on our specific concerns regarding the EIR, but it seems even more timely to reiterate one overriding concern. In ligh-t of the very recently adopted Coastal Conservancy' s Habitat Conservation Plan, it is difficult -to see how the Council could find the EIR, and therefore the project generally, to have been adequately evaluated. The HCP would have a significant effect on land uses proposed for the "Graham Place" lands; accordingly, the EIR must evaluate the impacts of the proposed project on related planning for adjacent areas. It is still our concern that the process of certifying this EIR as adequate would potentially compromise and/or prejudice the County ' s and, ultimately, the Coastal Commission' s abilities to develop an appropriate Land Use Plan for the entire Bolsa Chica area, of which the Graham Place Project is but one small piece. In conclusion, Signal urges the City Council and staff to find the Graham Place Project EIR 83-3 to be inadequate in its treatment of Relevant Planning Programs, and to not certify this EIR at this time. Respectfully submitted, SIGNAL LANDMARK, INC. By „C Darlene Frost Project Manager DAF:mo one of The Signal Companies .;•-+�0.1�-v'rL••-.-sm...+...a��+..e./r/wv...._r...,...w��P+t�•K*1Y:•�'rl'1�'�"i�[ '�\^'.rwN••r•:��+.,...� ,y� �, Office of the City Clerk ~'-_::. ,— ;• f Cit of Huntington Beach ti��G �, � �'���-��. AUG23.8 :7 P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 9264820 b � 040E ' aei`zuL`. ... -RUTHl=ER�R'�, ':,ty ' -,5302"TANWOODi.DR HUNTINGTON, BEACH C �. it* cMr`r,r-,!'-7 FBI::T'Ufii�! 1-fl L_E= r'l.i r`rl=�UF<Ie:::i;ciEa:i TO I=•Clf2h!r'IRD i Office of the City Clerk -- —..... City of Huntington Beach �7 P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 ,K�+�•,,?)y 20 I N� asrizaL I CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH P.O. BOX 190 HUNTINGTON BEACH. .CA. .92648 163-271-28