Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFile 1 of 2 - Land Use Element Amendment 85-1 - Holly Proper k" .. See: 124- File EIR-84-1 (Approved) I r Authorized to Publish Advertisements Wr -nos Including public notices by Decree of the Superior Cc '. of Orange County, California. Number June. it4 dated 29 September. 1961, and // O tJ A-2�83 t. dated 11 June. 1963 G / STATE OF CALIFORNIA 66,7 oppj 40 County of Orange PVOtK Not" AuV'^161"o C0VW6dQ/� by thH pbd►vtl D 90 in 7 point a r 1" 10 OK•cONmn o,dth PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE OF I am a Citizen of the United States and a resident of PUBLIC NEARING LAND USE ELEMENT the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen AMENDMENT W1 (HOLLY I S PROPERTY)HEREBY years. and not a party to or interested in the below GIVEN that the Huntington entitled matter. I am a Orange principal clerk of the O Beach City Council will hold p g a public hearing in the Coun- Coast DAILY PILOT, with which is combined the cll Chamber at the Hunt- Ington Beach Civic Center, NEWS-PRESS, a newspaper of general circulation, 2000 Main street, Hunt Ington Beach,California,on In- printed and published in the City of Costa Mesa, the date and at the time dlcated below to receive and County of Orange, State of California, and that a consider the statements all persons who wish to be PUBLIC HEARING heard relative to the appli- Notice of cation described below. DATE: Monday, June 2, 1986 TIME:7:30 P.M. APPLICATION NUMBER: -- - Use Element Amend- of which copy attached hereto is a true and complete ,Lane mentNo.85-1 APPLICANT: Huntington copy, was printed and published in the Costa Mesa, Beach Company LOCATION:South side of Newport Beach, Huntington Beach, Fountain Valley, Ellis Avenue, west of the f Southern Pacific Rallraod Irvine, the South Coast communities orind Laguna Right-of-Way,north of Gar- field and Ernest Avenues Beach issues of said newspaper for and east of Goldenweat street PROPOSAL: A proposed consecutive weeks to wit the issue(s) of Amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan which covers a request from the Huntington Beach Com- pany to change the General Plan designations on ap- M a y 22 198 6 Estate Residential -22 units per acre,Estate Residential 0-4 units per acre, General 198 Industrial and Office Pro- fessional to Planned Com- munity." The applicant's request 198 could result In approximate- ly 1,200 dwelling units. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS:Environmental im- pact Report No. 84-1 has previously been approvedi by the City Council. ON FILE: A copy of the 198 Lane Use Element Amend- ment and legal description are on file In the Department of Development Services. ALL INTERESTED PER- SONS are Invited to attend I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the sald hearing and express opinions or submit evidence foregoing is true and Correct. for or against the application as ions,Outlined above.All ap - w , cations, exhibits, and de- scriptions May 2 7 6 ar e with the proposal Executed On , 198 — the City clerk, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, at Costa Mesa, California. California,for Inspection by / f t� e public. HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL, By: Ailcle Signature M. Wentworth, City Clerk, Phone(714)536-SM Published Orange Coast Daly Pilot May 22,1986 Th940 PROOF OF PUBLICATION k W0tt REQUE � FOR R CITY COUNCACTION g � June 2, 1986 s0 to N 'S LA Pc% Date Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson, City Administrator James W. Palin, Director, Development Services a Prepared by: a Subject: LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 85-1 J Consistent with Council Policy? (�Q,Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception 2 .� s6Z_ Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions,Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Land Use Element Amendment No . 85-1 is a request by the Huntington Beach Company to change the land use designation on 126 acres from General Industrial , Office Professional and Estate Residential to Planned Community. The study area is known as the Holly Property and is located between Ellis Avenue, the Southern Pacific Right-of-Way, Garfield Avenue, Crystal Street, Ernest Avenue and Goldenwest Street . The amendment was considered by the City Council on June 17, 1985, October 21 , 1985, and November 18, 1985 . On November 18, 1985, the City Council tabled the amendment to allow time for staff to obtain additional input from the Huntington Beach Company, the Ad Hoc Committee and a land use consultant regarding the land use for a larger study area known as the "Expanded Ellis-Goldenwest Study Area. " RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council approve the attached Alternative 8 (Medium Density/Low Density/Industrial) for Land Use Element No . 85-1 with the following conditions: 1 . Overall development of the property shall be limited to a maximum of 1,200 dwelling units . 2 . Development of the property shall be implemented through the preparation of a specific plan for the property. Planning Commission action on May 22, 1985 : A MOTION WAS MADE BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER TO DENY GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 85-1 (HOLLY PROPERTY) WITH FINDINGS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine ABSTAIN: None PIO 4/84 FINDINGS FOR DENIAL: 1 . The City needs to develop a comprehensive plan for the Ellis/Goldenwest area prior to changing the land use designation on the Holly Property. 2 . There is a need to retain existing industrial designated property in the City in order to accommodate the expanding industrial base. 3 . Industrial property is necessary to provide employment opportunities and a balanced community and to rezone a significant size parcel at this time to residential may preclude that opportunity. 4 . The City should retain the existing general plan on the Holly Property until Gothard is realigned with Crystal . 5 . The Planning Commission further recommends that the City Council consider hiring a consultant to prepare an overall master plan for the area. PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENT, MAY 21 , 1985 : 1 . The Planning Commission reaffirms the action taken on May 22 , 1985. 2 . The Planning Commission is further concerned that a separate action on the Holly Property may create a conflict of land use between residential and industrial east of the railroad, similar to the Cambro situation on Clay Street . 3 . Based upon the Donald C. Cameron Ellis-Goldenwest Master Plan Evaluation, dated March 24, 1986, and the action taken by the Planning Commission on May 22 , 1985 , the sequence recommended by the Planning Commission for plan resolution is as follows : a . Develop programs and site plans for each scenario for the Holly Block , Bluff-top Block, Estate Block and Ellis-Goldenwest Block . b. Retain an Economic Consultant to evaluate the short and long term economic impact and each scenario for the Holly Block , Bluff-top Block , Estate Block and Ellis-Goldenwest Block . c . Prepare an overall project area site evaluation for the Holly Block , Bluff-top Block, Estate Block and Ellis-Goldenwest Block . d . Complete the conceptual street alignments, especially the westerly road network which impacts the linear park boundary . RCA - 6/2/86 -2- (5228d ) e . With all previous data in hand, City staff shall develop a comprehensive plan which includes land use, circulation and open space elements, in preparation for the filing of the General Plan Amendment . f . Following the General Plan Amendment, Specific Plans should be initiated for the Holly Block, Bluff-top Block, Estate Block and Ellis-Goldenwest Block to insure that natural features are protected, projects are coordinated, and the City's design goals are met and the City's goals and objectives are met . g. Develop a Capital Improvement Plan to support the implementation. ANALYSIS• Land Use Element Amendment No . 85-1 was considered by the City Council on June 17 , 1985. After discussion, the amendment was continued for a period of 120 days (to October 21 , 1985 ) to allow time for an Ad Hoc Committee to be formed to investigate the feasibility of industrial development on the site. On October 21 , 1985, the City Council continued the General Plan Amendment to November 18 , 1985, to allow the Ad Hoc Committee to report and to obtain additional comments from the property owner . On November 18, 1985, the City Council tabled the General Plan Amendment, and instructed staff to seek additional input from the property owner and Ad Hoc Committee, and to hire a land use consultant to review plans for an expanded study area . In the ensuing months, Development Services staff analyzed the study area in the context of the larger area and identified potential boundaries and issues to be addressed in an enlarged Master Plan Study Area. City staff representing Public Works , Development Services, Administrative Services and Community Services and the Huntington Beach Company studied land use alternatives for the expanded study area . In March of 1986, the City hired Donald C. Cameron, a private land use consultant, to review the land use plans. The recommendations of Donald C. Cameron are contained in the report entitled Ellis-Goldenwest Master Plan Evaluation. Based upon the Cameron report, staff formulated Alternative 8, which is attached to this RCA. Staff is presently preparing a revised economic analysis for Alternative 8 . This analysis will be delivered under separate cover to the Council members . Also attached to this Request for Council Action is a copy of Environmental Impact Report 84-1, prepared for this project in December of 1984 . FUNDING SOURCE: Not applicable. RCA - 6/2/86 -3- (5228d ) ALTERNATIVE ACTION: The City Council may take action to deny Land Use Element Amendment No. 85-1 or adopt any of the seven alternatives analyzed for the amendment . ATTACHMENTS: 1 . Alternative 8 2 . Resolution A (Staff Recommendation) 3 . Resolution B (Applicant 's Request ) 4 . Land Use Element Amendment No. 85-1 5 . Ellis-Goldenwest Master Plan Evaluation, prepared by Donald C. Cameron 6 . Holly Property Planned Community General Plan Amendment Environmental Impact Report 84-1 7. City Council Minutes dated June 17, 1985 8 . City Council Minutes dated November 18, 1985 JWP :GO: kla RCA - 6/2/86 -4- (5228d ) ELLIS AVE INDUST. 10 AC H w LOW �O Z DENSITY �P a w 48 AC p cc ix MEDIUM V DENSITY u- ERNEST AVE 68 AC Q a c ac J w H � >' 0 cc C/) U GARFIELD AVE ALTERNATIVE 8 A RESOLUTION NO. 5'54 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH APPROVING LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN NO. 85-1 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach desires to update and refine the General Plan in keeping with changing community needs and objectives; and A public hearing on adoption of Land Use Element Amendment No. 85-1 to the General Plan was held by the Planning Commission on May 22, 1985, and forwarded to the City Council; and Thereafter the City Council, after giving notice as prescribed by Government Code Section 65355, held at least one public hearing to consider Land Use Element Amendment No. 85-1; and At said hearing before the City Council all persons desiring to be heard on said amendment were heard, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach pursuant to provisions of Title 7, Chapter 3, Article 6 of California Government Code commencing with Section 65350, that Land Use Element Amendment No. 85-1 consisting of the following changes are hereby adopted. 1. That 126+ acres bounded by Ellis Avenue to the north, the Southern Pacific Railroad Right-of-Way to the east, Garfield and Ernest Avenues to the south and Crystal and Goldenwest Streets to the west be redesignated from Estate Residential 0-2 Units Per Acre, Estate Residential 0-4 Units Per Acre, General Industrial and Office Professional to Medium Density Residential, Low Density Residential and Industrial, as depicted on the attached Exhibit A. 1. FURTHER, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach that future development of the property be limited to the construction of no more than 1200 dwelling units, and that development be implemented through the preparation of a specific plan for the property. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of 1986. Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk City Atto e REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED City Administrator Director of Development Services 2 . t ELLIS AVE INDUST. 10 AC H w LOW �O z DENSITY w 48 AC p � � cc MEDIUM V u. ERNEST AVE DENSITY U 68 AC Q a u cc J H � } 0 cr. C/) V GARFIELD AVE EXHIBIT A (ALTERNATIVE u') ATTACHMENT 2 PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS FOR DENIAL OF LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 85-1 1 . The City needs to develop a comprehensive plan for the Ellis/Goldenwest area prior to changing the land use designation on the Holly Property. Additionally, the Ellis-Goldenwest planning area should be expanded to include all of the Holly Property as well as non-park land north of Ellis Avenue. 2. There is a need to retain existing industrial designated property in the City in order to accommodate the expanding industrial base. 3 . A continued supply of industrial property is necessary to provide employment opportunities and a balanced community. To rezone a significantly sized parcel at this time would limit future options to develop an additional industrial park . 4 . The City should retain the existing general plan on the Holly Property until Gothard is realigned with Crystal. ( 2613d ) I B RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH APPROVING LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN NO. 85-1 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach desires to update and refine the General Plan in keeping with changing community needs and objectives; and A public hearing on adoption of Land Use Element Amendment No. 85-1 to the General Plan was held by the Planning Commission on May 22, 1985, and forwarded to the City Council; and Thereafter the City Council, after giving notice as prescribed by Government Code Section 65355, held at least one public hearing to consider Land Use Element Amendment No. 85-1; and At said hearing before the City Council all persons desiring to be heard on said amendment were heard, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach pursuant to provisions of Title 7, Chapter 3, Article 6 of California Government Code commencing with Section 65350, that Land Use Element Amendment No. 85-1 consisting of the following changes are hereby adopted. 1 . That 126+ acres bounded by Ellis Avenue to the north, the Southern Pacific Railroad Right-of-Way to the east, Garfield and Ernest Avenues to the south and Crystal and Goldenwest Streets to the west be redesignated from Estate Residential 0-2 Units Per Acre, Estate Residential 0-4 Units Per Acres, General Industrial and Office Professional to Planned Community, as depicted on the attached Exhibit A. 1. FURTHER, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach that future development of the property be limited to the construction of no more than 1200 dwelling units, and that development be implemented through the preparation of a specific plan for the property. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of 1986. Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk City At orney (j V REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED City Administrator Director of Development Services 2 . ELLIS AVE PLANNED COMMUNITY w 58 AC z o O C? cc J J O cc PLANNED V COMMUNITY ERNEST AVE 68 AC a a z � w J = O cc W V GARFIELD AVE EXHIBIT A Page 8 - Council Minutes - 11/18/85 LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT 85-1 - TABLED - ADDITIONAL INPUT TO BE RECEIVED The City Clerk presented a communication from the Director of Development Ser- vices transmitting Land Use Element Amendment No. 85-1 a request by the Hunt- ington Beach Company to change the land use designation on 126 acres from Gen- eral Industrial, Office Professional and Real Estate Residential to Planned Community. The study area is known as the Holly Property and is located between Ellis Avenue, the Southern Pacific Right-of-Way, Garfield Avenue, Cry- stal Street, Ernest Avenue and Goldenwest Street. A public hearing on Land Use Element No. 85-1 and Environmental Impact Report No. 84-1 was held and closed on June 17, 1985 at which time Environmental Impact Report No. 84-1 was approved and the decision on Land Use Element No. 85-1 was continued by the City Council to October 21, 1985 to allow an Ad Hoc Committee to study the economic feasibility of industrial development on the property. On October 21, 1985, Land Use Element No. 85-1 was continued to November 18, 1985 for staff to receive input from the Huntington Beach Company and the Holly Property Council and Planning Commission Committee for a recom- mendation on issues and boundaries. Doug LaBelle, Acting City Administrator, presented a staff report. A motion was made by Kelly, seconded by Finley, to table Land Use Element No. 85-1 to allow time for staff to obtain additional input from the property owner, the Council and Planning Commission Committee, and a land use consul- tant. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Kelly, MacAllister, Bailey, Mandic, Finley, Green NOES : None NOT VOTING: Thomas ABSENT: None CODE AMENDMENT 85-8 - APPROVED - ORD NO 2808E - ADOPTED - SALE OR CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES ON GASOLINE SERVICE STATION PREMISES - PROHIBITION The Mayor stated that a public hearing was opened and closed on October 21, 1985 on a proposed amendment to Article 973 (Miscellaneous Provisions) of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code to prohibit the sale of alcoholic beverages on the same premises as a gasoline service station. The City Clerk presented Ordinance No. 2808B for Council consideration - "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ORDINANCE CODE BY ADDING THERETO SECTION 9730.84 PROHIBITING THE SALE OR CON- SUMPTION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES." Following discussion, a motion was made by MacAllister, seconded by Mandic, to adopt Ordinance No. 2808B, after reading by title. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: MacAllister, Mandic, Bailey, Thomas NOES: Kelly, Finley, Green ABSENT: None Page 3 - Council Minu-k - 6/17/85 Copies of the proposed budget are available for public inspection from 8:00 A.M to 5:00 P.M. , Monday - Friday at City Hall, 2000 Main Street and the Central Library, 7111 Talbert Avenue. There being no one present to speak further on the matter and there being no protests filed, either oral or written, the hearing was closed by the Mayor. The City Clerk presented Resolution No. 5533 for Council consideration - "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ADOPTING A BUDGET FOR THE CITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 1985-86." On motion by Mandic, second Green, Council adopted Resolution No. 5533 by the following roll call vote: AYES : Kelly, MacAllister, Mandic, Bailey, Finley, Green NOES: Thomas ABSENT: None PUBLIC HEARING - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 84-1 - CERTIFIED - LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT 85-1 - CONTINUED 120 DAYS - 10-21-85) The Mayor announced that this was the day and hour set for a public hearing to consider Environmental Impact Report 84-1 which assesses the environmental impacts of proposed Land Use Element Amendment 85-1 relative to several development concepts with the development of 120 acres south of Ellis Avenue and north of Garfield Avenue between Goldenwest Street and Gothard Street known as the Holly property. Environmental Impact Report 84-1 is available for review in the City Clerk's Office. The Mayor announced that this was also the day and hour set for a public hearing to consider Land Use Element Amendment No. 85-1 in conjunction with Environmental Impact Report 84-1. Land Use Element Amendment No. 85-1 is a proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan (LUE 85-1) , which covers a request by the Huntington Beach Company to change the General Plan designations on approximately 120 acres from Estate Residential 0-2 units per acre, Estate Residential 0-4 units per acre, General Industrial and Office Professional to Planned Community. The subject property is located on the south side of Ellis Avenue, west of the Southern Pacific Railroad Right-of-Way, north of Garfield and Ernest Avenues and east of Goldenwest Street. The applicant's request could result in approximately 1,200 dwelling units. Environmental Impact Report 84-1 assesses the environmental impacts of the proposed Land Use Element Amendment 85-1. 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. Hal Simmons, Assistant Planner, presented a staff report. The Mayor declared the hearing open. Page 4 - Council Minutes - 6/17/85 Dave Potter presented Corral's position and supp !d a master plan f or the entire area. Reuben Ortega stated that he was opposed to any change which allows for medium density. He supported an overall plan. Jerry Galich stated that he was opposed to Land Use Element 85-1. Lorraine Faber spoke on behalf of the Amigos de Bolsa Chica and supported the proposed denial of Land Use Element Amendment 85-1. Alan Strasbaugh stated that he believed that the Huntington Beach Company should develop industry on the property. Bill Holmann, representing the Huntington Beach Company, requested approval of Land Use Element Amendment 85-1 and Environmental Impact Report 84-1. 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. Discussion was held regarding the need for a master plan of the area and a fiscal analysis. A motion was made by MacAllister, seconded by Mandic, to approve Environmental Impact Report 84-1. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Kelly, MacAllister, Mandic, Bailey, Finley, Green NOES: Thomas ABSENT: None A motion was made by Kelly to defer consideration of Land Use Element No. 85-1 for 90 days for staff and the Huntington Beach Company to work out an industrial plan. The motion died for lack of a second. A motion was made by MacAllister, seconded by Kelly, to continue consideration of Land Use Element 85-1 for 120 days to work out a solution. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES : Kelly, MacAllister, Bailey, Finley, Green NOES: Mandic NOT VOTING: Thomas ABSENT: None Ad Hoc Committee to be Established A motion was made by Green, seconded by Mandic, to create an Ad Hoc committee to work with staff, Community Services Commission and the Huntington Beach Company; the members of the Committee to be appointed at a later date; the committee to include one or two councilmembers, one to be Councilman Kelly. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Kelly, MacAllister, Mandic, Bailey, Finley, Green NOES : None NOT VOTING: Thomas ABSENT: None Page 5 - Council Minutes - 6/17/85 PUBLIC HEARING - RES NO 5532 - ADOPTED, AS AMENDED - LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT 85-Z ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 85-1 - APPROVED - NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO 8 - - APPROVED - APPEAL TO PC DENIAL OF ZONE CHANGE 85-2 - PC SUSTAINED - ZC 85-2 DENIED - A C MARION The Mayor announced that this was the day and hour set for a public hearing to consider Land Use Element Amendment 85-2, Environmental Impact Report No. 85-1, and Zone Change No. 85-2. Land Use Element Amendment 85-2 is an amendment to the General Plan which covers the following items: Area 2.1 - a request by the M. D. Janes Company to change the General Plan designation from General Commercial to Medium Density Residential on 10.1 acres of property located on the northwest corner of Ellis Avenue and Goldenwest Street. Zone Change No. 85-2 is being processed concurrently with this request to change the zoning from C2-0-(Q) (Qualified Community Business District combined with Oil) 'to R2-PD (Medium Density Residential Planned Development) . The request could result in approximately 140 dwelling units. Environmental Impact Report 85-1 assesses the environmental impact of the proposed Land Use Element Amendment. Areas 3.1 through 3.21 - A request by the City of Huntington Beach to amend the General Plan Land Use Designations in 21 areas of the City as depicted on the map, in order to establish consistency between the General Plan and zoning. These are treated as Administrative Items and are not covered by Environmental Impact Report 85-1, but are covered by Negative Declaration 85-27. The Mayor announced that this was the day and hour set for a public hearing to consider an appeal filed to the denial by the Planning Commission of Zone Change No. 85-2, a request to rezone 10.1 acres of property located on the NW corner of Ellis Avenue and Goldenwest Street from C2-0-(Q) (Qualified Community Business District combined with Oil Production) to R2-PD (Medium Density Residential Planned Development). The zone change request is being processed concurrently with Area 2.1 of Land Use Element Amendment No. 85-2. 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. Charles Clark, Associate Planner, presented a staff report. The Mayor declared the hearing open. George Alvarez, A. C. Marion, Eddie J. Milligan and Ron Pattinson spoke in favor of Zone Case 85-2. Dr. Donald Shipley, Lorraine Faber, Thomas Harmon, Norma Vander Molen, Dave Potter, Tom Cooper and Reuben Ortega spoke in opposition to Zone Case 85-2. 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. Page 6 - Council Minut - 6/17/85 A motion was made by MacAllister, seconded by Kelly, to approve Environmental Impact Report 85-1 and Negative Declaration #85-27 by the following roll call straw vote: AYES: Kelly, MacAllister, Mandic, Bailey, Finley, Green, Thomas NOES: None ABSENT: None A motion was made by Kelly, seconded by MacAllister, to amend the General Plan Land Use Designations in Areas 3.3, 3.4, 3.6, 3.8, 3.15, 3.16, 3.18, 3.19, 3.21, in order to establish consistency between the General Plan and to defer Areas 3.1, 3.2, 3.5, 3.7, 3. 9, 3.10, 3.11, 3. 12, 3.13, 3.14, 3.17 and 3.20. The motion carried by the following roll call straw vote : AYES: Kelly, MacAllister, Mandic, Bailey, Finley, Green, Thomas NOES: None ABSENT: None A motion was made by MacAllister, seconded by Kelly, to overrule the Planning Commission and deny Zone Change No. 85-2 - Area 2.1, a request by the M. D. Janes Company to change the General Plan designation from General Commercial to Medium Density Residential on 10.1 acres of property located on the northwest corner of Ellis Avenue and Goldenwest Street. The motion failed by the following roll call straw vote: AYES: Kelly, MacAllister, Bailey NOES: Mandic, Finley, Green, Thomas ABSENT: None The City Clerk presented Resolution No. 5532 for Council consideration - "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ADOPTING LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 85-2 TO THE GENERAL PLAN." A motion was made by Kelly, seconded by Mandic, to approve Environmental Impact Report 85-2, to approve Negative Declaration No. 85-27 and to adopt Resolution No. 5532, as amended by deleting the following: 1. Approximately 10.1 acres located on the northwest corner of Ellis Avenue and Goldenwest Street shall be redesignated from "General Commercial" to Medium-density Residential," subject to the following:" "l.1 The requested concurrent zone change for the subject property shall be modified to reflect a limit on density of ten (10) units per acre, and the civic district suffix (-CD) , requiring special design review, shall be added." "1.2 A development agreement shall be entered into between the applicant and the city providing that the site shall be developed pursuant to the conceptual site plan featuring clustered units, submitted by the applicant and received on May 8, 1985 by the city." The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Kelly, MacAllister, Mandic, Bailey, Finley, Green, Thomas NOES: None ABSENT: None ELLIS - GOLDENWEST MASTER PLAN EVALUATION Prepared for The City of Huntington Beach By: Donald C. Cameron, AICP Donald Cameron Associates Urban Planning Consultants March 24, 1986 CONTENTS I. Introduction II. Background III . Overall Conclusions IV. Analysis V. Information Sources I. Introduction The subject of this study is the 720 acre area of The City of Huntington Beach now identified as The "Expanded Ellis— Goldenwest Master Plan Study Area" and previously known as The "Planning Reserve South of Central Park . " It is roughly bounded by Huntington Central Park to the north, The Bolsa Chica property to the west, The Civic Center area and Seacliff Planned Community to the south and Main Street to the east. The purpose of the study is : 1 ) To evaluate several master plan proposals already developed. 2) To recommend which existing plan, new hybrid plan, or , perhaps completely new plan would be appropriate to use as the basis for a General Plan Land Use Element Amendment and for new zoning or Specific Plans for the several separate planning subareas of the study site . 3) To indicate how several specific issues might be addressed in the plan recommended . This brief report is intended to augment a verbal presentation to be made to the City' s Study Area Ad Hoc—Committee . 2 II. Background In the years since the City's first Master Plan ( 1973) and the adoption of its first General Plan (1976 ) , the various pieces of this project area have been planned , studied, reviewed and documented in a variety of special proposals and reports initiated by the City Development Services Department and by the principal landowner , The Huntington Beach Company. It is unlikely that any more background data is required on which to base reasonable development decisions. In 1984, the Huntington Beach .Company submitted a Planned Community Proposal covering 120 key acres in the area which sought to redesignate a large portion of the property from industrial and very low density residential use to a medium density residential community. When denying this request in June 1985, the Council directed that the overall issues of land use and circulation for the general area be resolved before any specific projects were approved. A study of the entire 720 acre area was proposed by the Development Services Department in September 1985. Since that time, the City staff has developed two (2) Master Plan alternatives and The Huntington Beach Company has developed one (1) . The two City plans are fundamentally the same for most of the area except the Holly property, for which they have two somewhat different proposals. The Huntington Beach Company, plan is quite different from the City' s for almost all its own property and reflects its previous residential plan for the Holly property. 3 III. Overall Conclusions: After review of all documents available and discussions with a great many of the people concerned , a few things seem to be clear : 1 . Any of the plans proposed are theoretically possible. 2. All data necessary on which to base or evaluate a plan is available except economic and market information . 3. Absent developers who actively want to develop the non-residential components of the City ' s plans, the City must know if, when, and how the industrial and commercial concepts could be built and sold or leased. 4. Because of the strength of the local and regional housing market, any well designed , well built residential projects should be marketable within a 10 to 15 year time frame, barring a complete slowdown in the Country' s economic growth. 5. Infrastructural improvements will be necessary to build any plan, with probably much the same capital investment required for each. However , different plans might be differently financed. Once an overall land use and circulation plan is approved, a Capital Improvement Plan should be developed to support implementation . 6. Because of infrastructural needs, no large scale project could be realized any sooner than late 1988 or early 1989, if all the implementing actions required begin immediately. 7. Once agreement regarding land use and circulation is reached between the City, the landowners and any other public agencies involved , a General Plan Amendment should be intiated that includes the Land use , Circulation; and Open Space Elements. The latter is not presently in the City's General Plan but is recommended to insure that the visual and open space opportunities offered by the natural topography are utilized and tied together in an urban design framework throughout the study area. 8 . Following the General Plan Amendment , Specific Plans should be intitiated for the Bluff-top parcel , the Estates Block, the Holly Block , and the Ellis-Goldenwest Block to insure that natural features are protected , development opportunities are maximized, projects are coordinated , and that City ' s design goals are met. 4 9. The sequence recommended for plan resolution is as follows : a . Develop programs and site plans for each scenario for the Holly Block. b. Retain an Economic Consultant to evaluate each Holly scenario. c. Concurrently, work to resolve the Linear Park boundary and the Westerly road network. d. Staff prepare an overall project area site evaluation. e . With all previous data in hand , City staff, landowners and consultants, if needed, resolve planning issues in preparation for filing the General Plan amendment. 5 III . Analysis and Recommendations Although there are many specific questions of land use on small individual parcels of land that must be settled, there appears to be only a few large and fundamental issues concerning the study area . These are: 1 ) What is the role of this land mass in the City? 2) What are the exact bondaries of the linear park? 3) What is the southern boundary of Central Park? 4) How does the circulation system on the westerly side of the study area work? 5) Is the large lot/equestrian estate concept in the Ellis-Goldenwest-Garfield-Edwards block still valid? 6) How should Seacliff Planned Community be built out? 7) What is the most appropriate use (uses) of the Holly property; most specifically, should the historic Gothard Industrial corridor continue onto the site or terminate at Ellis, and should there be a large commercial site at Garfield and Main? The first three issues are inter-related and must be solved in a separate arena . Once settled , the appropriate land uses adjacent to the parks and the roads can be determined. The three proposed plans actually differ in land uses in this area because they each are based on quite different road solutions. Issue 1 . A Clean Slate When evaluating a large undeveloped or redevelopable piece of property, one cannot help expending a little effort on an exercise that could be called "what if. . . . ?" What if the slate were clean; what if there was no history, were no policies, no easements, no preconceptions, no existing plans? Then what? 6 Looking at the property, the topography, (significant asset in Huntington Beach) , access, relationship to the beach and the quality of existing and proposed adjacent uses : Civic Center/High School , Seacliff Planned Comunity, The Linear and Central Parks, The Proposed Bolsa wetlands Restoration , and The Proposed Bolsa Chica Community the most logical and suitable uses for all or most of the property would no doubt be residential , of diverse but high quality. The fact that other uses are being seriously considered seems to be a result of two factors : previous planning studies and commitments and the fact that there is little other vacant land of significant size in the City to locate certain non-residential uses. There is also the historic perspective . All or most of this land is - or was - part of the Huntington Beach oil field. For most of the life of the City it has been an industrial landscape, an unkempt urban backyard , off on the edge of the City, off the most important road network, cut off to the west by the Bolsa lowlands. But now, with oil going or gone, with very high quality development around it, its assets for other uses can be evaluated. Issue 2. Linear Park This question is currently under heated study before the Planning Commission. Before it is finally settled, agreement must be reached between the City of Huntington Beach, the County of Orange, the California Coastal Commission, and the two major landowners, the Huntington Beach Company and Signal-Landmark. Until this is settled , land uses along the area ' s western boundary cannot be completely resolved . Issue 3. Central Park The most logical or reasonable southern boundary of the Park will in large measure be determined by The Ellis- Talbert-Edwards Road solution . The three plans each reflect reasonable park boundaries based on the different road systems. The one other park question concerns the 10 acre Marion property at Ellis and Goldenwest. Experience shows that "outparcels" in large areas of public ownership are often long-term problems. The City should buy it, if it can . If this is not possible, it does not seem prudent to allow a residential use adjacent to the City ' s Equestrian Center , as the two uses seem completely uncompatible and problems of odor and pests can never be completely mitigated. 7 Issue 4. The Westerly Roads The need for and/or exact alignments of Garfield, Edwards, Ellis-Talbert and Seapoint will affect Seacliff Planned Community, the proposed Estates Area and the park boundaries. The resolution of Garfield is the matter of negotiation between the City, the County and the Coastal Commission in terms of alignment, timing , and responsibility. The sooner this is accomplished, the sooner land use and development decisions can be reached. The need for the Ellis-Talbert connection and the continuation of Edwards south of Ellis will be determined in part by a traffic study, which is to be commissioned in the near future and is critically important. Issue 5. Large Lot/Equestrian Estate Concept (The Ellis-Goldwenwet-Garfield-Edwards Block) Large lot and equestrian related residential development has been under study in the City since the early 19701s. Of the several areas once studied for this purpose , only this one remains available. This area and adjacent Huntington Beach company properties between Edwards and the bluff top and on the east side of Goldenwest (a total of 265 acres) were studied in the first Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan (August 1982) . It was not adopted , but one assumes that its provisions have governed the thinking of the planning staff in making its recommendations since then. All three plans being evaluated agree on the estate lot concept for most of the property. They differ on the size, location and density for non-estate development at Goldenwest and Garfield. The two City plans show 20 acres of Medium-Low density (8-10 DU/ac . ) directly across Goldenwest from the 30 ac . Ernest -Crystal Industrial parcel . The Huntington Beach Co . plan shows a 35 acre high density strip on their property along Garfield from Goldenwest to Edwards. Taking ownership into account, rather than the rationale of non-ownership related land use ideas, a strip of higher-than-estate density along Goldenwest does not seem inappropriate, but it would be more reasonable if this density matched that eventually decided upon for Seacliff Planned Community south of Garfield. If the City is still interested in at least one planning area devoted to very large lot development, the most appropriate place in the study area would seem to be in the Huntington Beach Company' s bluff-top ownership adjacent to the Linear Park and overlooking the Bolsa Chica wetlands, the ocean and Palos Verdes Peninsula. Because of the very special character of this site, such "estates" might be highly marketable. 8 Once the road system is settled and basic land uses agreed on, it is recommended that a Specific Plan again be initiated for the property and that no more piecemeal development be permitted until such a plan is approved and any infrastructural improvements needed are initiated. Issue 6. The Completion of Seacliff Planned Community. An area of approximately 170 acres remains to be built out in Seacliff Planned Community south of Garfield, if you include the Resource Production area on the southwestern corner of Garfield and Goldenwest and depending upon the final alignments of Garfield and Seapoint. The City and The landowner agree on use; the only question is density. The existing Planned Community Ordinance does not specify the actual number of units allowed and leaves pre-existing zoning in place which would allow 25 DU 's per acre. The City plans specify a "reasonable density' of 12 DU 's per acre. According to the landowner, the actual development schedule depends on the economic viability of the current oil production but it will probably not begin for at least five years and could take ten years or more to build out. They would naturally like to protect their options for as long as possible given the volatile nature of the housing market, but road and utility planning and capital budget projections by the city would argue for an early resolution of the issue . The density recommended would depend on the final disposition of the Holly property. Issue 7. The Holly Property Block : (Ellis-Goldenwest-Garfield-Study Area Boundary) This block of apporoximately 179 acres is the heart and the crux of the entire study. Land use disagreements on All other sub-areas are a matter of detail only; on this block they are a matter of considerable substance, with important repercussions not just to this area but to the enitre City. It is probably the largest piece of property in the City subject to development and the largest having so few ownerships (Huntington Beach Company owning approximately 149 acres, other owners holding the additional 30 acres) . It has been studied in great detail by several planning firms for the Huntington Beach Company and by City staff. At least nine plans have been developed and evaluated within the past two years and , including the three under review here. Almost all pertinent data imaginable has been collected and analyzed. with all of this collection, analysis, study and plan-making , the City and the principal landowner still have a major disagreement over the proper use or uses of the property. This is not so much a matter of land use planning or correct planning practice but a matter of market, timing and economics on the part of the land owner and city policy and tax base on the part of City government. 9 Based on all of the material available one could make a reasonable theoretical case for any of the options available. But we are dealing - with real development opportunities, not theory. Although this present study is being done at what looks like a general plan level of detail, it is actually based on Specific Plan level of information. The questions that must be answered before the land use agreement can be settled appear to be as follows : 1 . Is there a present or a reasonably projected market for the uses proposed? 2. When does the City wish to see the property developed? 3. If the landowner and the City cannot come to terms with each other, is the City willing to create a Redevelopment Project, condemn the land and develop it (assuming that this is legally and politically possible) ? The underlying policy for the City' s two plans seems to be the desire to utilize at least part of the site in such a manner to improve the tax-base and aid in job creation. These are valid goals in themselves, but how appropriate, at this location, in the late 1980 ' s or 1990's? The City staff has proposed several specific non-residential uses for portions of the property in their two schemes : o A 92 acres Industrial Park in two parcels, which would be a continuation of and terminus to the Gothard Industrial Corridor . With all of the disadvantages to the location already cited in City planning documents and unless two very special users could be found for the 35 acres and the 7 acre sites respectively, it can be anticipated that the property would be developed with much the same uses as The Gothard corridor to the north, at no great advantage to the City. If the job and tax base issues are of critical importance to the City, a way to overcome location and the lack of direct freeway access might be to utilize the entire block or at least Huntington Beach Company property for one well designed, well run and protected R & D/ Office park. High standards and critical mass might be able to overcome the Iocational disadvantages and create a highly marketable project . o A 31 acre auto park fronting Garfield from New Gothard to Main. The City staff feels there may be a market for several dealerships in a designed and controlled environment to replace downtown dealership not advantageously placed , 10 dealers on Beach Boulevard who might wish to move within the City and to attract new dealerships not presently represented in the City. At first glance, the location would not seem to be particularly attractive for this use, but it could be tested. Staff has also suggested that present Beach Boulevard details might be able to use remote but accessable storage for car sales to free up very valuable land on Beach Boulevard for other uses. While this might be advantageous for the dealers, it would not seem to maximize this site ' s potential . o A 31 acre special commercial site for undetermined uses. o The Huntington Beach Co. has proposed a residential Planned Community for its ownership while the other owners are presumed to desire industrial or mixed use ( industrial and commercial ) zoning. Recommendations All of the land use ideas 'have possible merit given a particular point of view, but none have been seriously evaluated for economic viability beyond random sampling of opinion in the City by members of the City staff. It is recommended that each of the non-residential uses be described with a written program and a simple site plan and that each of them be given to an Economic Consultant, agreeable to the city and the landowner, to be tested for market acceptance ',and absorption in near-term (2+ years) , mid-term (5 years) and long-term (10+ years) increments. With the knowledge of comparative viability in the market place, The City will be in a much bettor position to make final choices and to work out possible compromises with the landowners. Once the programs and site plans are prepared, the Economic Consultant should be able to complete the task in 6 to 8 weeks. After the basic land use and circulation system is composed by the City in a General Plan Amendment for the entire study area, we further recommend that each of the 3 major blocks (The Estate Area, The Holly Block, and The Garfield-Goldenwest Block) be the subject of Specific Plans, produced by a combination of City and landowner involvement, dealing not only with land use and design controls but also capital investment programs and schedules necessary to implement the plans in an economically sound and expeditious manner . 11 V. Information Series Documents Reviewed 1. "Recreational Trails Study, Phase I , Huntington Beach Planning Dept. , Oct. 1973. 2. "Equestrian Use Study, " Huntington Beach Planning Dept. , May 1974. 3. "Large Lot Study, " Huntington Beach Planning Dept. , Sept. 1974. 4. "Land Use Alternative - Seacliff Planned Community. " June 1974 . 5. "Industrial Land Use Study/I" Huntington Beach Planning Dept. , June 1976. 6. "Industrial Land Use Study/II" (Draft) , Huntington Beach Planning Dept. , Feb. 1977. 7. "Garfield-Goldenwest Study, " Huntington Beach Planning Dept. , March 1978. 8. "Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan and EIR" (Draft) , Huntington Beach Planning Dept. , August 1982. 9. Huntington Beach Company letter to City Council re : Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan, Aug. 3, 1982. 10. "Huntington Beach General Plan ," Dec . 1984 . 11 . Area Zoning Map Huntington Beach Planning Dept. 12. "Holly Property Planned Community, Draft Environmental Impact Report, " Michael Brandman Associates, Dec. 1984. 13. "Draft Land Use Element 85-1" Huntington Beach Planning Dept. , March 1985. 14 . Draft of Huntington Beach Co . Presentation to Planning Commission, May 1985. 15. Huntington Beach Co . , Surface Ownership Map, Nov. 1985. 16. "Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program, " Orange County Environmental Management Agency, Dec. 1985. 17. Archeological Sites Map of Study Area Huntington Beach Planning Dept . , No date . 18. Central Park Master Plan Map. 12 19. Expanded Ellis—Goldenwest Master Plan Study Alternatives : Two Schemes prepared by Huntington Beach Development Services Dept. One Scheme prepared by Huntington Beach Co . 20. Circulation Alternatives Map. Huntington Beach Development Services Dept. 21 . City Zoning Ordinances Persons Consulted City of Huntington Beach Charles Thompson, City Administrator James Palin, Director of Development Services Glen Godfrey, Deputy Director Jeanine Frank, Senior Planner Gail O'Brien, Assistant Planner Diana Blaisure, Assistant Planner Bill Patapoff , Civil Engineer Associate Steve Kohler, Senior Community Development Specialist Huntington Beach Company Roger Work, General Manager James Johnson William Holman Others Tom Davis Orange County Sanitation District Thomas Smith Michael Brandman Associates Richard Stoneman Planning Research Corporation William Phillips Phillips Brandt Reddick 1986 STAFF RECOMMENDATION ALTERNATIVE NO. 8 HOLLY PROPERTY FISCAL ANALYSIS Analysis of this recommendation for the Holly Property has been prepared using the same methodology that was used in the Fiscal Analysis Revision of May 22, 1985 , for the purpose of maintaining consistency in the comparisons . The methodology has been improved since May 1985 , however time constraints did not allow a revision of the revised fiscal analysis of 1985 . S`taff ' s Alternative 8 recommendation consists of the following scenario. Units/ Land Use Sauare Feet Acres Densitv Single-family detached 290 48 6 . 0 Single-family attached 170 18 9 . 4 Multi-family townhouse 245 18 13 .6 Multi-family flats 495 26 19 . 0 Subtotal dwelling units 1 , 200 110 Industrial 217 ,800 10 Total Acres 120* *Net acres , excluding acreage for public streets . I . REVENUE Property Tax The Holly property is in tax rate area 4-013 , and of the one percent property tax, collected by the County, the City receives ( for the general fund) 19 .9 percent in property tax revenue. The revenue in this analysis is based on the following assumptions : Total Value/ Total Residential Type Units Unit Value Revenue . Single-family' detached 290 $190 ,000 $ 55, 100 ,000 $109 , 649 Single-family attached 170 $150 ,000 $ 25 ,500 ,000 $ 50 ,745 Multi-family townhouse 245 $125 ,000 $ 30 ,625,000 $ 60 , 944 Multi-family flats 495 $100,000 $ 49 ,500,000 98 ,505 . Total 1 ,200 $160,725 ,000 $319, 843 C, y The 217 , 900 square feet of high-tech/light manufacturing industrial will have a construction value of $60 per square foot . Assuming that the property is retained by the Huntington Beach Company and leased to a developer - ( Assumption A in the 1985 revision) , the property valde would be $19 ,737 per acre resulting in a total developed value of $13 , 265 ,370 . The property tax revenue would be $26 , 399 . Total property tax revenue for this scenario would be $346 , 242 . Saes Tax The following assumptions have been used to determine sales tax revenue . Residential Unit Type Number Person/Unit Total Single-family detached 290 3 . 27 948 Single-family attached 170 2 . 03 354 Multi-family townhouse 245 1 . 85 453 Multi-family flats 495 1 . 35 916 Total 2 ,671 Sales price of the units are estimated to be 3 . 0 times the purchaser ' s household income. For this analysis, 1/3 of the sales price will be used for the income calculation . Unit Type Density Price Family Income Single-family detached 3 . 27 $190 , 000/3 . 0 = $63 , 333 Single-family attached 2.08 150 ,000/3 .0 = 50,000 Multi-family townhouse 1 .85 125 , 000/3. 0 = 41 ,666 Multi-family flats 1 .85 100 , 000/3 .0 = 33 ,333 Based on family size and income, taxable sales per family using Internal Revenue Service factors would be: Family Income IRS Factor Taxable Sales $63 ,333 x ( 0 .0767) + $4 ,450 = $9 ,303 $50 ,000 x (0 .0633 ) + $3 ,800 = $6 ,965 $41 ,666 x ( 0 .0633) + $3 ,800 = $6 ,437 $33, 333 x (0.0633) + $3 ,800 = $5 ,910 \Z� Sales tax is levied and collected by the State of California at a rate of six cents on every dollar spent on taxable goods . The City of Huntington Beach receives one cent of every six collected on taxable sales within the City . It is estimated that 40 percent of the taxable sales will take place within Huntington Beach , and 60 percent in surrounding communities . _ Of the 40 percent remaining in the City only 25 percent will be collected directly by the general fund . The 75 percent portion of the 40 percent will be collected by and credited to retail sales outlets in the City. 25% Net 1% Direct Unit Type Number Taxable Sales Total to City Revenue Single-family detached 290 $9 , 308 x 0 .40 $1 ,079 , 728 $10 ,797 $2 , 699 Single-family attached 170 $6 , 965 x 0 . 40 $ 473 ,620 $ 4, 736 $1 , 184 Multi-family townhouse 245 $6 , 437 x 0 . 40 $ 630, 826 $ 6, 308 $1 ,577 Multi-family flats 495 $5 , 910 x 0 .40 $1 , 170 , 180 $11 ,702 $2 ,925 TOTAL $8 ,385 industrial Since the most recent industrial developments in the City are of a mixed use nature it will be assumed that 35 percent or 76 ,230 -square feet of this industrial portion of this scenario will generate sales tax revenue . Based on the 1985 estimate of $11 . 41 per square foot the total sales tax revenue would be $869 ,784 and one percent ( the City ' s portion) would be $8 , 698. Total sales tax revenue = $17 ,083 Utility Tax Residential Electricity - The City collects 5 percent of every electricity bill for service within the City . The average Southern California Edison residential electricity bill for 1984 is $34 .75 . The estimate of the electricity tax revenue is as follows : ($34.75 x 12 months) (5 percent x 1,200 units) = $25,020 -3- (5287d ) Natural Gas - The City collects 5 percent of every gas bill for service within the City . The average Southern California Gas Company residential bill for 1984 is $32 . 27 . Therefore, an estimate of the natural gas tax revenue is as follows : ( $32 . 27 x 12 months ) (5 percent x 1 , 200 units) = $23 , 234 Telephone - The City collects 5 percent tax on every telephone bill in t':e City . Based on an estimated residential telephone bill of approximately $40 per month of service . An estimate of the telephone tax revenue is as follows : ( $40 x 12 months ) (5 percent x 1 ,200 units ) = $28 ,800 revenue Industrial Electric - The annual electrical usage, per square foot , for the in'-strial portion of this scenario is estimated to be 4 .5 killowatt hours (KWH ) . The cost per KWH is 7 .5 cents . Total annual KWH equals 980, 100 generating $73 , 506 in total electrical cost and resulting in $3 ,675 in City revenue . Natural Gas - Industrial use is estimated to be . 396 BTUs per square root annually. The cost per BTU would be 54 .9 cents . The annual natural gas cost would be $47 ,351 based on 86 ,248 .8 BTUs resulting in $2 , 368 in City revenue. Telephone - In 1985 , as well as at the present time, Genera' Telephone cannot provide the City an estimate of phone use for industrial customers in the City. Total Utility Tax Revenue is $83 ,097 . Franchise Tax .r The primary sources of franchise tax for the City are based on the gross receipts of natural gas and electricity accounts in the City . -, The tax amount is based on 2 percent of gross receipts for electricity and 4 percent for gas . The annual franchise tax revenue is as follows: $28 , 695 annual electricity receipts x 0 .02 tax = $ 574 $25 ,602 annual gas receipts x 0 .04 tax = $1 ,024 Total Annual franchise tax = $1 ,598 Business License Fees The industrial portion of this scenario is assumed to generate 1 employee per 1 ,000 square feet of building space resulting in 218 employees . According to the City's Business License Department the annual business license fee would be $413 . -4- (5287d ) Remaining Revenue The remaining revenue factors are based on a per capita estimate and generated only by residential development . The population base used by staff is 180 ,00a (January 1 , 1984 ) , provided by the State Department of Finance . The population estimate for this scenario is 2 , 671 . An additional revenue source is the Park and Recreation Fee . Staff chose only to use park and recreation user fees and not include projected park development funds which are a one-time-only revenue . The remaining revenue allocations are as Follows : Fines , Forfeitures and Penalties $10 .93/capita Cigarette Tax 2 .94/capita Motor Vehicle In-Lieu Tax $ 2 . 19/capita Park and Recreation user Fees $ 4 .04/capita COSTS mhe method used by staff to estimate project cost impacts is similar to that used in the EIR . It provides a reasonable analysis considering the limited data and the application of a manual (versus computer) model . The assumptions used in this report are based on per acre costs for residential and per acre costs for industrial land uses . The budget items used reflect recurring costs , in 1984 dollars, and do not consider capital expenditures . For the purpose of this report one cost factor methodology will be described and the remainder will list the title, budget expenditure and per acre cost . General/Administrative Excenditures This fund includes : City Council , Non-Departmental, Administration , City Treasurer, City Attorney, City Clerk and Administrative Services . The approved 1984/1985 budget (minus capital expenditures ) shows a total of $9 , 422 ,029 for this fund. Residential development in the City includes 78 percent of the privately developed acres . The residential portion of this fund, would therefore, equal $7 , 349, 183 . Derived from population estimates and aplied on a per acre basis , the residetial cost is $991 .43/acre. Industrial development comprises 12 percent of the privately developed acres in the City. Therefore, the industrial portion. of this fund would be $1 ,130,643 or $770 .19 per acre. -5- (5287d ) Tire Department Expenditures The budgeted 1984/1935 expenditure is $9 , 169 ,601 ; the residential per acre cost is $964 .72 and the industrial per acre cost is $749 .56 . Police Department =x=enditures The budgeted 1984/1935 expenditure is $17, 423 , 265 ; the residential per acre cost is $1 ,333 . 23 and the industrial per acre cost is $1 ,424 . 25 . Community Service Expenditures The budgeted 1984/1935 expenditure is $5 ,948 , 306 ; the residential per acre cost is $625 .98 . Although there may be some impact on community service from industrial development , the amount would be minimal and , therefcre , is not assessed in this analysis . Public Works Expenditures The budgeted expenditure is $14 , 366 , 765 ; the per acre residential cost is $1 ,457 . 92 and the industrial cost per acre is $1 , 174 .40 . n addition to the previously discussed changes , the Development Services fund expenditure was omitted from this report as it reflects one-time-only development related fees and is not appropriate to include in an analysis of annual or recurring costs . The results of this analysis are presented in the following table . -6- (5287d ) Table 1 1986 REVISED FISCAL ANALYSIS FOR THE HOLLY PROPERTY PLANNED COMMUNITY GPA 84-1 EIR Revenues Proposed Existing Recommended Holly General Alternative Plan Plan Plan No . 8 Property Tax $329 ,337 $347 ,402 $346 ,242 Sales Tax 8 , 585 73 ,435 17, 083 Utility Use Tax 77 ,054 66 ,070 83 ,097 Franchise Tax 28 , 596 34 ,598 1 ,598 Busines's License --- 2 ,873 413 Fines , Forfeitures and Penalties 30 , 713 5 , 006 29 , 194 --igarette Tax 8 ,261 1 , 347 ' , 853 Motor Vehicle In-Lieu Tax 6 , 154 1 ,003 :� , 649 Park and Recreation User Fees 11 , 352 1 , 850 10 ,791 TOTAL $500 , 052 $533 , 584 $502 , 120 Costs* General and Administrative $114 ,732 $ 80 , 315 $116 ,759 Fire 111 , 641 78 , 161 113 ,615 Police 212 , 155 148 , 519 215 ,904 Community Services 72 , 442 11 ,807 68 , 858 Public Works 174 ,951 122 ,467 176 ,489 Total $685 , 921 $441 ,269 $691 ,625 Revenue - Cost = (185 ,869 ) $ 92 , 315 ( 189 ,505 ) Revenue/Cost = . 73 1 .21 .73 *Using adopted 1984/1985 budget expenditures and omitting capital expenses. -7- ( 5287d ) ELLIS — GOLDENWEST MASTER PLAN EVALUATION Prepared for The City of Huntington Beach By: Donald C. Cameron , AICP Donald Cameron Associates Urban Planning Consultants March 24, 1986 I� CONTENTS I . Introduction II. Background III . Overall Conclusions IV. Analysis V. Information Sources I. Introduction The subject of this study is the 720 acre area of The City of Huntington Beach now identified as The "Expanded Ellis- Goldenwest Master Plan Study Area" and previously known as The "Planning Reserve South of Central Park . " It is roughly bounded by Huntington Central Park to the north, The Bolsa Chica property to the west, The Civic Center area and Seacliff Planned Community to the south and Main Street to the east. The purpose of the study is : 1 ) To evaluate several master plan proposals already developed . 2) To recommend which existing plan, new hybrid plan, or , perhaps completely new plan would be appropriate to use as the basis for a General Plan Land Use Element Amendment and for new zoning or Specific Plans for the several separate planning subareas of the study site . 3) To indicate how several specific issues might be addressed in the plan recommended. This brief report is intended to augment a verbal presentation to be made to the City' s Study Area Ad Hoc-Committee. 2 II. Background In the years since the City's first Master Plan (1973) and the adoption of its first General Plan (1976) , the various pieces of this project area have been planned, studied , reviewed and documented in a variety of special proposals and reports initiated by the City Development Services Department and by the principal landowner , The Huntington Beach Company. It is unlikely that any more background data is required on which to base reasonable development decisions. In 1984, the Huntington Beach Company submitted a Planned Community Proposal covering 120 key acres in the area which sought to redesignate a large portion of the property from industrial and very low density residential use to a medium density residential community. When denying this request in June 1985, the Council directed that the overall issues of land use and circulation for the general area be resolved before any specific projects were approved. A study of the entire 7a0 acre area was proposed by the Development Services Department in September 1985. Since that time, the City staff has developed two (2) Master Plan alternatives and The Huntington Beach Company has developed one (1) . The two City plans are fundamentally the same for most of the area except the Holly property, for which they have two somewhat different proposals. The Huntington Beach Company, plan is quite different from the City' s for almost all its own property and reflects its previous residential plan for the Holly property. 3 III. Overall Conclusions: After review of all documents available and discussions with a great many of the people concerned , a few things seem to be clear : 1 . Any of the plans proposed are theoretically possible. 2. All data necessary on which to base or evaluate a plan is available except economic and market information . 3. Absent developers who actively want to develop the non-residential components of the City' s plans, the City must know if, when, and how the industrial and commercial concepts could be built and sold or leased. 4. Because of the strength of the local and regional housing market, any well designed , well built residential projects should be marketable within a 10 to 15 year time frame, barring a complete slowdown in the Country' s economic growth. 5. Infrastructural improvements will be necessary to build any plan, with probably much the same capital investment required for each. However , different plans might be differently financed . Once an overall land use and circulation plan is approved, a Capital Improvement Plan should be developed to support implementation . 6. Because of infrastructural needs, no large scale project could be realized any sooner than late 1988 or early 1989, if all the implementing actions required begin immediately. 7. Once agreement regarding land use and circulation is reached between the City, the landowners and any other public agencies involved , a General Plan Amendment should be intiated that includes the Land use , Circulation; and Open Space Elements. The latter is not presently in the City' s General Plan but is recommended to insure that the visual and open space opportunities offered by the natural topography are utilized and tied together in an urban design framework throughout the study area. 8. Following the General Plan Amendment, Specific Plans should be intitiated for the Bluff-top parcel , the Estates Block, the Holly Block, and the Ellis-Goldenwest Block to insure that natural features are protected, development opportunities are maximized , projects are coordinated , and that City ' s design goals are met. 4 9. The sequence recommended for plan resolution is as follows : a . Develop programs and site plans for each scenario for the Holly Block. b. Retain an Economic Consultant to evaluate each Holly scenario. c. Concurrently, work to resolve the Linear Park boundary and the Westerly road network. d. Staff prepare an overall project area site evaluation. e . With all previous data in hand , City staff, landowners and consultants, if needed, resolve planning issues in preparation for filing the General Plan amendment. 5 III . Analysis and Recommendations Although there are many specific questions of land use on small individual parcels of land that must be settled, there appears to be only a few large and fundamental issues concerning the study area. These are: 1 ) What is the role of this land mass in the City? 2) What are the exact bondaries of the linear park? 3) What is the southern boundary of Central Park? 4) How does the circulation system on the westerly side of the study area work? 5 ) Is the large lot/equestrian estate concept in the Ellis-Goldenwest-Garfield-Edwards block still valid? 6) How should Seacliff Planned Community be built out? 7) What is the most appropriate use (uses) of the Holly property; most specifically, should the historic Gothard Industrial corridor continue onto the site or terminate at Ellis, and should there be a large commercial site at Garfield and Main? The first three issues are inter-related and must be solved in a separate arena . Once settled , the appropriate land uses adjacent to the parks and the roads can be determined. The three proposed plans actually differ in land uses in this area because they each are based on quite different road solutions. Issue 1 . A Clean Slate When evaluating a large undeveloped or redevelopable piece of property, one cannot help expending a little effort on an exercise that could be called "what if . . . .?" What if the slate were clean; what if there was no history, were no policies, no easements, no preconceptions, no existing plans? Then what? 6 Looking at the property, the topography, (significant asset in Huntington Beach) , access, relationship to the beach and the quality of existing and proposed adjacent uses : Civic Center/High School , Seacliff Planned Comunity, The Linear and Central Parks , The Proposed Bolsa Wetlands Restoration , and The Proposed Bolsa Chica Community the most logical and suitable uses for all or most of the property would no doubt be residential , of diverse but high quality. The fact that other uses are being seriously considered seems to be a result of two factors : previous planning studies and commitments and the fact that there is little other vacant land of significant size in the City to locate certain non-residential uses. There is also the historic perspective . All or most of this land is - or was - part of the Huntington Beach oil field . For most of the life of the City it has been an industrial landscape, an unkempt urban backyard, off on the edge of the City, off the most important road network, cut off to the west by the Bolsa lowlands. But now, with oil going or gone, with very high quality development around it, its assets for other uses can be evaluated. Issue 2. Linear Park This question is currently under heated study before the Planning Commission . Before it is finally settled, agreement must be reached between the City of Huntington Beach, the County of Orange, the California Coastal Commission, and the two major landowners , the Huntington Beach Company and Signal-Landmark. Until this is settled , land uses along the area ' s western boundary cannot be completely resolved . Issue 3. Central Park The most logical or reasonable southern boundary of the Park will in large measure be determined by The Ellis- Talbert-Edwards Road solution . The three plans each reflect reasonable park boundaries based on the different road systems. The one other park question concerns the 10 acre Marion property at Ellis and Goldenwest . Experience shows that "outparcels' in large areas of public ownership are often long-term problems. The City should buy it, if it can . If this is not possible , it does not seem prudent to allow a residential use adjacent to the City' s Equestrian Center , as the two uses seem completely uncompatible and problems of odor and pests can never be completely mitigated . 7 Issue 4. The Westerly Roads The need for and/or exact alignments of Garfield, Edwards, Ellis-Talbert and Seapoint will affect Seacliff Planned Community, the proposed Estates Area and the park boundaries. The resolution of Garfield is the matter of negotiation between the City, the County and the Coastal Commission in terms of alignment, timing , and responsibility. The sooner this is accomplished, the sooner land use and development decisions can be reached. The need for the Ellis-Talbert connection and the continuation of Edwards south of Ellis will be determined in part by a traffic study, which is to be commissioned in the near . future and is critically important. Issue 5. Large Lot/Equestrian Estate Concept (The Ellis-Goldwenwet-Garfield-Edwards Block) Large lot and equestrian related residential development has been under study in the City since the early 19701s. Of the several areas once studied for this purpose , only this one remains available. This area and adjacent Huntington Beach company properties between Edwards and the bluff top and on the east side of Goldenwest (a total of 265 acres) were studied in the first Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan (August 1982) . It was not adopted , but one assumes that its provisions have governed the thinking of the planning staff in making its recommendations since then. All three plans being evaluated agree on the estate lot concept for most of the property. They differ on the size, location and density for non-estate development at Goldenwest and Garfield. The two City plans show 20 acres of Medium-Low density (8-10 DU/ac .) directly across Goldenwest from the 30 ac . Ernest -Crystal Industrial parcel . The Huntington Beach Co. plan shows a 35 acre high density strip on their property along Garfield from Goldenwest to Edwards. Taking ownership into account, rather than the rationale of non-ownership related land use ideas, a strip of higher-than-estate density along Goldenwest does not seem inappropriate , but it would be more reasonable if this density matched that eventually decided upon for Seacliff Planned Community south of Garfield . If the City is still interested in at least one planning area devoted to very large lot development, the most appropriate place in the study area would seem to be in the Huntington Beach Company' s bluff-top ownership adjacent to the Linear Park and overlooking the Bolsa Chica Wetlands, the ocean and Palos Verdes Peninsula. Because of the very special character of this site, such "estates" might be highly marketable. 8 Once the road system is settled and basic land uses agreed on, it is recommended that a Specific Plan again be initiated for the property and that no more piecemeal development be permitted until such a plan is approved and any infrastructural improvements needed are initiated. Issue 6. The Completion of Seacliff Planned Community. An area of approximately 170 acres remains to be built out in Seacliff Planned Community south of Garfield , if you include the Resource Production area on the southwestern corner of Garfield and Goldenwest and depending upon the final alignments of Garfield and Seapoint. The City and The landowner agree on use ; the only question is density. The existing Planned Community Ordinance does not specify the actual number of units allowed and leaves pre-existing zoning in place which would allow 25 DU 's per acre. The City plans specify a "reasonable density" of 12 DU 's per acre . - According to the landowner, the actual development schedule depends on the economic viability of the current oil production but it will probably not begin for at least five years and could take ten years or more to build out. They would naturally like to protect their options for as long as possible given the volatile nature of the housing market, but road and utility planning and capital budget projections by the city would argue for an early resolution of the issue . The density recommended would depend on the final disposition of the Holly property. Issue 7. The Holly Property Block : (E lis-Goldenwest-Garfield-Study Area Boundary) This block of apporoximately 179 acres is the heart and the crux of the entire study. Land use disagreements on all other sub-areas are a matter of detail only; on this block they are a matter of considerable substance , with important repercussions not just to this area but to the enitre City. It is probably the largest piece of property in the City subject to development and the largest having so few ownerships (Huntington Beach Company owning approximately 149 acres, other owners holding the additional 30 acres) . It has been studied in great detail by several planning firms for the Huntington Beach Company and by City staff. At least nine plans have been developed and evaluated within the past two years and , including the three under review here. Almost all pertinent data imaginable has been collected and analyzed. With all of this collection, analysis, study and plan-making , the City and the principal landowner still have a major disagreement over the proper use or uses of the property. This is not so much a matter of land use planning or correct planning practice but a matter of market, timing and economics on the part of the land owner and city policy and tax base on the part of City government. 9 Based on all of the material available one could make a reasonable theoretical case for any of the options available. But we are dealing with real development opportunities, not theory. Although this present study is being done at what looks like a general plan level of detail, it is actually based on Specific Plan level of information . The questions that must be answered before the land use agreement can be settled appear to be as follows : 1 . Is there a present or a reasonably projected market for the uses proposed? 2. When does the City wish to see the property developed? 3. If the landowner and the City cannot come to terms with each other, is the City willing to create a Redevelopment Project, condemn the land and develop it (assuming that this is legally and politically possible) ? The underlying policy for the City' s two plans seems to be the desire to utilize at least part of the site in such a manner to improve the tax-base and aid in job creation. These are valid goals in themselves, but how appropriate, at this location, in the late 1980 ' s or 1990 's? The City staff has proposed several specific non-residential uses for portions of the property in their two schemes : o A 42 acres Industrial Park in two parcels, which would be a continuation of and terminus to the Gothard Industrial Corridor . With all of the disadvantages to the location already cited in City planning documents and unless two very special users could be found for the 35 acres and the 7 acre sites respectively, it can be anticipated that the property would be developed with much the same uses as The Gothard corridor to the north, at no great advantage to the City. If the job and tax base issues are of critical importance to the City, a way to overcome location and the lack of direct freeway access might be to utilize the entire block or at least Huntington Beach Company property for one well designed, well run and protected R & D/ Office park. High standards and critical mass might be able to overcome the locational disadvantages and create a highly marketable project. o A 31 acre auto park fronting Garfield from New Gothard to Main. The City staff feels there may be a market for several dealerships in a designed and controlled environment to replace downtown dealership not advantageously placed, 10 dealers on Beach Boulevard who might wish to move within the City and to attract new dealerships not presently represented in the City. At first glance, the location would not seem to be particularly attractive for this use, but it could be tested. Staff has also suggested that present Beach Boulevard details might be able to use remote but accessable storage for car sales to free up very valuable land on Beach Boulevard for other uses. While this might be advantageous for the dealers, it would not seem to maximize this site ' s potential . o A 31 acre special commercial site for undetermined uses. o The Huntington Beach Co. has proposed a residential Planned Community for its ownership while the other owners are presumed to desire industrial or mixed use ( industrial and commercial ) zoning. Recommendations All of the land use ideas have possible merit given a particular point of view, but none have been seriously evaluated for economic viability beyond random sampling of opinion in the City by members of the City staff. It is recommended that each of the non-residential uses be described with a written program and a simple site plan and that each of them be given to an Economic Consultant, agreeable to the city and the landowner, to be tested for market acceptance and absorption in near-term (2+ years) , mid-term (5 years) and long-term (10+ years) increments. With the knowledge of comparative viability in the market place, The City will be in a much better position to make final choices and to work out possible compromises with the landowners. Once the programs and site plans are prepared , the Economic Consultant should be able to complete the task in 6 to 8 weeks. After the basic land use and circulation system is composed by the City in a General Plan Amendment for the entire study area, we further recommend that each of the 3 major blocks (The Estate Area , The Holly Block, and The Garfield-Goldenwest Block) be the subject of Specific Plans, produced by a combination of City and landowner involvement, dealing not only with land use and design controls but also capital investment programs and schedules necessary to implement the plans in an economically sound and expeditious manner . 11 V. Information Series Documents Reviewed 1 . "Recreational Trails Study, Phase I , Huntington Beach Planning Dept. , Oct. 1973. 2. "Equestrian Use Study, " Huntington Beach Planning Dept. , May 1974. 3. "Large Lot Study, " Huntington Beach Planning Dept. , Sept. 1974. 4. "Land Use Alternative - Seacliff Planned Community. " June 1974. 5. "Industrial Land Use Study/I" Huntington Beach Planning Dept. , June 1976. 6. "Industrial Land Use Study/II" (Draft) , Huntington Beach Planning Dept. , Feb. 1977. 7. "Garfield-Goldenwest Study, " Huntington Beach Planning Dept. , March 1978. 8. "Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan and EIR" (Draft) , Huntington Beach Planning Dept. , August 1982. 9. Huntington Beach Company letter to City Council re : Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan, Aug. 3, 1982. 10. "Huntington Beach General Plan , " Dec . 1984 . 11 . Area Zoning Map Huntington Beach Planning Dept. 12. "Holly Property Planned Community, Draft Environmental Impact Report, " Michael Brandman Associates, Dec . 1984. 13. "Draft Land Use Element 85-1" Huntington Beach Planning Dept. , March 1985. 14 . Draft of Huntington Beach Co . Presentation to Planning Commission , May 1985. 15. Huntington Beach Co . , Surface Ownership Map, Nov. 1985. 16. "Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program," Orange County Environmental Management Agency, Dec. 1985. 17. Archeological Sites Map of Study Area Huntington Beach Planning Dept. , No date . 18. Central Park Master Plan Map. 12 19. Expanded Ellis—Goldenwest Master Plan Study Alternatives : Two Schemes prepared by Huntington Beach Development Services Dept. One Scheme prepared by Huntington Beach Co . 20. Circulation Alternatives Map. Huntington Beach Development Services Dept. 21 . City Zoning Ordinances Persons Consulted City of Huntington Beach Charles Thompson, City Administrator James Palin, Director of Development Services Glen Godfrey, Deputy Director Jeanine Frank, Senior Planner Gail O'Brien, Assistant Planner Diana Blaisure, Assistant Planner Bill Patapoff, Civil Engineer Associate Steve Kohler, Senior Community Development Specialist Huntington Beach Company Roger Work, General Manager James Johnson William Holman Others Tom Davis Orange County Sanitation District Thomas Smith Michael Brandman Associates Richard Stoneman Planning Research Corporation William Phillips Phillips Brandt Reddick Ic' FR CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH #86-31 COUNCIL - ADMINISTRATOR COMMUNICATION HUNT94GTM KACH To Honorable Mayor and Fro Charles W. Thompson, #A City Councilmembers City Administrator SubjectELLIS/GOLDENWEST AD HOC Date April 28, 1986 COMMITTEE The Ellis/Goldenwest Ad Hoc Committee has met on two recent occasions and has been briefed on the planning studies which have been completed for this area by staff and outside consultation. These studies have been conducted over the past six months. At the last Ad Hoc meeting a question arose as to the specific charge given to the committee by the City Council. Excerpts from the City Council meeting at which this committee was framed are attached. It would appear that a committee structured such as this one could provide specific input covering the objectives and concerns of the various groups represented. It would also appear to be logical to develop land use ideas for all of the undeveloped properties from the Main Street area to the Bolsa Chica bluffs and from Central Park to Seacliff Golf Course. It is requested that the City Council provide a specific and exclusive change of duty for the committee so that this long awaited plan can be completed in a reasonable time frame. Respectfully submitted: Charles W. Thompson, City Administrator f CW T:paj k . Page 7 - Council Minutes - 6/24/85 Following discussion, a motion was made by Finley, seconded by Kelly, after the pond is filled in and the sewer installed the park be prepared for interim use. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Kelly, Bailey, Finley, Green, Thomas NOES: None ABSENT: MacAllister, M andic ORDINANCE NO 2777 - INTRODUCTION APPROVED - MASSAGE PARLOR PERMITS The City Clerk presented Ordinance No. 2777 for Council consideration - "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON, BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE BY AMENDING SECTIONS 5.24.060, 5.24.110, 5.24.130 AND 5.24.250, ALL RELATING TO MASSAGE PARLOR PERMITS." On motion by Kelly, second Green, Council approved introduction of Ordinance No. 2777, after reading by title, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Kelly, Bailey, Finley, Green, Thomas NOES: None ABSENT: M andic, MacAllister AD HOC HOLLY PROPERTY COMMITTEE A motion was made by Bailey, seconded by Kelly, to ratify the following organizations and members appointed to date of the Ad Hoc Holly Property Committee: Liaison: Ruth Finley, Jack Kelly; Equestrian (1) , Amigos de Bolsa Chica (1) , Community Services Commission (1) , plus 1 alternate) Huntington Beach Company (2), Planning Commission (2), Real Estate (1) , Industrial (1) , Citizens Representative (2) . The Industrial representative: Alan Strasbaugh; the Citizens Representatives : Roger Slates and Tom Harmon. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Kelly, Bailey, Finley, Green, Thomas NOES: None ABSENT: M andic, MacAllister The City Administrator informed Council that Roger Work, President of the Huntington Beach Company, requested a meeting with Councilmembers Finley and Kelly and the two Planning Commission members. COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION REAPPOINTMENTS & APPOINTMENTS FROM 7/1/85 A motion was made by Kelly, seconded by Finley, to ratify the following reappointments and appointments to the Community Services Commission effective from July 1, 1985: HBUHSD - Glen Dysinger 8/31/85 Dr. Ira Toibin - 9/1/85 - 6/30/86 OVSD - Jay Rivera - 6/30/86 FVSD - Judy Blankinship - 6/30/86 Wm SD - Art Giese - 6/30/86 HBCSD - Karen O'Bric - 6/30/86 GWC - Loren Moll - 6/30/86 AT LARGE - William Osness - 6/30/89 Huntington Beach Company 2110 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648-2499 (714) 960-4351 R. J. Work May 5, 1986 Vice President—General Manager O �0 Mayor Robert P. Mandic, Jr. �,S,U' S Huntington Beach City Council 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 F Subject: Holly Property General Plan Amendment 84-1 Ad Hoc Committee Direction Dear Mayor Mandic and City Council: We would appreciate your clarification of the role of the Ad Hoc Holly Property Committee with respect to General Plan Amendment 84-1. This committee has held two meetings and there appears to be some confusion as to the purpose of the committee, membership on the committee, and the level of staff support. In providing direction to the committee, we ask you to consider our concerns stated below. The Huntington Beach Company applied for an amendment to the general plan for the Holly Property in March 1984. After a year of environmental studies and staff review of our proposal, public hearings were held before the Planning Commission and City Council in May and June of 1985. The basic issue raised by staff was retaining industrial zoning on a majority of the site versus allowing the Huntington Beach Company to proceed with a specific plan for a proposed residential project. On June 17, 1985, the City Council voted to defer action on the general plan amendment for 120 days and directed staff to work with the Huntington Beach Company to locate a major industrial user for a portion of the property and to address various concerns related to residential portions of the property. An ensuing motion was made to include industrial and equestrian representatives in such staff discussions through an Ad Hoc Committee. Committee members representing a diverse range of issues and interests beyond the Holly Property were appointed at a subsequent Council meeting. Several months passed with no committee activity. In October, 1985, the Huntington Beach Company received a letter from staff indicating that a "master plan study" had been initiated covering a 700-acre area including the' Holly Property and soliciting our comments on a long list of issues. At this point the committee is evaluating a master study area of 700 acres. The staff has developed a plan for the area and an outside land planning consultant has reviewed the plan and made comments. Members of the Ad Hoc Committee seem to have a difference of opinion on the direction the committee should be taking. It appears to us that, with the plan that has been prepared by City Staff and reviewed by a planning consultant, the Ad Hoc Committee should be directed by the City Council to make comments to the plan that is before them without further timely delays. Further it has become obvious that the only major issue regarding the Holly Property is whether it is to be an industrial or residential development. We feel this decision can only be made by the City Council. Therefore, that portion of the Holly Property should be brought back to the City Council while the Ad Hoc Committee reviews the plan on the remainder of the area. We request that the committee be directed to give its comments on the plans that the staff has put before them and that they not attempt to be planners by developing another plan for the 700-acre a 7 R. . WORK RJW:jl Huntington Beach Company 2110 Main Street, Huntington Beach,California 92648-2499 (714) 960-4351 June 2, 1986 Mayor Robert P. Mandic, Jr. Huntington Beach City Council 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Subject: Agenda Item D-2c, Land Use Element Amendment 85-1 Holly Property Honorable Mayor and City Council: Because of the number of public hearings scheduled for your consideration this evening, we request that the above item be continued to your June 16, 1986 regular meeting. Sincerely, W, ()4�0� W. D. HOLMAN Project Representative W DH je 1 LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT 85 .1 MARCH 1985 In conjunction with ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 84.1 m a � huntingfon beach planning division TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. 0 Introduction---------------------- 1 1. 1 Methodology----------------------- 1 2. 0 Area of Concern------------------- 3 2.1 Holly Property-------------------- a 2.1.1 Background----------------- ------ 3 2.1 .2 Land Use-------------------------- 4 2. 1. 3 Housing--------------------------- 21 2.1. 4 Public Services and Utilities----- 22 2. 1. 5 Traffic and Circulation----------- 22 2.1. 6 Environmental Issues-------------- 23 2. 1. 7 Staff Recommendation-------------- 23 1. 0 INTRODUCTION This report analyzes Amenament 85-1 to the Land Use Element of the Huntington Beach General Plan. The Land Use Element was adopted as a mandated element of the General Plan in December, 1973; this is the twenty-sixth amendment to the element. 1. 1 METHODOLOGY This amendment to the Land Use Element considers a request to change the land use designations in one area of the City. The site is known as the Holly property and is located between Ellis Avenue, the Southern Pacific Right-of-Way, Garfield Avenue, Crystal Street, Ernest Avenue and Goldenwest Street. The amendment covers approximately 126 acres. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Draft Environmental Impact Report No. 84-1 has been prepared by Michael Brandman Associates, Inc. to cover the Holly property amendment. This General Plan Amendment document, therefore, does not provide any environmental analysis. Rather , only Land Use and Circulation issues are discussed here. All other issues are deterred to the Environmental Impact Report for discussion. ( 0002D) -1- 2. 0 AREA OF CONCERN 2. 1. Holly Property 2.1. 1 Background This General Plan Amendment item has been requested by the Huntington Beach Company. The request is to change the General Plan designations on 126 acres of land bordered by Ellis Avenue on the north, the Southern Pacific Railroad Right-of-Way on the east, Garfield and Ernest Avenues on the south, and Goldenwest Street and Crystal Street on the west. The requested change is from Estate Residential , General Industrial and Office Professional to Planned Community. No change to the existing zoning on the property is requested at this time. The applicant intends to submit a specific plan once an overall general development concept has been approved for the site. The Holly Property has for a number of years been considered to be the southern terminus of the Gothard Industrial Corridor , which extends from Edinger Avenue to Garfield Avenue. This amendment item is requesting that the City of Huntington Beach re-examine the Industrial Corridor and redraw the southern boundary at Ellis Avenue rather than Garfield Avenue. The area surrounding the Holly Property is presently occupied by a wide variety of uses, both conforming and nonconforming to the equally varied general plan and zoning aesignations. Selection of a land use plan for the Holly Property may have a significant influence on how the surrounding property is eventually designated and developed. (0002D ) -3- As indicated in the Introduction section of this document, Environmental Impact Report No. 84-1 has been prepared separately for this amendment item. The following analysis will focus primarily upon Land Use issues and to a lessor degree upon Circulation issues . Seven alternative land use designations will be discussed . 2.1. 2 LAND USE Existing Conditions The Holly Property is located on the south side of Ellis Avenue, west of the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way, north of Garfield and Ernest Avenues and east of. Goldenwest Street. The property comprises approximately 126 acres which are largely vacant. The existing General Plan (Figure 1 ) is Estate Residential 0-4 Units Per Acre on 28 acres and Estate Residential 0-:2 Units Per Acre on 18 acres on the westerly portion of tihe property, General Industrial on 75 acres on the easterly portion, and Office Professional on 5 acres on the southern portion of the property. There are seven zoning districts on the property ( Figure 2 ) , RA-0 (Residential Oil Production) , RA-0-CD (Residential Agriculture, Oil Production, Civic District ) , Nil (Light Manufacturing ) M1-0 and 01 (Light Manufacturing , Oil Production) , Ml-O-CD (Light Manufacturing, Oil Production, Civic District ) and R5 (Office Professional ) . The RA zoning is applied to the combined 46 acres designated Estate Residential. Since RA zoning limits densities to no more than one unit per acre, it is considered to be a holding zone rather than functional zoning for residential development. The M1 and R5 zoning designations are appropriate for development of Industrial and Office Professional uses on the areas where they are applied. The Holly property is located in an area which can be considered to be transitional in terms of use. Property to the west is General Planned for Estate Residential development, but appropriate zoning for such development is not yet in place. The majority of the area (called the Ellis-Goldenwest Estate Residential Area) is vacant pending adoption of the Specific Plan which would place appropriate zoning on the property. There are scattered horse stables, oil wells, fertilizer and nursery operations presently existing in the Ellis-Goldenwest area west of the Holly property. The Holly Property study area noes not incluae 30 acres of property located at the northeast corner of Goldenwest. and Garfield. This property, bounded by Ernest Avenue t.—i the north, Crystal Street to the east , Garfield to the south and Goldenwest Street to the west is designated (0002D) -4- j t IIII � . . , � �■■■■� ■��__■ � IIII IIIIIIIIIIII�lllllllllli � ;=s=_==� � �� IIII •IIIIIIIIIIII"IIIIIiIII � � � ■ �• s �...,-••— _� IIII .IIIIIIIII�IIi}IIII-III j C= sun ow ■■ iw uuuunu.uull",IIL � _! • _ _ I/►��� ■■8����� [ �IIIIIIIIIII � t f �� rrr �,rMEDIUM 'llllllllllll STATER$ {� ; � . IIIIIIIIIIIII WE . t • Ac. NINO Moy IIIIIIIIIIIII � � � � �> � Y{��� {r :► IIIIIIIIIIIII ' �;`�:�.�•�:::.;` .: ��':{`' _ /I i� IN �� � 1 � r --•- RESOURCE MEDIUM1 PRODUCTION DENSITY I w r • R4 C F-R ,F CF-R MI-CD aj MI-A x R4 SR CH I I NTR R MI-CD A CF-R _ j RI H RI R A-O-CD I" M I i � MI� � ONTARIO= — RA-0-CD '•N RI RI C F—C M I CR_ QUEBEC DR �- S'O'CD -0-CD DR - AIBERTA <V -- RI MOVN JO C MI-CD RI RI RI RI ROS-O-CD -O-CD -0-CD M I ? C2-0-tQJ _ w z YUKON DR --� S oa I — z a c � i -0-CD -0-CD MI-CD a o ppp EBY RI a R3 ( RI RI U-0-C.D M I R2 RA-0-CD ' - MI-0-CD R2 LU-O-CD Q-RI-M0-CD-6A00 a ---LU-O-CD -N_. �`e°MI'M� ' R2 - _- R2 RA-0-CD U-O-CD - ---- ._ ❑0 �. R 3 1 -- 6eo COMMODORE CR ..a RA01CD RA-0-CD -AlR \ M2-0 LT � �)-0.8,000RA-CD R R3JR2M oo RA-0z/. AVE Mi R5 -o-CD RA-0-CD O LU - T Sao EL.MI-0-CD� I Tsai- sg191�__ -A-CD` > iCMgUNIT w mo - MI-CD_ -A-CD'Olz HM2-A-01 �j RA01 RA-0-CD MI-A-CD MI-0 M I-O R5 ,' _ R5 R 2 x; 125 i R—z-��-it2 RA-O-CD ��ot MI-CD-OI 'Q°—T R5 R5>^ R2 R R _ — -- ---— F R 2- �— - — i RA-0 8 CI R2 RA-01-CD = Mh �' MH o E � R2�; MI-A � I J R2 M2-01 o o RA-0 -- unE e�.soon aaoo�( . aot c s_v_rR. J RA-off R2 g M'-A-° � F M2-01 -CD - W R 2 I R2 N Vo ft4 OI R� ; R g J — �� \ RI CD R I �. a d- t _ M i^ — _ i4y1 RI (� NRI>.,,1 \� Rl HUNTINGTON BEACH CALIFORNIA EXISTING ZONING PLANNING DIVISION Figure 2 General Industrial and is primarily zoned M1-A and MI-0 ( Light Manufacturing Agricultural and Oil Production ) . Existing uses include mini-ware houses , a truck yard, an auto storage facility, a tire storage facility and oil operations . The long-term use of this property may ultimately be determined by the land use chosen for the Holly property which abuts it on the north and east sides . Property to the south of the Holly property (south of Garfield Street between Crystal and the railroad tracks ) is General Planned Medium Density Residential . Like the Ellis-Goldenwest area, much of this property has inappropriate zoning (RA-0 , M1 and Cl ) and many of the uses are marginal or transitional in nature. Existing uses include industrial , oil production, automotive repair and residential . It is expected that this area will eventually develop with appropriate residential uses as the scattered ownerships are consolidated over time. Property to the east of the Holly property (on the east side of the railroad track ) is designated Office Professional , General Industrial and Medium Density Residential . The zoning and land uses are generally consistent with the Land Use designations in this area . The Office Professional area constitutes a portion of the Main Street Office Corridor which extends from Florida Street to Holly Street and incorporates the Pacifica Community Plan Area . The 16 acre industrial portion of the area is leased by the Huntington Beach Company to a manufacturing operation ( Ferro Corporation) which receives shipments from the Southern Pacific railroad which terminates on the site . Because this operation has a long-term lease on the land, it was not incorporated into the Holly property general plan amendment request . Just north of the industrial operation is a 104 unit apartment development. The apartment property was originally zoned industrial but was changed to residential in 1977 at the Classic Development Company 's request . Earlier requests by the Huntington Beach Company to rezone the property in 1972 and 1973 were denied on the basis that redesignation would erode the industrial land use base in the City. The Huntington Beach Company had offered property adjacent to the Cambro Manufacturing Plant for redesignation to industrial in return for a change to residential on the apartment property, but the offer was rejected because the City was contemplating industrial adjacent to the Cambro property at the time anyway. North of the Holly property is land designated General Industrial and Open Space . Zoning is Ml , Ml-CD and RA-O-CD. Existing uses on the west side of Gothard ( 0002D ) -7- Street include a gravel operation, the Orange County Joint Powers Training Facility, a Public Heliport facility, Sully Miller Lake and a truck repair facility. Sully Miller Lake is eventually intended to be incorporated into Huntington Central Park . On the east side of Gothard Street is the Strasbaugh Optical Manufacturing Company and the Mountjoy Industrial Park . The Holly property itself is largely vacant. Existing uses are limited to oil operations , a church and two single family residences . Like the Ellis-Goldenwest area to the west, much of the Holly property is characterizea by rolling topography and drainage swales. The western portion of the property was included in planning for the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan in 1982. Alternatives : Seven alternative lana use concepts ( Figures 3 ana 4 ) ari being analyzed for the Holly property in this amendment and EIR: 1 . Plannea Community : This is the applicant 's request and would incline-a mix of residential densities with a total of approximately 1 , 260 units. Densities are expected to range from 6 units per acre to 19 units per acre and average 10 units per acre. If the Planned Community designation is approvea for the project area, the Huntington Beach Company will initiate a specific plan for the zonin<j . 2. Existing General Plan : The existing General Plan designates 28 acres as Estate Residential 0-4, 18 acres as Estate Residential 0-2, 75 acres for General Industrial and 5 acres for Office Professional . This could result in 148 dwelling units , 1 . 8 million square feet of industrial space and 131 ,000 square feet of office space. 3. Medium Density Residential : This alternative would designate all 126 acres as Medium Density Residential at 14 units per acre. A total of 1 , 760 multi-family units could be expected. 4 . Low Density Residential : This alternative would designate all 126 acres as Low Density residential at 7 units per acre. A total of 882 single family units could be expected. 5. Mixed Development : This alternative would feature a mix of multi-family residential, retail commercial and office professional uses . 750 dwelling units , 784 , 000 square feet of office space and 39, 060 square feet of retail space may be projected to be developed unaer this alternative. ( 0002D) _8_ ALTERNATIVE I ALTERNATIVE 2 ELLISAVE. ELLIS AVE, ESTATE TD 2 UN/AC N A,PLANNEDQ COMMUNITY Q OaW O Z £STATEUj V oac p 4 UN/ACOQ a ERNEST AVE. ERNEST AVE. PLANNED Z Z COMMUNITY ce ,Uj W J J O F h ~ AOFFICE N N to,)ce } } w GARFIELD AVE. GARFIELD AVE. ALTERNATIVE 3 ALTERNATIVE 4 ELLIS AVE. ELLIS AVE. MEDIUM `' o LOW `' o w DENSITY �O Q H DENSITY QO Q W cz Q O Q O O u- O ,� Q 0 Q ERNEST AVE. MEDIUM ERNEST AVE. LOW � DENSITY ce DENSITY w W_ W H h O ON V } } of cc V V GARFIELD AVE. GARFIELD AVE. HUNTINGTON BEACHC4LIFORNIA LAND USE ALT ERNATIVES VES MUM PLANNING DIVISION Figure 3 ALTERNATIVE 5 ALTERNATIVE b ELLIS AVE. ELLIS AVE. MEDIUM SWALE DENSITY BUFFER fy AREA MIXED p Q H �O Q W DEVELOPMENT P� O w O ZZ INDUSTRIAL ti� w ui Ocx � V � V J O ,� O u. V Q Q ERNEST AVE. MIXED ERNEST AVE. DEVELOPMENT W INDUSTRIAL W D J J < H N N >' c V V N GARFIELD AVE. GARFIELD AVE. ALTERNATIVE 7 ELLIS AVE. LOW W DENSITY PQp p O W CK q v O O V d ERNEST AVE. INDUSTRIAL w W c D O r v OFFICE GARFIELD AVE. I HUNTINGTON BEACH FORNIA I LAND USE ALTERNATIVES C4L PLANNING DIVISION Figure 4 6. Inaustrial/Medium Density Residential : This alternative would designate 10 acres on the southwest corner of Ellis and Goldenwest for Medium Density Residential and the remaining 116 acres for General Industrial . The residential area would be separated from the industrial by a natural drainage swale. A total of 150 multi-family dwelling units and 2. 6 million square feet of industrial space could be expected to result . 7. Industrial/Low Densit Residential : This alternative would designate the westerly 60 acres of the property as Low Density Residential, retain 61 acres to the east as Industrial and retain 5 acres to the south as Office Professional. The residential would be separated from the Industrial by the realignment of Gothard Street to connect with Crystal Street as shown on the Circulation Plan of Arterial Streets and Highways . A total of 420 dwelling units, 1 .4 million square feet of industrial space and 131 ,000 square feet of office space could be expected to result . This alternative is slightly modified from Alternative 5. 7 in the EIR by the expansion of Low Density, the reduction of Industrial and the retention of Office Professional . History : Because the Holly property and the majority of the property surrounding it can be considered transitional in terms of existing land uses and land use designations, the land use concept selected for the holly property will have important ramifications for the larger area. The Holly property has been considered for many years to comprise the southernmost portion of the Gothard Industrial Corridor . The Corridor extends from Edinger Avenue to Garfield Avenue and encompasses approximately 570 acres . The Corridor was laid out to follow and take advantage of the Southern Pacific Railroad facility which presently dead ends at Garfield Avenue, and the now-defunct plans for the Route 39 Freeway. The industrial uses along the Gothard Corridor have historically been uses that take advantage of rail transit such as lumber yards and major warehousing operations . In recent years , however , rail transit has become less important to modern industrial uses. Rather , freeway access for truck delivery has become more significant . Recent industrial developments along the Gothard Corridor have been of the multi-tennant variety which rely exclusively on truck delivery rather than the large storage operations that utilize freight . Mixed commercial/industrial developments that cater to drive up retail trade have also become increasingly popular . -11- (0002D ) Industrial development along the Gothard Corridor slowed somewhat during the early 1970 ' s . The slowdown was largely attributable to the development of the Northwest.. Industrial Area located just south of McDonnell Douglas , As this area approached buildout in the late 1970 's and early 1960 's , development again picked up along the Gothard Corridor . Together , the two industrial areas have experienced an average development rate of 30 acre:a per year for the last eight years. Approximately 45 acres of industrial development were approved along Gothard Street in 1983 and 1984 , leaving only approximately 47 acres unentitlea along the corridor north of the Holly property at this time . These number:> indicate that the Gothard Corridor north of the holly Property has reached 90 percent of buildout. Since the Northwest Industrial Area south of McDonnell Douglas is approximately 95 percent built-out, the property remaining along the Gothard Corridor will be very important in providing future industrial opportunities . The Holly property now represents approximately 50 percent of the remaining vacant industrial land in the areas south of McDonnell Douglas and along the Gothard Corridor . There are presently approximately 15,000 industrial jobs in the City. The Holly property, if developed industrially will provide approximately 2 ,500 additional jobs for a 15 percent increase in industrial employment in the City. This employment opportunity will be lost if the Holly property is redesignated to Planned Community. Gothard Street presently has no direct freeway access , but is fairly easily obtainable from the freeway via either Goldenwest Street or Beach Boulevard. There are currently plans to link the northern end of Gothard Street with Hoover Street in Westminster in order to utilize an existing freeway off-rarup at Bolsa Street . There are also plans to provide a new freeway on and off-ramp exclusively for Gothard Street . These improvements will significantly improve access to Gothar ,; Street and should increase demand for industrial development along the remainder of the corridor . Because the southern end of the Gothard Corridor is 3 . 0 miles from the 405 freeway there has been debate by the City for a number of years regarding the proper southern terminus of the Corridor . The Industrially designated corridor at one time extended south of Garfield Avenue tc: Clay Street . In 1976, however , the area south of Garfield was redesignated to Medium Density Residential . Only the 18 acre Cambro facility on the southwest corner of Garfield and Huntington Street remains Industrial on the General Plan. The Holly Property proposal would move the southern end of the Gothard Corridor northward to Ellis Avenue rather than Garfield Avenue. This would (0002D) -12- create new industrial islands in the 30 acre area south of Ernest Avenue and in the 16 acre Ferro operation between the railroad tracks and Huntington Street . There is also a 40 acre area designated Resource Production and zoned M2 at the southwest corner at Garfield and Goldenwest Streets. In 1976, in response to increasing pressure to rezone property along the Gothard Corridor to other than industrial uses, the City prepared an inventory and analysis of industrially designated land in the City in order to ascertain present and future needs . The study recommended measures to upgrade the attractiveness of the Gothard Corridor for industrial development and concluded that if the measures failed, consideration should be given to reducing some of the excess land capacity. l The first priority site for redesignation was the Holly property south of Ellis Avenue. The rationale for removal of the Holly property from the Gothard Industrial Corridor was based upon residential and recreational developments occurring adjacent to the property, limited and distant freeway access, and the irregular topography of the site which may need to be altered for industrial development . The City Council, however , decided not to act on the conclusion of the study and instead determined to preserve the remaining industrial property in the corridor . It was felt that the holly property was not sufficiently remote from the freeway to preclude industrial development and that industrial development and employment would be a continuing need within the City for the foreseeable future. As with other new industrial developments along the corridor , it was believed that industrial uses on the Holly Property could be made compatible with nearby residential and recreational uses . Topography: The natural swales and topography of the Holly property (Figure 5 ) are considered to be a unique and significant resource in the City. The swales on the Holly property occur along the northern portion of the site and extend across Goldenwest Street into what is known as the Ellis-Goldenwest Area. In 1981-82 , The City prepared the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report No. 82-1 . This plan proposed standards for quality equestrian oriented estate residential uses on 290 acres of largely undevelopea property extending from the west side of Edwards Street to the east side of Goldenwest Street on the holly property. The plan permitted residential densities up to 3 units per acre and requirea preservation of the natural drainage swales throughout the area. A system of 1 . H .B. Industrial Land Use Study, June 1976, pgs. 34-35. ( 0002D) -13- i �e i w —]0. -Zo ' (50 ) -IoJ r r r.......... __ - r •r•r � 6„ // 5� 6a l i i o� •- 10 { , r J st o i —•�a-� r r r ; - -J1 sum �,oJf��_,.. - , ror 9�. _ .�. r r•r•r.r.r•r. •r.r.r.r.r.r.r.r.r HUNTINGTON BEACH C41-IFORNIA EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY PLANNING DIVISION Figure 5 �-- equestrian trails was layed out over the entire area to link up with trails and other equestrian facilities in Central Park . The i= Plan has not been adopted by the City Council and is presently undergoing revision by the q NE St.vt rL.NN ED DNTV Department of Development Services for 1 reintroduction to the City Council at a later date. Preservation of the swales and topography in the Ellis-Goldenwest area remains an important issue in the City and F some preservation measures will most likely be IiNDDSt adopted in the future. Such issues may ultimately be applied to the Holly property if the property is designated for residential i development. R NE Si W I�Z E NFSi.vE pE NS i^Y The Huntington Beach Company 's proposal for E .gEitLD.vF the Holly property would likely incorporate some preservation of swale areas on the 11AE t northwest portion of the site. If the Huntington Beach Company ' s amendment request - DFVEOftE°afNE is approved, the specific plan for the r + property could conceivably be designed to incorporate equestrian trails into the swales 4NES .vE _OM' I gN[Sf wf ^I >ENLry I� - DfvfL"fOMENi I� as initially proposed for the Ellis-Golaenwest 4 5 Area. The other land use alternatives under consideration in this analysis would also .wqP FLD wF bifLD.vE potentially allow for application of swale AVE-ILLIS preservation measures, at least on the western half of the property . Alternatives 6 and 7 for Residential/Industrial uses would utilize zNWSig4l ' �� the swale areas to provide separation and Egnf SE.vE �� buffering from industrial areas elsewhere on MWSiq pL I the site. The Industrially designated 6 - portions of Alternatives 2, 6 , and 7 would iMfIFLONE probably require grading of the swale areas on the northeast portion of the site, but this area was never included in the Ellis- - Golaenwest Specific Plan area anyway. Alternatives 3 and 4 for Medium and Low Density aevelopment respectively on the entire .q NFiE.vE site could preserve the topography throughout the site. Alternative 5 for Mixed Development 7 - would have unknown potential for topography .... .D'�'1`F preservation . Land Use Compatibility : Another set of issues in analysis of the holly property involves compatibility of land. uses . As indicated earlier , the holly property is surrounded by a diverse mixture of existing and proposed land uses. Residential development of the holly property would be compatible with the Ellis-Goldenwest Estate area across Goldenwest (0002D ) -15- Street to the west and with the Garfield-Goldenwest area across Garfield Avenue to the South . It would also be ° compatible with the 104 unit apartment development on the southeast corner of Ellis Avenue and the railroad tracks . Residential •t•"IIfO 'I: development would be somewhat compatible witt. the uses planned for Central Park to the „ •.f north. The major exception would be the conflict which may occur with the Police - _ •• »DUli Heliport to be built near the northwest cornEY t U"K -! �a of Ellis Avenue and Gothard Street . As indicated in EIR b4-1 and Figure 6 , helicoptEF :j ,u1aK take-off patterns would exist directly over residential uses as proposea on the southeast 2 r corner of Ellis Avenue and Goldenwest Street. This problem is addressed in the Noise Secticri ( 3. 10 ) of the Environmental Impact Report . ,:Y iflD•vf Residential portions of every alternative S,vf under consideration would be impacted by the Heliport . Only Alternative 5 for Mixed ;, ,Eo„r. to Development would reserve potential for `, keeping residential uses away from the flight V path area. The Police Department has l­6 " ! "fsr•°fps; iW indicated, however , that the take-off pattern,: are somewhat flexible and could be adjustea i1 needed to avoid specific residential location:_ . ••iiiflD•vf . If lO•v 1.IS of Residential uses on the Holly property would be incompatible with the adjacent industrial o uses in the 30 acre area southwest of Ernest Avenue and Crystal Street and with the Ferro Corporation on the east side of the railroad tracks. The proposed Plannea Community plan would be incompatible in these areas as would 5 l Alternatives 3 and 4 for Medium and Low G. ID,vF Density development . Alternatives 2 ( Existin:3 General Plan ) and 7 ( Industrial/Low Density ) fM would keep residential development away from the Ferro Corporation and the railroad tracks , but would permit residential development ` adjacent to the Ernest/Crystal industrial "f Sr.vf area. Alternative 6 ( Industrial/Medium Density) would keep residential away from botl-. the Ferro and Ernest/Crystal industrial areas , MlD.vf Alternative 5 for Mixed Development could be designed to keep residential development away from the adjacent industrial uses. If the o Ernest/Crystal and Ferro Corporation areas i ­T were eventually amended to residential , then all of the residential alternatives would be • I compatible. If the Ernest/Crystal and Ferro "OUSrii•l 7 Corporation areas remain industrial and the Holly property is amended to residential, ther. OIIiCF .. flD.. the two industrial areas would become islands ( 0002D) -16- -7Z It— BOEN HELIPORT k. jI l iref - 1 of Ej 40 `4 buy �!, � 4 A' L��,.� w. J � ��' 1 .N �` �'�`••# � =5-.r,+4-ay.e..� _ mIw ir Alib- ra LANDING AND �..� n r TAKEOFF PATTERNS 1993 ECNEL -- 14, NOIS CONTOURS ? - w -zflrl" HELIPORT LANDING & TAKEOFF PATTERNS HUNTINGTON BEACH C4LIFORNIA 1993 CNEL NOISE CONTOURS PLANNING DIVISION Figure 6 that are incompatible with land uses on all four sides rather than on only two sides as presently is the case . Realignment of Gothard Street: A third set of issues involves Gothard Street and its eventual alignment . At present , Gothard Street veers ea., -_ immediately south of Ellis Avenue and connects in a five way intersection with Main Street and Garfield Avenue. The Master Plan of Arterial highways (Figure 7 ) , however , shows Gothard Street veering west immediately south of Ellis Avenue and connecting with Crystal Street before continuing to a four way intersection with Main Street south of Garfield. This realignment will eliminate the five way intersection at Main/Gothard/ Garfield and will expedite traffic flow between Main Street and Goldenwest Street and along Gothard Street. This alignment was reaftirmed by the City Council on December 5, 1983 when they aaopted Circulation Element Amendment No. 83-1 . If Gothard Street is eventually connected to hoover Street in Westminster , it will have additional importance as a north-south arterial . The use of Gothard Street as a significant north-south arterial has mixed impacts on the residential versus industrial debate . The enhanced vehicular access to Gothard Street will have beneficial impacts on its appeal as an industrial corridor because of the increased truck and customer accessibility. Conversely, the increased access will also mean increased use of the arterial by non-industry related commuters. The result will be increased mixing of industrial and non-inaustrial traffic. Given that industrial and non-inaustrial use of Gothard Street will increase, there may be a basis for selecting a mixed industrial residential alternative for the Holly property which will take advantage of the enhanced industrial value of the land and commuter access to the freeway . I �`i oew� Alternatives 2 ( Existing General Plan) and 6 o = and 7 ( Industrial/Medium Density and Low Density ) both feature residential uses on the western portion of the holly property and "WSi"i.l � ILL "f1f,VE �_ f"fSi.vE industrial uses on the eastern portion of the NDUS""` property. The realignment of Gothard Street 2 �� 6 _ with Crystal Street will form a dividing line "" I + down the approximate middle of the property. Alternatives 2 and 7 would feature resioentia:. on one side of Gothard and industrial ort tt,c other . Gothard Street could be treatc-a with i_ appropriate setbacks and screening to provide a reasonable buffer between the two types of uses . Since residential and industrial users 7 would both take access from Gothard, however , off,« the problem of mixing traffic types would be fl°.v ( 0002D ) -18- AMENDMENTS CIRCULATION PLAN OF ARTERIAL STREETS AND HIGHWAYS iy.e Asa n-e-ee sn• f, e �e[ .•« ..e �-- ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL \ RESOLUTION NO.4368—DEC.12,1976 { LEGEND FREEWAY STREET CAPACITY MAJOR 45,000 PRIMARY 30,000 SECONDARY 20,000 NOTE SOLID LINES INDICATE EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY NOT NECESSARILY ULTIMATE RIGHT OF WAY DASHED LINES INDICATE AREAS WHERE NO RIGHT OF WAY EXISTS <� �►� CF—R l 1 � CF-C e i _ 1 m� I I REALIGNED GOTHARD 2 'I 'I F I 1TIi�TI1� . I, �H i_I � d. - , - --- - 17---- � f..rtFF LD c'YY-v[ CIRCULATION PLAN OF ARTERIAL STREETS AND HIGHWAYS Figure 7 somewhat aggravated by these alternatives. f� Alternative 6 would feature residential only z = on the southeast corner of Ellis Avenue and Goldenwest Street, with industrial on the "f5r.f uMUS=.. remainder of the property. It is expected 6 that this alternative will produce the least mixing of industrial and residential traffic. Marketability A fourth issue involves the marketability of the Holly property. As indicated previously , there was concern in the 1970 's that the Holly Property was not desirable for industrial development due to limited freeway access. As explained above, however , Gothard Street will likely be made more accessible to the freeway and hence its industrial value will likely increase. The varied topography was also at one time seen as being a hinderanCE' to industrial development . This concern is probably invalid now with the advent of high-tech industry in Southern California. Modern industrial complexes are now frequently designed with extensive landscaping and unique design treatments. The topography of the Holly Property could lend itself well to development of an attractive high-tech industrial complex with landscaped greenbelts and swales around the buildings and parking areas. The impending buildout of the remainder of the Gothara Corridor may enhance the value of the holly Property for such purposes. f5=.=f ....�.T. Alternative 2 (Existing General Plan ) and Alternative 6 ( Inaustrial/Medium Density) g would preserve the option for substantial 2 ESTATE amounts of quality high-tech industrial f.f+ESt.vf ""'STRIA` j= development . Alternative 5 for Mixed Z 2 Development would result in a very significan amount of commercial and office space on the Holly property. Since the Holt f . y. y property is well removed from the major Beach Boulevard Commercial Corridor , visibility will not be a.s good as would normally be preferred for such g development. Commercial development on the Holly property would also, because of its close proximity, detract from the demand for °fvffOMf"i 5 similar development in the Downtown area. Since the Downtown area is such a high .f„ priority commercial/residential project in thE' City, anything that would potentially detract from its viability would be undesirable. The Alternative 5 Mixed Development ,. p proposal should be eliminated for this reason. Alternatives 2 and 7 would retain the Office 7 Professional designation on 5 acres at the corner of Garfield and Main Street. With the rrcf aE°w (0002D ) -20- Pacifica Community Plan Area to the north approaching buildout, there may be future demand for office development along the Main Street Office Corridor . The medically oriented offices would not constitute competition for the Downtown area. Alternatives 2 , 6 , and 7 all incorporate a mix " of separate industrial and residential uses . Alternatives 2 and 7 would each reduce i".. •Y INS:, slightly the amount of industrial land in the ! area and would feature substantial amounts of residential . Of the two, Alternative 7 would feature the largest amount of residential °"•'•` development . Alternative 6 would expand the NEI.Yz-- I. 2 industrially designated area and reduce the ;'' amount for residential . This alternative «.'<E would increase the allowable residential t +vE density, however , and would allow the same EL03 Awl, number of units as the existing General Plan. Alternatives 1 ( Planned Community) and 3 and 4 MEEM a are entirely residential and would eliminate — aNSIiY i � — °FNSIFY all industrial from the holly property. It is �a = felt that there is a need for retention of cM[St+v[. MF°1°M NESE+vE '(Tv i= industrial areas, and therefore, these pFNSIiY � DfE+31lY 3 - 4 = alternatives may not be desirable . housing, however , is a high priority land use in the M City, and these alternatives would all result in a substantial increase of housing. The demand for housing is likely to make alternatives 1, 3, and 4 economically viable. 2 .1 . 3 HOUSING The applicant has proposed development of approximately 1 ,200 housing units on the °fv'EfIOA�. subject property. Alternative 2 ( Existing General Plan ) would result in approximately 140 units, Alternative 3 (Medium Density) Ef NESE+vl. MIYFD = would result in 1, 760 units Alternative 4 5 - °�[ o (Low Density) would result in 882 units, Alternative 5 (Mixed Development ) may result in 750 units, Alternative 6 ( Industrial/Medium Density) would result in 150 dwelling units , S" and Alternative 7 ( Industrial/Low Density) would result in 420 units . The housing Element of the City 's General Plan contains policies aimed at increasing housing P 9 9 "� '"'•` �Y opportunities for households with low ana 6 - moderate incomes. The applicant 's proposal would provide the second largest amount of housing of any of the alternatives and it is likely that some of the higher density units in the project could be found to be affordable. Alternative 3 (Medium Density) (0002D) -21- would provide the most opportunities for affordable housing. It is unlikely that I either the existing General Plan (Alternative = 2 ) or Alternative 4 (Low Density) , or ` Alternatives 6 and 7 ( Industrial/Medium and EEwE Sr vE _ _ • Low Density ) will provide sufficient density 7 or numbers of units to offer a significant EKE amount of affordable units. 2 .1 .4 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES This analysis is contained in Environmental Impact Report, No. 84-1 , Sections 3.11 and 5. 0. 2. 1 . 5 TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION Environmental Impact Report No. 84-1 contains a detailed traffic and circulation study which was prepared by Basmaciyan-Darnell , Inc. This section of the General Plan Amendment document is intended to review the resultr:� of that study and supplement it with additional information. The traffic study in the Environmental Impact Report indicated that the proposed Planned Community project would generate approximately 9 , 620 vehicle trip ends per day. The existing general plan was estimated to generate approximately 13,134 vehicle trip ends per day. No trip generation estimates were made for the other alternative.-, other than to indicate whether each would produce generally more or less traffic. Staff has prepared the following trip generation estimates for each of the alternatives . Alternatives Vehicle Trips Per Day 1. Planned Community 9,620 2 . Existing General Plan 13,134 3 . Medium Density 12, 600 4 . Low Density 8,400 5. Mixed Development 18, 270 6. Industrial/NiediUm Density 15,542 7 . Industrial/Low Density 13, 730 Of the seven alternatives, Low Density Residential will generate the least traffic and Mixed Development can be expected to generate the most . The applicant 's request will generate less traffic than the existing general play, and less than any of the alternatives other than Low Density. The traffic study concluded that any development of the subject property will contribute to future roadway segment congestion in the vicinity of the project site. ( 0002D) -22- Post 1995 traffic conditions will exceed level of Service C and D for portions of Ellis Avenue , Garfield Avenue, Goldenwest Street, Main Street and Beach Boulevard. This condition will hold true for any of the alternatives under consideration. Level of Service C is considered to be the design capacity of Arterial highways. Level of Service D indicates that traffic will be subject to frequent delays in movement. To mitigate the impacts of development of the holly property, the study concludes that Goldenwest Street north of Garfield should be upgraded from a four-lane primary arterial to a six-lane major arterial and Ellis Avenue east of Gothard Street should be redesigned as a four-lane divided arterial. The redesignation of Goldenwest to a major arterial is presently plannea by the City with construction to occur in FY 1988-b9. There are no current plans to upgrade Ellis Avenue . Beach Boulevard is presently under study by both the City and the County for future upgrading and designation as a super street. If all proposed circulation improvements are made prior to development of the holly Property, it is likely that the surrounding arterials will function at Level of Service C with only peak periods exceeding that capacity, regardless of the land use alternative selected. The traffic study found no problems with the proposed realignment of Gothard Street with Crystal except to ensure that the final design consider spacing of internal intersections, sight and stopping distances, slope banks, walls and landscaping at intersections. Any of the alternatives under consideration should work well with the realignment of Gothard Street. Regardless of the land use alternative selected, Goldenwest Street and Garfield Avenue should be upgraded as suggested by the traffic study. 2 . 1. 6 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES This analysis is contained in Environmental Impact Report No. 84-1 . 2 .1 . 7 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Alternative 6 ( Industrial/Medium Density Residential ) be °� '• selected. This selection is made on the basis that improved vehicle access will enhance the value of industrial property in the vicinity ana that there will be a future = need in the City for additional civality 6 - industrial development. The rapidly approaching buildout of the Gothard Industrial Corridor is seen as an important indicator that the holly Property should be retained for industrial development . (0002D) -23- Industrial development of the holly Property would prevent the creation of industrial islands out of the Ferro Corportation and Ernest/Crystal areas and would retain the lineal integrity of the industrial corridor . Mixing of residential and industrial traffic would be minimized. A quality industrial development which incorporates retention of swale areas into its landscaping would be considered to be compatible with the proposed Estate Residential uses across Goldenwest Street. to the west. Industrial development would also be more compatible with the Police Heliport on the north side of Ellis Avenue and would provide needed jobs within the City. The Medium Density Residential portion of the alternative, will allow the property owner to develop as many dwelling_ units on the property as is presently allowed by the existing General Plan, but on a smaller portion of the property. The swale area around the residential portion will serve as a reasonable buffer between the residential and industrial uses . (0002D) -24- Publish 5/22/86 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT 85-1 (HOLLY PROPERTY) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Huntington Beach City Council will hold a public hearing in the Council Chamber at the Huntington Beach Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, on the date and .at the time indicated below to receive and consider the statements of all persons who wish to be heard relative to the application described below. DATE: Monday, June 2, 1986 TIME: 7:30 P.M. APPLICATION NUMBER: Land Use Element Amendment No. 85-1 APPLICANT: Huntington Beach Company LOCATION: South side of Ellis Avenue, west of the Southern Pacific Railroad Right-of-Way, north of Garfield and Ernest Avenues and east of Goldenwest Street. PROPOSAL: A proposed Amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan which covers a request from the Huntington Beach Company to change the General Plan designations on approximately 120 acres from Estate Residential 0-2 units per acre, Estate Residential 0-4 units per acre, General Industrial and Office Professional to Planned Community. The applicant's request could result in approximately 1,200 dwelling units. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Environmental Impact Report No. 84-1 has previously been approved by the City Council. ON FILE: A copy of the proposed Land Use Element Amendment and legal description are on file in the Department of Development Services. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. All applications, exhibits, and descriptions of this proposal are on file with the Office of the City Clerk, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, for inspection by the public. HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL By: Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk Phone (714) 536-5405 SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP 35-5-II - CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA USE OF PROPERTY MAP \ ` TALOERT AVE- H =n• p a J CF-R I !E= - Iw:gYFM'.{TnM ON i Dq z CF C Its Dq TIMON Dlt �^ 1 wE - r7 vo - � Z tu yl — F Z "RFIELD AVE. {t LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT 85-1 LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT 85 .1 MARCH 1985 In conjunction with ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 84.1 m huntingfon beach planning division y � TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 .0 Introduction---------------------- 1 1 .1 Methodology----------------------- 1 2.0 Area of Concern------------------- 3 2.1 Holly Property------------------- a 2.1.1 Background------------------- ---- 3 2.1 .2 Land Use---------------------- --- 4 2.1. 3 Housing--------------------------- 21 2.1. 4 Public Services and Utilities----- 22 2. 1. 5 Traffic and Circulation----------- 22 2.1. 6 Environmental Issues-------------- 23 2. 1. 7 Staff Recommendation-------------- 23 1 . 0 INTRODUCTION This report analyzes Amendment 85-1 to the Land Use Element of the Huntington Beach General Plan. The Land Use Element was adopted as a mandated element of the General Plan in December, 1973;. this is the twenty-sixth amendment to the element. 1. 1 METHODOLOGY This amendment to the Land Use Element considers a request to change the land use designations in one area of the City. The site is known as the Holly property and is located between Ellis Avenue, the Southern Pacific Right-of-Way, Garfield Avenue, Crystal Street, Ernest Avenue and Goldenwest Street. The amendment covers approximately 126 acres. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Draft Environmental Impact Report No. 84-1 has been prepared by Michael Brandman Associates, Inc. to cover the Holly proferty amendment. This General Plan Amendment document, therefore, does not provide any environmental analysis. Rather, only Land Use and Circulation issues are discussed here. All other issues are deterred to the Environmental Impact Report for discussion. (0002D) -1- 2.0 AREA OF CONCERN 2.1. Holly Property 2.1.1 Background This General Plan Amendment item has been requested by the. Huntington Beach Company. The request is to change the General Plan designations on 126 acres of land bordered by Ellis Avenue on the north, the Southern Pacific Railroad Right-of-Way on the east, Garfield and Ernest Avenues on the south, and Goldenwest Street and Crystal Street on the west. The requested change is from Estate Residential, General Industrial and Office Professional to Planned Community. No change to the existing zoning on the property is requested at this time. The applicant intends to submit a specific plan once an overall general development concept has been approved for the site. The Holly Property has for a number of years been considered to be the southern terminus of the Gothard Industrial Corridor , which extends from Edinger Avenue to Garfield Avenue. This amendment item is requesting that the City of Huntington Beach re-examine the Industrial Corridor and redraw the southern boundary at Ellis Avenue rather than Garfield Avenue. The area surrounding the Holly Property is presently occupied by a wide variety of uses, both conforming and nonconforming to the equally varied general plan and zoning designations. Selection of a land use plan for the Holly Property may have a significant influence on how the surrounding property is eventually designated and developed. (0002D) -3- As indicated in the Introduction section of this document, Environmental Impact Report No. 84-1 has been prepared separately for this amendment item. The following analysis will focus primarily upon Land Use issues and to a lessor degree upon Circulation issues. Seven alternative land use designations will be discussed. 2.1. 2 LAND USE Existing Conditions The Holly Property is located on the south side of Ellis Avenue, west of the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way, north of Garfield and Ernest Avenues and east of. Goldenwest Street. The property comprises approximately 126 acres which are largely vacant. The existing General Plan (Figure 1 ) is Estate Residential 0-4 Units Per Acre on 28 acres and Estate Residential 0-2 Units Per Acre on 18 acres on the westerly portion of the property, General Inaustrial on 75 acres on the easterly portion, and Office Professional on 5 acres on the southern portion of the property. There are seven zoning districts on the property (Figure 2 ) , RA-0 (Residential Oil Production) , RA-0-CD (Residential Agriculture, Oil Production, Civic District ) , 141 (Light Manufacturing) M1-0 and 01 ( Light Manufacturing, Oil Production) , M1-0-CD (Light Manufacturing, Oil Production, Civic District ) and R5 (Office Professional ) . The RA zoning is applied to the combined 46 acres designated Estate Residential. Since RA zoning limits densities to no more than one unit per acre, it is considered to be a holding zone rather than functional zoning for residential development. The M1 and R5 zoning designations are appropriate for development of Industrial and Office Professional uses on the areas where they are applied. The Holly property is located in an area which can be considered to be transitional in terms of use. Property to the west is General Planned for Estate Residential development, but appropriate zoning for such development is not yet in place. The majority of the area (called the Ellis-Golaenwest Estate Residential Area) is vacant pending adoption of the Specific Plan which would place appropriate zoning on the property. There are scattered horse stables, oil wells, fertilizer and nursery operations presently existing in the Ellis-Goldenwest area west of the Holly property. The Holly Property study area does not incluae 30 acres of property located at the northeast corner of Goldenwest and Garfield. This property, bounded by Ernest Avenue to the north, Crystal Street to the east , Garfield to the south and Goldenwest Street to the west is designated (0002D) -4- o g_g . a IIII ( : �■■■■■ ■■■■■■_■�■■__ � IIII • ' ' � I ■ � �■■■■■ ■■■■■■ ■ ■■ IIII i • 1 � '�� � memo logo IIII IIIIIIIIIIIPIIIIIIIII II ;__�_�_: I� � ����. IIII IIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIII II _ IIII IIIIIIIIIIII IIIlillll ?I I -- M� �s Ilil :IIIIIIIII�IIII�II i= I � .� � �■�����►/ � � uu uuuuuu-mmu,�p, � � _ �I�����u ■■� l�■■� 10. } r longIU =IIIIIIIIIIII :k;:,: :rrxrr •� 'f 1 1111111111111 � — r~:fir}~'. �' �- , �¢fir::• '�.,• < •''•�.;�.,. • IIII`--� :•.�.-...: .~�.� :�W}}# ;:��n.::..J.,# n' ' :a: �� ^ ! �IIIIIU mum (IIIIIIIIIIII ' ; �� � }{y�• k : rr : :�01->ml �� C IIIIIIIIIIIII ® i - � •� r•:����� �� �}~ :�• iVIEW—= U■�111■11 :•:v .; .< �� _ �U��r ICU 'i1 � III11 111 � 111 1 I11 11 IUD► 'i�,� �� � RESOURCEI 1 '� DUST. PRODUCTION I 1 p 0 R4- C F-R CF-R MI-CD /� `l:: (Hi4lT:N�iT(k. ':F:HTRAt.ri.N<) M i-A R4-SR R I; - (RVF:'(!NCTMN •N:NTRAL r'ARK) e MI-CD D CF-R - T'GITIL RA-0-CD - MI MI R' RI RA-0-CD RI DNTARp °" RI RI CF-C MI CR. _`jOUEKC DR S. RI RI D o. 5 ALKRTA D,+ MI—CD RI RI RI RI Ros-O-Co °-C g C2-0-(Ch M I 3 r DN DR -0CD M(-CD& ,••a' RIELLIS s R3 RI RI —— —T --- U-O-CD RA-0-CD MI a�e r - o-R�cs�ocD-eaoo — — MI-O-CD 1 'MI of R2 - <- .- "U-°°° RA-0-CD COMYgDORE CRca RA-MCD RA-0-CD Y M2-0 f�3 a, G U i M I-0 -0$,000 RA CD A� A_0 rRa� R2';;Rzi N.LN LOT 7 3 J J L_ w0 A-o- MI-0 'z? itz RA-0 - .0 LU-O-CD RA-0-CD T A4E m R5 MI-O-CD " u j -A-CD I CIF ICA NIT MI-01 ..arR.+ " (DISTF ICT M MI-0 A-01 RA-0-CD W-A-CD MI-0 R5 . RS A R5 + M?O E R YR-A- Y =RA-0-CD M(-CD-O( R5 R2 R; RA-0 CI R2 _ R2 ;RA _ Mi a ;z MH - MI I R2 fR2,; MI-A M2-01 0 o RA-0 ti .. .:, M UMC KR!00!Al00. 1 5:' !.. V T a c RA o R2 ...._...- M2-01 -CD R2 R2 "r= .s -Ra a'R' M �L', .e ; RI LY •R,+ !. 2 _J rLAw'D.?TrVT)) 1 >, RI-w RI RI CL _»— RI RI R3 I RE9FR rNR) I �ui� 4f lopHUNTINGTON BEACH C4LIFORNIA EXISTING ZONING PLANNING DIVISION Figure 2 General Industrial and is primarily zoned Ml-A and M1-0 (Light Manufacturing Agricultural and Oil Production ) . Existing uses include mini-ware houses , a truck yard, an auto storage facility, a tire storage facility and oil operations. The long-term use of this property may ultimately be determined by the land use chosen for the Holly property which abuts it on the north and east sides. Property to the south of the Holly property (south of Garfield Street between Crystal and the railroad tracks ) is General Planned Medium Density Residential . Like the Ellis-Goldenwest area, much of this property has inappropriate zoning (RA-0, Ml and Cl ) and many of the uses are marginal or transitional in nature. Existing uses include industrial , oil production, automotive repair and residential . It is expected that this area will eventually develop with appropriate residential uses as the scattered ownerships are consolidated over time. Property to the east of the Holly property (on the east side of the railroad track ) is designated Office Professional , General Industrial and Medium Density Residential . The zoning and land uses are generally consistent with the Land Use designations in this area . The Office Professional area constitutes a portion of the Main Street Office Corridor which extends from Florida Street to Holly Street and incorporates the Pacifica Community Plan Area. The 16 acre industrial portion of the area is leased by the Huntington Beach Company to a manufacturing operation (Ferro Corporation ) which receives shipments from the Southern Pacific railroad which terminates on the site. Because this operation has a long-term lease on the land, it was not incorporated into the Holly property general plan amendment request. Just north of the industrial operation is a 104 unit apartment development. The apartment property was originally zoned industrial but was changed to residential in 1977 at the Classic Development Company's request. Earlier requests by the Huntington Beach Company to rezone the property in 1972 and 1973 were denied on the basis that redesignation would erode the industrial land use base in the City. The Huntington Beach Company had offered property adjacent to the Cambro Manufacturing Plant for redesignation to industrial in return for a change to residential on the apartment property, but the offer was rejected because the City was contemplating industrial adjacent to the Cambro property at the time anyway. North of the Holly property is land designated General Industrial and. Open Space. Zoning is Ml, Ml-CD and RA-O-CD. Existing uses on the west side of Gothard (0002D) -7.- Street include a gravel operation, the Orange County Joint Powers Training Facility, a Public Heliport facility, Sully Miller Lake and a truck repair facility. Sully Miller Lake is eventually intended to be incorporated into Huntington Central Park . On the east side of Gothard Street is the Strasbaugh Optical Manufacturing Company and the Mountjoy Industrial Park . The Holly property itself is largely vacant. Existing uses are limited to oil operations, a church and two single family residences. Like the Ellis-Goldenwest area to the west, much of the Holly property is characterized by rolling topography and drainage swales. The western portion of the property was included in planning for the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan in 1982. Alternatives: Seven alternative land use concepts (Figures 3 ana 4 ) are being analyzed for the Holly property in this amendment and EIR: 1 . Planned Commmuun�it�: This is the applicant 's request and would inclu� e__:_a mix of residential densities with a total of approximately 1 ,200 units. Densities are expected to range from 6 units per acre to 19 units per acre and average 10 units per acre. If the Planned Community designation is approved for the project area, the Huntington Beach Company will initiate a specific plan for the zoning. 2. Existing General Plan: The existing General Plan designates 28 acres as Estate Residential 0-4, 18 acres as Estate Residential 0-2, 75 acres for General Industrial and 5 acres for Office Professional. This could result in 148 dwelling units, 1 . 8 million square feet of industrial space and 131 ,000 square- feet of office space. 3. Medium Density Residential : This alternative would designate all 126 acres as Medium Density Residential at 14 units per acre. A total of 1 ,760 multi-family units could be expected. 4 . Low Density Residential : This alternative would designate all 126 acres as Low Density residential at 7 units per acre. A total of 882 single family units could be expected. 5. Mixed Development : This alternative would feature a mix of multi-family residential, retail commercial and office professional uses . 750 dwelling units, 784, 000 square feet of office space and 39,000 square feet of retail space may be projected to be developed unaer this alternative. (0002D) _8_ -ALTERNATIVE I ALTERNATIVE 2 ELLIS AVE. ELLIS AVE, ESTATE TNDUST 2 UN/AC PLANNED o N Q COMMUNITY Q- �+• O Uj Z ESTATE,Z clp4 UN/AC O INDUSTRIAL d a ERNEST AVE. ERNEST AVE. PLANNED Z Z COMMUNITY ce W W x H ~ h 0 D J / J t\n( N H v vZ OFFICE GARFIELD AVE. GARFIELD AVE. ALTERNATIVE 3 ALTERNATIVE 4 ELLIS AVE. ELLIS AVE. F,. MEDIUM `' o LOW `' a v) DENSITY QO < DENSITY QO Q 3 P eJc W P oc 3 � o VO a VO oQc O ,.. O ERNEST AVE. MEDIUM ERNEST AVE. LOW DENSITY W DENSITY W _ x _H N F O 0 N � N h OL C1C U V GARFIELD AVE. GARFIELD AVE. HUNTINGTON B CH LAND U EA C4LIFORNIA USE ALTERNATIVES PLANNING DIVISION Figure 3 ALTERNATIVE 5 ALTERNATIVE 6 ELLIS AVE. ELLIS AVE. MEDIUM SWALE DENSITY « BUFFER AREA MIXED p Q O Q W DEVELOPMENT Q� O W p� O 3 O'�� °J` Z INDUSTRIAL W V LU U ce C! v V O ERNEST AVE. MIXED d ERNEST AVE. DEVELOPMENT w INDUSTRIAL w W Uj F- = F- _ J J N � OC OC V V GARFIELD AVE. GARFIELD AVE. ALTERNATIVE 7 ELLIS AVE. tN0— LOW h W DENSITY PLO Qp 3 O�� W V OC 0 v O �. v d ERNEST AVE. INDUSTRIAL W to ~ J O � N cc H } OFFICE GARFIELD AVE. HUNTINGTON BEACH 04 IFORNIA LAND USE ALTERNATIVES PLANNING DIVISION Figure 4 6. Industrial/Medium Density Residential: This alternative wou esignate 10 acres on the southwest corner of Ellis and Goldenwest for Medium Density Residential and the remaining 116 acres for General Industrial. The residential area would be separated from the industrial by a natural drainage swale. A total of 150 multi-family dwelling units and 2. 6 million square feet of industrial space could be expected to result . 7. Industrial/Low Densitx Residential : This alternative would designate t e westerly 60 acres of the property as Low Density Residential, retain 61 acres to the east as Industrial and retain 5 acres to the south as Office Professional. The residential would be separated from the Industrial by the realignment of Gothard Street to connect with Crystal Street as shown on the Circulation Plan of Arterial Streets and Highways. A total of 420 dwelling units, 1 .4 million square feet of industrial space and 131,000 square feet of office space could be expected to result . This alternative is slightly modified from Alternative 5. 7 in the EIR by the expansion of Low Density, the reduction of Industrial and the retention of Office Professional . history: Because the Holly property and the majority of the property surrounding it can be considered transitional in' terms of existing land uses and land use designations, the land use concept selected for the holly property will have important ramifications for the larger area. The holly property has been considered for many years to comprise the southernmost portion of the Gothard Ind uustrial Corridor . The Corridor extends from Edinger Avenue to Garfield Avenue and encompasses approximately 570acres. The Corridor was laid out to follow and take advantage of the Southern Pacific Railroad facility which presently dead ends at Garfield Avenue, and the now-defunct plans for the Route 39 Freeway. The, industrial uses along the Gothard Corridor have historically been uses that take advantage of rail transit such as lumber yards and major warehousing operations. In recent years , however , rail transit has become less important to modern industrial uses. Rather, freeway access for truck delivery has become more significant. Recent industrial developments along the Gothard Corridor have been of the multi-tennant variety which rely exclusively on truck delivery rather than the large storage operations that utilize freight . Mixed commercial/industrial developments that cater to drive up retail trade have also become increasingly popular . (0002D) -11- Industrial development along the Gothard Corridor slowed somewhat during the early 1970 ' s . The slowdown was largely attributable to the development of the Northwest Industrial Area located just south of McDonnell Douglas . As this area approached buildout in the late 1970 's and early 1960 's, development again picked up along the Gothard Corridor . Together , the two industrial areas have experienced an average development rate of 30 acres per year for the last eight years. Approximately 45 acres of industrial development were approved along Gothard Street in 1983 and 1984, leaving only approximately 47 acres unentitled along the corridor north of the Holly property at this time. These numbers indicate that the Gothard Corridor north of the Holly Property has reachea 90 percent of buildout. Since the Northwest Industrial Area south of McDonnell Douglas is approximately 95 percent built-out, the property remaining along the Gothard Corridor will be very important in providing future industrial opportunities. The Holly property now represents approximately 50 percent of the remaining vacant industrial land in the areas south of McDonnell Douglas and along the Gothard Corridor . There are presently approximately 15,000 industrial jobs in the City . The Holly property, if developed industrially will provide approximately 2,500 additional jobs for a 15 percent increase in industrial employment in the City. This employment opportunity will be lost if the Holly property is redesignated to Planned Community. Gothard Street presently has no direct freeway access, but is fairly easily obtainable from the freeway via either Goldenwest Street or Beach Boulevard. There are currently plans to link the northern end of Gothard Street with Hoover Street in Westminster in order to utilize an existing freeway off-ramp at Balsa Street. There are also plans to provide a new freeway on and off-ramp exclusively for Gothard Street. These improvements will significantly improve access to Gothard Street and should increase demand for industrial development along the remainder of the corridor . Because the southern end of the Gothard Corridor is 3 . 0 miles from the 405 freeway there has been debate by the City for a number of years regarding the proper southern terminus of the Corridor . The Industrially designated corridor at one time extendea south of Garfield Avenue to Clay Street . In 1976, however , the area south of Garfield was redesignated to Medium Density Residential . Only the 18 acre Cambro facility on the southwest corner of Garfield and Huntington Street remains Industrial on the General Plan. The Holly Property proposal would move the southern end of the Gothard Corridor northwara to Ellis Avenue rather than Garfield Avenue. This would (0002D) -12- create new industrial islands in the 30 acre area south of Ernest Avenue and in the 16 acre Ferro operation between the railroad tracks and Huntington Street . There is also a 40 acre area designated Resource Production and zoned M2 at the southwest corner at Garfield and Goldenwest Streets. In '1976, in response to increasing pressure to rezone property along the Gothard Corridor to other than industrial uses, the City prepared an inventory and analysis of industrially designated land in the City in order to ascertain present and future needs. The study recommended measures to upgrade the attractiveness of the Gothard Corridor for industrial development and concluded that if the measures failed, consideration should be given to reducing some of the excess land capacity. l The first priority site for redesignation was the Holly property south of Ellis Avenue. The rationale for removal of the Holly property from the Gothard Industrial Corridor was based upon residential and recreational developments occurring adjacent to the property, limited and distant freeway access , and the irregular topography of the site which may need to be altered for industrial development. The City Council, however, decided not to act on the conclusion of the study and instead determined to preserve the remaining industrial property in the corridor . It was felt that the holly property was not sufficiently remote from the freeway to preclude industrial development and that industrial development and employment would be a continuing need within the City for the foreseeable future. As with other new industrial developments along the corridor, it was believed that industrial uses on the Holly Property could be made compatible with nearby residential and recreational uses. Topography: The natural swales and topography of the Holy property (Figure 5 ) are considered to be a unique and significant resource in the City. The swales on the Holly property occur along the northern portion of the site and extend across Goldenwest Street into what is known as the Ellis-Goldenwest Area. In 1981-82, The City prepared the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report No. 82-1 . This plan proposed standards for quality equestrian oriented estate residential uses on 290 acres of largely undeveloped property extending from the west side of Edwards Street to the east side of Goldenwest Street on the holly property. The plan permitted residential densities up to 3 units per acre and required preservation of the natural drainage swales throughout the area. A system of 1 . h.B. Industrial Land Use Study, June 1976, pgs. 34-35. (0002D) -13- 'o 1�40 50 w 20ti. 60 so— 50 50 --50 40 60 14 40 40 50 60 so 70 J) r SO 1 r I ? 6. 39 .0 ... HUNTINGTON BEACH CALIFORNIA EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY PLANNING DIVISION Figure 5 equestrian trails was layed out over the entire area to link up with trails and other equestrian facilities in Central Park . The = j' Plan has not been adopted by the City Council and is presently undergoing revision by the """"` CO�`Ir�to x Department of Development Services for 1 reintroduction to the City Council at a later date. Preservation of the swales and topography in the Ellis-Goldenwest area .V __ remains an important issue in the City and " "°` some preservation measures will most likely be E ST.fE g � »p1Sf adopted in the future. Such issues may ultimately be applied to the Holly property if ' 3 the property is designated for residential �STR,., ; development. r'!St II T.VE E°Er+SirvS.T1 Y 2 3 _ The Huntington Beach Company 's proposal for orncE ;.Errtt°wE the Holly property would likely incorporate some preservation of swale areas on the northwest portion of the site. If the Huntington Beach Company ' s amendment request °M, , - , .. », rr` is approved, the specific plan for the = le property could conceivably be designed to incorporate equestrian trails into the swales ""EST.vE »EEf.vE .uEE° as initially proposed for the Ellis-Goldenwest '4LO M9 T °lNEITv 4 5 Area. The other land use alternatives under consideration in this analysis would also potentially allow for application of swale preservation measures, at least on the western half of the property. Alternatives 6 and 7 g for Residential/Industrial uses would utilize the swale areas to provide separation and EE»ESf.vE buffering from industrial areas elsewhere on .NM6ia,µ the site. The Industrially designated 6 portions of Alternatives 2, 6 , and 7 would 7Yi41°.vF probably require grading of the swale areas on the northeast portion of the site, but this area was never included in the Ellis- - Golaenwest Specific Plan area anyway. 0~1 � Alternatives 3 and 4 for Medium and Low !s Density aevelopment respectively on the entire E»ESt.V �I site could preserve the topography throughout the site. Alternative 5 for Mixed Development 7 would have unknown potential for topography preservation. Land Use Compatibility : Another set of issues in analysis of the holly property involves compatibility of land uses . As indicated earlier , the holly property is surrounded by a diverse mixture of existing and proposed land uses. Residential development of the ho 4y property would be compatible with the Ellis-Goldenwest Estate area across Goldenwest (0002D ) -15- Street to the west and with the Garfield-Goldenwest area across Garfield rI.,NNED Avenue to the South. It would also be Ca,wNiTY compatible with the 104 unit apartment development on the southeast corner of Ellis ..NE SI wE .,.NNE° 1= Avenue and the railroad tracks . Residential development would be somewhat compatible with the uses planned for Central Park to the • north. The major exception would be the w conflict which may occur with the Police ;5. .. Heliport to be built near the northwest corner of Ellis Avenue and Gothard Street. As ESTATE indicated in EIR 84-1 and Figure 6 , Helicopter °� take-off patterns would exist directly over residential uses as proposed on the southeast 2 - '7 corner of Ellis Avenue and Goldenwest Street. This problem is addressed in the Noise Section ( 3. 10 ) of the Environmental Impact Report. u it w[ Residential portions of every alternative •� under consideration would be impacted by the Heliport. Only Alternative 5 for Mixed ;Y = DENS", Development would reserve potential for keeping residential uses away from the flight path area. The Police Department has e ENESt w[ EDNu =Z NESI.vE LOw .` indicated, however, that the take-off patterns i DENSITY JENSIiY 3 4 are somewhat flexible and could be adjusted if needed to avoid specific residential locations . Teo•vE ^,.ENao•vE Residential uses on the Holly property would be incompatible with the adjacent industrial uses in the 30 acre area southwest of Ernest '"EWD `� ;3 Avenue and Crystal Street and with the Ferro Corporation on the east side of the railroad ' tNE2 .vE w1,ED f= tracks. The proposed Planned Community plan would be incompatible in these areas as would 5 Alternatives 3 and 4 for Medium and Low IE ,vE Density development. Alternatives 2 ( Existing General Plan) and 7 ( Industrial/Low Density) would keep residential development away from the Ferro Corporation and the railroad tracks , i but would permit residential development ' adjacent to the Ernest/Crystal industrial ENESi.vE = area. Alternative 6 ( Industrial/Medium "� "'• Density) would keep residential away from both 6 - the Ferro and Ernest/Crystal industrial areas. D.vE Alternative 5 for Mixed Development could be designed to keep residential development away from the adjacent industrial uses. If the Ernest/Crystal and Ferro Corporation areas °"KS ` were eventually amended to residential , then all of the residential alternatives would be NEEI,vE = compatible. If the Ernest/Crystal and Ferro .NOUSiE.I 7 - Corporation areas remain industrial and the Holly property is amended to residential, then "E the two industrial areas would become islands (0002D) -16- .cam. I. •1.: roar J 1` �,�:_ ` m:�•-. p4. "d ZV AdH Iwl HELIaPOiR �� !_ Buis owl- r_ F= IL_ - �Q. ctr 7.71 o LANDING AND TAKEOFF PATTERNS =J ` :. : .. - _ H 199, CNEL _j !_ I NOISELA A CONTOURS F ZL" •�! ey�Y .FK __ _ HELIPORT LANDING & TAKEOFF PATTERNS HUNTINGTON B"CH COILIFORMA 1993 CNEL NOISE CONTOURS PLANNING DIVISION Figure 6 that are incompatible with land uses on all four sides rather than on only two sides as presently is the case. Realignment of Gothard Street: A third set of issues involves Gothard Street and its eventual alignment. At present, Gothard Street veers east immediately south of Ellis Avenue and connects in a five way intersection with Main Street and Garfield Avenue. The Master Plan of Arterial highways (Figure 7 ) , however , shows Gothard Street veering west immediately south of Ellis Avenue and connecting with Crystal Street before continuing to a four way intersection with Main Street south of Garfield. This realignment will eliminate the five way intersection at Main/Gothard/ Garfield and will expedite traffic flow between Main Street and Goldenwest Street and along Gothard Street. This alignment was reaftirmed by the City Council on December 5, 1983 when they adopted Circulation Element Amendment No. 83-1 . If Gothard Street is eventually connected to hoover Street in Westminster , it will have additional importance as a north-south arterial. The use of Gothard Street as a significant north-south arterial has mixed impacts on the residential versus industrial debate. The enhanced vehicular access to Gothard Street will have beneficial impacts on its appeal as an industrial corridor because of the increased truck and customer accessibility. Conversely, the increased access will also mean increased use of the arterial by non-industry related commuters. The result will be increased mixing of industrial and non-inaustrial traffic. Given that industrial and non-industrial use of Gothard Street will increase, there may be a basis for selecting a mixed industrial residential alternative for the Holly property which - will take advantage of the enhanced industrial value of the land and commuter access to the freeway. .owl �w. "� Alternatives 2 ( Existing General Plan) and 6 and 7 ( Industrial/Medium Density and Low Density) both feature residential uses on the L EStAIF - � •E,OE15fMAl western portion of the Holly property and E.CUSS.EA, 2 industrial uses on the eastern portion of the 2 - g - i= property. The realignment of Gothard Street with Crystal Street will form a dividing line down the approximate middle of the property. ;uEiElO l wl Alternatives 2 and 7 would feature residential on one side of Gothard and industrial on the other . Gothard Street could be treated with appropriate setbacks and screening to provide a reasonable buffer between the two types of uses. Since residential and industrial users 7 would both take access from Gothard, however , the problem of mixing traffic types would be ( 0002D ) -18- A" "TS F%A..» CIY. CIRCULATION PLAN OF ARTERIAL STREETS AND HIGHWAYS RESOADOPUTIONN NO 4368-DEEC..VCL 122,1976 LEGEND: Ifim - FREEWAY STREET CAPACITY t MAJOR __45,000 PRIMARY_ 30000 SECONDARY __20A00 1 NOTE SOLID LINES INDICATE EXISTING RIGHT OF NAY NOT NECESSARILY ULTIMATE RIGHT'OF WAY DASHED LINES INDICATE AREAS WHERE NO RIGHT OF WAY EXISTS j x.nt K "AN M IQ auto �- - lki. CF-Rrr • CF-C L O R` I ��kEALIGNED 'OTNIAND �92 tI1 __IL HIE ` O�Mt LO nttIMLY n wMT111trpF t[Kw CYM CIRCULATION PLAN OF ARTERIAL STREETS AND HIGHWAYS Figure 7 somewhat aggravatea by these alternatives. Alternative 6 would feature residential only on the southeast corner of Ellis Avenue and Goldenwest Street, with industrial on the remainder of the property. It is expected 6 that this alternative will produce the least mixing of industrial and residential traffic. Marketability : A fourth issue involves the marketability of the Holly property. As indicated previously, there was concern in the 1970 's that the Holly Property was not desirable for industrial development due to limited freeway access. As explained above, however , Gothard Street will likely be made more accessible to the freeway and hence its industrial value will likely increase. The varied topography was also at one time seen as being a hinderance to industrial development. This concern is probably invalid now with the advent of high-tech industry in Southern California. Modern industrial complexes are now frequently designed with extensive landscaping and unique design treatments. The topography of the Holly Property could lend itself well to development of an attractive high-tech industrial complex with landscaped greenbelts and swales around the buildings and parking areas. The impending buildout of the remainder of the Gothara Corridor may enhance the value of the holly Property for such purposes. Alternative 2 (Existing General Plan ) and Alternative 6 ( Industrial/Medium Density) :" would preserve the option for substantial OE amounts of quality high-tech industrial "esr we development. Alternative 5 for Mixed 2 - Development would result in a very significant amount of commercial and office space on the Holly property. Since the holly y property is well removed from the major Beach Boulevard Commercial Corridor , visibility will not be as „ good as would normally be preferred for such _ I development. Commercial development on the Holly property would also, because of its close proximity, detract from the demand for 5 - similar development in the Downtown area. Since the Downtown area is such a high priority commercial/residential project in the City, anything that would potentially detract from its viability would be undesirable. The Alternative 5 Mixed Development proposal should be eliminated for this reason. "[[rw Alternatives 2 and 7 would retain the Office iMUlr[iu 7 r Professional designation on 5 acres at the corner of Garfield and Main Street. With the rc[ ( 0002D) -20- Pacifica Community Plan Area to the north approaching buildout, there may be future •,.�lo , ! demand for office development along the Main - lwwx.IrY Street Office Corridor . The medically oriented offices would not constitute • _ ;. �Y competition for the Downtown area. 1 ' Alternatives 21 6, and 7 all incorporate a mix 16 of separate industrial and residential uses . Alternatives 2 and 7 would each reduce =3l . Sr slightly the amount of industrial lana in the area and would feature substantial amounts of residential . Of the two, Alternative 7 would ' 7 feature the largest amount of residential f is development . Alternative 6 would expand the 2 industrially designated area and reduce the amount for residential. This alternative ' a•,f would increase the allowable residential f density, however, and would allow the same number of units as the existing General Plan. Alternatives 1 (Planned Community) and 3 and 4 are entirely residential and would eliminate all industrial from the holly property. It is felt that there is a need for retention of h Sr W! MlpYM f.3r Wl. � industrial areas/ /and therefore these xwary oe+rry 3 3 - 4 alternatives may not be desirable. housing, however , is a high priority land use in the City, and these alternatives would all result in a substantial increase of housing. The demand for housing is likely to make alternatives 1, 3, and 4 economically viable. 2.1 .3 HOUSING The applicant has proposea development of approximately 1,200 housing units on the subject property. Alternative 2 (Existing ` H General Plan ) would result in approximately 140 units, Alternative 3 (Medium Density) r.lSr Wl. DMnUM~ = would result in 1,760 units, Alternative 4 5 (Low Density) would result in 882 units, Alternative 5 (Mixed Development ) may result in 750 units, Alternative 6 ( Industrial/Medium Density) would result in 150 dwelling units, and Alternative 7 ( Industrial/Low Density) would result in 420 units. The housing Element of the City 's General Plan contains policies aimed at increasing housing - Y opportunities for households with low ana 6 moderate incomes. The applicant 's proposal would provide the second largest amount of housing of any of the alternatives and it is likely that some of the higher density units in the project could be found to be affordable. Alternative 3 (Medium Density) (0002D) -21- would provide the most opportunities for affordable housing. It is unlikely that °Z, �° either the existing General Plan (Alternative 2 ) or Alternative 4 (Low Density) , or „ Alternatives 6 and 7 ( Industrial/Medium and �STMIAL Low Density ) will provide sufficient density 7 or numbers of units to offer a significant amount of affordable units. 2.1 .4 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES This analysis is contained in Environmental Impact Report No. 84-1, Sections 3.11 and 5. 0. 2. 1. 5 TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION Environmental Impact Report No. 84-1 contains a detailed traffic and circulation study which was prepared by Basmaciyan-Darnell , Inc. This section of the General Plan Amendment document is intended to review the results of that study and supplement it with additional information. The traffic study in the Environmental Impact Report indicated that the proposed Planned Community project would generate approximately 9,620 vehicle trip ends per day. The existing general plan was estimated to generate approximately 13,134 vehicle trip ends per day. No trip generation estimates were made for the other alternatives other than to indicate whether each would produce generally more or less traffic. Staff has prepared the following trip generation estimates for each of the alternatives . Alternatives Vehicle Trips Per Day 1. Planned Community 9,620 2. Existing General Plan 13,134 3 . Medium Density 12, 000 4. Low Density 8,400 5. Mixed Development 16,270 6. Industrial/Medium Density 15,542 7 . Industrial/Low Density 13, 730 Of the seven alternatives, Low Density Residential will generate the least traffic and Mixed Development can be expected to generate the most . The applicant 's request will generate less traffic than the existing general plan and less than any of the alternatives other than Low Density. The traffic study concluded that any development of the subject property will contribute to future roadway segment congestion in the vicinity of the project site. (0002D) -22- Post 1995 traffic conditions will exceed level of Service C and D for portions of Ellis Avenue, Garfield Avenue, Goldenwest Street, Main Street and Beach Boulevard. This condition will hold true for any of the alternatives under consideration. Level of Service C is considered to be the design capacity of Arterial highways. Level of Service D indicates that traffic will be subject to frequent delays in movement. To mitigate the impacts of development of the holly property, the study concludes that Goldenwest Street north of Garfield should be upgraded from a four-lane primary arterial to a six-lane major arterial and Ellis Avenue east of Gothard Street should be redesigned as a four-lane divided arterial . The redesignation of Goldenwest to a major arterial is presently plannea by the City with construction to occur in FY 1988-b9. There are no current plans to upgrade Ellis Avenue. Beach Boulevard is presently under study by both the City and the, County for future upgrading and designation as a super street. If all proposed circulation improvements are made prior to development of the holly Property, it is likely that the surrounding arterials will function at Level of Service C with only peak periods exceeding that capacity, regardless of the land use alternative selected. The traffic study found no problems with the proposed realignment of Gothard Street with Crystal except to ensure that the final design consider spacing of internal intersections, sight and stopping distances, slope banks, walls and landscaping at intersections. Any of the alternatives under consideration should work well with the realignment of Gothard Street. Regardless of the land use alternative selected, Goldenwest Street and Garfield Avenue should be upgraded as suggested by the traffic study. 2 . 1 . 6 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES This analysis is contained in Environmental Impact Report No. '84-1. 2 . 1 . 7 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Alternative 6 ( Industrial/Medium Density Residential ) be selected. This selection is made on the basis that improved vehicle access will enhance the value of industrial property in the vicinity and that there will be a future need in the City for additional quality 6 industrial development. The rapidly approaching buildout of the Gothard Inaustrial Corridor is seen as an important indicator that the holly Property should be retained for industrial development. (0002D) -23- Industrial development of the holly Property would prevent the creation of industrial islands out of the Ferro Corportation and Ernest/Crystal areas and would retain the lineal integrity of the industrial corridor . Mixing of residential and industrial traffic would be minimized. A quality industrial development which incorporates retention of swale areas into its landscaping would be considered to be compatible with the proposed Estate Residential uses across Goldenwest Street to the west. Industrial development would also be more compatible with the Police Heliport on the north side of Ellis Avenue and would provide needed jobs within the City. The Medium Density Residential portion of the alternative will allow the property owner to develop as many dwelling units on the property as is presently allowed by the existing General Plan, but on a smaller portion of the property. The swale area around the residential portion will serve as a reasonable buffer between the residential and industrial uses. ( 0002D) -24- 1pRa� LAND USE ELEMENT A MENDM- ENT 86al MARCH 1985 In Con�xiction with EWPONMIENTAL IMPACT REPORT 84.1 m hunfington beach planning division 7 ab 41TACW MINT 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. 0 Introduction---------------------- 1 1 . 1 Methodology----------------------- 1 2. 0 Area of Concern------------------- 3 2.1 Holly Property-------------------- a 2. 1. 1 Background------------------------ 3 2.1. 2 Land Use-------------------------- 4 2. 1. 3 Housing--------------------------- 21 2.1. 4 Public Services and Utilities----- 22 2. 1. 5 Traffic and Circulation----------- 22 2 .1 . 6 Environmental Issues-------------- 23 2.1. 7 Staff Recommendation-------------- 23 Land Use Categories AMENDMENT$ P TTIE NE COMM. CITY OOUNCIL 04TE RE60.tR10N DATE RESOLUTION ,> n-6_ r% Irfi->6 g366 S„ �p RESIDENTIAL 9-29-TI 1202 Ie1-1-1T 45511 Ey 'q' �°� gac e 6_ 122az6 a�-re agew `J. c �° , Estate <2Un/g Estate Sun/ ac ,7-76 p36 N-6-Te 9696 �. Estate <_4Un/gaC 11-21->e PL-16-T9 4T06 / / ♦ [ Low Density 3-6-T9 p 1232 q2 3-19-79 4729 _ 3-19-60 1261 4-7-60 g865 Y` / Medium Density 10-2I-60 1266 645-90 55 3 3r ` [ Medium High Density 5-3-BI I2T3 1-15-61 5003 E4N OIFGO iRFEW --/ / 1I-3-61 12T6 Iz-T-61 5053 N. 01f` High Density u-IT-61 IZT9 182— 5147 F /• / 12-20-e1 5206 12->-R2 R99 2-T-63 5223 4-I9-63 IM3 5-.-. 5265 lo-q 63 1314 1I-26-EI3 5327 ,- / '. ;• COMMERCIAL 1z6-e3 3eaa a / General \ y6\a *yc4 \ Visitor-Serving Office Professional 1 l MIXED Mixed Development __.__.._._.. ✓ \,\ \ paP+ Office/Residential f / Commercial/Support Recreation INDUSTRIAL M General C,3 Resource Production s % Energy Production Industrial E er P ' OPEN SPACE P" M Water s ®Conservation Recreation 8 a` o+OTHER USES 0�1\ \ \ g OPublic,Quasi-Public,lnstitutional L ...:::-....-.:... �Planned Community Planning Reserve Coastal Z Boundary one r I PACIFIC COASF — NWY ` PC1fIC OCEAN PACIFIC I OCEAN GENERAL PLAN HUNTINGTON BEACH C4LIFORNIA LAND USE DIAGRAM MM5 PLANNING DIVISION Adopted December1976 Revised MAY 1984 1. 0 INTRODUCTION This report analyzes Amendment 85-1 to the Land Use Element of the Huntington Beach General Plan. The Lana Use Element was adopted as a mandated element of the General Plan in December, 1973; this is the twenty-sixth amendment to the element. 1 .1 METHODOLOGY This amendment to the Land Use Element considers a request to change the land use designations in one area of the City. The site is known as the holly property and is located between Ellis Avenue, the Southern Pacific Right-of-Way, Garfield Avenue, Crystal Street, Ernest Avenue and Goldenwest Street. The amendment covers approximately 126 acres. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Draft Environmental Impact Report No. 84-1 has been prepared by Michael Brandn►an Associates, Inc. to cover the Holly property amendment . This General Plan Amendment document, therefore, does not provide any environmental analysis. Rather , only Land Use and Circulation issues are discussed here. All other issues are deterred to .the Environmental Impact Report for discussion. (0002D) -1- 2.0 AREA OF CONCERN 2.1. Holly Property 2.1 . 1 Background This General Plan Amendment item has been requested by the Huntington Beach Company. The request is to change the General Plan designations on 126 acres of land bordered by .Ellis Avenue on the north, the Southern Pacific Railroad Right-of-Way on the east, Garfield and Ernest Avenues on the south, and Goldenwest Street and Crystal Street on the west. The requested change is from Estate Residential, General Industrial and Office Professional to Planned Community . No change to the existing zoning on the property is requested at this time. The applicant intends to submit a specific plan once an overall general development concept has been approved for the site. The Holly Property has for a number of years been considered to be the southern terminus of the Gothard Industrial Corridor, which extends from Edinger Avenue to Garfield Avenue. This amendment item is requesting that the City of Huntington Beach re-examine the Industrial Corridor and redraw the southern boundary at Ellis Avenue rather than Garfield Avenue. The area surrounding the Holly Property is presently occupied by a wide variety of uses, both conforming and nonconforming to the equally variea general plan and zoning aesignations. Selection of a land use plan for the Holly Property may have a significant influence on how the surrounding property is eventually designated and developed. (0002D) _3_ As indicated in the Introduction section of this document, Environmental Impact Report No. 84-1 has been prepared separately for this amenament item. The following analysis will focus primarily upon Land Use issues and to a lessor degree upon Circulation issues. Seven alternative land use designations will be discussed,. . 2.1. 2 LAND USE Existing Conditions The holly Property is located on the south side of Ellis Avenue, west of the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way , north of Garfield and Ernest Avenues ana east of Goldenwest Street. The property comprises approximately 126 acres which are largely vacant. The existing General Plan (Figure 1 ) is Estate Residential 0-4 Units Per Acre on 28 acres and Estate Residential 0-2 Units Per Acre on 18 acres on the westerly portion of the property, General Industrial on 75 acres on the easterly portion, and Office Professional on 5 acres on the southern portion of the property. There are seven zoning districts on the property (Figure 2 ) , RA-0 (Residential Oil Production) , RA-0-CD (Residential Agriculture, Oil Proauction, Civic District ) , Nil (Light Manufacturing ) M1-0 and 01 ( Light Manufacturing , Oil Production) , MI-0-CD ( Light Manufacturing, Oil Proauction, Civic District ) and R5 (Office Professional ) . The RA zoning is applied to the combined 46 acres designated Estate Residential . Since RA zoning limits densities to no more than one unit per acre, it is consiaerea to be a holding zone rather than functional zoning for residential development. The M1 and R5 zoning designations are appropriate for development of Industrial and Office Professional uses on the areas where they are applied. The Holly property is located in an area which can be considered to be transitional in terms of use. Property to the west is General Planned for Estate Residential aevelopment, but appropriate zoning for such development is not yet in place. The majority of the area (called the Ellis-Golaenwest Estate Residential Area) is vacant pending adoption of the Specific Plan which would place appropriate zoning on the property. There are scatterea horse stables, oil wells, fertilizer and nursery operations presently existing in the Ellis-Golaenwest area west of the Holly property. The Holly Property study area noes not incluae 30 acres of property located at the northeast corner of Goldenwest and Garfield. This property, bounded by Ernest Avenue to the north, Crystal Street to the east , Garfield to the south and Goldenwest Street to the west is designated (0002D) -4- ■ IIII 11111111 IIII'IIIIIIIII If '�'___= 7 ■■■■��_�:;a IIII ,IIIIIIIII�IIIIIIIIIII } _� IIII °N111NNIfl•111111111 �I � � OF u l nuluuul:umlu ■������. L�■■rt 'IIIIUIIIII! ,_ { ,: t4,%i',:';;i:'grrtiti r IIIII{tlllll .2 It ENSITY •IHIIIIIIIII �{ , . ':v{'•1•.i:•.q ' +}�•• ' � ��� bw v.Jti;'l.;:r'}{:.Yi:ti.`-: ':`v`yf:: '.':�nti y.{:'i.- ry!•.`i i{r:•}.:'.ir.� � ti•:' �n :: }; RESOURCE l 1 1 PRODUCTION1 I R4- CF-R 0 'i. CENTHAa CF-R MI-CD CENTRAL-.RK) MI-A R4-SR R 1:: MI-CD R .7 CF-R R A-0-CD MI ml�-, ;= RI M, ONTARIO DR TIFFrom RA-0-CD 1- RI RI Rl CF—C ml CR UEBEC DR R RI RI D CO M or ALBERTA OR 2 MI-CD JRI RI RI RI ROS-0-CD -0-C 0- I C2-0-(Q) ml AY ON DR D Co RI RI MI-CD� Fl ELLIS RI GA ER�l� R2 -0-CD RA-0-CD U p MI-0-CD R2 i-oi R2 040-MOM-6POID -0-CD ml 2 LU 0 C R2 R LU-0-CD L RA-0-CD O-CD 660 RA-0-CD RA-0-CD M2-0 R:5, y )-0-8000 RA-CD MI-0 i-'�3*-- RfR, A-0 R2: A-0-C MI-0 -1 R,-.;R2--'R A I tRA..(O_c -0 Sao_-. RA WE II R5 0 LU-0-CD RA-0-CD !1-.0-CD -A-CD I ot 6-9.0w XPACIFICA C0 UNIT -- MI-0 a • (Dl� IC' I 14,CD MI-A-CD-01', I I ., -- (DISTF ICT M M2-01 MI-0 A-01 RA-01 RA-0-CD I Ml-A-CD MI-0 R5 t 0 R5 R5 R 300 -0, 30170 RA-0-CD R5 R2 Ll R5,1^ R2 O-co- -0 2 cl 1. RA . R2 R2 TIRA-0 I-CD M H L) ml 2'1 MI-A M2-01 6 o RA-0 R2 3%3 630-4 R2 F R A-QY-, cr M2-01-CD 2 R 2 ,; Ra a v _ I r�' % R2 : 'T ml 2J2 1 RI RI-CD RI :r. Rl' I- R3 HUNTINGTON BEACH CALIFORNIA EXISTING ZONING PLANNING DIVISION Figure 2 General Industrial and is primarily zoned M1-A and M1-0 (Light Manufacturing Agricultural and Oil Production ) . Existing uses include mini-ware houses, a truck yard, an auto storage facility, a tire storage facility and oil operations. The long-term use of this property may ultimately be determined by the land use chosen for the Holly property which abuts it on the north and east sides. Property to the south of the Holly property (south of Garfield Street between Crystal and the railroad tracks) is General Planned Medium Density Residential. Like the Ellis-Goldenwest area, much of this property has inappropriate zoning (RA-0, M1 and Cl ) and many of the .uses are marginal or transitional in nature. Existing uses include industrial, oil production, automotive repair and residential . It is expected that this area will eventually develop with appropriate residential uses as the scattered ownerships are consolidated over time. Property to the east of the Holly property (on the east side of the railroad track ) is designated Office Professional , General Industrial and Medium Density Residential . The zoning and land uses are generally consistent with the Land Use designations in this area. The Office Professional area constitutes a portion of the Main Street Office Corridor which extends from Florida Street to Holly Street and incorporates the Pacifica Community Plan Area. The 16 acre industrial portion of the area is leased by the Huntington Beach Company to a manufacturing operation (Ferro Corporation) which receives shipments from the Southern Pacific railroad which terminates on the site. Because this operation has a long-term lease on the land, it was not incorporated into the Holly property general plan amendment request. Just north of the industrial operation is a 104 unit apartment development. The apartment property was originally zoned industrial but was changed to residential in 1977 at the Classic Development Company's request . Earlier requests by the Huntington Beach Company to rezone the property in 1972 and 1973 were denied on the basis that redesignation would erode the industrial land use base in the City. The Huntington Beach Company had offered property adjacent to the Cambro Manufacturing Plant for redesignation to industrial in return for a change to residential on the apartment property, but the offer was rejected because the City was contemplating industrial adjacent to the Cambro property at the time anyway. North of the Holly property is land designated General Industrial and Open Space. Zoning is M1. M1-CD and RA-O-CD. Existing uses on the west side of Gothard (0002D) -7- Street include a gravel operation, the Orange County Joint Powers Training Facility, a Public Heliport facility, Sully Miller Lake and a truck repair facility. Sully Miller Lake is eventually intended to be incorporated into Huntington Central Park . On the east side of Gothard Street is the Strasbaugh Optical Manufacturing Company and the Mountjoy Industrial Park . The Holly property itself is largely vacant. Existing uses are limited to oil operations, a church and two single family residences. Like the Ellis-Goldenwest area to the west, much of the Holly property is characterized by rolling topography and drainage swales. The western portion of the property was included in planning for the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan in 1982. Alternatives: Seven alternative land use concepts (Figures 3 and 4 ) are being analyzed for the Holly property in this amendment and EIR: 1. Planned Community:_ This is the applicant's request and wou.ld include a mix of residential densities with a total of approximately 1,200 units. Densities are expected to range from 6 units per acre to 19 units per acre and average 10 units per acre. If the Planned Community designation is approved for the project area, the Huntington Beach Company will initiate a specific plan for the zoning. 2. Existing General Plan: The existing General Plan designates 28 acres as Estate Residential 0-4, 18 acres as Estate Residential 0-2, 75 acres for General Industrial and 5 acres for Office Professional. This could result in 148 dwelling units, 1. 8 million square feet of industrial space and 131 ,000 square feet of office space. 3. Medium Density Residential : This alternative would designate all 126 acres as Medium Density Residential at 14 units per acre. A total of 1,760 multi-family units could be expected. 4. Low Density Residential : This alternative would designate all 126 acres as Low Density residential at 7 units per acre. A total of 882 single family units could be expected. 5. Mixed Development: This alternative would feature a mix of multi-family residential, retail commercial and office professional uses. 750 dwelling units, 784, 000 square feet of office space and 39,000 square feet of retail space may be projected to be developed unaer this alternative. (0002D) _8_ ALTERNATIVE I ALTERNATIVE 2 ELLIS AVE. ELLIS AVE. ESTATE FINDUSTRIAL 2 UN/AC v~f '`' co PLANNED „COMMUNITY PQ- cx cm ~`� Z ESTATE„Uj VO' oac p 4 UN/ACO _ 0 v O aQ ERNEST AVE. a ERNEST AVE. PLANNED zc W o COMMUNITY = W � H o A N } o}c V OFFICE V GARFIELD AVE. GARFIELD AVE. ALTERNATIVE 3. ALTERNATIVE 4 ELLIS AVE. ELLIS AVE. MEDIUM `' o ,_ LOWT DENSITY � 0W DENSITY W V W 000V ERNEST AVE. MEDIUM a ERNEST AVE. LOW o. DENSITY of DENSITY aee W W to IA F- D ►tea" 0 0 N h } } cx a' V V GARFIELD AVE. GARFIELD AVE. HUNTINGTON BEACH C4 ILFOR NIA LAND USE ALTERNATIVES PLANNING DIVISION Figure 3 ALTERNATIVE 5 ALTERNATIVE 6 ELLIS AVE. ELLIS AVE. MEDIUM SWALE DENSITY M BUFFER AREA F A, H y. N MIXED W DEVELOPMENT �PQ p W P 0 3 � -a 3 INDUSTRIAL W VO K W V of ,_� O O U- O Q a ERNEST AVE. d ERNEST AVE. MIXED Z DEVELOPMENT W INDUSTRIAL cc W = H = to ~ H J J w N h of OC of V V GARFIELD AVE. GARFIELD AVE. ALTERNATIVE 7 ELLIS AVE. LOW N h' 0 W DENSITY PLO p oc W V of 0 V O � V ERNEST AVE. a INDUSTRIAL W N ~ Z O GARFIELD AVE. HUNTINGTON BEACH CALIFORNIA LAND USE ALTERNATIVES PLANNING DIVISION Figure 4 6. Industrial/Medium Density Residential : This alternative would designate IU acres on the southwest corner of Ellis and Goldenwest for Medium Density Residential . and the remaining 116 acres for General Industrial . The residential area would be separated from the industrial by a natural drainage swale. A total of 150 multi-family dwelling units and 2.6 million square feet of industrial space could be expected to result . 7. Industrial/Low Density Residential : This a ternative would designate the westerly 60 acres of the property as Low Density Residential, retain 61 acres to the east as Industrial and retain 5 acres to the south as Office Professional. The residential would be separated from the Industrial by the realignment of Gothard Street to connect with Crystal Street as shown on the Circulation Plan of Arterial Streets and Highways . A total of 420 dwelling units, 1 .4 million square feet of industrial space and 131 ,000 square feet of office space could be expected to result . This alternative is slightly modified from Alternative 5. 7 in the EIR by the expansion of Low Density, the reduction of Industrial and the retention of Office Professional . History: Because the Holly property and the majority of the property surrounding it can be considered transitional in terms of existing land uses and land use designations, the land use concept selected for the holly property will have important ramifications for the larger area. The holly property has been considered for many years to comprise the southernmost portion of the Gothard Industrial Corridor . The Corridor extends from Edinger Avenue to Garfield Avenue and encompasses approximately 570 acres. The Corridor was laid out to follow and take advantage of the Southern Pacific Railroad facility which presently dead ends at Garfield Avenue, and the now-defunct plans for the Route 39 Freeway. The industrial uses along the Gothard Corridor have historically been uses that take advantage of rail transit such as lumber yards and major warehousing operations. In recent years, however , rail transit has become less important to modern industrial uses. Rather, freeway access for truck delivery has become more significant . Recent industrial developments along the Gothard Corridor have been of the multi-tennant variety which rely exclusively on truck delivery rather than the large storage operations that utilize freight . Mixed commercial/industrial developments that cater to drive up retail trade have also become increasingly popular . -11- ( 0002D) Industrial development along the Gothard Corridor slowed somewhat during the early 1970 ' s. The slowdown was largely attributable to the development of the Northwest Industrial Area located just south of McDonnell Douglas. As this area approached buildout in the late 1970 's and early 1960 's, development again picked up along the Gothard Corridor . Together , the two industrial areas have experienced an average development rate of 30 acres per year for the last eight years. Approximately 45 acres of industrial development were approved along Gothard Street in 1983 and 1984, leaving only approximately 47 acres unentitlea along the corridor north of the Holly property at this time. These numbers indicate that the Gothard Corridor north of the holly Property has reached 90 percent of buildout. Since the Northwest Industrial Area south of McDonnell Douglas is approximately 95 percent built-out, the property remaining along the Gothard Corridor will be very important in providing future industrial opportunities. The Holly property now represents approximately 50 percent of the remaining vacant industrial land in the areas south of McDonnell Douglas and along the Gothard Corridor . There are presently approximately 15,000 industrial jobs in the City. The Holly property, if developed industrially will provide approximately 2,500 additional jobs for a 15 percent increase in industrial employment in the City. This employment opportunity will be lost if the Holly property is redesignated to Planned Community . Gothard Street presently has no direct freeway access , but is fairly easily obtainable from the freeway via either Goldenwest Street or Beach Boulevard. There are currently plans to link the northern end of Gothard Street with Hoover Street in Westminster in order to utilize an existing freeway off-ramp at Bolsa Street. There are also plans to provide a new freeway on and oft-ramp exclusively for Gothard Street. These improvements will significantly improve access to Gothard Street and should increase demand for industrial development along the remainder of the corridor . Because the southern ena of the Gothard Corridor is 3 .0 miles from the 405 freeway there has been debate by the City for a number of years regarding the proper southern terminus of the Corridor . The Industrially designated corridor at one time extended south of Garfield Avenue to Clay Street . In 1976, however, the area south of Garfield was redesignated to Medium Density Residential . Only the 18 acre Cambro facility on the southwest corner of Garfield and Huntington Street remains Industrial on the General Plan. The Holly Property proposal would move the southern end of the Gothard Corridor northwara to Ellis Avenue rather than Garfield Avenue . This would (0002D) -12- create new industrial islands in the 30 acre area south of Ernest Avenue and in the 16 acre Ferro operation between the railroad tracks and Huntington Street. There is also a 40 acre area designated Resource Production and zoned M2 at the southwest corner at Garfield and Goldenwest Streets. In 1976, in response to increasing pressure to rezone property along the Gothard Corridor to other than industrial uses, the City prepared an inventory and . analysis of industrially designated land in the City in order to ascertain present and future needs. The study recommended measures to upgrade the attractiveness of the Gothard Corridor for industrial development and concluded that .if the measures failed, consideration should be given to reducing some of the excess land capacity.l The first priority site for redesignation was the Holly property south of Ellis Avenue. The rationale for removal of the Holly property from the Gothard Industrial Corridor was based upon residential and recreational developments occurring adjacent to the property, limited and distant freeway access, and the irregular topography of the site which may need to be altered for industrial development. The City Council, however , decided not to act on the conclusion of the study and instead determined to preserve the remaining industrial property in the corridor . It was felt that the holly property was not sufficiently remote from the freeway to preclude industrial development and that industrial development and employment would be a continuing need within the City for the foreseeable future. As with other new industrial developments along the corridor, it was believed that industrial uses on the Holly Property could be made compatible with nearby residential and. recreational uses . Topography: The natural swales and topography of the Holly property (Figure 5 ) are consiaerea to be a unique and significant resource in the City. The swales on the Holly property occur along the northern portion of the site and extend across Goldenwest Street into what is known. as the Ellis-Goldenwest Area. In 1981-82, The City prepared the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report No. 82-1 . This plan proposed standards for quality equestrian oriented estate residential uses on 290 acres of largely unaevelopea property extending from the west side of Edwards Street to the east side of Golaenwest Street on the holly property. The plan permitted residential densities up to 3 units per acre and requires preservation of the natural drainage swales throughout the area. A system of 1 . H.B. Industrial Land Use Study, June 1976, pgs. 34-35 . (0002D) -13- .0 . 30 40 �/X/--1, 50— so 1 / J '40 o 6U, �.r. El I IS....... ....... bo .0 w Z u •fry,»1IR��r�.�lp�.r• .r.r.r.r.r.r.r.r.r. . r.r.r.r.r.r.r.r.r•r.r.r.i 5� �Pd HUNTINGTON BEACH CALIFORNIA EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY PLANNING DIVISION Figure 5 equestrian trails was layed out over the entire area to link up with trails and other .IANNlD equestrian facilities in Central Park . The CpIAr.►N,r = Y Plan has not been adopted by the City Council and is presently undergoing revision by the "A'"'�°, Department of Development Services for CewNYN1i 1 reintroduction to the City Council at a later date. Preservation of the swales and topography in the Ellis-Goldenwest area remains an important issue in the City and some preservation measures will most likely be f' "t _ adopted in the future. Such issues may "Nor, ultimately be applied to the Holly property if the property is designated for residential development . NDusnA I� 1 •" Of�IIY 2 3 The Huntington Beach Company 's proposal for arks ,s10a, the Holly property would likely incorporate ! w some preservation of swale areas on the - -- northwest portion of the site. If the Huntington Beach Company' s amendment request ,. is approved, the specific plan for the 9i property could conceivably be designed to incorporate equestrian trails into the swales as initially proposed for the Ellis-Goldenwest 4 - 5 _ Area. The other land use alternatives under consideration in this analysis would also _w potentially allow for application of swale --preservation measures, at least on the western half of the property. Alternatives 6 and 7 for Residential/Industrial uses would utilize the swale areas to provide separation and buffering from industrial areas elsewhere on _ sn� the site. The Industrially designated 6 I portions of Alternatives 2, 6, and 7 would „ w probably require grading of the swale areas on the northeast portion of the site, but this area was never included in the Ellis- Goldenwest Specific Plan area anyway. OW °�' " Alternatives 3 and 4 for Medium and Low Density development respectively on the entire N srw site could preserve the topography throughout the site. Alternative 5 for Mixed Development 7 d would have unknown potential for topography !L w preservation. Land Use Compatibility: Another set of issues in analysis of the holly property involves compatibility of land uses. As indicated earlier , the Holly property is surrounded by a diverse mixture of existing and proposed land uses. Residential development of the Holly property would be compatible with the Ellis-Goldenwest Estate area across Goldenwest (0002D) -15- Street to the west and with the Garfield-Goldenwest area across Garfield Avenue to the South. It would also be compatible with the 104 unit apartment development on the southeast corner of Ellis Avenue and the railroad tracks. Residential development would be somewhat compatible with the uses planned for Central Park to the w north. The major exception would be the conflict which may occur with the Police ;l,;c .anr Heliport to be built near the northwest corner of Ellis Avenue and Gothard Street. As I� indicated in EIR 84-1 and Figure 6, Helicopter i �lr I V take-off patterns would exist directly over residential uses as proposea on the southeast 2 - 3 corner of Ellis Avenue and Goldenwest Street. This problem is addressed in the Noise Section (3.10 ) of the Environmental Impact Report. Residential portions of every alternative ,. ,. under consideration would be impacted by the Heliport. only Alternative 5 for Mixed .t 31;, Development would reserve potential for ` r keeping residential uses away from the flight I2 path area. The Police Department has N!! w ;;," I ,rw indicated, however, that the take-off patterns 3 4 are somewhat flexible and could be adjusted if needed to avoid specific residential locations . Residential uses on the Holly property would be incompatible with the adjacent industrial „D uses in the 30 acre area southwest of Ernest '""°�"` f Avenue and Crystal Street and with the Ferro Corporation on the east side of the railroad tracks. The proposed Planned Community plan N! « oae'lia.O.1[Nr 3 would be incompatible in these areas as would Alternatives 3 and 4 for Medium and Low ..! Density development. Alternatives 2 (Existing .- General Plan) and 7 ( Industrial/Low Density) �. would keep residential development away from the Ferro Corporation and the railroad tracks, but would permit residential development adjacent to the Ernest/Crystal industrial Nsrw! area. Alternative 6 ( Industrial/Meaium Density) would keep residential away from both the Ferro and Ernest/Crystal industrial areas. w! Alternative 5 for Mixea Development could be designed to keep residential development away from the adjacent industrial uses. If the _= Ernest/Crystal and Ferro Corporation areas were eventually amended to residential, then I all of the residential alternatives would be compatible. If the Ernest/Crystal and Ferro 7 - ! Corporation areas remain industrial and the K! Holly property is amended to residential, then the two industrial areas would become islands (0002D) -16- c 4_� T 7 +i l �'bi�T,i. _ .isY i h �:,--'• '"r!1 � C f ��%.. �� �f' I ica. �' ''�Y .A I'l-�,.,,j" �u r� 1� r.� � '�''_.�._ �, tii.+,r••r-j..�..r..� qm 40ACH Ir_ r r HELIPOR � -� ELLIO .1 r.m } Lr- ite `���'•T`, _" - (��� �i' I 1 (,, III ��• 1 - � t � (��}.n.J h; OAR i 1 _ .A'�"J 'i 'I• ' Qpri9r I (L `'r i<� o' a•L iti`� o•"-:I `= i'ir_„ ra � 1 �,.r-' I I LANDING AND1. .::..:� TAKEOFF PATTERNS : •�, . 3` - _._. NOISE CONTOURS r1 �. �.r1i 7 F .l. i cwau HELIPORT LANDING & TAKEOFF PATTERNS HUNTINGTON BEACH CALIFORNIA 1993 CNEL NOISE CONTOURS PLANNING DIVISION Figure 6 that are incompatible with land uses on all four sides rather than on only two sides as presently is the case. Realignment of Gothard Street : A third set of issues involves Gothard Street and its eventual alignment. At present , Gothara Street veers east immediately south of Ellis Avenue and connects in a five way intersection with Main Street and Garfield Avenue . The Master Plan of Arterial Highways (Figure 7 ) , however , shows Gothard Street veering west immediately south of Ellis Avenue and connecting with Crystal Street before continuing to a four way intersection with Main Street south of Garfield. This realignment will eliminate the five way intersection at Main/Gothard/ Garfield and will expedite traffic flow between Main Street and Goldenwest Street and along Gothard Street. This alignment was reaftirmed by the City Council on December 5, 1983 when they adopted Circulation Element Amendment No. 83-1 . If Gothard Street is eventually connected to hoover Street in Westminster , it will have additional importance as a north-south arterial . The use of Gothard Street as a significant north-south arterial has mixed impacts on the residential versus industirial debate. The enhanced vehicular access to Gothard Street will have beneficial impacts on its appeal as an industrial corridor because of the increased truck and customer accessibility. Conversely, the increased .access will also mean increased use of the arterial by non-industry related commuters. The result will be increased mixing of industrial and non-inaustrial traffic. Given that industrial and non-inaustrial use of Gothard Street will increase, there may be a basis for selecting a mixed industrial residential alternative for the Holly property which will take advantage of the enhanced industrial value of the land and commuter access to the freeway . -VOI ".E .�,,. - I~ Ave Alternatives 2 (Existing General Plan) and 6 Av'ACand 7 ( Industrial/Medium Density and Low Density) both feature residential uses on the western portion of the holly property and "Hr•vE "WS'"'"` I f."ESw( �: industrial uses on the eastern portion of the 6 property. The realignment of Gothard Street with Crystal Street will form a dividing line " IN down the approximate middle of the property . .%NEB lDw l wf Alternatives 2 and 7 would feature residential on one side of Gothard and industrial on the other . Gothard Street could be treated with s appropriate setbacks and screening to provide a reasonable buffer between the two types of "f 3f wE ..1. ,= uses. Since residential and industrial users 7 - would both take access from Gothard, however , L„EtiE the problem of mixing traffic types would be rtfD w (OOU2D) -18- AMEWMW Fl..11.Y CITY CIRCULATION PLAN OF ARTERIAL CITY . STREETS AND HIGHWAYS �..-. iYl R•°-Y YN ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO 4368-DEC.12.1976 ` M LEGEND: -..--.- FREEWAY STREET CAPACITY MAJOR 45,000 PRIMARY. 3Q000 °" - -- �'- -- - --- SECONDARY .20.000 NOTE: — � SOLID LINES INDICATE EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY • NOT NECESSARILY ULTIMATE RIGHT 9F WAY • DASHED LINES INDICATE AREAS WHERE NO i.•.,. RIGHT OF WAY EXISTS �\ \� CF-R REALIGNED �J I GOTHARD. I 92 i �'� wee.----i..._• y f L/� iT11 i1i ;l fiil1 ,...NUOR c.wrwl.p saa•ta• ..wow Ylw, c-ur•ro CIRCULATION PLAN OF ARTERIAL STREETS AND HIGHWAYS Figure 7 somewhat aggravated by these alternatives. Alternative 6 would feature residential only on the southeast corner of Ellis Avenue and Goldenwest Street, with inaustrial on the '""W' 11°IIEIfY! remainder of the property. It is expected 6 that this alternative will produce the least mixing of inaustrial and residential traffic. 1 W Marketability A fourth issue involves the marketability of the Holly property. As indicated previously, there was concern in the 1970 's that the Holly Property was not desirable for industrial development due to limited freeway access . As explained above, however , Gothard Street will likely be made more accessible to the freeway and hence its industrial value will likely increase. The varied topography was also at one time seen as being a hinderance to industrial development. This concern is probably invalid now with the advent of high-tech industry in Southern California. Modern industrial complexes are now frequently designed with extensive lanascaping and unique design treatments. The topography of the Holly Property could lend itself well to development of an attractive high-tech industrial complex with landscapea greenbelts and swales around the buildings and parking areas. The impending buildout of the remainder of the Gotharo Corridor may enhance the value of the Holly Property for such purposes. ;, .�,.. Alternative 2 (Existing General Plan ) and Alternative 6 ( Inaustrial/Medium Density) ' would preserve the option for substantial :1r~c amounts of quality high-tech industrial !N!S[W! development. Alternative 5 for Mixed 2 2 Y Development would result in a very significant amount of commercial and office space on the Holly property. Since the Holly property is IEl°W well removed from the ma3or Beach Boulevard Commercial Corridor, visibility will not be as good as would normally be preferrea for such development. Commercial development on the != Holly property would also, because of its close proximity, detract from the demand for aevuanr!!.r 5 �o similar development in the Downtown area. Since the Downtown area is such a high " priority commercial/residential project in the City, anything that would potentially detract �o from its viability would be undesirable. The s Alternative 5 Mixed Development proposal I� should be eliminated for this reason. _ffNEE,W[ = Alternatives 2 and 7 would retain the Office 7 a /KE Professional designation on 5 acres at the corner of Garfield and Main Street. With the (0002D) -20- -ram Pacifica Community Plan Area to the north approaching buildout , there may be future n•°f° .; demand for office aevelopment along the Main _°uwE«rr ' Street Office Corridor. The medically oriented offices would not constitute !m"•°r •!. E° competition for the Downtown area. ;aYp{INrrr - Alternatives 21 6, and 7 all incorporate a mix of separate industrial and residential uses . Alternatives 2 and 7 would each reduce ;3 • .°�„ slightly the amount of inaustrial land in the area and would feature substantial amounts of 3 residential . Of the two, Alternative 7 would - feature the largest amount of residential !fnEsr.ve °°°r"•` development. Alternative 6 would expand the 2 _ = industrially designated area and reduce the f amount for residential . This alternative rrE � would increase the allowable residential :.EnEE°wf density, however, and would allow the same number of units as the existing General Plan. _ Alternatives 1 ( Planned Community) and 3 and 4 are entirely residential and would eliminate all industrial from the holly property. It is felt that there is a need for retention of nEsrw E°,°� "a MEsrwf •�, industrial areas, /and therefore these oEwsrtr � — .°ewsrr 3 3 - 4 alternatives may not be desirable. housing, however, is a high priority land use in the City, and these alternatives would all result in a substantial increase of housing. The demand for housing is likely to make alternatives 1, 3, and 4 economically. viable. 2.1 . 3 HOUSING The applicant has proposea development of approximately 1 ,200 housing units on the subject property. Alternative 2 ( Existing General Plan ) would result in approximately 140 units, Alternative 3 (Medium Density) EEr!E SI.rf WEWI!EtET � would result in 1,760 units, Alternative 4 5 - (Low Density) would result in 682 units, Alternative 5 (Mixed Development ) may result in 750 units, Alternative 6 ( Industrial/Medium Density) would result in 150 dwelling units, and Alternative 7 (Industrial/Low Density) would result in 420 units. Iz The housing Element of the City 's General Plan Ef r.Ef .rE contains policies aimed at increasing housing n+W6T.l opportunities for households with low ana 6 - I moaerate incomes. The applicant 's proposal would provide the second largest amount of housing of any of the alternatives and it is likely that some of the higher density units in the project could be found to be affordable. Alternative 3 (Medium Density) (0002D) -21- would provide the most opportunities for affordable housing. It is unlikely that either the existing General Plan (Alternative : 2 ) or Alternative 4 (Low Density) , or Alternatives 6 and 7 ( Industrial/Medium ana ` �= w� „.,•, `= Low Density ) will provide sufficient aensity 7 7 s or numbers of units to offer a significant ..Y� amount of affordable units. , a 2. 1 .4 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES This analysis is contained in Environmental Impact Report No. 84-1 , Sections 3.11 and 5.0. 2. 1. 5 TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION Environmental Impact Report No. 84-1 contains a detailed traffic and circulation study which was prepared by Basmaciyan-Darnell , Inc. This section of the General Plan Amendment document is intended to review the results of that study and supplement it with additional information. The traffic study in the Environmental Impact Report indicated that the proposed Planned Community project would generate approximately 9,620 vehicle trip ends per day. The existing general plan was estimated to generate approximately 13,134 vehicle trip ends per day. No trip generation estimates were made for the other alternatives other than to indicate whether each would produce generally more or less traffic. Staff has prepared the following trip generation estimates for each of the alternatives. Alternatives Vehicle Trips Per Day 1. Planned Community 9,620 2. Existing General Plan 13,134 3. Medium Density 12,600 4 . Low Density 8,400 5. Mixed Development 18,270 6. Industrial/Medium Density 15,542 7 . Industrial/Low Density 13, 730 Of the seven alternatives, Low Density Residential will generate the least traffic and Mixed Development can be expected to generate the most . The applicant 's. request will generate less traffic than the existing general plan and less than any of the alternatives other than Low Density. The traffic stuay concluaea that any development of the subject property will contribute to future roadway segment congestion in the vicinity of the project site. (0002D) -22- Post 1995 traffic conditions will exceed level of Service C and D for portions of Ellis Avenue, Garfield Avenue, Goldenwest Street, Main Street and Beach Boulevard. 'this condition will hold true for any of the alternatives under consideration. Level of Service C is considered to be the design capacity of Arterial highways. Level of Service D indicates that traffic will be subject to frequent delays in movement. To mitigate the impacts of aevelopment of the holly property, the study concludes that Goldenwest Street north. of Garfield should be upgraded from a four-lane primary arterial to a six-lane major arterial and Ellis Avenue east of Gothard Street should be redesigned as a four-lane divided arterial. The redesignation of Golde:nwest to a major arterial is presently plannea by the City with construction to occur in FY 1988-b9. There are no current plans to upgrade Ellis Avenue. Beach Boulevard is presently under study by both the City and the County for future upgrading and designation as a super street. If all proposed circulation improvements are made prior to development of the holly Property, it is likely that the surrounding arterials will function at Level of Service C with only peak periods exceeding that capacity, regardless of the land use alternative selected. The traffic study found no problems with the proposed realignment of Gothard Street with Crystal except to ensure that the final design consider spacing of internal intersections, sight and stopping aistances, slope banks, walls and landscaping at intersections. Any of the alternatives under consideration should work well with the realignment of Gothard Street. Regardless of the land use alternative selected, Goldenwest Street and Garfield Avenue should be upgraded as suggested by the traffic study. 2 . 1 . 6 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES This analysis is contained in Environmental Impact Report No. 84-1. 2 .1 . 7 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Alternative 6 • ( Industrial/Medium Density Residential ) be eZ"11`� selected. This selection is made on the " basis that improvea vehicle access will is enhance the value of industrial property in the vicinity ana that there will be a future s need in the City for additional quality 6 industrial development. The rapidly approaching builaout of the Gothard Inaustrial Corridor is seen as an important indicator that the holly Property should be retained for industrial aevelopment. (0002D) _23_ Industrial development of the holly Property would prevent the creation of industrial islands out of the Ferro Corportation and Ernest/Crystal areas and would retain the lineal integrity of the industrial corridor . Mixing of residential and industrial traffic would be minimized. A quality industrial development which incorporates retention of swale areas into its landscaping would be considered to be compatible with the proposed Estate Residential uses across Goldenwest Street to the west. Industrial aevelopment would also be more compatible with the Police heliport on the north side of Ellis Avenue and would provide needed jobs within the City. The Medium Density Residential portion of the alternative will allow the property owner to develop as many dwelling units on the property as is presently allowed by the existing General Plan, but on a smaller portion of the property. The swale area around the residential portion will serve as a reasonable buffer between the residential and industrial uses. (0002D) -24- ,._ DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Hol ly Property Planned Community General Plan Amendment 844 CITY OF NUNTINGTON BEACH December 1984 • • • DRAFT • _ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Holly Property Planned Community General Plan Amendment 84-1 City of Huntington Beach SCH #84071111 • Prepared for: • City of Huntington Beach Development Services Department P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648 (714) 536-5271 • • Prepared by: Michael Brandman Associates, Inc. 3140 Red Hill Avenue, Suite 200 Costa Mesa, California 92626 (714) 641-8042 December 1984 • • TABLE OF CONTENTS • Section Page 1.0 Introduction . .. . . . . . . . ... . .. . ... . . .. .. . . .. . . . . .. . .... . . . . . .. . . . .1 1.1 Purpose of EIR.. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . .. . . . . . .. . .. .. . .. .. . . . . . .1 • 1.2 EIR Participants . . . .. .. . .. . . ...... .. ... .... ... . ... .. . . . . .1 1.3 Effects Found Not To Be Significant .. . . .. . .. .. . ....... .. . .. ..1 1.4 Executive Summary .... . .. ...... .. .... ... . ....... ... . ... . . .2 2.0 Project Description. .. .. .. . . .. . ......... ... ............ .... . . ... .3 • 2.1 Project Location ... .. . . . . ........ .. .. .. .......... ..... . .. . .3 2.2 Planning History . . . ... ..... ........ .. ... .. . ... .. .. .. . . . ...3 2.3 Project Characteristics ...... ... ....... .. . . . .... ... . . .. .. . ..4 _ 2.4 Project Objectives .. ... ..... .... . ... ... ... . .. .. .... . .. . . . . .7 2.5 Project Phasing .. . . . . .. . .... ...... .... . ........ .. .. .. .. . .. .8 • 3.0 Existing Conditions, Impacts and Mitigation Measures .. .. .. ... .. . . . . .9 3.1 Landform/Topography .. ... .. .. ... .......... .. .... . . . ... .9 3.2 Geology/Soils/Oil Production . . .. .. . . . .. ... ......... .. . . . . . .11 3.3 Hydrology.. .. . . .. .. .. . ....... . ...... ..... .. . .. ....... . .. .24 3.4 Biological Resources.. .. . ... ... .. . . .... . .. ...... .. . . .... . ..33 3.5 Archaeological Resurces .. .... . . ...... . .. .. ..... . .... ... .. .39 3.6 Land Use and Planning Considerations.. ..... ... ... .. . . .. .. . ..41 3.7 Aesthetic Resources .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. . .... .. ...... . ... .. ...53 3.8 Traffic/Circulation.. .. . . . . .. . .... .. .. . . . ........ .... . ... ..56 3.9 Air Quality.. .. . . .. .. .. .. . . . ... . . . . . .. . . . ......... ... .. . ..76 3.10 Noise. . . .. .. . .. .. . .. . .. ... .... .. .. . .. . .. .. ... . ... . .. .89 3.11 Public Services/Utilities .. ..... .. . . .. .... .. . ...... ... .. . .. .99 4.0 Fiscal Analysis.. ... .. .. .. . .. . .. .... .. . . .. . . . . .. . . ... . . .. .. .. . .117 5.0 Alternatives .... . .. . . . . ... . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. . . . . .. ..... . .. . . . . . . .133 5.1 No Project .. . . . . . .. .. . . .. .. .. . . . . .. . . .. ... . ... . .. . . .. . . .133 • 5.2 No Action. . .. . .. .. .. .. . . .. .. . .. . . . . . .. .. . . .. .. .. . . . . . . ..135 5.3 Higher-Density . .. . . .. . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . .136 5.4 Lower-Density.. .. . . ... . . . . .. ... .. . .. . . . . . .. . .. .... . . . . . .137 5.5 Mixed-Use .. . . . . . . .. .. .. . . . . . . ... . ..... .. . . . .. . .. . . . . . . .138 5.6 Industrial/Medium Density Residential . . . . .. . . .... . .. .. . . . ..138 5.7 Industrial/Low Density Residential .. . .. . . . . .. .. ..... . . . . . . .140 6.0 Growth-Inducing and Cumulative Impacts.. .. .. . . . . . . . .. .. . .. .. . ..142 7.0 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources.. . . . ... . . . .143 8.0 Relationship Between Local Short-Term Uses of Man's Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity.. .. .. ... . . ..... . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. . . . . . . .. .144 i TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Section Page 9.0 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts . . . . . . . . .. . . ... . .. . .. .. . . .. .. . . . . . .145 10.0 Organizations and Persons Consulted.. . . . . ... . . .. . ... .. .. ... . .. . .146 11.0 References .. . .. . . . ... . .. .. .. . . . . . . ...... . . ...... ..... .. . ... ..148 12.0 Appendices. ... . . . . .. . . . ... . .... . . .. . . .. . . .. . .. ..... .... .. . .. .151 A. Initial Study B. Notice of Preparation (NOP) and NOP Responses C. Geology/Soils Report D. Hydrology Report E. Floral and Faunal Compendia F. Archaeology Report G. Traffic Report H. Air Quality Data I. Noise Data J. Correspondence K. Huntington Beach Oil Code ii • LIST OF TABLES • Number Page 1 Planned Community Statistical Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . ... .6 - 2 General Seismic Parameters .. .. .. . .. . . .. .. . .. ..... . . . . ... . .. . . . .14 3 Summary of Roadway Characteristics.. .. .. .. . . . . . . . ... .. .. . . . . . . .57 4 Intersection Capacity for Existing Conditions .. . . .. . .... . .. .. . . . . ..58 5 Existing Roadway Segment Capacity Analysis .. . . . .. .. . . . . .. . . . .. . .59 6 Summary of Existing General Plan, Post 1995 Daily • - Traffic Roadway Segment Capacity Analysis .. .. .. . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . .61 7 Summary of Trip Generation Rates ..... .. . .. . . . . . . ..... . . .. . . .. . .63 8 Summary of Project-Related Trip Generation .. . . . ... ... .. . . . . . . . . .64 9 Summary of Roadway Segment Capacity Analysis - Existing • Plus Project Related Traffic.. . . . . . .. .. .. .... .. .. ... . ... . . .. . . . . .66 10 Summary of Post 1995 Daily Traffic Roadway Segment Capacity Analysis .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . ... . .. . .. . ......... . .. . .. . ..68 11 Intersection Capacity Utilization and Level of Service for Existing Plus Project Related Traffic . .... . . .. ... .. . .. . . .. . . .. .69 12 1979-1983 Annual Summary of Clean Air Standards Violations - Costa Mesa Air Quality Monitoring Station. .... . .. . . .. . .78 13 1979-1983 Annual Summary of Clean Air Standards Violations - Los Alamitos Air Quality Monitoring Station .. . . . . . . .. . .79 14 Projected Mobile and Stationary Source Emissions .. ... . . .. .. . . . . . . .84 15 Emission Imecatory Comparison (1987) .. .. . .. .. . .. . . . .. . .. ... . . . . .85 16 Optimum Noise Levels .. .. . . . . . .. . . ... .. .. . . . ... . .. .. .. .. . .. . .. .91 17 Exterior Noise Standards .. . . . . . . .. .. .. . . . . . . .. .. .. . . . .. . .. . . . . . .92 18 Existing Traffic Noise Levels .. .. ... ... .. . ... . . . . .. . .... . .. .. . . ..93 19 Future Traffic Noise Levels .. .. ... . . .. . . . .. . . . .. .... ... . . .. . . . ..95 20 Noise Levels from four Remaining Oil Derricks.. .. .. .. . . .. .. .. .. . . .96 21 Educational Facilities.. . .. . .. . . .. .. . . .. .. . . . . .. ... . . . . . .. . . . .. .103 22 Estimated City of Huntington Beach Revenues and Costs Resulting From the Holly Planned Community Development. . . . .. . . .127 23 Estimated City of Huntington Beach Revenues and Costs Resulting From Development According to Current Land UseDesignations. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . ... . .... . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .132 iii LUST OF EXHIBITS Following Number Page Number 1 Regional Location. . .. . . . . .. ... .. . . . . .. .... . .. .. .. ... .. . .. . . . .3 2 Vicinity Map. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . ... . . . . . .. .. . . . . .3 3 Existing General Plan. . .. ... . .. . .. . .. .. . .. ... .. . ... . . .... .. . ..5 4 Concept Plan . . ... . .. . . .. . .... . . . .. . .. ... ... .. . . . . . .. .. . . .. . .5 5 Topography. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ... .. . .. .. . .. . . . . . .. . . ... . .. . . . . . .9 6 Cut and Fill Map . . . . . . .. .. . . .. ... .. . . .... .. . .. ...... ...... . . .9 7 Regional Geologic Map. . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . .. . .. .. . . . .. . . . .. . .. . .11 8 Fault Locations .. . ... ... ... ... .. . .. .. ... . .. .... ... . .... .. . ..11 9 Surficial Units . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . .. . .. .. . .11 10 Oil and Water Wells .. ...... ... . .. .... .... . .. . . .. .. . . .. . .. ...17 11 Existing Hydrology . .. ... . .. . .. . . . .. .. ... ... .. . . .. ... .. .. . .. .25 12 Master Plan of Drainage .. .. .... ............ . . .. ... .. ..... .. .25 13 Post-Development Hydrology .. . ... .. .... .... ... . .. . .. .. . . . .. .29 14 Vegetation .. .. ... . .. . .. . .. .... .. .. . ..... . . .... .. . . .. . . .. . . .33 15 Existing Land Uses .. ... . . . . . .. . .. ... . . .. . . ... .. .. . .. .. . ... . .41 16 Existing Zoning . ........ . . ... ... . .. . .. ... . .. .. . .. . . ... . .. . . .41 17 Existing Traffic Volumes .. . . . . . ... ... . .. . . . . . . .. .. . ....... . ..56 18 Existing Traffic Volumes/Gothard Street Realignment.. .. .. .. . . . .62 19 Project-Related Traffic Volumes .. . .. . . . . . .. . .. .... . .. .... . . . .64 20 Existing Plus Project Traffic Volumes .. .. . .. . . . .. . . . .. . .. . .. . . .64 21 Post 1995 Daily Traffic Volumes .. ... ... . . .. ..... .. . .. .. .... . .67 22 Site Access and Internal Circulation .. .. .. . . . .. ... . . .. . . . . .. . . .70 23 Police Helicopter Approach and Departure Pattern . . ... . .. .. . ...94 24 Unmitigated 1995 Noise Contours .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..96 iv • 1.0 INTRODUCTION • 1.1 PURPOSE OF EIR This environmental impact report (EIR) provides an assessment of the environmental • impacts resulting from General Plan Amendment (GPA) 84-1 for the City of Huntington Beach. The analyses in this EIR have been prepared in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), State CEQA Guidelines (as amended), and the City of Huntington Beach procedures pertaining to CEQA. The • lead agency for this EIR is the City of Huntington Beach, the applicant is the Huntington Beach Company, and the environmental consultant is Michael Brandman Associates, Inc. (MBA). • 1.8 HER PARTICIPANTS Key contact persons for the preparation of this EIR are listed below: Lead Agency: Howard Zelefsky City of Hunting Beach Planning Division P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648 (714) 536-5271 Project Applicant: Bill Holman Huntington Beach Company 2]10 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 (714) 960-4351 Environmental Consultant: Thomas E. Smith, Jr., AICP Beverly Bruesch Michael Brandman Associates, Inc. 3140 Red Hill Avenue, Suite 200 Costa Mesa, California 92626 (714) 641-8042 1.3 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT The city prepared an initial study for GPA 84-1 which is included in Appendix A for easy reference. The initial study identified those environmental elements which would, or could, be significantly impacted by the project. The environmental 1 evaluation which follows the checklist describes the potential significance of each environmental impact. As indicated by the initial study, certain topical areas were determined not to be significant, or potentially singificant. These topical areas will not be addressed in this EIR. 1.4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The following pages include a summary of the impacts of the proposed project and recommended mitigation measures. A summary of the unavoidable adverse impacts is included in Section 9.0. 2 • EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • LandformMpography Impacts Approval of the GPA will not significantly alter landform/topography impacts associated with development of the site. Development of the project with any urban land use will alter the sites existing topography. In general, the proposed grading retains the character of the site's topography except in the northeastern corner of the site. The realignment of Gothard and filling the "hole" created by the realignment will require substantial fill quantities. • M Mitigation Measures A grading plan will be prepared and will be required to comply with the Huntington Beach grading ordinance. • Mr Geology/Soils/Oil Production Impacts Geology, soils and oil production constraints will be present with any kind of development proposed for the site. • The study area may be subject to ground rupture due to possible subsurface faulting, and it will be subject to groundshaking from earthquakes. The potential for liquefaction, slope failure, settlement or ground lurching is considered minimal except in relatively small portions of the site. Preliminary laboratory tests on lime deposits found within the site boundaries have not ruled out the presence of hazardous chemicals and, therefore, the incorporation of the deposits into the grading materials may not be possible and the deposits would " have to be completely removed. Spills or leaks of petroleum products are a possibility with oil well operations and could result in hazardous fumes, fire or pollution. In addition, the possible existence of old buried sumps, trash dumps, abandoned pipelines and underground storage tanks could be a potential health hazard • to future residents, if not recognized and appropriately removed or cleaned up. Mitigation Measures Adequate building setbaccks may be required if, upon further investigation, the risk of ground surface rupture is found to exist. Design and construction of structures in • - conformance with latest UBC should mitigate groundshaking impacts. More detailed subsurface and soils investigations will evaluate site conditions and recommend appropriate grading and construction techniques to mitigate any significant soil or foundation constraints. A physical and chemical soils analysis will most likely be required as part of any tentative neap filing. [f so required by the State Department of 1-leaith Services (DOHS), a site characterization study will be prepared for DOHS review. If hazardous chemicals or wastes are found to be present, cleanup and disposal of all toxic subsances will be required. In addition, a review of all available records and a subsurface investigation should be carried out prior to grading to verify the locations of all suspected sumps or dumps. Any hazardous substances should be removed prior to site grading per DOHS standards. The city's Oil Code includes several measures for the safe and compatible operation of oil production facilities in residential areas, including provisions for fire prevention, general nuisance prevention, and abandonment and clean up procedures. Hydrology Land use approved with the proposed GPA will not significantly change the hydrology impacts associated with development of the site. Development of the site will increase surface water runoff and decrease water percolation into the groundwater.. Drainage patterns will be altered and storm drain improvements required. Water quality impacts will include an increase in urban pollutants (oil, grease, fertilizers, etc.), but a decrease in erosion and sedimentation. (Erosion and sedimentation will increase during the construction phase.) Impacts to Sully Miller Lake would include increased runoff volumes and increased urban pollutants in the runoff reaching the lake. Sedimentation levels should be reduced upon project completion. Unless the inlet structure draining into the lake is improved, the lake could potentially fill to a point where it could back up onto the project site. Mitigation Measures - A detailed hydrology study will be prepared as required by the city to further quantify drainage impacts on storm drain facilities and Sully Miller Lake. Storm drain facilities should be designed to minimize the volume and velocity of surface runoff through proper design of drains, grading and landscaping to the specification of the city's Public Work's Department. Both the inlet pipeline and the outlet pipeline at the north end of Sully Miller Lake should be repaired as needed to accommodate projected flows and stabilize the level of the lake. Further studies of Sully Miller Lake should take into account impacts from development within its watershed. The Regional Water Quality Control Board should be consulted for further water quality control measures applicable to the lake's development. Soil erosion control measures should be implemented during the construction phase according to the city's grading ordinance. Biological Resources Impacts Approval of the GPA will result in the same impacts to onsite biological resources as development under the existing general plan. All onsite vegetation will be removed and wildlife will move to adjacent areas or be vulnerable to mortality by predation or unsuccessful competition for food and territory. No species of plant or animal designated threatened, rare, endangered, or otherwise sensitive are located within the site. 2-b • Mitigation Measures • It is recommended that native riparian plants be included in the landscaping plan for the proposed swale area. Revegetation should be accomplished on all graded areas without structures, and landscaping materials should include drought-adapted, fire retardant plants. • Archaeological Resources Impacts No impacts to archaeological resources are expected to result due to development of the site (with or without the GPA), although prehistoric remains could be exposed • u during grading. Mitigation Measures If any remains of prehistoric origin are uncovered during construction, it is recommended that a qualified archaeologist be contacted to evaluate the finds and • determine appropriate mitigation measures. Land Use and Planning Considerations Amendment of the General Plan would alter the kinds of land uses allowed on the property from a mix of single-family residential, industrial and office to planned community residential uses. The proposed residential uses are generally compatible with land uses surrounding the site to the east and south, and with the Huntington ` Central Park facilities and recreation stables located to the north and west. The residential uses proposed are not compatible with the pockets of industrial uses, primarily to the south and east. . _ Some number of oil wells will be maintained onsite until oil reserves are depleted. Unless properly mitigated, these oil wells could result in odors, noise, fire and safety problems for onsite residents. Mitigation Measures The site should be visually screened from incompatible uses along Crystal and Ernest. Fire protection and safety measures outlined in the city's zoning and oil code, and the fire department will be required to reduce hazards of mixing residential uses and oil production facilities. Aesthetics Impacts Development of the site would alter the viewsheds of the site from open space and oil production to residential. Views of oil production facilities should be improved by camouflaging, screening, etc. Mitigation Measures The topography of the swale areas should be retained where possible to provide open space and topographic relief. Where feasible, oil wells should be consolidated to 2-c reduce their number and should be painted, camouflaged or screened by perimeter - walls or landscaping as required by the oil code. Views of the industrial area along Ernest and Crystal should be screened by landscaping. Traffic/Circulation Impacts Approval of the GPA will result in less traffic generation than under the buildout of the site under the existing General Plan. The proposed project, if developed with 1,200 units, will generate approximately 9,620 vehicle trip ends. Project traffic will primarily add to the capacity concern on Golden West Street, between Talbert Avenue and Yorktown Avenue. Development of the site will add to the cumulative (post-1995) capacity problems on on surrounding roadways. Internal roadways are expected to operate satisfactorily. Two of the proposed internal intersections with Gothard (realigned) have problems with spacing. A traffic signal will be required at the intersection of Garfield and Gothard (realigned). The design of the realignment of Gothard should consider spacing of internal intersections, sight and stopping distances, slope banks, walls and landscaping at intersections. Mitigation Measures The city's Circulation Element should be amended to upgrade the classification of Golden West Street, north of Garfield, and Ellis Avenue, east of Gothard. The development should be required to improve arterial roadways adjacent to the site to their current/proposed MPAH classification. Design features and traffic signalization should be implemented as recommended by the traffic engineer (for the proposed concept plan). Air Quality Because the proposed GPA will result in fewer vehicle trips than the existing general plan uses; air quality impacts from the project should be commensurately reduced. Short-term increases in dust and exhaust emissions will result during the construction phase (with or without the GPA). Mitigation Measures Dust and exhaust control techniques should be implemented during construction. Energy conservation and public transit meaasures should reduce stationary and mobile source emissions, respectively. Noise Impacts Noise increases from the project traffic will be insignificant. Construction noise will result from project development (with or without the GPA). The site will be 2-d • impacted by traffic noise from adjacent roadways. A portion of the site will be impacted by periodic helicopter noise due to the nearby police heliport. In addition, • there is the potential noise from oil well pumps (if not mitigated properly). Mitigation Measures Construction activities should be limited to weekdays and daytime hours. • Berms or walls should be constructed along Ellis, Golden West, and Garfield to devrease noise impacts. Dwelling units near Gothard could meet noise standards with insulation and air conditioning. A more detailed acoustical analysis should be prepared when final site plans and architectural drawings are in progress to insure noise criteria can be met. • In addition, measures to reduce helicopter noise should be considered. Noise from the remaining onsite oil well pumps should be mitigated to comply with the city's noise ordinance. Public Services and Utilities • Impacts Development of the site, with any kind of urban use, will increase the demand for public utilities and services. Realignment of Gothard Street will have an impact on utilities within the existing right-of-way. In general, the proposed project will have a lesser impact on electricity, telephone, and wastewater treatment/sewer systems than development under the existing general plan. However, natural gas and water resources, and the school, police and - fire protection services will receive a greater impact under the proposed general plan land uses. Mitigation Measures Measures which will reduce impacts to public services and utilities include energy and water conservation measures, fire protection and crime prevention measures, relocation of utility lines, and additional school and public transit facilities. Please see Section 3.11 for more detail. Fiscal Analysis Anticipated annual revenue from development under the proposed general plan . (assuming the buildout of the 1,200 units in the conceptual plan) is $611,991 versus costs of $499,605; resulting in an estimated net annual surplus of $112,386. The revenue-to-cost ratio is 1.23, identifying that for each $1.00 spent on public services, an additional $0.23 will be returned to the city as revenue. 2-e 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 PROJECT LOCATION As shown on Exhibits 1 and 2, the 126-acre study area is located in the City of Huntington Beach and is bordered by Ellis Avenue on the north, Gothard Street on the east, Garfield Avenue and Ernest Avenue on the south, and Golden West Street and Crystal Street on the west. 2.2 PROJECT HL13TORY Between 1910 and 1920, the northerly portion of the project area was subdivided into _ five acre farm lots. Around 1920, oil was discovered in the area and most of the farm lots were leased for oil exploration. Many of these original leases are still active. In the early 1900s, Holly Sugar operated a sugar refinery on the southern portion of the site between Garfield Avenue and Crystal Street. Several buildings, water wells, and possibly underground fuel tanks were associated with this plant. In 1925, the sugar plant was abandoned and Holly's SoCal Oil Company drilled oil wells and built a gauge tank facility on the site, utilizing the Holly Sugar buildings for a boiler house and warehouse. These facilities were used to remove the water from the oil prior to shipment to the refinery. Wastewaters were reportedly disposed of directly onto the ground. In early 1964, the Huntington Beach Company acquired the Holly property (covering 55 acres). The SoCal tank facility was removed and the land restored to its preexisting condition. Between 1974 and 1982, the majority of the farm lots have been acquired by the Huntington Beach Company. The company owns a total of 119 acres and at this time has offered to purchase one of the independently-owned parcels. Currently the site is almost entirely vacant, the only buildings being two single- family dwellings (along Golden West Street) and the small brick building (old Holly office building) occupied by a church (at the corner of Gothard and Garfield). The 3 • impacted by traffic noise from adjacent roadways. A portion of the site will be impacted by periodic helicopter noise due to the nearby police heliport. In addition, • there is the potential noise from oil well pumps (if not mitigated properly). Mitigation Measures Construction activities should be limited to weekdays and daytime hours. • Berms or walls should be constructed along Ellis, Golden West, and Garfield to devrease noise impacts. Dwelling units near Gothard could meet noise standards �. with insulation and air conditioning. A more detailed acoustical analysis should be prepared when final site plans and architectural drawings are in progress to insure noise criteria can be met. • In addition, measures to reduce helicopter noise should be considered. Noise from the remaining onsite oil well pumps should be mitigated to comply with the city's noise ordinance. Public Services and Utilities Impacts Development of the site, with any kind of urban use, will increase the demand for public utilities and services. Realignment of Gothard Street will have an impact on utilities within the existing • right-of-way. In general, the proposed project will have a lesser impact on electricity, telephone, and wastewater treatment/sewer systems than development under the existing general plan. However, natural gas and water resources, and the school, police and fire protection services will receive a greater impact under the proposed general plan land uses. Mitigation Measures Measures which will reduce impacts to public services and utilities include energy and water conservation measures, fire protection and crime prevention measures, . relocation of utility lines, and additional school and public transit facilities. Please see Section 3.11 for more detail. _ Meal Analysis Anticipated annual revenue from development under the proposed general plan (assuming the buildout of the 1,200 units in the conceptual plan) is $611,991 versus costs of $499,605; resulting in an estimated net annual surplus of $112,386. The revenue-to-cost ratio is 1.23, identifying that for each $1.00 spent on public services, an additional $0.23 will be returned to the city as revenue. 2-e 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 PROJECT LOCATION As shown on Exhibits 1 and 2, the 126-acre study area is located in the City of Huntington Beach and is bordered by Ellis Avenue on the north, Gothard Street on the east, Garfield Avenue and Ernest Avenue on the south, and Golden West Street and Crystal Street on the west. 2.2 PROJECT HISTORY Between 1910 and 1920, the northerly portion of the project area was subdivided into _ five acre farm lots. Around 1920, oil was discovered in the area and most of the farm lots were leased for oil exploration. Many of these original leases are still active. In the early 1900s, Holly Sugar operated a sugar refinery on the southern portion of the site between Garfield Avenue and Crystal Street. Several buildings, water wells, and possibly underground fuel tanks were associated with this plant. In 1925, the sugar plant was abandoned and Holly's SoCal Oil Company drilled oil wells and built a gauge tank facility on the site, utilizing the Holly Sugar buildings for a boiler house and warehouse. These facilities were used to remove the water from the oil prior to shipment to the refinery. Wastewaters were reportedly disposed of directly onto the ground. In early 1964, the Huntington Beach Company acquired the Holly property (covering 55 acres). The SoCal tank facility was removed and the land restored to its preexisting condition. Between 1974 and 1982, the majority of the farm lots have been acquired by the Huntington Beach Company. The company owns a total of 119 acres and at this time has offered to purchase one of the independently-owned parcels. Currently the site is almost entirely vacant, the only buildings being two single- family dwellings (along Golden West Street) and the small brick building (old Holly office building) occupied by a church (at the corner of Gothard and Garfield). The 3 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 1 _ 1 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY � � 1 1 1 FULLERTON ,� • RIVERSIDE COUNTY ANAHEIM 0 ar ORANDE Irvi Lake F SANAA TUSTIN I SEAL BEACH Site — n Vftyne Airportt r. COSTA IRVINE HUNTINOTON MESA BEACH i Lake Mission Viejo NEWPORT MVIEJON BEACH � I , PACIFIC OCEAN LAGUNA BEACH SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO $� SAN DIEGO CLEMENTE COUNTY REGIONAL LOCATION I I MRN MOO L LV PUMH D Mwbd.wwh�A� 00wKU1mGCTv1(Rp°, & �4 City of Huntington Beach N mb 0 S d MILES EXHIBIT 1 _ �J 1�.--- \ TOYL: • ' �.. wINO''mu ow. I w I C1 T C-VA I , w•.� ,J•YNtol C'OILD v *AMCM.vier / "• fly iARi AITS ! -- M J Lm. IL SCN f` rCFAY T/tr T I CALI! A, VILLA I•RLE, -- 4A. L SCN OorTpT-S V!' - ITE 7 AP7'S'I A%` I CRIAYr/A.ITS.Ir►P.,#GC JYD4M�L1 AN7 Lsowl 7TY , ' EAMunLlel•MEWTT!", I [4 or_ gL L • � • E�[[ -I-- - M iva- NIM'T fOPEO Y v I I ,a•: t WEW a r kJL NS ika J Tl i OII...J! I rj LrEE T+ P l iJ) Sit-' i Y L R N 1CY - EL L_ _i •NE /1 I( - `l N:M'! -Y.• T R \J +UI IeMPt RuNm pENTER. lA�•Lr�... aT+s a w)w! M P F J ■ NIN/L16)PV r Q _I — IPXFIELD D •! ! i :EMT R•L __I •""r'"f.A. Ctl•/E>FhT N O W .IeRAN I PA.a 3 --_ ioust VEW W w.L+ FA0W o W. 0 ` �• Q as•• � r ane.T ' mv NIN gIEP (J' I � AYLCIR 1 W++E NIY r1 ow r 4 t o � I E ELLI8 TRwuu aa+a• FW LArLPa.. •IPa� F / Y(� 010 r S N LOI1r — IE I GAR FIELD a „Mtl wME r AIWW, L Vy i p MOM RRT O a`r 61K ®Q4 YY - OAR L f W J r / Cl _ �Ir• F rL� �•y / I V K I T' _ gILIN•f TrLLR a SEICLJW I e I _- ... VILLAGE I k -LR BLx•+tE N N I Ton R71 CI •r I �Mov� IGF%TEF' ,. r f�•� I O // •aIr R S •l' o 1 f I I I , .. I \`\ l�IALY M.• .` A► O Rule" \ Q 11 rlv. � fAYp1 \ SA• , f t� ■ I I • .� VICINITY MAP lJ UOLL-7U lJ �rl//���UU VU ED IMidlrl 8rr�61lan,Yrear. OOG�G�Ma�4��C�pQ064 • City of Huntington Beach Na 0 1000 2000 FEET EXHIBIT 2 primary use of the land is oil production; 22 producing wells, 2 idle wells, and related • buildings and equipment are located on the property, primarily in the northwest corner. The Huntingtom Beach Company controls 79 acres of surface area.and operates the 6 • - producing oil wells in the southeastern portion of the site. The remaining 47 acres in the northwest part of the site are leased to a number of independent oil companies " and have a total of 16 producing wells. The various oil and gas leases active in this area generally allow continued operation of existing wells as long as oil production is • - profitable. Average daily production from these wells ranges from 2 to 10 barrels of oil per well. Onsite oil wells produced a total of 35,000 barrels of oil in 1983, and overall production is declining by approximately 5 percent annually (Division of - Mines and Geology). Given the multiple operators, it is difficult to determine how long individual wells will continue to operate. The Huntington Beach General Plan land use designations for the site are •- Professional Office (5 acres), Estate Residential (46.6 acres), and General Industrial (75 acres). Exhibit 3 shows the General Plan Land Use Diagram for the project site. • 2.3 PROJECT CHARACTERI!MCS The proposed project is the redesignation of the General Plan land uses designated for the study area from Professional Office, Estate Residential, and General Industrial to Planned Community. The land use designations are briefly described below. No change to the existing zoning is being requested at this time. The applicant intends to submit a specific plan once an overall general development concept has been approved for the site. • Existing General Plan _. According the general plan, the Estate Residential portion of the site would allow no more than 2 dwelling units per gross acre on approximately half the Estate Residential area (46.6 acres total) and no more than 4 dwelling units per acre on the remaining half. Assuming 23.3 acres per density range, this area could be developed with up to 140 single-family dwelling units. 4 The zoning for this Estate Residential area would allow no more than 1 dwelling unit per gross acre. However, given that the general plan land use diagram was prepared more recently than the zoning code, the density limits proposed by the general plan were used to estimate the maximum land uses allowed. In addition, the analysis prepared in this EIR is directed toward the change in the general plan land use - designation and not a change to the zoning. General Industrial uses are currently allowed on the majority of the site (75 gross acres). This area is the southern tip of what has been called the city's "Central Industrial Corridor." This land use designation allows light industrial uses; those which produce minimal emissions of smoke fumes, vibration and noise. The southeast corner of the site (5 acres) allows Professional Office uses which generally include low intensity professional and administrative offices. Proposed General Plan The proposed Planned Community designation provides for a combination of residential types which must be in accordance with the criteria set forth in the General Plan Land Use Element. This category is intended to provide for the comprehensive planning and development of an identifiable area of land (minimum 40 acres). Concept Plan Within the proposed planned community, the applicant is seeking the approval in concept for development of 1,200 dwelling units to be developed in four product types. Exhibit 4 illustrates the concept plan submitted by the applicant. Table 1 below lists the proposed breakdown of units by product type. 5 , Gt ~ - f . . : - . T � )L F 1��� h ��I)'1��I ���.y, 1 � �I I����[ � i.: J;.: �: •a•.. z:k. • I� 'f ... '•� a. Tl�d .:.� �� �� �� ��j • �� �� Y�f� :•tip - JF��i �'�� ;•: ,•�'' ���F' � �/ a• ��:f *� .*� < `sue�- ,r oil . �� .�'� 1_-�� � ��. e� ��gyp+ w� y�. ,CAR r�� • � i r u u uu A �T h� �'�' .J�Flo�► Its, `tis ft n •,• . `k�[I L7�[I L�f'I�j?��'F w,=• � 1���� � y pfo ��� v is• '1= ___ _��E h' �P� .�yJ�' sel�d��• � � Est i `• it 'Ih�� [ r 7�r���I�r�j 1��L - .� �.,; �� fir•., � t a : F ��,1)�i7)�7[) t7�F �'� 1'� 'y.7 .r'• ,.+, y �, a��i �ir°e� ��ol� ,� • ��� as 33 !!fit ' -�,� •� ilRJ�' ,t:4i4 y1t•� ' hiil: lS3:1, t3S5: • • C _ H • Y PLANNED 1111`II TABLE 1 PLANNED COMMUNITY STATISTICAL SUMMARY Product Type Net Acres Density Units A. Single-Family Detached 54.8 6.4 350 B. Single-Family Attached 17.3 9.8 170 C. Multi-Family Townhouses 16.6 13.9 230 D. Multi-Family Flats 23.8 18.9 450 Public Streets 7.8 Total 120.3 19200 Project Site Access As shown in Exhibit 4, primary access to the site is to be taken off Garfield Avenue and Gothard Street. Gothard Street is to be reconstructed as a secondary arterial (four lanes, undivided) along its master. plan alignment connecting with Crystal . Street at Ernest Avenue and continuing south to Garfield. Secondary access points .. are located on Ellis and Ernest Avenues, and no direct access is planned from Golden West Street. The existing right-of-way of Gothard Street is proposed to be vacated to eliminate one leg of the five-way intersection at Main and Garfield. Sixty-foot wide 'public collector roads are planned to define local streets within Product Areas B, C, and D. Local streets within each product area are proposed to be private. Open Space The proposed concept plan incorporates existing open space features into the open space areas of the project. Within Product Area A, approximately 13 acres are planned to be landscaped and retained as a private greenbelt which will retain the natural drainage patterns on this portion of the site and provide an area for passive and active recreation. In Product Areas C and D, private common open space areas are designed around an existing stand of eucalyptus trees. Parkways bordering arterials are planned to be sufficient to accommodate off-street trails. 6 Oil Facilities The proposed general plan amendment will not impact existing oil operations and production is expected to continue for many years from all existing wells on the site _ (B. Holman, Huntington Beach Company, 1984). The concept plan, shown in Exhibit 4, is intended to be illustrative with respect to accommodating remaining wells. The specific plan to be developed for the site will address the treatment of wells to be incorporated within residential developments although the decision as to which wells will remain at the time of actual development cannot be made at this time. The proposed concept plan provides for the potential of continuing operation of four of the producing Huntington Beach Company oil wells located east of the realigned Gothard Street. These wells, located in Product Areas C and D would be screened from the residential areas with walls and landscaping as required in the city's Oil Code. Because of the uncertainty as to the longevity of oil production in the area west of _ realigned Gothard Street, this area is planned to be the latter phase of development. Also, no attempt has been made to accommodate specific wells and _ tanks in the development concept proposed for Product Area A. The disposition of these wells will be addressed at the specific plan stage. 2.4 PROJECT OBJECTIVES The applicant, the Huntington Beach Company, is seeking the Planned Community designation for the Holly property to "reinforce the identification of the Holly property as a single, identifiable planning unit." The main objective of the requested GPA is to establish a compatible mix of land use for the project area and guidelines for further planning and development activities. Whereas the existing general plan divides planning of the property, the proposed general plan would unify planning for the site and would provide for a consistent, coordinated approach to development in the area. 7 2.5 PROJECT PHASING • -- Development of the planned community is proposed to occur in at least two phases over the next ten to fifteen years, concurrent with the consolidation of oil production facilities and construction of major drainage, sewer, utility, and street • improvements. The first phase of development (over the next five to ten years) will occur east of the realigned Gothard Street and will include Product Areas B, C, and y D. Product Area A, located west of the realigned Gothard Street, will be developed during the second phase (over the next ten plus years). • • • 8 • 3.0 EWTING CONDITIONS, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 3.1 LANDFORM/TOPOGRAPHY 3.1.1 Existing Conditions The project site is located on the Huntington Mesa and is topographically variable as _ shown on Exhibit 5. The southern half of the site is relatively flat with an elevation of aproximately 62 to 66 feet above mean sea level (MSL). The northern portion of the site is bisected by two east to west trending drainage courses that converge near the northern boundary of the site. The elevation of the northern half of the site ranges from approximately 13 feet MSL at the convergence of the two drainage -" courses, to approximately 60 feet MSL. The highest point is approximately 80 feet MSL in the east central portion of the site atop a small knoll. The maximum - topographic relief is approximately 65 feet. Drainage of the site is generally northward. 3.1.2 Impacts Implementation of the proposed General Plan Amendment will not in itself impact the landform and topography of the site. Subsequent development of the site in - accordance with the concept plan would, however, significantly alter the site's landform and topography, as illustrated in Exhibits 4 and 5. _ In general, the proposed conceptual grading plan retains the character of the site's existing topography. The most significant grading is required to establish acceptable grades for the master plan alignments of Goldenwest, Ellis, and Gothard. The major ravine system in the northwestern part of the site is retained for open space and drainage purposes. The major fill area will be east of the realigned Gothard Street and is required to remedy the "hole" created by the master plan alignment. _ Grading would be contoured to adjoin adjacent property's elevations and would also be contoured in the proposed greenbelt area along the drainage courses. Cut and fill on the site will be balanced and will total approximately 485,000 cubic yards. Exhibit 6 illustrates the primary areas of cut and fill. Onsite roadways would have a grade of between 0.5 and 4 percent. 9 � r i ,j YU _ 37. 1., _ it I + Jlj IL iz LEGEND SUMPS DRAINAGE COURSE x63.3 ELEVATION ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL �._. TOPOGRAPHY HOLLU PLUMED o Z 4 City ,of Huntington Beach. 215 430 FEET EXHIBIT 5 1 _ J i- {�, i%.•��I r, 'Me ��'1},�f''1�r .,an��•�,its-�1.C�•�1 (� �� �m4r' 1 0 R _.-J � �LJ �"/•�/) _ �••�'•�L7�"LJ�,I\ �UL1 LJ_U�L] + J� —.._`.1+ 4F& . ".dam •� .` - - _ �. " cur �=_=�- �' f�> ' ;�.'� •- � Er TYPE LINTS ACRES U/A .. , A Sigh Family Detached 350 54.8 6.4 8 Sk,09 Family Attached 110 17.3 9.8 11A.G1+ �.•4 C MLO-Famiy Town house 230 16.6 13.9 0 Multi-Family Flats 480 23.8 18.9 Public Streets 7.8 .. TOTAL 1200 120.3 10.0 ! _ ;�r?•n-. }� '1•••^( J"" �L--ka U SOURCE: WALDEN A ASSOCIATES. 1984. - CUT AND FILL MAP City of Huntington Beach monk 0 215 430 FEET EXHIBIT 6 t A preliminary assessment determined that the realignment of Gothard Street would require approximately 25,000 cubic yards of net fill to establish grades that comply with arterial highway design safety standards. The drainage area in the northeast portion of the site, east of the proposed alignment of Gothard Street, would be completely filled, raising the elevation in some portions of the area by 20 feet. The remainder of the drainage area would be contour graded, but would retain the existing form and flow direction. Total fill in the drainage areas would be approximately 395,000 cubic yards. The southwestern portion of the site is relatively flat, except for isolated deposits of lime. Grading in this area will be minimal and necessary only to provide adequate street drainage. Total cut in this area is estimated at 261,000 cubic yards. Fill material, when properly compacted, should be suitable for building placement. 3.1.3 Mitigation Measures 1. Subsequent to submittal of a tentative tract map and rough grading plan for the project site, or any portions thereof, a detailed grading plan should be prepared and geotechnically reviewed for feasibility. • 2. Grading will be conducted in accordance with the City of Huntington Beach grading ordinance. .� 3. Graded areas should be protected from wind and water erosion through • acceptable slope stabilization methods such as planting or netting. r • 10 • 3.2 GEOLOGY/SOILS/OIL PRODUCTION This section is a summary of the major findings from a geotechnical study prepared by Leighton and Associates in August 1984. The report is included in its entirety in Appendix C. _ 3.2.1 Existing Conditions Regional Geology The study area is located in the central portion of the Huntington Beach Mesa, near the southern coastal edge of the Los Angeles Basin. The mesa is situated between the Santa Ana River gap to the east and the Bolsa gap to the west. Nearly horizontal terrace deposits (both ancient near-shore and terrestrial deposits) cap the mesa, overlying the sedimentary San Pedro and Fernando (formerly Pico) Formations. The Newport-Inglewood fault zone forms an important element of the regional _ geologic structure. The Huntington Mesa is one of the southernmost landward expressions of a succession of hills and mesas aligned along this fault zone. A - questionable extension of the Yorktown Avenue fault has been shown on a map in the City of Huntington Beach Seismic Safety Element to be crossing the study area. The _ major geologic and geographic features of the region are shown on Exhibits 7 and 8. The relationship of various branch faults to the property are discussed below. Surficial Soils and Earth Materials The majority of the surface of the property is mantled by a few feet of topsoil, consisting primarily of brown, porous, sandy to clayey silt. Colluvial deposits (soil generally greater than 4 feet in depth) appear to have formed on the sides of the canyons in the drainage swales and reentrants (see Exhibit 9). Alluvium, generally consisting of gray and tan, sandy and clayey silt, is present within the major drainage channels; it is locally marshy near Ellis Avenue and Golden West Street. Fill associated with the oil field and adjacent roadway development is usually derived from nearby shallow cuts. 11 +, BAY I �a..;..._ VAINIER - . so CHICA Es A I ?�P Ool p v•HUNTINGTON 6 ; SITE f • ti•. • O E CH ,ea 4 wig 7 i Oh ��i• N .001 Val 7016 HK NTWGT ,;9�•I •� 1� ;;'' �� NEWPORT MESI�.;:• BEAC LEGEND •;4�� ON; I T..' O1� ---. _—.- r.-1 ----•--..-'- OLirIJtes L[fOr OmAu Of rIOfM L(OL1LT OFME i Q� I �•T I.[wsua Eu e Cl..t[ul _ I•'+. ; q! A- ®.LLrrW.. 10AT O&" .rO..•.•K.N.O., •WI C 1 Qt v.co..oL.o.Tao.+o.00.a•ca..w.o..aee..vaL. ®+•.we•s•••ce 06-11,v.T.+ov.•..re cere. WT.[..0.6...EL.•.0.000LE:M.O..E00•[.•O.O.+. •'(• / +0110660L./t.OYa•M*•.00.OL•L•.00L•COrTwe+T.a• 1w Ote rowl .L•.O.e..•[L.L•L T.410 CL••:.rCLYO.f•...L •I�/ •q..•ua••+O t0.••• •[.00•f.T O.L.:Lee.al• HE e.•.•..OLL.f+L•tu+o•+T. TrK+DOD•aL e•w+s•re nG 001 �( .vsa•.sae.••.••.eta••o.•+•.sLLL. BEACH '•T !� , T.6 S. L.-DL•e...T-•L0.•.o L.L'LTD To Love L 1 S. KOC veac•. r •L..O•x• OLDER s+•+."FE&.E•.... ••O•wee -.•f 4.. 0.•+•T4L-LOC••.O.DOTTED --.-. rr + 9-6 C.Z&-LtO Or•.•E+.[e .► .....�... CO.".c• I Ala _-..... REGIONAL GEOLOGIC MAP OOG� ]MaO��/C�pQ -4 City of Huntington Beach NO1* 0 2 MILES EXHIBIT 7 • IOIY 11 • y Ii10 \ �� •�h 1 _IRR • I\ \� •�\ , ♦ 1 r11R1 ` �? �''•• SUBJECT PROPERTY too 01 s • �'� 1 C HKPW SEISMCi RISK ` �• y • Mfllf DREAM SURFACE RIARIRE POWIAL wRHIN MY ®AREA OF NIENSM SHEAR �•ti•• •• : -`;�r 1 KM TRACE OF FAdIT °•:,• - `•'`• •� MRTIaH 400'ZONE) •• `• ' �-: i ®UNCEITAMY AS TO EXISTENCE ~\•`•�� �`ti ``-~`�,�l , ,�� OR EXTENSION OF FAULT •• \ `• ` � NfNIY 1 . From: Huntington Beach/ Seismic Safety Element, 1974. ti \ 1 S� 7` _f FAULT LOCATIONS MOO LL U PL AHMIEDD NO SCALE &64 City of Huntington Beach EXHIBIT 8 ti t I 6 Gal at .,Af \ Ail l At „�✓• /_, .: ;` `�. fµ�.. :'!�' Gal •�;\� • .I000 ;. �. t:Col at .00 at , i � AoP1► T� Vicinity of • Old Oil Sump (USGS ,1949 Ot - Quad Sheet) ; Former Site of + . Old Waste -; Water Suf ip V. LEGEND77.7 '. Surficial Units Symbols ~ Af Major Fill Areas (Smaller fills not shown) Contact Al Lime Deposits Aot Oil and Tar Deposits (More may occur than shown on map) col Colluvium Wall Alluvium Ot Terrace Deposits SOURCE: LEIGHTON a ASSOCIATES. AUGUST 1084 �- SURFICIAL UNITS City of Huntington Beach 0 215 480 FEET EXHIBIT 9 In terms of their agricultural classifications, the near-surface soils consist of the Myford sandy loam, Alo clay series and Thapto-histic fluvaquents. Tests of shrink- swell characteristics on such clayey soils indicate a high expansion potential which has been noted to cause problems in urban development. The highly organic peat deposits are known to be very compressible. Existing artificial fills at the site include: a partial filling of the main canyon in the northeast portion of the property; minor fills associated with roadway construction within the site and with the cut/fill grading of oil drill site pads; and three relatively w large road fills for the city streets in the areas of the major drainages. Numerous piles of loose fill and trash with concrete and asphalt rubble and organics have been dumped locally throughout the property. A few deposits of tar and oil were observed on the ground surface locally near oil wells, north of the former Holly sugar plant and near the intersection of Crystal Street and Ernest Avenue. The latter location is near the site of an old oil sump, as shown on the 1949 U.S. Geological Survey.Seal Beach Quadrangle. Although no oil sumps are known to exist on the property according to the Division of Oil and Gas or the Huntington Beach Company, older significant disposal areas associated with the oil field activities could be encountered ._ in exploratory excavations or during site grading. Lime Deposit - Large amounts of a white powdery material have been stockpiled (approximately 5 feet high) in the east-central portion of the property. This material is reportedly a waste product of limestone that was originally used during the processing of sugar from beets. This residue is believed to be 90 percent calcium carbonate. It is probably all inert material at this time, the organics having decomposed. A chemical analysis was made in 1977 on samples obtained from the site. Both the Holly Sugar Company and Birtcher Pacific Developers (who have recently developed another old Holly Sugar site in Santa Ana) report that similar material at the Santa Ana site was found to be suitable for use as fill and that, with appropriate moisture conditioning, it will compact satisfactorily. Geologic Structure and Faults The site is shown to be bisected by the conjectured westward extension of the _ Yorktown and Adams Avenue faults. The projected subsurface traces of these faults are shown on Exhibit 8 (reproduced from the Huntington Beach Seismic Safety 12 Element). A recent review of the fault data by the California Division of Mines and Geology indicates that there appears to be a lack of sufficient evidence that the faults mapped north of the North Branch fault displace the relatively younger alluvial aquifers in the Santa Ana gap, as indicated by earlier Department of Water Resources investigations. - Like the extension of the Yorktown and Adams Avenue faults, there is a lack of _ evidence as to the location and/or existence of the Bolsa-Fairview Branch within the younger formations on the mesa and in the surrounding areas. It has been mapped at, or just beyond, the northeast corner of the subject site. Recent geologic mapping by the California Division of Mines and Geology and others has found no evidence of the existence of this fault at the surface. The major active faults within the Newport-Inglewood fault zone are considered to be the North Branch and the South Branch faults, which are 5,000 and 2,000 feet, respectively, southwest of the property. Recent subsurface investigations on the northwest side of the Huntington Beach Mesa and on the Bolsa Chica Mesa have ~ uncovered offset along the North Branch fault within the Pliestocene-age marine terrace deposits. This investigation failed to locate the South Branch. Alquist-Priolo Zonation - In 1972, the State of California enacted the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone Act. The purpose of this act is to delineate all active faults (faults with movement in the last 10,000 years) in California and to prohibit development of structures for human occupancy across the terrace of an active fault, in order to mitigate the hazard of fault rupture. In December of 1973, the state released preliminary special studies zones maps of the Newport-Inglewood fault zone (including the Bolsa-Fairview fault and all of the other branches within the zone), classifying them as active. Following a subsequent review period, the southern section of the Newport-Inglewood zone was removed from the special studies zone as of July 1, 1974, inasmuch as the faults could not be demonstrated to be sufficiently well-defined, according to state criteria, to be included in the zone. The area of the subject property, as well as the other portions of the fault zone within the City of Huntington Beach, are excluded from the special studies zone. 13 Regional Seismicity • -- The frequency of earthquakes and the intensity of the seismic ground shaking to be experienced at the site will depend upon which of the numerous active regional faults produced the earthquake, upon the earthquake magnitude, the distance from the earthquake epicenter, and the local soil conditions. Epicenter locations of earthquakes of Richter magnitude greater than 4.0 during the period from 1932 to ,. 1972 are shown on Figure 5 in Appendix C. Table 2 indicates the estimated earthquake magnitudes and intensities associated with major active faults of the region, based on the latest analyses. TABLE 2 •._ GENERAL SEISMIC PARAMETERS Maximum Probable Earthquake Magnitude Maximum Mercalli Fault Distance (mi) (Richter) Intensity at site) Newport-Inglewood 0-2 6.5 IX Whittier-Elsinore 22 6.7 VII San Jacinto 46 7.5 VII-VIII Sierra Madre- San Fernando 32 6.5 VI-VII San Andreas 51 8.3 VII-VIII Design Considerations for Seismic Shaking - Because of the proximity of the Newport-Inglewood fault zone, future earthquakes on this fault, in all likelihood, would produce the strongest seismic ground motion at the site and would be considered the controlling fault for the purposes of building design and site stability analysis. Since the subject property is underlain by poorly to moderately consolidated alluvial and terrace materials, the intensity of ground shaking could range from moderate to high. _ Secondary Effects of Seismic Shaking -Soil liquefaction, flow landsliding, seismically induced settlement, and ground lurching are secondary earthquake phenomena 14 generally associated with relatively strong seismic shaking, shallow groundwater conditions, and the presence of loose sandy soils or alluvial deposits. Such a set of adverse site conditions may exist locally in the canyon bottoms at the site. However, further analysis and site exploration will be necessary to verify this possibility. Landslides and Erosion No areas of significant slope instability were observed during the Leighton and Associates geotechnical site reconnaissance, nor have any such areas been previously mapped on the property by others. The near-surface formations underlying the mesa are relatively stable from the standpoint of landslide resistance. Significant erosion was noted in the northeast portion of the property where there was no soil or vegetation cover and water was directed along a dirt road that washed out. Minor erosion was noted on roadway fill slopes, on cut areas in the oil fields, and locally throughout the property, mostly in the areas of previous grading activities. Groundwater Conditions The Huntington Beach Mesa lies at the southwestern margin of the Orange County coastal plain groundwater basin. There are three main water-bearing zones beneath _ the Huntington Beach Mesa. Both the upper and middle aquifers .have been contaminated by salt water since the 1920s. Old U.S. Geological Survey water supply maps (1953, 1956, and 1959) show a total of eight groundwater wells on the subject property, five of which are located in the suthern portion of the property and were probably associated with the Holly Sugar plant (see Exhibit 10). These wells are not in use today and it is not known if they were ever abandoned according to current requirements. Current Oil Production Status There have been approximately 37 oil wells drilled on the study area, according to maps of the California Division of Oil and Gas, 13 of which are known to be 15 abandoned, see Exhibit 10. There are presently 22 wells pumping oil and two that are idle but believed to be capable of producing. The idle wells are "Copeland 12" and "Russell 1." These wells are awaiting further evaluation to determine their future disposition. None of the oil wells on the property were known to be injection wells. The Division of Oil and Gas has issued certificates of compliance for all abandoned oil wells on the site (B. Holman, Huntington Beach, California, 1984). e The subject property is presently leased by several different off companies, with leases dating back to the 1920s. Due to the fact that the oil development on the -. property has had such a long history with many different operating companies, there appears to be a very complex system of pipelines (both operating and abandoned) and numerous storage tanks at the site. There is an oil gathering system with pipelines to each well. Three maintained lines are known to exist on the property, including: a Standard Oil line near Ellis Avenue; a Union Oil line near Golden West; and a Texaco line which reportedly passes through • �- the property. Water and electrical service lines run to all the well sites. Other Mineral Resources Although no other resources have been extracted from the study area, many other mineral sites have been recorded in the vicinity. Early oil well records indicate previous geothermal resources of natural stream. The "O'Brien Porter 2" well, located just south of Main and Holly Streets, produced hot salt water and the "Sequro No. V well reached downhole temperatures of 45°F. Clay was mined to 3- to 5-foot depths at a location approximately 1,000 feet north of the subject property along the Southern Pacific Railroad between the year 1906 to - 1907. The mines shut down in 1974 due to urban encroachment. Two abandoned sand pits, the Sully-Miller Pit and the Bruce Brothers Pit, are located north of the property in the drainage channel at approximate distances of 200 and _ 1,000 feet, respectively, from the subject property boundary. The quarries were active in the 1950s and nearly depleted in the early 1970s, at which time they were sold to the City of Huntington Beach. 16 3.2.2 Impacts This section presents in summary form the principle geotechnical factors that were considered and rated on a subjective scale, comparing the study area with the range of hazard severity which is generally representative in southern California; refer to Table 2, in Appendix C, which presents a matrix indicating the rating of the hazard type affecting the subject site, and possible mitigation measures which could be utilized. Those hazards not specifically discussed below were considered to have minimal or no potential impact. Fault Displacement or Ground Rupture Earthquake-related movement along suspected faults (such as the Yorktown/Adams Avenue and Bolsa-fairview faults of the Newport-Inglewood zone), which results in surface rupture of the ground is one of the more significant potential hazards to be evaluated in the future development of the property. Although the property is not presently included within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies zone (a state regulation requiring the special investigation of potentially active faults), its implications with regard to the possible development constraints associated with the movement of faults in the Newport-Inglewood zone must be appropriately evaluated during the planning process. Further research and analysis will be necessary to assess the risk of ground rupture from fault movement, and to determine what mitigation measures, if any, are required. A site-specific field investigation involving trenching to verify the absence of near-surface faulting will probably be necessary. Such investigations are normally conducted at the tentative map phase. Regional Seismic Ground Shaking The most severe seismic shaking at the site is expected to originate from a nearby earthquake along the Newport-Inglewood fault zone. The response and performance of the structures subjected to seismic ground shaking will depend on the mitigation measures employed in grading and the type and design of the structures. 17 • ••• I •I[N Ave 4w//• O/gr •! �1 (w,w'�a A ♦'wa a ¢j 4&,w AjW i t • ELLIS AVE. - — - dKI1 IN/Co. M 1 �;•"�'-•~"; '1 SUBJECT t' •,w;''1 •' _ '` PROPERTY C••,r///wawN/eF-Mr/ Ab�/a AYvww/wi!ap FiIw1 IK a../ /�Q'' • 1 ♦ +S • gMAwr♦/M/�i/N M2 pnf • tt/is Corp \�`�� ••t! 13 n •p • [N�wl:wilts /Iw//�.l •e.a/e►,kr. 7 •, • t • •� a�.y all.n•w:.� l�:wsl }� O P1 (fi/wlsXwsr•e) Aa�ee//re. N t O P 7 Arpee / h 04 AV oil i6 !(tw.yrl w • :� Kwy wAN/[o I.6. rats. • • _.. • /►•A!/., '••!... ♦• aaf•, •♦1 iv.:,O./C1/i,. O P 3 •F M ••M• w / M r. • • C• / Itla/r jL'�606 .r.r/ r ./7 so a:r.r � '�•� INh has) 14arn* • ' '114 �y aw/w' ti`' .—♦ r « r. rr't/ t•u �� 4t rry +/r t• /./ry,I '„rr/tr /.V •• w . ialti•%.ems p/♦r.A1 Nt-a.1 - /nr y./Ar oNa •rwr. t,W.�Arw._/ n w a:r../a,4M C•+wy • ,� ow*w n1j LEGEND Base Map Modified From: t • Oil and Gas Producing Oil Well D'map v. tShoot 134, Huntington Beach Oil Field, ♦ Abandoned—Oil Well Dated Oct. 30,1982 + Abandoned-Dry Hole OApproximate Location of Old Water Well (After Sinnott, A and Poland, J.F., 19596 and Bob Allen, H.B. Water Department, Personal Communication) • __ OIL AND WATER WELLS N1Q11/LLV PLUMED City of Huntington Beach "w+ 0 260 600 FEET EXHIBIT 10 Liquefaction and Other Related Secondary Seismic Hazards 0 ._ Secondary earthquake hazards, such as liquefaction, seismically induced settlement, and ground lurching are generally associated with high intensities of ground shaking, shallow groundwater conditions, and the presence of loose sandy soils or alluvial _ deposits. Since most of the site is underlain by semiconsolidated terrace deposits and the groundwater table is believed to be generally deeper than 50 feet below the mesa, the hazard potential apears to be slight. The canyons appear to have more unconsolidated alluvial deposits and a shallower groundwater table; consequently, the hazard potential may be moderate in those areas. • Settlement and Expansive Soils In general, the foundation bearing capacity of the formations underlying the mesa is • _ relatively predictable and favorable. Settlement of structures built on natural ground (cut areas) or on properly placed and compacted fills, therefore, is expected to be negligible. Some clay soils (probably moderately to highly expansive) appear to underlie the northeast corner of the property and some peat deposits (susceptible to _ collapse) appear to underlie the northern central canyon area. Generally, they should not pose a significant development constraint if they are recognized and properly mitigated. Lime Deposit Disposal Although existing tests on the sugar processing waste deposits confirm they are largely lime, the presence of hazardous chemicals or constituents (other than their unsuitability for plants) apparently was not ruled out. Their incorporation into earth fills as part of the development grading, however, is probably feasible, based on recent practices involving similar materials elsewhere, and subject to favorable laboratory tests confirming the absence of hazardous chemicals. The addition of soil amendments to counteract the relatively high pH of the deposits would probably be necessary if the fill containing them is to serve as a planting medium. 18 Slope Instability 4 Landsliding or other similar slope stability problems have not been, and are not expected to be, a significant development constraint. The natural slopes along the canyon areas will require further analysis during the tentative map phase to confirm the generally favorable conditions anticipated. There may be a potential for failure of trench walls and/or steep temporary slopes made during construction. Seiches The risk of seiches (seismically induced waves in lakes or reservoirs) is considered nil to slight. There is a remote possibility that the water level in the Sully-Miller Lake may arise high enough (especially during the winter months) to pose a threat of seiche activity along the banks of the lake but probably not to the subject property. Erosion, Sedimentation, and Flooding The erosion and sedimentation hazards from storm runoff appears to be a significant problem within the drainage channels at the site, since surface runoff from existing residential areas to the northeast and from the property to the west is presently channeled across the subject property. Oil Field Hazards and Constraints Mechanical failures, accidents, or earth movements resulting in rupturing of well pipelines or tanks are always a possibility within an oil field. Such breaks could lead to spills of petroleum products and leakage of water, steam, or gases resulting in hazard from fumes, fire and pollution. With appropriate handling techniques, such occurrences would be unlikely. Standard safety practices, monitoring, adequate repairs and maintenance, and contingency plans should adequately mitigate the potential hazards related to active oil field operations. The possible existence of old buried sumps, trash dumps, abandoned pipelines, and underground storage tanks, however, could be a source of groundwater pollution or environmental health hazards if their presence and potential impacts are unrecognized and not appropriately mitigated. If required by the State Department 19 • of Health and Safety (DOHS), a site characterization study will be prepared prior to tentative map approval to assess the potential environmental hazards within the site. Mitigation measures will then be based on the findings of the study. Abandoned Oil and Water Wells - Thirteen known oil wells, seven known water wells, • r and possibly more unrecorded wells have been abandoned on the subject property. Producing oil wells will also be abandoned in the future as production is phased out. All abandoned oil wells will be required to be plugged according to the City of Huntington Beach Oil Code and the California Division of Oil and Gas standards • (currently, abandoned oil wells have been certified as having met these standards. The water wells must be properly abandoned according to the City of Huntington Beach Water Well Abandonment Code 1917. Any wells that may have been abandoned improperly pose the hazard of surface seepage of oil, gases, or groundwater. Pipeline - Extensive oil, water, and electric utility lines exist beneath the site. �- Proposed grading would either expose the existing utility lines in cut areas or bury them beneath new fills. Inasmuch as the trench backfill materials may be susceptible to settlement, appropriate mitigation measures will be necessary in any areas where the proposed grading does not remove them. ., Sumps - Oil and wastewater sumps and other types of waste disposal sites are known to exist on the subject property. Such known and presently unrecognized old sumps or buried disposal pits could be significant soil constraints and environmental hazards because of the unsuitable and possibly toxic materials they may contain. 3.2.3 Mitigation Measures 1. Mitigation of a fault rupture hazard, if found to exist, would usually require an adequate building setback from the fault or faulted zone. The amount of setback could vary depending upon the geologic circumstances and the reliability of the fault location, but in most cases it might range _ between about 20 to 50 feet. In some instances it could be as much as 100 feet. Such setbacks would not usually be a constraint to development of roads, utilities, parking lots, recreational usage, or storage-type structures. It is generally not considered feasible to mitigate fault rupture hazards by designing structures to be more resistive. 20 2. Mitigation of the potentially damaging effects of seismic ground shaking is usually accomplished by the design and construction of the proposed residential structures in conformance with the latest Uniform Building _ Code (UBC), applicable for Seismic Zone 4. Grading in accordance with the current code requirements should provide adequate densification of those relatively minor alluvial soil deposits which might tend to amplify certain types of seismic motion. _ 3. A subsurface geotechnical investigation (normally required prior to approval of development plans) would be necessary to better evaluate the potential for liquefaction or settlement and to recommend the appropriate mitigation measures. — 4. A more detailed analysis of the onsite soils is recommended, although standard grading techniques and conformance with current grading requirements are anticipated to satisfactorily mitigate the hazards from settlement or expansive soils. Expansive soils can be easily mitigated by appropriate foundation design, and compressible soils can be removed prior to fill placement. _ 5. Should further testing determine that hazardous chemicals are present, the lime deposits would most likely require their removal to a suitable disposal site. 6. Hazards such as failure of trench walls and/or steep temporary slopes made during construction may be satisfactorily mitigated by observing standard construction regulations and procedures. 7. Channel improvements in the main drainage courses, as well as adequate outlet improvements to the north, remain the chief means to mitigate the potentially significant impacts of stream channel flow and to protect the proposed structures of adjacent lands. 21 8. All abandoned well locations and abandonment procedures already • implemented should be verified through examination of records and/or -- field inspection prior to grading. Any well which will be disturbed or exposed by grading (i.e., cuts lowering the ground elevation) must be recapped according to the current standards. • 9. Per Section 9930.2(c)(16) of the Huntington Beach Zoning Code, tentative maps filed for development on the site shall be required to show all existing wells and appurtenances and plan for their disposition or treatment. • 10. All existing pipelines should be located through examination of records and/or field exploration during the site grading. Pipelines no longer in use and the surrounding trench backfill material should be removed or the settlement potential otherwise treated by an acceptable method. If functioning lines are to remain in use, phasing of the project should be coordinated with abandonment of the facilities. Alternatively, pipelines could be re-routed either temporarily or permanently during the grading and construction phases of the project. 11. A review of all available records should be carried out prior to any grading at the site. All readily verified existing oil and tar sumps and any related deposits containing hazardous wastes should be removed prior to or during - site grading. The wastewater sump and all suspected dumps or sumps should be evaluated by means of a subsurface investigation. 12. Per section 9930.2(c)(18) of the Huntington Beach Zoning Code, a physical and chemical analysis and soils report prepared by a qualified registered soils engineer will most likely be required by the Deputy Director of Development Services as part of the tentative tract map filing. 13. The city's Oil Code also includes several measures applicable to the safe and compatible operation of oil production facilities in residential areas, including provisions of fire prevention, general nuisance prevention, and �._ abandonment and clean-up procedures. 22 14. If required by the State Department of Health Services, a site characterization study will be prepared prior to tentative map approval to assess the potential environmental hazards within the site. Mitigation measures will then be based on the findings of the study. 23 3.3 HYDROLOGY This section is based primarily on information provided by Irvine Civil Engineering in their letter report of August 31, 1984. The letter and attached worksheets are included in Appendix D for easy reference. 3.3.1 Msting Conditions Drainage Characteristics w Existing hydrology of the site is shown on Exhibit 11. As shown on the exhibit, most of the study area drains to the north towards one of two drainage courses/ swales which run east-west across the northern portion of the site. The two drainage courses converge near Ellis Avenue and drain through a 33-inch pipe which runs under Ellis and empties into Sully Miller Lake. These drainage courses are also fed by offsite areas to the east and west (see Exhibit 11). The most southerly portion of the site is-flat and runoff in this area generally pools in sumps on the southeastern edge of the site (see Exhibit 5). As shown on Exhibit 11, a 25-year frequency storm will generate approximately 179 cubic feet per second (cfs) of runoff from areas within the study area boundary. Of this total, 30 cfs sheet ,flows toward Garfield or collects in the sumps on the southeastern portion of the site and seeps into the ground. The remaining 149 cfs drains towards the two drainage courses and eventually is carried through the Ellis drain into Sully Miller Lake. The total amount of runoff entering Sully Miller Lake under existing conditions is not quantified. However, it would include the runoff from offsite areas to the northeast ^^ and west. The 33-inch drain under Ellis is currently undersized to freely carry the total runoff from the watershed. Therefore, during heavy rains ponding occurs on the site before the runoff can flow through the pipe. In 1979, L. D. King & Associates prepared a Master Drainage Plan for the City of Huntington Beach based on build-out of its Land Use Plan. That portion of the plan covering the study area is shown on Exhibit 12. The study concluded that runoff due to a 25-year frequency storm to Sully Miller Lake through the Ellis pipe would total 24 roughly 533 cubic feet per second (cfs). This assumed buildout of the site and surrounding areas within the lake's watershed. The plan also shows a total of approximately 284 cfs entering the site at the northeast corner of the site and about 90 cfs entering the site at the western boundary just north of Ernest Avenue. Sully Miller Lakel Sully Miller Lake was formed by sand and gravel excavation operations. The open pit collected storm runoff and is fed by groundwater forming the lake. Only a portion of the pit is waterfilled. The steep banks on all sides are 40 to 60 feet above the water's surface and are subject to excessive erosion. The lake's watershed consists of a mushroom farm (directly west of the lake) oil wells (on and off the Holly property), a fire station, an automobile repair facility, the _ police practice range, horse stables, and open space (on the Holly property). Storm runoff into the lake is primarily from the 33-inch storm drain under Ellis. This drain enters the lake at 9.23 feet above mean sea level (MSL). The water level fluctuates considerably during the year and is primarily controlled by the groundwater table. At elevation 0.0 feet MSL, the lake has a total surface area of 9.3 acres and a total volume of 223.7 acre-feet. Large storm runoffs cause rapid rises in the lake's surface level. Originally, this rise would stabilize or reverse as the water level reached and exceeded the outlet drain at elevation 7.47 feet above MSL. This drain is located at the north end of the lake (opposite the inlet from Ellis) and runs underground through the landfill area bordered by Golden West Street and Talbert Avenue. However, this drain is presently inoperative apparently due to collapse of the pipe in the landfill area. Consequently, all of the storm runoff must now percolate into the ground. The city has plans to expand the Huntington Central Park to include the Sully Miller Lake. The lake would most likely be developed into a fishing pond with appurtenent facilities. At this time, however, the plans for the use of the lake have not been finalized. 1 Information for this section is from Sully Miller Lake; An Assessment and Development Plan, A. W. Fast, Ph.D. and J. H. Glenn, P.E., October 1980. 25 - . SULLY'. .. LLER. r:4 y ,.�.-+..•' cat _.�:••. ••r' --- � ..,.; �� • , ._ . . ••.•- _ _ im - - 31 k" •' � !y..• IAC , .•- `•mow - `� � \ �' ._ �..�'.�•�_ • OFF-SITE •Z t - RUN OFt i Y� s; �. _' .. • .. .+=� ._°J: mil-- :+.:.:_:. :.:i - __ �__ ._ - - ... Y SOURCE: IRVINE CIVIL ENGINEERING. AUGUST 1884 �r EXISTING HYDROLOGY M"OLLU PLUMB City of Huntington Beach ?T I I I -j-j w+ 0 215 480 FEET — EXHIBIT 11 .5..-M.. a►A,. as«a e'• dAdr��A�+rMr M�Gaf, f bunp UICn�S•in � Awvw � (Gax w�dM 6Y MyhF n ArI) . ��nrrn.r ryx ra•w) r .,.,�.� AIWWbWW �.,avrrtr A1.r rab..Ar...aws, A07V TALBERT - M =. ./n ,_�.�; SrAOV itn ! i .24'AiC • . ree i a + 1I 0 SULLY MILLER LAKE — !" QYS•i ASPM.A L/..glp L7' ELLIS ro I ram, amw I IL SITE Now r ► �.",� ` W � z.� N Vr rax —_—•--.�—.����� _ ' ,a.""1`4. _ BARFIELD 04 yr r SA �.....tr....1A 4., •,....� art w..n nn w�n wn ww n i� 1 i ••� HUNTINGTON BEACH �^ MASTER PLAN OF DRAINAGE mK'N I GLOLLU pC�CQaaL D .�. ,,. . OOKWUH071YA & o 64 City of Huntington Beach Nad 0 500 1000 FEET EXHIBIT 12 r Groundwaterl The Huntington Beach Mesa lies at the southwestern margin of the Orange County coastal plain groundwater basin. There are three main water-bearing zones beneath Huntington Beach Mesa. The upper aquifer is 50 feet thick at an approximate depth of 50 to 60 feet below the ground surface at the site. In 1983, the elevation of the - groundwater surface was mapped at an elevation of 0 MSL by the Orange County Water District. The middle aquifer is also about 50 feet thick and occurs roughly 200 - feet below the site. The lower aquifer is 250+ feet thick and occurs at about 300 feet below the surface. Old U.S. Geological Survey Maps show a total of eight groundwater wells on the subject property. These wells are not in use today and it is not known if they were ever abandoned according to current requirements. Exhibit 10 in Section 3.2 illustrates their approximate locations. Water Quality Surface Water - Water quality of the offsite and onsite generated runoff carried through the site is influenced by urban activities, agricultural activities, and industrial (oil production)activities. Urban activities generate oil, grease, and heavy metals from motor vehicles, and nutrients (fertilizers) and pesticides from landscape maintenance. Agricultural activities, such as the horse stables to the west are also a source of nutrients (manure). Oil producing activities, such as those on and off the site can generate oil and dissolved solids (from brine spills). Due to the open space condition of most of the site, the site is a source of silt and sediment due to erosion of the unprotected soils. The quality of the surface water within the drainage courses on the site appears poor y due to stagnation and debris loading. An anaysis of the drain water entering the Sully Miller Lake provides an indication of the quality of runoff carried through and originating from the site. 1 Source of groundwater information: Leighton and Associates "Geotechnical Assessment for EIR Related to Holly Property Residential Project," August 1984. 26 The quality of water in Sully Miller Lake was evaluated as part of the Sully Miller Lake study (Fast and Glenn, 1980). The study did not quantify sedimentation rates or nutrient loads, however, it appears that sediment transport into the lake is moderate and mostly from the exposed lake banks; and nutrient loading is excessive, the primary source being the manure used at the mushroom farm. Nutrient concentrations of the inlet drain water were also considered high. Total dissolved solids concentrations in the lake are relatively low compared to other lakes, such as Huntington Lake. However, the quality of the influent drain water was - considered very poor due to the excessive concentration of total dissolved solids (TDS). The source of the high TDS was believed to be oil production activities. They assumed that brine spills at the wells could account for the high TDS values in the Ellis drain water. Groundwater - Of the three aquifers underlying the Huntington Beach Mesa, the upper and middle aquifers have been contaminated by salt water since the 1920s. ` The lower zone is inclined northward and pinches out to the south, thereby retarding the intrusion of salt water. The City of Huntington Beach is presently using groundwater as their primary source of domestic water, all of which is extracted from areas north of the mesa. The aquifers underlying the mesa have become brackish for use as domestic water, although water is being pumped from the lower aquifer for irrigation uses. 3.3.2 hnpacts - Amendment of the city's general plan to develop mixed residential versus industrial, office and estate residential uses will not significantly alter the hydrology impacts associated with development of the site. In general, any kind of urban development on the site will result in an increase in surface water runoff and a decrease in water percolation into the groundwater. In addition, drainage patterns will most likely be altered and storm drain improvements required. Drainage and water quality impacts to the existing and future conditions of Sully Miller Lake will also have to be considered. Water quality impacts will include an increase in urban pollutants (oil, grease, fertilizers, pesticides, etc.), but a decrease in erosion and sedimentation 27 • Drainage Characteristics According to the preliminary hydrology study prepared for the EIR, the runoff volumes to Sully Miller Lake from the site developed under the proposed concept • plan (illustrated on Exhibit 13), will increase by 16 cfs (for a 25-year frequency storm). This represents an 11 percent increase over the existing condition. This increase is based on a number of assumptions, including the locations of future storm drains. • Further hydrology studies should be prepared to evaluate the cumulative impact of ._ this increase plus any changes from offsite areas draining to Sully Miller Lake via the site. As shown on the city's Master Drainage Plan (Exhibit 12), offsite areas will contribute the majority of runoff draining across the site to the Ellis Avenue drain. This offsite drainage should also be accounted for in any further analysis of Sully Miller Lake. It was not evident from the concept plan, how the offsite runoff entering the subject _. property from east of the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way would be carried through the site. Options might include piping it through the site to the greenbelt/drainage course or carrying it in a culvert along Ellis Avenue. • The existing 33-inch RCP under Ellis Avenue, which drains into Sully Miller Lake, is " not currently adequate to effectively drain the site under existing or ultimate conditions. Unless retention of runoff in the onsite greenbelt south of Ellis is �- proposed, the culvert will require replacement by a substantially larger structure. • In addition, the hydrology analysis shows that runoff from a small portion of the developed site will drain presumably through streets, to Garfield Avenue to the south. The post-development volume is shown to be 13.9 cfs, which is about half of �~ the volume shown to be draining to this point under existing conditions (see Exhibit 11). However, most of the runoff occurring under the existing condition collects onsite or seeps into the ground and does not reach Garfield. Under post-development conditions almost all surface runoff will reach Garfield through the streets, thereby increasing the demand for improved storm drain facilities in Garfield. 28 As part of the full street improvements required for Garfield Avenue upon project development, the storm drain system in Garfield will be upgraded. This will include the westerly extension of the storm drain in Garfield near Delaware over to the project site's point of discharge. This extension is shown as part of the city's Master Plan of Drainage. Sully Miller Lake The increased runoff volume will impact Sully Miller Lake in its existing condition. Increased runoff could increase erosion and sedimentation as it empties into the - lake, Also, during extreme storm conditions, the lake could potentially fill to a point where it could back up onto the project site. _ The 1980 Sully Miller Lake study recommended that the outlet drain at the north end of the lake be reconstructed to allow for water level stabilization (draining of excessive storm flows). If this outlet drain was repaired, it could alleviate this potential impact as well as act as a water quality control device for the lake. The lake study suggests that it would be desirable to divert at least part of the Ellis - Avenue drain water and runoff from the mushroom farm around the lake and directly into the repaired outlet drain. This would reduce the amounts of undesirable _ contaminants now entering the lake water. Such a measure should be considered by the city as part of any further studies prepared for rehabilitation of the lake. Groundwater Upon project development, percolation of water to the groundwater table will be reduced due to the increased coverage by impermeable surfaces. This should not have a significant impact since the upper groundwater aquifers underlying this part of the mesa are not suitable for domestic uses. Water Quality Construction Phase - During the construction phase of the proposed project, or any urban development on the site, the concentration of urban pollutants and sediment in _ the site's runoff would increase. This is a temporary adverse impact which cannot be 29 ` � �t9191�47 169 141 19 ]QLC�f9q , i 1223�. •/y��: - � r . . .rP N 4�1�1 pfl�l flfl. `� �T/L/•// L�J^Ttll-SJ�y QIf I dQ _ 4 _ I �T0 rzzi 1� C]��1J�L���aQ�.�. � R r_'J ,4r�> .✓ Sri '�Gy lid til- TYPE UMTS ACRES U/A Q'- ICE- �- A SY0e Fa"dy Detached 350 54.8 6.4 tt-r-ram .E��r1fF+F" . S ShVe Fandy Medved 170 17.3 8.8 • C 14M+-dyTowrAmm 230 1&6 1&9 - 0 MMi-Fanty Flats 450 23.8 1&9 Public Sheets 7.8 I ? E` 'I' - ....... TOTAL 1200 1203 10.0 rnr..._f _ ....... ......... i - SOURCE: IRVINE CIVIL ENGINEERING. AUGUST 1884. - POST-DEVELOPMENT HYDROLOGY NOLLV PUHHED Midrd 6ra�d.�nAmr City of Huntington Beach _ "'EPA 0 818 430 FEET EXHIBIT 13 y avoided, however can be mitigated, through careful construction practices and erosion control measures. Development of the project is proposed to occur in two phases over a five- to ten- year period. Therefore, these short-term water quality impacts could be expected during the initial grading phase and any subsequent phases of heavy construction operations. Significant soil erosion could result if a portion of the site is cleared and left uncovered or unvegetated between phases. Developed Phase - Development of the site with residential uses would cumulatively add to the amount of urban contaminants reaching the surface water resources from the site. The removal of most of the oil wells should offset some of this increase since they are contributors of oil and total dissolved solids. The landscaped areas of the residential development would contribute fertilizers, pesticides, and sediment to the surface water runoff. The amount of sediment generated would, however, be significantly less than is being generated by the existing, primarily undeveloped condition of the site. �._ Sully Miller Lake - Under existing conditions, the quality of the Ellis drain influent is poor. This is due primarily to high concentrations of nutrients and total dissolved solids. The source of the high nutrient levels is most likely the adjacent mushroom farm, the residential area that borders the site to the.east, the horse stables across Golden West Street to the west, and onsite vegetation debris. Therefore, with development of the proposed project and the related landscaping features, these nutrient levels will most likely increase. This is of prime concern since high nutrient concentrations can lead to accelerated eutrophication of the lake. The source of the high TDS levels was assumed to be the oil well activities in the watershed. This would most likely include oil facilities both on and off the project site. Upon ultimate project development, the number of oil wells should be reduced. This should effectively reduce the amount of oil, salts, and other related contaminants entering the lake's runoff. 30 The sediment load originating from the site should be insignificant upon completion - of the proposed development and its associated groundcover or landscaping. Depending on the ultimate use of the lake, the proposed project could have an insignificant or a significant impact on the quality of Sully Miller Lake. If it remains under its existing use as a stormwater retention basin, the increase in urban pollutants may not be a significant factor. However, given that the city could potentially develop the lake as a fishing lake, this degradation of water quality would - be considered cumulatively significant. Development of the site would add cumulatively to the pollutant loads entering the runoff from other parts of the lake's - watershed. As stated earlier, one of the measures recommended by the lake study for improving the quality of the lake's water, is to divert at least part of the Ellis drain runoff and mushroom farm runoff around the lake and directly into the outlet structure at the north end of the lake (assuming it is functional). This measure may, in fact, be desirable and necessary to upgrade the quality of usefulness of the lake, however, -- further study would be required to determine its necessity and feasibility. 3.2.3 Mitigation Measures 1. A detailed hydrology study will be prepared by a licensed civil engineer as required by the city to further quantify the combined drainage impacts of the development and other developments in the same watershed, and evaluate the need for upgrading of public storm drain facilities. 2. The developer will be required to construct or upgrade all onsite and offsite storm drain facilities needed to drain the site according to city requirements. This would include improvements to the Garfield Avenue - storm drain system, the storm drain under Ellis Avenue, and any other facilities determined in the more detailed hydrology study. 3. The outlet structure at the north end of Sully Miller Lake should be reconstructed to allow for stabilization of the lake's water level. 31 4. Further studies of Sully Miller Lake should take into account the increased runoff volumes expected from ultimate development of the site and '- surrounding areas in its watershed. In addition, diversion of part or all of this runoff around the lake should be considered to improve water quality. 5. The Regional Water Quality Control Board should be consulted for other water quality control measures which would be applicable to the lake's development. " 6. It is strongly recommended that the final drainage plan for the development should be designed to minimize the volume and velocity of surface runoff through proper design of surface drains, appropriate grading, and landscape programs to the specification of the city's Department of Public Works. 7. It is strongly recommended that the city's street sweeping program be ` continued with state-of-the-art equipment to reduce street and parking lot contaminants. 8. The project shall comply with the city's grading ordinance which includes various soil erosion control techniques. 9. It is recommended that any areas left undeveloped and unprotected prior to the project completion phase be seeded. or landscaped to reduce soil erosion from the site. 32 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - The biotic composition of the project site is described below from information _ compiled through field reconnaissance, supplemented by already existing documentation of biological resources within the project vicinity. The site was surveyed by motor vehicle and on foot by the firm of Michael Brandman Associates on August 8, 1984. Weather at the time of the survey was mild, with a temperature range of 65°F to 75°F, overcast skies and no wind. The physical nature of the property permitted a complete direct examination of all terrain within its confines. Floral and faunal constituents encountered were recorded in terms of relative abundance and host habitat type, and the overall biotic composition of the site was derived from this information combined with documented habitat preferences of regional wildlife species which, whether or not detected during the survey, are known to include the site within their range. Habitat designations used in this report are according to the basic classification system of Munz and Keck (1959). Floral taxonomy follows the current regional flora of Munz (1974). Common plant names, where not available from Munz (1974), are _ taken from Abrams (1923), Higgins (1949), Hitchcock (1950), Robbins, et al. (1951) and Collins (1972). Vertebrates identified in the field by sight, calls, tracks, scat or other signs are cited according to the nomenclature of Stebbins (1972) and Collins, et al. (1978) for amphibians and reptiles; AOU (1983) for birds; and Hall (1981) and Jones, et al. (1982) for mammals. Sources used for determination of sensitive biological resources are as follows: plants - FWS (1982), CDFG (1982a) and Smith, et al. (1980); wildlife - FWS (1982) and CDFG (1980, 1982b). 3.4.1 Existing Conditions Vegetation The vegetation of the site consists of four plant communities: annual grassland (including roadsides and fallow fields), herbaceous riparian, landscaped ornamental (lawns and gardens) and eucalyptus grove. The distribution of each of these onsite is depicted in Exhibit 14. The approximate coverage of each plant community onsite is: annual grassland, 102 acres (81 percent); landscaped ornamental, 14 acres (11 33 • HR 1 _ LO • ..f. •HR . , • AG t LO �. EG I � AG i LO b LEGEND w AG ANNUAL GRASSLAND HR HERBACEOUS RIPARIAN 1 I LO LANDSCAPED ORNAMENTAL _ E(; EUCALYPTUS GROVE VEGETATION City of Huntington Beach O 16 Mo FEET EXHIBIT 14 percent); eucalyptus grove, 8 acres (6 percent); herbaceous riparian, 2 acres (2 percent). The 126-acre site is relatively flat in the southern portion, with greater topographic relief in the northern portion. The elevational gradient is from 12 feet in the north- central portion to 70 feet in the eastern portion along Gothard Street. Most of the site has been highly disturbed in the past during various stages of urbanization including agricultural and oil development. There are several structures onsite, including four residences, a small church and several oil drilling rigs and storage •` tanks. Approximately 85 percent of the land remains in open space. Most of the southeastern third of the site has been disked recently. A total of 69 plant species representing 26 families was recorded by the site survey. These are listed in Table 1 of Appendix E. Of these, 50 (72 percent) are non-native plants, including several species of ornamental trees and shrubs planted as. landscaped ornamentals on the site. The floral composition of each plant community `- is described below. • Annual Grassland - This plant community encompasses most of the site and includes fallow fields, disturbed roadside edges (ruderal association) and somewhat less disturbed hillside grassland. Much of the grassland component is crisscrossed by motorcycle trails and unimproved roads. Typical grasses onsite are non-native Mediterranean annuals that have replaced many of the native species in the past century. Red brume (Bromus rubens) and foxtail fescue (Vul is megalura) are frequent throughout, with bermudagrass (Cynodon dact lon) becoming dominant in disturbed areas adjacent to roadways and paths, and saltgrass (Distichlis s icata) predominating in moister or more alkaline areas as in the drainage course in the _ northern sector. Wild oat (Avena fatua and A. barbata), rabbit's-foot grass (Polypogon monspeliensis) and Italian ryegrass (Lolium perenne) are also frequent and widespread onsite, with wild oat reaching its greatest abundance on hillsides and the latter two becoming most abundant in moister, low-lying areas. Representative forbs in the ruderal association are western ragweed (Ambrosia psilostachya), tocalote (Centaurea melitensis) and Russian thistle (Salsola iberica). In recently plowed fields short-podded mustard (Brassica geniculata), black mustard (Brassica ni a) and wild radish (Raphanus sativa) are abundant, with other species 34 such as Australian saltbush (Atri lex semibaccata) and curly dock (Rumex cris us)also well represented. On hillsides that have not been recently plowed, common sunflower (Helianthus annuus) and sweet fennel (Foeniculum vu are)are common. _ Herbaceous Riparian - An open storm drain enters the site west of Gothard Street, drains across and under the site and exits the site to the north under Ellis Avenue. Associated with this drainage are fragmented patches of herbaceous riparian vegetation and various non-native weeds and brush typically associated with - disturbed wet areas. Marsh vegetation onsite is predominantly bulrush (Stir us olneyi and S. validus) with lesser amounts of cattail (Typha sp.) and willow - (Salix gooddingii and S. lasiolepis). Also present in this community are cocklebur Manthium strumarium), common sunflower, saltgrass, sweet fennel, five-hooked bassia (Bassia hyssopifolia) and spear saltbush (Atri lex patula). Between Gothard Street and the Signal Oil property is approximately one-tenth acre of open water with patches of duckweed (Lemna sp.) and California arrow-head (Sagittaria calycina). Landscaped Ornamental - This community includes landscaped areas associated with housing—lawns, gardens, hedgerows, ornamental trees and shrubs. A church in the _ southeastern corner of the site and three houses in the western portion of the site along Golden West Avenue, have been landscaped. Typical groundcover, shrubs and trees used in landscaping on the site are hottentot-fig (Carpobrotus edulis), bermudagrass, myoporum (Myoporum laetum), oleander (Nerium oleander), common olive (Olea euro a) and common fig (Ficus carica). Eucalyptus Grove - There is a windrow of large eucalyptus trees extending from the southeastern corner of the property to the central portion. These are almost exclusively red gum (Eucalyptus camaldulensis), apparently planted in association with former structures, the foundations of which are still present. As is typical of eucalyptus groves, there is virtually no understory beneath these trees other than leaf and twig litter. Wildlife Most animals found onsite during the present survey, other than a few non-resident birds found in association with the marsh vegetation, are common, widespread and 35 highly adaptable species. While birds are the most conspicuous vertebrates, several Audubon cottontails were encountered and the California ground squirrel is also abundant. Among the reptiles, several species of lizards are expected to occur although none were observed during the site visit. A snake skin, apparently that of a ,... coachwhip (Masticophis flagellum), was found in the grassland near the north end of the property. All vertebrates recorded or expected to occur commonly on the site are listed in Table 2 of Appendix E. Twenty-three species of birds were observed on or foraging over the site during the course of the survey. The most common species encountered were the mourning dove, American crow, red-winged blackbird and house finch in the fields; Anna's �- hummingbird, northern mockingbird and house sparrow in the eucalyptus grove and landscaped ornamental communities and killdeer, red-winged blackbird, song sparrow and American goldfinch in the herbaceous riparian community. In addition, several non-resident or transient waterbirds (mallard, sora, black-necked stilt and common snipe) were observed in association with the small patches of freshwater marsh vegetation. Because of their strictly transient role, these species are not included in the list of breeding and winter resident birds provided in Appendix E. Audubon cottontails and California ground squirrels should be the most abundant and Now conspicuous diurnal mammals onsite. While not encountered, several less visible, . although equally abundant, nocturnal or subterranean species such as the common opossum, striped skunk, southern pocket gopher, California vole, western harvest mouse, deer mouse, Norway rat and house mouse are also expected to occur. Common reptiles on the property are expected to include the side-blotched and western fence lizards, gopher snake, coachwhip and western rattlesnake. Amphibians -. likely to be common are the western toad, Pacific treefrog and garden slender salamander. .� Sensitive Biological Resources The entire site was examined for the presence of sensitive plant and animal species, with particular attention addressed to areas considered candidate localities for such species. No species of plant or animal designated threatened, rare, endangered or otherwise sensitive by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of r 36 Fish and Game (CDFG), National Aubudon Society or California Native Plant Society (CLAPS) was disclosed by the survey, nor are any likely to occur on the site. The site is an isolated area of undeveloped land surrounded by development. It is too highly degraded and too small to support any viable populations of the sensitive animals or plants known to occur regionally. 3.4.2 Impacts Vegetation Implementation of the proposed project would require conversion of approximately 118 acres of annual grassland, riparian vegetation and ornamental plant communities, _ most of which are already highly degraded. The very high percentage of non-native plants (72 percent) onsite is indicative of significantly modified plant communities. Wildlife Construction activity would disturb all wildlife in the vicinity and many species could be expected to move to adjacent areas of similar habitat provided it is available at _ the onset of activity. Wildlife which do emigrate are particularly vulnerable to mortality by predation and unsuccessful competition for food and territory. Species of low mobility and those refusing to emigrate would be eliminated outright by site preparation. This is particularly true of burrowing mammals and reptiles. Following construction, some species would return to the developed portion of the site if suitable habitat is present, though most would be dislodged permanently from _ this area by removal of habitat suited to their existence. Among the native members of the southern California fauna known for their ability to thrive near human habitation are the slender salamander, California ground squirrel, Audubon cottontail and most species of birds listed in Appendix E. The restricted variety of habitats presented by the new urban environment could be expected to attract some of the fauna now present, comprising principally introduced _ or highly adaptive native species tolerant of human disturbance. Among those species that may be favored in terms of population increase by the altered environment are the Norway rat, house mouse, rock dove (pigeon), spotted dove, _ 37 American crow, northern mockingbird, European starling, Brewer's blackbird, house finch and house sparrow. A variety of migrant songbirds could also be expected to frequent the new habitat during certain times of the year, particularly in areas where specimen size trees are present in the new landscaping. Indirectly, wildlife populations in surrounding offsite areas would be affected adversely by the general reduction of available habitat within the project area, as wildlife from this area generally will be pressured to extend their foraging range into these surrounding areas. This would cause increased stress upon the nearby wildlife i populations as competition for food, water and nesting sites increases. Although raptors as a group, especially red-tailed hawks and American kestrels, exhibit a measure of capability in adapting to the activities of man in and adjacent to their preferred habitats, they are nevertheless, on balance, adversely affected by urbanization and its associated influences. Construction activity associated with the proposed development could be expected to exert an adverse impact upon the few raptors presently utilizing the site. 3.4.3 Mitigation Measures °— 1. The proposed project specifies the retention of greenbelt area in open space where the present swale is located. It is recommended that native willows and sycamores be included in the landscaping plan to add to the natural appearance of this riparian community. 2. Revegetation should be accomplished on all graded and cut-and-fill areas where structures or improvements are not constructed. Consideration — should be given to the use of drought-adapted, fire retardant plants, especially species native to the southern California foothills and coastal slopes, contingent upon the availability of seed stocks and approval by appropriate agencies acting in the interest of fire control. If water- requiring species are used for rapid growth, water injection systems should M be considered. 38 3.5 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES An archaeological resource assessment, consisting of a records search and an in-field survey, was prepared for the project by Archaeological Resource Management Corporation (ARMC). The results of this analysis are summarized below and the complete report is contained in Appendix F. 3.5.1 Existing Conditions Physical Setting Both the Bolsa Chica and the Santa Ana River Gaps were cut during Pleistocene times by drainages emanating from the mountains to the east and north. Rising sea levels following the retreat of the ice age inundated these gaps with salt water creating embayments and/or estuaries. The bays/estuaries with their numerous marine resources became ideal locations for prehistoric human settlement with the result that numerous archaeological sites are found along the rim of the Huntington Beach Mesa overlooking the surrounding water systems. Cultural Setting The project area falls within the territory of the Gabrielino. At the time of first contact, the Gabrielino were loosely affiliated bands of hunters and gatherers who came under the influence of the Spanish Mission at San Gabriel. The Gabrielino were thought to have been one of the most wealthy, populous, and powerful nationalities in the southern California region. Based on linguistic evidence it appears that the Gabrielino entered the Los Angeles Basin sometime prior to A.D. 500. Gabrielino material culture was typified by the use of manos metates, mortars, pestles, basketry, shell fishhooks, and ornaments, bows and arrows, and a wide variety of chipped stone tools such as knives, drills, and scrapers. Records Search The records search indicated that the study area had been previously surveyed as part of a larger survey and inventory conducted by Archaeological Research _. Incorporated for the City of Huntington Beach in 1972-73. As a result of this study, 39 29 prehistoric sites were located along the bluff edges on the east and west side of Huntington Beach Mesa and along the eastern bluff of Bolsa Chica Mesa. No sites were noted within or near the current project area. -- Field Survey • The field survey revealed that all parts of the survey area had been subject to recent historic disturbance, primarily in the form of oil-drilling activities. This disturbance included extensive dumping, filling, and grading as well as dirt and paved roads, • pipelines, oil wells, windbreaks, and buildings. On the southerm portion of the study area, where the Holly Sugar refinery was sited there were also signs of disturbance. No evidence of prehistoric activities was noted during the field survey. It is possible that at one time sites were present in the area, but recent disturbance may have obliterated any indicators of prehistoric habitation. It is probable that the site was located too far away from the bay/estuary areas of the Bolsa Chica and Santa Ana River gaps to represent an attractive village or satellite settlement site. • 3.5.3 Impacts .. No impacts to archaeological resources are expected to result due to development of • the proposed project, although, prehistoric remains could be exposed during grading activities. 3.5.3 Mitigation Measures ! 1. If any remains of prehistoric origin are uncovered during construction, it is recommended that a qualified archaeologist be contacted to evaluate the finds and determine appropriate mitigation measures. i 40 3.6 LAND USE AND PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 3.6.1 Existing Conditions Land Use The existing land uses on and surrounding the site are illustrated in Exhibit 15. As this exhibit indicates, the 126t-acre project site is largely vacant with scattered oil wells and appurtenant facilities (see Exhibit 10). A church and two single-family residences with stables are also located on the site. A variety of land uses surround the site. An industrial park, mushroom farm, Sully- Miller Lake, and automobile repair facilities are north of and adjacent to the site. Light industrial/warehouse buildings are located directly to the east of the site, with multi-family residential adjacent to the northeastern portion of the site. South of the site are a variety of uses, including automobile repair facilities, multi-family residential, a YMCA, and oil production. Light industrial, storage yards, oil production, and self-storage uses occur southeast of the site. American Landscaping Company (a nursery) and horse stables are located west of the site. Other prominent uses near the site include the Joint Powers Fire Prevention Training Center, a future heliport, a landfill, shooting range, and Huntington Central Park, all within 1/3 mile to the north.1 The city is considering purchasing a large amount of the land north of Ellis Avenue between Gothard and Golden West Streets for future expansion of Central Park; however, future plans for the park expansion are not precise at this time.2 Zoning Existing zoning for the project site and surrounding area is illustrated in Exhibit 16. The project site has several zoning designations, as follows: 1 The heliport will be operational in January 1985 and will be used primarily by the Huntington Beach Police Department. 2 Personal communication with Max Bowman, Department of Community Services, City of Huntington Beach, July 23, 1984. 41 O O iiiil ra■r' c � .....■■........ laaa. ...� D Oil N:::::\ _ ■.............. c or ow— � mMi • D � 11/aa .. I■u 1 ` , co ._ Iar■■aaa/■ l womb. la■a/aa\r■ low so. 1■■..■■■■. laaaara\. I■■■aa■aa■ 11.■..........- Ir-srrraaaa■aa■, %�� waronaraaa\aa. \'■a■/Ua■arr\a6 ILA Ca■■aa■/■■a■■// I ■areamarl■■a■U■. la\■aaaaaaaaaarrraaa. laaaaaaaaaaa\■■araaa\► . laaaa■aarraaaaaarra■a\♦ ooruuuuouuaa► GOTHARD ■uuaauuuouuaa■ aauouuu■uuuaruZ _ _■ Cuuuauuuaruuaaaa —r -� __ ._ •/■//aaaa/aaaaaaaaaa/■■ `\ ` \�\\ I IL■JL■11■11 +u■■/i■..■I1■.1'MEMO■..■il.■ None ■• laaaaaaaaa\I .a\\aaaaaaaaaa■■//aaaaaaaa■ .,' \ 1 ■aaSUM, laaaaa■■aaaaaaaa■aaaaaaaaa■ I:aaaa■aaaaas la88HU aaraaalaaaaaaaaaa■ —:�/■ la:aaaaaaa.■ a aa::aaaaaaa■aaaaaaaaum Ala■ laaaaraaa■a .aaaraaaafaaalaaa:aaaaaaa■ �!u t • liiisinn:�i naouuuuu■ouuau■ r UNIIIaa■aaIIINU ■■aaa■ .aa. iiGiiiiiiiGiiiiGGiii��■ aaai�i luara •■■■r■■/r//aa/a■■a■■■//■ .aaa. �aaaaraaaar■aaarraaaaa■ aaa■aa araaa ■aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa _ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■/■■■■aaa■\■ .aaaa. ■araaaa■aa■aaraa■aaaaaaaaaaaaar I�iaraaaaaaaa■aaaaa UNIII■ ■ ■■■■■\r■araaaa■■■■■■■//a aaaaaa.e ■aaaaaar/aaaaraaaaaaaaaaaaa■ Iu■uaa■aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa■ - _ ■■aaraaaaaaaaaaraa■araar .aaaa■ laaaaaaraaraaraaaaaaaaaaaaa laaaaaaaaaaaaaaa■a■aaaaaa■ ■aaara■aaaaaaa/■a■aaaara, �iii�ri�laaaaaaa■:i. ■■aaaaa■aar■■■aaaaaaaaa■a■ aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa■ aaa■■\aaar■aaaa■araara■■ ■ra ■■aaararaa■aaaa■..aaaaaarr/aaraaaaaaaaaaa■af.� �iaia■aa■aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa MOS: am nummunHHUM ./aa■■aaa■//a/a■aa■■■U: ■aaraaaaaaaaraaaaaaaaa■■,�aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa■■a Iu:aa■aaaaaaa■aaaaaaaaaa■ ■■ =� nuuuuuuuuu■ur uuuuauuuaauaaaua, vruuaruuuunu uuouuuuuuuuuu � w o MI-O (Light Industrial, Oil Production/MI-O-CD (Light Industrial, Oil Production Civic District) - 75 gross acres. -- o RA-0 (Residential Agriculture, Oil Production/RA-O-CD (Residential Agriculture, Oil Production, Civic District) - 46.6 gross acres. o R5 (Professional Office) - 5 gross acres. • Oil production is allowed in all areas with zoning designations followed by "O" or 1101" which comprises all but approximately five acres of the site. Most of the oil zone is designated by 110", which allows maintenance and operation of oil production facilities, however, does not allow any new oil well drilling. The 1101" district allows drilling of new oil wells. The other allowed uses within each zoning designation include: - o RA (Residential Agriculture) - Single-family residences on a one-acre minimum parcel, (not including commercial animal enterprises) and, subject to a use permit, certain agricultural activities and wholesale distribution of plants and nursery stock. -- o MI (Light Industrial) - Most light industrial and manufacturing uses, including (but not limited to) oil production facilities, automotive repair facilities and storage yards. - o R5 (Office Professional) - Professional offices and, subject to a use permit, motels, hotels, and service establishments. The production of oil in Huntin gton ngton Beach is subject to several provisions, as stated in Title 15 of the Huntington Beach Oil Code (for easy reference, a copy of the Oil Code is attached in Appendix K of this EIR). These provisions are especially restrictive when oil production occurs within a developed area (as defined in the code). Specifically, production wells in developed areas must be landscaped so the well is screened (Section 15.12.040(b)); wells shall not be drilled within 100 feet of any residence (Section 15.20.030); well operations within 300 feet of any residence are restricted to maintenance of existing wells and are to be conducted within the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. (except in the case of an emergency) (Section 15.20.100); wells with moving parts potentially hazardous to the safety of persons shall be 42 enclosed with a fence (Section 15.20.160); oil-fired recovery heaters shall be located no closer than 100 feet from a residential unit if enclosed by a six-foot high masonry wall (500 feet without the wall) and gas-fired heaters shall be located no closer than 50 feet or 300 feet, respectfully, from residential units (Section 15.20.210). Several other provisions of the oil code are applicable to the safe and compatible operation _. of oil production facilities in residential zones, including provisions for soundproofing and muffling noisy facilities, fire prevention, general nuisance prevention, and abandonment and clean-up procedures. General Plan The City of Huntington Beach's General Plan is comprised of nine separate — elements: land use, circulation, open space and conservation, seismic safety, scenic highways, noise, housing, community facilities, and coastal. The latter element is not applicable to the project site. Land Use Element -The Land Use Element was designed to plan for general land uses _ in the city over the long term, and attempts to plan for compatible uses. The existing land use designations for the site and surrounding area are illustrated in — Exhibit 3 (Section 2.3, Project Description). Designations for the site are estate residential (2 du/ac or less and 4 du/ac or less), general industrial, and office _ professional. Designations for the areas surrounding the site include general commercial to the northwest, open space and industrial to the north, low-density residential to the northeast, medium-density residential and general industrial to the east, office professional to the southeast, high-density residential to the south, general industrial to the southwest, and estate residential to the west. - Circulation Element - The Circulation Element contains a Plan of Arterial Streets _ and Highways. This plan designates Gothard Street as a secondary roadway realigned to pass through the center of the site and connect to Crystal Street and Ernest Avenue. Other roadway designations are discussed in Section 3.8, Transportation and Circulation. Open Space Element - The Open Space and Conservation Element focuses on the preservation of open space and conservation of resources. The Open Space and _ Conservation Plan designates the northwest quarter of the site as "open space 43 • development." Uses within this designation should be planned to incorporate and • maximize open space. Seismic Safety Element - The Seismic Safety Element identifies areas of potential geologic hazard that could occur from seismic shaking. Most of the site is in a low • risk seismic zone; however, a small portion of the site is in a high risk zone and another, larger, portion is within a medium-high risk zone. Section 3.2, Geology/Soils/Oil Production, discusses the site's seismicity in detail. Scenic Highway Element - The Scenic Highway Element does not identify any scenic highways at or near the site. However, Golden West Street is recommended as a "landscaped corridor" in the area between Central Park and the coast, including where it passes the site. This designation is discussed in Section 3.7, Aesthetics. Noise Element -The Noise Element identifies areas of high noise levels and discusses policies to attenuate noise. The site is not identified as having high noise levels; '- however, the heliport being constructed north of the site as well as oil derricks on the site may have excessive noise levels. This is discussed in Section 3.10, Noise. Housing Element - The Housing Element provides goals for housing in the city, including the achievment of sound housing for all socioeconomic, racial, and ethnic groups of the community; the provision of a variety of housing opportunities by type, tenure, and cost for households of all sizes throughout the city; and the development of a balanced residential environment with access to employment opportunities, community facilities, and adequate services. The Housing Element expresses several . — policies to meet these goals. Generally, the policies are aimed at providing a variety of housing types throughout the city and encouraging housing affordability. Among its programs, the city provides density bonuses to developers who build affordable housing. The Housing Element has estimated that the city could be expected to support a total of 76,557 units (probable case) or 83,714 units (maximum case) at ultimate -- buildout based on the present Land Use Element. The element also states that growth projections could increase due to redevelopment, infilling, or GPAs. The city has not specified a specific "build-out" date, however, based on the SCAG 82 Growth Forecast, the city would be developed with 78,700 units by 1990, 83,400 units by 44 1995, and 85,700 units by 2000. SCAG-82 estimates are based on the city's general — plan but have been adjusted to consider regional growth patterns. Therefore, SCAG- 82 projections appear to be high when compared to the Housing Element's projections for the city's maximum housing supply. SCAG-82 population estimates for the city are 198,000, 203,000, and 206,640 for 1990, 1995, and 2000, respectively. Community Facilities Element - The Community Facilities Element discusses the provision of infrastructure to development areas. The supply and need for _ infrastructure at the site is discussed in Section 3.11, Public Services and Utilities. Related Projects Other new or proposed Huntington Beach developments in the vicinity which relate to the proposed project include the Seacliff Planned Community, the Downtown Specific Plan, Bolsa Chica, and Pacific Ranch. These projects relate to the project due to traffic generation and other cumulative impacts, and due to their implications for land use planning in the area. — The 112-acre Seacliff Planned Community development is located about a half mile _ southwest of the project site and is currently under construction. At build-out, it will include a total of 563 dwelling units with oil facilities interspersed throughout the development. This planned community's traffic generation has been included in the city's traffic model for the area. The city's Downtown Specific Plan area covers approximately 336 acres and is located approximately 2 miles south of the project site. This plan proposes the "revitilization" of the downtown through a mix of commercial, residential, and recreational uses which take advantage of the tourist opportunities of the beach location. Traffic from increased development in this downtown area has been included in the city's traffic model for the area. Bolsa Chica is the 1,600-acre coastal area in unincorporated Orange County, about 1 mile to the west of the study area. The county has adopted a Land Use Plan for this area which includes a mix of residential (up to 5,700 d.u.) and tourist-serving commercial, centered around a public marina and marsh restoration project. The Land Use Plan is currently under consideration by the Coastal Commission, however, 45 the City of Huntington Beach has already incorporated Bolsa Chica traffic • generation assumptions into their traffic model for affected parts of the city. Pacific Ranch is a 46-,acre planned residential development located at the northwest corner of Yorktown Avenue and Huntington Street (southeast of the Holly property). This development has been approved for up to 558 dwelling units. 3.6.2 Impacts • — Land Use Amendment of the General Plan, as proposed, would alter the kinds of land uses allowed to be developed on the site. Both the existing land use designations (residential, industrial, and office) and the proposed planned community residential designation could ultimately result in the alteration of the mostly undeveloped site to urban uses. Land use impacts associated with the existing General Plan have been evaluated as part of the citywide General Plan EIR. The following list of impacts could be expected from any kind of urban development on the site: o Alterations to the landform and topography (see Section 3.1). This would impact onsite areas. o Potential exposure to geologic hazards (see Section 3.2). This would impact future residents of the site. o Exposure to potential oil production hazards (see Section 3.2). This would impact future residents of the site. W o Alteration of hydrologic conditions (see Section 3.3). Onsite and offsite areas would be affected. o Disruption to biotic communities (see Section 3.4). Onsite resources would be affected. o Potential disruption of archaeological resources (see Section 3.5). Any i - resources located on the site would be affected. o Alteration of aesthetic resources (see Section 3.7). This would impact onsite and surrounding areas. o Increased traffic (see Section 3.8). This would impact surrounding areas although traffic volumes could be less with the GPA than under the •- current general plan. 46 i o Increased air pollutants (see Section 3.9). This would affect the regional airshed. o Increased noise (see Section 3.10). This would impact onsite and surrounding areas although noise could be less under the GPA than under the current general plan. o Increased demand on purveyors of public servicers and possibly utilities (see Section 3.11). This would impact local and regional purveyors. More demand on public services could be expected under the GPA than with the current general plan. Please refer to the sections noted above for a detailed discussion of these impacts, and possible methods for their mitigation. Land Use Compatibility The project site is located in an urbanizing area. Land uses are evolving from open space, oil production, and agricultural uses (i.e., horse stables, crops) to residential uses (to the northeast and south) and commercial/light industrial uses (to the northeast). The traditional low-intensity land uses located to the north of the site are being reaffirmed for this use, as expansion of this area into parkland associated with Huntington Central Park is proposed by the city. Alteration of onsite land uses from vacant, industrial (oil production), and (limited) residential to planned community residential uses comprising single- and multiple- family units will follow the general evolving trend for nearby land uses. The land use plan for the site is in its conceptual stage. However, as Exhibits 4 and 5 illustrate, the concept plan generally provides for a compatible interface between surrounding uses. The multiple-family units planned for the southern portion of the site (Area D on the site plan) are comparable with the multiple-family development already located to the south of the site. While industrial land uses are located to the south (south of Garfield) and east of the site, these uses are of low intensity and generally lack nuisance factors (i.e., noise, odors, etc.) that would make these uses incompatible with the proposed residential land uses. The industrial/storage yard land uses to the southeast (south of Ernest Avenue, east of Crystal Street) might be the source of nuisance odors and noise (see Sections 3.9 and 3.11), and they are visually incompatible with the proposed uses for the adjacent areas of the site (Product Areas A, C, and D on the concept plan). The low-density residential uses 47 • (6.4 du/ac) proposed for Product Area A on the site are more compatible with the low-intensity uses to the east (stables, open space) and north (stables, limited light -- industrial, proposed parkland). The medium-density uses proposed in Area B on the site plan (9.8 du/ac) are compatible with the medium-density residential development east/northeast of the site. • The proposed land uses will, in general, be internally compatible. However, oil wells ' located onsite could cause excessive odors and noise to any nearby residential units (see Sections 3.9 and 3.10). In addition, oil operations pose fire and safety problems i — which create potential hazards for onsite residents. These safety issues are discussed in Sections 3.2.2 and 3.11.1. Zonin The proposed planned community uses are not consistent with the existing zoning designations for the site. The maximum residential densities that could be constructed within the existing RA zoning designation (western portion of the site) . are two dwelling units per acre or four dwelling units per acre. Residential uses are not allowed within either the existing MI or R5 zoning designations. A zone change or specific plan will be required to bring the zoning into consistency with the general plan. General Plan The proposed amendment to the city's General Plan would change the land use -- designation for the site from General Industrial, Office Professional, and Estate Residential to Planned ro The Community. y proposed concept plan would be consistent with the proposed designation for the site. The planned community designation for the site would provide for more internally compatible land uses than would the mixture of industrial, office, and residential uses that could be developed within the existing general plan. -- The goals of the Open Space and Conservation Element, which designates the northwest quarter of the site as open space development, would be met if open space is maximized in Product Area A on the site plan. The concept plan for the project contains a greenbelt along the drainage courses in this area. 48 The conceptual site plan provides for a variety of housing types on the site, as listed below: Type Number of Units Acres (net) Single-Family Detached 350 54.8 Single-Family Attached 170 17.3 Multi-Family Townhouse 230 16.6 Multi-Family Flat 150 23.8 4200 While the range of housing and rental prices is not known at this time, estimates of these housing costs have been estimated for use in the fiscal impact analysis (see Section 5.0). It appears that a wide range of prices will occur as a result of the diversity in housing types, however, the provisions for affordable housing have not been identified. A project of this size could be a candidate for incorporation of affordable housing. Socioeconomics The result of the increase in housing is, of course, an increase in the city's population. Assuming other areas designated for residential are developed as planned, this would mean an increase in the total housing and population projected for the city at ultimate build-out. The proposed 1,200 units represent a 1.6 percent increase in the "probable" number of units the Housing Element has projected the city could support. It represents 1.4 percent of SCAG's estimates for the city's total housing supply for the year 2000 and represents 17 percent of the housing growth SCAG anticipates to occur between 1990 and 2000. 49 The amount of population expected from this development can be estimated using persons per unit rates from the 1980 census. As shown in the following table, the population from the proposed conceptual development would total approximately 2,810. • w Product Number Persons/Unit Population A. Single-Family Detached 350 3.27 1,145 B. Single-Family Attached 170 2,08 354 C. Multi-Family Townhouse 230 1.85 478 • _ D. Multi-Family Flat 450 1.85 833 2,810 This population represents 1.4 percent of SCAG's estimates of the city's total year- ., 2000 population. It represents 33 percent of the population growth SCAG anticipates to occur in the city between 1990 and 2000. The existing general plan would also have generated a residential population. ! Assuming 140 single-family detached units at 3.27 persons per unit, a population of 458 might have been generated. Therefore, the impacts associated with the existing general plan population would have been less than could result under the proposed - GPA. The GPA would also result in the removal of land use designations which could potentially generate employee opportunities. At maximum buildout, the professional office and light industrial land uses could have generated 2,324 jobs based on the typical employee rates shown below: -- Maximum Employees Per Land Use Square Footage 1,OOO sq.ft. Employees Industrial 19800,000 1 1,800 !� Office 131,000 4 524 Total 2,324 This employee number represents 1.9 percent of SCAG's estimated year-2000 employment for RSA 38 (which includes Huntington Beach, Seal Beach, Fountain - Valley, and Westminster). It also represents 0.16 percent of SCAG's estimated year- 2000 employment for the County of Orange as a whole. 50 Related Projects Amendment of the general plan to allow planned community residential uses is consistent with the trend in the area to develop areas which are phasing out their oil production land uses (such as is hapening in the Seacliff Planned Community and is proposed for Bolsa Chica. This practice will be continued with the proposed development. The proposed project will add to the cumulative traffic, air quality, and public services impacts associated with the Seacliff, Bolsa Chica, and other developments in the vicinity. The Downtown Specific Plan area is another area where oil facilities, in addition to older commercial uses, will be phased out over time for newer, more marketable commercial, office, and residential uses. The proposed project will not directly affect the downtown program, however, it will add to the support market for the downtown commercial and recreational redevelopment uses. The proposed project will also add to the traffic and other cumulative impacts associated with the Downtown Specific Plan. 3.6.3 Mitigation Measures Measures to mitigate impacts to landform and topography, geology, hydrology, biology, archaeology, aesthetics, traffic, air quality, noise, and public services and utilities are discussed in Sections 3.1-3.5 and 3.7-3.11 of this report. Measures to mitigate land use compatibility and planning impacts are discussed below: 1. The site should be visually screened from aesthetically incompatible land uses south of Ernest Avenue and east of Crystal Street. 2. Upon submittal of a tentative tract map for the site, a zone change from RA, MI, and R5 to specific plan is recommended. (The project applicant is proposing to submit a specific plan on the project.) 3. Product Area A, as designated on the conceptual plan, should be planned to maximize the open space potential presented by the presence of two converging drainage areas in order to comply with the General Plan Open Space and Conservation Element. 51 4. The applicant should strive to develop a variety of housing types and sizes and at a range of prices in order to comply with the General Plan Housing Element policies for affordable housing. 5. Fire and safety measures outlined by the city's Zoning Code, Oil Code, and Fire Department will be implemented to reduce hazards of mixing residential uses with existing and abandoned oil production facilities. Please refer to Sections 3.3.3 and 3.11.1 for further fire and safety -� measures related to the oil production activities. • r 52 3.7 AESTHETIC RESOURCES 3.7.1 hosting Conditions Viewshed of Site From Surrounding Land Uses Because of its size and proximity to roadways, the project site is highly visible from a large surrounding area. The site is visible as a large area of undeveloped open space, punctuated in places with oil production facilities. Large eucalyptus trees, forming a row running northwest to southeast on the southern or southeastern portion of the site are somewhat visible from all areas surrounding the site, and highly visible from Gothard Street, Garfield, Crystal, and Ernest Avenues. Also visible from Gothard and Garfield is a small, low-profile church on the northeast corner. Oil production facilities on the northern half of the site are highly visible along Gothard from a point approximately 250 yards north of Garfield up to Ellis Avenue, and are also visible along the entire stretch of Ellis between Golden West and Gothard. Oil production facilities include small storage tank farms, several pumps, and one or two field offices. A swale and a small creek bisects the northern portion of the site and generally runs from east to west. The creek runs from Gothard to a large oil production area approximately 700 feet to the west where it runs underground and trickles into a swale to the northwest. The viewshed from Gothard to the west is of the creek and relatively dense oil production facilities. From Golden West Street, oil production facilities, stables, and two single family residences can be viewed. Viewshed From the Site The viewshed from the site is highly variable. The mushroom farm, a fairly new glass and metal commercial/industrial building and single- and multiple-family residences are visible to the northwest across Ellis Avenue. Three large white 53 • r warehouse-type structures east of Gothard are visible from the eastern portion of the site. To the south across Garfield, multi-family residences, automotive repair, and oil production facilities are in view. The viewshed from the site across Crystal Avenue and south of Ernst Avenue is of an oil production facility, commercial storage structures, a junk yard, and industrial storage yards (i.e., the used tire storage yard). Across Golden West Street to the west are views of the American Landscape Company (to the southwest) and stables. Visible to the northwest across Ellis Street at Golden West Street is an automotive repair building and horse stables. 3.7.2 Impaets «. Amendment of the general plan as proposed would alter the land uses planned for the site. Both the existing land use designation (residential, industrial, and office) and • the proposed planned community residential designation would result in• the alteration of the site to urban uses. Development of the site as conceptually proposed would alter the viewsheds of the site both from surrounding land uses and from onsite areas. The site will convert from a somewhat open area to an urban area developed with residential uses. Therefore, site development could be considered a significant impact from the „r standpoint that this openness would be removed. The development could improve the view of oil production facilities if they are _ screened, camouflaged, or otherwise improved in their aesthetic appearance. However, if no aesthetic treatment of oil production facilities is implemented, the • site would lose some of its potential aesthetic appeal. As discussed in Section 3.1.2, the drainage course in the northeastern portion of the site is to be filled (east of the realigned Gothard'Street), raising the elevation in this area up to 20 feet. This will effectively remove a portion of this topographic feature from the site. On the western half of the site, (west of the realigned Gothard Street), the swale area is also to be filled and contoured, raising the elevation by approximately 5 feet. This swale area is proposed to be retained in open space as a drainage course withlandscaped greenbelt on either side. 54 The industrial development and storage yards south of Ernest Avenue and west of Crystal Avenue are aesthetically incompatible with the proposed residential development. This is especially evident south of Ernest where the tire storage yards are not screened from the project site. The tire storage and junk yards west of Crystal Avenue are somewhat screened from the site by special fencing, however, these uses could still be considered incompatible with residential uses. The city's landscaping requirements for Crystal Avenue, when widened to connect with the realigned Gothard Street, should reduce the visual effect of the industrial uses on the proposed residential area. 3.7.3 Mitigation Measures Several measures are recommended to reduce the overall aesthetic impacts, to enhance the aesthetic character of the site,.and to make the site and surrounding land uses aesthetically compatible. 1. The topography of the creek and swale area should be retained on the site wherever feasible in order to provide an interesting relief feature to future onsite residents and to retain a potentially significant aesthetic resource. Open space in this portion of the site should be maximized. 2. Wherever feasible, oil production facilities onsite should be consolidated to reduce their total number. Facilities that remain onsite should be painted, camouflaged, or otherwise screened by perimeter walls, plantings, or like treatments to reduce their unsightliness to future onsite residents. Landscaping and screening provisions of the Huntington Beach Oil Code, Title 15, Chapter 22 should be followed. 3. The viewshed from the site to industrial uses south of Ernest Avenue should be altered by either providing vegetative or other type screening on the fences of these facilities, and/or on the project site boundary. 4. The city's landscaping requirements for Crystal Avenue (when widened to connect with realigned Gothard) should mitigate some of the visual imcompatibilities between the existing industrial area west of Crystal Avenue and the proposed residential uses. 55 • i 3.8 TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION The following is a summary of the traffic report prepared by Basmaciyan-Darnell, Inc. in August 1984, and amended via correspondence in December 1984. The report �- and correspondence are included in Appendix G. 3.8.1 Existing Conditions Circulation System and Roadway Characteristics i Regional access to the study area is provided by the I-405 (San Diego) Freeway, Pacific Coast Highway, Golden West Street, and Beach Boulevard. The site is bordered by Ellis Avenue, Gothard Street, Garfield Avenue, Golden West Street, Ernest Avenue, and Crystal Street. Exhibit 17 illustrates the alignments of these and other roadways and presents the corresponding existing traffic volumes. Table 3 summarizes the existing and master planned characteristics of these roadways. Capacity Anslysis The four major intersections in the vicinity were analyzed using the Intersection .. Capacity Utilization (ICU) method. In brief, this method determines the amount of green time being utilized at an intersection and related this to a quantitative description (or Level of Service) of the operating characteristics of that intersection. Table 4 summarizes the ICU analyses for the intersections. Copies of. the ICU worksheets are found in Appendix B, as well as an explanation of Levels of . Service. -- Review of Table 4 indicates that each of the intersections are operating at Level of Service (LOS) A. This represents a free flowing condition and minimum delay to vehicles approaching the intersection. 56 -• 51000 Talbert Avenue MENNEN m m � m « o � m 0to 0 0 m m o 9 0 0 3 to ro W N w 9 O O O Ellis Avenue 1,600 11500 12,800 800 0 Project Site " 1 Ernest St '`� N p 500 m m . o ` Garfield Avenue N 3,400� 8,880 12,900 3,400 5,880 m m Huntington Seaclift Country Club o ♦p �` o m rrr N ••• w.r Yorktown Yorktown Avenue Avenue ■ ' o o` z LEGEND <<m XXX - DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUME es` m `amc Adams Avenue 0 • 9` r _ •oJ�fc C WM o 0 '� e c _ Pam Ocean SOURCE: CALTRANS AND ESTIMATES BY 801 BASED ON 1978 HUNTINGTON BEACH COUNTS ''- EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES WOLLL lnUVME .NO SCALE OOG�WUH07V/C�pQ � 4 City of Huntington Beach EXHIBIT 17 TABLE 3 SUMMARY OF' ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS Location Existing Condition Master Plan Classification Talbert Avenue West of Gothard Street 2-lanes undivided Primary Road 4-lane divided Ellis Avenue West of Gothard Street 2-lanes undivided Primary Road 4-1ane divided East of Gothard Street 4-lanes undivided Secondary Road 4-lane undivided Garfield Avenue West of Goldenwest Street 2-1anes undivided Major Road 6-lane divided East of Goldenwest Street 4-lanes undivided Primary Road 4-lane divided Yorktown Avenue West of Beach Boulevard 4-lanes undivided Primary Road 4-lane divided East of Beach Boulevard 4-lanes undivided Secondary Road 4-lane undivided Adams Avenue West of Beach Boulevard 4-lanes and painted Primary Road 4-lane divided median Goldenwest Street North of Garfield Avenue 4-lanes undivided Primary Road 4-lane divided South of Garfield Avenue 4-lanes undivided Major Road 6-1ane divided Gothard Street North of Ellis Avenue 3-lanes undivided Secondary Road 4-1ane undivided South of Ellis Avenue 2-lanes undivided Secdonary Road 4-lane undivided Main Street 4-lanes divided Primary Road 4-1ane divided Seventeenth Street 2-lanes undivided Secondary Road 4-lane undivided Beach Boulevard 6-lanes divided Major Road 6-lane divided. TABLE 4 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION AND LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR EXISTING CONDITIONS _ A.M. P.M. Intersection ICU LOS ICU LOS _ Ellis Avenue at: Gothard Street 0.35 A 0.38 A Golden West Street 0.29 A 0.38 A Garfield Avenue at: Golden West Street 0.32 A 0.34 A Main Street/Gothard Street 0.42 A 0.53 A Level of Service is defined as:. A = ICU O.00to0.60 B = ICU 0.61 to 0.70 - C = ICU 0.71 to0.80 D = ICU 0.81 to 0.90 E = ICU 0.91 to 1.00 F =ICU 1.01 or greater For more detailed Level of Service description, refer to Appendix G. In addition to the intersection capacity analysis, daily roadway capacity analyses were prepared. The roadway capacities are representative of the streets in the study area. Utilizing the existing average daily traffic volumes and LOS C capacity for each roadway segment the volume to capacity ratio can be calculated. The results of these analyses are presented on Table 5. A V/C ratio of less than 1.0 means that the roadway is operating within its available LOS C daily capacity whereas a V/C ratio greater than 1.0 means that the LOS C daily capacity is exceeded. Review of ` Table 5 shows that Golden West Street between Talbert and Garfield Avenues is presently exceeding its LOS C capacity. - 58 TABLE 5 EXISTING ROADWAY SEGMENT CAPACITY ANALYSIS Existing LOS "C" V/C Roadway Segment ADT Capacity Ratio Talbert Avenue Golden West St. to Gothard St. 5,000 10,000 0.50 Ellis Avenue Edwards St. to Golden West St. 600 10,000 0.60 Golden West St. to Gothard St. 1,600 109000 0.16 Huntington St. to Beach Blvd. 1,500 109000 0.15 East of Beach Boulevard 121800 20,000 0.64 Garfield Avenue Golden West St. to Gothard St. 3,400 10,000 0.34 Gothard St. to Main St. 5,850 101000 0.59 �., East of Beach Boulevard 12,900 20,000 0.65 Golden West Street Talbert Avenue to Ellis Avenue 259000 209000 1.25 Ellis Avenue to Garfield Avenue 23,100 20,000 1.16 Garfield Avenue to Yorktown Avenue 199300 23,000 0.97 ._ Gothard Street Talbert Avenue to Ellis Avenue 62500 109000 0.65 Ellis Avenue to Garfield Avenue 69100 109000 0.61 Main Street Seventeenth St. to Huntington St. 17,700 300000 0.59 Garfield Avenue to Yorktown Ave. 20,400 309000 0.68 ~ Beach Boulevard Talbert Avenue to Ellis Avenue 36,000 459000 0.80 Ellis Avenue to Garfield Avenue 269000 451000 0.58 .' Garfield Avenue to Yorktown Avenue 26,000 45,000 0.58 ADT: Average Daily Traffic 59 3.8.2 Future Conditions Roadway Characteristics Not all of the facilities in the vicinity of the project are constructed to their Master Plan of Arterial Highway (MPAH) classification. Table 3 provides a comparison of each roadway's existing and master planned configurations. Figure 4 in Appendix G presents the portion of the MPAH for the area surrounding the project site. Future Traffic Volumes Future traffic volume forecasts for the roadways surrounding the proposed project were obtained from the City of Huntington Beach Transportation Model, Alternative 1. These volumes are presented in Figure 5 in Appendix G and represent expected Post 1995 traffic conditions. The traffic volume forecasts include future development of the Bolsa Chica area and arterial crossings of the Santa Ana River into Costa Mesa. Roadway Segment Capacity Analysis To assess future traffic conditions, a capacity analysis was prepared for the various roadways in the study area. Table 6 shows that several roadway segments are expected to exceed their LOS C or D capacity (denoted by a V/C greater than 1.0). Specifically, portions of Ellis Avenue, Garfield Avenue, Golden West Street, Gothard Street, and Beach Boulevard are expected to exceed LOS C or D capacity. LOS C is generally accepted as the planning tool for long-range forecasts whereas LOS D capacity is generally used to identify acceptable conditions for urban areas. Volume to capacity ratios that exceed 1.0 indicate roadway segments which are expected to reach or exceed their daily capacity and experience delay and congestion. Realignment of Gothard Street The Master Plan of Arterial Highways shows Gothard Street to be constructed as a secondary arterial and realignment westerly from Ellis Avenue to connect with Crystal Street at Ernest Avenue and then continue south to Garfield Avenue. In addition, a further extension of Gothard Street southerly of Garfield Avenue to Main 60 liable 6 SUMMARY OF EXISTING GENERAL PLAN POST 1995 DAILY TRAFFIC(a) ROADWAY SEGMENT CAPACITY ANALYSIS(b) FOR PROJECT SITE Future LOS "C" V/C LOS "D" V/C Roadway Segment ADT Capacity Ratio Capacity Ratio Talbert Avenue East of Goldenwest Street 20,200 30,000 0.67 33,000 0.61 West of Gothard Street 19,800 30,000 0.66 33,000 0.60 Ellis Avenue [Jest of Goldenwest Street 23,700 30,000 0.79 33,000 0.72 Goldenwest St. to Gothard St. 21,700 30,000 0.72 33,000 0.66 - Gothard St. to Huntington St. 25,500 20,000 1.28 22,000 1.16 Huntington St. to Main St. 21,900 20,000 1.10 22,000 1.00 East of Beach Boulevard 27,900 20,000 1.40 22,000 1.27 Garfield Avenue West of Goldenwest Street 44,100 45,000 0.98 49,500 0.89 Goldenwest St. to Gothard St. 33,200 30,000 1.11 33,000 1.01 Gothard Street to Main Street 28,000 30,000 0.91 33,000 0.83 `lain St. to Huntington Street 28,000 30,000 0.93 33,000 0.85 Huntington St. to Seventeenth St. 31,120 30,000 1.04 33,000 0.94 Seventeenth St. to Beach Blvd. 35,660 30,000 1.19 33,000 1.08 -' East of Beach Boulevard 37,600 30,000 1.25 33,000 1.14 Goldenwest Street Talbert Avenue to Ellis Avenue 41,100 30,000 1.37 33,000 1.24 South of Ellis Avenue 43,700 . 30,000 1.46 33,000 1.32 North of Garfield Avenue 42,900 30,000 1.43 33,000 1.30 South of Garfield Avenue 48,700 45,000 1.08 49,500 0.98 Gothard Street North of Ellis Avenue 19,300 20,000 0.96 22,000 0.88 South of Ellis Avenue 13,860 20,000 0.69 22,000 0.63 North of Garfield Avenue 13,910 20,000 0.70 22,000 0.63 South of Garfield Avenue 21,000 20,000 1.05 22,000 0.95 Main Street South of Ellis Avenue 18,800 30,000 0.63 33,000 0.57 Huntington St. to Garfield Ave. 18,600 30,000 0.62 33,000 0.56 South of Garfield Avenue 19,500 30,000 0.65 33,000 0.59 Beach Boulevard - South of Talbert Avenue 62,300 45,000 1.38 49,500 1.26 North of Ellis Avenue 61,900 45,000 1.38 49,500 1.25 South of Ellis Avenue 50,300 45,000 1.12 49,500 . 1.02 North of Garfield Avenue 49,100 45,000 1.09 49,500 0.99 South of Garfield Avenue 45,900 45,000 1.02 49,500 0.93 (a) Without Proposed General Plan Amendment -- (b) Based on `taster Plan Roadway Configurations r 61 Street is planned. Exhibit 18 presents the existing traffic volumes for the area with Gothard Street realigned. The major implication of this realignment is the elimination of the five-way intersection at Main Street/Garfield Avenue/Gothard Street. Analysis of the realignment of Gothard Street was prepared by redistributing the existing daily and peak hourly turning volumes and the calculating ICU's. With Gothard Street realigned the existing morning peak hour ICU would be 0.39, LOS A and the evening peak hour ICU would be 0.41, LOS A. 3.8.3 Impacts To evaluate the impact of the proposed GPA, the trips generated by the proposed conceptual development of 1,200 units are estimated and analyzed for their impact on the streets existing and ultimate circulation system. In addition, the project's trip generation is compared to the trips that could be generated by the current general plan designations for the site. Trips Generated To assess the traffic-related impacts of the proposed 1,200 dwelling units on the surrounding circulation system, tripmaking to/from the proposed site was estimated and distributed to the surrounding roadways. Based on the trip generation rates presented . in Table 7 the proposed development of 1,200 dwelling units would generate 9,620 daily vehicle trip ends. During the morning peak hour 842 trip ends would be generated and during the afternoon peak hour 859 trip ends would be generated. Table 8 provides a summary of the project-related daily, AM and PM traffic. Based on trip distribution characteristics developed for the site, the average daily trip ends were distributed onto the circulation system, as shown on Exhibit 19. To assess cumulative traffic conditions, estimates of project-related traffic were then added to the existing traffic volumes on the surrounding roadway system. The resulting average daily traffic volumes are presented on Exhibit 20. 62 • 51000 Talbert Avenue a � cc 1n Q W w 7 O O m O m 3 C CY 3 0 W C " t lh e 0 C7 Ellis Avenue 11800 1,500 w o Pro ject� Site " Esc o0 0 � o Ernest Street c Soo c N Garfield Avenue " 3,600 51850 12,900 4,200 51850 Huntington 3eacllff . Country Ctu� N Yorktown � Yorktown Avenue . ,ei Avenue WAWA- LEGEND ab� m XXX - DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES sec Adams Avenue `0s A __ ec• � iA Pacific Ocean -- SOURCE: SA8MACIYAN-DARNELL. INC. EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES/ ._ GOTHARD STREET REALIGNMENT UIi(OLLU ( LAMED NO SCALE - COO G�G`�1Ma���sC�pQ R 4 • City of Huntington Beach Nap& ,�;,�g.,,�,.,,A.,,;... EXHIBIT IS Table 7 SUMMARY OF TRIP GENERATION RATES • PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AM Peal: Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use Daily IN OUT IN OUT -' Single Family detached 10/DU 0 . 3/DU 0. 6/DU 0 . 5/DU 0 . 4/DU • Single Family attached 8/DU 0 .2/DU 0.5/DU 0. 5/DU 0 .3/DU Multi-Family townhomes 7/DU 0 . 2/DU 0. 4/DU 0. 4/DU 0 .2/DU Multi-Family flats 7/DU 0 .2/DU 0 . 4/DU 0 . 4/DU 0 . 2/DU EXISTING GENERAL PLAN FOR PROJECT SITE AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use Daily IN OUT IN OUT • Industrial 5. 5/KSF 0 . 85/KSF 0 . 15/KSF 0 .32/KSF 0 . 63/KSF Office 14/KSF 1 . 87/KSF 0. 22/KSF 0. 44/KSF 1 . 76/KSF Single-Family detached 10/DU 0.3/DU 0.6/DU 0.5/DU 0. 4/DU • DU = Dwelling Units KSF = Thousand Square Feet • 63 Table 8 SUMMARY OF PROJECT-RELATED TRIP GENERATION PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AM Peak Hour PM Peak flour Land Use Units Daily IN OUT IN OUT Single Family detached 350 DU 3500 TE 105 TE 210 TE 175 TE 140 TE Single Family attached 170 DU 1360 TE 34 TE 85 TE 85 TE 51 TE Multi-Family 680 DU 4760 TE 136 TE 272 TE 272 TE 136 TE PROJECT TOTAL. 1200 DU 9620 TE 275 TE 567 TE 532 TE 327 TE EXISTING GENERAL PLAN FOR PROJECT SITE rn AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use Units Daily IN OUT IN OUT Industrial 1 ,800,000 KSF 9900 TE 1530 TE 270 TE 576 TE 1134 TE Office 131 , 000 KSF 1834 TE 245 TE 29 TE 58 TE 231 TE Single Family Detached 140 DU 1400 TE 42 TE 84 TE 70 TE 56 TE TOTAL 13, 134 TE 1817 TE 383 TE 704 TE 1421 TE Existing General Plan Less Proposed Holly Planned Community 3, 514 TE 1542 TE 184 TE 172 TE 1094 TE DU = Dwelling Units KSF Thousand Square Feet TE = Trip Ends • ,r Talbert Avenue ° ao ,o a q T i v y o o to m 7 P. r m ip go P. O am NO to to to to Nr r �3 � 40 N N of N CY Goa \ 9 O O � C7 Ellis Avenue — 722/41/80 722/41/80 722/ 5/49 722/86/49 cl • op Pro jectco N ` 00� N �\ -- Siteno titi\��y e� ti\ a Ernest Street Garfield Avenue i 1203/89/1 3 •- 203/69/133 481/28/53 �- 481/57l33 A „ 1203/142/83 1203/142/8 y' 481/57/33 -i481/28/53 VCo m m W Huntington Seaclift V e�� .0 aa` ` ` Country Cluo to a �\�\40 5`� a c`°Dv 40 1 Yorktown Yorktown Avenue • �� Avenue v LEGEND m XXX/YYY/ZZZ — PROJECT— ,,, RELATED DAILY/AM/PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC \bac Adams Avenue G� • �a 5` 'c e s aPac fic dy r .Ocean SOURCE: BASMACIYAN—DARNELL. INC. • ._ PROJECT-RELATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES MOO L�L�U Lr LQI MERD"I NO SCALE no + City of Huntington Beach EXHIBIT 19 Talbert Avenue o m 03 V m N a o 0 8,990 c� Ellis Avenue 2.080 2.940 2,940 1 13,240 m m` • Pro jject° Site 0• N Ernest Streeto 4 -- c 9,470 FAO Garfield Avenue N 4680 8,250 13,860 _ 8,250 • a w Huntington Seacliff c� 8630 as • .. Gauntry Club 4. o �..i N O N r m W �. N Yorktown Yorktown Avenue •� �� „� Avenue ^r' 0 0 aa m LEGEND •e m XXX - DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES Adams Avenue o� C? a� cm 5` A _ 40. N rn e � o t C y Pacific ��'�y, ay Crean SOURCE: BASMACIYAN-DARNELL. INC. EXISTING PLUS • PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES aOf�[�� G°�L�La(vlaCD NO SCALE no • City of Huntington Beach „ EXHIBIT 20 '- Based on rough estimates of maximum buildout, the existing General Plan land use • designations for the site could be expected to generate up to 13,134 daily trip ends.' Approximately 2,200 of these trips would occur during the morning peak hour and 2,125 would occur during the afternoon peak hour to the surrounding roadways. Therefore, as summarized in Table 8, the proposed GPA would be expected to reduce • the number of potential trips by 3,514 daily trip ends. Vehicle Miles Traveled • ~- Based on previous studies and experience at similar developments, the average length of trips to/from the proposed residential development would be 8.0 miles. The ._ average trip length factor was applied to the estimated average daily trip ends for the proposed project. The resulting vehicle miles traveled for residential tripmaking • would be approximately 76,960 miles. Roadway Capacity Analysis Cumulative traffic conditions (estimated project-related and existing traffic • - volumes) on the surrounding roadway system are depicted on Exhibit 20. Referring to this figure and the summarized traffic volume projections in Table 8, it can be seen that project-related traffic will primarily add to the capacity concerns on • Golden West Street, between Talbert Avenue and Yorktown Avenue, as the volume to capacity ratio is above the desired V/C ratio of 1.0 or less. Utilizing the data presented in Exhibit 20, the existing roadway capacity analysis was performed and is summarized in Table 9. Table 9 provides a comparison of the • effect of project-related traffic on the existing roadways. This table provides a comparison of roadway segment V/C ratios at LOS C capacity for existing plus project-related traffic. 1 This is based on the assumption that the site is built out at its maximum under . the existing general plan: 140 estate residential units, 1.8 million square feet light industrial, and 131,000 square feet of professional office. If developed with lower intensities, the number of trips generated would be commensurately lower. 65 • Table 9 . SUMMARY OF ROADWAY SEGMENT CAPACITY ANALYSIS EXISTING PLUS PROJECT-RELATED TRAFFIC Existing + Project- Related LOS "C" V/C Roadway Segment Traffic Capacity Ratio Ellis Avenue Goldenwest St. to Gothard St. 2 , 080 10, 000 0 . 21 Huntington St. to Beach Blvd. 2 , 940 10,000 0 . 29 East of Beach Boulevard 13, 240 20, 000 0 . 66 Garfield Avenue Goldenwest St . to Gothard St. 4 , 560 10 , 000 0. 46 _ Gothard St. to Seventeenth St. 8 ,530 10 , 000 0. 85 East of Beach Boulevard 13 , 860 20, 000 0 . 69 Goldenwest Street Talbert Avenue to Ellis Avenue 26 , 440 20 , 000 1 . 32 Ellis Avenue to Garfield Avenue 24 ,060 20, 000 1 . 20 Garfield Avenue to Yorktown Avenue 20 , 260 20 ,000 1 . 01 _ Gothard Street Talbert Avenue to Ellis Avenue 7 , 460 10, 000 0 . 75 Ellis Avenue to Garfield Avenue 9 , 470 10 ,000 0. 95 Main Street Seventeenth St. to Huntington St. 19, 140 30, 000 0 . 64 - Garfield Avenue to Yorktown Ave. 21 , 360 30 ,000 0 .71 Beach Boulevard _ Talbert Avenue to Ellis Avenue 37 , 920 45 , 000 0 .84 Ellis Avenue to Garfield Avenue 27 , 440 45 , 000 0 .61 Garfield Avenue to Yorktown Avenue 26 , 960 45, 000 0 . 60 66 A review of Table 9 shows that project-related traffic will primarily add to the • capacity concerns on Golden West Street between Talbert Avenue and Yorktown Avenue. The next step in the process involves the assessment of future (post 1995) daily • traffic volumes. Exhibit 21 presents the post-1995 daily traffic volumes with and without project-related traffic. Table 6, presented previously, summarizes post-1995 daily traffic volumes and the roadway segment capacity analysis without project- related traffic. Presented in Table 10 is a summary of post-1995 daily traffic • volumes with project-related traffic and a roadway segment capacity analysis. The table shows that the following roadway segments would exceed their LOS C or D capacity: Ellis Avenue - Gothard Street to Beach Boulevard Garfield Avenue - Golden West Street to Gothard Street - East of Beach Boulevard • Golden West Street - Talbert Avenue to south of Ellis Avenue Beach Boulevard - South of Talbert Avenue to south of Garfield Avenue • To improve the roadway V/C ratios to 1.0 or less in the analysis, Ellis Avenue and Golden West Street segments were upgraded to the next higher roadway classification. Volume to capacity analyses were performed and it was determined that each segment would be significantly improved. Analysis of Beach Boulevard • _ has not been performed, however, a detailed study has been prepared by the Orange County Transportation Commission. Intersection Capacity Analysis In addition to the roadway segment analysis, Intersection Capacity Utilization analyses were performed at five intersections in the vicinity of the project site using the existing plus project-related traffic conditions (see Table 11). It was found that all five intersections fall within the LOS A and are, therefore, expected to experience "free-flow" conditions in both the morning and afternoon peak hours. . 67 Talbert Avenue a m m O a � .. � O 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 H O CDO .+ Op O a 00 0 Oa m e. 0 ".� v Co o ; 13.900 c -; m W \ �► (12.700)c � O O 21.700 25,500 21.900 27,900 Ellis Avenue (21.500) (24.900) (21.300) 27 300) 42.900 - 42.¢00) aL F�roject O o Site ti O a N b Ernest Street cc O ,Va Gartieic Avenue " 37,800 28.A00 8.000 (37,200) 28.3(1 (27,000 (33,20C 0 - • Huntington 3eacliff32.800) 1. 00 Country Club c? q Cb. g p 0 1 0 0 21.000 � �r m iO ^ ^� to w } (20.800) �1 v ~� Yorktown Yorktown Avenue Avenue � m .0210 O V LEGEND 1'yg��g00 XXX - POST 1905 DAILY ro VOLUMES - yiae``fig. m (YYY) - POST 1995 DAILY w� Adams Avenue VOLUME FORECASTS WITH PROJECT- RELATED TRAFFIC aa` VOLUMES .o 1�cg s m r,� $ c _ e /y, Pacific 'gyp, JCBan - - SOURCE: BASMACIYAN-DARNELL. INC. -• POST 1995 DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES u uOLLu u UMFED NO SCALE o 4 4 City of Huntington Beach — EXHIBIT 21 Access and Internal Circulation • Exhibit 21 depicts the proposed Holly Planned Community. Each of the collector roads within the site have been labeled "A" through "F" and each critical intersection has been identified and numbered 1 through 10. Project-related daily traffic was • then assigned to each roadway for the purposes of analyzing the adequacy of each roadway and for identification of any problem areas. Also presented on Exhibit 22 ~ are the expected project-related daily traffic volumes. • - Review of the exhibit shows that each of the interior roadways are expected to operate satisfactorily. Further review of the intersections/access points identified potential problems with the spacing of two intersections along Gothard Street. The spacing between 'B" Street and "E" Street along Gothard Street (Intersections 2 and 3 on Exhibit 21) were found to be too close to operate satisfactorily. In addition to the spacing problem, the intersections as proposed are located within the '- horizontal and vertical curvature alignment of Gothard Street. To mitigate this concern it is recommended that the site be redesigned to align "B" and "E" Streets • .. across from each other to create a four-way intersection. Also, the revised location should be a minimum of 800 feet south of Ellis Avenue. The remaining intersections were found to be adequate. At the intersection of • Garfield Avenue and "F" Street (Intersection 10) it is recommended that a left and a ' right turn lane entering Garfield Avenue be provided. -- Traffic Control • The need for traffic signals were analyzed and it was determined that one would be needed at the intersection of Garfield Avenue and Gothard/Crystal Street due to the realignment of Gothard and project-related traffic. Review of the traffic signal warrant worksheets (see Appendix G) found that a — traffic signal at Golden West Street and Ernest would not be warranted. However at Garfield Avenue and Gothard Street/Crystal Street a traffic signal would be • warranted due to the realignment of Gothard Street and the addition of project- related traffic. 70 • ------- - -- - - - — s Avenue _ i Ue I�(fit:_1- �.:;, l i. .:.1 ` y,( j_,r,_��,��(' +7,,�• �}j 1 I I{ 1 _.�.;tl.,� - I r1r,11�`It-1'l"1 �14�`r1�f 0)t•r,�l I i 1f1i `1�(��I����fl[iTll(�1�'1➢J�1 31i���1]I'.1�1r1��<�t!r�r )I1Y{��1� '•I(j/411,'/'./ �I-1�. , r r"O / .+1 1J�11�ltltl t ��•�, il,-;,';�'-� ft13�1��'� ll� �m��t,lil�rl;• ;� -����r1r rI /cVj 13 I l•�'li;�. W1Q� 7 ' �- ������S��lrJ� :� _ ' .; � ; ,:��J 1'S.;, r['i �:,, .� �Il. Cz q , �!( �t"r !'�ti�' ��7�i ��iYl.lis�li • ( ' '/� it JvP!, A �� .' �• � .ry % �C'�.�%� �j�•4% '�.4 Cr�1� �.;T�' :�`'� �l'1frills�l . c`�ir" �4 � 1�11 �.� l� .r 1w Gi• ` ���r/����t�,;���1�1 � Ernest Street I - 21 80 ... 9 04V ._ .. •, l �� �. �. L r d11YT) N D �W� iS11D 'j� j IUD wl fxnb r 1cr �Irl .Inunnumll i II IYS (Illhllllldlllllll (nnunur. ')unnuunnd IIIIIIII1111MHIIIIIIVU ' II �L.- _ Garfield Avenue IM ���� �.����1� J 3 I f• k' t s LEGEND SOURCE: BA8MACIYAN—DARNELL. INC. AACCESS XXX — PROJECT—RELATED DAILY TRAFFIC SITE ACCESS AND INTERNAL CIRCULATION MOLLY [PUM D City of Huntington Beach1 -1 ,,, 0 220 4s0 FEET EXHIBIT 22 At Gothard Street and Ernest Avenue a traffic signal would not be warranted. • However, Ernest Avenue traffic should be stopped with a stop sign prior to entering — Gothard Street. Gothard Street Realignment Considerations • The most significant effect of the initial realignment of Gothard Street will be that southbound traffic currently using Gothard will be redirected to the Garfield/Gothard/Crystal intersection then turn left to travel east on Garfield to • `" reach the Main Street intersection to continue east and/or south on Main Street. Northbound travel would be the opposite of the southbound travel. This movement will result in a slight increase in travel distance until such time that Gothard Street is extended south to Main Street. • _ The City of Huntington Beach concerns for this area are related to the future extension of Gothard Street south of Garfield Avenue to its master plan connection with Main Street. The traffic consultant's examinations of the cumulative traffic conditions with the Holly Planned Community show that the adjacent street system — can adequately accommodate the Holly Planned Community without the future extension. Traffic to/from the Holly Planned Community does not create the need for the • future extension of Gothard Street south of Garfield Avenue to Main Street. However it can be concluded that the realignment of Gothard Street within the Holly Planned Community initiates the ultimate need for the future extension by implementing the Gothard Street realignment as shown on the City's Master Plan of • Arterial Highways (MPAH). As development in the area adjacent to the Gothard Street extension occurs, the City of Huntington Beach should require that this roadway be implemented. • The alignment and geometric design of Gothard Street as presented on the Holly Planned Community Concept Plan was evaluated to determine its adequacy. The evaluation considered horizontal and vertical curvature, spacing of intersections, sight distance, and alignment at Ellis Avenue. •- 71 • The traffic study concludes that the realignment will be satisfactory provided the following measures are included in the final site design and roadway design: 1. The intersection of Ernest Avenue and "F" Street be separated a minimum of 400 feet or aligned to form a four-way intersection. 2. The intersection of "B" Street and "E" Street should be separated a minimum of 400 feet or aligned opposite each other to form a four-way _ intersection. In addition, a four-way intersection should not be located closer than 600 feet to Ellis Avenue. 3. Design of the sag vertical curve (at Gothard's intersection with "E" Street _.. south of Ellis) should take into consideration adequate sight distance and safe stopping distance. 4. The design of slope banks, walls and landscaping at intersections should be carefully reviewed during preparation of the grading plans and street '- improvement plans. It is recommended that design criteria presented on the County of Orange Standard Plan No. 117 be utilized. A copy of the — Standard Plan is included in Appendix G. 72 3.8.4 Mitigation Measures • 1. The proposed project is expected to contribute to future roadway segment congestion in the vicinity of the project site. The post-1995 traffic conditions are expected to exceed their LOS C and LOS D capacity. This • condition is anticipated with the proposed project as well as with the present general plan designations for the project site-. To mitigate these future conditions, it is recommended that the City of Huntington Beach Circulation Element be amended with or without the GPA as follows: • a. Upgrade MPAH classification of Golden West Street north of Garfield Avenue from a primary arterial, four-lane divided, to a major arterial, six-lane divided. The city is currently proposing the upgrading of this classification from primary to major. b. Upgrade MPAH classification of Ellis Avenue east of Gothard Street by either redesignating it from a secondary arterial (four-lane undivided) to a primary arterial (four-lane divided), or by restriping the street • .. within the existing right-of-way for two lanes each direction, a painted median and no paridng. 2. Mitigation measures for Beach Boulevard are not addressed in this report but can be found in the Beach Boulevard Corridor Study completed by the Orange County Transportation Commission. �.. 3. Mitigation of site specific impacts is recommended and the following • improvements should be made a part of the development of the Holly Planned Community: a. Improve the arterial roadways adjacent to the project site to their • _ current/proposed MPAH classification. - b. Realign Gothard Street in accordance with the MPAH and as generally depicted on the Holly Planned Community Site Plan. In addition to the • _ widening of the roadway to secondary arterial standards, additional roadway width will be needed to accommodate left turn lanes at the 73 various project access points and at Garfield Avenue, Ernest Avenue, and Ellis Avenue. c. Modify the traffic signals . at the following intersections to accommodate the various roadway improvements and Gothard Street -- alignment. -Golden West Street at Ellis Avenue - Ellis Avenue at Gothard Street - Gothard Street at Main Street/Garfield Avenue d. Construct a traffic signal at the realigned Garfield Avenue and Gothard Street/Crystal Street intersection. e. Put a stop sign on Ernest Avenue at Gothard Street. f. Design Gothard Street and the final project site plan to incorporate the following recommendations: - The intersection of Ernest Avenue and "F" Street to be separated a minimum of 400 feet or aligned to form a four-way intersection. - The intersection of "B" Street and "E" Street to be separated a minimum of 400 feet or aligned opposite each other to form a four- way intersection. In addition, a four-way intersection should not be - located closer than 600 feet to Ellis Avenue. - Design of the sag vertical curve (at Gothard's intersection with "E" Street south of Ellis) should take into consideration adequate sight distance and safe stopping sight distance. - The design of slope banks, walls, and landscaping at intersections - should be carefully reviewed during preparation of the grading plans and street improvement plans. It is recommended that design criteria presented on the County of Orange Standard Plan No. 117 _ be utilized. A copy of the standard plan is included in Appendix G. - Widen Gothard Street to more than the standard secondary arterial to provide pavement width for left turn lanes at each access point and at Ellis Avenue and Garfield Avenue. - Consideration be given to the design of Gothard Street at Ellis _ Avenue to provide 100 to 200 feet of tangency entering the intersection rather than carrying the centerline curve through the 74 • intersection. A slight skew of the intersection would be more acceptable than the proposed centerline curve design. • 4. If during later planning or development phases traffic volumes generated by the project are expected to increase, decrease, or be redistributed by 20 percent or more, a revised traffic study must be submitted by the • applicant to the city for review and approval. • y • • • • 75 3.9 AIR QUALM 3.9.1 Misting Conditions Air pollutants are classified as primary or secondary based upon the manner in which they are formed. Primary pollutants are emitted directly from a source into the atmosphere. Examples of primary pollutants are carbon monoxide (CO), nitric oxide and nitrogen dioxide (NO and NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulates, and various non-methane hydrocarbons (NMHC). Secondary pollutants are created with the passage of time in the air mass by chemical and photochemical reactions (often involving primary pollutants). Examples of secondary pollutants are ozone (03), photochemical aerosols, and peroxyacetylnitrates (PAN). The air quality of the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB), in which the study area is located, is determined by both the primary pollutants added daily and the existing secondary pollutants. Secondary pollutants—specifically oxidants—represent the major air quality problem basinwide. Air quality in the study area is a function of + the primary pollutants emitted locally, the existing regional ambient air quality, and the meteorological and topographical factors influencing the intrusion of pollutants into the area from pollutant sources outside the immediate area. Climate and Meteorology Climate combines with meteorologic and topographic conditions to affect local and regional air quality. The study area climate is typical of the southern California coastal region: warm, dry summers and short, mild winters. The average temperature in Huntington Beach is approximately 520F in winter and _ 68OF during the summer months. Most of the annual rainfall occurs between November and April, averaging approximately 12 inches per year in the Huntington Beach area. Rainy days vary from 5 to 10 percent of all days in the air basin. Huntington Beach's prevailing daytime winds are sea breezes from the southwest which flow at 5 to 7 miles per hour. Nighttime winds drain the basin and flow from the northeast and east offshore at slightly lower speeds. During the fall and winter _ months the study area is subject to moderate and severe Santa Ana winds. 76 The dispersion of air pollutants in the SoCAB is often hampered by the presence of a -- persistent temperature inversion in the layers of the atmosphere near the ground surface. The combination of low wind speeds and low inversions produce the greatest concentration of pollutants. In the winter, the greatest pollution problems are from carbon monoxide and oxides of nitrogen during the night and early morning hours. In the summer, the longer daylight hours and brighter sunshine combine to cause a reaction between hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen to form the typical photochemical smog. Ambient Air Quality Ambient air quality is given in terms of state and federal standards adopted to protect public health with a margin of safety (see Table 12). In addition to ambient 41 standards, California has adopted episode criteria for oxidants, carbon monoxide, sulfure dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, and particulate matter. The episode levels represent short-term exposures at which public health is actually threatened. • In Orange County, air quality data is collected primarily by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. The District's Costa Mesa and Los Alamitos stations are closest to the study area and most indicative of ambient air quality at the site (see Tables 12 and 13). The Costa Mesa station did not monitor hydrocarbons in 0 1981. Despite the incomplete nature of the data, the following trends have developed for the most critical pollutants from 1979 through 1984, as described below. • Oxidant - Between 1979 and 1983, the state one-hour ozone standard (0.10 ppm) was exceeded between 8 and 11 percent of the sampling period at the two stations annually. The federal one-hour standard (0.12 ppm) was exceeded 2 percent of the year in Costa Mesa and 19 percent of the year in Los Alamitos during this same • _ period. During 1980, three stage one episodes (over 0.20 ppm/hour) were called in Costa Mesa because of oxidant concentrations. The highest one-hour oxidant levels -- reached were 0.26 ppm in Los Alamitos and 0.25 in Costa Mesa. 77 • TABLE 12 1979-1983 ANNUAL SUMMARY OF CLEAN AIR STANDARDS VIOLATIONS COSTA MESA AIR QUALITY MONITORING STATION - Pollutant -Standard 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 Ozone v 1 hr> 0.10 ppm (state) 26 20 28 25 41 1 hr-%%1 0.12 ppm (federal) 16 5 6 6 15 -- 1 hr>0.20 ppm (state-Stage 1 episode) 1 3 — — — Maxmum 1 hr (ppm) 0.21 0.16 0.20 0.18 0.25 Carbon Monoxide 1 hr>35 ppm (feder,J) 0 0 0 0 0 1 hr>20 ppm (state) — — — 1 0 8 hrs>9 ppm (state and federal) 18 7 5 2 1 Maximum 1 hr (ppm) 21, 17 15 21 14 Maximum 8 hr (ppm) 10.9 13.8 — — — Nitrogen Dioxide 1 hr-0.25 ppm (state) 4 2 2 0 1 Maximum 1 hr (ppm) 0.29 0.31 0.29 0.23 0.27 Sulfur Dioxide - 24 hr>0.05 ppm (state) 0 0 0 0 0 Maximum 24 hr (ppm) 0.018 0.020 — — 0.04 Particulates 24 hrs>100 ug/m3 (st4jte)/# samples 26/61 6/20 NM NM NM - Maximum 24 hr (ug/m ) 225 125 NM NM NM Lead 1 mom 1.5 ug/m3 (state) 3 0 NM NM NM Maximum Concentration (ug/m3) 3.74 0.82 NM NM NM Sulfates 24 hrs>25 ug/m3 (staT) 0 0 NM NM NM Maximum 24 hr (ug/m ) 24.2 13.5 NM NM NM — Means no data. NM Means not monitored. * This standard became effective December 12, 1982. 78 • w TABLE 13 1979-1983 ANNUAL SUMMARY OF CLEAN AIR STANDARDS VIOLATIONS LOS ALAMITOS AIR QUALITY MONITORING STATION Pollutant - Standard 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 `- Ozone • 1 hr>0.10 ppm (state) 50 49 37 28 42 -- 1 hr>0.12 ppm (federal) 18 13 13 10 16 1 hr>0.20 ppm (state-Stage 1 episode) 2 3 — — — Maximum 1 hr (ppm) 0.26 0.22 0.18 0.23 0.20 • Carbon Monoxide 1 hr>35 ppm (feder,J) NM NM NM NM NM 1 hr>20 ppm (state) NM NM NM NM NM 8 hrs>9 ppm (state and federal) NM NM NM NM NM Maximum 1 hr (ppm) NM NM NM NM NM • Maximum 8 hr (ppm) NM NM NM NM NM Nitroffen Dioxide -- 1 hr>0.25 ppm (state) NM NM NM NM NM Maximum 1 hr (ppm) NM NM NM NM NM Sulfur Dioxide 24 hr>0.05 ppm (state) 0 0 0 0 0 Maximum 24 hr (ppm) 0.11 OL03 0.06 0.08 0.05 Particulates • 24 hrs>100 ug/m3 (state)/# samples 26/61 25/57 32/58 19/57 16/58 Maximum 24 hr (ug/m ) 327 238 602 218 175 Lead 1 mo>1.5 ug/m3 (state) 3 1 0 0 0 Maximum Concentration (ug/m3) 4.94 1.88 2.18 1.98 1.52 Sulfates 24 hrs>25 ug/m3 (sta?) 1 2 1 0 1 Maximum 24 hr (ug/m ) 26.6 34.6 26.0 24.5 26.3 — Means no data. NM Means not monitored. * This standard became effective December 12, 1982. 79 Carbon Monoxide - Carbon monoxide levels are not monitored in Los Alamitos. At the Costa Mesa station, the eight-hour carbon monoxide standard (9 ppm) was exceeded an average of 2 percent of the days between 1979 and 1983. The one-hour federal standard (35 ppm) was not exceeded at the station during this period. The highest recorded one-hour carbon monoxide level during this period was 13.8 ppm in 1980. Nitrogen Dioxide - The Costa Mesa station exceeded the state one-hour nitrogen dioxide standard (0.25 ppm) less than 1 percent of the sampling period. The maximum hourly nitrogen dioxide concentration measured at Costa Mesa during the past five years was 0.31 ppm in 1980. Nitrogen dioxide is not monitored at the Los Alamitos station. Sulfur Dioxide - The state sulfur dioxide standard (0.05 ppm/24 hours) was not exceeded at either station during the past five years. Total Suspended Particulates - The California 24-hour total suspended particulates - (TSP) standard (100 ug/m3) was exceeded on approximately 36 percent of the days monitored in 1979 and 1980 at the Costa Mesa station. No data was collected for 1981 through 1983 at this station. At the Los Alamitos station, the state TSP standard was exceeded on 40 percent of the days monitored between 1979 and 1983. This highest concentration recorded was 602 ug/m3 in 1981. Odors Oil recovery operations are located on and near the site. Hydrogen sulfide gas and petroleum fumes which escape from the oil recovery facilities are carried across and off the property by the .prevailing sea breeze. Although the odor recognition _ threshold for hydrogen sulfide gas is very low (0.00047 ppm), no odor complaints about current oil activities on site have been reported from surrounding neighborhoods..1 1 Personal communication with Tom Shaw, Huntington Beach Fire Depaprtment, September 4, 1984. 80 Air Quality Management • The State Lewis Air Quality Act (1976) and the Federal Clean Air Act Amendments (1977) require the development of a program to meet state and federal air quality standards in the SoCAB. The state has indicated a time frame of "at the earliest achievable date" and the federal government requires attainment of all primary national ambient air quality standards by 1982 with a possible extension of attainment deadlines to 1987 for carbon monoxide and photochemical oxidants. The SoCAB is designated a non-attainment area for oxidants, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, and total suspended particulates. In February 1979, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) adopted the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the South Coast Air Basin. The Air Resources Board adopted a revised version of the AQMP in May 1979. In January 1981, EPA approved with conditions the portions of the SoCAB State Implementation Plan (SIP) regarding particulate matter and nitrogen dioxides; however, the portions covering ozone and carbon monoxide were disapproved for lack of legal authority to implement an • -- inspection and maintenance (I/M) program. In April 1982, EPA approved submittals to remove conditions, but continued the ozone and carbon monoxide disapprovals. On _ September 10, 1982, Governor Brown signed Senate Bill 33 which required biennial I/M programs in non-attainment areas, such as the SoCAB. Full implementation of the I/M programs began in January 1984. The Draft 1982 Revision of the AQMP was adopted by SCAG and the SCAQMD on October 15, 1982. AQMP projections and mitigation measures are based on the SCAG-82A Growth Forecasts. The AQMP recommends control measures that when implemented will succeed in reducing primary air emission to the level of the state and federal air quality standards by 1987. The control measures rely heavily on continued technical improvements to both stationary and mobile pollution control equipment and the implementation of transit, ride-share and congestion relief. Rules and Regulations - The SCAQMD has published a set of "Rules and Regulations" to reduce both stationary and mobile source pollutant emissions. This document outlines permits, fees, prohibitions, procedures for hearings, emergency measures, order for abatement, standards of performance for new stationary sources, and 81 standards for additional specific air contaminants (Federal Register, Vol. 46, No. 13, January 13, 1981). Rule 402 of Regulation IV, Prohibitions, of the "Rules and Regulations," prohibits the discharge of,..."such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public which endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property." Rule 403(a) mandates that "a person shall not cause or allow fugitive dust emissions from any transport, handling, construction, or storage activity, so that the.presence of such dust remains visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the emission source." Also, "a person shall take every reasonable precaution to minimize fugitive dust emissions from wrecking, excavation, grading, cleaning of land and solid waste disposal operations" (Rule 403(b)) and "...to prevent visible particulate matter from being deposited upon public roadways as a direct result of their operations" (Rule 403(d)). Orange County Subregional Element - Orange County has developed a "Subregional Element for the 1982 Regional Air Quality Management Plan." Several measures are listed in the Orange County element which may have applicability to the proposed project. The Orange County sub-element encourages new development to incorporate commercial and industrial uses near residential communities to reduce trips and trip lengths. The element also encourages several parking management strategies, carpool and bus alternatives, and the promotion of bicycle rack installation. 3.9.2 Impacts The approval of the GPA will alter the land uses to be developed at the project site from estate residential, office, and industrial to mixed-density residential. The long- term affect on air quality from this action will primarily be a positive one since the residential use will generate less traffic and subsequently fewer vehicular emissions than would the primary industrial use. The resulting short-term air quality impacts from construction activities will not be significantly different due to this land use 82 change. The balance of this section will address the short-term and long-term • impacts associated with the proposed planned community residential project. Two types of air pollutant sources must be considered: stationary and mobile. Stationary sources include emissions onsite from construction activities and natural gas combustion as well as emissions at the power plant associated with any electrical requirements for power, lighting, etc. In addition, long-term oil well operations in proximity to residential use are a potential source of odors. Mobile source considerations include short-term construction activities and long-term traffic w generation. The following impact discussion is organized into two general categories for ease of presentation: short-term impacts (fugitive dust and construction equipment emissions) and long-term impacts (stationary, mobile, and odor sources). e Short-Term Impacts The preparation of the study area for building construction will produce two types of air contaminants: exhaust emissions from construction equipment and fugitive dust • generated as a result of soil movement. Because the project is to be phased, these construction impacts could be expected during each phase of development. The emissions produced during grading and construction activities, although of short-term duration, could be troublesome to workers and adjacent developments, even though prescribed wetting procedures are followed. These emissions will not, however, cause ambient air quality standards to be exceeded onsite. Exhaust Emissions From Construction Equipment - Exhaust emissions from r construction activities include those associated with the transport of workers and machinery to the site as well as those produced on-site as the equipment is used. -- Appendix H presents exhaust emission factors for various types of equipment used during construction operations. Fugitive Dust Emissions - Construction activities are a source of fugitive dust emissions that may have a substantial temporary impact on local air quality. r Building and road construction are the prevalent construction categories with the highest emission potential. Emissions are associated with land clearing, ground -- excavation, grading operations, and construction of the structures. 83 Dust emissions vary substantially from day to day, depending on the level of activity, the specific operations, and the prevailing weather. A large portion of the emissions results from equipment traffic over temporary roads at the site. The quantity of fugitive dust generated is proportional to the area of land being worked and the level of construction activity. Emissions from heavy construction operations are directly proportional to the silt content of the soil (that is, particles smaller than 75 micrometers in diameter) and inversely proportional to the square of the soil moisture. Based upon field measurements of suspended dust emissions from apartment and shopping center construction projects, an approximate emission factor for construction operations is 1.2 tons of fugitive dust per acre of construction per month of activity (U.S. EPA, AP-42, 1977). Long-Term Impacts Long-term impacts are those associated with the permanent use of the facilities proposed. The air pollutants emitted can be projected for various years by multiplying the anticipated vehicular, electrical, and natural gas usage rates by the appropriate SCAQMD emission factors. It was assumed that this project would be completed by year 2000. The results of the analysis are shown in Table 14 and Appendix H includes a summary of the emission factors used. TABLE 14 PROJECTED MOBILE AND STATIONARY SOURCE EMISSIONS (Tons/Day) Primary Natural Gas Electricity 2000 Total Pollutant Combustion l Generation 2 Vehicular3 All Sources CO 0.0024 0.0020 1.0785 1.0829 NMHC 0.0009 0.0012 0.0996 0.1017 NOx 0.0094 0.0201 0.1568 0.1863 Sox Negl. 0.0134 0.0212 0.0346 Part's Negl. 0.0017 0.0340 0.0357 1 Based on a natural gas usage rate of 235,763 cubic feet/day (see Section 3.11). 2 Based on an electricity usage rate of 19,193 kwh/day (see Section 3.11). 3 Based on 96,200 vehicle miles traveled (10 miles/trip x 9,620 trips/day). 84 As shown, stationary source emissions generated as a result of the proposed project - represent approximately 4 percent of total emission burden from all sources. In 2000, motor vehicle emissions will account for 96 percent of the total, although exhaust control technology or legislation, as well as more stringent stationary source emission control measures, may reduce the total. It should be noted that the bulk (75 percent) of the air pollutant emissions will be carbon monoxide issuing from motor vehicles. To assess what this atmospheric loading implies in terms of its relative impact on air quality, the project-related emissions are compared to the projected emissions for the county and the local Source Receptor Area (SRA).1 Huntington Beach lies within SRA 18 which also includes Seal Beach, Costa Mesa, Fountain Valley, and Newport • _ Beach. Table 15 below provides a comparison of the District's projected 1987 emissions for Orange County SRA 18 and the project-related emissions (using 1987 emission factors). Emissions for the SRA are only available for carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and oxides of nitrogen, therefore, these are the pollutants represented in the table. As seen from the table, the project emissions will represent 0.3 to 0.7 percent of the SRA's 1987 emissions and 0.03 to 0.14 percent of the county's 1987 emissions. The project's emissions appear insignificant compared to the more regional emissions shown in the table. However, the project's emissions will add to the cumulative emissions total for the region and vicinity. TABLE 15 EMISSION INVENTORY COMPARISON (1987) (Tons/Day) Pollutant Orange County2 SRA #183 Project CO 11,254.78 215.51 1.50 NMHC 424.80 38.60 0.13 NOx 173.98 38.17 0.24 1 The District has broken down the regional emissions for the major pollutants into Source Receptor Areas for use in monitoring and planning purposes. 2 Source: SCAQMD, Draft AQMD, Draft Appendix V-C, August 1982. 3 Source: SCAQMD, Air Quality Handbook for EIRs, Revised December 1983. 85 Assessing the impact of the proposed project on local air quality and the impact of the local air quality on the proposed project is accomplished through evaluating carbon monoxide concentrations along relevant roadway corridors or intersections. Because the project's traffic is not expected to significantly increase traffic congestion on any of the city's roadways, the offsite concentrations will not be affected and only carbon monoxide levels within the project site need be evaluated. Traffic on the surrounding arterials should not significantly affect carbon monoxide levels within the project site. As indicated by the traffic volumes and volume to capacity ratios in Exhibit 20, the ultimate volumes along these roadways will not result in a condition which generates significant carbon monoxide outside the road right-of-ways. This is confirmed by SCAQMD's methodology for estimating carbon monoxide concentrations.) Based on this methodology, carbon monoxide concentrations would be less than 3 ppm (1 hour) at 50 feet from the roadway centerline. Odors Hydrogen sulfide gas emissions and petroleum fumes from the on recovery operations located on and near the site may be detected by nearby residents during periods of low wind speeds. However, given that complaints are rarely reported in other parts of the city where residential uses are adjacent to oil operations, it is unlikely that these emissions will result in a significant odor nuisance or health hazard. The odor threshold of the hydrogen sulfide gas is well below the concentration which is harmful to health (the California standard for hydrogen sulfide in 0.03 ppm). Since residents would most likely be warned of any potential health hazard by the odor of the gas well before dangerous concentrations were reached, the downwind location of the emission source should not represent a significant risk to project residents. Only under extreme worst case conditions of very light wind speeds and a major release of hydrogen sulfide gas into the atmosphere would concentrations of the gas approach dangerous levels. 1 "Simplified Analysis Technique for Establishing CO Concentrations Near Highway Facilities," Appendix E, Air Quality Handbook for EM SCAQMD, December 1983. 86 Air Quality Management • The proposed GPA is not consistent with the South Coast AQMP. The AQMP is based on SCAG's growth projections which are in turn based on local general plans. The residential uses proposed do not currently conform with the land use plan of the • general plan. However, the GPA for the project will be reviewed and will only be -` approved if the city decision-makers determine that the amendment will meet the overall goals of the city's general plan. Because the GPA will replace general plan industrial and office uses with residential uses, population and employment projections for the city will be altered. The project will add to the city's housing and population, and will reduce the number of projected employment opportunities. The SCAG-82 Growth Forecast estimates the city's • housing will increase by 16,400 between 1985 and 2000.2 The project's maximum buildout of 1,200 d.u. would represent approximately 7 percent of the expected -- housing growth to occur in the city in the next 15 years. This is not considered a disproportionately large percentage. • 3.9.3 Mitigation Measures It is strongly recommended by the SCAQMD that the following measures be implemented to reduce the short-term (construction) impacts associated with the project. 1. Regular watering, paving/oiling of construction roads, or other dust palliative measures. 2. Maintain construction equipment engines in proper tune. 3. Phase and schedule construction activities to level emissions peaks. • _ 4. Discontinue construction during first and second stage smog alerts. _ It is also strongly recommended that the following measures be incorporated into the project to reduce long-term (operational) impacts associated with the project: 2 Based on projection of 69,300 units in 1985 and 85,700 units in 2000. 87 • 5. Energy conservation measures such as are outlined in Section 3.11. 6. Incorporation of convenient pedestrian access to busstops, public sidewalks and incorporation of a commercial center into the development plan. 7. Provide appropriate bus shelters or benches. 8. Provide convenient bicycle storage facilities. Rules 402 and 403 of the SCAQMD "Rules and Regulations" can be implemented to mitigate excessive odor and fugitive dust problems, respectively. 88 3.10 NOISE -- The project site is surrounded by existing roadways is near a police helipad, and contains over a dozen operating oil wells, some of which will remain with project development. These noise sources are addressed in the following analysis. • 3.10.1 Baekground Noise pollution, like air and water pollution, is a very real environmental concern. �- Excess noise levels not only constitute an annoyance but also can cause both physical ! and psychological damages. The effects of noise on people range from annoyance and inconvenience to temporary or permanent hearing loss. Every day, people are subjected to a multitude of sounds in the urban environment. Many of these sounds are by-products of desirable and necessary day-today activities. Unfortunately, • _ some of these sounds, such as the roar of cars and trucks, the thunder of jet aircraft, and the humming of air conditioners, are not only undesirable but are also " detrimental to health. These sounds are generally referred to as noise. • Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to sound at all frequencies, a specific frequency-dependent rating scale was devised to relate noise to human sensitivity. A A-weighted dB (dBA) scale performs this compensation by discriminating against frequencies both above and below 1,000 Hz in a manner approximating the sensitivity of the human ear. The basis for comparison is the faintest sound audible to the average, young, male, human ear at the frequency of maximum sensitivity. Typical sounds normally range from 40 dB (very quiet) to 100 dB (very loud). • Examples of various noise levels are shown in Appendix I. Conversation is roughly 60 dBA at three feet and noise becomes discomforting at 110 dBA. Doubling the sound pressure of a noise source causes the decibel rating to be increased by only 6 dB due to the logarithmic nature of the noise scale. However, due to nonlinearities in the mechanism of the human ear, a sound must be nearly 10 dBA higher than another to be judged twice as loud. It follows that a sound of 20 dBA is four times as loud, and -- 30 dBA is eight times as loud. Noise impacts are commonly evaluated in the Community Noise Level (CNEL) noise index. CNEL is a method of representing in a single number the combined effect of 89 a daily noise exposure. The CNEL value computed at any point is the sum of the decibel values of the sound, with corrections for time of day and averaged over 24 hours. Weighting factors of 3 and 10 are employed to account for increased sensitivity to noise in the evening (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) and nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) periods. Community reaction to CNEL noise levels is shown in Appendix I. Generally, noise levels exceeding 65 CNEL are undesirable for residential developments and 60 CNEL is a more desirable and acceptable level with only 2 percent of the population impacted complaining. Noise Criteria Both state and City of Huntington Beach noise standards and guidelines would apply to this project. State - The State of California has adopted noise standards in areas of regulation not preempted by the federal government. State standards regulate noise levels of motor vehicles and motor boats, establish noise impact boundaries around airports, regulate freeway noise affecting classrooms, and set noise insulation standards. The application standards for this project is the State Noise Insulation Standards found in the California Administrative Code, Title 25, Chapter 1, Subchapter 1, Article 4. This code requires acoustical insulation in areas subjected to 60 dB CNEL or greater _ in order to maintain an annual interior level of 45 dB CNEL in any habitable room of a multiple-dwelling unit. City of Huntington Beach - The City of Huntington Beach has adopted a Noise Element of the General Plan, a Noise Ordinance, and an Oil Code which would apply to the project. The Noise Element identifies goals, objectives, and policies formulated to provide basic guiding principles for reduction of noise in Huntington Beach. The Noise Element has guidelines for noise exposure by land use category as shown in Table 16. The optimal noise level for all residential uses is 60 CNEL for outdoors and 45 CNEL for indoors. These optimal noise levels for residential uses imply that acoustical analyses are required in areas where the optimum standard is exceeded and that structural modifications for new development (more insulation, minimizing windows facing streets, etc.) could be necessary. The optimum criteria 90 level of 60 CNEL for residential uses is compatible with the California Noise Insulation Standards. It should be noted that these noise levels indicate a target level toward which efforts should be directed. These levels are, however, guidelines in noise control to determine what development proposals could need acoustical analyses and where structural modifications for new development may be necessary. • TABLE 16 OPTIMUM NOISE LEVELS (Normally Acceptable) Land Use Community Noise Equivalent Level Residential 60 Institutional 60 Golf Courses, Riding Stables, Water Recreation Areas, Cemeteries 70 Office-Professional 75 General Commercial, Industrial 80 • The city's Noise Abatement Plan in the Noise Element includes actions regarding noise from oil pumping operations. These actions are cited below. • o Consider restricting new residential development within 25 feet of a gasoline engine-powered pump. o Consider restricting new residential development within 25 feet of an electric motor-driven pump. The City of Huntington Beach has a community noise ordinance to control unnecessary, excessive, and annoying noise. The city is divided into four noise zones, two of which apply to this project. The exterior noise standards are shown in Table 17. It is unlawful for another property user to expose residential properties to these noise levels for a cumulative period of more then 30 minutes in any hour. As the cumulative time period decreases, the noise standard increases in -5 dB increments. . 91 TABLE 17 EXTERIOR NOISE STANDARDS Noise Allowable Exterior Zone Type of Land Use Time Interval Noise Level _ I Single, double, or multiple 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 45 dB family residential (R1, R2, 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. 50 dB R3, or 114) H Single, double, or multiple 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 50 dB family residential (R1, R2, 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. 55 dB _ R3, R4, RA) The Title 15, Huntington Beach Oil Code also addresses noise. The two applicable sections are quoted below. 15.20.220 Soundproofing. Where an oil field recovery heater is operated within a developed area, the fire chief may, in cases of disturbance such as excessive noise or vibration, require the operator to: (a) Enclose the heater with a fire-resistant, soundproofing material which shall be maintained in a serviceable condition. (b) In the case of emergency or when it has been determined by the chief that the noise or vibration is detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of the surrounding neighborhood, the chief may order the operator to cease operations. (Ord. 2491, July 1, 1981). 15.20.240 Public Nuisance Declared. The foregoing sections notwithstanding, no person shall conduct any oil operation in a manner that would create a noise, odor, or vibration detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of the _ surroundiang neighborhood or any considerable number of persons. Such operation is hereby declared to constitute a public nuisance. (Ord. 2491, July 1, 1981). 3.10.2 EMsting Conditions Traffic Noise Traffic along the adjacent roadways was computer modelled with the Federal Highway Administration's Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model, FHWA-RD-77- 108, December 1978. This model was modified to generate CNEL values. Model 92 input data includes average daily traffic levels; day/evening/night percentages of autos; medium and heavy trucks; vehicle speeds; ground attenuation factors; and roadway widths. Table 18 quantifies the distances from ELlis Avenue, Golden West Street, Garfield • Avenue, and Gothard Street to the 60, 65, and 70 CNEL contour lines. Because of the low traffic volumes, the 65 CNEL noise contours are relatively close to the roadway right-of-way. Golden West Street has the greatest impact to the site with the 65 CNEL contour line extending 122 feet from the centerline. The site contains over a dozen operating oil wells. Field measurements of the machinery noise indicated noise levels in the 50 to 60 dBA range at a distance of 120 feet. r TABLE 18 EXISTING TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS Distance to CNEL Contour from Centerline of Road (feet) �- Roadway 60 CNEL 65 CNEL 70 CNEL Ellis Avenue Golden West St. to Gothard St. 43 33 31 Golden West Street Ellis Ave. to Ernest Ave. 233 122 80 Garfield Avenue Crystal St. to Gothard St. 89 70 65 Gothard Street Garfield Ave. to Ellis Ave. 68 41 33 Helicopter Noise The Huntington Beach Police Department currently uses the helipad located on the west side of Gothard and approximately 500 feet north of the project site. This facility is being upgraded to become the city's main police heliport. Construction is -- to be completed in early 1985. By 1990, the department anticipates between 12 to 14 helicopter operations in a 24-hour period (with half occurring during the day and half occurring at night). 93 • Operations would consist of an approach from the north and a departure heading southwesterly over the project site (see Exhibit 23). On November 26, 1984, the City Council authorized purchase of a helicopter quieter than those currently owned, the Hughes 500D. The Hughes 500D with its relatively low top speeds and the multi- blade rotor is one of the quietest helicopters manufactured. Assuming a conservative departure angle of 45, a helicopter would be roughly 500 feet when reaching the project site. Single-event noise levels for maximum gross weight at this point are projected to be 79 dBA. As the helicopter continued to climb, noise levels would decrease. 3.10.3 Impacts - Construction Noise _ Trucks, graders, bulldozers, concrete mixers, portable generators, and other construction equipment will be operating during the construction phases. Over the short-term, construction noise will substantially increase ambient noise levels. The project site is in a non-residential location and construction noise should not be disruptive to adjacent land uses. Roadway Noise Future roadway noise impacts were projected using the FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model. The distances to the 60, 65, and 70 CNEL for existing and proposed roadway segments are shown in Table 19. Two conditions were modelled; _ existing traffic plus the projects contribution and the 1995 Master Plans projection of traffic. The projects contribution to the existing CNEL noise contours is insignificant when compared for the various existing roadways. The greatest change on the remaining existing roadways is a 65 CNEL increase in distance of only six _ feet. When compared to the 1995 project traffic levels and noise contours, the project represents only a minor contribution. 94 TABLE 19 FUTURE TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS Distance to CNEL Contour from Centerline of Road (feet) 60 CNEL 65 CNEL 70 CNEL (Existing) 1995 (Existing) 1995 (Existing) 1995 Roadway + Project MP + Project MP + Project MP Ellis Avenue Golden West St. to Gothard St. (43) 48 230 (33) 35 130 (31) 31 96 Golden West Street Ellis Ave. to Ernest Ave. (238) 239 349 (122) 125 178 (80) 81 111 Garfield Avenue Gothard St. to Main St. 106 — 75 — 67 — '"' Crystal St. to Gothard St. (89) — 297 (70) — 157 (65) — 104 Gothard Street Ellis Avenue to Ernest St. 117 — 78 — 67 — Ernest St. to Garfield St. 120 — 80 — 68 — Ellis Ave. to Garfield Ave. (68) — 146 (41) — 88 (33) — 70 It should be noted that the roadway noise contour distances represent worst case conditions since no obstructions to the noise path are considered. The project will have a relatively minor contribution to the overall traffic noise environment along nearby roadways. However, the substantial 1995 Master Plan traffic volumes require a review of total future traffic noise impacts on the projects residential development. Exhibit 24 graphically depicts the noise contours. The contours indicate that a substantial number of residential units will require some type of noise barrier or noise insulation. Oil Well Pump Noise �- In addition to the traffic noise impacts, the remaining onsite oil well pumps will generate noise. Noise measurements were conducted at each of potential on well locations shown on the concept plan. The sites are shown in Exhibit 24 and the fifteen minute noise measurements are summarized in Table 20. Fifteen minute 95 samples were considered adequate since the machinery operates at constant noise - levels throughout the day. The table indicates that Holly 7A, 11, and 9 generate very similar noise levels with the noise level being exceded 50 percent of the time only _ ranging from 62 to 64 dBA. Holly 10 has different machinery with a slower pumping rate and is substantially quieter. Measurements were also taken at 120 feet for comparison. The noise levels at Holly 7A, 11, and 9 dropped off at 4.7 to 7.1 per doubling of distance at these sites. The drop off rate at Holly 10 was much less and may have been influenced by the surrounding background noise levels. The concept - plan indicates that residential units would be within about 100 feet of these oil wells and would be exposed assuming no noise barriers, to constant noise levels of _ approximately 60 dBA. While marginally acceptable during the daytime, a 60 dBA level would be unacceptable during the nighttime. TABLE 20 NOISE LEVELS FROM FOUR REMAINING OIL WELLS Site dBA at 60 Feet Background dBA at 120 Feet 1. Holly VA — (56.5 - 57.6) L10 63 L50 62 L90 62 2. Holly #11 — (56.9 - 58.4) L10 64 L50 64 L90 63 3. Holly #9 — (56.5 - 58.3) L10 63 L50 63 L90 62 4. Holly #10 — (48.8 - 50.6) L10 54 L50 53 L90 53 L10 - Noise level exceded 10 percent of the time. L50 - Noise level exceded 50 percent of the time. L90 - Noise level exceded 90 percent of the time. 96 ♦ ���o � _ � ; � � \� � �..�- -�.-___ r -� �-��� 165 CNEI 60 CNEI • �� _ � is` t (�' A j V C I • ` 0 - O 60 CNEL ' 65 CNEL - - TYPE UNTS ACRES U/A A SYgla FamYY Detached 380 84.8 8.4 �I 7D B Sft*Fsn*Attached 170 17.3 9.8 ...� C MWIF•FamMYTOWMMM 230 16.6 13.9 0 MWFfamlry....Flab 4W 23.8 18.9 i I %�-- Pdalc Strata 7.8 i. . gala— TOTAL 12W 120.3 10.0 j j atH�4r- m mrtm�l I r J ft fHl !} { LEGEND - I ��-- - ---- --- - -- ' * POTENTIAL REMAINING OIL WELLS 1 r UNMITIGATED 1995 NOISE CONTOURS MOL LV PUHHEDD MirludBrndm"N City of Huntington Beach , 0 215 430 FEET EXHIBIT 24 Helicopter Noise • Future residents within the north-central and northwest portion of the site (latter phase of development) may be subject to periodic helicopter noise due to operations ._ at the nearby police heliport. By 1990, these operations are expected to occur up to 14 times a day as helicopters takeoff from the facility. A preliminary study of this facility determined that, with the quieter helicopters that the department will be purchasing, the noise levels for a single operation at the • project boundary would be approximately 79 dBA and, as the helicopter continues to climb, the noise level would decrease. Therefore, noise levels within the site should be less than 79 dBA. These noise events may be considered annoying by residents in the north-central and northwest corner of the site. 3.10.4 Mitigation Measures 1. In general, berms or walls should be constructed along Ellis Avenue, Golden West Street, and Garfield Avenue to decrease noise intrusion. 2. Dwelling units along Gothard Street could meet noise compatibility guidelines through additional noise insulation and air conditioning if berms or walls are not constructed. - 3. Typical construction practices with windows closed (mechanical ventilation) yield 20 dBA of noise reduction and would meet the 45 dBA interior standard. These measures may also be necessary even with berms or walls for the first and second fronting units facing Ellis Avenue, Golden West Street, and Garfield Avenue. 4. Noise from the remaining oil wells should be mitigated. A 6-foot blockwall surrounding each of these derricks should contain their noise levels depending on the final site plans and construction materials. An accoustical engineer should review the wall plans to assure acceptable noise reductions and compliance with the city's Noise Ordinance. h 97 5. Construction activities should be limited to weekdays and daytime hours and construction traffic routed away from noise sensitive areas. 6. When final site plans and construction drawings have been prepared, an acoustical analysis of residential development within the traffic-generated 60 CNEL contour and within the area impacted by helicopter noise should be prepared to insure that the noise criteria have been met. Construction plans should be reviewed and approved by an acoustical engineer to certify acceptability prior to the issuance of building permits. 7. Perspective homeowners or tenants within the north-central and northwest corner of the site should be notified of the potential for periodic helicopter noise. 98 3.11 PUBLIC SERVICES AND OTII,ITIBS • 3.11.1 Fire proteetionl Existing Conditions • Fire protection for the proposed project will be provided by the Huntington Beach Fire Department. The site will be served by the Gothard Station located on Gothard Street 300 feet north of Ellis Street, and the Lake Station, located on Lake and • Frankfort Streets. The Gothard Station consists of 8 personnel, 2 engines, 1 support vehicle and 1 battalion chief car. The Lake Station consists of 7 personnel, 1 engine, 1 ladder truck and 1 paramedic unit. The response time to the site will be approximately 'S minutes. Insurance Services Office (ISO), an independent service which rates city fire protection services on a scale of one to ten, one being best, rates the "brush" areas in the city at 11911 and the "developed" areas at "2." The Department currently takes part in the Orange County Mutual Aid System. Paramedic service in the city is provided by the Fire Department and ambulance service is provided by private agencies, most often Seals Ambulance Company. The normal response time for paramedics to the project area would be approximately ,-- 5 minutes, and the normal ambulance response time would be 15 minutes. Humana • Hospital Huntington Beach, located approximately 2 miles from the site, would serve the proposed project. They provide full emergency services and a full range of health care. • w Impacts Mechanical failures, accidents, or seismic activity could potentially result in rupturing of well pipelines serving the remaining oil derricks. Such breaks could lead to spills of petroleum products and leakages of water, steam, or gases resulting in • hazardous fumes, fire or pollution. With appropriate handling techniques, such occurrences would be unlikely. Standard safety practices, monitoring, adequate a repairs and maintenance, and contingency plans should adequately mitigate the potential hazards related to active oil field operations. 1 The material in this section comes primarly from correspondence with Captain Tom Poe, Huntington Beach Fire Department, July 19, 1984. • 99 Hazards from existing wells and abandoned wells, pipelines, sumps, trash dumps, etc., should be mitigated prior to development of the site through the provisions of the city's Zoning and Oil Codes which require, among other things, examination and removal of abandoned facilities, soils investigations, setbacks from remaining oil facilities, etc. Existing manpower and equipment are adequate to maintain the present level of service in the event the proposed project is approved. The ongoing oil production in and around the site will require the provision of fire access lanes. The higher density of the proposed project as compared to the previous land use designation may cause limited access to perform fireground operations. This possibility, along with measures to mitigate the impacts, will be investigated at the Fire Department's plan check. The fire flows required for the project will be a minimum of 2000 gpm and a maximum of 3500 gpm. Mitigation Measures 1. Fire access lanes must be provided and kept unobstructed to prevent adverse impacts on fire protection from ongoing oil production hazards. 2. If during the Fire Department's plan check it becomes evident that fireground operations will become impeded, the department will impose mitigating measures such as automatic sprinkler systems, alarm systems, access roads, etc. 3. Other measures of fire protection are strongly recommended, such as smoke detectors and fire retardant building and landscape materials. _ 4. Measures to eliminate or reduce fire and safety risks from existing and abandoned oil production facilities and disposal areas are presented in Section 3.2.3. These include abandonment and clean-up procedures, pipeline and sump examinations, soils investigations, setback and fencing requirements, and maintenance procedures. 100 ." 3.11.2 Policel • Existing Conditions �- Police service is provided to the project area by the Huntington Beach Police Department. They are responsible for crime prevention, investigation, and enforcement of the law. The Police Department is located at 2000 Main Street in Huntington Beach. The most current response time study shows priority one (emergency) cans average 4.5 minutes, while response to priority two and three calls averaged 11.3 ;and 22.1 minutes, respectively. These response times would apply to the proposed development. At the present time, the Huntington Beach Police Department has 201 sworn • ,.,, officer. The Department operates 49 black and white units, 16 motorcycle units, 2 helicopters, 40 unmarked units, and 10 support vehicles (buses, beach vehicles, etc.). Huntington Beach has trained 10 officers for the Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) team to handle certain emergency situations. At present, because the majority of the area is undeveloped, a small number of traffic-related reports are the only calls for service. .. Impacts 0 If current service levels are to be maintained, 7 sworn officers will need to be phased in over the 1,4-year development of the project. This figure is based upon the national average of 2.0 sworn officers per 1,000 population and historical data indicating approximately 1.26 calls for service per dwelling. The change in land use 0 designation will increase the number of called-for police services from the site, -- impacting police resources negatively. Realigning Gothard to eliminate the curve and the 5-way intersection at Garfield and 0 Main will reduce potential traffic hazards and improve vehicle flow, impacting police services positively. The street changes that will result under the proposed development should provide adequate access for emergency vehicles. 1 The material in this section comes primarily from correspondence with Jim Moore, Crime Analyst, Huntington Beach Police Department, July 17, 1984. 101 Mitigation Measures 1. The project developer should consult the Police Department during preliminary stages of the project design to review the safety features, determine their adequacy, and suggest improvements. 2. Easy access into and within the project site for emergency vehicles must be provided. 3. A perimeter wall and security gates may be provided if requested by the Police Department. 4. All areas of the project should be well-lit, including alcoves, walkways, doorsteps, and parking facilities. 5. Addresses should be well marked to facilitate response by officers. 6. Rooftop identification is encouraged to facilitate helicopter patrol. - 3.11.3 Schoolsl The study area is located in the Huntington Beach City School District for elementary and intermediate schools and the Huntington Beach Union High School District for high schools. Students in the vicinity of the Study area attend the schools listed in Table 21. The table also lists the schools' capacities and current ` enrollments. Current City School District enrollment is 5,600 and current capacity is 5,820. Currently Union High School District enrollment is approximately 17,500 _ and the district is currently operaing at capacity. Huntington Beach also provides a college for advanced education, Golden West College, offering AA degrees and certificate programs. 1 The material in this section comes primarily from correspondence with Dr. Gary Burgner, Assistant Superintendent of Business Services, Huntington Beach City School District, July 25, 1984 and personal communication with _ Glen Dysinger, Business Services Office, Huntington Beach Union High School District, August 9, 1984. 102 TABLE 21 • EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES School Student Capacity Current Enrollment • Smith Elementary School 770 17th St., Huntington Beach 600 503 Dwyer Intermediate School 1502 Palm Ave., Huntington Beach 900 839 • Huntington Beach High School 1905 Main St., Huntington Beach 3,000 2,600 Studies conducted by the City School District indicate a student generation factor of • _ 0.21 for single..-family dwellings and 0.12 for multiple-family dwellings. The Union High School District reports a student generation factor of 0.26 for single-family - dwellings and 01.04 for multiple-family dwellings. • Impacts The City School District foresees a possibility that Smith and Dwyer schools may be overcrowded in the future. Using the generation factors noted above, the proposed • project will generate approximately 191 elementary and intermediate school students. These students will be generated in small increments over a 10 to 15 year period. It may also be necessary for the City School District to transport students to and from school. • The Union High School District foresees no significant impact on school facilities as a result of the proposed project. Using the generation factors noted above, the project will generate approximately 162 high school students over a 10 to 15 year period. Huntington Beach High School enrollment has declined recently due to the loss of students from areas of Seal Beach that were formerly served, and therefore will have adequate facilities to serve the proposed project. 103 • Mitigation Measures 1. If necessary, the school district will develop a plan to finance student transportation, portable classroom use, or additional school construction. This plan may include fees to be paid by the developer. 3.11.4 Solid Waste Disposal Existing Conditions Solid waste generated in the city is collected by Rainbow Disposal Inc., a private collection company under a ten-year contract to the city. The city pays for collection service from single family, duplex, triplex and four-plex residential units with individual trash cans at a monthly rate on a per-unit basis. Four-plex residential units with trash bins, multi-family residences of five or more units, and commercial and industrial units contract with Rainbow Disposal on an individual basis.1 The final destination of collected waste is the Coyote Canyon disposal station in Irvine, which is a class II-2 landfill site. The life expectancy of this landfill has been projected to be October 1988, at which time the initiation of operations in a suitable replacement site is expected.2 The estimated rate of solid waste generation in the county as a whole averages about 8.5 pounds per person per day (includes all uses). Rainbow Disposal operates a transfer station in-the city at 17121 Nichols St. At this facility, Rainbow Disposal transfers waste from small trucks to larger trucks which then take the refuse to the landfill. Hauling larger loads to the landfill is a more efficient use of fuel, manpower, and machinery.3 1 Huntington Beach General Plan, Community Facilities Element. 1981. p. 69. 2 Correspondence from Mike Luke, Assistant Chief Engineer, County of Orange General Services Agency, Waste Management Program, July 16, 1984. 3 Correspondence from richard Timm, Operations Manager, Rainbow Disposal Co., Inc., July 25, 1984. 104 Impacts • Approval of the proposed GPA will result in a residential land use, which will potentially generate more solid waste than the current land use designation r (primarily industrial). Rainbow Disposal and the Orange County General Services • Agency, however, see no adverse impacts in serving the proposed development. No negative impacts are seen on Rainbow Disposal's operations, its transfer station, or the county landfill. These facilities are presently adequate to serve the proposed project. • Mitigation Measures 1. Project design should consider means of reducing the amount of waste material generated both during construction and when the project is in use. 2. The developer should contact Rainbow Disposal during the design stage to ensure the most efficient and economical means for rubbish removal. The design must include rubbish enclosures, projected travel areas, and turn- abouts where necessary. 3.11.5 Public Transportation) • Existing Conditions Public transportation service to the project site will be provided by the Orange County Transit District (OCTD). OCTD Route 25 currently serves Golden West St. • with transit stops at Ellis/Golden West and Garfield/Golden West. 1 Source for material in this section comes from correspondence with Dick Hsu, Section Chief, Developmental Planning, OCTD, July 27, 1984. 105 • Impacts The increased population from the proposed project could generate more demand for transit service to the area. This increased demand would add cumulatively to the need for public transit improvements, although in the long run it could have a positive benefit on local and regional public transit systems. High density residential developments on or near transit routes tend to increase ridership, and therefore actually increase the efficiency of local and regional public transit systems. Depending on the magnitude and pattern of the development for the proposed project over the next 15 years, certain transit improvements may be made by OCTD. These could include one or more additional stops on Golden West St. between Ellis Avenue and Garfield Avenue, which would be located at points of access to the development. Service may also be routed through the project on Gothard, if the realignment and street upgrading becomes a reality as indicated on the Master Plan of Arterial Highways. Mitigation Measures OCTD suggests the following features be included in site plans for the proposed project in order to support the transit service and encourage transit usage: 1. Highest density land uses (apartments or condo miniums) should be located closest to arterials, so that transit service may be available to the greatest number of potential riders. 2. Pedestrian access to arterials with transit service should be provided by minimizing setbacks in order to shorten walking distances and by appropriately placing convenient walkways (or breakthroughs or stairs in _ sloped landscaped areas or sound barrier walls, if such are provided). 3. Transit amenities such as a bus shelter, bus pad, bench, and sidewalk should be provided at each stop. _ 4. Depending on the projected traffic volume and speed, bus turnouts may be necessary at the bus stops. 106 _ • " 3.11.6 Electricity • Existing Conditions - The proposed Project is located within the service area of the southern California • Edison Company (SCE). The nearest electrical facility is a 66 kV line running just south and parallel to Ellis Avenue through the proposed project site. All new lines installed in the city are required to be underground, and the city is working with SCE to achieve the undergrounding of existing lines.1 • Impacts Approval of the proposed GPA to change the land use designation from estate • residential, office, and industrial to planned community would result in a significantly lower electricity requirement for the site. Electrical consumption estimates for the proposed project are based on South Coast Air Quality Management - District's (SCAQMD) recognized consumption rate of 5,838 kwh per dwelling unit per • year. Assuming 1,200 dwelling units, the annual electrical consumption rate for the proposed site would be approximately 7 million kwh per year at buildout. The existing land use designations would allow up to 1.8 million square feet of light industrial, 130,700 square feet of professional office, and 140 low-density single- family units. Based on annual usage rages of 4.5 kwh per square foot of light • industrial, 12.2 kwh per square feet office and 5,838 kwh per dwelling units for residential, the existing general land uses could consume up to 10.5 million kwh annually at buldout.2 • The actual annual consumption rates would differ according to use areas, climate, and the degree of energy conservation measures incorporated into the project design. SCE does not anticipate any significant impacts in providing electrical service to the proposed project. The project site is surrounded by facilities adequate • to serve it, however, some facilities may require relocation or removal depending on street alignments.3 1 Huntington Beach General Plan, Community Facilities Element. 1981. p. 64- 65. 2 Source for usage rates: SCAQMD, Air Quality Handbook for EIRs, December 1983. 107 Mitigation Measures 1. Building construction shall comply with the Energy Conservation Standards set forth in Title 24 of the California Administrative Code. 2. Energy conservation tactics such as the following should also be considered: o Energy efficient concepts in building layout, design, and orientation. The use of solar water and space heating technologies should be considered. o Comprehensive planning for landscaping to complement new structures and parking lots, thereby minimizing heating and cooling energy use. o Walls, ceiling, floors, windows, and hot waterlines should be insulated to prevent heat loss or gain. o Energy efficient lighting (e.g., high pressure sodium outdoors and fluorescent indoors) should be used rather than less efficient types of lighting. Maximum use of natural lighting should be made during daylight hours. 3. It is strongly recommended that the developer consult with SCE during the building design phase for further energy conservation measures. 4. It is strongly recommended that the developer consult with SCE during the preliminary planning stages to allow for efficient relocation of Edison facilities during construction, if necessary. 3 Correspondence from R. L. Coolidge, SCE Service Planner, July 18, 1984. 108 3.11.7 Natural Gasi • Existing Conditions -- The Southern California Gas Company (SCG) provides natural gas service to the • project area. Existing facilities in the project area include a district regulator and a 16-inch high pressure pipeline located in Golden West Avenue, a 4-inch main located in Garfield Avenue, and a 3-inch main located in Ernest Avenue, all adjacent to the project site. The project could be served from an existing main in the proposed • project area. Impacts Approval of the GPA will result in a land use which consumes significantly more • natural gas than the existing land use designation. The estimated gas consumption of the proposed residential project is approximately 85 million cubic feet per year at buildout.2 The existing land use designation could consume up to 61 million cubic feet per year of natural gas at buildout.3 SCG representatives have indicated that gas service to the proposed residential project can be''provided without any significant impact on their services. As a public utility, SCG is under the jurisdiction of federal regulatory agencies. Should these • agencies take any action which affects gas supply or the condition under which service is available, gas service will be provided in accordance with revised conditions. • • - 1 The material in this section comes primarily from correspondence with M.T. Roseen, Technical Supervisor, Southern California Gas Company, July 17, 1984. 2 Based on', SCG usage rates of 8,858 cf/mo/du for single-family housing, 5,178 cf/mo/du, for multi-family housing (less than 4 units), and 4,692 for multi- family housing (greater than 5 units). The number of units assmed for each type of housing is 350,170 and 680, respectively. • 3 Based on SCG usage rates of 8,858 cf/mo/du for 140 units of estate residential development and 2.0 cf/mo/sq.ft. for 1.9 million square feet total of office and industrial development. 109 • Mitigation Measures 1. Please refer to mitigation measures in previous section (3.11.6, Electricity). 2. It is strongly recommended that the developer consult the Southern California Gas Company for other methods of conservation during building design phases. 3.11.8 Water Supply' Existing Conditions Water supply service in the City of Huntington Beach is currently provided by the Huntington Beach Public Works Department, Water Division. During the summer, the Water Division obtains 85 percent of its water from the nine (9) city wells and imports 15 percent of its water via the Metropolitan Water District of southern California (MWD) system of aqueducts. During the winter, the percentages are 95 and 5, respectively. The Water Division maintains emergency connections with the Cities of Fountain Valley and Seal Beach. The City of Huntington Beach proposes new water wells as demand within the city increases. The nearest facilities to the proposed project are a 14-inch main located along Golden West Street adjacent to the project site, and a 12-inch main ending at the intersection of Gothard and Ellis Streets. At the present time, the system is inadequate to serve the proposed development. Impacts Approval of the proposed planned community would result in development of a project which would result in development of a project which would consume substantially more water than the estate residential, office, and industrial uses allowed under the current general plan. Based on a water consumption factor of 157 1 The material in this section comes from the Huntington Beach General Plan, Community Services Element, 1981, p. 35-47, and correspondence from E. A. Elevatorski, Water Superintendent, Huntington Beach Public Works Department, Water Division, July 17, 1984. 110 gallons per capita per day and 2,810 residents, the proposed project would consume • approximately 441,170 gallons of water each day at buildout. The existing general plan would allow 254,900 gallons daily, based on 157 gallons per day per person for residential developments, 1,800 gallons per acre per day for office developments, and 2,200 gallons per acre per day for industrial developments at buildout. • The city does not foresee any adverse impacts from the increased water use on supply and services to the rest of the city. The existing water mains, however, are inadequate to serve the proposed project or to provide to Fire Department's • - minimum fire now requirement of 2,000 gallons per minute. Service to the project will initiate from the 12-inch water main at the Gothard/Ellis intersection. The -" developer will build or pay the city to build continuing 12-inch mains to carry water along major roads within the project.l The developer is also responsible for _. distribution mains to bring water to individual residences on the project site Mitigation Measures 1. The following water conservation measures will be implemented as required by state law: - o Low-flush toilets (Section 17921.3 of the Health and Safety Code). o Low-flow showers and faucets (California Administrative Code, Title 24, Part 6, Article 1, T20-1406F). o Insulation of hot water lines in water recirculating systems (California Energy Commission regulations). o The project also will comply with water conservation provisions of the appropriate plumbing code. 2. In addition, the State Department of Water Resources recommends implementation of several other interior and exterior water conservation measures which vary as to their applicability and practicality for any one particular development proposal. A list of these measures is listed below and should be investigated as to their feasibility for use in the development. 1 Personal communication with Stan Farber, Huntington Beach Public Works Department, Water Division, August 16, 1984. 111 • Interior: o Supply line pressure: recommend water pressure greater than 50 pounds per square inch (psi) be reduced to 50 psi or less by means of a pressure-reducing valve. o Flush valve operated water closets: recommend 3 gallons per flush. o Drinking fountains: recommend equipped with self-closing valves. o Pipe insulation: recommend all hot water lines in dwelling be insulated to provide hot water faster with less water waste and to keep hot pipes from heating cold water pipes. o Laundry facilities: recommend use of water-conserving models of washers. Exterior: o Landscape with low water-consuming plants wherever feasible. o Minimize use of lawn by limiting it to lawn dependent uses, such as playing fields. o Use mulch extensively in all landscaped areas. Mulch applied on top of _ soil will improve the water-holding capacity of the soil by reducing evaporation and soil compaction. o Preserve and protect existing trees and shrubs. Established plants are often adapted to low water conditions and there use saves water needed to establish replacement vegetation. o Install efficient irrigation systems which minimize runoff and evaporation and maximize the water which will reach the plant roots. Drip irrigation, soil moisture sensors and automatic irrigation systems are a few methods of increasing irrigation efficiency. o Use previous paving material whenever feasible to reduce surface water runoff and aid in groundwater recharge. o Investigate the feasibility of utilizing reclaimed wastewater, stored rainwater, or household grey water for irrigation. o Encourage cluster development which can reduce the amount of land being converted to urban use. This will reduce the amount of impervious paving created and thereby aid in groundwater recharge. o Preserve existing natural drainage areas and encourage the incorporation of natural drainage systems in new developments. This would aid in groundwater recharge. 112 3. The developer will pay for or build new water mains to carry water through the project and will construct distribution mains to individual residences. 4. It is strongly recommended that thedeveloper consult with the Water • Division of the city's Public Works Department during design and construction phases for further water conservation measures. 3.11.9 Wastewater Theatmentl Existing Conditions The project area is served by the City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department, Sewerage Division, for collection of wastewater, and by the County r Sanitation Districts of Orange County (CSDOC) for the treatment of wastewater. The city operates collection lines in Golden West Street north of the project site, and in Gothard Street, adjacent to the project site. The county has trunk lines in Ernest, Crystal, and Garfield Streets and the study area lies within CSDOC's District No. 3. �- The city facilities in northern Golden West Street and county facilities north of the site would serve the proposed project. The sewage generation factors used by the city for residential uses, in gallons per day per dwelling unit, are as follows: Single Family Detached 230 Single Family Attached 160 • Multi Family Townhouses 130 Multi Family Flats 130 • 1 The material in this section comes primarily from correspondence with Donald W. Kiser, ;Division Engineer, Huntington Beach Public Works Department, Sewerage Division, July 17, 1984, and with Hilary Baker, Senior Engineering Aide, County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, August 16, 1984. IL Additional information was provided through personal communication with Bill Patapoff, Engineer, Huntington Beach Public Works Engineering Department, July 18, 1984. 113 • The city sewage generation factors for office and industrial uses are 2,000 and 3,000 gallons per day per acre, respectively. CSDOC's master plan shows the proposed site as industrial development, using a sewage flow coefficient of 3,880 gallons per day per acre. The district's flow coefficient for medium density residential development (10 units per acre) is also 3,880 gallons per day per acre. Impacts Due to the realignment of Gothard Street, the city facilities in the existing Gothard Street may be abandoned. New facilities would need to be built from the Gothard/Ellis intersection to a point south of the Ellis/Golden West intersection. From there a pump station would be necessary to raise the sewage up to the Ellis/Golden West intersection, where it would continue flowing north in the Golden West city sewer and eventually flow into the county's trunk sewer. The existing Gothard Street sewer may continue to be used to serve part of the project even after the street is realigned'. A facility relocation plan for all sewage transmission lines will be part of a specific plan for proposed development of the site. Based on the city's sewage generation factors noted above, the proposed development would generate 196,100 gallons of sewage per day. The existing land use designation would generate more sewage, approximately 267,200 gallons per day if built to its maximum intensity. Due to this increased flow, from either level of development, the Golden West city sewer may need improvements before the project site is developed. Based on the sewage rates noted above, the impacts from the proposed general plan would be less than those associated with the existing general plan. City facilities south of the site are currently at capacity, and rerouting the sewage from the proposed development and surrounding areas north in Golden West Street is in keeping with the county's policy against inter-district sewage flows. 1 Personal communication from Bill Holman, Huntington Beach Company, November 1984. 114 CSDOC's generation factors (noted above) are the same for both the GPA and the • district's master planned land use designation, and therefore predicted sewage flows are the same under each usue. The district's trunk sewer and treatment plant facilities have been sized to accommodate master planned sewage flows. Wastewater from the district's service area is treated at treatment plants in • Fountain Valley', and Huntington Beach. The Sanitation Districts have an ongoing operations program to maintain applicable waste discharge standards while handling increased tributary flows. At the present time, an environmental impact report is being prepared to evaluate modifications to the two treatment plants. Mitigation Measures 1. Water conservation measures such as recommended in Section 3.11.8, Water Supply, should be considered as measures to reduce sewage flows • from the site. 2. The developer will build new sewage facilities including a sewer lift station to handle wastewater flows from the proposed project. The • developer will also build improvements to the Golden West city sewer line, if necessary. 3.11.0 Telephonel • Existing Conditions The General Telephone Company (GTE) provides service to the proposed project • area. The service facility for the project area is located within the existing Gothard Street and service would initiate from that point. the existing Gothard Street contains a GTE major trunk feed, including a 12-duct system, 6 manholes, and 4 major cables consisting of 4,800 circuits. The City of Huntington Beach requires • _ that all new transmission lines be installed underground, and the city is working with GTE on the undergrounding of existing lines. 1 Material in this section comes primarily from the Huntington Beach General Plan, Community Services Element, 1981, p. 67., and correspondence with W. R. Duvall Resident Engineer, Orange Division, GTE, July 18 and July 25, 1984. 115 Impacts GTE does not foresee any problems in providing telephone service to the proposed project. The major impact on GTE's service from the proposal will come from the realignment of Gothard Street. GTE has a major trunk feed in this street which must be relocated due to the abandonment of the existing Gothard Street alignment. Relocation of facilities into the new Gothard Street easement will require GTE at _ least 18 months to complete.l The estimated relocation cost to GTE is estimated at $7509000.2 A facility relocation plan, to be prepared as part of the specific plan, will address relocation of the telephone trunk line. After facility relocation, telephone service to the project will initiate from the realigned Gothard Street. Mitigation Measures 1. The developer and GTE should work together during the initial planning stage to allow for efficient relocation time during street construction and improvement. 2. A facility relocation plan for all transmission facilities, including telephone lines, will be part of the specific plan prepared for the proposed project. _ 1 Ibid. 2 Ibid. 116 4.0 FISCAL ANALYSIS • The purpose of this analysis is to estimate the potential fiscal impact of the Holly Planned Community on the City of Huntington Beach as a result of project development and the population which it generates. • The density, intensity of land coverage, and purchase price are based on current conceptual development plans. Development is planned to be phased over 10 to 15 years, concurrent with oil production consolidation, as well as construction of major drainage, sewer, and street improvements. The proposed development types and acreages are below: Product Units Acres Density • A. Single-Family Detached 350 54.8 6.4 B. Single-Family Attached 170 17.3 9.8 -- C. Multi-Family Townhouses 230 16.6 13.9 D. Multi-Family Flats 450 23.8 18.9 • Public Streets 7.8 Total or Average 1,200 120.3 10.0 Revenue Analysis of the Holly Planned Community • In order to assess the impact of the project, it is necessary to estimate the assessed valuation of the Holly Planned Community. These estimates are based on the following assumptions: • 1. All assessed values are in fiscal 1984 dollars unless stated otherwise. This is a conservative estimate of valuation and, therefore, a conservative estimate of all revenues base on property taxes. 2. The value of improvements have been estimated based on current development plans proposed by the Huntington Beach Company. 3. It is assumed that all required on-site improvements will be the responsibility of the developer. 117 4. The revenue analyzed is annual; one time development fees are not discussed in this analysis. Property Tax The proposed project is within the City of Huntington Beach tax rate area (TRA) number 4-013 and the rate is 1.11376 percent of the total assessed value of the land and improvements, which is collected by the County of Orange.1 The basic levy is 1 percent; the additional 0.11376 is for special districts, and bond indebtedness. The city receives into its general fund 0.19870629701 percent of the assessed property - value, which equates to 17.84 percent of the collected property tax. The existing assessed value for the Holly Planned Community property is $3,124,357. The current property taxes collected on site are $34,798, of which $6,208 goes to the city general fund. Based upon information provided by the applicant, the estimated average sale prices per unit type will be as follows: single-family detached, $190,000; single-family attached, $150,000; multi-family townhouse, $125,000; and multi-family flats, $100,000. The total annual property tax is projected to be $1,846,057 for the site, _ while the city's general fund should receive $329,337, as follows: County City Unit Type Number $/Unit Total General Fund General Fund Single-family detached 350 $1909000 $66,5007000 $7409650 $132,132 Single-family attached 170 1509000 25,500,000 284,009 509667 Multi-family townhouse 230 1259000 2897509000 3209206 579125 Multi-family flats 450 1009000 45,000,000 501,192 891413 Total $329,337 Sales Tax The Holly Planned Community is proposed to have 1,200 units which will generate approximately 2,810 people, based upon the generation rates shown below. It is anticipated that the residents will occupy their units on a full-time basis. It is also 1Source: Auditor/Controller Office, City of Huntington Beach, July 1984. 118 ~` predicted thatL40 percent of the retail purchases made by these residents will be within Huntington Beach. The remaining 60 percent can be attributed to the surrounding communities retail opportunities, especially to surrounding shopping malls, which attract customers on a regional basis. Unit Typo Number Persons/Units Total • Single-family detached 350 x 3.27 = 19145 Single-family attached 170 x 2.08 = 354 Multi-family townhouse 230 x 1.85 = 478 • Multi-family flats 450 x 1.85 = 833 Total 29810 Holly Planned Community will not contain any retail facilities to attract patrons. Also, it is assumed that the 2,810 residents of the Holly Property will be new to Huntington Bench, and not relocating from other portions of the city. Sales price of the units are estimated to be 3.0 times the purchaser's household • income. For this analysis, 3.0 times household income will be used for the income calculation. Unit Me Density Price Family Income • Single-family detached 3.27 $190,000/3.0 = $63,333 Single-family attached 2.08 150,900/3.0 = 50,300 - Multi-family townhouse 1.85 125,000/3.0 = 419666 • Multi-family flats 1.85 100,000/3.0 = 339333 The Internal Revenue Service gives sales tax generation factors for various family sizes. Based on these figures, the taxable sales would be as follows: • 1 Based on,persons per dwelling unit type from the 1980 United States census in the City of Huntington Beach. 119 Family Income IRS Factor Taxable Sales $63,333 x (0.0767) + $41450 = $99308 $50,300 x (0.0633) + $3,800 = $6,984 $41,666 x (0.0633) + $39800 = $62437 $33,333 x (0.0633) + $31800 = $5,910 It is estimated that 40 percent of the taxable sales will take place within Huntington Beach, and 60 percent in surrounding communities. Sales tax is levied and collected by the State of California at a rate of six cents on every dollar spent on taxable goods. The City of Huntington Beach receives one cent of every six collected on taxable sales within the city. The sales tax generated by the Holly Planned Community and received by the city for the general fund is estimated to equal $55,560 annually. The quantitative estimated taxes from the Holly Planned Community follow: 40% 6% State 1% to _ Unit Type Number Taxable Sales in City Sales Tax City Single-family detached 350 x $9,308 x 0.40 = $1,303,120 $78,187 $137031 Single-family attached 170 x $6,984 x 0.40 = 474,912 289495 49749 Multi-family townhouse 230 x $6,437 x 0.40 = 5929204 35,532 59922 Multi-family flats 450 x $5,910 x 0.40 = 1,0639800 63,828 101638 Total $5349340 Utility Tax Electricity - The city collects 5 percent of every electricity bill for service within the city. The average Southern California Edison residential electricity bill for 1984 is $34.751. Therefore, an estimate of the electricity tax to be gained by the city equals $25,020. The calculation follows: ($34.75 bill x 12 months) (5 percent tax x 1,200 units) = $25,020 Natural Gas - The city collects 5 percent of every gas bill for service within the city. The average Southern California Gas residential bill for 1984 is $42.272. Therefore, an estimate of the natural gas tax to be gained by the city from development of the Holly Planned Community will equal $23,234. The calculation follows: 120 • ($3227 bill x 12 months) (5 percent tax x 1,200 units) = $23,234 Telephone - The city collects 5 percent tax on every telephone bill in the city. Based on an estimated residential telephone bill of approximately $40 per month of service. An estimate of the telephone tax to be gained by the city from the Holly property development equals $28,800. The calculation follows: ($40 bill x 12 months) (5 percent x 1,200 units) = $28,800 revenue • A summary table of the user tax collected by the city on utilities follows: Revenue Utility Generated Electricity $251020 Gas 23,234 Telephone 28,800 • Total $771054 Franchise Tax • The primary sources of franchise tax for the city are based on the gross receipts of natural gas, and electricity accounts in the city. The tax amount is based on 2 percent of gross receipts for electricity and 4 percent for gas.1 The amount of franchise tax is expected to equal $28,596. The calculations follow: $500,400',annual electricity receipts x 0.02 tax = $10,008 464,688 annual gas receipts x 0.04 tax = $18,588 Annual franchise tax $282596 1 California Energy Commission, "Energy Watch," May 1984. 2 California Energy commission, "Energy Watch," May 1984. 1 Personal communication with Arnold Ross, Accountant, Huntington Beach, July 1984. 121 • Fines, Forfeitures, and Penalties The fines, forfeitures, and penalties for the City of Huntington Beach are collected from traffic and court fines, library fines and fees, and alarm billing fines. According to the 1984-85 Annual Budget, the city estimates fines, forfeitures, and penalties to equal $1,966,500. Based on the January 1, 1983, City of Huntington Beach population estimate of 178,706 residents, the fines, forfeitures, and penalties revenue amounts to $11.00 per capita.1 Based on the 2,810 anticipated residents $30,910 can be estimated in additional revenue, as follows: ($199663,500 / 178,706 residents) (2,810 residents) = $30,910 revenue Cigarette Tax The estimated cigarette tax for 1984-1985 from the City of Huntington Beach Annual Budget is $530,000. Based on the January 1, 1983, estimated population of 178,706, the cigarette tax-revenue amounts to $2.97 per capita. The 2,810 new residents would add approximately $83,457 in revenue to the city as shown: ($530,000 tax / 178,706 residents) (2,810 residents) = $83,457 revenue Motor Vehicle In-Lieu The motor vehicle in-lieu revenue is estimated to be $300,000 according to the City of Huntington Beach Annual Budget Fiscal Year 1984-85. Based on the January 1, 1983, population estimate of 178,706 for the city, the motor vehicle in-lieu revenue amounts to $1.68 per capita. The 2,810 anticipated residents will generate approximately $4,721 in revenue, as follows: ($300,000 revenue / 178,706 residents) (2,810 residents) = $4,721 revenue 1 Since the original population figure was calculated, the 1984 population figure has become available — 180,000. Because the change was less than 1 percent, the calculations were not revised for this analysis. 122 Park and Recreation Fees • - Facility use fees and recreation program fees are combined to compose the park and recreation fee, revenue. According to the Annual Budget Fiscal Year 1984-85, the estimated parr and recreation fees revenue is $1,500,000. Based on the January 1, 1983, population estimate of 178,706, the park and recreation fees revenue amounts to $8.39 per '',capita. The 2,810 new residents at Holly Property will generate _ approximately'$23,576 in new revenue as shown. 51 0 =($1, 00,0 0 / 178,706 residents) (2,810 residents) $23,576 revenue • In addition, a' one-time in-lieu park fee will be required. Based on a rate of $139,633/acre ',of park, the fee would be $1,961,844 (2,810 persons x 5 acres/1,000 persons). This', fee would be assessed because residential uses generate the need for • _ public park facilities. Cost Analysis of the Holly Planned Community - General and Administrative Expenditures In fiscal year '1984-85, the City of Huntington Beach anticipates expenditures for salaries, operaltions, and maintenance for general and administrative functions to • equal approximately $8,281,400. This includes funds for: City Council, Administration: City Treasurer, City Attorney, City Clerk, Administrative Services, and non-departmental expenditures. This analysis is based on the assumption these - costs are the same on an acreage basis regardless of the type of land use. Total • developed acres in the city are about 14,638, resulting in a cost of $565 per acre. _ The proposed project will result in a total annual cost of approximately $68,059 for general and administrative services. The calculations follow: • ($$,281,400 cost / 14,638 acres)(120.3 acres) = $68,069 cost Public Safety Expenditures for public safety (police and fire) in fiscal year 1984-85 are anticipated to total $26,437,662. Pro-rated on the basis of total developed acres (14,638) in the 123 city results in a cost of $1,806 per acre. The proposed project will result in an incremental public safety cost increase of $203,186 per year. ($26,437,662 cost / 14,638 acres) (120.3 acres) = $217,262 cost Development Services According to the Annual Budget of Fiscal Year 1984-85 for the City of Huntington Beach, the expenditures for development services, excluding capital costs are expected to equal $1,813,600. Fees are collected for a majority of the services provided by these Departments. This is a very conservative estimate of costs, which assumes no service fees are collected. Pro-rated on the basis of the city population, the city cost for development services equals $10.15 per capita. The cost would then be an additional $28,517 for the 120.3-acre Holly Planned Community as shown. ($1,813,600 cost / 178,706 residents)(2,810 residents) = $28,517 cost Community Services Community services expenditures for the city are projected to equal $5,962,106 excluding capital outlay. Pro-rated on the basis of per capita cost, community services are projected to equal $33.36 per resident. The costs are presumed to be increased by $93,742 as a result of development of the Holly Planned Community as shown: ($5,962,106 cost/178,706 residents)(2,810 residents) = $93,742 cost Public Works The City of Huntington Beach anticipates expenditures for the public works department to equal $14,355,765 for fiscal year 1984-85. Public works expenditures are based on a cost per residential acre. Due to development of the proposed project, public works costs may increase as shown: ($14,355,765/14,638 acres)(78% residential acres)(120.3 acres) = $92,025 cost 124 In addition to the above mentained costs to the City of Huntington Beach, there are • other local costs, which are met by the county or other district. Schools generate the primary cost, other than those incurred by the city. These additional costs, however, are (laid by other revenues, and not by the those revenues collected by the city. • Summary of .Revenue and Costs for the Holly Planned Community Table 22 presents a comparison of the Holly Planned Community residential • development annual revenue and public service cost impacts for the City of Huntington Beach. Revenue for the Holly Property is $611,991 versus total estimated annual costs of $499,605, resulting in an estimated net annual surplus of $112,386. The revenue to cost ratio is 1.23 identifying that for each $1.00 spent for public services, an additional $0.23 will be returned to the city as revenue. _. Revenue/Cost Analysis of Development Based on Current General Plan Designations This analysis was conducted in order to make a revenue/cost comparison between the proposed project and one which would be consistent with the existing general plan designations. • The current general plan allows approximately 46.6 gross acres of Estate Residential, -- 75.0 gross acres of General Industrial and 5.0 gross acres of Professional Office. This equates to a maximum of approximately 140 single-family dwelling units, 1.8 million square feet of industrial space and 131,000 square feet of office space, as shown in the table below: Existing General Plan Approximate '.Maximum Density Maximum Land Use Designation Gross Acreage or Site Coverage Buildout Estate Residential 23.3 2 du/acre 47 du 23.3 4 du/acre 93 du Subtotal 46.4 140 du M General Industrial 75.0 55% 41.25 ac or 1,796,800 sq. ft. • __ Professional Office 5.0 30% 1.5 ac 1309680 sq. ft. 1 1 Assumes a,two-story structure. 125 • Property Tax The maximum number of homes allowed under the existing general plan is 140. Given to the size of the lots required by the current General Plan designations, the homes would be priced at approximately $350,000. Total residential value of the property would be $49 million. Industrial areas are typically developed with up to 55 percent land coverage, which in this case equates to 41.25 acres, or 1.8 million square feet. Construction costs for warehousing are being estimated at $30 per square foot.I Total value of the industrial space including land costs would be $56 million. Office space is typically allowed to be developed up to a 30 percent coverage. With a two-story structure, the gross floor area would equal approximately 131,000 square feet. Two-story office construction costs in the greater Los Angeles area average $63 per square foot.2 Total professional office space value including land costs would be $8.38 million. In addition to building construction, the office and industrial uses have a ground development cost of approximately $1.80 per square foot for all land not covered by building. This would be 45 percent or 1.47 million square feet for industrial use and 70 percent or 152,000 square feet for professional office. This cost of $2.65 million includes landscaping, parking, curbs and gutters. 1 Construction Industry Research Board, August 1984. 2 Ibid. 126 TABLE 22 ESTIMATED CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ANNUAL REVENUES AND - COSTS RESULTING FROM HOLLY PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (Current Dollars) Revenues Estimated Amount Property Tax $329,337 Sales Tax 34,340 Utility Use Task 771054 Franchise Tax ',, 28,596 Fines, Forfeitures, and Penalties 30,910 Cigarette Tax ', 839457 Motor Vehicle ;In-Lieu Tax 49721 Park and Recreation Fees* 23,576 �- Total $611,991 Costs General and Administrative $ 68,059 Public Safety 217,262 Development Services 281517 Community Services 939742 `- Public Works 92,025 Total $499,605 Revenue - Cost = $1129386 Revenue/Cost I= 1.23 * One-time its-lieu park fee (based on today's _ park value Irate) $1,961.844 127 The projected annual city revenue from property tax on the project site valued at $133.43 million would total $265,134 million if it was developed to its maximum intensity under the existing general plan and zoning designations.1 Sales Tax The 140 homes are expected to be sold for an average of $250,000 per unit. At a price of 2.75 times household income, average income would be $90,900. The taxable sales would equal $15,990 as shown in the following calculations: ($90,900 income x IRS factor 0.076) + $4,450 IRS factor = $11,422 taxable sales $11,422 taxable sales / 0.01 city tax rate = $685 tax x 140 units = $15,990 Sales tax would also be generated by the project from merchant purchases in the City of Huntington Beach. However, the amount cannot be estimated as the type of business and number of employees are not known. The generated sales tax in the office and industrial use areas is not expected to be as high as with a residential development. Utility Tax Electricity - Using the rates presented earlier for the proposed project's electricity tax generation, the 140 housing units allowed by the current general plan designation would generate approximately $2,900 in electricity tax. As discussed in Section 3.11.6, the annual electricity usage rate used for the light industrial use is 4.5 kwh per square foot and assuming a maximum build out of 1.8 million square feet, the electricity consumption from this use could be 8 million kwh per year. Using the Southern California Edison price of 7.5 cents per kwh, the industrial space would generate about $600,000 per year. This would bring $30,000 to the city in electricity tax. The average annual rate for electricity in a low rise office is 12.2 kwh per square foot. The 131,000 square feet of office space would use 1.6 million kwh of 1 This project was assumed to have a 15 percent profit for the developer. 128 electricity which would cost $120,009. The resulting city electricity tax would equal $6,000. The total electricity tax from residential, industrial and office uses would equal M $38,900. Natural Gas -Using the rates presented earlier for the proposed project's natural gas tax generation, the city tax from residential natural gas usage (140 d.u.) would equal $3,550 of the $71,000 expected in natural gas bills per year. Industrial use'',demand is 0.396 BTUs per square foot annually.l This equates to a • total billing of $391,330 for 712,800 BTUs. This will generate $19,570 in tax for the city. Office uses generate a demand of 0.42 BTUs per square foot annually.2 A total of 55,000 BTUs annually would be used for $30,200. The city tax would equal $1,510. The total natural gas tax from currently allowed uses would equal $24,630. Telephone - ' Based on rates presented earlier, the residents will generate • approximately', $67,200 in telephone service bills which will bring $3,360 in tax to the city. A summary table of the tax to be collected by the city for utility use follows: • Revenue Utility Generated Electricity $38,900 • Gas 24,630 Telephone 3,360 Total $66,890 • M 1 Source of usage rate: State Energy Resources and Conservation Development Commission, August 1984. 2 Ibid. 129 • Franchise Tax The single family residential, office and industrial usage of electricity and natural gas would generate $34,598 in franchise tax on gross receipts of gas and electricity: a total of $15,568 for electricity and $19,030 for gas. Fines, Forfeitures, and Penalties A density of 3.27 for 140 single-family units would generate 458 people and $5,038 in fines, forfeitures and penalties annually. Cigarette Tax The anticipated cigarette tax is $2.97 per capita or $1,360 annually from the new residents. Motor Vehicle In-Lieu The motor vehicle in-lieu revenue to the city would amount to $769 annually. Park and Recreation Fees The park and recreation fees currently amount to $8.39 per capita, which would equal $3,843 with the new development. _ Costs Costs which were figured on an acre-by-acre basis are for general and administrative expenditures and public safety. Public works was pro-rated by the type of acreage use. Community and development services were handled on a per capita basis. o General and administrative expenditures ($8,281,400 cost/14,638 acres)(120.3) _ $68,069 o Public Safety ($26,437,662/14,638 acres)(120.3 acres) = 217,262 cost 130 o Development Services • — ($1,813,600 cost/178,706 residents) (458 residents) - $4,648 o Community Services • ($5,962,106 cost/178,706 residents) (458 residents) _ $151280 " o Public Works • ($14,355,765 cost/14,638 acres)(78% residential -- acres x 46.4 acres) _ $359494 ($9801,.72 cost/acre)(12% industrial acres, x 75.0 acres) _ $8,826 • _ ($980J2 cost/acre)(10% commercial acres x 5.0 acres) _ $490 Total$44,810 • Summary of Relvenue and Costs for the Alternative Plan The following table presents a comparison of costs and revenues to be incurred by the city if the project site was developed in accordance with the general plan and • current zoning., The revenues are estimated at $393,622 versus total costs of 350,059. The revenue to cost ratio is 1.12, compared to 1.26 for the proposed project. • In addition, the table reexamines the revenues and costs of the proposed project. As seen from the table, revenue to cost of the proposed project would be greater than that under the existing general plan and zoning designations. Again this assumes the existing general plan alternative is developed to its maximum buildout of dwelling units, industrial and office space; and that the proposed project is developed to its maximum of 1,100 dwelling units. 131 • TABLE 23 ESTIMATED CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ANNUAL REVENUES AND COSTS RESULTING FROM DEVELOPMENT ACCORDING TO CURRENT LAND USE DESIGNATIONS (Current Dollars) Proposed Existing Revenues Project General Plan Property Tax $3299337 $2659134 Sales Tax 34,340 152990 Utility Use Tax 77,054 662890 Franchise Tax 28,596 349598 Fines, Forfeitures, and Penalties 309910 5,038 Cigarette Tax 83,457 11360 Motor Vehicle In-Lieu Tax 4,721 769 Park and Recreation Fees 23,576 39843 Total $611,991 $3931622 Costs General and Administrative $ 689059 $ 68,059 Public Safety 217,262 2179262 Development Services 289517 49648 Community Services 939742 44,810 Public Works 929025 159280 Total $4999605 $3509059 Revenue - Cost = +$112086 +$439563 Revenue/Cost = 1.23 1.12 132 5.0 ALTERNATIVES Alternative development concepts are evaluated in this section and include "No Project" and "No Development" alternatives. Reasonable development alternatives include higher density residential, lower density residential, and a mix of commercial and residential' uses. All of the alternatives assume the continuation of oil production on the site and the phasing out of these facilities over time. In addition, all the alternatives assume that Gothard Street is realigned as shown on the MPAH. 5.1 NO PRC"CT Under the No Project alternative, the general plan designation for the site would remain Estate Residential, General Industrial, and Professional Office. Due to the -- presence of the surrounding residential and light industrial development and the site's existing designations, the No Project alternative would probably only delay development of site with these uses. Therefore, this alternative assumes that some kind of mixed light industrial, office, and estate residential development is built, not that the site is left in its present oil production use. The city's general plan land use diagram shows the western part of the site (north of Ernest Avenue) as being Estate Residential with about half being limited to no more . than two dwelling units per acre and the other half limited to no more than 4 - dwelling units per acre. The city estimated that approximately 46.6 acres of the site lies within the 'Estate Residential zoning. Therefore, assuming 23.3 acres per density range, the site could include up to 140 single-family dwelling units. General Industrial uses are allowed over the majority of the site (75 acres). Assuming a 55 percent site coverage and single-story structures, up to 1,800,000 square feet of light industrial uses could be developed here. w Five-acres of the site is designated for Professional Office. Assuming 30 percent site coverage and a two-story structure, this parcel could be developed with up to about 131,000 square feet of office uses. These estimates of maximum potential buildout have been developed to assess the worst-case condition that could result if no GPA were approved and the site was 133 eventually developed as allowed under the current general plan. It is understood that this level of development may never result on this site and that oil production activities will continue on the site until oil resources are used up. This alternative also assumes that oil production activities can continue within limited areas on the site provided the appropriate safety, access, and visual concerns are mitigated. Development of these alternative uses would result in the same types of environmental impacts as could be expected from the proposed project evaluated in this EIR.. The level of significance of these impacts would vary depending on the environmental topic addressed. The difference in environmental effects between the existing general plan and planned community residential uses have been evaluated in a number of sections in this EIR and a summary of the findings is presented here. i Landform, geology, and hydrology constraints to development of industrial and office W structures would be virtually the same as identified in Sections 3.1.2, 3.2.2, and 3.2.3 for the proposed residential structures although more mass grading may be required for larger industrial lots. The industrial and office uses would probably generate more runoff and allow for less groundwater recharge than the proposed project, although the difference would probably not be considered significant. Biological resources would be completely removed as is proposed by the conceptual site plan for the GPA. Traffic, air quality, and noise impacts associated with the No Project alternative -' would be greater than those associated with the proposed project (assuming the site is built-out to its maximum intensity). However, as discussed in Section 3.8, the _ traffic volumes would not be considered significantly greater. The congestion will occur along select arterials in the area unless they are upgraded to their MPAH classification and other measures are implemented. Air quality and noise impacts r could also be expected to be somewhat greater due to the increase in vehicle trips. The No Project alternative would also have a greater impact on electricity, telephone and wastewater treatment/sewer requirements than the proposed project. However, the natural gas and water utilities and the school, police, and fire protection would receive less impact under this alternative. 134 This alternative would potentially provide more revenue to the city than the proposed residential, planned comunity (see Fiscal Impacts, Sectin 4.0). Generally, -- non-residential uses are more revenue generating than residential uses. As estimated in Section 4.0, the proposed project would result in a revenue-to-cost ratio of 1.46 and the no project alternative would result in a revenue-to-cost ratio of 2.78. The project site is in a transitional area between residential uses to the east and south, light industrial uses to the southwest, south and north, and estate residential/open space uses to the west and north. This property is shown at the southernmost end of the central industrial zone on the city's current Land Use Diagram (see Exhibit 3). The uses on this property will set the trend for development -.. of the areas to the west and north. Estate residential uses are certainly compatible with the open space uses to the north (the Huntington Central Park) and with the stables and scattered residential to the west. However, it does not appear compatible with the industrial uses south of Ernest or the light industrial uses on the rest of the study area. Unless the transition areas between these two uses are carefully designed, this mix of uses would not be considered compatible. Light industrial uses have historically been developed in this area and would not be incompatible with some of the uses along Gothard north of Ellis and along Garfield between Golden West and Gothard. However, given that the areas to the south and west are general planned for residential, development of the industrial uses on the site would require careful site planning and buffering to insure that these uses were more compatible with future surrounding residential areas. In summary, the No Project alternative would not result in environmental impacts substantially different than those associated with the proposed project. The major differences lie in the compatibility of land uses and the amount of traffic generated. 5.2 NO ACTION This alternative proposes that no GPA be approved and that no further development of the site be implemented. In other words, this alternative proposes that the oil production facilities and other uses on the site remain and the rest of the is site is maintained as open space. 135 This alternative would result in the fewest environmental impacts of all the alternatives. Landform, geology, hydrology, biology, and cultural considerations would be the same as they are right now. The land use would be compatible with the other open space/oil production/stable areas to the north and west. Traffic, air quality, noise, public services, and utilities impacts would be virtually the same as they are right now, which would be considered minimal. Given the pressures for growth in this part of the city, and the landowner's desire to maximize the use of the site, it is unlikely that the site would remain un-urbanized as oil production phases out. It is more likely that if no GPA is approved and if the existing general plan uses are not developable, that this area will remain undeveloped only as long as it takes for the landowner/developer and city to agree on some kind of development alternative. 5.3 HIGHER DENSITY This alternative proposes a residential planned community where higher densities and thereby more units are developed than are proposed under the concept plan submitted and shown in Exhibit 4 (Section 2.0) The residential densities allowed in areas surrounding the site range from estate residential (at no more than 2 d.u./acre) to medium density residential (no more than 15 d.u./acre). If the entire project were developed with medium density residential, the number of units would reach up to almost 1,900. This kind of development could include duplexes, triplexes, apartments, condominiums, or townhouses. Even more units could be achieved if the density limit was higher. The city has medium-high (16-25 d.u./gross acre) and high (greater than 25 d.u./gross acre) density categories which are appropriate for apartment/condominium complexes and high-rise residential. The most likely way of developing a higher density community is with a mix of densities which are higher than those proposed in the conceptual site plan (6.4 to 18.9 d.u./gross acre). This would provide a better range of product types than one density throughout. 136 A higher density development would increase the cumulative traffic, air quality, • noise, public services, and utilities impacts associated with the number of units shown in the :concept site plan. The landform, geology, hydrology, biology, and cultural resources considerations would be the same. • A higher density residential development could be as compatible with adjacent and a- uses as the proposed plan would be, if it takes into consideration the densities of surrounding residential uses, the locations of industrial areas, and open space opportunities. However, given that most of the residential development in the area • is estate low or medium density, large apartment complexes or high-rise structures would be incompatible. A higher density community could possibly provide more opportunities for affordable housing. • 5.4 LOWER I)ENSrff .,, This alternative proposes a residential planned community where lower densities and thereby fewer units are developed than are proposed under the concept plan • submitted and shown in Exhibit 4 (Section 2.0). These densities could range from estate residential to medium density residential. A lower density planned community would have the same types of environmental • impacts as art associated with the proposed project. However, the project's contribution to::, cumulative traffic, air quality, noise, public services, and utilities impacts would be commensurately less. A lower density planned community could also be compatible with surrounding land • uses if the higher densities are placed adjacent to the surrounding light industrial and medium density uses, and if the estate residential or low density units are placed adjacent to the northeastern corner, adjacent to the areas zoned for estate w- residential and ''open space. This alternative would probably not provide the same opportunities for affordable housing as the proposed concept plan or the higher density alternative. 137 5.5 MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT I This alternative would allow a mix of residential and commercial (shopping center) uses within the project boundaries. Because commercial uses generate far more traffic than residential uses, it could be assumed that this alternative would generate far more traffic congestion, air quality, and noise impacts than would the proposed all-residential project. The environmental considerations regarding landform, geology, oil production facilities, hydrology, biology, and cultural resources would be j the same as for the proposed project. As mentioned earlier, the project site is in an area of transition between residential uses to the east and south; industrial uses to the southwest, south, and north; and estate residential and open space uses to the east and north. Commercial uses are generally concentrated along Beach Boulevard about a half mile to the east. In addition, the Seacliff Shopping Center is located about a half mile south of the site on Golden West Street. Commercial development might be a good transitional use in this area, particularly adjacent to the commercial industrial uses along Garfield. Residential uses would be most appropriate in the northern and western portions of the site. The provision of convenient neighborhood commercial uses would reduce the vehicle miles of travel of the resident's living within the site and vicinity. However, given the current availability of commercial center uses along Beach and Golden West (south of Garfield), it is not clear if additional commercial development would be marketable in this area. 5.6 INDUSTRIAL/MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL In this alternative approximately ten acres of the 120 acre site are proposed for medium density residential development resulting in 150 units located in the northwest corner of the site. The residential portion of the alternative is separated from the industrial section by the existing ravine and swales. The majority of the area would be devoted to industrial development. Assuming a 55 138 percent site coverage (110 acres) and two-story structures, the estimated building • square footage would be 2,635,000. It is assumed that an area that large would be an industrial parr containing a range of uses from light industrial to high-technology commercial office. • Development of this alternative would result in similar types of environmental .- impacts as the proposed project is expected to have, and discussed in this document. For example, landform, geology, and hydrology constraints from �. development of industrial and office structures would be virtually the same as • identified in Sections 3.1.2, 3.2.2, and 3.2.3 for the proposed residential structures. The industrial!and office uses would probably generate more runoff and allow for less groundwater recharge than the proposed project, although the difference would probably not be considered significant. Biological resources would be completely • �- removed as is proposed by the conceptual site plan for the GPA. Traffic, air quality, and noise impacts associated with this alternative would be greater than those associated with the proposed project (assuming the site is built- out to its maximum intensity). Traffic volumes could be significantly greater than the proposed project because of an estimated building area that is greater than Alternative 5.1, although the land use is similar. However, with the widening of Golden West ',Street and the realignment of Gothard, which will occur before • development of the site is completed, congestion associated with this type of development should not be significantly greater than the proposed project. Air quality and noise impacts could also be expected to be greater due to the increase in vehicle trips. • This alternative would also have a greater impact on electricity, sewage, and telephone requirements than the proposed project. Natural gas and water consumption could be lower, plus impacts on school, police, and fire protection services would'be reduced. A Fiscally, this alternative is expected to have a higher revenue to cost ratio than the proposed project and similar to Alternative 5.1. The degree to which this alternative is a fiscal improvement would depend on the type of business that is located at that site. For example, the home office of some corporations (i.e., pharmaceutical manufacturers) report all sales tax collected from the corporate headquarters which 139 result in the home office city receiving a portion (one percent) of the total tax reported. The project site is in a transitional area between residential uses to the east and south, light industrial uses to the southwest, south and north, and estate residential/open space uses to the west and north. This property is shown at the southernmost end of the central industrial zone on the city's current Land Use Diagram (see Exhibit 3). The industrial portion of this alternative would constitute a retention of the M southernmost portion of the Gothard Corridor for industrial purposes and would retain an industrial link to the Stewart/Crystal industrial area to the southwest. The residentially designated area in this alternative would be compatible with the open space uses to the north (Huntington Central Park) and with the horse stables and estate residential to the west. The residential area would be separated from the industrial portions of the project by existing swales in the topography which would be retained and, in the case of similar Alternative 5.7, by Gothard Street to the east. Utilizing these separations in conjunction with careful planning and design, it will be feasible to create a project in which residential and light industrial uses are compatible. In summary, Alternative 5.6 would not result in environmental impacts substantially different than those associated with the proposed project. The significant differences would be compatibility of land uses, the amount of traffic generated and fiscal impacts. 5.7 INDUSTRIAL/LOW DENSPPY RESIDENTIAL The mix of land uses in this alternative is just slightly different than the previous alternative. Again, the primary use of the site would be industrial, approximately 1,965,000 square feet of building, assuming two-story structures on 82 acres. Forty-eight acres would be zoned low density residential resulting in approximately 336 dwelling units. The number of units will be greater in this alternative, and a larger population per dwelling unit is expected to generate an increase, in comparison to Alternative 5.6, in residential traffic impacts. 140 • This alternative would have the same impacts as 5.6 except that traffic generated by the light industrial portion is expected to be less since the building area in this concept is approximately 25 percent less than alternative 5.6. Although traffic patterns are different than 5.6, the overall result is that the . impacts associated with this alternative are the same as alternative 5.6 when compared to the proposed project: increase in traffic, land use compatibility and higher revenue/cost ratio. • • • 141 6.0 GROWTH-INDUCING AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 6.1 GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS Approval of the proposed GPA would most likely be growth-inducing to properties _. immediately east, west, and north of the site. The provision of additional housing within the city would assist in meeting the demand for housing created by the growth of employment opportunities within the city and the region. These areas are currently undeveloped or are developed with low intensity uses such as horse stables and oil production. Development of the site will require some major infrastructure improvements and will therefore, bring upgraded facilities into the - area which could potentially service these adjacent parcels. 6.2 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Development of the proposed residential project would add cumulatively to the water r quality, traffic, air quality, and noise impacts associated with urban development in the city and region. Projects which are coming on line or could potentially add to the cumulative impacts in the area include the Pacific Ranch, Seacliff Planned Community, Bolsa Chica, and the Downtown Specific Plan projects. Compared to a primarily industrial project, as allowed under the current general plan, cumulative impacts from the project site could be somewhat less. Demands placed on public services and utilities, such as fire, police, schools, solid waste disposal, electricity, gas, water, sewer, and telephone would also add to the cumulative demand for the area. Most of these demands are expected to be greater than the demands created by a mixed use (primarily non-residential) development of the type allowed under the current land use designations. 142 7.0 IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES • -r The environmental changes produced by the implementation of the proposed project would occur mainly as a result of alterations to the physical environment in the form — of a commitment of community services and urban land form. If the project is • approved and subsequently implemented, structures would be built, utilities installed, and a circulation system would be constructed; all of which would comprise an urban infrastructure. Oil production facilities would be consolidated and eventually phased out. • Project development is a short-term irreversible commitment of the land. After the 50 to 75 year structural lifespan of the buildings is reached, it would be feasible to redevelop the site to alternative land uses. However, it is improbable that the site • would revert to open space or oil production uses due to the large capital investment that will have already been committed. Implementation of the project also represents a long-term commitment of energy resources, primarily in the form of fossil fuels, including fuel oil, natural gas, and gasoline for automobiles in construction equipment. The construction or destruction of other non-renewable and slowly-renewable resources would also result from the proposed actions. These include, but are not limited to: lumber, sand and gravel, • asphalt, metals;, water, etc. An increase commitment of social services and public maintenance services (waste disposal and treatment, etc.) would also be required. • 143 s 8.0 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF MAWS ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG- TERM PRODUCTWTTY The study area supports oil recovery activities and these activities are expected to continue on the site until the reserves are gone or until such time as it is not economically feasible to continue their operation. The proposed concept plan shows oil wells interspersed within the residential structures on the eastern half of the site. The Huntington Beach Company proposes - to continue operation of these wells until the reserves in this area are gone. The leases on the western half of the site are not controlled by the company, however, it is expected that the facilities on that portion of the site will will also continue operation until reserves are depleted. Therefore, the relatively short-term (20+ years) use of the land for oil extraction will not cease due to the proposed development. The principle goal of this project is to commit basically undeveloped land to urban uses. The anticipated 50 to 75 year lifespan of structures represents another short- tern use of the environment. However, implementation of the project would represent a relatively long-term commitment to urbanization and population support r systems. It is logical to assume that the proposed uses will, in turn, be replaced by another productive activity as the development and redevelopment of land progresses through time in response to human needs. The project applicant considers the property marketable for development in the next few years. In the next few years the oil facilities can be consolidated and the potentially hazardous conditions on the site removed. Major advantages to near-term development include greater economic productivity from the property for the landowner and an increased supply of housing in the City of Huntington Beach. 144 9.0 SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED IF THE • PROJECT IS IMPLEMENTED As discussed in Section 3.0, ultimate implementation of the proposed project will result in significant adverse impacts to the environment. This section provides a �• summary of those adverse impacts which may remain after the implementation of the city's policies/requirements or proposed mitigation measures. The degree of significance of each impact is dependent upon the extent to which mitigation measures are ultimately incorporated into the project. • 1. Development of the project would significantly alter views of the site from the roads and surrounding areas. Following mitigation, this impact, which is subjective interpretation may still be perceived as significant by • surrounding viewers. 2. Impacts to water quality, traffic, air quality, noise, public services, utilities, and natural resources can be mitigated to some degree, however, • they',may be considered cumulatively significant., • • 145 • 10.0 ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONTACTED The following MBA personnel participated in the preparation of the EIR: Principal in Charge Thomas E. Smith, Jr., AICP Project Manager Beverly Bruesch Research and Analysis Thomas Fitzwater, AICP - Gary Jakobs Joan P. Kelly Buck Panchal Graphics Lynn Buhlig Lori Scharnell Word Processing Charlene Kortgard Janette Redd The following consultants prepared technical studies for the EIR: Geology/Soils Terri Wright Richard Lung Leighton & Associates 1151 Duryea Avenue Irvine, California 92714 Traffic/Circulation Bill Darnell Basmaciyan-Darnell, Inc. 4262 Campus Drive, Suite B-1 Newport Beach, California 92660 Drainage Dennis D. Nelson Irvine Civil Engineering 3140 Red Hill Avenue, Suite 200 Costa Mesa, California 92626 - Other organizations and individuals contacted during preparation of the EIR include: City of Huntington Beach Howard Zelefsky Department of Development Services Max Bowman Pam Poston Diana Blaisure - Charles Clark Fire Department Tom Shaw Tom Poe Police Department Jim Moore Lt. R. Morrison - Roy Wiley 146 Public Works Department Lyman McCray • William Patapoff Don Kiser Bruce Gilmer Accounting Arnold Ross • Huntington Beach Company Bill Holman Huntington Beach City School District Gary Bergner County of Orange General Service Agency Mike Luke • County Sanitation Districts of Orange County Hilary J. Baker General Telephone Company W. R. Duvall Southern California Gas Company M. T. Roseen Southern California Edison Company R. L. Coolidge • 'W Orange County Transit District Dick Hsu ... Rainbow Disposal Company Richard Timm • i • s _ 147 11.0 REFERENCES General City of Huntington Beach. 1979. Huntington Beach General Plan. City of Huntington Beach. July1981. Huntington Beach Oil Code. City of Huntington Beach. 1965 (Updated through July 1984). Ordinance Code. Geology/Soils/Oil Production See Appendix C. Hydrology Fast, A. W. and H. J. Glenn. 1980. Sully Miller Lake: An Assessment and Development Plan. Also, see Appendix D. Biological Resources Abrams, Leroy. 1923. Illustrated Flora of the Pacific States. Stanford University _ Press, Stanford, California. 4 Volumes. American Ornithologists' Union (AOU). 1983. The AOU Check-list of North American Birds. 6th ed. Allen Press, Lawrence, Kansas. 877 pp. California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 1980. At the Crossroads: A Report on the Status of California's Endangered and Rare Fish and Wildlife. Rate of California Resources Agency, Sacramento, California. 1 pp. + Addenda. California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 1982a. "Designated Endangered or Rare Plants." Summary list from Section 1904 Fish and Game Code (Native Plant Protection Act). State of California Resources Agency, Sacramento, California. 4 pp. California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 1982b. "Endangered, Rare and Threatened Animals of California," Revised March 15, 1982. State of California Resources Agency, Sacramento, California. Photocopied List. 4 pp. Collins. B. J. 1972. Key to Coastal and Chaparral Flowering Plants of Southern California. California State University, Northridge, a ornia. pp. Collins, J. T., J. E., Hukeey, J. L. Knight and H. M. Smith. 1978. "Standard Common and Current Scientific Names for North American Amphibians and Reptiles." Soc. Study Amphibians and Reptiles. Herp. Circ. 7. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1982. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Federal Register 50 CFR 17.11 and 17.12. U.S. Department of the Interior, Reprint. 13 pp. 148 y Hall, E. R. 1981. The Mammals of North America. John Wiley and Sons, New York, New York. Higgins, E. B. 1949. "Annotated Distributional List of the Ferns and Flowering Plants of San Diego County." Occas. Papers, San Diego Society of Natural History No. 8. 174 pp. • Hitchcock, A. S. 1950. Manual of the Grasses of the United States. U.S. Department of Agriculture Miscellaneous Publication No. 200. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 1051 pp. Jones, Jr., J. K., D. C. Carter, H. H. Genoways, R. S. Hoffman and D. W. Rice. 1982. "Revised Checklist of North American Mammals North of Mexico, . -- 1982." Occas. Pap. Mus. Texas Tech Univ., No. 80. Munz, P. A. 1974. A Flora of Southern California. University of California Press, Berkeley, California. 1086 pp. Munz, P. A. and D. D. Keck. 1959. A California Flora. University of California Press, Berkeley, California. 1681 pp. Robbins, W. W., Margaret K. Bellue and Walter S. Ball. 1951. Weeds of California. State of California Department of Agriculture. 547 pp. Smith, J. P., Jr., R. J. Cole and J. O. Sawyer, Jr. 1980. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California. Special Publ. No. 1 2nd Edition), • California Native Plant Society.. 115 pp. + Supplements. Stebbins, R. C. 1972. Amphibians and Reptiles of California. University of California Press, Berkeley, California. 279 pp. Archaeology • See Appendix F. Lend Use and Planning Considerations .. City of Huntington Beach. July 1978. Final EIR 77-6, Seacliff IV, Planned • Community Development. Prepared by Ultrasystems, Inc. City of Huntington Beach. July 1982. Final EIR on the Proposed Huntington Central Park Expansion (EIR 81-5). Prepared by ENVISTA. City of Huntington Beach. 1983. The Downtown Specific Plan for the • -- Implementation of the Huntington Beach Coastal Element. City of Huntington Beach. August 1976. Land Use Element Background Report. City of Huntington Beach. November 1979. Housing Element, Huntington Beach General Plan. - Traffic/Circulation See Appendix G. 149 • Air Quality South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Data (1979-1983). South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Handbook for EIRs, Revised December 1983. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Management Plan, 1982. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Rules and Regulations. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Supplements 1-13, AP-42), 1976. Noise California, State of. Guidelines of the Preparation and Content of Noise Elements of the General Plan,. February 1976. CH2M Hill. Heliport Master Planning Study. March 1983. Harris, C. M. Handbook of Noise Control. 1979. Hughes Helicopters. Hughes Helicopter's Guide to Flying Neighborly. August 1984. U.S. Department of Transportation. Impact of Noise on People. May 1977. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Protective Noise Levels - Condensed Version of EPA Levels Document. November 1978. Public Services and Utilities City of Huntington Beach. May 1981. Community Facilities Element. _ Fiscal Impacts City of Huntington Beach. June 1984. Annual Budget FY 84-85. 150 12.0 APPENDICES • A. Initial Study B. Notce of Preparation (NOP) and NOP Responses `w C. C. Geology/Soils Report D. Hydrology Report E. Floral and Faunal Compendia F. Archaeology Report G. Traffic Report • H. Air Quality Data I. Noise Data J. Correspondence K. Huntington Beach Oil Code • • • 151 • • • APPENDIX A INITIAL STUDY • i� • APPENDIX I Yes Mayrbe No g. F,posure of people or property to geolo- ENVIRONMENTAL 0-(ECKLIST FORM gic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, (To Be Completed By Lead Agency) mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? �_ -- 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: I. Background I a. Substantiol air emissions or deterioration X I, Na of ambient air quality?ne of Proponent Huntington Beach Company —� -- 2. Address and Plane Number of Proponent 2110 Main Street. { b. The creation of objectionable odors? _ X Huntington Beach, CA 92648 c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or (714) 960-4351 temperature, or any change in climate, X — either locally or regionally? �_- 3. Date of Checklist Submitted — 7-02-84 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: 4. Agency Requiring Checklist City of Huntington Beach a. Changes in currents, or the course of di- S, iJom!• of Proposal, if applicable "Holly Property" General Plan Atnenb rection of water movements, in either Xnent marine or fresh waters? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage pat- h. Environmental Impacts terns, or the rate and amount of surface X runoff? (Fxplanotionti of off "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.) —C. Alterations to the course or flow of flood Yes Mc No waters? X I. Forlh. Will the proposal result in: d. Change in the amount of surface water in X a. -:4cble earth conditions or c changes any water body? geologic substructures? X e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, in- ns, o b. clver ocov displacements, compaction cluding but not limited to temperature, vererinq of the soil? X dissolved oxygen or turbidity? X C. c hmye in topography or ground surface rrlief features? X I. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow X --- -- of ground waters? d. l e dPsfnxtion, covering or modification g, Change in the quantity of ground waters, ul any unique geologic or physical features? X either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interception of an X e. Any uc either in r of or water erosion of aquifer by cuts or excavations? soils, either on or off the site? _ X -- -- h. Substantial reduction in the amount of I. c h de unges in position or erosion of beach water otherwise available for public water srMcds, or changes in cillation, deposition or supplies? X rosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or tlw bed of the ocean or I. Fxnosure of people or property to water re- :•y buy, inlet a lake? X ? x -- ---- toted hazards such as flooding or tidal waves. 310 309 Yes 7tw No Yes Maybe No b. Slbstonlial depletion of any nonrenewable 4. Plant Life. Will the proposol result in: natural resource? X a, Change in the diversity of sparies, or 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: number of any species of plants (including frees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic a. A risk of an explosion or the release plants)? X of hazardous substances (including, but not t limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, radiation) in the event of on accident or rare or endangered species of plants? X upset conditions? __ _X c. Introduction of new species of plants into b. Possible interference with an emergency on oven, or in a barrier to the normal response plan or an emergency evacuation replenishment of existing species? X plan? X d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural II. Population. Will the proposal after the location, crop? X distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? X 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: -- 12. Horsing. Will the proposal affect existing hous- a. Change in the diversity of species, or ing, or create a demand for additional housing? X numbers of any species of animals (birds, --- land animals including reptiles, fish and 13. Tronspor tat ion/CirculatIon. Will the proposal shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)? X X result in: b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, i a. Generation of substantial additional rare or endangered species of animals? X vehicular movement? X C. Introduction of new species of ontrools into b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or X an area, or result in a barrier to the X dernand for new parking? migration or movement of animals? _ C. Substantial impact upon existing tronspor- d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife tation systems? X habitat? X -- d. Alterations to present patterns of circula- 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: tion or movement of people and/or goods? X G. Increases in existing noise levels? X e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air Traffic? X b, Exposure of people to severe noise levels? X ^— I. Increase in traffic hazards to motor 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? X new light or glare? X 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have on 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a sub- effect ugpon, or result in a need for new or stonlial alteration of the present or planned altered governmental services in any of the land use of on areo? X -_ followinq areas: X 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Fire protection? X a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural b. Police protection? X resources? H --- - C. Schools? X 312 311 t�-rsew Yes M_a.bc tJo Yes Maybe No d. f',xks or other recreational facilities? X b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or e. Maintenance of public facilities, including historic building, structure, or object? X roads? X c. Does the proposal have the potential to I. Other governmental services? X cause a physical change which would affect -- unique ethnic cultural values? X 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? X or sacred uses within the potential impact area? X b. Substonlial increase in demand upon exist- ing sources of energy, or require the 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance. development of new sources of energy? X a. Does the project have the potential to 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in n need degrade the quality of the environment, for new systems, or substantial alterations to substantially reduce the habitat of a fish the following utilities: or wildlife species, cause a fish or wild- life population to drop below self sus- a. Power or natural gas? X taining levels, threaten to eliminate n plant or animal community, reduce the b. Communications systems? _ X number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate C. Water? X important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? X d. Sewer or septic tanks? X X b. Does the project have the potential to e. Slam water drainage? X achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of -- long-term, environmental goals? (A short- f. Solid waste and disposal? X term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive 17. I-luman health. Will the proposal result in: period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) X a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? X c. Does the project have impacts which ore individually limited, but cumulatively con- b. Exposure of people to potential health siderable? (A project may Impact on two hazards? X or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the where the effect of the total of those X obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to impacts on the environment is significant.) the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open d. Does the project have environmental effects to public view? X which will cause subslonlial adverse effects —' on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X 19. Recreation. Will the propasol result in on import upon the quality or quantity of existing recreoliaml opportunities? X Ill. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation 20. Cultural Resources. IV. Determination a. Will the proposal resell in the ollerolion (To be completed by the Lead Agency) of or the destr uctkm of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? X 313 314 On the basis of this initial evaluation: ADDENDUM I find that the proposed project COt1LD 1,K)T have a signifiront effect — ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST t•ORM on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will he prepared. I find that although the proposed project could Ixrve a significant effect �—I on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case 1. EARTH because the mitigation measures desrribed on on attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL HE PREPARED. b,c. A geotechnical review of the project site should be con- I find the proposed project MAY hawa significant effect an the environ- — ducted to address the implications of grading/erosion ment, and on ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. IX I ( and downstream), final reclamation potential — (e.g., ., feasibility of filling), seismic related geotechnic issues such as fault rupture along a branch of a Newport/ Inglewood fault, and the consolidation of oil production facilities. It should be noted that the City's Seismic Ni-te— i tre Safety Element shows an approximate trace of a branch of this fault through the site. The Holly Sugar Factory soil For residue should be analyzed and described in an appropriate means by which to dispose of the residue or maintain it or (Note: This is only a suggested form. Public agencies are free to devise their own site should be recommended. format for initial studies.) 2. AIR QUALITY a. A characterization of the existing ambient air quality in the vicinity of the project site should quantify air qual: impacts expected to occur upon implementation of the proje Both short term emissions (construction related) and long term emissions (motor vehicle and energy related) should quantify the projects impact on the local and regional ai: quality. 3. WATER b,e,g. A review of the existing hydrologic data, the proposed grading plan, the existing and planned drainage facilitie: and historical flooding patterns in the project area shou be analyzed. Based upon this review the determination of the impact of the concentrated site run-off upon existing drainage system and the effectiveness of this system in conveying site run-off should be made. 4. PLANT LIFE a. A walkover survey of the site shoul.) be conducted to determine the floral and formal composition of the area. Special attention should be addressed to the documentatio mapping of any sensitive resources. There should be a determination if the project will result in a change and diversity of species, or number cf any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, benthic organism or insects). 6. NOISE F,xistinq noise levels should be determined through on-site noise monitoring. The short and long term impacts on surrounding land 31) uses can be determined based upon traffic volume increases and future projections of noise levels with and without the project should he determined. ► I ► i ; I ( ( � i ! 4 E ( ( ! i s � + �� r � t � t r � t C� t � t �� I � t t • � • ADDENDUM ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM Page 2 7. LIGHT AND GLARE Depending on the orientation of the proposed development new glare might occur onto adjacent properties. 8. LAND USE The applicant is seeking to have the property redesignated from estate/residential, industrial and office professional to planned community on the City's General Plan Land Use Element. 9. NATURAL RESOURCES a. The impact of 1200 more housing units with respect to their use of natural resources should be accessed. 11. POPULATION The project will create 1200 new housing units in an area that is basically surrounded by industrial type uses. It will provide a new source of housing stock. 12. HOUSING If the General Plan request is approved as submitted it would allow for low density development on the subject site. 13. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION a,c,d. The traffic analysis should include intersection capacity utilization analysis at the following intersections: Ellis and Goldenwest Street; Ellis and Gothard Street; Gothard and Garfield Avenue; Main street and Garfield, Gothard and Main, and Garfield and Goldenwest. Existing traffic on interior and adjacent roadways, existing plus project traffic, an existing plus cumulative tratfic should be analyzed by the future daily traffic volumes. The re- alignment of Gothard Street relative to its vertical and horizontal alignments, site distance, grade, and curve radii should be evaluated based upon standard engineer requirements and the proposed plan submitted by the applicant. 15. ENERGY AND 16. UTILITIES a,b,c, d,e,f. The effected public service utility perveyors will have to be contacted to access potential project impacts. There should be discussion of the opportunities for alternative energy resources (e.g., solar) and design alterations to optimize opportunities for passive and/or active solar systems for the project. r • • APPENDIX B NOTICE OF PREPARATION (NOP) AND NOP RESPONSES V ' �.r it y j i ► I f t I � � I � f f ! 1 f t 1 t LEGAL ADVERTISEMENT CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH r DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES NOTICE OF PREPARATION (EIR NO. 84-2) = HOLLY PROPERTY NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of Huntington Beach, Department of Development Services has initiated the preparation of an Environ- mental Impact Report on aHuntington - - ' P P Proposal by the 8eac# Company � - __ .t .�.-^�• � .. _ , for a General Plan Amendment covering approximately 120 net acres of land in central Huntington Beach. The applicant is seeking to have the property redesignated from estate/residential, industrial and office professional to planned community on the City's General ~ �' + r" 4 . Plan Land Use Element. Within the proposed planned community, the ,,,, "• ! Huntington Beach Company is seeking approval in concept for the development of 1200 housing units to be developed in four distinct -,'lq product aroaa. The Holly property 'encompasses contiguous parcels of land bounded by Ellis Avenue to the north, the southern Pacific „•ryj{ '� 1 �..: � Railroad to she east, Garfield and Ernest Avenues to the south, and Goldenwest and Crystal Streets to the west. The site is '••\t.. predominantly vacant, the only buildings being two single family ',,�� •,,,+' \ }�� ,""" `�. • dwellings and a small brick building occupied by a church. Any person(s) wishing to comment as to the scope and content of the Z. �- environmental information relevant to the project may do so within a 30-day period from publication of this notice ending August 6, 1984. Written comments should be sent to the City of Huntington Beach, /C Department of Development Services, 2000 Main Street, Huntington 1 * } wKr« Beach, California 92648. MAC Dated. va HUNTINGTON BEACH GILFORNIA PUNNING DIVISION EIVF S:AIE IF CAlIEO4EMA-IIFAIEM AND WELFARE AGENCY GEdC+E OEtRME11AM.Cwrwr N.O.P. DISTRIBUTION LIST Ju, 6, 1984 df RUC Q DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES - HOLLY PROPERTY 9 2171 KNIMEY WAY KNOLEY,CA 914704 )range County Sanitr.tion 415/540-2665 District PLANNING; COMMISSION August 10, 1984 10844 Ellis Avenue ountain Valley CA 92708 RECEIVED Avj ittn: Tom Daws ounty of Orange EMA .O. Box 4048 -rota Ana, CA 92702 CITY COUNCIL ttn: Bob Rusby range County Transit Howard Zelefsky District CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 11 Civic Center Dr. West Department of Development'Services anta Ana, CA 92702 21KKi Main Steeei ttn: Mike Haak Huntington Beach, California 92648 ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD �ovnt LoA ;r,hkClvfitlty !kr ,/t{ SUBJECT: City of Huntington Beach's NOP for Holly Property CPA - SCH #84071111 Attn: Mike Kimbrell TA'0Z1(.T Mike Knapp FLMke_ n✓we The Department has reviewed the subject environmental document and offers t k f1 uN rE,Ib.n. Ci the following comments. SUtfT1 Nfv% CC rate Clearinghouse NvNnN (ItJ (3r1ltN Scltix!_ Enclosed for your information is a document prepared by the Noise Control 100 loth Street , Program entitled, "Guidelines for Noise Study Reports as Part of Environ- 1cramento, CA 95814 hiyil?uT mental Impact Reports", which indicates the type of information the Depart- 777c� /1/1't Irre :r ment considers important in EIRs. llvivl /V"I'Nr7(/l.f ) `i1i'`/r If you have any questions or need further information concerning these com- ,,uthern California gas Co, ments, please contact Dr. Jerome Lukas of the Noise Control Program, Office enge County Division of Local Environmental Health Programs, at 2151 Berkeley Way, Room No. 613, .0. Box 3344 Berkeley, CA 94704, 415/540-2665. naheim, CA 92803 Stuart E. Richardson, Jr., R.S., Chief Office of Local Environmental Health Programs uthern California rdison Company 33 Balsa Avenue estminqtec, CA 92683 S. Lukas, D. RniPsychoacoustician NOISE CONTROL PROGRAM CITY CLERK Enclosure cc. END HUNTINGTON BEACH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES SCH G"TY LIBRARY AUG 1 I t64 P.O.Box 190 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Sages td Contents of a 1 Stair Repot Galielines for Noise Stniy Reprts as Part of Environmental impact "pros Co/ybrafd Dice of Notre Control 1. A trier deeaWon or the project In terms of its effect on the nolx environment and a California Department of Health Services description of the existing noise environment and its impact upon the project(homes near 2151 Berkeley way a freeway,for example). Berkeley,California 94704 11. Two wale map--one showing the existing setting and the proposed project with adjacent land uses,receptors,and noise sources identified,and the second map showing the future condition(use a time span or no less than 10 years,unless the project's life span is less) May 1982 with the proposed project and proposed Ind uses,receptors,and noise sources identified. III. A detaBed survey or the existing noise environment. A. The noise survey should encompass the proposed project area and must include any noise sensitive receptors,both now and for. The survey should establish the exist- ing ambient noise level which may then be used to evaluate compliance of the pro- pond project with applicable noise standards. The standards should be local (city, county)but In their absence state or federal standards may be used The rationale for the selection of noise survey situ should be included in the report. Because complaints a aboerypl environmental noise are so frequent, the Officeamen of Noise Control B. The survey should cover the time periods when the noise environment may be recommends that every project with a potential for Increasing environments noise kvela or affected by the proposed project which may be affected by existing or future noise sources should have a Noise Study Report. This report assesses how noise levels associated with the project may effect people. The infor- C. The survey should encompass enough days to be representative of the existing'nor- malion contained in the Noise Study Report should be summarized in the Environmental mW noise environment. Discussion or the similarity or dissimilarity of the noise Impact Report or Environmental Impact Statement, and kept on file by the lead agency for environment during the survey period with (hat during other times of the year review by those with a specific interest in noise. should be included. The attached Is designed to help those who prepare Noise Study Reports and EnvironmenW D. For the time periods measured,the reported noise data should include the L,Lu, Impact Repots and reviewers or Environmental Impact Reports. Because there are so many Laa,Laa,Lta,and Identification of typical noise levels emitted by existing sources. If different combinations or noise sources and receivers(people impacted by those sources),it h day and night measurements are made, report the La„also. La„is approximately virtually impossible to develop guidelines that cover all situations. Nevertheless,the guidelines equal to CNEL;either descriptor may be used. It is imperative that the descriptor should help to bring some consistency to the way noise information is presented in environ- conform to that used In the appropriate standard. menw documents, E. Summarize the present environment by providing a noise contour map showing Noes of equal noise level in S dB step,extending down to La —60. In quiet areas lower contours should be shown also. F. Identify the noise measurement equipment used in the survey by manufacturer, type,lard date of last calibration. IV. A description of the future noise environment for each project alternative. The scope of the analysis and the metrics used will depend on the type of project,but as a minimum the following information must be provided: A. Discussion of the type of noise sources and their proximity to potentially impacted areas. B. Operstions/activity data: 1. Average daily level of activity (traffic volume, flights per day. hours on per day,etc.). 2. Distribution of activity over day and nighttime periods,days of the week,and seasonal variations. ]. Composition of noise sources (% trucks, aircraft fleet mix, machinery type, etc.). ONC 5/112 _2. 4. Frequency spectrum of sources(1/3 octave band data are preferable). S. Any unusual characteristics of the sources(impulsiveness,tonality,etc.). C. Method used to predict future levels. I. Reference to the prediction model used,if standard (e.g.,FHWA-RD-77•I08, Summarization of Noise Staley Reports In Environmental etc) IMPaEt Reports or Statements 2. If corrections to a standard model me made or empirical modeling is used, state the procedure in detail. 3. Show typical levels(e.g.,Lt,Lta,etc.)at the receptors. 4. Give any other data yielded by the model you used. D. Contours of future levels should be included(down to Lda 55 where applicable),and Information Included In the Environmental Impact Report or Statement should be a summary superimposed over projected population(receptor)densities. of the noise study. The following Information must be included: V. Impact A. Maps showitg the existing setting and the proposed project with adjacent land uses A. Quantify anticipated changes in the noise environment by comparing ambient infot- and noise sources identified. Pertinent distances should be noted. mation with estimated source emissions. Evaluate the changes in light of applicable B. A dem ption of the existing noise environment. standards. C. The change in the noise environment for each project alternative. B. Discuss how this project relates to the Noise Element of the applicable general plan. D. A discussion of the impacts for the alternatives. C. Discuss the anticipated effects of increased noise levels (speech Interference,sleep E. A discussion of the compatibility of the project with the applicable Noise Element of disturbance,disruption of wildlife habitat,etc.). the General Plan or the most applicable noise laws or ordinances. VI. Mitigation F. A discussion ofmiligation measures,clearly identifying the locations and number of A. Discuss how adverse noise impacts can be mitigated, suggesting alternative tech- people affected when mitigation Is not feasible. niques for mitigation,their relative effectiveness,and feasibility of implementation. G. Statements of: (1)where to obtain a copy of the Noise Study Report from which Provide a table listing the most and least effective techniques. For this table, the information was taken(or the Noise Study Report may be included as an appen- effectiveness should be defined in terms of the number of people being exposed to dix,and(2)the name of the consultant who conducted the Noise Study if it was not noise at some given level. conducted by the author of the Environmental Impact Report. B. Responsibility for effectuating the mildgetion measures should be assigned. C. Discus any noise impacts that cannot be mitigated,and why mitigation is not feasi- ble. I ONC 5/92 ONC 5/82 ;�A tE OF CALIFORNIA-RESOURCES AGENCY GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN.Oo.aea - Departure nt of Water Resourccs Rer�ommendations or Water Conservation and Water Reclamation OFPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES -- .I.e.a,..659e LOS ANGELES To reduce eater demand, the following water conservation measures should be 900S5 f mp lemen t ed: Required by law: `8�"R►1 1. Low-flush toilets (see Section 17921.3 of the Health and Safety Code). 2. Low-flow showers and faucets (California Administrative Crdr, T.tle 24, Part 6, Article 1, T20-1406F). City of Huntington Beach 3. Insulation of hot water lines in water recirculating systems (California Energy Department of Development Services 8 Y 2000 Main Street Commission regulations). Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Recommendatlon_s__to be implemented where applicable: Attention: Howard Zelefsky Interior: Notice of Preparation of DEIR for CPA Covering Approximately 120 Net Acres of Land 1n Central Huntington Beach Holly Property, 1. §up2ly line pressure: recommend water pressure greater than 50 pounds per SCH 84071111 square inch (psi) be reduced to 50 psi or less by means of a pressure-reducing valve. The Department of Water Resources' recommendations on the subject 2. Flush valve operated water closets: recoamend 3 gallons per flush. document dated July 11, 1984. are attached. The recommendations are related to water conservation and flood damage prevention. 3. Drinking fountains: recommend equipped with self-closing valves. Consideration should also be given to a comprehensive program to use 4. Pipe insulation: recommend all hot water lines in dwelling be insulates to reclaimed water for irrigation purposes in order to free fresh water provide hot water faster with less water waste and to keep hot pipes from supplies for beneficial uses requiring high quality water. heating cold water pipes. For further information, you may wish to contact John Pariewskl at 5. Hotel rooms: recommend posting conservation reminders in rooms and rest roods.* (213) 620-3951. Recommend thermostatically-controlled mixing valve for bath/shower. Sincerely, 6. laundry facilities: recommend use of water-conserving models of washers. 7. Restaurants: recommend use of water-conserving models of dishwashers or / fir J /✓ �""'~� retrofitting spray emitters. Recommend serving drinking water upon request only.* Robert Y. D. Chun, Chief Planning Branch Exterior: Southern District 1.Attachments Landscape with low water-consuming plants wherever feasible. I cc: office of Planning and Research 14UNTINGTON BEACH 2. Minimize use of lawn by limiting it to lawn dependent uses, such as playing State Clearinghouse DEVELOPMENT SERVICES fields. 1400 Tenth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 I)� 2 P.O.Box 190 *The Department of Water Resources or local water district may aid in develcptng HuntingtOn Beach,CA92648 these materials. 3. Use mulch e>.tcnsively in all landscaped areas. Mulch applied on top of soil Departmcut of Liter Resources RecOow.xmda[ions for Flood U_ama;ze Pre v_c_r._tion wlII improve the water-holding caparity of the soil by reducing evaporation and soil co,apactEon. 4. Preserve and protect existing trees and shrubs. Established plants are often In flood-prone areas, flood dama;a prevention mo;isures rel,lircd to protect a proposed adapted to low eater conditions and their use saves water needed to establish development should he based on the following guidelines: replacement vegetation. I. All building structures should be protected against a 100-bear flood. 5. Install efficient irrigation systems which minimize runoff and evaporation It is the State's olio and maxinize the water which will reach the plant roots. Drip irrigation, policy to conserve water. Any potential loss co ground water soil moisture sensors and automatic irrigation systems are a few methods of should be mitigated. increasing irrigation efficiency. 2. In those areas not covered by a Flood Insurance Rite 1%--p or a Flood Boundary ❑nd 6. Use pervious paving +aterial whenever feasible to reduce surface water runoff Floodvay Hap, issued by the Federal Emergency Haua&-,.-•nt Agency, the 100-year and aid in ground water recharge. flood elevation and boundary should be shown on the Fjivircnmental Impact Report. 7. Grading of slopes should minimize surface water runoff. 3. At least one route of ingress and egress to the develoloi-nt should be available during a 100-year flood. S. Investigate the feasibility of utilizing reclaimed waste water, stored 4. The slope and foundation designs for all structures should be based an detailed rainwater, or household grey water for irrigation. soils and engineering studies, especially for all hillside developments. 9. Encourage cluster development which can reduce the amount of land being converted to urban use. This will reduce the amount of impervious paving 5. Revegetation of the slopes should be done as soon as possible. created and thereby aid in ground water recharge. 6. The potential damage to the proposed development by mudflow should be assessed 10. Preserve existing natural drainage areas and encourage the incorporation of and mitigated as required. natural drainage systems in new developments. This would aid in ground water 7. Grading should be limited to dry months Co minimize problems associated with recharge. sediment transport during construction. 11. Flood plains and aquifer recharge areas which are the best sites for ground water recharge should be preserved as open space. i i i -2- I MURRAYSTORA STATE 01 CAtBOQ9A—NLS"4S AND TRANSKOTATICIN AGENCY GEOMM MUKMEMAN,Ge, — 0/REr TOR,EM, DEPARTMENT Of TRANSPORTATION ROBERT o.FTSHEF COMCT 7,P.O BOX 2304.tOS ANGENS 90951 I U NTY O F DIRFCTOR OF PLANNINC (2131 620 A LocAnoN -5335 (I t1 CIVIC 1:EN TE R PLAT. O.NOX ION S 3 RANGE SANIA ANA CA 921024" August 2, 1984 MAILING AODRESS I.O-BOX IOU ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY SANTAANA,CA927024" Pile: Notice of Preparation TCI 1PHONE 17111 834 461: 07-ORA F,iE EIR No. 84-2 July 27, 1984 SCH #84071111 Huntington BeachGeneral - Plan Amendment City of Huntington Beach Mr. Howard Zelefsky Department of Development Services Huntington Beach Department of 2000 Main Street Development Services Huntington Beach, California 92648 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 SUBJECT: Notice of Preparation (EIR No. 84-2) Holly Property Dear Mr. Zelefsky: War Stra: The Notice of Preparation for the General Plan Amendment in Attached for your consideration is a copy of this Agency's Transportation Huntington Beach has been reviewed by Caltrans staff. It appears Planning Division Memorandum which expresses our concerns regarding air that Caltrans is not a Responsible Agency on this proposed ;.7ality, bikeways and traffic circulation. project. We have no discretionary approval power over the project but will be a Review Agency because of our expertise in transpor- rlease transmit two copies of the Draft FIR and Appendices to this Agency's tation systems or facilities potentially impacted. Environmental Analysis Division when it become available. The planned development of 1200 housing units is likely to Vory truly yours, generate substantial additional vehicular movement. Subsequently, the document should include an examination of traffic impacts upon local roads and state highways. Quantify the existing traffic Alex A. (hobadi characteristics in the area and the estimated impact of the proposed Alex A. Chobaental Analysis Di.isf .n plan change. we can provide you with traffic data if needed. Means to mitigate this increase in traffic such as car/vanpools and AAC:am public transit should be discussed in the environmental document. A[tarFtment Contact person in our agency is Paul Gonzales. He may be reached at (2131 620-3992. Very truly yours; HUNTMIGTON BEACH W. B. BALLANTINE, Chief HUNTINGTON BEACH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Environmental Planning Branch DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Illi NN) it P-0 Box 190 P.O.Box 190 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Bead%CA 92648 'MJ low all. =wry Of Ornnq• v ` DATE. July 20, 1984 � S To. F. W.Olson,Manager oEPT/oIST` EMA/Environmental Analysis Division Hy .winent: rnow: Jerry E.Bennett,Manager EMA/Transportation Planning Division Itr•: t: I K No. H 1-t c/ S�n�jwct Property: (lolly Properly WBJECT: NOP EIR#94-2 Holly Property(GPA,ZC)Huntington Beach 1 un opposed to any general plan admenduu,nts per- taining to lndustrail Holly Property that would isrrlate the now existing industrail area to the We have reviewed the above referenced notice of preparation for an environmental smith of subject property and break the Colhard document to be prepared for a proposal of the Huntington Beach Company to build 1,200 Imiustrail quarter into, leaving :7arf ield, aoldenwo9t housing units on a 120 acre site bounded by Ellis Avenue, the Southern Pacific Railroad, Ernest and crystal streets and island by it self Garfield and Earnest Avenues, and Crystal and Golden West Streets. We have the also leaving it spot. zoned. following comments: Air Quality o The air quality analysis for this project should be prepared in accordance with the RECEIVED JUL3 0 19� techniques recommended by the California Air Resources Board and the South Coast Air Quality Management District. Bikeways o The Master Plan of Countywide Bikeways shows Class 11 bike lanes on Goldenwest Street in the project area. The project is also bounded by 3 existing bike lanes: on Gardiscussion Avenue, a Gbikew Street, and on Ellis Avenue. The EIR should include a discussion about these bikeways. o The project proponent is encouraged to provide local bikeway facilities such as bike paths, lockers and racks. These facilities are mitigation measures to reduce traffic congestion, vehicular noise, and air pollution by encouraging the use of bicycles as an alternative mode of transportation. Such measures would be in compliance with the Air Quality Management Plan 1982 Revision,adopted by the Orange County Board of Supervisors on September 27, 1983. Circulation o The traffic circulation of the EIR should include a discussion of the cumulative impacts of the proposed Bolsa Chir_a LCP and any resultant reconfiguration of the arterial highway network as a result of that planning effort. Please forward a copy of the DEIR when it becomes avai�for review. i J rry ennetf,Manager/ HUNTINGTON BEACH Transportation Planning Division DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PL:mlt DT24-96(PL) All 1 1 P.O.Box 190 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 soul!1rRrJ �;/1UP„1-;��^ �tiQ�: COf,At'AflY We have Lk?velo" several programs which are available, iron rcyuest, OR&WA COUNT'DMSrON P o NOW a24. mAww.cuuc.Uo to provide assistance in selecting the cost effectitw• applications of energy ox-servation techniques for a particular project. If you desire further information on any of our energy programs, please July 17, 19b4 i contact this office for assistance. Sincerely, City of Huntington Beach OEM. of Developsental Services 2000 Main St. M.T. Rcseen Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Technical Supervisor Subject: FIR No. 84-2 Holly property OH/dru attachimnt lfiis letter is not to be interpreted ar, a ea;tractual ormrnib'nent to mrve the proposed project, but only as an inforiretion service. Its intent is to notify you that the Southern California Gas Coopany has facilities in the area where the above-named project is proposed. Gas service to the project could be provided fron an existing gain as slxmn on the attached atlas sheet without any significant impact on the envirorwnent. The service would be in accordance with the Co"ny's Iolicies and extension rules on file with the California Public utilities Comdrsion at the time contractual arrange ants are mx1,-z. The availability of natural gas service, as set forth in this letter, is teased upon present conditions of gas supply and regulatory policies. As a public utility, the Southern California Gas Cov%tany is ulwier the jurisdiction of the federal regulatory agencies. should the:,,, agenr;-, take any action which affects cps supply or the conuition wdpr which service is available, gas service will be provided in accordance with revised oonditons. Residential ISystem Area Average) Yearly Single-Fanily 1095 Therms/year/dwelling unit Multi-Fivd ly 4 or less units 640 lberms/year/dwelling unit Multi-Family 5 or test; units 580 'lfierms/year/dwellinq unit Thew e3trnates are, basted on gas ounsu"ion in residential units j served by Southern California Gar; Corny during 1975 arxl it should not be iq,tied that any particular ham, apartment or tract of. hares will we these amounts of energy. Phis is particularly true due to the State's new insulation reyuiremnts and consurmrs' efforts toward energy cw;servation. HUNTINGTON BEACH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES JUL 2 P.O.Box 190 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 w. s tap • APPENDIX C iw GEOTECHNICAL STUDY L • , f6v- t LEIGHTON and ASSOCIATES LEIGHTON and ASSOCIATES INCDRPOgpTEp INCORPORATED Mao �. SOIL ENGINEERING GEOLOGY GEOPHYSICS GROUND WATER HAZARDOUS WASTES SOIL ENGINEERING GEOLOGY GEOPHYSICS GROUND WATER HAZARDOUS WASTES August 8, f984 Project W. 1840474-01 GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT FOR EIR RELATED TO HOLLY PROPERTY TO: Michael Brondman Associates,Inc. RESIDENTIAL PROJECT, 3140 Red Hill Avenue,Suite 200 GOLDEN WEST STREET AND ELLIS AVENUE, Costa Mesa,California 92626 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CALIFORNIA ATTENTION: Ms.Beverly Bruesch SUBJECT: Geotechnicai Assessment for EIR Related to Folly Property Residential Project, Golden West Street and Ellis Avenue, Huntington Beach, California August 8, 1984 Project No. 1840474-01 In accordance with your request and authorization, we have completed a geologic, j seismic, soil and hydrogeologic assessment of the subject property, as outlined in our proposal of April 25, 1984. The study evaluated the potential environmental impacts, hazards and development constraints,especially as the geotechnical conditions relate to the general development concept plan, doted March 23, 1984, prepared by John L. Chapman, Land Planning. Our assessment was based on available published and unpublished data,personal contacts,and a recent site reconnaissance. Submitted for review are two copies of our report,which was prepared in accordance with CEQA guidelines for EIR's. It summarizes the principal geotechnical findings, presents possible mitigation measures,and documents our analysis of the pertinent data collected and reviewed. If you have any questions regarding the study or require further Information,please do not hesitate to contact us. Respectfully submitted, LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES,INC. Richard Lung, I I�_ Prepared for: Principal Engineering Geologist MICHAEL BRANDMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. TW/RL/cas 3140 Red fill Avenue,Suite 200 Distribution- (2)Addressee Costa Mesa,California 92626 Attention: Ms.Beverly Bruesch IISI DURYEA AVENUE IRVINE CALIFORNIA 92714 18001251 4567•f714)250 1421 • 1213I 691 2125 11,,1 FIT InyFA AVFNI IF IRVINE.CALIFORNIA 9271/ MM)253-15A' •17111 250-1121 • (2131 891-2125 MVRIF • WE11L AKFIVFNTURA MAMONDeAR7WALNUT SAN 8ERNARIMN0iRIVERSI0F • SANMFCO MVMf • W—LAKEIVENTURA 0 DIAMONOSAWWALMIT 0 %AN BERNARDINOIRIVERSIDE • SANOW00 PALMMSERT • SANTA CLARIT-PAL.FNCIA PAlM DE 4FRT 0 SANTA CLARIIA/V AIFNCIA 0 LEIGHTON and ASSOCIATES LEIGHTON and ASSOCIATES AdMk INCORODpA 1ED INCOREORATEO Aft Alt.. SOIL ENGINEERING GEOLOGY GEOPHYSICS GROUND WATER HAZARDOUS WASTES SOIL ENGINEERING GEOLOGY GEOPHYSICS GROUND WATER HAZARDOUS WASTES August 8, 1984 Project No. 1840474-01 GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT FOR EIR RELATED TO HOLLY PROPERTY TO: Michael Brandman Associates,Inc. RESIDENTIAL PROJECT, 3140 Red IfiiII Avenue,Suite 200 GOLDEN WEST STREET AND ELLIS AVENUE, Costa Mesa,California 92626 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CALIFORNIA ATTENTION: Ms.Beverly Bruesch SUBJECT: Geotechnical Assessment for EIR Related to Holly Property Residential Project, Golden West Street and Ellis Avenue, Huntington Beach, California August 8, 1984 In accordance with your request and authorization, we have completed a geologic, Project No. 1840474-01 seismic, soil and hydrogeologic assessment of the subject property, as outlined in our proposal of April 25, 1984. The study evaluated the potential environmental impacts, hazards and development constraints, especially as the geotechnical conditions relate to the general development concept plan, dated March 23, 1984, prepared by John L. Chapman, Land Planing. Our assessment was based on available published and unpublished data,personal contacts,and a recent site reconnaissance. Submitted for review are two copies of our report,which was prepared in accordance with CEQA guidelines for EIR's. it summarizes the principal geotechnical findings, presents possible mitigation measures,and documents our analysis of the pertinent data collected and reviewed. If you have any questions regarding the study or require further Information,please do not hesitate to contact us. Respectfully submitted, LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES,INC. Prepared for: Principal Engineering Geologist MICHAEL BRANDMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. TW/RL/cas 3140 Red Hit Avenue,Suite 200 Distribution: (2)Addressee Costa Mesa,California 92626 Attention: Ms.Beverly Bruesch 1151 DURYEA AVENUE.IRVINE CALIFORNIA 92714 (800)253-4567•(714)250 1421 .(213)691 2125 1151 nUnN'FA AVF'11.iF IRVINE,CALIFORNIA 92714 0001 257-45F'. ;714)250-1421. (213)F91-2125 fflvN • WESTLANEIVENTUIIA DIAMONDSAWWALNUT • SAN BERNARMNO—VE-0f.. • SANDIEOO WVMF • W—LA•FIVENTURA 0 MAMONOSAR/WALNUT SAN 9ERNARWMWpIVEgg10E • SAN DIE00 p ALAADESERT • SANTA CLARITAIVALFNCIA PALMOESFRT • SANTA CLARITAIVALFNCIA 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.2 Site Description The subject property is a 120'--acre parcel of lard located an Huntington Mesa in 1.1 Objective and Scope of Investigation the City of Huntington Beach,California. It is a wide, inverted L-shaped property bounded an the Earth by Ellis Avenue,an the east by the Southern Pacific Railroad in accordance with your authorization, we have conducted a geotechnical adjacent to Gothard Avenue,on the south by Garfield and Ernest Avenues, and on assessment for the environmental impact report for the proposed Holly Planned the west by Golden West and Crystal Streets(refer to Figure 7). The southern half Community project, Golden West Street and Ellis Avenue, Huntington Beach, of the site is relatively flat to sloping gently toward the north. Post grading and the CoMomlo--(refer-to Figure 1). This assessment-of the approximately_120-acres dumping ofwrote products related to oil extraction andsugar refiningsctivitirs of subject site includes the evaluation of the potential geologic,soil,fault/seismic and the site have altered the topography in the north portion of the property where two hydrogeologically related impacts or constraints affecting the proposed residential natural drainage courses converge near the north boundary. From that point the development. Special emphasis has been placed on the potential Impacts of seismic runoff enters a culvert under Ellis Avenue and discharges on the north side into an hazards (fault rupture/earthquake shaking), of the existing deposits of sugar old sand pit ("Sully-Miller Lake")offsite. The maximum topographic relief at the processing waste, and of past and continued oil production. Although our study site is approximately 50 feet and surface drainage is generally directed northward. generally addresses the hydrologic conditions of the study area from the standpoint of ground water, surface runoff and erosion, we understand that a more detailed Existing structures at the site include an old church building near the intersection of analysis of these oWects(flooding,runoff and drainage)will be reviewed by Irvine Garfield and Gothard Avenues, two dwellings along Golden West Street, and oil- Civil Engineers, Inc. This report, documenting our analysis and findings, was related buildings located in the Huntington Signal Oil Co. property off Ellis Road. prepared in accordance with the state guidelines (the California Division of Mines Many other storage sheds are scattered throughout the northern portion of the and Geology Note 46). property. The foundation remains of an old Holly Sugar picot exist in the central portion of the site. Numerous producing oil wells and abandoned oil and water wells, Our Investigation included the following geotechnical steps: tanks, pipelines, fences and related structures are dispersed throughout the site. Access is provided by asphalt-paved,gravel and dirt roods. Vegetation at the site • Review of pertinent published and unpublished geotechnical maps and reports, includes mostly grasses and weeds with several groves of eucalyptus trees through including the city and county Seismic Safety Elements of their General Plans. the central portion of the property. Locally,landscaping(fawns and shrubbery)were noted around the developed areas; marsh-type reeds and plants are present along • Study of 1980 aerial photographs of the site. drainage courses. • Geotech nical site reconnaissance, including obtaining a sample of the stockpiled waste material located at the site. 1.3 Site History Is Compilation and analysis of the geotechnical data. The history of oil production in the Huntington Oil Field which underlies the property dates as for back as the 19201s; a detailed history of oil production is • Preliminary laboratory analysis of the sample obtained from the site. presented in Section 4.1. In the early 19001s a Folly Sugar plant was in operation in • Preliminary evaluation of the potential constraints imposed b the anticipated thesoutheast portion our of the site. Several buildings,t water wells and possibly Y Pa 9 age tanks were associated with this plant (Lou Orlenes, Holly site conditions on tie proposed development(from a conceptual plan standpoint). Sugar Company,personal communication). • General discussion of mitigation measures which may be feasible in minimizing In 1925, the sugar plant was abandoned and a SoCal Company gage tank facility or eliminating such hazards. was built at the site, utilizing the Holly Sugar buildings for a boiler house and warehouse. These facilities are used to remove the water from the off prior to • Preparation of this report and illustrations, shipment to the refinery. Reportedly, the waste waters were usually disposed of directly into the ground (Larry McComish, Chevron Oil, personal communication). Although 50+tanks are shown on facility mops, Chevron Oil Company officials report that no underground tanks are usually associated with this type of facility. Several underground pipelines,as illustrated on the site plops. were associated with this plant. A wastewater sump was located just west of the church (refer to Figure 4). In early 1964, the Huntington ntington Beach Company acquired the land. The SoCaf tank facility was removed and the land was restored to its preexisting condition (Bill Holman, Huntington Beach Company, personal communication). No documentation of abandonment or cleanup of the tank facility was avoilable for our review,however. &( A 1• LEIGGHHTILONaid ASSOCIAIFS -2 �LEIIGHH;TIONIN .Id ASSOCIATE �"co"vonA,ao inconvonAra In terms of their agricultural classifications,the near-surface soils consist primarily of the Myford sandy loam overlying most of the mesa portions of the site. The Alo 2.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND GRADING clay series was mapped by the Soil Conservation Service throughout the north- eastern portion of the property, overlying both terrace and alluvial deposits (Reference 25). Thapto-histic fluvaquents, which have a typical profile of clay Review of a conceptual grading plan prepared by John L. Chapman, Land Planning, loom,silty clay and 3 feet of blade peat,were mapped in the low-lying marsh area undated and received July 12, 1984 indicates 1,200 dwelling units are planned, including near Ellis Avenue. Tests of shrink-swell characteristics on such clayey soils indicate single-family detached and attached fames, and multifamily units. The proposed a high expansion potential which has been noted to cause problems in urban develop- development will also reroute Gothard Street from the north to connect to the existing meet. The highly organic peat deposits are known to be very compressible. Crystal Street at the southwestern property boundary. Existing artificial fills at the site include: a partial filling of the main canyon in the The proposed grading of the site appears to be mainly filling the major drainage channel northeast portion of the property underlying the Huntington Signal Oil Company located in the northeast quarter of the property. A general leveling of the rest of the site lease;minor fills associated with roadway construction within the site and with the Is planned with the exception of the drainage channels in the northwestern portion of the cut/fill grading of oil drill site pads;and three relatively large road fills for the city Property which appear to be left in their existing condition. streets in the areas of the major drainages (refer to Figure 4 for the approximate location of the main fill deposits). Numerous piles of loose fill and trash with concrete and asphalt rubble and organics have been dumped locally throughout the 2.1 Regional Geology property. A few deposits of tar and oil were observed on the ground surface locally near oil wells, north of the former Folly Sugar plant and near the intersection of The subject property is located in the central portion of the Huntington Beach Mesa, Crystal Street and Ernest Avenue. The latter location is near the site of an old oil near the southern coastal edge of the Los Angeles Basin. The mesa is situated sump, as shown on the 1949 U.S. Geological Survey Seal Beach Quadrangle. between the Santa Ana River gap to the east and the Balsa gap to the west. Nearly Although no oil sumps are known to exist on the property according to the Division horizontal terrace deposits(both ancient near-shore and terrestrial deposits)cap the of Oil and Gas or the Huntington Beach Company,older significant disposal areas mesa, overlying the sedimentary Son Pedro and Fernando (formerly Pico) associated with the oil field activities could be encountered in exploratory exca- Formations. Surficial deposits include alluvium, colluvium, topsoil and fill vations or during site grading. materials. Large amounts of a white powdery materiot have been stockpiled (approximately The Newport-Inglewood fault zone forms an important element of the regional 5 feet high)in the east-central portion of the property. This material is reportedly geologic structure. The Huntington Mesa is one of the southernmost landward a waste product of limestone that was originally used during the processing of sugar expressions of a succession of hills and mesas aligned along this fault zone. This from beets(Lou Orlenes,Folly Sugar Company,personal communication). The lime zone extends as a southeast-trending band from the Baldwin Hills in the Los Angeles was added to the sugar solution during a purefication step to extract the organics Basin, through Signal Hill in the Long Beach area, to the Huntington and Newport- from the solution by precipitating them out with the lime. This residue is believed Costa Mesa areas, then offshore. Uplift along the fault has resulted in a broad to be 90 percent calcium carbonate;it effervesces readily in hydrochloric acid. It is UP-arching and disruption of the subsurface formations and a gentle landward tilting probably all inert material at this time, the organics having decomposed. A of the ground surface at Huntington Mesa. The fault zone has been mapped by the chemical aalysis was made in 1977 on samples obtained from the site state and others as a brood "zone of deformation", comprised of a series of (Reference 23). Both the Folly Sugar Company and Birtcher Pacific Developers subparallei faults underlying the mesa. A questionable extension of the Yorktown (who have recently developed anther old Holly Sugar site in Santa Ana)report that Avenue fault has been shown on a map in the City of Huntington Beach Seismic similar material at the Santa Ana site was found to be suitable for use as fill and Safety Element to be crossing the subject property. Refer to Figures i and 2,which that,with appropriate moisture conditioning,it will compact satisfactorily. Illustrate the major geologic and geographic features of the region. The relationship of various branch faults to the property are discussed in Section 2.4. 2.3 Sedimentary Formations 2.2 Surficiai Soils and Earth Materials The southern portion of the subject property is mantled by approximately 80 feet of late Pleistocene-age marine and terrestrial terrace deposits,as encountered during The majority of the surface of the property is mantled by a few feet of topsoil, the drilling of an old water well #5/1I-35P3(refer to Figures 3 and 7). The terrace consisting primarily of brown, porous,sandy to clayey silt. Colluvial deposits (soil materials probably thicken toward the north and generally consist of reddish- to generally greater than 4 feet in depth) appear to have formed on the sides of the groyish-white, poorly to moderately consolidated, fine to coarse-grained sands with canyons in the drainage swales and reentrants. Alluvium, generally consisting of silty clay and gravelly sand interlayers. gray and ton,sandy and clayey silt, is present within the major drainage channels;it is locally marshy near Ellis Avenue and Golden West Street. Fill associated with the The San Pedro Formation, the next oldest (early Pleistocene-age) marine unit oil field and adjacent roadway development is usually derived from nearby shallow beneath the terrace deposits, consists of yellowish-gray to buff, poorly to cuts. moderately consolidated, sandy silt and silty sand with Interlayers of silty cloy and pebbly sands. Beneath the site,this formation is roughly 400 feet thick and thickens toward the north(References I I and 21). In 3- E EIGHTON.nd ASSOCIATES r"c.ow non wr.o LEIGHTON,nd11ConronlArco � ► 1 1 l j i i 1 ( i i ( [ 1 i 2.4.1 Alquist-Priolo Zonation The Newport-Inglewood fault zone has long been known to be seismically The next deepest formation,underlying the site at an approximate 500-foot depth, active, presumably on the North or South Branches of the zone. The most Is the late Pliocene-age Fernando Formation (formerly referred to as the "PICO" destructive and well known event on this fault was the 1933 Long Beach Formation). These marine deposits consist primarily of moderately consolidated earthquake which had a 6.3 (Richter) magnitude and on epicenter located fine-grained sandstone and siltstone. This unit produced relatively minor oil offshore near Newport Beach. Numerous other smaller earthquakes have production when compared with the deeper early Pliocene-and Miocene-age units. occurred along the zone to the northwest(refer to Figure 5). In 1972, the State of California enacted the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies 2.4 Geologic Structure and Faults Zone Act. The purpose of this act is to delineate oil active faults(faults with movement in the last 10,000 years)in California and to prohibit development White the near-surface geologic structure is relatively simple, consisting of of structures forFxirnon occupancy across the trace of an active foutt,in order generally flat-lying terrace deposits, the subsurface complexities within the older to mitigate the hazard of fault rupture. In December of 1973, the state formations have became evident through the extensive oil field development and released preliminary special studies zones maps of the Newport-Inglewood ground water investigations along the Newport-Inglewood fault zone. Subsurface fault zone (including the Bolso-Fairview fault and all of the other branches mapping and correlation of strata from oil and water wells have depicted a i within the zone), classifying them as active. Following a subsequent review substructure of northeasterly inclined strata offset by a series of northwest-trending i period,the southern section of the Newport-Inglewood zone was removed from faults(References 4, 21 and 22). The faulting has resulted in both the trapping of the special studies zone as of July 1, 1974,inasmuch as the faults could not be oil and the offset of ground water aquifers in various permeable strata. demonstrated to be sufficiently well-defined,according to state criteria,to be included in the zone. The area of the subject property,as well as the other The site is shown to be bisected by the conjectured westward extension of the portions of the fault zone within the City of Huntington Beach, are still Yorktown and Adams Avenue faults,which were originally mopped by the California excluded from the special studies zone. Department of 'Hater Resources (DWR) in their study of the Santa Ana Salinity Barrier in the Santa Ana gap. The projected subsurface traces of these faults are shown on Figure I (reproduced from the Huntington ntington Beach Seismic Safety Element). 2.5 Regional Seismicity A recent review of the foult data by the California Division of Mines and Geology Indicates that while there appears to be fault offset of the deeper Miocene-age The frequency of earthquakes and the intensity of the seismic ground shaking to be strata(older than 7±million years),there appears to be a lock of sufficient evidence experienced at the site will depend upon which of the numerous active regional that the faults mopped north of the North Branch fault displace the relatively faults produced the earthquake, upon the earthquake magnitude, the distance from younger alluvial aquifers in the Santa Ana gap, as indicated by the earlier DWR the earthquake epicenter, and the local soil conditions. Refer to Figure 5, which Investigations (David Fuller, CDMG, personal communication). The apparent shows epicenter locations of earthquakes of Richter Magnitude greater than 4.0 discontinuities in the aquifers may be attributable to lateral changes caused by during the period from 1932 to 1972. This map illustrates the relatively higher variations in the sediment composition from normal depositional processes or activity associated with the Newport-Inglewood fault zone,as compared with other tectonic warping and folding of the strata,rather than faulting. faults in the Las Angeles-Orange County areas. Table I indicates the estimated earthquake magnitudes and intensities associated with major active faults of the Like the extension of the Yorktown and Adams Avenue faults, there is a lock of region,based on our latest analyses. evidence as to the location and/or existence of the Bolso-Fairview Branch within the younger formations (less than It million years)on the mesa and in the surrounding areas. It hod been mopped at,or just beyond, the northeast corner of the subject TABLE I site. Recent geologic mapping by the California Division of Mines and Geology and others has found no evidence of the existence of this fault at the surface,either in GENERAL SEISMIC PARAMETERS cuts mode Into the mesa(the Sully Miller sand pit, located just north of the subject property) or an the bluffs where the fault is projected to cross the mesa Maximum (Russ Miller,personal communication). Mercalti Maximum Probable Intensity The major active faults within the Newport-Inglewood fault zone are considered to Fault Distance(Mi.) Earthquake Magnitude(Richter) (At Site) be the North Branch and the South Branch faults, which are 5,000 and 2,000 feet, respectively, southwest of the property. Recent subsurface investigations on the Newport-Inglewood 0-2 6.5 IX northwest side of the Huntington Beach Mesa and on the Balsa Chica Mesa have Whittier-Elsinore 22 6.7 VII uncovered offset along the North Branch fault within the Plieslocene-age marine terrace deposits (Russ Miller and David Fuller, CDMG, personal communication). San Jacinto 46 7.5 VII-Vill This investigation failed to locate the South Branch. Sierra Madre- 32 6.5 VI-VII Son Fernando San Andreas 51 8.3 VII-Vlil 5- [Till 1 flrnION and ASSOCIATES .n on��ww rcn f EIGN ION and ASSOCIATES n+cowroww�co Historical earthquake events have resulted in the following recorded Mercalli Intensities felt at the site: 1933 Long Beach event produced Vlll Mercalli Intensity The surficial stability and susceptibility of slopes to erosion relote primarily to the at the site and both the 1968 Borrego Mountain and the 1971 San Fernando events degree of soil or strata induration or cementation,and the exposure of the slope to produced intensities of V in Huntington Beach(Reference 16). surface runoff. The firmer the material and the more protected the slope is from concentrated runoff,the less the erosion potential. Significant erosion was noted in the northeast portion of the property where there was no soil or vegetation cover 2.5.1 Design Considerations for Seismic Shaking and water was directed along a dirt rood that washed out. Minor erosion was noted on roadway fill slopes, on cut areas in the oil fields, and locally throughout the Because of the proximity of the Newport-Inglewood fault zone, future property,mostly in the areas of previous grading activities. earthquakes on this fault,in all likelihood,would produce the strongest seismic ground motion at the site and would be considered the controlling fault for the purposes of building design and site stability analysis. The peak bedrock acceleration anticipated from a maximum probable earthquake within the general Newport Beach area is 0.65+g (Reference 11). However, the repeatable high ground acceleration of 0.42+g (taken as 65 percent of the peak acceleration for sites within 20+miles of the epicenter) may be more applicable for design analysis at the site(Reference 20). Other factors to be token into account In design include the duration of the strong motion, the type of building, the depth to ground water and the underlying soil characteristics. Such factors will influence the seismic wave characteristics and the relative potentially damaging effects of an earthquake. In general, the intensity of a given earthquake (i.e., the observed damage effects) will be greatest in those areas underlain by deeper, softer and saturated alluvial deposits; somewhat less where a site is underlain by relatively firm to semiconsol I dated soil or formation; and least where very firm to hard bedrock is present at the surface. Since the subject property is underlain by poorly to moderately consolidated alluvial and terrace materials, the intensity of ground shaking could range from moderate to high. 2.5.2 Secondary Effects of Seismic Shaking Soll liquefaction, flow Iandsliding, seismically induced settlement,and ground kwching are secondary earthquake phenomena generally associated with relatively strong seismic shaking, shallow ground water conditions and the presence of loose sandy soils or alluvial deposits. The occurrence and severity of these hazards is difficult to predict without sufficient subsurface data,and equally difficult to mitigate if there is a high probability of their occurrence. A condition where relatively loose,uniform("clean"),medium- to fine-grained sand is present, with the ground water level within about 30 feet of the surface, would be especially conducive for soil liquefaction if subjected to strong seismic shaking of sufficient duration. Such a set of adverse site conditions may exist locally in the canyon bottoms at the site. However, further analysis and site exploration will he necessary to verify this possibhity. 2.6 Landslides and Erosion No areas of significant slope instability were observed during our site reconnais- sance, nor have any such areas been previously mapped on the property by others. The near-surface formations underlying the mesa are relatively stable from the standpoint of landslide resistance.. I.f IGNTON M,d ASSOCIATES I.EIGNTON•nd ASSOCIATES r.,o"ro"w.ED ­0110NIITED 3.0 HYDROGEOLOGIC SETTING 3.1 Ground Water Conditions 4.0 OIL PRODUCTION AND MINERAL RESOURCES The Huntington Beach Mesa lies at the southwestern margin of the Orange County coastal plain ground water basin, from which wells extract water contained in the primary aquifers of the Pliestocene-age alluvial and terrace deposits, and in the 4.1 Early History of Oil Production Pliocene-age sediments below there. There are three main water-beorinng zones beneath the Huntington Beach Mesa. The upper aquifer is approximately 50 feet The Huntington Beach Oil Field is the fourth largest California field in terms of thick at an approximate depth of 50 to 60 feet below the ground surface of the mesa total production. It is roughly 6 mites in length paralleling the coast line, and at the site. This aquifer is inclined gently eastword toward Garfield Road 5-miles wide at maximum width, extending offshore to the southeast. The first (References 18 and 21;refer to Figure 3). The middle aquifer is also approximately_ well("FluntingtonAl")within the field_was drilled by Standard Oil Company in,1Aay 50 feet thick and occurs roughly 200 feet below the mesa at the site. It is separated of 1920. It was located I/V mile southwest of the site(southwest of Garfield and from the upper aquifer by approximately 100 feet of silt and cloy sediments. The Golden West Avenues)and hod a low rate of production causing little excitement. In middle aquifer also has the some easterly inclination. Both the upper and middle November of 1920,a secord We("Balsa 1")was drilled approximately 3/4 mile west oquifejs have been contaminated by salt water since the 1920's. The lower aquifer of the subject property (northwest of Garfield Avenue and Edwards Street) which Is 250-feet thick and occurs at roughly 300 feet below the surface. This lower zone was flowing at an initial rate of 2,000 barrels of 28-degree gravity oil per day. This Is inclined northward and pinches out to the south where it is replaced by silt which find resulted in a rapid development of closely spaced wells which extended into the retards the intrusion of sea water. subject property. By April 1923, production from 100 wells, located north of the North Branch of the Inglewood fault, reached a peak of 119,000 barrels of oil per Old U.S.Geological Survey water supply mops(1953, 1956,and 1959)show a total day. Development of the field continued through 1958 when a new pool discovery of eight ground water wells on the subject property, five of which are located in the resulted from the deepening of a well(Reference 4). southern portion of the property and were probably associated with the Holly Sugar plant. These wells are not in use today and it is not known if they were ever The"Sequro No. I"well was drilled for oil and was located about 200 feet southwest abandoned according to current requirements (refer to Figure 7 for their of Golden West Avenue at Ernest Avenue(see Figure 7), by Standard Oil Company, approximate locations). (Reference 16). Downthole temperatures reached 4500F, causing handling difficulties, and the We was plugged in 1949. The total depth of the well is The City of Huntington Beach is presently using ground water as their principal 9,100 feet and the well is now producing. source of domestic water (Ulrich Stenziel, City of Huntington Beach, personal communication),all of which is extracted from the alluvial areas north of the mesa. The aquifers underlying the mesa have all become brackish with waters too poor in 4.2 Oil Field Geology quality for domestic uses,although water is presently being pumped from the deeper aquifers for irrigation use. Refer to Figure 6 which depicts the elevation of the The Huntington Beach Oil Field is the result of an accumulation of oil in an ground water surface as of late 1983 in southwestern Orange County. This map elongated faulted anticline. The northwesterly trending axis of the anticline is indicates an elevation of zero,or sea level,in the site area. located offshore. An intensely faulted central portion is located between the shoreline and the North Branch fault. North of this fault, underlying the subject property, is the northeasterly dipping flank of the anticline (Reference 4). Two 3.2 Surface Runoff Conditions secondary faults trending N50E to N150E have been mapped transecting the property on the basis of oil well data interpretation. These faults are believed to The southern portion of the property is relatively flat,varying between 62 to 67 feet occur at great depth(3,500 to 4,500 feet below the site)within the upper Miocene- In elevation,with several shallow, localized depressions where surface waters may age Puente Formation. Oil production is mainly from the very lower Pliocene collect and percolate down into the underlying soils. Toward the north the gently (Repetto)and upper Miocene(Puente)bedrock formations underlying the site. sloping mesas are relatively well drained with surface runoff directed into the canyon. Where artificial fill has been placed in the canyons without sufficient drainage facilities (as in the construction of Ellis Avenue roadfill and in the 4.3 Current Oil Well Status Huntington Signal Oil Company lease fill),large depressions have resulted behind the fills that appear to pond water. There have been approximately 37 oil wells drilled on the subject property, according to maps of the California Division of Oil and Gas (refer to Figure 7), of A large storm drain empties onto the property under Gothard Street just south of its which 13 are known to be abandoned. There are presently 22 wells pumping oil and Intersection with Ellis Street. This drain reportedly allows surface drainage through two that are idle but believed to be capable of producing. The idle wells are catch basins from developed areas located toward the northeast as far away as "Copeland 12" and"Russell I" according to field observations and verification from Beach Boulevard(Donald Kiser,City of Huntington Beach,personnl communication). Bill h-iolman of the Huntington Beach CompaTy. These wells are awaiting further This runoff passes through the subject property and drains under Ellis Avenue into evaluation to determine their future disposition. the"Sully-Miller Lace"which is presently acting as a large flood control retention basin. There presently is a minor discharge from the Gothard Street storm drain and the flow partially ponds behind(east of)the Huntington Signal Company lease fill. I FIGH TON and ASSOCIATES - t0 LEIGHTON and ASSOCIATES o"ro"wrco 5.0 PRINCIPAL GEOTECHVICAL HAZARDS,CONSTRAINTS, None of the oil wells on the property were known to be injection wells. All of the IMPACTS AND POSSIBLE MITIGATION MEASURES abandoned wells are believed to have been properly abandoned (Bill Holman, Huntington Beach Company,personal communication). 5.1 Geologic Factors or Potential Problems Evaluated 4.4 Lease Facilities This section presents in summary form the principal geotechnicol factors that were The subject property is presently leased by several different oil companies and has considered and rated on a subjective scale,comparing the study area with the range of hazard severity which is generally representative in southern California;refer to been (eased since at least 1964 when the h#xntington Beach Company acquired the property. Due to the fact that the oil development on the property has had such a Table 2, which presents a matrix indicating the noting of the hazard type affecting the subject site, and possible mitigation measures which could be utilized. Those long history and many different companies have been involved,there appears to be a very complex system of pipelines (both operating and abandoned) and numerous hazards not specifically discussed below were considered to have minimal or no storage tanks at the site. potential impact. There is an oil gathering system with pipelines to each well. Three maintained lines 5.2 Fault Displacement or Ground Rupture are known to exist on the property,including: a Standard Oil line near Ellis Avenue;. a Union Oil line near Golden West; and a Texaco line which reportedly passes Earthquake-related movement along suspected faults (such as the Yorktown/Adams through the property (Bill Holman, Ffuxntington Beach Company, personal Avenue and Bolso-Fairview faults of the Newport-Inglewood zone), which results in communication). Water and electrical service lines run to all the well sites. surface rupture of the ground is one of the more significant potential hazards to be evaluated in the future development of the property. Although the property is not 4.5 Other Mineral Resources presently included within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone(a state regulation requiring the special investigation of potentially active faults), its implications with Although no other resources have been extracted from the subject property, many regard to the possible development constraints associated with the movement of faults in the Newport-Inglewood zone must be appropriately evaluated during the other mineral sites have been recorded in the vicinity. Early oil well records planning process. Our research and analysis of the data thus far indicate that the Indicate previous geothermal resources of natural steam. The "OBrien Porter 2" aforementioned branches of the fault zone,although believed to affect the deeper, well, located just south of Main and Holly Streets, produced hot soft water and the "Segura No. I" well (previously discussed in Section 4.1) reached downhole older formations beneath The subject property, are probably inactive and have not temperatures of 450 F. offset the younger formations within at least several hundred feet of the surface. The available data,however,are not sufficient to irrefutably substantiate the latter Clay was mined to 3-to 5-foot depths at a location approximately 1,000 feet north conclusions or to confirm the location of the fault at depth relative to the subject of the subject property along the Southern Pacific Railroad between the years 1906 site. Consequently,further research and analysis will be necessary to assess the risk to 1907. The materials extracted were used originally for common brick and later of ground rupture from fault movement, and to determine what mitigation for drain tile. The mines shut down in 1974 due to urban encroachment measures, if any, are required. If such additional evaluation is inconclusive, with (Reference 16). regard to the fault hazard,a site-specific field investigation involving trenching to verify the absence of near-surface faulting would probably be necessary. Two abandoned sand pits, the Sully-Miller Pit and the Bruce Bros. Pit,are located north of the property in the drainage channel of approximate distances of 200 and Mitigation of a fault rupture hazard, if found to exist, would usually require an 1,000 feet, respectively, from the subject property boundary. Pebbly sand from the adequate building setback from the fault or faulted zone. The amount of setback could vary depending upon the geologic circumstances and the reliability of the fault near-surface Pleistocene-age marine terrace deposits was removed from the pits for use as asphalt and concrete aggregate. The quarries were active in the 1950's and location, but in most cases it might range between about 20 to 50 feet. In some Instances it could be as much as 100 feet. Such setbacks would not usually be a HuriHealy depleted h. the early 197ller pi which time they were sold to the feet of constraint to development of roads, utilities, parking lots, recreational usage, or andti a shallow Beach. The Sully-Miller pit r roughly underwater feet long by ati feet deep storage-type structures. It is generally not considered feasible to mitigate fault and the shallow ground water table required underwater is used excavation toward rupture hazards by designing structures to be more resistive. the end. This pit now has a lake in the bottom and is used as a flood control retention basin. 5.3 Regional Seismic Ground Shaking The most severe seismic shaking at the site is expected to originate from a nearby earthquake along the Newport-Inglewood fault zone, and could exceed a ground acceleration of 0.42 g. The response and performance of the structures subjected to seismic ground slaking will depend upon the mitigation measures employed in grading and the type and design of the structures. 11 - 1-EIGHT ON and ASSOC IMES LEIGHTON and ASSOCI AT ES 1840474-01 TABLE 2. CHECKLIST OF GEOTECHNIGAL HAZARDS AND POTENTIAL. MITIGATION MEASURES Mitigation of the potentially damaging effects of seismic ground shaking is usually (MODIFIED FROM CDMG NOTE 46) accomplished by the design and construction of the proposed residential structures G E O L O G I c v R o B L E n s In conformance with the latest (1982)Uniform Building Code (UBC),applicable for DEGREE OF HAZARD POSSIBLE MITIGATION MEASURES Seismic Zone 4. Grading in accordance with the current code requirements should OR PROBLEM provide adequate densificotion of those relatively minor alluvial soil deposits which AA # might tend to amplify certain types of seismic motion. PROBLEM ACTIVITY CAUSING b 2 PROBLEM i2 5.4 Liquefaction and Other Related Secondary Seismic Hazards FAULT NUVLMLNT X X X Secondary earthquake hazards, such as liquefaction, seismically induced settlement.. _ - -- - - and ground lurching are generally associated with high intensities of ground shaking, LIQUEFACTION X X X shallow ground water conditions,and the presence of loose sandy soils or alluvial IANDMA NS X X X deposits. Since most of the site is underlain by semiconsolidated terrace deposits DIFFERENTIAL Ca1PACrION1 and the ground water table is believed to be generally deeper than SO feet below the EARTHQUAKE mesas, the hazard potential appears to be slight. The canyons appear to have more SEISMIC SETTLEMENT X X X unconsolidated alluvial deposits and a shallower ground wafer table; consequently, DAMAGE GROUND RUPTURE (lurching) X X X the hazard potential may be moderate in those areas. GROUND SHAKING X X A subsurface geotechnical investigation (normally required prior to approval of ISUNANI X N/A development plans)would be necessary to better evaluate the hazard potential and SEICHES X X N/A to recommend the appropriate mitigation measures. FLOODING ! IDAN OR LEVEE FAILURE I X N/A 5.5 Settlement and Expansive Soil LOSS OF ACCESS X X X In general, the foundation bearing capacity of the formations underlying the mesa is Loss of relatively predictable and favorable. Settlement of structures built on natural DEPosrrs COVERED BY CHANGED ground(cut areas)or on property placed and compacted fills, therefore, is expected MINERAL LAND USE X X X to be y soils negligible. Some cla (probably moderately to highly expansive)appear RESOURCES to underlie the northeast corner of the property and some peat deposits(susceptible :aNING RESTRICTIONS X X X to collapse)appear to underlie the northern central canyon area. Generally, they should not pose a significant development constraint if they are recognized and WASTE CHANGE IN GROUNDWATER LEVEL X X X properly mitigated. DISPOSAL DISPOSAL Or EXCAVATED MATERIAL* X X X A more detailed analysis of the Nxlsite soils is recommended, although standard PROBLEMS PERCOLATION a WASTE MATERIAL* X X1 X grading techniques and conformance with current grading requirements are ontici- paled to satisfactorily mitigate these hazards. Fxpanisve soils can be readily SLOPE AND/OR LANDSLIDES AND NUIIFLOWS X X mitigated by appropriate foundation design,and compressible soils can be removed UNSTABLE CUT AND FILL SLOPES X X X prior to fill placement. FWNDAi I ON - — COLLAPSIBLE AND EXPANSIVE SOIL. X X INSTABILITY TRENCII-WALL.STABILITY X X X S.6 Lime Deposit Disposal EROSION. Altlaugh existing tests on the sugar processing waste deposits confirm they are FROSION OF GRADED AREAS X X X _ largely lime (Reference 23), the presence of hazardous chemicals or constituents SEDIMENTA' ALTFRATION OF Ru"r X X X (other than their unsuitability for plants) apparently was not ruled out. Their T ION. UNPROTECTED DRAINAGE WAYS X X X incorporation into earth fills as part of the developtnent grading, however, is probably feasible, based on recent practices involving similar materials elsewhere, FLOODING INCRrAsm IMPERVIOUS SURFACES and subject to favorable laboratory tests confirming the absence of hozorclous X X X chemicals. The addition of soil amendments to counteract the relatively high pH of EXTRACTION OF GROUNOWATER, CAS, the deposits would probably be necessary if the fill containing them is to serve as a LAND planting medium. OIL.GEUIIILPFAL ENERGY X X SUBSIDENCE HYDROC.OMPACTIIN, PEAT 0111➢ATUM X X X vouANlc IAYA FLOW X _ N/A _ 14- Mlm%a HAZARDS ASH FALL XN/A i SPECIAL WORK"CAN INCLUDE ADDITIONAL IINESIICATICN, SPECIAL SITE PRIPNAIIH. OR SIT-.CIAL FOUILAIVINS, lEIaMTON Rrd ASSOCIATESrco *Includes lime deposits from sugar processing and oil drilling or processing waste materials Should further testing determine that hazardous chemicals are present, the lime deposits would most likely require their removal to a suitable disposal site. 6.0 Oil Field Hazards and Constraints 5.7 Slope Instability 6.0.1 General. Mechanical failures, accidents, or earth movements resulting in rupturing of well pipelines or tanks are always a possibility within an oil Landsliding or other similar slope stability problems have not been, and are not field. Such breaks could lead to spills of petroleum products and leakage of expected to be,a significant development constraint. The natural slopes along the water,steam or gases,resulting in hazard from fumes,fire and pollution. canyon areas will require further analysis to confirm the generally favorable With appropriate handling techniques, such occurrences would be unlike) conditions anticipated. a� P n9 �, y Standard safety practices, monitoring, adequate repairs and maintenance, There may be a potential for failure of trench walls and/or steep temporary slopes and contingency plans should adequately mitigate the potential lozards mode during construction. Such hazards may be satisfactorily mitigated by related to active oil field operations. The possible existence of old buried observing standard construction regulations and procedures. sumps, trash dumps, abandoned pipelines, and underground storage tanks, however, could be a source of ground water pollution or environmental health hazard if their presence and potential impacts are unrecognized and 5.8 Tsunamis and Seiches not appropriately mitigated. Problems from tsunamis are not expected to affect the site,considering its location 6.0.2 Abandoned Oil and Water Wells. Thirteen known oil wells, seven known and elevation. The risk of seiches(seismically induced waves in lakes or reservoirs) water Abandoned s, possibly more unrecorded wells have been abandoned on the is considered nil to slight. There is a remote possibility that the water level in the P y "Sully-Miller Lake" may rise high enough (especially during the winter months) to j subject property (refer to Figure 7). Producing oil wells will also be pose a threat of seiche activity along the banks of the lake but probably not to the I abandoned in the future as production is phased out. All abandoned oil wells subject property. presumably have been, or will be required to be, plugged according to the City of Huntington Beach Oil Code and the California Division of Oil and Gas standards. The water wells must be properly abandoned according to 5.9 Erosion,Sedimentation and Flooding City of Huntington Beach Water Well Abandonment Code 1917. Any wells that may have been abandoned improperly pose the hazard of surface The hazard of flooding(producing erosion and/or sedimentation) from storm runoff seepage of oil,gases or ground water. appears to be a significant problem within the drainage channels at the site, since All abandoned well locations and abandonment procedures already surface runoff from existing residential areas to the northeast and stream channel Implemented should be verified throe examination t records and/al field runoff from the property to the west is presently channeled across the subject Inspection nor to grading. An well which will be disturbed or exposed b property. P� 9r ng. Y P Y grading (i.e., cuts lowering the ground elevation) must be recapped Measures to mitigate the effects of flooding are related to measures used to reduce according to the current standards. erosion and sedimentation. Channel improvements in the main creeks, as well as adequate outlet improvements to the north,remain the chief means to mitigate the potentially significant impacts of stream channel flow and to protect the proposed 6.0.3 Pipe I* Extensive oil, water and electric utility lines exist beneath the structures and adjacent lands. site. Proposed grading would either expose the existing utility lines in cut areas or bury them beneath new fills. Inasmuch as the trench backfill materials may be susceptible to settlement, appropriate mitigation measures will be necessary in any areas where the proposed grading does not remove them. All existing pipelines should be located through examination of records and/or field exploration during the site grading. Pipelines no longer in use and the surrounding trench backfill material should be removed or the settlement potential otherwise treated by an acceptable method. If functioning lines are to remain in use, phasing of the project should be coordinated with abandonment of the facilities. Alternatively, pipelines could be re-routed either temporarily or permanently during the grading and construction phases of the project. Is- HINI_J - 16- t u IIJIJ��� I FI."T ON ERd ASSOCIATES LEIGHTON and ASSOCIATES iNt oR�ORA T[o I,.<OR�ORATEO 6.0.4 are t,s. Oil and waste water sumps and other types of waste disposal sites r ore known to exist on the subject property. Such known and presently 1840474-01 unrecognized old sumps or buried disposal pits could be significant soil consfroints and environmental hazards because of the unsuitable and possibly toxic materials they may contain. A review of all available records should be carried out prior to any grading --• ' e at the site. All readily verified existing oil and for sumps and any related ' I deposits containing hazardous wastes should be removed prior to or during site grading. The waste water sump and all suspected dumps or sumps - should be evaluated by means of a subsurface investigation. We understand that the California State Department of Health has made an initial Inspection of the subject site for potentially hazardous waste deposits and will be conducting a more detailed examination and possibly a field exploration and scrupling investigation in late 1984 or early 1985 (Michael Pardee,personal communication). ••� >\`�' y ! SUBJECT PROPERTY INDEX MAP SHOWING FAULT LOCATIONS FU; . �QIIG1(SI R6MC 0SK rA"fSI SMACE"I M rolumm wn w cur �. ewaAOF N.MV1 U&M KIND IRACI Of FALLI QI WCIFINNIV A.S 10 f%ISIINCE O4 E%IMSIOII Of FALLI ,�NN _ 17_ L_�1 .A�• l From: Huntington Beach. Seismic Safety Element, 1974. I r IGHTON—d ASSOCIATES iwr owrowwTco IrJ + ANAL I *ufnN; — I�•_ MILL---• --w � Y ' sau cHK� --�- I A 'SITE '�� �� �� _ I T i •VFW r — p� N v HUNTING 97.1 '44� ` N[WPORT M[SA SEAC i Won; S _ rw ..Wn! 0 LEGEND Oalr;i or ti r Qar_• — 1<F.M.�urr �....r.>«rw.."i:a'.w �„",.. 40e1.,r ' r.• .E��.� ..J. v�Hl. �. �., ®. REGIONAL GEOLOGIC MAP _..<«.<.....«.:..... ..<.....a SCALE: I'<2 MILES :la ,.\ `:'J--.... 1840474-01 \l FIGURE 2 I A Vicinity of SUbleot Property A' I I HUNTINGTON BEACH MESA ?SANTA ANA GAP b BOLSA GAP A 1 a a s .Pw Mw K•.t d.0..i y -src2iccc -s r<r i12T_ Ai•+lP_,`yawj`gM'f.n p.yermlrwn —low- ----- .0 _ -�.1'�!_��i._a•C 7•"�_-�£�.r i _ 1 3;3S.x- '--— -L• `tt'1.ti .i••. l��—..- ��- low- -mw .ow 5 • Vvbbl kaM nlnwM I.erlmrtY.bM GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION 1840474-01 GEOTECHNICAL MAP OF HOLLY PLANNED COMMUNITY PROPERTY 1840474-01 L;�- At �,, =r= -� ( t>, — MAJOR REGIONAL FAULTS AND EARTHQUAKE EPICENTERS e ..� - +�\\ \\ 7( A \r' _�o.t \ r o1 j \. + x x x + x Ot r. .... 1�. �Y" x % x,x XxllAf x x x x X x x / { 1,/ j Aot / - l x i cot } 11�- \ '� •'� + x + + X \`'kx 37 Xc x 1'{ OR r 1 ., � ._ x x z ,\ x /cof `� 01 ! X x l xx x c.,� \,! ��, s xxxx � Ot I W X x x + x + x x ` A Col X �J/ I♦``r/ _ .i�� '.� ( i xxJl< •x x x 1 x x x x AotA► ��` X x xx x x + + E J ,; x x sIN x x x / Xx x at PIN ,Ic X Aot - I _ * x�NTA, NEZ xxxx ,14, x X x x x it H 48 Ax x x Vicinity of Old Oil Sump X xX I �✓ x L 3@( 34 X tix ((1SGS,1949 ':�,_: _ X� ` xx SITE. •t % x Quad Sheet) of x x Kc x�j�1c xX # x /,yT i_ X x / O x x Xx � x 4•,l x �. XyX Former Site ofi .� ty, _ Scale:11425' i Old r sete�N --- x �x $\ 31 We Sump �/ 121 i +0! 9 + -+r X rk x�o x x 'Sx .x X X x 0o ,fix%\%x I I x xxx o so 1oom1 x X \ x XX x x LEGEND _ __ x ,a X S7R'S: x ~ x * 32 x O 60 100 160km 7 9 # x X. .f x tt\,....,,'' \x"V X Sur licial Units Symbols tPiErn<q S�eis x X XX # x% �y '00 x AI Maior Fill Areas (Smaller lips not shown) Contact 5 n"` x x x X x xyJ�CX i10 It7 x11 x ils >CAKXXxX AI Lime Deposits x 10< xx XxXXXXxX X x X et Oil and Tar Deposits (More may occur than shown on map) C�lo C011uvium 1932 111FlOU01 1972. EVENTS EGUAL OR GREATER THAN MAGNIIWE-4 ®s Alluvium �(1�1Y�JY(LI le OI Terrace Deposits 1,I,.....:..:e FIGURE 5 1840474-01 FIGURE 4 j eR �''•� �l� !�'1 IIII� -�'•' q'�,r*�-=--p/-�'�-�,;�i. r.. e 1231 C • 7 /I U' Ir I*. / i C. lo- � 1K •Y -- p��� _ �.J� 7 _�'t � �� �r �•� h of 89 �"^�vo.'u� t`� E. ��, l�'.-� � a 40e T rh I =t ,..• ..1` . ....Ri....• -�J Y�6.ar Idir' Ill '� -ELLIS AVE. Ll •i, , s� Il _. r<rr/ i •„ •,,,,� 01 SUBJECT PROPERTY • jam 2 PwwJ Cory LEGEND •,: �_�� •n 0 • Producing Oil Well r•.. �� • O t Abandoned-Oil Well ' Abandoned-Dry Hole • •s ,., , r,.,../ • 1 Approximate Location of Old Water Well 0 (After Sinnott, A and Poland. J.F., 1959, r•�..X•<.'<1 NS OP7 and Bob Allen, H.B. Water Department, c<.<• <- A F'�<. N Personal Communication) t I •� mow+-.'�r ?+.i�G.'.,n'^^+� y ' `".y' ; + / y�,��_.,.,.w..r•tIC 4 .� ter,i'.'♦ro,l• *F+r•w �„ �` 8810•M•0 ModIH•d From: �✓N••^'^ ,• RI ( .....< t' Dlv,of Oil and G•• _+• L '•'•' w' � .,�O.w..~ rM.'.+'w. ~I,. ,/ a'. M.D Shoot 134• 11, � t.•w.,"r,,.,'- .•`•'.•' r^»r r. Huntlnpton BUCK Oil FINd• I i -� Iw.•.•..�I•.i.;.' .-1T•-•— I4l-�.t'.c� ♦•lot Dat.o Oct.30.1982 0 800 1000 1840474-01 FIGURE 7 OIL WELL AND WATER WELL LOCATION MAP 1840474-01 13. 1983, Geotechnical environmental assessment study for Alamitos Land APPENDIX A Comp any Development,Cities of Signal Hill and Long Beach,California, REFERENCES Project No. 1800650-01,dated June 10, 1983. 14. , 1984, Focused geotechnical environmental impact assessment report, proposed Mesa Verde Apartment project, Adams Avenue and Mesa Verde 1. Barrows, A.G., 1974, A review of the geology and earthquake history of the Drive East, Costa Mesa, California, Project No. 1840333-01, dated Newport-Inglewood structural zone, southern California: California April 19, 1984. Division of Mines and Geology,Special Repart 114,115 p. 15. Morton, P.K., Miller, R.V., and Fife, D.L., 1973, Preliminary geo-environmental 2. California Department of Water Resources, 1966, Santa Ana gap salinity barrier, mops of Orange County, California: California Division of Mines and Orange County: Department of Water Resources Bulletin 147-I, 178 p. Geology,Preliminary Report 15. 3. , 1967, Progress report on ground water geology of the Coastal Plain of 16. Morton, P.K., Miller, R.V., and Evans, J.R., 1976, Environmental geology of Orange County, Southern District: California Department of Water Orange County, California: California Division of Mines and Geology, Resources,dated July 1967, 138 p. Open-File Report 79-8LA,474 p. 4. California Division of Oil and Gass, 1958, Huntington Beach Oil Field: Summary of 17. Munger, A.H., ed., 1967, Munger map book,California Oil and Gas fields,eleventh Operations,v.44,no. 1,pp. 13-25. edition,April 1967. 5. , 1982, Huntington Beach oil field map, Orange County, Map 134, dated 18. Orange County Water District, 1984, 1982-83 Engineers report on ground water October 30, 1982. conditions,water supply and basin utilization,dated February 8, 1984. 6. Hart, E.W., 1980, Fault-rupture hazard zones in California, Alquist-Priolo Special 19. Piper, A.M.and Garrett,A.A., 1953,Native and contaminated grand waters in the Studies Zones Act of 1972, with index to Special Studies Zones Maps: Long Beach-Santa Ana area,California: U.S.Geological Survey'hater California Division of Mines and Geology,Special Publication 42,revised Supply Paper 1136. March 1980. 7. Fpleman, J.A., Allen,C.R.,and Nordquist, J.M., 1973, Seismicity of the southern 20• Ploessel,M.R.,and Slosson, J.E., 1974,Repeatable high ground accelerations from California region, I January 1932 to 31 December 1972: Seismological earthquakes - important design criteria: California Geology, v.27, Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California, pp. 195-199. Contribution 2385. 21. Poland, J.F., and Piper, A.M., 1956, Ground water geology of the coastal zone, Long Beach - Santa Ana, California: U.S. Geological Survey Water 8. Joint Committee on Seismic Safety, 1974, Meeting the earthquake challenge(Final Supply Paper 1109. report to the Legislature, State of California): California Division of Mines and Geology,Special Publication 45. 22. Poland, J.F., 1959,Hydrology of the Long Beach-Santo Ana area,California: U.S. 9. Lamar, D.L., Merifield, P.M., and Proctor, R.J., 1973, Fortingoake recurrence Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 1471. Intervals on major faults in southern California, in Moran,D.E.,Slosson, 23. Soil and Plant Laboratory, Inc., 1977, Sugar beet waste report, dated December S, J.E., Stone, R.0., and Yelverton, C.A., editors, Geology, seismicity, 1977,Lab No. 1225. End environmental impact: Association of Engineering Geologists, special publication. 24. Sprotte, E.C., et al., 1980, Classification and mapping of Quaternary sedimentary 10. Leeds D.J. 1973 The designdeposits for purposes of seismic zonation, south coastal Los Angeles earthquake: in Association of Engineering Geologists, Basin, Orange County, California: California Division of Mines and special publication,pp.337-347. Geology,open-file report 80-19 LA. I1. Leighton and Associates, Inc., 1973, Geotechnical inputs, seismic safety element, 25. Wochtell, J.K., 1978, Soil survey of Orange and western part of Riverside County, City of Huntington Beach: Project No. 73154,dated September 28, 1973. California: U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service 12. 1981, Geotechnical environmental impact analysis report (final draft), and Forest Service, 149 p. Banning-Newport Ranch, Orange County, California, Project 26. Woodward-Clyde Consultants, 1979, Report of the evaluation of maximum earth- No. 180562-02,dated March 30, 1981. quake and site ground motion parameters associated with the offshore zone of deformation, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station: consultant report dated June 1979. A-t A-ii AERIAL PHOTOS Date Flight Photo Nos. Scale Source 2/25/80 80033 169, 170 1"=2000, American Aerial Survey PERSONS CONTACTED. 1. City of Huntington Beach Tom Show,Oil Inspector,Fire Department (714)536-5411 Ulrich Stenziel,Public Works (714)536-5431 Donald Kiser,Division Engineer,City Yard (714)848-0600 Bob Allen,Water Department (714)536-5610 Les Evans,City Engineer (714)536-5435 Charles Clark,Planning (714)536-5271 2. California Division of Mines and Geology Russell Miller,Geologist (714)558-4187 David Fuller,Geologist (213)620-3560 3. California Division of Oil and Gas Ed Brannon,Enhancement Oil Recovery Engineer (213)590-531 1 4. California State Department of Health/Toxics Michael Pardee (213)620-4812 5. Holly Sugar Company Lou Orlenes (303)471-0123 6. Huntington Beach Company Rick Sailor (714)960-4351 Bill Wmon (714)960-4351 7. Chevron Oil Company Larry McCamish (213)694-7570 8. Birtcher Pacific Jess Dawson,Superintendent (714)831-8031 9. Orange County Water District Mr.Riley (714)963-5661 A-IN ( ( t • CS5 1 • APPENDIX D HYDROLOGY STUDY k•• • � t Irvine Civil Engineering 3140 Red Hill Avc,Suite UM),Olsra Ni­a,UA 91626 I'h,17141 641-8641 Ms.Beverly Bruesch September 4,1984 Page 2 September 4,1984 The existing 33"pipe culvert under Ellis Avenue is not adequate in size to freely pass Michael Brandman Associates Inc. the expected runoff eontributary to that point and unless retention of runoff in the greenbelts southerly of Ellis Avenue is proposed that culvert will requlre__ 3140 Red Hill Avenue,Suite 200 __ - - L replacement by a substantially larger structure. Costa Mesa,California 92626 This is intended as very preliminary in lieu of more detailed drainage proposals." Attn: Beverly Bruesch At such time as those proposals are submitted I would be happy to provide assistance Re: Holly Property EIR,City of Huntington Beach in comparing them to the analysis described above. Dear Ms.Bruesch: Best wishes,,, This is in response to your request for a preliminary drainage analysis for the subject " V�'//A L property concept plan. The plan covers a 120.3-acre parcel which is mainly grassy Dennis D.Nelson hills and gullies bounded on the north by Ellis Avenue,on the east by the southern Principal Pacific Railroad, on the south by Garfield and on the west by Goldenwest Street. Tbere exists a 33-inch diameter pipe culvert under Ellis Avenue from which the DDN/jr majority of the site runoff flows northerly to Sully-Miller Lake. Approximately 7.6 acres of the site drains to Garfield. The site is in drainage district number 9. In 1979 L.D. King do Associates prepared a master drainage plan for the City of Huntington Beach. A portion of that study Includes the subject property. That study concludes that the runoff due to a 25-year storm to Sully-Miller Lake totals 533 e.f.s. Approximately 149.0 e.f s is contributed by the Holly property In Its present undeveloped state. As a result of the development as proposed by the concept plan this runoff will increase by approximately 16 c.f s.to 165 c.f.s. This increase is based upon a number of assumptions including the locations of future stormdrains. It was not evident on the concept plan how the existing 284 c.f s. entering the subject property from easterly of the Southern Pacific Railroad right- of-way would be carried through the site. H this were to be carried In the large greenbelts near Ellis it would need to be analyzed for Its impact on the water surface in the vicinity of the adjacent building pads. The Sully-Miller Lake acts as a retention devise which stores runoff in excess of 61 e.f.s. City of Huntington Beach Assistant Civil Engineer William Patapoff stated that the 36"culvert which drains the 61 c.f.s previously mentioned is silted closed at this time so that no runoff passes the lake at this time. The'retained water percolates over the dry periods. This condition,of course, would not be acceptable should the subject property be developed. He further stated that to his knowledge no engineering studies have been performed which would analyze the storm retention capabilities of the lake,in conjunction to the proposed project.* '• The above described comparisons only address the increase in runoff from the proposed site. It does not address the Impacts to this runoff by off-site water A study titled "Sully-Miller Lake - An Assessment and Development Plan"was entering the site from the east and west. More complete drainage analyses will be prepared by J. Harlan Glen and Associates in October of 1980. This study does necessary in order to precisely define the drainage implications of the subject discuss the existing retention capabilities of the lake. project. FACILITY NO d NAME ro r E Calculated by DDT Date B/ZB ti '1 Checked by / Date H .,_ M ;J Concentration Soil Land } t F Oischar a _D r c , I q FIowar"h Slope Hydraulics and -a Point Description No. Grou Use min min in ^ ny h ft/it ft/sec Notes Tao t 3 70, a e-J.6 /n of 4-d Z 016.A- r 4 7,; 7 6 D W e /4 5 2. Z.2/ v .526 /9.9 /2 9 D �WJJ`S/ n er o(,,/A,-/ 340, d '311 /n/ o,/Arm M ?1�'n'l 577 S7 MF /40 tS Z.ZG V ✓!27 /0.7 /0.7 �y �w'i?o r oGG M 7 in•✓�Gsf+vrr �5 /3'20 O/9z 4.4%. _ _ ��caa•t•ly/E//,'S 62 / 7 / ,D M F' /9 5 zs A/ gz2 z / /z g .,/ �,o a� o � L13 /?. /,-J D M.F /5'8 S Z.l3 •�5 G G //SO d =Sf /n io Area � Qw•Z7! ,�- zoz.6 4 F/or.� 61 /8 350 0/2? j•2 5/:40', d- 7./ n O , 13 Z D MF 17.4 s Z.0 V -824 /•S Z1.1 = a� c&--v T !33 3./ /G 3 D M.F /7G S Z o .SZ4 m -Si F/ek, / Z 7 7.To o244 4-7 �s/ z�' 4 3 4 I 23 /.G 7 9 D M.F Z0.3 ZS /85 ✓ .Sz3 2.4 30.6 ID S.-^e 7.- 87 /56 33.5" D M fr Z0.3 s /89 ✓ .8z3 ,38 6'4..4 O•v: cam. C»e C S/ Flow ¢ So oz44 5.7 S/,4o 4.9G Da 88 /4 7 50.2 D M.F 00.1 n 194 V .8zz e5.7- 79.6 I0 z w 139�6/a 439 i 171 Go./ D Mf Zo.7 r 1.84 .BZZ /5"0 94.6 !a _! Sa,...Tn �/O / Oev= n:.ozs at 3 /000 oo-f 4.7 5=qo 2e.g m E/l r Bll S7 G3$ D MF Z4.7 / 70 Sza 7.9 102.5 /2-0 D MF 12/ zr Z.55 8z9 25.4 ZS4 p„.160,r=30o 3. of Sa,.� T CZ / 9 /3 9 D HIP /Z•I is 2S5 ✓ .829 4 0 29.4 ZSD { 5�1:+e'�>' d'87 ve /Z GA.:•a r r_ 33 A C3 3 3 /7 Z D M F 133 Z35 v .8z7 6.4 3S.8 4Go 0/$4 4 G sr-4o' A= B 3 ,. /7 .. C4 // / 28.3 a M.,- /so 2•I6 v .8z5 Z0•0 6r8 g `�°` 'IC4 �S /oz 38 5 !D /'!F /So zS z./g Szs 183 7-/ q -75' 4.n_ocs N� /cs Ca 39 8 19 �5 35D oo(o 3.0 r z5 NF G.9 ZDS 823 Z 2 7� 3 PACiLITY NO 9 NAMEwgz4v +o Ei2 Calculated by Date 99q, 3)S3 Checked by )•I/ Gate 9 D Concentration Soil Land tt tc F I c ischarge FlowPalh Slope V Hydraulics and Print Description No. Group Use min min in/hr ^ A fe L nq ft/ft N/see Notes 0 / 4- 2 7 D , ,-c (7[ xz,t =165 Z4 Z v /6S'8 rn � m 2 O rn <n z D cn D i C1 a o - 2 I ^' i Y N w N 0 M Cf • '� d flQ41Q��`a Q9a9t�9dQ9a9499QaQQ4�j! i� '��i i� a ��aaaaao ana�aa� �dedada�ad, ,i = ^�Q04QDPp ts .ma's 4� pC1�7aa9999QIl�:4]Ji �iJs�`p�nG'� s� � �, �g^ an-am !A yw to u a r.rr a�Mu Lo �{T�}�1 a SMOIrwAli/'Ia 11] Y t - -• "l _ I ! a.. o moo w w wo ua 1" edlyDmoay Am •z .r ■ iOW ■ LANNED CO�� /OLLYIF J7717f) HOLLYPROP£RIY a� HUNTNGTM BEACHCOMPA�T arcs rw • - r:Y�� s��r. ✓.y H&LY Hft7PERTY aarrRiaw _ r: '� L • 41W APPENDIX E FLORAL AND FAUNAL COMPENDIA • tow • • • TABLE 1 DICOTYLEDONAE FLORAL COMPENDIUM(al ACERACEAE-MAPLE FAMILY AG HR LO EG LEGEND ' Ca tutus edulis o - f - tenot-rig HABITAT(b) • Gasoul erMallinum o - - - AG-Annual Grassland ice plant HR-Herbaceous Riparian LO-Landscaped Ornamental AMARANTHACEAE-AMARANTH FAMILY EG-Eucalyptus Grove • Amaranthus albus I ABUNDANCE(c( tum ng tweed c -common f -frequent APIACEAE-CARROT FAMILY o -occasional i -Infrequent • Foenleulum vuleare f t - - —sweet fennel STATUS • Non-native APOCYNACEAE-DOGBANE FAMILY • Nerium oleander - - o - oleander ASTERACEAE-SUNFLOWER FAMILY Ambrosia iloatach a c - - - I western ragwe Baccharis error i - _ = —memory cc is Baccheris lutinose o mulefat Carduus enoce lus i - - - Italian th tle • Centaurea melltensis" c - - - tocalote Cirsium sp. - (al This is not intended as an exhaustive listing of the vegetation occurring thistle on the site; some annual herbs or very uncommon,species may not have • Conyza canadensis f - - - been detected by the field survey. horseweed (bl Indicates habitat types (plant communities) in which species most commonly occurs; species may occur in limited numbers or loeniities in Corethrogyne filaginifolla I - - - other communities. cudweed aster (c( This is simply a gross Indication of relative frequency of occurrence on .the site. Quantitative sampling methods were not employed to arrive at Cotula c_oro�no it�olia o - - - these determinations. brnss- us ttoris CHENOPODIACEAE-GOOSEFOOT FAMILY AG HR LO EG ASTERACEAE-SUNFLOWER FAMILY(continued) AG HR LO EG Atr(plext�l�� Gnaphatium beneolens o - - - spear saltbush fragrant everlasting • Atri lax semibaecata t o - - Gnaphalium_ehilense i - - - Australlan saltbush cotton batting plant Hellanthus annuus f f - - ' � ie-hoo edlia ssla o [ - - common sunflower • Beta uga_r o o - - Hemizonla sp. o - - - sagar e—et tarweed • Chen ium ambroaioides - 1 - - Heterotheea�andiflOra o - - - ex can-l— t— telegraph weed • Salsola iberiea f o - - • Lactuca serriola i - - - Russian-thistle prTckiy lettuce • Pieria echioides o o - - bristly ox-tongue EUPHORBIACEAE-SPURGE FAMILY • Sonchus asper i - - - * Ricinus communis i - - prickly sow-thistle castor-bean • Sonchus oleraceus o - - - common sow-thistle LAMIACEAE-MINT FAMILY • Xanthium is�nosum i i - - spiny clotbur • Marrubium vulgare - • Xanthium strumarium o f - - h°reRo cocklebur MALVACEAE-MALLOW FAMILY BORAGINACEAE-BORAGE FAMILY Sida leprose Hellotr lam curassavicum i - - - alkali-mallow salt her otrope MORACEAE-MULBERRY FAMILY BRASSICACEAE-MUSTARD FAMILY • Ficus carica - • Brassica geniculata f o - - fig short-podded mustard • Brassica nI�a f - - - MYOPORACEAE-MYOPORUM FAMILY `—Brae m stard • Raphanus sativus f - - - • Myoporum laetum - wild radish myoporum • Sisymbrium altissimum - tumbling-mustard MYRTACEAE-MYRTLE FAMILY • Eucalyptus camaldulensts - - - c red gum • Eucalyptus rudis - - - i ` ed serf gum i OLEACEAE-OLIVE FAMILY AG HR LO EG PALMACEAE-PALM FAMILY AG HR LO EG � T — i • Phoenix canarlensia Oleacom`moolive i —Ze-nary 5Q date palm i • Washin tonic fWfera Californian—palm POLYOONACEAE-BUCKWHEATFAMILY it Rumexr f o - POACEAE-GRASS FAMILY cur y • Avene harbeta f - - slender wild oat SALICACEAE-WILLOW FAMILY • Avena fatua f o 0 0 Salix gooddingii _ i _ _ common wild oat black willow • Bromus diandrus - Salix las�iole i - - rrWutgrass arroyo willow • B%mol is SOLANACEAE-NIGHTSHADE FAMILY I • Bromes Yr c o o - — rye �rome • Nicotiana Lrlauca o f - - • Cortaderia atacamensis i - - tree tobacco pampas grans Cynodo►r dact lon e f c i ACAVACEAE-AGAVE FAMILY bermudagrass Distichlis sDiceta f c o - • Yucca aloifotia - - i - a tgresa spanish bayonet Leptoohloa unlnervia sprangletop ALISMATACEAE-WATER-PLANTAIN FAMILY • Lolium perenne multiflorum c f - Ita1an ryegrass Saffitterie ca_ I I - i - • Paspalum dilatatum orn a arrow-head datlas grass • P�olyp2gonn monspellensis f f - CYPERACEAE-SEDGE FAMILY rabbit's-Toot grass • Vulpia�mealurraa e o o Olney bulrush - —! e - ° - - foxtail fescue Scirpus validus - o - - soft-stemmed bulrush TYPHACEAE-CAT-TAIL FAMILY Typhe sp. - o - - LEMNACEAE-DUCKWEED FAMILY cattail Lemna sp. - 0 - - duckweed TABLE.2 AMPHIBIANS FAUNAL COMPENDIUM ial CAUDATA-SALAMANDERS LEGEND Batrachoseps major garden slender salamander + Presence rioted by direct sighting, call identification or observation of tracks, scat or other signs. 3ALIENTIA-FROGS AND TOADS • Non-native Bufo boreas western toad Hyla re lla ac c treefrog REPTILES SQUAMATA-LIZARDS AND SNAKES Scel u oecidentalls s rn e�-lizard Uta stansburiana side-blotched lizard Gerrhonotus multicarinatus southern a�l5 zerd Cnemidophorus tircris western whiptail Coluber constrictor racer Lempropeltis atulus common ktngsna�ke + Mastic his ellum coac wh p Pituophis melanoleucus gophersnake Crotalus viridis western rattlesnake lal List includes species observed or expected to occur on or in the immediate vicinity of the site. Note: Only breeding and overwintering birds are listed. Migrants and vagrants are not included. BIRDS PICIFORMES-WOODPECKERS AND ALLIES I Co tes tan FALCONIFORMES-VULTURES,HAWKS,OSPREYS AND FALCONS ` northernn nicker Acci iter striatus 1 ss►�tae rrp�hawk PASSERIFORMES-PERCHING BIRDS A - if;�F _ _ f Sa ornis says Say's phoebe Buter Lamaled ha + _ n Icons red-tailed hawk �]L blame c p + Falco sparverius America estrei M archus cineraseens es -t roated nyeatcher GALLIFORMES-GALLINACEOUS BIRDS + helocomn coerulescen9 scr y Calls hy lacalifornics + Corvusbracrh�nchoe -- orn—�- American crow + P�saltripam minlmus bushtit CHARADRUFORMES-SHOREBIRDS Ilw manes bewlekli Charadrius vociferus wic wren --RTI deer Regulus calendula ruby-crowned kinglet COLUMBIFORMES-PIGEONS AND DOVES Catherus tt�atus —Trmlt tfintt� •+ Columbia livia + Mimus 1 ottoe rock dove(domestic pigeon) nort rn mockingbird '+ Streptopella chinensis Bombycilla cedrorum ott sped ve cedar waT- + Zenaide macroura + Lanius ludo e mourning dove loggerhead s ke •+ Sturnus vulgaris STRIGIFORMES-OWLS — '�uropean starling Vermivora eelata to alba orange-crowned warbler common barn-owl Dendroica coronnta yellow-rumped warbler APODIFORMES-SWIFTS AND HUMMINGBIRDS + Pi 110 fuscus • Cel to eons Frown Towhee Anna's hummingbird + Melospiza melodia song sparrow Zonotrichia leucaphrys V crown sparrow Junco hyemalis dark-eyed junco PASSERIFORMES-PERCHING BIRDS(cont'd) RODENTIA-GNAWING MAMMALS + Agelalus phoenieeus red-winged blackbird rm ilus beecheyl Sturnella neglects Cali orn as ground squirrel western meadowlark Thomomys umbrinus Euphagus cyanocephalus sou erne gopher Brewer's blackbird Reithrodontomys megalotis Molothrus ater western harvest mouse brown-headed cowbird P�erom�cus maniculatus Icterus galbula deer mouse northern oriole • Rattus nory cus + Cerpodacus mexicanus Norway rat house finch * Mus musculus + Carduelis tristis use mouse American goldfinch Carduelis psaltria LAGOMORPHA-HARES AND RABBITS lesser goldfinch •+ Passer domesticus Le californlcus house sparrow lack-ta ajackrabbit + Syllvilagus sudubonii MAMMALS Audubon cottontail MARSUPIALIA-POUCHED MAMMALS Didelphis virginiana Virginia opossum CHIROPTERA-BATS Myotis californica California myotis Nyeteris cinerea red bat CARNIVORA-FLESH-EATERS Mustela frenata long-te lei d weasel Spilogale r�acilis spotted skunk Mephitis mephitis striped skunk Canis latrans coyote } I i 1 ► I � i ! 1 I 1 t ( I � ! i i w APPENDIX F i ARCHAEOLOGY STUDY imp low r.Y. . t il.. RECEIVED AUIG 2 094 INTRODUCTION ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT FOR THE HOLLY PLANNED COMMUNITY, HUNTINGTON BEACH GPA 84-1, HUNTINGTON REACH, CALIFORNIA An archaeological resource assessment, consisting of a re- cords search and an in-field survey, was conducted for a 120 +/- acre parcel located within the City of Huntington Beach, Califor- nia. The study was performed by Marie Cottrell and Kathleen Del Chario of Archaeological Resource Management Corporation (ARMC) by at the request of Michael Brandman Associates, the cons•iltant preparing the Environmental Impact Report for the subject proper- Kathleen Del Chario ty. The purpose of the survey, undertaken in accordance with 6 current state environmental law, was to locate, identify, and Marie Cottrell evaluate cultural resources which might be present within or adjacent to the project site and which might be impacted by the i proposed development. The subject property which consists of several contiguous for parcels known collectively as the "Holly Property" is located in central Huntington Beach. It is bounded by Ellis Avenue to the Michael Brandman Associates north, the Southern Pacific Railroad and Gothard Street to the 3140 Red Hill Avenue east, Garfield and Ernest Avenues to the south, and Gc1denwest Suite 200 and Crystal Streets to the west. On the U.S.G.S. Topographic Costa Mesa, California 92626 maps, 7.5' Series, Newport Beach and Seal Beach Quadrangles, the project area is found in Township 5 South, Range 11 West, in the Southwest quarter of Section 35. submitted by SETTING Archaeological Resource Management Corporation 12421 Magnolia Street, Suite 65 The project area is situated on Huntington Beach Mesa appro- Garden Grove, California 92641 ximately 2 km northeast of the present-day coastline, 2 km west of the bluffs overlooking the Santa Ana River Gap, and 1.5 km east of Bolsa Chica Gap. Huntington Beach Mesa is part of the larger Los Angeles Basin physiographic province and is one of a series of four uplifted mesas which are separated by deep drain- July 1984 age cut qaps. While for the most part flat, the project area is bisected by a stream channel that flows in a southwesterly direc- tion across the northern part of the site and empties into Bolsa Chica Gap. Elevations within the project area range from 25 to 60 feet above sea level. h • i t -rr-, -- - - •c II 'tp t i � Mt� 1I27) W( f 1. 5._. 26 1 , r --_ , a ° ' Both Bolsa Chica and the Santa Ana River Gaps were cut dur- i4 w,,, ' ; �1��, ing Pleistocene times by drainages emanating from the mountains 7 (w _� �a�k ;.. ��, ;' �•, to the east and north. Rising sea levels following the retreat of the ice age inundated these gaps with salt water creating 1�3,• ; 1 embayments and/or estuaries. The bays/estuaries with their num- t erous marine resources became ideal locations for prehistoric ., human settlement with the result that numerous archaeological 1 i/ ..•G � •.• 1'y1 sites are found along the rim Huntington Beach Mesa overlooking the surrounding water systems. _='- Evidence from archaeological sites in this area indicate - w.....o-.-. ,•. Og �( '� )� i that the prehistoric inhabitants depended on shellfish and fish gg- 1 resources of the bay/estuary systems for many of their food ly i ii �)✓ �+, : t i resources. Additionally, the Grassland, Freshwater Marsh, and { Coastal Sage Scrub Plant Communities would have been found in the . a 34�11 ,�,r I � R>rk •..� , � � �• � area and would have provided many seed and leafy plant products which were used as foods and medicines. With freshwater being available from tributary drainages, a bay/estuary filled with pr ) n3 d ), . . " • ; °! `, marine shellfish and fish, and useable plants being available in the surrounding plant communities, the area was highly attractive l Q < 03 for prehistoric settlement. ? `" t •• ti t �: Yi Cultural Setting Ethnographically, P 7 �., � � -�r � �•r,,,� ,, �..��• the project area falls within the terri- tory of the Gabrielino. The Gabrielino at the time of contact were loosely affliated bands of hunters and gatherers who came under the influence of the Spanish Mission at San Garbriel. The Gabrielino prehistorically were thought to have been one of the IA 2 }, r most wealthy, populous, and powerful nationalities in the south- + Y ern California region (Bean and Smith 1978:538). Based on lin- r `, � �r�* )�. 1 � •, ( ,' . I guistic evidence the Gabrielino who speak a Takic language enter- ed the Los Angeles Basin sometime prior to A.D. 500 displacing the indigenous Hokan-speaking population. Gabrielino material culture was typified by the use of manos metates, mortars, pestles, basketry, shell fishhooks, and orna- ments, bows and arrows, and a wide variety of chipped stone tools such as knives, drills, and scrapers. Gabrielino settlement in the coastal area was fairly sedentary with village movements MM MM 11m 4W ta.t occurring within a restricted area. Classified as base camps, these large settlements were probably occupied for most of the year with smaller nearby settlements representing seasonal camps t 4 1 kII, ter$ where individual families or small groups settled during a first tradition defined by Warren, San Dieguito begin sometime portion of the year to gather localized or seasonally available before 9000 years ago and has its terminus at about 7000 years resources, ago. It is replaced by the Encinitas Tradition at about 5500 B.C. The Encinitas Tradition is thought to have terminated in Prehistorically, the southern_California coastal area has the local area about_1500 B.C. being replaced by the Campbell been inhabited for the past 9000 years. Through time the culture Tradition. The last tradition defined for the study area is of the local inhabitants changed as adjustments were made to the the Shoshonean Tradition which begins at about A.D. 500 and environment and external forces acted upon the occupants of the terminates with the arrival of the Spanish. coast. As major changes in the prehistoric record were noted, they were assigned a place in the chronology of the area. Two RECORDS SEARCH such chronologies have been prepared for the southern California coastal area. Wallace published in his chronology in 1955 when a limited amount of data for the coast was available. His was I Prior to the in-field poritnof the assessment, a records followed by a chronology presented by Warren in 1968. Warren was f search was completed using maps and site records housed at ARMC. able to incorporate not only more excavation data into his paper, but by this time radiocarbon dates were available for a number of These records are duplicated at the Archaeological Survey, Uni- sites on the coast correcting in part the temporal placement pro- versity of California, Los Angeles, the official repository of blem which existed for the coastal area. site records for Orange County. The records search indicated that the study area had been previously survey as part of a Based primarily on stratigraphic evidence, Wallace (1955) / larger survey and inventory conducted by Archaeological Research Incorporated for the City of Huntington Beach in proposed four cultural horizons which he felt represented the / . As a changes observed in the cultural patterns along the coast. I result of this study, 29 prehistoric sites were locsatedated and Horizon I was defined as Early Man and was considered a hunting ( described. All sites were shell mand west we found to be located culture characterized by a lack of ground stone tools and with along the bluff edges on the east and side of ttuntington the presence of large crudely made points, scrapers, and biface Beach Mesa and along the eastern bluff of Bolsa Chica Mesa. No tools. Millingstone Assemblages followed the Early Man Culture I sites were noted within or near the current project area. and are typified by the presence of large numbers of manos and metates with few projectile points. It is thought that the Millingstone Horizon Culture had a subsistence economy oriented I FIELD SURVEY AND RESULTS towards collecting and gathering rather than hunting. The Inter- mediate Cultures are characterized by large, stemmed projectile points and the introduction of the mortar and pestle. This cul- Since the ARI survey had been completed some 12 years ago, ture has a diversified subsistence economy which may be related I it was determined that a field check was in order at this time. to population growth in the basin area increasing competition I Sites, over time, may become exposed by natural causes such as over resources necessitating the expansion of the subsistence erosion, or by cultural activities such as plowing or grading. base. Lastly, the Late Prehistoric Cultures are typified by an I In this way, once obscured sites may become apparent at a later elaboration of both subsistence related and personal adornment time. artifacts as well as an increase in small, triangular projectile I The field survey, which was completed on July 24, 1964, points. The Late Prehistoric continues the trend towards inten-sification first observed during the Intermediate Cultures revealed that all parts of the survey area had been subject to Horizon. recent historic disturbance, primarily in the form of oil-drill- ing activities. This disturbance included extensive dumping, Warren in 1968 with the aid of radiocarbon dates refined filling, and grading as well as dirt and paved roads, pipelines, and elaborated on Wallace's sequence using a model of culture oil wells, windbreaks, and buildings. On the southern portion of ecology and t.e concept of tradition rather than Horizon. The the study area, a sugar refinery had at one time been present and i there were signs of disturbance in this area as well. The entire property was walked by Marie Cottrell and Kath- leen Del Chario in parallel transects. During the walk-over survey, the ground surface was examined for any indication of prehistoric land use which in this area often exist in the form of lithic artifacts and debitages, soil discolorations, fire affected rocks, and shell midden concentrations. No evidence of prehistoric activities were note during the field survey. It is possible that at one time sites were present in the area, but recent disturbance may have obliterated any indicators of prehistoric habitation. It is more likely, however, that the property is too far away from the resources of the gaps and was not occupied by the aboriginal inhabitants of the area. RECOMMENDATIONS No prehistoric cultural resources were found to exist within or near the proposed Holly Planned Community, and it appears that none will be adversely impacted by proposed development. It is recommended, however, that if any remains of prehistoric origin are uncovered during construction, a qualified archaeologist be contacted to evaluate the finds and determine appropriate miti- gation. 7 t ► t ! I 1 1 ! I I 4 f { i � ( I i • ti. r.. • r.. • APPENDIX G TRAFFIC STUDY L. • • TRAFFIC STUDY TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR HOLLY PLANNED COMMUNITY PAGE NO. IN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Project Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Roadway Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Existing Traffic Volumes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Capacity Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Public Transit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 FUTURE CONDITIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Roadway Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Future Traffic Volumes. . . . . . . . . . 11 Roadway Segment Capacity Analysis . . . . . . . . . 11 Gothard Street Realignment. . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Prepared for PROJECT-RELATED TRAFFIC. 15 Michael Brandman Associates 3140 Red Hill Avenue Trip Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Suite 200 Trip Distribution and Assignment. . . . . . . . . . 15 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Vehicle Miles Traveled. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 IMPACTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Roadway Capacity Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Intersection Capacity Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . 25 ACCESS AND INTERNAL CIRCULATION AND TRAFFIC CONTROL. . . 25 Access and Internal Circulation . , . , . . . . . . 25 Traffic Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Prepared by , GOTHARD STREET REALIGNMENT CONSIDERATIONS. . . . . . . . 29 BASMACIYAN-DARNELL, INC. MITIGATION MEASURES. ' 30 4262 Campus Drive, Suite B-1 Newport Beach, CA 92660 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS. 32 (714)549-9940 APPENDICES: APPENDIX A - Turning Movement Counts APPENDIX 8 - Intersection Capacity Utilization Worksheets and Level of Service Description APPENDIX C - Traffic Signal Warrant Worksheets August 14, 1984 LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES TABLE NO. DESCRIPTION PAGE NO. FIGURE NO. DESCRIPTION PAGE NO. 1 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION AND LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR EXISTING CONDITIONS.. 6 1 VICINITY MAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS ROADWAY SEGMENT 2 SITE PLAN. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 CAPACITY ANALYSIS......................... 8 3 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES (1984). . . . . . . 5 3 SUMMARY OF ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS........... 9 4 MASTER PLAN OF ARTERIAL HIGHWAYS (MPAH) . 10 4 SUMMARY OF EXISTING GENERAL PLAN - POST 1995 DAILY TRAFFIC ROADWAY SEGMENT 5 POST 1995 TRAFFIC VOLUMES. . . . . . . . . . 12 CAPACITY ANALYSIS FOR PROJECT SITE..... ... 13 6 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITH GOTHARD STREET 5 SUMMARY OF TRIP GENERATION RATES..... ...... .. 16 REALIGNMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 6 SUMMARY OF PROJECT-RELATED TRIP GENERATION... 17 7 PROJECT-RELATED TRIP DISTRIBUTION. . . . . . 18 7 SUMMARY OF ROADWAY SEGMENT CAPACITY ANALYSIS 8 PROJECT-REALTED TRAFFIC VOLUMES DAILY/AM/PM. 19 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT-RELATED TRAFFIC..... 22 9 EXISTING TRAFFIC PLUS PROJECT-REALTED 8 SUMMARY OF POST 1995 DAILY TRAFFIC ROADWAY TRAFFIC VOLUMES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 SEGMENT CAPACITY ANALYSIS................. 23 10 POST 1995 DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUME FORECASTS 24 9 SUMMARY OF POST 1995 DAILY TRAFFIC ROADWAY SEGMENT CAPACITY ANALYSIS................. 26 11 SITE ACCESS AND INTERNAL CIRCULATION . . . . 28 10 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION AND LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR EXISTING PLUS PROJECT-RELATED TRAFFIC.................................. . 27 1-406 Qer TRAFFIC STUDY W 22 erev Freeway FOR HOLLY PLANNED COMMUNITY INTRODUCTION The Huntington Beach Company has requested a General Plan Amend- w•etmineter ment (GPA) for approximately 120 acres of land in central Avenue Huntington 9each. Under the proposed GPA the property would be redesignated _from estate/residential, industrial.- and office I( professional to planned community on the City's General Plan Land Use Element. Known as the Holly Property, the area is bounded by Ellis Avenue to the north, Gothard Street to the east, Garfield and Ernest Avenues to the south and Goldenwest and Crystal f Eow Streets to the west. Figure 1 is a vicinity map showing the I Avenue location of the project site and the surrounding roadways. The purpose of this study is to analyze the traffic-related impacts _ 't• associated with the proposed General Plan Amendment. a � w Project Description EdYper r Q 1200 dwelling units are proposed for the Holly Property in AvMw LU 2 central Huntington Beach. Of those, 520 will be single family • = v dwelling units and 680 will be multi-family dwelling units. ; o Presently the site is predominantly vacant. Some of the land is being used for industrial/oil-related uses and a small church s, occupies the south-eastern corner of the property. Figure 2 werrW presents the site plan for the proposed project area. AV~ LL EXISTING CONDITIONS aleter As mentioned previously, the site proposed for development is Avenue predominantly vacant and is surrounded by parcels of vacant land, other industrial-related uses, and multi-family dwelling units in Tebert the City of Huntington Beach. Primary access to the site is Avenee proposed via Garfield Avenue and Gothard Street. Gothard Street will be realigned through the project site to connect with ° E Crystal Street at Garfield Avenue. Secondary access points are p Avenue proposed for Ellis and Ernest Avenues, and no direct access is. e� planned from Goldenwest Street. Regional access to the project site would be provided via I-405 (San Diego Freeway), Goldenwest !.meld Street, Beach Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway. • Aveme Roadway Characteristics Project Site Ellis Avenue is located to the north of the proposed project site and facilitates travel in an east-west direction. This roadway carries approximately 1,600 vehicles per day in the vicinity of �•� Adieq the project area and has one lane in each direction with the ,e. Avenue exception of the segment between Delaware and Gothard Streets, which has 2 lanes in each direction. �Ili -1- -2- Q Along the easterly border of the project site Gothard Street runs north and south through the area. The master plan alignment O calls for Gothard Street to be reconstructed to connect with V Ernest Avenue and Crystal Street to the south, and to extend to Garfield Avenue. Presently Gothard Street has one lane in each direction south of Ellis Avenue. North of Ellis Avenue the ` roadway has two lanes in the northbound direction and one lane in ;I# a; \ the southbound direction. la Garfield Avenue borders the project site on the south and Q. traverses the area in an east-west direction. west of Goldenwest Street Garfield Avenue has one lane in each direction. East of .0 `\ ` Goldenwest Street the roadway has two lanes in each direction. u . U '.,�\�\ The project site is also bounded on the South by Ernest Street. y Presently, Ernest Street acts as a service or access road, and 0 Q �i� \ carries approximately 500 vehicles daily. The project site is bounded by Goldenwest and Crystal Streets to the .rest. Goldenwest Street has two lanes in each direction and carries approximately 23,100 vehicles daily. Crystal Street has one lane in each direction. Q� �e W a aExisting Traffic Volumes l ti: 59� ~ @ UJ I The existing daily traffic volumes in the vicinity of the project site are shown on Figure 3. The traffic volumes along Beach (L, Boulevard were obtained from 1983 CalTrans traffic volume data and the remaining volumes are based on City of Huntington Beach 1 :�'� E �'� traffic counts from 1978 that were adjusted to reflect the growth that has occured from 1978 to 1984. . " M tr • a A factor of 6 percent per year was applied to the 1978 traffic counts to estimate the existing (1984) traffic volumes in the area. In addition, Basmaciyan-Darnell, Inc. conducted peak period •� � ���"�� ,.��-� �� ,_ I ( turning movement counts at four intersections surrounding the project. Copies of the turning movement count sheets can be 4" 1� found in Appendix A. winS P784109— — Capacity Analysis .o_ 6The intersections counted were analyzed using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) method. In brief, this method deter- l7 ZN - _ �\c!f•.Q: jai nl mines the amount of green time being utilized at an intersection ��pf1r�, �3,•^` i �i I and relates this to a qualitative description (or Level of Service) of the operating characteristics of that intersection. Table 1 summarizes the ICU analyses for the intersections. {� Copies of the ICU worksheets are found in Appendix B, as well as �\ � n a an explanation of Levels of Service. G i Lam' Review of Table 1 indicates that each of the intersections are operating at Level of Service A. This represents a free flowing F. / - condition and minimum delay to vehicles approaching the inter- �__U,'!�s 3 G icC e' ap ^' ,w` i ��� section. ----- --- 109i1S 196MU•Ptoo - � r r r c r ► i r t i t i c i r f •0 0 Talbert Avenue S TABLE 1 v4 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION e e AND LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR EXISTING CONDITIONS e a • o 0 00 B is e e We : n � o . AN PM = o Intersection ICU LOS ICU LOS e e Enka Avenue 1,400 1,600 1E,E00 Ellis Avenue at: goo •� Gothard Street 0.35 A 0.38 A U Project:; Goldenwest Street 0.29 A 0.38 A Site p o $etoo u Garfield Avenue at: Ernest$f ♦� e e 600 s " Goldenwest Street 0.32 A 0.34 A i Main Street/Gothard Street 0.42 A 0.53 A . Garfield Avenue " s,406e 6.850 12,900 a.400 6.650 ` Huntington SeacNH • Country Cl pp $�.k• • � � d ryo ^moo °op Level of Service is defined as: --- ^ A - ICU 0.00 to 0.60, B ICU 0.61 to 0.70, ( C = ICU 0.71 to 0.80, D - ICU 0.81 to 0.90, ` Yorktown Yorktown Avenue E - ICU 0.91 to 1.00, F . ICU 1.01 or greater Avenue For Level of Service Description, refer to Appendix A. ` � a 0 e` a LEGEND 0 XXX-GAILY TRAFFIC VOLUME 1 ee� me ec Adams Avenue •� i q ♦1 `v � � i Pacific �e - 1�, Oeean IBMATES Br 901 BASED ON IS HUNTINGTON BEACH COUNTS FIGURE 3 BASMACIYAN-DARNELL,INC. EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES 4262 C4moYI Drive,Smle B.) /1 90 A N4'.'Pon Bqc,.C.10.1np 92660 ` VY I'U 15499940 - TABLE 2 In addition to the intersection capacity analysis, daily roadway capacity analyses were prepared. The daily capacity values for EXISTING CONDITIONS ROADWAY SEGMENT CAPACITY ANALYSIS roadway segments are based on data obtained from the Orange County Environmental Management Agency (OCEMA) Transportation Existing LOS "C" V/C Planning Division. The roadway capacities are representative of Roadway Segment ADT Capacity Ratio the streets in the study area. Utilizing the existing average daily traffic volumes and LOS "C" capacity for each roadway Talbert Avenue segment the volume to capacity ratio can be calculated. The Goldenwest St. to Gothard St. 5,000 10,000 0.50 results of these analyses are presented on Table 2. A V/C ratio of less than 1.0 means that the roadway is operating within its Ellis Avenue available LOS "C" capacity whereas a V/C greater than 1.0 means Edwards St. to Goldenwest St. 600 10,000 0.60 that the LOS "C" daily capacity is exceeded. Review of Table 2 Goldenwest St. to Gothard St. 1,600 10,000 0.16 shows that Goldenwest Street between Talbert and Garfield Avenues Huntington St. to Beach Blvd. 1,500 10,000 0.15 is presently exceeding its LOS "C" capacity. East of Beach Boulevard 12,800 20,000 0.64 Public Transit Garfield Avenue Goldenwest St. to Gothard St. 3,400 10,000 0.34 Transit service for the area is provided by the Orange County Gothard St. to Seventeenth St. 5,850 10,000 0.59 Transit District (OCTD). At the present time, 3 bus lines ser- East of Beach Boulevard 12,900 20,000 0.65 vice the surrounding area. Route 25 runs along Goldenwest Street, Route 29 runs along Beach Boulevard and Garfield Avenue Goldenwest Street and Route 74 runs along Beach Boulevard and Main Street. Talbert Avenue to Ellis Avenue 25,000 20,000 1.25 Ellis Avenue to Garfield Avenue 23,100 20,000 1 .16 FUTURE CONDITIONS Garfield Avenue to Yorktown Ave. 19,300 20,000 0.97 Gothard Street Roadway Characteristics Talbert Avenue to Ellis Avenue 6,500 10,000 0.65 Not all of the facilities in the vicinity of the project are Ellis Avenue to Garfield Avenue 6,100 10,000 0.61 constructed to their Master Plan classification. Based on the Main Street Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) the roadways in the Seventeenth St. to Huntington St. 17,700 30,000 0.59 project area are classified as follows: Garfield Avenue to Yorktown Ave. 20,400 30,000 0.68 Major - 6 lane Divided Beach Boulevard - Garfield Avenue west of Goldenwest Street Talbert Avenue to Ellis Avenue 36,000 45,000 0.80 - Beach Boulevard Ellis Avenue to Garfield Avenue 26,000 45,000 0.58 Primary - 4 lane Divided Garfield Avenue to Yorktown Ave. 26,000 45,000 0.58 - Talbert Avenue west of Gothard Street ADT: Average Daily Traffic - Ellis Avenue west of Gothard Street - Garfield Avenue east of Goldenwest Street - Yorktown Avenue west of Beach Boulevard - Goldenwest Street north of Garfield Avenue - Main Street Secondary - 4 lane Undivided - Ellis Avenue east of Gothard Street - Yorktown Avenue east of Beach Boulevard j - Seventeenth Street Table 3 provides a comparison of each roadway's existing con- figuration and respective Master Plan classification geometrics. Figure 4 presents the portion of the MPAH for the area surround- ing the project site. -7- SUMMARY OF ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS . Location Existing Condition Master Plan Classification Talbert Avenue West of Gothard Street 2-lanes undivided Primary Road 4-lane divided Ellis Avenue West of Gothard Street 2-lanes undivided Primary Road 4-lane divided _ East of Gothard Street 4-lanes undivided Secondary Road 4-lane undivided . Garfield Avenue West of Goldenwest Street 2-lanes undivided Major Road 6-1ame divided East of Goldenwest Street 4-lanes undivided Primary Road 4-11ane divided Yorktown Avenue West of Beach Boulevard 4-lanes undivided Primary Road 4-'lane divided East of Beach Boulevard 4-lanes undivided Secondary Road '4-lane undivided Adams Avenue • , West of Beach Boulevard 4-lanes and painted Primary Road 4-'lane divided median Goldenwest Street North of Garfield Avenue 4-lanes undivided Primary Road 4-'lane divided South of Garfield Avenue 4-lanes undivided Major Road 6-lane divided Gothard Street . North of Ellis Avenue 3-lanes undivided Secondary Road 4-lane undivided South of Ellis Avenue 2-lanes undivided Secdonary Road 4-lane undivided —, Main street 4-lanes divided Primary Road 4-lane divided Seventeenth Street 2-lanes undivided Secondary Road 4-lane undivided Beach Boulevard 6-lanes divided Major Road 6-lade divided i z c`e ? ,1 - r a r Iq o- z T�I `% i O IT I ti w ti ' • C40 --- *s D ,+ ' • CA ap ._► m ,, w e Z ..� sass -n $ q� 2� ..m 7D A F F I Q •y. _ m z _ < It I 4 { 1, 20.200 Talbert Avenue e 24.600 '. Future Traffic Volumes e Future traffic volume forecasts for the roadways surrounding the a $ e g g proposed project were obtained from the City of.Huntington Beach Transportation Model, Alternative 1. These volumes are presented 'o in Figure 5 and represent expected Post 1995 traffic conditions. a 16.660 0 The traffic volume forecasts include future development of the o Bolsa Chic& area and arterial crossings of the Santa Ana River Etna Avenue 21.700 26.600 21.900 27,600 into Costa Mesa. 29.700 0 t. e` N Roadway Segment Capacity Analysis Project" e Site `Q g To assess future traffic conditions Table 4 was prepared and provides an analysis of the various roadways in the study area. �e• A review of Table 4 shows that several roadway segments are Ernest Street expected to exceed their Level of Service "C" or "D" capacity o a (denoted by a V/C greater than 1.0). Specifically, portions of vi p Ellis Avenue, Garfield Avenue, Goldenwest Street, Gothard Street, Garfield Avenue + 69,200 31,200 27,600 and Beach Boulevard are expected to exceed Level of Service "C" 44,100 29.000 or "D" capacity. Level of Service "C" is generally accepted as = the planning tool for long range forecasts whereas Level of a Service "D" capacity is generally used to identify acceptable Huntington seacnff '° $ `�a o Country Club g gog conditions for urban areas. Volume to capacity ratios that fog a �c ri exceeding 1.0 indicate roadway segments which are expected to reach or exceed their daily capacity and experience delay and _ S congestion. ` — 26,000 26,600 �~ Yorktown Yorktown Avenue /4,100 Realignment of Gothard Street `,5 Avenue 9 The master plan of arterial highways shows Gothard Street to be JJ) ; constructed as a secondary arterial and realigned westerly from i Ellis Avenue to connect with Crystal Street and Ernest Avenue and then continue south to Garfield Avenue. In addition, a further extension of Gothard Street southerly of Garfield Avenue to Main .o'o° ; + Street is planned. Figure 6 presents the existing traffic '�M1 me X%OE POST 1996DAILY volumes for the area with Gothard Street realigned. The major fie' TRAFFIC FORECASTS implication of this realignment is the elimination of the five- Sec Adams Avenue way intersection at Main Street/Garfield Avenue/Gothard Street. ; 22.800 Analysis of the realignment of Gothard Street was prepared by v redistributing the existing daily and peak hourly turning volumes +e o and the calculating ICUs. The existing ICU's are 0.42 LOS "A" in the morning peak hour and 0.53 LOS "A" in the afternoon peal. �`� 44, ! es hour, as shown in Table 1. With Gothard Street realigned the d_ a existing morning peak hour ICU would be 0.39, LOS A and the e' evening peak hour ICU would be 0.41 , LOS A. When project-related Co e traffic is added to the existing traffic volumes the AM ICU is �^ a+r A 0.44, LOS A and the PM ICU is 0.43, LOS A. This realignment is proposed with the Holly Planned Community. oaesne °ywe Ocean i FIGURE 5 \ POST 1995 TRAFFIC VOLUMES ?,L ,%1ACIYa1,-OAR.vEL_.INC l I t - G 000 - Talbert Avenue TABLE 4 :, SUMMARY OF qq a e g EXISTING GENERAL PLAN a 75 a ei ZS POST 1995 DAILY TRAFFIC(a) a c ROADWAY SEGMENT CAPACITY ANALYSIS(b) ; e FOR PROJECT SITE e 0 0 Future LOS "C" V/C LOS "D" V/C Ellis Avenue 1.000 1 600 - Roadway Segment _ _ -ADT-__ Cam--Ratio--- it --Pat-to- - -- - Talbert Avenue East of Goldenwest Street 20,200 30,000 0.67 33,000 0.61 Projects yam' West of Gothard Street 19,800 30,000 0.66 33,000 0.60 Site Ellis Avenue Ernest GfreN ,1 a West of Goldenwest Street 23,700 30.000 0.79 33,000 0.72 Goo Goldenwest St. to Gothard St. 21,700 30,000 0.72 33,000 0.66 8 $ Gothard St. to Huntington St. 25,500 20.000 1.28 22,000 1.16 a! e Huntington St. to Main St. 21,900 20,000 1.10 22,000 1.00 6ertleld Avenue °1 3600 GD80 12,900 East of Beach Boulevard 27,900 20,000 1.40 22,000 1.27 4."0 6.060 Garfield avenue s Huntington Geaa West of Goldenwest Street 44,100 45,000 0.98 49,500 0.89 ett country Club Goldenwest St. to Gothard St. 33,200 30,000 1.11 33,000 1.01 r Gothard Street to Main Street 28,000 30,000 0.91 33,000 0.83 .Main St. to Huntington Street 28,000 30,000 0.93 33.000 0.85 Huntington St. to Seventeenth St. 31,120 30,000 1.04 33,000 0.94 Seventeenth St. to Beach Blvd. 35,660 30,000 1.19 33,000 1.08 ^� Yorktown Yorktown Avenue East of Beach Boulevard 37,600 30,000 1.25 33,000 1.14 Avenue 0 Goldenwest Street _ > Talbert Avenue to Ellis Avenue 41,100 30.000 1.37 33,000 1.24 _ jf ;e South of Ellis Avenue 43,700 30,000 1.46 33,000 1.32 2 North of Garfield Avenue 42,900 30,000 1.43 33,000 1.30 a` `v LEO END South of Garfield Avenue 48,700 45,000 1.08 49,500 0.98 y�va a XXX-DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUME m Gothard Street a' North of Ellis Avenue 19,300 20,000 0.96 22,000 0.88 act Adams Avenue South of Ellis Avenue 13,860 20,000 0.69 22,000 0.63 `o North of Garfield Avenue 13,910 20,000 0.70 22,000 0.63 1 South of Garfield Avenue 21,000 20,000 1.05 22,000 0.95 �v°a y c Main Street South of Ellis Avenue 18,800 30,000 0.63 33,000 0.57 Huntington St. to Garfield Ave. 18,600 30,000 0.62 33,000 0.56 s 3 South of Garfield Avenue 19,500 30,000 0.65 33,000 0.59 �� =oe e Beach Boulevard i =a South of Talbert Avenue 62,300 45,000 1.38 49,500 1.26 ,ac r wati `forth of Ellis Avenue 61,900 45.000 1.38 49,500 1.25 ey South of Ellis Avenue 50,300 45.000 1.12 49.500 1.02 tan North of Garfield Avenue 49.100 45,000 1.09 49,500 0.99 FIGURE 6 South of Garfield Avenue 45,900 45,000 1.02 49.500 0.93 \\ (a) Without Proposed General Plan Amendment EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES (b) Based on Master Plan Roadway Configurations WITH GOTHARD STREET REALIGNMENT +C PROJECT-RELATED TRAFFIC TABLE 5 To assess the traffic-related impacts of the proposed 1,200 SUMMARY OF TRIP GENERATION RATES dwelling units on the surrounding circulation system, tripmaking PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT to/from the proposed site was estimated and distributed to the AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour surrounding roadways. The following is a description of the Land Use Daily IN OUT IN OUT process used to estimate project-related traffic which would be anticipated along roadways and at intersections in the vicinity Single Family detached 10/DU 0.3/DU 0.6/DU 0.5/DU 0.4/DU of the proposed project upon its completion. Trip Generation Single Family attached 8/DU 0.2/DU 0.5/DU 0.5/DU 0.3/DU The trip generation rates used in this analysis are based on data Multi-Family townhomes 7/DU 0.2/DU 0.4/DU 0.4/DU 0.2/DU presented in the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Multi-Family flats 7/DU 0.2/DU 0.4/DU 0.4/DU 0.2/DU Generation Manual and on counts and field surveys conducted for similar projects. Table 5 presents the trip generation characteristics of the proposed project as well is the existing EXISTING GENERAL PLAN FOR PROJECT SITE General Plan land uses. AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Based on the trip generation rates presented in Table 5 the Land Use Daily IN OUT IN OUT proposed development of 1,200 dwelling units would generate 9,620 Industrial 5.5/KSF 0.85/KSF 0.15/KSF 0.32/KSF 0.63/9S. daily vehicle trip ends. During the morning peak hour 842 trip ends would be generated and during the afternoon peak hour 859 Office 14/KSF 1.87/KSF 0.22/KSF 0.44/KSF 1.76/1<S trip ends would be generated. Table 6 provides a summary of the project-related daily, AM and PM traffic. Single-Family detached 10/DU 0.3/DU 0.6/DU 0.5/DU 0.4/DU The existing General Plan land use for the site is expected to generate approximately 13,134 daily trip ends. Approximately 2,200 trips would occur during the morning peak hour and 2,125 DU Dwelling Units would occur during the afternoon peak hour to the surrounding KSF = Thousand Square Feet roadways. Therefore, as summarized in Table 5, the proposed General Plan Amendment would be expected to add 3,514 daily trip ends with 1,358 occuring during the morning peak hour and 1,970 during the afternoon peak hour to the surrounding roadways. This data is also presented on Table 6. Trip Distribution and Assignment The trip distribution characteristics of the site were developed taking into consideration the spatial orientation of possible origins and destinations and regional travel patterns. The re- sulting trip distribution pattern is depicted on Figure 7. The traffic that would be generated by the proposed residential development was then assigned to the surrounding street system in accordance with the trip distribution pattern shown in Figure 7. Figure 8 presents project-related traffic volumes for the proposed General Plan Amendment. To assess cumulative traffic conditions, estimates of project- related traffic were then added to the existing traffic volumes on the surrounding roadway system. The resultant average daily traffic with the proposed project is depicted in Figure 9. -15- TABLE 6 • SUMMARY OF PROJECT-RELATED TRIP CE14ERATION .R PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AM Peak Hour PM Peak flour Land Use Units Daily IN OUT IN T . Single Family detached 350 DU 3500 TE 105 TE 210 TE 175 TE 140 TE Single Family attached 170 DU 1360 TE 34 TE 85 TE 85 TE 51 TE Multi-Family 680 DU 4760 TE 136 TE 272 TE 272 TE 1 6 TE PROJECT TOTAL 1200 DU 9620 TE 275 TE 567 TE 532 TE 327 TE EXISTING GENERAL PLAN FOR PROJECT SITE _ AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hou Land Use Units Daily IN OUT IN UT Industrial 1,800,000 KSF 9900 TE 1530 TE 270 TE 576 TE 1134 TE Office 131,000 KSF 1834 TE 245 TE 29 TE 58 TE 231 TE Single Family Detached 140 DU 1400 TE 42 TE 84 TE 70 TE 56 TE -� TOTAL 13,134 TE 1817 'rE 383 TC 704 TE 1421,1 TE Existing General Plan Less Proposed Holly Planned Community 3,514 TE 1542 TE 184 TE 172 TE 1094 TE DU . Dwelling Units ..w KSF Thousand Square Feet TE r Trip rands _ all ,y �•a 1 S- 3 Edwards 91rou1 A a u ii _ � • •/ \ 1 < 3 `P, • N A W n ••/ _ Ooldon Wool 91rool ' < a � CryMM 4�1 m OoMuO itroot ii4 r Hw1lMiton ilrool < • ^^ A 0 LJ o 'fb # CD M m r- Borah 8oulovord i O m Z v xm 0 VZ >R aa10 oM �A a' �p Talbert Avenue Talbert Avenue � � 1 09) a t, + s i 1 a � ► f s x a� p ♦e q d a 1`D o f b d w q N; N • Y N of W d N A� w ♦� ♦ O O 7 N ti o � 3 6,660 p Ellis Avenue - 722/41/60 722/41/00 I� - glass Avenue l,060 !640 2.940 13,240 72Y/66/49 722/66/49 PfOJ@Ctn \g<<e r e Project; KID o o Site _\ tia\ \t� S ; Site It O P ♦ M1\e N Ernest Street try N aN N Ernest Street 9,470Gartlaid Avenue / 1203169/1. 203/69/1S3 �- - 461/26/63 •1203/142/63 1Y03/142/6 -481/57/33 3arlield Avenue N 4600 13,860 - 481/67/33 1 1 8.260 �431128153 ± a Huntington Sescerr n e �C' eib nor s° tl rqun211C10 $etc111Country CIuO 6630 Country Ziub �aa O N or ° V N as p Yorktown Yorktown Avenue - r`� Avenue Y ktown Yorktown Avenue e �`� Avenue _ n LEGEND �y • XXX/YYY/ZZZ-PROJECT- LEGEND �aa to RELATED DAILY/AM/PM PEAK g a %XX-DAY TRAFFIC VOLUMES HOUR TRAFFIC `aa m O°`Oao Adams Avenue ear Adams Avenue a` C° a ` dc.�c c c r dy Qceon '' �Pacific 4.4 'roan '��NxFIGURE 8 FIGURE 9 \\ EXISTING TRAFFIC PLUS 4C PROJECT RELATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES �� i �, _��E_ \.c PROJECT—RELATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES DAILY/AM/PM =:5:=ar•our Jn.< ia.n!' ::5: :�nom' ., wue 3 �<.00••3<ur :au•o.,y?:SoJ � e.oar;3<�.n- •�q':io. Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) TABLE 7 SUMMARY OF ROADWAY SEGMENT CAPACITY ANALYSIS Based on previous studies and experience at similar developments, EXISTING PLUS PROJECT-RELATED TRAFFIC the average length of trips to/from the proposed residential development would be 8.0 miles. Existing The average trip length factor was applied to the estimated Project- average daily trip ends for the proposed project. The resulting Related LOS "C" V/C vehicle miles traveled for residential tripmaking would be Roadway Segment Traffic Capacity Ratio _approximately-76,960_-miles- Ellis Avenue Goldenwest St. to Gothard St. 2,080 10,000 0.21 IMPACTS Huntington St. to Beach Blvd. 2,940 10,000 0.29 The impacts associated with the proposed General Plan Amendment East of Beach Boulevard 13,240 20,000 0.66 are assembled and addressed in this section of the report. To Garfield Avenue assess the impacts of the proposed general plan amendment, daily Goldenwest St. to Gothard St. 4,560 10,000 0.46 traffic volumes, existing and future roadway segment capacity Gothard St. to Seventeenth St. 8,530 10,000 0.85 analyses, intersection capacity analysis and access and East of Beach Boulevard 13,860 20,000 0.69 circulation were analyzed. Roadway Capacity Analysis Goldenwest Street Talbert Avenue to Ellis Avenue 26,440 20,000 1.32 Ellis Avenue to Garfield Avenue 24,060 20,000 1.20 Analysis of the cumulative daily traffic volumes compared to Garfield Avenue to Yorktown Avenue 20,260 20,000 1 .01 available roadway capacity is the first step in assessing the impacts of traffic on the surrounding street system. Utilizing Gothard Street the data presented in Figure 9, the exiting roadway capacity Talbert Avenue to Ellis Avenue 7,460 10,000 0.75 analysis was performed and is summarized in Table 7. Ellis Avenue to Garfield Avenue 9,470 10,000 0.95 Table 7 was prepared to provide a comparison of the effect of Main Street project-related traffic on the existing roadways. This table Seventeenth St. to Huntington St. 19,140 30,000 0.64 provides a comparison of roadway segment volume to capacity (V/C) Garfield Avenue to Yorktown Ave. 21 ,360 30,000 0.71 ratios at Level of Service "C" capacity for exiting plus project- related traffic. Beach Boulevard Talbert Avenue to Ellis Avenue 37,920 45,000 0.84 A review of Table 7 shows that project-related traffic will Ellis Avenue to Garfield Avenue 27,440 45,000 0.61 primarily add to the capacity concerns on Goldenwest Street Garfield Avenue to Yorktown Avenue 26,960 45,000 0.60 between Talbert Avenue and Yorktown Avenue. The next step in the process involves the assessment of future (Post 1995) daily traffic volumes. Figure 10 presents the Post 1995 daily traffic volumes with and without project-related traffic. Table 4, presented previously, summarizes Post 1995 daily traffic volumes and roadway segment capacity analysis without project-related traffic. Presented in Table 8 is a summary of Post 1995 daily traffic volumes with project-related traffic and a roadway segment capacity analysis. Table 8 shows that the following roadway segments would exceed I their Level of Service "C" or "D" capacity: Ii Y -21- SUMMARY OF POST 1995 DAILY TRAFFIC(a) ROADWAY SEGMENT CAL'AC1'1'Y ANALYSIS(b) Future LOS "C" V/C LOS "D" V/C Roadway Segment ADT Capacity Ratio Capacity Ratio Ellis Avenue Goldenwest St. to Gothard St. 21,500 30,000 0.72 33,000 0.65 Gothard St. to Huntington St. 24,900 20,000 1.25 22,000 1.13 Huntington St. to Main St. 21,300 20,000 1.07 22,000 0.97 East of Beach Boulevard 27,300 20,000 1.37 22,000 1.24 Garfield Avenue Goldenwest St. to Gothard St. 32,800 30,000 1.09 33,000 0.99 Gothard Street to Main Street 26,300 30,000 0.88 33,000 0.80 Main St. to Huntington Street 27,000 30,000 0.90 33,000 0.82 East of Beach Boulevard 37,200 30,000 1.24 33,000 1.13 Goldenwest Street Talbert Avenue to Ellis Avenue 40,400 30,000 1.35 33,000 1.22 South of Ellis Avenue 42,500 30,000 1.42 33,000 1.29 i South of Garfield Avenue 48,300 45,000 1.07 49,500 0.98 Gothard Street South of Talbert Avenue 18,900 20,000 0.95 22,000 0.86 _ South of Ellis Avenue 13,000 20,000 0.65 22,000 0.59 North of Garfield Avenue 12,700 20,000 0.64 22,000 0.58 Main Street Seventeenth St. to Huntington St. 18,200 30,000 o.61 33,000 0.55 South of Garfield Avenue 19,100 30,000 0.64 33,000 0.58 Beach Boulevard South of Talbert Avenue 61,000 45,000 1.36 49,500 1.23 North of Garfield Avenue 48,500 45,000 1.08 49,500 0.98 South of Garfield Avenue 45,500 45,000 1.01 49,500 0.92 (a) With Proposed General Plan Amendment (b) Based on Master Plan Roadway Configurations ADT - Average Daily Traffic ssssaa O I t t i 1 a j EJww J• tNraul 01 • rY ja 1 0 Lt • ii r m ' �000 \ +boa i / QNN 3 (13,000) 00 : (D 11100 • i - _ -" S'i• 46.700 -0 y 1 Golden wort street (48.300) r' < 41.000 > aN (40.400) < f Or N N C � 00 Or NY O OO 00 c c MO 0 0 NN so atr••r > a Gothard Street j yM n M • fj 9Q og 1e,300 (0 : ?700 ao �a (18,000) 'e oo D 5 • oo HunllnOton Street < > 403 < o S D C 4 Ire •QO°J�P' Oo • -n > Y� ° ••r �u ,n m < (� 46.500 < 6••ah 110u1•ve'd ^ (46.000) 6.600 46.t00 (91.000) rye (44.400) C N v�r xr a rs < X m 00 m <. x C) o ,. im o 0 _. m mmyC ;± 9 m D O �+0 OTOOO >flbp O - �0; P CO 25 F < �< I ap I• Ellis Avenue - Gothard Street to Beach Boulevard Garfield Avenue - Goldenwest Street to Gothard Street - East of Beach Boulevard Goldenwest Street - Talbert Avenue to South of Ellis Avenue o '^'^ cr oGo 0% - South of Garfield Avenue \ul ^ m 0!m Beach Boulevard - South of Talbert Avenue to South of >a 0 0 0 o o Garfield Avenue To improve the roadway V/C ratios to 1.0 or less, Ellis Avenue - u o 0 0 o o arnd Goidenwes't Street segments were upgraded-to-the next -higher __ a __�� ___"Atj roadway classification. Volume to capacity analysis was per- m a formed and is presented in Table 9. Review of Table 9 shows that O a each segment is significantly improved. Analysis of Beach Boule- .4 u o vard has not been performed. However a detailed study has been we prepared by the Orange County Transportation Commission. u 01 m^ 0 m ro e0 Intersection Capacity Analyses `u O > q 00 00� _ a s In order to accurately access the traffic flow conditions in the a p vicinity of the proposed project, Intersection Capacity _M �, o 0 0 0 o a'4i Utilization Analyses were performed at the five intersections e r v 00 o O o 0 which would be impacted by expected traffic to/from the proposed 4 H C 1 v v a project. The analyses were performed to assess the cumulative effect of existing traffic plus project-related traffic. For 38 E e analysis purposes, an ICU = 0.90 or less is generally considered a.a r v_# acceptable for urban conditions. Table 9 presents the resulting o O E ,F. 0 0 0 0 0 o a e ICUs. �+�+U MF 00 000 M w e s t a q Ili As can be seen on Table 10, all five intersections fall within ° s o u w 4 N N v o v ,w the Level of Service "A" category and are thus expected to E'ugiu+F C o experience "free flow" conditions in both the morning and after- a ae u rn noon peak hours. �X: ® �, F W u G C y N (/1 ; b ACCESS AND INTERNAL CIRCULATION AND TRAFFIC CONTROL R a• c,; a o 43 0 U) Access and Internal Circulation Ct c r_ A e 0 ►.6 a Figure 11 depicts the a w E W c 4 e a g p proposed Holly Planned Community. Each of u the collector roads within the site have been labeled "A" Street s d through "F" Street and each critical intersection has been 4J e v a+ identified and numbered t thru 10. . Project-related daily traffic I u 4J d 1.4 was then assigned to each roadway for the purposes of analyzing e m w e.i ►4 the adequacy of each roadway and for identification of any i E Na+C ai >w o a problem areas. Also presented on Figure 11 are the expected tr a m 0 4 H Om >w e J w o o a. project-related daily traffic volumes. 4 MA CI t.0 LJ 0 Review of Figure 11 shows that each of the interior roadways are °s e u e o-+Z� i expected to operate satisfactorily. Further review of the inter- m ; 0 aF y o sections/access points identified potential problems with the xo w 0 ro spacing of two intersections along Gothard Street. v.. The spacing between "B" Street and "E" Street along Gothard Street (Intersections 2 and 3 on Figure 10) were found to be too close to operate satisfactorily. In addition to the spacing -26- -�5- Ellis Avenue - Gothara Street to Beach Boulevard Garfield Avenue - Goldenwest Street to Gothard Street - East of Beach Boulevard Goldenwest Street - Talbert Avenue to South of Ellis Avenue o cc - South of Garfield Avenue u r i9 m a. Beach Boulevard - South of Talbert Avenue to South of >a o 0 0 0 0 Garfield Avenue To improve the roadway V/C ratios to 1 .0 or less, Ellis Avenue e u 0 0 0 0 0 and Goldenwest Street segments were upgraded to the next higher o u 00 v,tA r roadway classification. Volume to capacity analysis was per- 1;4 w 0�0 formed and is presented in Table 9. Review of Table 9 shows that O A `"' a v Y each segment is significantly improved. Analysis of Beach Boule- a u vard has not been performed. However a detailed study has been i prepared by the Orange County Transportation Commission. of (n ow r- Z Intersection Capacity Analyses >a 00 0 0— 0 In order to accurately access the traffic flow conditions in the c vicinity of the proposed project, Intersection Capacity y 00 000 Utilization Analyses were performed at the five intersections a r v 0 0 0 000 a which would be impacted by expected traffic to/from the proposed H 4 N o o v o u project. The analyses were performed to assess the cumulative effect of existing traffic plus project-related traffic. For o a E e analysis purposes, an ICU = 0,90 or less is generally considered cv C E ,p.,o, acceptable for urban conditions. Table 9 presents the resulting m 0 14 m o 0 0 0 o No J ICUs. > >.11 NE» 00 0010 H 000 ao a%M vu,r, u a As can be seen on Table 10 all five intersections fall within 0 Z'a'a a� 1;' d� r ,CSOU n. NN <sv Ew the Level of Service "A" category and are thus expected to E y,nE, c o experience "free flow" conditions in both the morning and after- aye m u noon peak hours. u a a ym C o Nola ACCESS AND INTERNAL CIRCULATION AND TRAFFIC CONTROL >c a O Om d a Access and Internal Circulation S..4 i d u w a Figure 11 depicts the proposed Holly Planned Community. Each of x e x w r Ic m A, the collector roads within the site have been labeled "A" Street a o o >,o v w through "F" Street and each critical intersection has been x u N u'C 0"4 m o u identified and numbered 1 thru 10. Project-related daily traffic u uai V w m ~ was then assigned to each roadway for the purposes of analyzing the adequacy of each roadway and for identification of any E � m 4 m 04 w c problem areas. Also presented on Figure 11 are the expected tr d c 0 ++ w w a project-related daily traffic volumes. m m'o rn „V0 o v > N C = VLL u a W Review of Figure 11 shows that each of the interior roadways are 3 m u a o]J o s expected to operate satisfactorily. Further review of the inter- 4 aU= �[a.aivoi sections/access points identified potential problems with the 0 w uQ ro spacing of two intersections along Gothard Street. V The spacing between "B" Street and "E" Street along Gothard Street (Intersections 2 and 3 on Figure 10) were found to be too close to operate satisfactorily. In addition to the spacing -26- problem the intesections as proposed are located within the As previously mentioned the spacing of intersections is a major horizontal and vertical curvature alignment of Gothard Street. concern. Review of the Concept Plan depicted on Figure 11 found To mitigate this concern it is recommended that the site plan be the intersection of Ernest Avenue and "F" Street to be too close redesigned to align "B" and "E" streets across from each other to (approximately 250) and the intersections of "B" and "E' Streets create a four-way intersection. Also, the revised location to be too closely spaced (approximately 170' ) to safely should be a minimum of 800 feet south of Ellis Avenue. accommodate turning movements. The remaining intersections were found to be adequate. At the At each of these locations it is recommended that the site plan intersection of Garfield Avenue and "F" Street (Intersection 10) be redesigned to eliminate these conflicts. The intersections it is recommended that a left and a right turn lane entering should be-realigns& to form-four-way intersections or separated - -- Garfield Avenue be provided. 350' to 400'. Traffic Control The alignment of Gothard Street at Ellis Avenue is depicted on the Concept Plan as a continuation of the centerline radius The need for traffic control at Goldenwest and Ernest Street and through Ellis Avenue. This creates a skewing effect through the Garfield Avenue at Gothard Street/Crystal Street was evaluated intersection and alignment problem with travel lanes. To mini- utilizing California Department of Transportation Daily Traffic mize this effect it is recommended that the Gothard Street align- Signal warrant worksheets. A copy of the worksheets are con- ment be changed to provide 100-200 feet of tangency south of the tained in Appendix C. centerline of Ellis prior to beginning the centerline curve. A slight skew of the tangency may be acceptable, but should be re- Review of the traffic signal warrant worksheets found that a viewed with the City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department. traffic signal at Goldenwest Street and Ernest would not be warranted. However at Garfield Avenue and Gothard Street/Crystal In summary the overall Gothard Street alignment was found satis- Street a traffic signal would be warranted with the realignment factory provided the following are included in the final site of Gothard Street, as well as the addition of project-related design and roadway design: traffic. 1. The intersection of Ernest Avenue and "F" Street be separated At Gothard Street and Ernest Street a traffic signal was also a minimum of 400 feet or aligned to form a four-way intersec- found to not be warranted. However, Ernest Street should be tion. stopped prior to entering Gothard Street. 2. The intersection of "B" Street and "E" Street be separated a minimum of 400 feet or aligned opposite each other to form a GOTHARD STREET REALIGNMENT CONSIDERATIONS four-way intersection. In addition a four-way intersection should not be located closer than 600 feet to Ellis Avenue. The alignment and geometric design of Gothard Street as presented on the Holly Planned Community Concept Plan was evaluated to 3. Design of the sag vertical curve should take into considera- determine its adequacy. The evaluation considered horizontal and tion adequate sight distance and safe stopping sight distance. vertical curvature, spacing of intersections, sight distance and alignment at Ellis Avenue. 4. The design of slope banks, walls and landscaping at intersec- tions should be carefully reviewed during preparation of the The horizontal curvature of Gothard Street contains two reversing grading plans and street improvement plans. It is curves separated by 300 foot of tangency. The upper curve is recommended that design triter& presented on the County of approximately 1300 foot radius and begins at the centerline of Orange Standard Plan No. 117 be utilized. A copy of the Ellis Avenue. This lower curve is approximately a 1100 foot Standard Plan is included in Appendix D. centerline radius and ends at about Ernest Avenue. The design speed of these two curves is 48 and 45 mph respectively with a MITIGATION MEASURES negative two percent superelevation. The proposed project is expected to contribute to future roadway The vertical curvature of Gothard Street is less than two (2) segment congestion in the vicinity of the project site. The Post percent and includes a sag vertical curve at its intersection 1995 traffic conditions are expected to exceed their LOS "C" and with "E" Street (approximately 600 ft. south of Ellis). The LOS "D" capacity. This condition is anticipated with the pro- design of the sag vertical curve will need to be finalized during posed project as well as with the present general plan designa- preparation of detailed engineering plans and will need to tions for the project site. To mitigate the future conditions it include consideration for adequate sight distance. is recommended that the City of Huntington Beach Circulation Element be amended as follows: -29- -30- I. o Construct a traffic signal at the realigned Garfield Avenue . Upgrade MPAH classification of Goldenwest Street north of and Gothard Street/Crystal Street intersection. Garfield Avenue from a primary arterial, 4-lane divided, to a major arterial, 6-lane divided, o The design of Gothard Street and final project site plan incorporate the following recommendations: 2. Upgrade MPAH classification of Ellis Avenue east of Gothard Street from a secondary arterial, 4-lane undivided to a - The intersection of Ernest Avenue and "F" Street be primary arterial, 4-lane divided. separated a minimum of 400 feet or aligned to form a four- Each of these MPAH classification changes are recommended to way intersection. accommodate Post 1995 traffic conditions and will be needed with - The intersection of "B" Street and "E" Street be separated or without the proposed General Plan Amendment. a minimum of 400 feet or aligned opposite each other to form a four-way intersection. In addition a four-way A review of Table 10 shows that the improvements do have a intersection should not be located closer than 600 feet to considerable effect on the volume to capacity ratio. Both Ellis Ellis Avenue. Avenue and Goldenwest Street would operate at favorable Levels of Service. - Design of the sag vertical curve should take into con- sideration adequate sight distance and safe stopping sight Mitigation measures for Beach Boulevard are not addressed in this distance. report but can be found in the Beach Boulevard Corridor Study completed by the Orange County Transportation Commission. - The design of slope banks, walls and landscaping at inter- sections should be carefully reviewed during preparation Mitigation of site specific impacts is recommended and the of the grading plans and street improvement plans. It is following improvements should be made a part of the development recommended that design criteria presented on the County of the Holly Planned Community: of Orange Standard Plan No. 117 be utilized. A copy of o ' Improve the arterial roadways adjacent to the project site to the Standard Plan is included in the Appendix. their current/proposed MPAH classification. - Gothard Street be widened to more than the standard Goldenwest Street - Major Arterial - 6 lane divided secondary arterial to provide pavement width for left turn j lanes at each access point and at Ellis Avenue and Garfield Avenue. - Garfield Avenue - Primary Arterial - 4-lane divided - Consideration be given to the design of Gothard Street at - Ellis Avenue - Goldenwest to W/O Gothard Street - Ellis Avenue to provide 100 to 200 feet of tangency Secondary Arterial entering the intersection rather than carrying the center- line curve through the intersection. A slight skew of the W/O Ellis Avenue to E/O Ellis Avenue - intersection would be more acceptable than the proposed Primary Arterial centerline curve design. - Gothard Street - Secondary Arterial - 4 lane divided SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS o Realign Gothard Street in accordance with the MPAH and as generally depicted on the Holly Planned Community Site Plan. 0 The proposed development of 1200 dwelling units for the Holly In addition to the widening of the roadway to secondary Planned Community in Huntington Beach is expected to generate arterial standards, additional roadway width will be needed 9,620 daily vehicle trip ends. During the morning peak hour to accommodate left turn lanes at the various project access 642 trips are expected (275 inbound, 56' outbound) and during points and at Garfield Avenue, Ernest Avenue and Ellis Avenue. the afternoon peak hour 859 trips are expected (532 inbound, 327 outbound). o Modify the traffic signals at the following intersections to accommodate the various roadway improvements and Gothard o The existing general plan for the project site is expected to Street alignment. generate a larger number of trip ends than the proposed Holly - Goldenwest Street at Ellis Avenue Planned Community. Thus, the incremental difference between - Ellis Avenue at Gothard Street - Gothard Street at Main Street/Garfield Avenue I -31- -32- 1 P p i 1 i E P P ► ( [ ! P P f I e ! the existing general plan and the proposed project would be o The need for traffic control at Goldenwest Street and Ernest 3,514 daily vehicle trip ends. During the morning peak hour Street and Garfield Avenue at Gothard Street/Crystal Street 1 ,358 trips are expected and during the afternoon peak hour 1 ,266 trips are expected. was evaluated. At Goldenwest Street and Ernest Street a traffic signal was found to not be warranted. However at o Intersection Capacity Utilization analyses were performed for Garfield Avenue and Gothard Street/Crystal Street a trafficsignal would be warranted with the realignment of Gothard existing conditions for four intersections in the vicinity of Street, as well as the addition of project-related traffic. the project site. Table 1 provides a summary of those Also, at Gothard Street and Ernest Street a traffic signal analyses. All the intersections operate at Level of Service_ - "A or free flow conditions.- - way found to not be warranted. o Daily roadway capacity analyses were performed for existing o The alignment and geometric deiign of Gothard Street as plus project-related traffic and the results are summarized presented on the Holly Planned Community Concept Plan was in Table 7. Three roadway segments on Goldenwest Street were evaluated iz determine its adequacy. The evaluation concon- found to exceed their Level of Service "C" Capacity. s ction horizontal and vertical curvature, spacing ue inter- sections, sight distance and alignment at Ellis Avenue. o Intersection Capacity Utilization analyses were performed for In general the overall Gothard Street alignment was found existing plus project-related traffic and are summarized in satisfactory provided the following are included in the final Table 9. The five intersections are expected to operate at site design and roadway design: Level of Service A' . The intersection of Ernest Avenue and "F" Street be o Daily roadway capacity analyses were also performed for Post separated a minimum of 400 feet or aligned to form a four- 1995 traffic and the results can be found in Table 8. way intersection. Certain roadway segments were found to exceed their Level of Service "C" or "D" Capacity. Those segments are: The intersection of "B" Street and "E" Street be separated Ellis Avenue - Gothard Street to Beach Boulevard a minimum of 41^ feet or aligned opposite each other tc Garfield Avenue - Goldenwest Street to Gothard Street form a four-way intersection. In addition a four-way intersection should not be located closer than 600 feet to - East of Beach Boulevard Ellis Avenue. Goldenwest Street - Talbert Avenue to South of Ellis Ave. - South of Garfield Avenue - Design of the sag vertical curve should take into Beach Boulevard - South of Talbert Avenue to South of consideration adequate sight distance and safe stopping Garfield Avenue sight distance. o Mitigation of the unacceptable roadway capacities will _ The design of slope banks, walls and landscaping at necessitate that the City of Huntington Beach MPAH be intersections should be carefully reviewed during amended. The recommended amendments are as follows: preparation of the grading plans and street improvement - Upgrade MPAH classification of Goldenwest Street north of plans. It is recommended that design critera presented on Garfield Avenue from a primary arterial, 4-lane divided, the County of Orange Standard Plan No. 117 be utilized. A to a major arterial, 6-lane divided. copy of the Standard Plan is included in Appendix D. - Upgrade - MPAH classification of Ellis Avenue east of o Each of the mitigation measures identified in the MITIGATION MEASURES section of this report need to be included in the Gothard Street from a secondary arterial, 4-lane undivided to a primary arterial, 4-lane divided. conditions of approval for the proposed project. o Review of the access and internal circulation components of the Holly Planned Community found certain areas that need to be modified prior to final approval of development plans. The areas of improvement primarily encompass the spacing of intersections. The recommended changes are found in the mitigation measures section of this report. -33- -34- H Y c ro n v a rh r z 5 0 X -- 3 0 Y ra 3 ID 3 rt n 0 c a R w DIRECTIONAL TRAFFIC COUNT \B\ �..rr N LOCATION "is j hYMAJOR Gp 7 tJ WEST EAW CO. RTE. FM. MINOR Nl EL1,15 s_ i L1pM DAME '31'$4 TIME 7:00—9:3J COMMENTS OBSERVER ) V., WEATHER PERIOD on(,odp�,I..cSY y an W w¢ST &. on Ll-LIS � on ELLtS VEHICLES ENTERING to 0 BEGIN W W w W MAd MIN TOT MAd MIN TOT - L 8 R a L 3 R L 3 R ` L 3 R 'L s} 93 4 5 5 Za>o 19 219 all ' 4b 6 t_. 5" Z. 3 4 7 zo3 y2 ZZs 7 3✓ 7:aC g 13L 1( IZ 111i �} } I I to g 291 41 SW- 7:4f 63 4 I 7 toO Z ! j 13 A' 5 (0 156 Z9 167 S:w-B:If 8 59 3 Z. 45 5 01 8 2 t2-4- Z4 ;oz. 31 Z:s 8x- 6:30 -t -7' I I 87 4 ! Co t Z Ill z3 Zoo 1'`- "� Ltv345 375 12 37 I 8 ZI esa I23 971 I I i ^R BASMACIYAN-DARNELL,INC. DIRECTIONAL 't RAFFIC COUNT VN LOCATION MAJOR ; 60LOEN �o QS7 7]: CO. RTE. PM. MINOR t`I EIW X DATE �-31 -84 TIME 4':Oo - (0:00 ' CONY NTS , EfuS OBSERVER - -y-,c_ WEATHER (• PERIOD N On GoLo EN wtnr 1 S W Oe (..Lot." - Y- On E,t-L,5 w On CLL05 VEHICLES ENTERING BEGIN uOi uOi W W MAJ MIN TOT MAJ MIN TOT L I 8 R ` L 8 R 4 L 8 R L 8 R • 4:..--4:Is y 140 to e 10L 35 t9v 4: s-4:ao 1 129 $ to 94 .3 (p 8 y L 1L 7 Z45 37 ZsZ 4:30-4.4f 3 10o 9 g 1 4 11 13 Ti 7 4 Z04 41 7,S1 • 4:#t"5:oo to IZ5 4• Ito 103 `} 2 It 3 7 9 7 Z`30 43 Z99 10 13o 1 Io to 5 3 5 Z 2 /4 3 Uo z9 Z ► S:I< s 30 3 138 15 13 11h 21 7, 1 13 4 8 Z 9 3/9 58 377 5:30 5:Vi 2 123 14 I to 117 1 IV 4 17, 7 /8 8 z8z 52 334 • 5:4c- WW y IIL 10 101 IZ 2 to 4 8 i3 5 24f 4Z Zs 4:vr-S:vC ZI 5/4 40 49 45/ 5L 11 45 11- Z4 (03 Z1 B ASMACIV A"ARNELL.INC. _ DIRECTIONAL TRAFFIC COUNT \ > LOCATION MAJOR N1S X ..., �� TNAGD E/W CO- RTE. PM. MINOR •E X GATE O-Z-t3a TIME . COMM NTS OBSERVER WEATHER PERIOD N On &cwm4ep *14ar"A&D E On ELL,-, w on F-LA-/5 a VEHICLES ENTERING BEGIN W L W W W MAJ YNI TOT MAJ MN{ TOT l 9 R • S R ILL 8 R • L 8 R • z 11 1 0 1 1 13 1 3 1 2 1 3 s6 , 1y /3 3/ 31r, bl • 7:6-7:3o 0 13 0 Z i8 Z 5 1 S t I 7.o ZZ s7 3S 97, -1:so 7:4s Z 30 0 ro 11 Z y /Bgs I Ib 'Z/ 55 57 Irs y 7:ys S:oo 3 (oD0 B SO 2 4 2 1 19 35 5 7 103 Wo 3 43 2- I's :5z- (i U Zip ¢S I 11 ZS 75 101 I1lo :Is a:so Z 38 1 10 28 5 5 Zo t 20 Zlv 7L 13¢ Is41 7:3u-e:yb Io IlI 3 39 to7 t5 7 taco 9 3 17Z 107 BAaMACIV AN-0ARNELL.INC. Whtt4 I t1, NAL 1 hAf t-At GUILIN t } LOCATION MAJOR ,H/S E/W ! CO. RTE. PM. Gaw5 MMOR E W K DATE 9"L4-S�I TIME H.��la ft�u COMMENTS --- _ -- `_ OBSERVER .�rX.JCib WEATHER PERIOD N on 60T11 AQO w 5 on 6.;,THA % G on ELl.IS W on kUJ4) N VEHICLES ENTERING BEGIN W W w w MAJ MIN TOT MAJ MIN TOT L $ I R & L 1 $ R a L 3 R ° L $ R o. 40 ' ro 3co 13 � Zo 15 8 /y 3 9!r (ao /-,6 4:1<-4:io ZI t Q 2S tv Z 12o 3 It 15 /2 60 a•ju-4:y< 3 ;Z L t� 41, 1 /3 5 /Y 39 106 7*7 18/ q of-S:o,, Z 30 I 15 4L 5- — -1 %(G -8 7 F 1L 3 10 s:w-5:,5 4 35 3 1$ (03 7 3 15 1 171 '✓2 7,,7 /-�O 98 bZ$i tro 54 g 3 /-1 ? 30 z/ /Ui 85 z11 r- 5:3u' 6:4C L 27 Z tS Sco 1 ( 15 5 ' l0 7.(/ 23 /v9 31v 4 S:Y( Z6 29 97 t ! SASMACIV AN-OARNELL. INC. DIRECTIONAL TRAFFIC COUNT 1, LOCATION MAJOR N/s X Gu ;$7 E!W CO. RTE. P.M. i�A,tF/Eto MINOR ikl N A DATE 1-14-8Y TIME 7:—-6:/3,0 COMMENTS �-- OBSERVER On WEATHER ' PERIOD on&XZCU bGST N 004,LzEM ssr vs on 6AGFi&a,.0 iN on VEHICLES ENTERING n ai BEGIN ooi w w IL W MAJ YIN TOT MAJ MIN TOT L 9E L L $ R ` L 9 R L $ R row7,� 3 ¢( 3 L3 0 Z 3S (v 3 39 1' 70 /OZ. f1Z _. 1:K- P:50 4 Z 23 0 1 3q 7 /0 44 2d ?I 1Z3 1f4 1:30- 7-`K 5 ss 30 4 ? 3�i 4 h 4S 123 101 128 a? 1.4C- S:w 8 IoL 10 39 I ? Sc� t5 4 aL 1? /?s- /36 uc s:oo-s:,c (o •51 I 4o 3 ro 4-7 ,C 3 5/ 1y /01 /36 Z31 g:IC -a 47 3 37 5 7 59 iv l 5g /4 lot 15L Z53 L-L. z45 IS /o t4� r3 �t laS� t3 tg3 mot. �T i I 11ASMACIV AN-OARNELL.INC. _ DIRECTIONAL Y RAFFIC COUNT \"Y� �' ..... . N LOCATI N N/S MAJOR Lwtoll, E/W CO. RTE. IOU. MINOR EE/W //DATE - -9f •-)TIME 4 -G:00 COMME ITS , 77/F� f LO OBSERVER fog/ WEATHER • PERIOD # onE µtfl m y onC-oL 06V uLST on 6Aerlf:r.0 W on G,4e6440 VEHICLES ENTERING BEGIN W W W W MAJ MIN TOT MAJ MIN TOT L 8 R L S R L S R o. L S R L 4.00'476 to G4 3 /3 b6 ! ZI Z1 ! Zo /bh 10 35 f�s f:3o L3 15 2 15 13 4 t z o 23 0 23 9 /9L SL zaa • s:3o-4.'05 24P e8 rs 78 4 -3 90 1 2Z ip aL3 /05 3ze 4:05-1500 Z5 So 4 11 (Pi 1 1 30 31 3 Z5 15 i9/ Jos zsro 43 95 4 1 28 3(p 4 Z5 /7 Z61 (14 s S:r(-5:50 Z7 90 3 20 85 0 1 24 ' 7,3 2 Zto 1-5 ZZ5 84 3o4 6:30.5:4( 13 59 ai 14 to Z 1 Zv IS /9 9 /57 &5 ua s:�t w� 15 4g 3 N (vl 0 I 15 r7 7 /ib sq Iaa A 5:3,-� I Z I 351. 2-3 1 -N1 Co 5 t 14 i 13o t o 9 L 57 i BABMACIYAN--OARNELL,INC. DIRECTIONAL TRAFFIC COUNT \B\ "r LOCATI N N/9 MAJOR cis?'/EL4 o,.srr�j E/W CO. RTE. PM. • MINOR El DATE �"�/"Sy TIME COMME TS OBSERVER TO A/ WEATHER A" on wrN+iJ .c on 6AL/+Gtd t✓ OR Vn¢<441-� on Af on A/ /ry PERIOD w a w as w BEGIN W W W W W TOT L 8 R ILMLR: vL S R L S R L S R 1 43 �F Z 57 0 /y tog 1(p ZS 47 8 (,p ?� w 67 !B 3Zd /o Zl 47 (v 351 4{i if �o ¢8 3 �/ 17 / L3 73 7 li�'u SJ 39 ?O rc,y IoY &C /7 i /-s /o Zc-c. oo /D -534 `fir _,., BASMACIVAN-OARNELL,INC. DIRECTIONAL TRAFFIC COUNT \�\ " '':• LOCATION N/S �� ('w�G•J.+-�� �'i•✓ 4o��H./C<� MAJOR E/W CO. RTE. PM. MINOR N/S E W DATE �"i9'8`1 TIME COMMENTS F_ OBSERVER WEATHER PERIOD A/ on 6of'ronL0 a r: on z4fp"o y +•• on(„pQ<<�� on on H o BEGIN W W W W W TOT L 9 R o. L $ R A. L S R o. L $ R IL L S R zv ql 9 0 lrY N JB5 1 7 i �3/ 13 4L5 y,t-a 30 ,%r 37 is :5 15 /v sg 3 Z 5,� 7 ,o 8o Ig 4�L 4: u'yl 3i 53 �L 54 2L N i 5 /3 3 12 5z 4 a(-g , 43 Yi S 4ci l iL i tou /L 7s S3 S 9L 31 ¢ l3 / 61 y g l�7 g salt-s s7 ¢v `y 14 !o Cc9 A S 8- 6, , 29 I? r) Z 311 9 17 I? ' � I i q jo S 3 i8v bl 34 Z�S lob lS2 Zq /L Z9; 10 i . I i BA SMACIYAH-O ARNELL. INC. H b n •v - c b m 0 z 0 0 n x x ,A � CD tY N GOLDENWEST STREET/ELLIS AVENUE Existing ♦ MAIN STREET/GARFIELD AVENUE Existing ICU Project-Related With Gothard Street Realigned Existing + ------ -- __ ____________________ Existing ICU Project-Related No. AM Peak Crit. AM Peak Crit. Movemnt Lanes Cap. Vol. V/C Mvmt. Vol. V/C Mvmt. No. AM Peak Crit. AM Peak Crit. Movemnt Lanes Cap. Vol. V/C Mvmt. Vol. V/C Mvmt. NL 1 1600 26 0.02 FALSE 26 0.02 FALSE NR NA NA 22 NA FALSE 22 NA FALSE NL 1 1600 16 0.01 FALSE 44 0.03 FALSE NT 2 3200 395 0.13 TRUE 452 0.15 TRUE NR 1 1600 20 0.01 FALSE 20 0.01 FALSE NT 2 3200 401 0.13 TRUE 401 0.13 TRUE SL 1 1600 24 0.02 TRUE 38 0.02 TRUE SR NA NA 12 NA FALSE 12 NA FALSE SL 1 1600 98 0.06 TRUE 98 0.06 TRUE ST 2 3200 375 0.12 FALSE 403 0.13 FALSE SR 1 1600 45 0.03 FALSE 86 0.05 FALSE ST 2 3200 339 0.11 FALSE 339 0.11 FALSE EL NA NA 5 NA TRUE 5 NA TRUE ER NA NA 8 NA FALSE 8 NA FALSE EL 1 1600 29 0.02 FALSE 114 0.07 TRUE ET 1 1600 37 0.03 FALSE 37 0.03 FALSE ER 1 1600 74 0.05 FALSE 102 0.06 FALSE ET 2 3200 189 0.06 TRUE 331 0.10 FALSE WL NA NA 21 NA FALSE 21 NA FALSE WL 1 1600 65 0.04 TRUE 65 0.04 FALSE WR NA NA 28 NA FALSE 56 NA FALSE WR 1 1600 15 0.01 FALSE 15 0.01 FALSE WT 1 1600 24 0.05 TRUE 24 0.06 TRUE WT 2 3200 178 0.06 FALSE 247 0.08 TRUE N/S component 0.15 0.17 E/W component 0.05 0.06 E/WN/S component 0.10 0.15 Rt.Tn. component 0.00 0.00 Rt. component 0.10 0.15 Yellow Clearance 0.10 0.10 Rt.Tn. component 0.10 0.10 Yellow Clearance 0.10 O,tO ICU 0.29 0.34 ICU 0.39 0.44 Existing + Existing ICU Project-Related Existing « Existing ICU Project-Related -------------------- -- ___________________ No. PM Peak Crit. PM Peak Crit. ---------------`---- -- ------------ '------ Movemnt Lanes Cap. Vol. V/C Mvmt. Vol. V/C Mvmt. No. PM Peak Crit. PM Peak Crit. Movemnt Lanes Cap. Vol. V/C Mvmt. Vol. V/C Mvmt. NL 1 1600 21 0.01 FALSE 21 0.01 FALSE NL 1 1600 10 0.01 FALSE 63 0.04 FALSE NR NA NA 40 NA FALSE 40 NA FALSE NT 2 3200 514 0.17 TRUE 547 0.18 TRUE NR 1 1600 10 0.01 FALSE 10 0.01 FALSE NT 2 3200 266 0.08 TRUE 266 0.08 TRUE SL 1 1600 49 0.03 TRUE 76 0.05 TRUE SL 1 1600 96 0.06 TRUE 96 0.06 TRUE SR NA NA 52 NA FALSE 52 NA FALSE SR 1 3200 70 0.09 FALSE 293 0.09 FALSE ST 2 3200 451 0.16 FALSE 504 0.17 FALSE i ST 2 3200 293 0.09 FALSE 93 0.09 FALSE EL NA NA 11 NA TRUE 11 NA TRUE ER NA NA 12 NA FALSE 12 NA FALSE EL 1 1600 56 0.04 FALSE 105 0.07 FALSE ET 1 1600 45 0.04 FALSE 45 0.04 FALSE ER 1 1600 61 0.04 FALSE 77 0.05 FALSE ET 2 3200 403 0.13 TRUE 485 0.15 TRUE WL NA NA 24 NA FALSE 24 NA FALSE WL 1 1600 63 0.04 TRUE 63 0.04 TRUE WR NA NA 27 NA FALSE 43 NA FALSE WT 1 1600 63 0.07 TRUE 63 0.08 TRUE WR 1 1600 43 0.03 FALSE 43 0.03 FALSE WT 2 3200 252 0.06 FALSE 385 0.12 FALSE N/S component 0.20 0.23 E/W component 0.07 0.08 E/WN/S component 0.17 0.19 Rt.Tn. component 0.00 0.00 Rt. component 0.17 0.19 1 Yellow Clearance 0.10 0.10 Rt.Tn. component 0.10 0.10 Yellow Clearance O.tO 0.10 1 ICU 0.38 0.41 ICU 0.41 0.43 � 0 a a BASMACIYAN - DARNELL, INC. Project No. S d-0?0� Date - By' Checked Project Description Z cu c ma�h a �or 6n��tq 0 9 w o P� c.312, k- zs2J�va -�. my/zs9 40 � \\�` J9�o �P P� / Av% ►� v C roo!-.a' capac t� , U01 SIC, VDI_- __— �1 L -70 0.05 184 0 . 12 'k i I Irpoo Qg iaB ni '1/ j j f } Zp/31 1$D O 1� a7. 0 1 7�0 1 0• O 1 APPENDIX C 1 Traffic Signal Worksheets L---J- - 14s/1q-7 3"0 { ao�72 I�eo L5 D .dl 3b f). OL 1 ►K . to^ O. Cc7 s'Ir SIGNALS AND LICKING TRAFFIC MANUAL 1j SIGNALS AND UGNTWG TP.AFFiC MANUAL 01f...0.10 F�IrO 0.10 TRA"IC SIGNAL WARRANTS TR"FIC SIM&WARRANTS IB...f r Rrl.r.f A..wp O.Or T-M.-fr Ib.B Rlr.f r EW.W A•wq.wT T.M._sr N.w B URBAN---------------RURAL---A...... 11..1....l.wl...w« URBAN...... ......RURAL------------- 111.1...l.wM1r... "OT "OT 1.WMr.r.Nei.r Y I.W.ir.YAk lw s«.n.J N.r sw.a.JG�� �•ud..,..Jq r..l« vd:�H..+rrMlr- s.l.a.f N..s.l.a � r.nld..,..J.,r.y« vid«.. pp -pp.ww(rM./1.A ..Iw�woww+.••+ .Iw.,IrM.1 yA wl...wr.........d M..1 Ir..I.r r.1.0 M1.M.r wd•N'�•A -p.....f.4 fr.JI..eNr wM..11....f«...M f w.Me r..d.NCO wp—.kH) 7,.... Wr.f,..., U" !.M YAr lw.lM.W U-w NNr.s.... VA_ R.M YAw 16.1 1.._. ... 1................ 0.000 f 00 I,iM 1. 1 kin I,f00 ...... ..... 1.Id0 t� .10N f.770 1.f00 .r r. 7Hrw.........,. T,f00 6.7a xm 70 ......•.......r rw........... 47! &no X30 «w......... 1............. !•.r............ 0,000 f,f00 f,7f0 110 1............. >!«............... 6,010 AJ00 I.700 ;70 00 cI o O -700 7. T.M. 7.I.w.wrMr.I Ji.N.w..T.M. rd1.1..�«J•T r..1.. rdl•«.«A7.4�.•- •Ai.l..P.M-..j•r YailH/r An r 4#.w- I.N.n.J ,1S__ •.....I.,d.1 MA .1...,•r•...,.....A f.N.R.f N..s.N.a.f�S 1....(rM•1 66 .I.r.l.r..w y...d yp..d•.1 Ir A.a.+r..41 .Pp—. d 1w.Ji..wlr rl/l .l IrH 1•.rwO,.M•w wd.rn•.d r.1lrw Mr.ly..N.r wd ppA M.P.I..., W..'Sr.« UAr 16.1 11Aw R..1 .S1wH Ww,A..., YAr S..l UAr R..•I 1............. 1...I..I......... '7.000 /4" I.I00 i............. 1. ... ILM 0.00 1.310 f50 .w�......�r.-a............ 14.00 C::t , I is0 1 «.... ...... :.:.:::.::: N.o00 Ns0 .,r......... i................ 1..00 1.000 t.f00 1,13 .,r......... f«..w........... I400 8 .010 .f00 1.I3 1.............. t................ I;000 Mn I.f00 1.110 7.r.•.......:..... I1000 0 00 ,.m 1 1"a 4 1 9 SOO 7 0 f.rI,N.J 11•r f.r.n.J - T r/.w... }tl•M1r.. I.r1.N.J Mot S.N.N-. 2 t•.w.. I H.M1wr. M.w w..w,r.N.N•f M f.11..l.f wM1ww N.w wrw.t t.11 Ji.f 1.,411..1.0 w,..... 41N11.1008•,r.___ VIaII.J 00R w rw___ 1 I 1 ! N0T0: MOTO: I. 1.•a....•.wr,.1...�.rl•r•M1M•••1►•I..I.J.1.,14.i+«•M1M..IwH it••M•.w � I. L.a,..r+•...I.1...�•ri«.w.w M I•h.1.J.J.ii.I.«,M1M..I..H 11.H..... - •ip.l ph..1..1.P.-;Aw 1.,A.I.h.—.....w,. .JVW.N.-I.r 0.►..IJ.J 1.r A.I.N.,.w r.wwr. 1 7. wMar171w N!R IMT!lS0CT10Ns«•Aw M..r:«......«...1../a.wlr.•e....r 1.ww,.l nwe Tawe \BD\ FIGURE C-1 FIGURE C-z TRAFFIC 516NAL WAKKANTS \BD\ TKAFFIG 516NAL WARRANTS _ _ BASMACIYAN-DARNELL,ING A a-n e S-`- 5--+ BASMACIYAN-DARNELL,INC. 1 a� .7{76..Ow Dr1...s.k.LI GO�Q�1'1 WpSzi mt l..rr%P—sl J .102 6np.w DO",sW.5-1 1L70�Q.� �{ W vr.rt Wd,6N/w.l.f7ffO M..►«/Ord,C.M«wY 0T0fO (714114}»40 put sJ>}»Je l VSHALS AND LIGHTMG TRAFFIC 111vr wn JAL 9-4 SKiIALf AND LIGHTING TRAFFIC MANUAL r� tHi wrr Flp..t•SC Flpn 9-IC TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS ft."«f d..d►wwp DA,T.M.-S«N«.a f.M.w�//A..+p GM,T..M.-S_"..a URBAN____X------RURAL------._ W.;w.t...l.....0 URBAN---------------RURAL_ ----- W.iwR...i.•.r,. RADT EDT 1.W.iw.V.L{..1« 1,Wiw.Y.N..Ir Swt•R.1 N.,S.M.iJ v.►1d.r F..I.r«..;« vd.+d«.r b«6: Sw{•O.J M.t fwf•R•i.,2f.� Yild..re•J««.M., vJidw MJ•t«Lij..- ,..wlt•wl•f L.i ..I....:w•....,^w,•�d' .n.w fr.nl•f 6.k .ir...r•rr,•.«..d q.w<L«I Iw in<Nr rl,l N..L•,•i lr.•4.w.:.1,..M<r.•J y,...d _A-) I—i.•e:r•.1,1 wL«•1 I....1..•.Ip wM<•+••d•p,rd• M.1•,S,..w Ifir,Srww U.L.. R.,d UA« R....I 1«S..w AV-Stnw U.A.• R.nl UA.. It.-I I.••.....:.... 1................ 1,000 tlmml 2.400 I.Mo I............. 1................ 1,000 S,/00 2.AM I'm ......... i t.loo 1.2Td a/ L/q .... 1................ T' Lz72 __... «........... ..©.. T,f00 6.72/ 2 ax t2.o ............_ ]•.rn ........'. 12 �f40 ,2Do 2.2o I............_ 2.r..n........... 2.000 I= T.2o0 p0 I�i 900 2.I...m,r.i«•1 C�...t•r•.T.M. tir m.t:r d CrX....•TwM. YA{el•..«1•t«.•j.. rd+d..M,hn..L: -- Y.LI<I...«J.T r.•j•. YJ.id..M J..«/:�..._ «..,I.,.1.1 S.• ..I—....e.rr.w q.—.k ..•w J-1•16A S ..i—me—. ..p...A•,i•f.J N.r f.w.X.J ti„»d••1 I...inwir rql 3•N.R.i N.t f•X•R.J_L�._ M,«d.••1 f...i.<n..rirl .M.•11•,•.4.r.i•�...lN<r»d•p••••d t .►..•1lrr 4.wd.1 wM<««d yp•.i ; f•.5,.., mi...5,..., U.Lr b.l UAr 4.d .,A.., W.•r A..Lt U.Lr R..1 U,L.. R-1 1............. 1................ "row 1,400 I,2oo ISO I............. I................ 12,000 1.400 1,200 Is0 .... I.. 11.4qo so,o" 1 200 Is0 2.,w .. I........ I4,400 1011F0 ,,20o Rso .,.•:. .....i 2 w.7......... aow 1.uo — c •.......... ... 006 /.fo0 1,120 1.... ........ .2.000 7,400 1,100 110 O17 164-0 .Cr►iw.,i•. C..Lie.rir S.N.R.J 14,S•N.h.J 2 2 R•,..•r• 2••.v..,• II.w w....t..ri•h.J 6,6I4.i..w....n W r .rt•.N.N•16.11.11.-{•.ww•f. LrIX11.1/Dt..ww_.. I.IXII.1 W3•.w.• 1 2 1 2 1 NOT[: NOTE+ 1. L•h........»,•I...••w;.r.w.w wr L.f.d.J.J.ilk.i...•n.w»fr if.•...ter. 1. L.h r.w.....«r•fw.A.,.;«.wM.•,M hd.J.d_i h.;,...r..w..i•....it..e.....• -1p 1,L..•1.,.L....t"1•,i.1•i..n......:rr, d d L T.M n.J•d,4.NtW INTERSECTIONS«.A..b<.rr•_k.-..w•i.-iR...1..<•<«.•, L T.M...d ,Wy b NEW iNTIRSECTIONS«.d«I...I—.d.,•end,..fL.-.f.....<t«.., L...»,.i L.wrt.L '***B FIGURE �-- 3 FIfaURE C-1 \D\ TKAFFIG 516MAL WAKKANT5 `BD` TKAFFIG 516MAL WAKII�ANTS •ASMACIYAN-DARNELL,INC. G 4ar,C:t_j_, Ajr - 60TV+4,q_b/115�TPrL BASMACIYAN-DARNELL,INC �_T /� f� 4262 rA V.n fs.fr,Srrh.FI 1262 Campo{OH/ .St k.11-1 VL-/TTT Q�Lp S �L- 1 1"FT 0 TsQ-T-t El-ID w.yn 9--h.C.Nt—A.97660 \ N..pen MaN,C�Ilfwnla YJitiO ITIIISJs.».o FuTu� C.@e.�4�lTItrI�S ) I7�JIs.rn�D r NOTES? 1. The Limited Use Area is determined by the graphical method using the appropriate distaoces given to the above table. It shall be used for the purpose of prohibiting or clearing obstructions in order to maintain adequate sight distance at intersections. .. The Line of Sight line shall be shown at intersections on all landscaping plans, grading plans, and tentative tract plans where safe sight distance is questionable. In cases where an intersection is located on a vertical curve, a profile of the sight line may be required. 1. Walls or any obstructions that could restrict the view within the Limited Lse Area shall not be permitted. 4. The toe of the slope shall not encroach into the Limited Use Area. i. The Limited Use Area shall be as near level as possible, yet mafntaln proper drainage. 6. Plants and shrubs shall be of the type that will grow no higher than 10 inches above the ground within the Limited Use Areas. 1. Trees shall be of the type that Grow no larger than six (6) inches in dianeter,and tree limbs shall be a minimum of six (6) feet above the ground ithin the Limited Use Area. Trees shall ba spaced far enough apart such that adequate sight distance is maintained within Limited Use Areas. 8. Points A and A' are the locations of a driver's line of sight while in a vehicle at an intersection 10 feet back from the projection of the curb line. The distance Y' is the distance measured from the centerline of the road to the far right through traffic Lane. The distance Y' is equal to zero for T-tntersections. 9. The dl�tance c renresents the safe stopping sight distance measured along L— cencerluue of L— ria,.. 10. Points C and C' are the locations (centerline of the travel lanes) where the driver of vehicle, traveling at a given speed, has the minimum stopping sight distance required to bring his vehicle to a safe stop. The distance X is the distance measured from the centerline of the road to the far right through traffic lane. The distance R' is the distance measured from the centerline of the road to the center of the travel lane nearest the centerline of the road. ORANGE COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL NA ET GENCY STO. PLAN a00�0Nd_4 _ L� C I ,2 Iff.l/On/ Orr aCIW I adoWae R., rr.92 1,. .d- INTERSECTION SIGHT DISTANCE SHEET 2 OF 2 \i BASMACIYAN-DARNELL, INC. ENGINEERING AND PLANNING Ma. Beverly Bruesch December 19, 1984 Transportation,Traffic,Municipal,Transit Michael Brandman Associates -262 Camps Drive,Suite 8-1 Newport Beach,California 92660 (7141 549.9940 As development in the area adjacent to the Gothard Street extension occurs the City of Huntington Beach should require that December 19, 1984 RECEDED DEC this roadway be implemented. Please call me if you have any questions. Ms. Beverly Bruesch Sincerely Michael Brandman Associates 3140 Red Hill Avenue BASMACIYAN-DARNELL, INC. Suite 200 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 �7 Z— Subject: Holly Planned Community Traffic Study BILL E. DARNELL, P.E. Dear Ms. Bruesch: c.c. Bruce Gilmer, City of Huntington Beach Pursuant to the City of Huntington Beach's request to include traffic from "The Ranch" project we have updated the ICU's for the Garfield Avenue intersections at Gothard Street realigned and at Main Street. The results of our ICU analysis found that there was not any change in the AM or PM peak hour ICU's as a result of the addition of the "The Ranch" project traffic. A copy of the ICU worksheets and the project-traffic assignments for "the Ranch" project are attached. The City of Huntington Beach concerns for this area I believe are related to the future extension of Gothard Street south of Gar- field Avenue to its master plan connection with Main Street. Our examinations of the cumulative traffic conditions with the Holly - Planned Community show that the adjacent street system can ade- quately accomodate the Holly Planned Community without the future extension. The most significant effect of the initial realignment of Gothard Street will be that southbound traffic currently using Gothard will be redirected to the Garfield/Gothard/Crystal intersection then turn left to travel east on Garfield to reach the Main Street intersection to continue east and/or south on Main Street. Northbound travel would be the opposite of the southbound travel. _ This movement will result in a slight increase in travel until such time that Gothard Street is extended south to Main Street. In summary it is concluded that traffic to/from the Holly Planned Community does not create the need for the future extension of Gothard Street south of Garfield Avenue to Main Street. However it can be concluded that the realignment of Gothard Street within the Holly Planned Community initiates the ultimate need for the future extension by implementing the Gothard Street realignment as shown on the City's Master Ilan of Arterial Highways (MPAH). BD I GOTHARD STREET/GOLDENWEST STREET/CRYSTAL STREET rKe. Q4,e<,� i Existing + Existing ICU Project-Related- ---- - No. AM Peak Crit. AM Peak Crit. r Movemnt Lanes Cap. Vol. V/C Mvmt. Vol. V/C Mvmt. o s 8 NL 1 1600 15 0.01 FALSE 15 0.01 FALSE � rPo NR 1 1600 10 0.01 FALSE 10 0.01 FALSE NT 2 3200 25 0.01 TRUE 25 0.01 TRUE v SL 1 1600 39 0.02 TRUE 209 0.13 TRUE GARFIELD AVE. �o l SR 1 1600 70 0.04 TRUE 98 0.06 TRUE ST 2 3200 25 0.01 FALSE 25 0.01 FALSE o o EL 1 1600 5 0.00 FALSE 19 0.01 FALSE ER 1 1600 10 0.01 FALSE 10 0.01 FALSE 1111 ET 2 3200 204 0.06 TRUE a 37 0.0-7 TRUE n s�71 nno - WL 1 1600 15 0.01 TRUE 15 0.0/ TRUE WR 1 1600 33 0.02 FALSE 116 0.07 FALSE3L Sf �. 1f1� spSSa �l s io WT 2 3200 185 0.06 FALSE 195 O.cKo FALSE � 8� 1 N/S component 0.03 0.14 s SPIN• 2 E/W component 0.07 0.08 N w: Rt.Tn. component 0. 0.04 _Z PROJECT 1 Yellow Clearance 0.1100 0.1100 SITE s L ICU 0.24 0.36 YORKTOWN AVE.-i%L #****#*t*ttttt*****##*****#*#******#**#**####*******************#*#***## ,n•;i� ,�•y n,,s� w I 10 Existing + _ t• o Existing ICU Project-Related cr S -------------------- -- -------------------- - 1� No. PM Peak Crit. PM Peak Crit. Movemnt Lanes Cap. Vol. V/C Mvmt. Vol. V/C Mvmt. NL 1 1600 20 0.01 FALSE 20 0.01 FALSE o NR 1 1600 15 0.01 FALSE 15 0.01 FALSER NT 2 3200 30 0.01 TRUE 30 0.01 TRUE N SL 1 1600 184 0.12 TRUE 282 0.18 TRUE = a SR 1 1600 80 0.05 TRUE 96 0.06 TRUE N m ST 2 3200 30 0.01 FALSE 30 0.01 FALSE W Z Y � EL 1 1600 10 0.01 TRUE 37 0.02 TRUE _ ER 1 1600 15 0.01 FALSE 15 0.01 FALSE x ET 2 3200 135 0.04 FALSE 1(91 O.O S FALSE WL 1 1600 20 0.01 FALSE 20 0.01 FALSE WR 1 1600 143 0.09 FALSE 303 0.19 FALSE WT 2 3200 175 0.05 TRUE 175 0.05 TRUE N/S component 0.12 0.19 E/W component 0.06 0.08 KEY Rt.Tn. component 0.03 0.03 Yellow Clearance 0.10 0.10 XX (X AM PM PEAK 'OUR VOLUMES 24 HOUR JOLVIESC"J. ICU 0.32 0.39 a D 15 PP,e!:ECT TRAFFIC ASS C `_ t APPENDIX J APPENDIX J (Continued) CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS Emission Factors for Heavy-Duty, Emission Factors for Heavy-Duty, Gasoline-Powered Construction Equipment Diesel-Powered Construction Equipment POLLUTANT POLLUTANT • r vapo- Crank- Type of a oar n Exhaust Nitrogen Sulfur Carbon Exhaust rative case Equipment Monoxide Hydrocarbons Oxides Oxides Particulate Type of Mon- Hydro- Hydro- Hydro- Nitrogen Sulfur Partic- Equipment oxide Carbons carbons carbons Oxides Dioxide ulates Tracklaying Tractor 175 50.1 665 62.3 50.7 I Wheeled Wheeled I Tractor 4320 164 30.9 32.6 195 7.03 10.9 Tractor 973 67.2 451 40.9 61.5 ' Motor Wheeled j Grader 5490 186 30.0 37.1 145 7.59 9.4 Dozer 335 106 2290 158 75 Wheeled Scraper 660 284 2820 210 184 Loader 7060 241 29.7 48.2 235 10.6 13.5 Roller 6080 277 28.2 55.5 164 8.38 11.8 Motor Grader 97.7 24.7 478 39 27.7 MisceI Ia- Wheeled neous 7720 254 25.4 50.7 187 10.6 11.7 Loader 251 84.7 1090 82.5 77.9 TrackIaying Loader 72.5 14.5 265 34.4 26.4 Off-Highway Dust Emissions Truck 610 198 3460 206 116 Roller 83.5 24.1 114 30.5 22.1 1.2 tons per acre are of construction per month of activity, or 110 lbs. per acre per working day. Miscellaneous 188 71.4 1030 64.7 63.2 1 Source for all above data: EPA AP-42, August 1977 I ' I I i J-1 + J-2 I • how • APPENDIX H AIR QUALITY DATA • M EMISSION FACTORS SUMMARY • I. Stationary Source of Emission Factorsl Natural Gas Electricity Primary Emission Factor Emission Factor Pollutant (lbs/106 cu.ft.) (lbs/1,000 kwy) CO 20 0.21 HC 8 as CH4 0.13 NOx 80 (domestic) 2.10 120 (commercial) Sox Negligible 1.40 Particulates 0.15 0.18 �Y II. Mobile source Emission Factors2 Primary EMFAC6D Emission Factors at 35 mph Pollutant (gams per mile) . 1987 2000 CO 14.14 10.18 HC 1.19 0.94 NOx 2.01 1.48 Sox 0.21 0.20 Particulates 0.33 0.32 1 SCAQMD, Air Quality Handbook for EIRs, December 1983. 2 Orange County EMA, EMFAC6D Program, February 8, 1984. 135 y APPENDIX J AP CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS J (Continued) Emission Factors for Heavy-Duty. Emission Factors for Heavy-Duty, Diesel-Powered Construction Equipment Gasoline-Powered Construction Equipment POLLUTANT POLLUTANT r vapo- ran - Type of -tea oronn -Exhaust Nitrogen Sulfur Carbon Exhaust rative case Equipment _Monoxide Hydrocarbons Oxides Oxides Particulate Type of Mon- Hydro- Hydro- Hydro- Nitrogen Sulfur Partic- Equipment oxide Carbons carbons carbons Oxides Dioxide ulates Tracklaying Tractor 175 50.1 665 62.3 50.7 Wheeled Wheeled i Tractor 4320 164 30.9 32.6 195 7.03 10.9 Tractor 973 67.2 451 40.9 61.5 Motor Wheeled + Grader 5490 186 30.0 37.1 145 7.59 9.4 Dozer 335 106 2290 158 75 ( Wheeled Scraper 660 284 2820 210 184 Loader 7060 241 29.7 48.2 235 10.6 13.5 Motor Roller 6080 277 28.2 55.5 164 8.38 11.8 Grader 97.7 Z4.7 478 39 27.7 Wheeled Miscella- Loader 251 84.7 1090 82.5 77.9 neous 7720 254 25.4 50.7 187 10.6 11.7 Tracklaying Loader 72.5 14.5 265 34.4 26.4 Off-Highway Dust Emissions Truck 610 198 3460 206 116 Roller 83.5 24.1 414 30.5 22.7 1.2 tons per acre are of construction per month of activity, or 110 lbs. per acre per working day. Miscellaneous 188 71.4 1030 64.7 63.2 Source for all above data: EPA AP-42, August 1977 j i J-1 J-2 i • • k • �" APPENDIX I NOISE DATA • wr • i i Bo i O PERCENTAGE RELATIVE COMMON INDOOR COMMON OUTDOOR ' > COMPLAINANTS LOUDNESS NOISE LEVELS NOISE LEVELS i BO 20 COMMUNITY Z REACTION dBA J 15 VIGOROUS 120 ROCK BAND 10 ACTION = �0 COMPLAINTS d 32 CHAIN SAW AT 2 FEET ` 95%CONFIDENCE 5 THREATS Z INTERVAL AT MEAN OF LEGAL W ION 16 100 OAS LAWN MOWER AT 3 FEET ¢ p 2 1 NONE W LL € S JO FOOD BLENDER AT 3 FEET 0 50 60 70 Be 90 4 80 GARBAGE DISPOSAL AT 3 FEET DIESEL TRUCK AT 60 FEET DAY-NIGHT SOUND LEVEL,(Ldn) NOISY URBAN DAYTIME SOURCE:•IMPACT OF NOISE ON PEOPLE' 2 70 VACUUM CLEANER AT 10 FEET AUTOMOBILE AT 60 FEET OUA I�TYF W1YFly771RONMENTAL 1 60 CONVERSATION AT 3 FEET HEAVY TRAFFIC AT 300 FEET COMMUNITY REACTION TO NOISE LARGE BUSINESS OFFICE 1/2 SO QUIET OFFICE OUIET URBAN DAYTIME 114 40 QUIET RURAL NIGHTTIME LIBRARY Ile 30 I Ills 20 1/32 10 THRESHOLD OF HEARING 0 TYPICAL NOISE LEVELS ON dBA SCALE • • r.. • APPENDIX J CORRESPONDENCE r.. • r.. w • r • • • • • • t Captain Tom Poe 8. Where are the closest hospital/emergency facilities to the site? Huntington Beach Fire Department Humana Hospital Huntington Beach which has full emergency care Is located I. What is the location and approximate response time of the fire stations that approximately 2 miles from the site. would be responding to an emergency at this site? Which station is nearest to the site? Gothard station is located on Gothard Street approximately 300 feet 9. Do these facilities provide emergency service and/or a full range of health care? north of Ellis. Lake station is located on Lake and Frankfort Streets. ,F� The response time will be approximately 5 minutes. They provide a full range of emergency/care. 2. What is the hazard severity classification for the site? 10. Is the existing manpower and equipment adequate to maintain the present level of service in the event the project Is approved? If not, what mitigation DNA measures would you suggest to offset potential Impacts? Yes. 3. What is the Insurance Services office(ISO)rating for the site? 11. What special Implications does the ongoing oil production in and around the site Insurance service rates the present "Brush" areas at "9" and the present in providing health and fire services? "Developed" areas as "2". No special implications as long as fire access lanes are provided and unobstructed. 4. What equipment is maintained at the affected fire station(s)? a. Gothard Station - 2 Engines, 1 Support Vehicle and 1 Battalion Chief Car 12. What will the fire now requirement be for the proposed site? Depending on the size of the buildings, the fire flows would be minimum b. Lake Station - 1 Engine, 1 ladder Truck and l Paramedic Unit of 2000 gallons per minute, maximum of 3500 gallons per minute. S. What Is the manpower of the affected fire station(s)? 13. Does the Department currently take part in the Orange County Mutual Aid a. Gothard Station - 8 Personnel system? Yes. b. Lake Station - 7 Personnel 8. Who will provide paramedic and ambulance services to the proposed site? 14. In general, whet would be the difference in serving this proposed planned The Fire Department provides Paramedic service. Ambulance service community residential project, compared to the land uses allowed under the current general plan and zoning(estate residential,Industrial,and office)? provided by private agencies. Most often Seals Ambulance Company. Generally the community residential projects are of higher density and allow limited access to perform fireground operations. Generally during plan check if it becomes evident that fire operations will become impeded, the department will impose mitigating measures such as automatic sprinkler 7. What is the normal response time of these services? I systems, alarm systems, access roads, etc. The normal response time for paramedics to this area would be approximately Any other comments you:may have are welcome. 5 minutes. The ambulance response time normally is approximately 15 minutes. i RECEIVED JUL 18 MII • „� CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 1. What is the approximate response time of the patrol units that would he responding 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 to an emergency at this site? P.O.BOX 70 POLICE DEPARTMENT Tel-(714)960 8811 Our most current response time study shows Priority I calls averaged 4.5 minutes EARLE ROIRTAILLE while Priority 2 & 3 calls averaged 11.3 and 22.1 minutes, respectively. This Chief nl Police would be generally indicative of the area in question. 2. What is the number of sworn police officers in the Ikmtington Beach Police Department? At the present time, the police department has been allocated 201 sworn officers. 3. What is the number of vehicles and special equipment (units, SWAT team, helicopters) available at the station serving the site? July 17, 1984 The department maintains a fleet of 49 black and white units, 16 motorcycle omits, 2 operable helicopters, 40 unmarked units, and approximately 10 support vehicles such as buses, beach vehicles, etc. Rintington Beach has trained 10 officers for the Special Weapons and Tactic Team to handle certain emergency situations. Michael Brandman Associates 4. Is existing manpower and vehicle supply adequate to maintain the present level of 3140 Red (fill Avenue, Suite 200 service in the event the project is developed? If not, what additions would be Costa Mesa, California 92626 required? Dear Mr. Panchal: Based upon the national average of 2.0 sworn officers per 1000 population and historical data indicating approximately 1.26 calls for service per dwelling, Enclosed is the completed questionnaire for the E.I.R. concerning City annually, the anticipated personnel requirements for a project of this magnitude of 11ntington Beach General Plan Amendment 84-1 as it relates to police indicates 7 sworn officers should be phased in over this fifteen year project if service. If you have an current workload is to be maintained. y y questions, please contact me at (714) 536-5943. Sincerely yours, S. What types of crimes occur in the vicinity of the site? Since the majority of this area is undeveloped, very few calls for service are received with the exception of a scare number of traffic-related reports. JIM MOORE Crime Analyst 6. Do you foresee any adverse impacts as a result of the project? What mitigation measures would you suggest to reduce potential impacts to the police department? JM:se I see no adverse impacts from this project provided personnel requirements are Enclosure met. An obvious consideration to this department of any project is easy access into and within the site for emergency vehicles and this seems to have been provided with the recommended street changes. In fact, realigning Gothard to eliminate the curve and the five-way intersection at Garfield and Main would reduce potential traffic hazards and improve vehicle flow. 7. In general, what would be the difference in serving this proposed planned community residential project, compared to the land uses allowed under the current general plan and zoning (estate residential, industrial and office)? i • • • • WI i Dr.Clary Burgner If the proposed plan increases the number of individuals occupying this site in Assistant Superintendent of Business Servleea contrast to the existing plan, it can be anticipated the calls for service will Huntington Beach City School District increase proportionately. However, if the proposed planned community includes a perimeter wall and security gates, this has been found to be very effective in re- ducing crime. other than those stated, there would be no difference in police 1. What are the location of the schools that will serve the proposed project? service to the alternate plan. Dwyer School, 1502 Palm Avenue, Huntington Beach Smith School, 770 17th Street, Huntington Beach E. What is the current enrollment and capacity for those schools? ENROLLMENT CAPACITY Dwyer 839 1W' Smith 503 -$80 i,'t' 4. What Is the district's current enrollment and capacity? Enrollment - 5,6001 Capacity - 5,820 4. What generation factors are used to forecast future enrollment? Depends on type of unit. 5. Does the capacity exist to provide adequate service? is expansion planned in the future? It is possible that Smith and Dwyer could be overcrowded. S. Will there be adverse impacts from the proposed development? If so, do you have any suggestion for mitigating the impacts? It could be necessary to transport student to and from school. 7. What is the fifunclal impact of the project,based on tax rates and/or cost per student? If transportation is needed, cost per student will increase. iAny other comments you may have are welcome. Mr. Buck Panchal July 27, 1984 Q�^ i Page Two D �fj�(►' - Transit amenities such as a,bus shelter, bus pad, bench, and sidewalk should be provided at each stop. ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT July 27, 1984 Depending on the projected traffic volume and speed, bus iturnouts may be necessary at the bus stops. I RECEIVE 0 JUL 3 1 1989 j We appreciate the opportunity to comment and look forward to reviewing future site plans as they are being developed. If you have any ques- Michael Brandman Associates Mr. Buck Panchal dons, please call me or Deb Mar-pert, at 971-6410. 3140 Red Hill Avenue Sincerely, Suite 200 j Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Dear Mr. Panchal: Dick Hsu Section Chief SUBJECT: DEIR FOR CPA 84-1, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Development Planning We have reviewed your request for transit information regarding the Holly property site and have the following comments: STH:ae I. OCTD Route 25 currently serves Golden West Street with transit stops at Ellis/Golden West and Garfield/Golden West. 2. Depending on the magnitude and pattern of the development for the proposed project over the next 15 years, certain transit service improvements may be made, which could include: - One or more additional stops on Golden West Street between Ellis Avenue and Garfield Avenue which would be located at points of access to the development. - Service may be routed through the project on Gothard, if the realignment and street upgrading becomes a reality as indi- cated on the Master Plan of Arterial Highways. 3. We suggest the following features be included In site plans for the proposed project in order to support the transit service and encourage transit usage: Highest density land uses (apartments or condos) should be located closest to arterials, so that transit service may be available to the greatest number of potential riders. Pedestrian access to arterials with transit service should be provided by minimizing setbacks in order to shorten walking distances and by appropriately placing convenient walkways (or breakthroughs or stairs in sloped landscaped areas or sound barrier walls, if such are provided). 11222 ACACIA PARKWAY.P D SOX 3006•GARDEN GROVE.CALIFORNIA 92642•PIIoNr()14)971 6200 I I • • • • • • • • • • • RECEIVED JUL 1 8 198¢ 4 OUNTY OF RANGE R.A.scOTT O � olw0ctow Mr.Mike Luke .3 RAY RHO ADS County of Orange General Services Agency \° GENERAL SERVICES AGENCY MA—Gem \ WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 1. What Is the location of the landfill which would serve the proposed project? VVV 1100 SOUTH OR AND Avg. SANTA ANA.CALIFORNIA 12701 Coyote Canyon Sanitary Landfill serves this parcel, it is located 17101 01'-111f off Bonita Canyon Road in the City of Irvine. 2. . What is the class of this landfill? It is a Class II-2 landfill site. July 16, 1984 2. Whet Is the llfespan of the landfill? Are there any proposals for new landfill Michael Brandman Associates sites,or expansion of the current site? 3140 Red Hill Avenue, Suite 200 Its life expectancy is October 1988 at which time the initiation of Costa Mesa, CA 92626 disposal operations in a suitable replacement site is expected. Attention: Buck Panchal Subject: EIR for City of Huntington Beach General Plan Amendment 84-1 4. What are the solid waste generation factors for commercial centers and for multiple-family residential developments (e.g., pounds per 1000 square feet or Dear Buck: resident per day)? Transmitted herewith is the response sheet for the project showing our replies The generation rate of solid waste in Orange County is estimated to be to your questions. 8.5 pounds per capita per day. We do not have generation factor break- downs for commercial centers or multi-family residential developments. If you have any further questions or need any further information, please call S. Will there be any adverse Impacts on the landfill resulting from the approve?of Kori Sanders at (7141834-2660. the project? Sincerely, No. Mike Luke, Assistant Chief Engineer 6. What is the location of the transfer station serving the area of the proposed project? KS:ner The County of Orange no longer operates any transfer stations. There is, however, a privately owned transfer station at 17121 Nichols Street which Enclosures serves the area of the proposed project. It is operated by Rainbow Disposal. 7. Will there be any adverse impacts on the transfer station resulting from the approval of the project? If so,what mitigation measures do you suggest? The project should not have any adverse impact on the operation of the transfer station. Any other comments you may have are welcome. Project design should consider means of reducing the amount of waste material generated both during construction and when the project is in use. RECEIVED JUL 3 0 MA RECEIVED JUL 1 9 190 olspos,� z��� CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH �� n 2000 MAIN STREET P.0.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 9264E Paul E.Cook Public Works Department PO.BOX 1026 • HUNTINGTON BEACH.CALIFORNIA 92647 • PHONE (71 4)847-3581 Director (714)536 5431 July 25, 1984 July 17, 1984 Michael Brandman Associates 3140 Red Hill Avenue,Suite#Z00 Costa Mesa,Ca.9Z626 Attn:Buck Panchal-Reserch Assistant Michael Brandman Associates3140 Red Hill Avenue, Suite #200 Dear Mr.Panchal: Costa Mesa, California 92626 In reference to your environmental report for the City of Huntington Beach General Plan Subject: Development Holly Property site. Amendment 84-1(Development of 1,200 dwelling units to be developed in area referred to in Attention: Buck Panchal Sectional District Map 35-5-11).hopefully the following information will be of assistance. Question AI-Can we service the proposed project? Answer:Yes,we can and will,but we would Gentlemen: like to be in contact with the designers and engineers,if possible,to insure the most efficient Per your letter dated July 10, 1984, enclosed are the answers to your and economical way for rubbish removal. This would include the rubbish enclosures,projected questions regarding the Enironmental Impact Report. travel areas and turn-abouts. And that all travel areas would have to bear state required legal limits of 80,000lb.vehicles. 1. Enclosed find a Public Information Report. Question #2- Where will the waste be taken and how will it be transported? Answer:Reference 2. The City proposes new water wells as demand within the City increases. question AI answer on planning stages and waste will be collected and transported in trash trucks 3. Presently there are very few water mains located in the area. of legal height,width,and weight to our transfer station in Huntington Beach and then transported to a legal land fill for final disposal. 4. Domestic demands in residential areas assume, for design purposes, 157 gallons per capita per day, with estimated 3.5 persons per Question i3- Will the proposed project cause any problems or adverse impact on our operations? dwelling unit per average day. Fire demand minimum 1,000 GPM. Answer:Reference question Al answer. As per our telecon that Gothard will go through the project 5. Industrial and commercial demands require special design. Fire and connect with Crystal street and give us excess to your project plus travel into the areas we must demands 3,000 GPM in multiple family residential not exceeding three service. We must insist that this pass through the project be open to truck traffic at all times. stories. 3,000 GPM for commercial, residential , and up to 6,000 for We do(eel that the eliminating of the five point intersection at Gothard and Garfield will help high rise residential and commercial. eliminate some of the accidents and confession problems that exist at this time. 6. New large si ze watermains wil l have to be butt t to bring a,a-e r to the project as well as distribution mains within the development. If additional information is needed or if we may be of any other assistance to you in any other way, 7, At present without new mains to be built by the developer, the please feel free to contact my office. system is inadequate. Sincerely, If you have any further questions please contact Stan Farber at (714) �— �mems_ 536-5528. Very truly yours, Richard im /) E.A. Elevatorski Operations Manager Water Superintendent RT/ew by Gman McCray EAE:LM:SF:ek cc: Scan Farber � { t� i � { � 1 t • t 1 • ( • { • t i • 1 t � ' • Mr.Donald Kiser CITY OF City of Huntington Beach HUNTINGTON BEACH Public Works Department,Sewerage Division 1. What sewer facilities would be serving the proposed project? ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA ' I m•.,,.a 3-1-79 it"rco. Sewer facilities would be existing on development installed City of t Huntington Beach mains to Orange County Sanitation District trunks. (General map of existing is enclosed). ✓c P. 2. Are the sewage transmission lines adequate for serving the proposed project? P`~� Doubtful - See below. iv"fK J. What generation factors do you use for estimating sewage from residential \ developmental From office and industrial projects? \ Depends on density. 4. Will service to the site cause any adverse Impacts on the city's sewage system? If so,what mitigation measures do you suggest to decrease the impaet(s). Yes - Depends on density. Any other comments you may have are welcome. Due to the acreage involved together with its topography and the m av"rLP• ocsP. AVL , contributory areas to the north and east, all these inquiries need to 14792 Zi v[Y, be directed to the Public Works Engineering Department. They have ( '° the past records and have already performed some preliminary studies regarding this area. It is anticipated that the area will require significant design efforts for mitigation of sewage and drainage I 1N1 impacts that development may present. --— Z y°✓cP As a matter if interest, the vacation of Gothard could also significantly impact General Telephone In as much as they have a major trunk feed — in this street. at IN � Please, direct any other inquiries through Les Evans, City Engineer, t at 2000 Main Street. z 3 ,��� w % En IIMI Donald M. �K1/J- _ 1 Division Engineer 11T z,_rci oct.D. �GAFIFIELD _ ♦ 41 Michael Brandman Assoc. - 7/18/84 Page 2 General Telephone Company 3. See item 2. Consider cul-de-sac at either, or both ends of the proposed of California Gothard Street abandmvvmt plan. 6774 We,I nnnSner BWd WemmTier.Cal-fn,nia 92683 3788 As previously discussed, the phase a►d timing of the plan would be critical 2135944526 to the General Telephone Company. From our point of view, the planned 714P9l 512f development should initiate on the perimeters of Ellis Avenue and the R.R.R.W. . in nepi•,n n,n„ Access problems and rights of way requirements to cross undeveloped land exist July 18, 1984 should other sequences be initiated. If I can be of further assistance in the matter, please feel free to call me RECEIVED at (714) 891-5321. Michael Brandnan Associates JUL 2 5 1984 Attn: Buds Panchal j 3140 Red Hill Ave., Suite 200 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 R. Dwell Dear Mr. Pandnal Resident Engineer Orange Division Reference: Your letter to J.S. Botelho dated July 10, 1984 Huntington Beach General Plan AmertAnent 84-1 cc: J.S. Botelho - 8236 - V09 G. Cleaver - 3770 - FA4 Your environmental impact letter has been referred to me for engineering consideration and evaluation. Please direct further requests directly to me to insure a udnirnm of delays in this matter. To confirm our telephone conversation of this morning, sufficient time was not allocated for an in depth study of the request. . I would suggest more than a 10-day turn around for such requests is necessary in most instances. I have given the project a cursery look and find some serious considerations before us. I shall answer the request at this time, with the understanding sane rather minor isolated situations may yet exist. Essentially, within the project, some phase time frame should be established and plans presented. 1. Service to the project area is essentially within Gothard Street, and would initiate from that point. 2. Yes, a serious impact exists with existing services. The portion of Gothard Street currently proposed for abandonment contains a major underground service. Basically, in this portion of Gothard Street, General Telephone has a 12 duct system, 2 manholes and 4 major cables consisting of 4,800 circuits. Any major activity such as land fills, construction, etc. would necessitate the relocation of the facilities in question. A pa,l of GTE Coipnrahon ' Vdchael Brandman Assoc. - 7/25/84 Page 2 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA[A COMPANY 2. New Gothard Street would require a rough grade of plus or minus 6" ORANGE COUNTY DIVISION • P D.80X 3331 ANANEI- CALIF seem for new conduit and manhole installation. 3. Prior to construction activity within existing Gothard Street, that is July 17, 19134 paving removals, fills, grading, etc., General Telephone will need to coaplete the rerouting and remove existing cables and carrier equipment. I Michael Brandman Associates. RECEIVED JUL 2 3 190 4. Telephone service to the planed project would initiate for the most ! 3140 Relhill me., Ste. 200 part from the new conduit aytem in new Gothard/Crystal Street. In Costa Mena, CA 92626 the intial planning stage, considerations for actual planned construction would be required to make the design compatable for exisiting and Attn: Buck Panchal planned use. 5. A preliminary estimate of the costs involved in this relocation have Subject: FIR for City of Hunt. Bit. General Plan Arer"rent 84-1 been established at $750,000.00. Ibi.3 letter is not to be interpreted as a contractual ("tcrtitmont to Of additional interest to General Telephone is the improvement of Ellis serve the proMsed project, but only as an infat:m tiomm :nrvice. Its Of ode between rest Street and exist Lis the Street. Properly intent is to notify you that the Southern California Ca:; Corpany bras �7' open y facilities in the area where the above-named project is propo,,,N). Gaff coordinated, Lateral Telephone would plan to extend a conduit system at service to the project could be provided from an existing main x; this Location prior to final paving and street inprovernmts. shoran on the attached atlas sheet without any significant ilV--ict mt the environin nt. The service -,cold be in eccordapce with the I will request a representative of General Telephone CaTany be present Ccmpany's policies and extension rules on file with the calitornia at the planned December Commission Hearing to answer further questions Public Utilities Comdssion at the time contractual arraugmmnts arc, as required in this matter. nurole. If I can be of further assistance in this matter, please feel free to call lire availability of natural gas service, as set forth in this Letter, me at (714) 891-5321. is based upon present oonditions of gas supply and regulatory ixxlicies. As a public utility, the Southern California Gat: Cogxany is Very truly yours under the jurisdiction of the federal regulatory agencies. Should these agencies take any action which affects gar; supply or the colKlition under which service is available, gas service will tr provided in accordance with revised eonditons. W.R. DUVALL Residential (Sy_ten Area Average) Yearly Resident Engineer single-Fandly 1095 Therms/year/trolling unit J.S. Botelho - 8236 - V09 multi-pandly 4 or Less units 640 Therms/year/clelling unit G. Cleaver - 3770 - W04 multi-rnwily 5 or less units 580 therm;/year/dkmIling unit ThFre e:;tinnte:; are based on pas axnsuurption in residential units r+=rved by Southern California Gas Company during 1975 and it should not tr. inplicd that any particular tone, apartment or tract of hones will use th.^-c mcmts of energy. This is particularly true due to the Stnte's rrrw insulation relluirements and axtsumrrs' etfort_s t(�ard - enenyy con�:hrvation. t t t • • t W W ,nu+c zo'r2uc DM 39 SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP 35-5-II r-�-r--�� CITY OI'' n..i«"K•wfw..:.n•� .--;:,.....w.� ._. .... FIUNTINGrI1oN REACII ® i;• 'ri x _ y General Telephone Company i _ a of California L' •' 'tR ©� .., .... 6i74 JVc slnnm..1�•1 f31vd ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA } ? 1': �e ® roRR 1 178R IN090 81 1"t CASE i s i': _Il: .•r.lr.n>..f•.«.•r.....«faun... tl •,;�_ ' ',�.�.,�'•,., ... 1 7 a52 _ua rn n.•n.waw u.�ra.r.••r.r.•.1 w•..•r.r...•.n,r..,�..rr. '...+•....•.^..• 14 841 R91 1171 rt,f.w+nn,l•n•'••ie.w•'rYY'fi rr•M:f•A fin\••rV r•in•n an•.•nf•ntrr-Iron. ta'f •�w='� rwr•r.•r•.r••.n r• •. ' i "i = j.^•.^..`!�^RF"•- In li"l:lY nrlr•r f, r..11e•T lit. ., J,•,;. July 25, 1984 MI-CO WA IOR2.00 •� f ,p Michael Brandman Associates ,J R1F "A as sa• _ Attn: Buds Pandual ^ a�sa pr:-•D 3140 Red Hill Ave. Suite 200 CF-R -- MI-CD MI- C 4 ( Costa Mesa, CA 92626 A sa Rl:- MI-CD RI — Dear Mr. Pandnal CF R "• C2 Reference: Holly Planned Community F. Huntington Beach General Plan Amendment 84-1 r MI C2 •. RA-0-00;' _ M Thank you for the additional information on referenced project. Of particular - al r . interest is the type, phasing and gme al plan of the project, with the new CF COil oil rl i route of Gothard Street extremely important. lay 1 •'• . I have reviewed this plan with the City of Huntington Beach Engineering and MI-CD I"' "' "' µref Planning Departments as well as the Huntington Beach Company. .�a MI 1 i •a 1 « •' ' a al }' al a2 i••Ir Generally, the plan includes rather wive land fills, the total abandon- M I az T — _ ment of existing Gothard Street and I would expect a major street improvement to Ellis Avenue at the project site. R2 i ! C2 c: With the total abarxkyvt of Gothard Street as illustrated, I mist revise my R2 _ as enestimates of the facilit:ieq involved. I refer you to item 2 in my letter of a� July 13, 1984. The following is a list of basic major item of interest: M2-0 a� 2800' of twelve we�+ ducts 5 each manholes 10 6" x 4'6" x 7'6" - es az:• 1 each manhole 10'6" x 5'6" x 8'6" 7 v 2800' of major copper cable - 4800 circuits 2800' of 416 pair multi charmel carrier cable and as w C4; associated repeaters in one location >. .•.�� :.c: WlF fps R11Opel VPLAN- an Total relocation of General Telephone facilities Will be necessary. Currently,an orderly relocation into the new Gothard/Crystal Street aligmmt world MI-0 -- f" •. require: , 1 r♦-m MI-01 ' �+ a0 R; 1 n7 1. An estimated time frame to complete rerouting of telephone facilities 1 rs• �! as az '=°l would require a minimum of eighteen amths from plan inception to completion. • i —� I DR • _ .--- -- ----- I A[-1 nl,11 rnln anon i E I 1 t i { k � � � t t i ► t t f RECEIVEp JUL j B M4 ?lf S.L.Coolidge SCE Service Planner We hate (kve]orod several prograin3 which arc available, ui)en rerluest, to provid- assistance in selecting thr roust effective a;T)licntions of energy rnn;. rvation techniques for a inrt.icular project. If you I 1. What are the locations of existing faeilities In the vicinity of the project area? chsire further infornntion on any of our e'rwrgy urolrains, pl aac.c Are they adequate to service the proposed project? contact this oifirr> for a;;irt? TfW_ M03OC-T- s&Q, 15 --AA k-&hC.LA1L)e6 sincerel y, $l i ELFL''f7?!C14` Aqe f 4-1-ne-S. hb E U 4TS -Jim sE+e vs fr, M.T. Roseon 2. What are the electricity usage rates for single-and multiple-family residential Technical St{)prvisor developmental Office and industrial development? Drl/drn SEE /4'�• attachment 1. Would the proposed project-impact electrical service within the Southern California Edison service area? H s%what mitigation/conservation measures,in general,wduld you suggesty SOME fRC(Lt`PIES M/6*fT Q.EQ"IeF 5T1zG;1e?r A0&1#J GrOJT%, Any other comments you may have are welcome. ')ht E►'►SF, .171,E6Cr AWLI .Puc-577"J5 L &&U f+~5 To R.s WM$,L)AJ, 895-ox�f SOUTHERN CALFOF"A EDMON COMPANY Aev I sed Cel.P U.0 Sheet No 7951-E SIXITVERN CALIFORpMA EDISM COWANY Revised Cal P.U.0 Sheet No 0.7 6 22 2244 WabsM Brow A— 7036-E, t u walrnsf(,wove Avsnw.Rosemead,CdNornis bl»0 CanetlW,p nevi sed Cal P.U.C.Shasl No.790�-E fioaetneed,CaMorfle 91770 Rev 1 sod Col.P.U.C.Shea No6069-E . Schodole No. D DOEAE.LL,Ke1•CE fcMbie b.M mLY. pEf1U fERtltE APPLICARI ITY Applluole to domestic service Including lighting, heating, cooking, end peer or combination i (GmHate6) caereof in a singis-family Occbereddatlon/ also to domestic farm service when supplled through the farm g►E[IAL ttMO1T10M3 operator's doe is meter. TERR1IORT 1. bssetal gme.fees For ttaneer Cottage eastomers sae others who normally require service for only part of the year.this Schedule is applicable only on IMual coetrect. Within the sntlrs territory served. 2. tifellar tenitxt The-rates above an subject to adjrsaent as prodded for to Part N of BAEES the Preliminary Statement. The applicable lifeline Quantity to be billed under rates designated as Per motor i applicable to ilfellna Serriea shall M any dlerarsce for 114-su{•portlacaDle 1Ne1evices 11neduantJttes under tset Par Meath Paragraph 6, of the PrNlmlnery Statement. Flat the see of the app R [Rare Barge, forth for the CYstoafH'a climatic region (as described on Lifetime Rate Climatic Regitm Maps) as inilz4tud below: Lifeline torvfco, it*per Meth pp ll All kWh, per kWh .................................. amee Air ppAtirlow a 6.Ia1[ s e tl11yt1c batrtamtlal Dater AKm spec Nonllfeltne service, ref/M Mae Daunt fbtl ontibeWditlanlnq•e Fendltientag� __ All kWh. Y 240 IS SOO 110 _.. ... per kWh ..................................................... 9.208! t 240 25O M00 160 __. 1 1. rbnllfsllM service Includes all kMn In excess of applicable lifeline allowances as 120 fig --- 2 2t0 2S260 ISO D 1s620 270 -- 200 doscrlced In Spacial Condition No. 2. C 240 ISO --- 280 60 For service on Santa Catalina Island, the above rates are subject to the Catalina Energy N 210 250 --- Soo 100 Cost Balance Adjustment, as set forth In Special Condition No. 3. 7 240 ISO S. 650 130 260 250 �- Miniver Charge, • Wvnblr through Aprils inctustw. The Base Rate Energy Charge shall be subject to a monthly Minimum Charge of S2.00. •• May through October. inclusive. The Energy Charge includes the following Energy Charge Cooposents. 3. CstsTlne ESOM Gat Mama A(jastamatt For service on Santa W011na Island, the rates above are subject to adjuatAmnt as pfertAed to pan 4 of the Prelhefnary Statement, at a billing factor of 2.5939 Per kWh. wr w.r to mne Per kits tifollne Nosiffellne ease Rates SKs,1iL sismi— AllkWh ....................................................... 4.451! 4.4S79! Adjasteset Rates Energy Cost Adjustment Billing Factors ........................ 0.e36! 3.4039 Annual Energy Rate ............................................ 0.3504! 0.354! Conservation Load Management Adjustment Billing Factor.,,...... 0.026t 0.0269 Electric Revenue Adjustment Billing Factor .................... 0.0/0! 0.0404! Major Addittwe Adjustment Billing Factor ..................... 0.7674 0.7679 Annual Major Addltl ons Rate ................................... 0.1549 O.ISa! PVC Rsvlmbursement Fos ......................................... 0.."Y 0-0070 Total Adjustment Rates ........................................ 1.78411 4.75le The PUC Reimbursement Fee is described in Schedule No. RIF-E. The Adjustment Rates are descrltee In Parts G. 1. J, and L of the Preliminary Statement. (Coatineod) rt.k era.a a w►Uc i "°••M^••n�M•' ww.e n.s..,..,n,c.roc' rtsa,:...mab,eviey) b-4b, E1.,eFded December 30, 1982 Advice Lefler No. 651-F Wh&aWIp*svay Date Filed March 30. 1984 Edvord A hewers k January 1, 1983 s..T. Advice Leiter No. doh-F — �. ERrnive Decision No. 81.-03-059 Effective April 1. 1904 82-12-055 D nt ecision No.82-12-115 Vida Prudent Decision ice Resolution No_ No. i r SOUTHERN CAUFORNIA EDISON COMPANY Revised Cal. P.UC Sheet No.7613-E Revised Cot P U.0 SPAN No 7957-E T3 SRN CAIIFOFNIA E D130N COMPANY� 22dd Walnut Grove Avenue SOUTHERN _ --- 221a dove Avenue,Rosemead,CaliforniaC Rosemead. California 91770 Cancelling Revised Cal. P.U.C. Sheet No.7392-E Cancelling Revised Cat.P.U.C.Sheet No.7910-E Schedule No.GS-1 schedule No. 0/-1 W)EBAI !>EIffBAL iE8T1GE (Dastlaeell dlTllCdRiLIIY -- _ iPJSIAt tomb2IIftt -- -Appitcaole ta-Fing-Tit-and-throb=phase general service includinglighting and power. 1. loitailoa Service will be supplied at use standard voltage. 11:B ITORY 2. I-Roy Iastillatleass Where the Company Installs the standard transformer capacity requested Within the entire territory served. - by a c em wster to serve separately an X-ray installation, the billing will be increased by $1.00 SAM Par kvA of transfuser capacity requested. 3. Excess Transformer Copse ltys The amount of transformer capacity regoested by a custower Per later which la is excess of the applicable standard transformer size determined by the Company as required Energy Charges hr heat to serve the customer's measurable kilowatt demand. Excess Transformer Capacity shall be available to all customers under this schedule and shall be billed at SI.00 per kyA per month. At kWh. per kWh .............................................I............... 9.3749 a. Temporary 01--tlusance of 3.11.1 Wbere the use of energy is seasonal or Intermittent, The above rates are subject to the Steel Surcharge Adjustment as set forth In Special no Sillii.t"wts w111 ►e made for a temporary discontinuance of service. Any customer prior to resuming Condition No. S. service within twelve months after such service was discontinued will be required to pay all charges which would have been billed If service bad net boon discontinued. For service on Santa Catalina Island, the above rates are subject to the Catalina Energy Cost Balance Adjustment, As set forth In Special Condition 110. 6, S. Steal Sarobarp Adjmom wtt The rates above are subject to adjustment as provided to Part K of the Preliminary Statement, at a billing factor of 0.0499 per kWh. Minimum Ckergot 6. Cetmlise EMW Daft hlaum NJ For service on Santa Catalina island, the rates The Base Rat* portion of the Energy Charge shall be subject to a monthly Minimum Charge of above ors subject to adjustment as provided is Part G of the Preliminary Statement, at a billing $5.00. l factor of 2.S934 par kith. The Energy Charge Includes this following Energy Charge Components. fjmn0l bLswrr uTS Be"Rates Per kWh AllkWh ........................................................................ 5.4259! Adjustment Retest Energy Cost Adjustment Biding Factor .......................................... 2.601! Annual Energy Rat* ............................................................. 0.354! Conservation load Managua t Adjustment Billing Factor ......................... 0.026! Electric Revenue Adjustment Billing Factor ..................................... 0.4'.c :+ajor Additions Adjustment Billing Factor ...................................... 0.7679 Annual Major Additions Rate .................................................... 0.1549 PUC Reimbursement fee.......................................................... 0.4071 Total Adjustment Rates ......................................................... 3.94 S! The PUC Reimbursement Fee is described In Schedule No. RF-E. The Adjustment Rates are descrited � In Parts G. I, J, and L of the Preliminary Statement. (Continued) - 1 -w red F.u,lrti) Imwe by it.b.i-r i!.Co P L'r.) Ad,-i,e Leiter No 6 Edward A. Myers.Jr. Date filed 5eDte^ber 19, 1983 Advlceletlu No. 651-E pllchsal R.Peeves Date Filed March 30, 1984 F3-09-025 --��- 1983 w.. [k.l>ii N, _ 83-0�001 GRecG,e_ Oct^ber 9. -- DeclelonNe. 84-03-059 Etleclive April 1. 1954 — Vice President Resolufiwn K.. _ — Till, Vigo President Resolution No SOUTHERN CALIFOFHA EMON COMPANY Revised Cal.P.U.C.Sheet No 7960-E 2244 Walnut Drove Avernus,Rosemead,California 91F70 SoLq M C&FOIMiA gDGM COWAWf Rev Iseds Cat ru.e ilea Nm E Carleaiey Aevited Cal.P.U.C.Sheet No.7913-E IIt"Web"am"Aveeew S 29-E�5546-9. 5924-E, S/j�-E t Ibnanred.C1sMoflda t1110 Issd GL rUC Gees Ne 7014-[ teRedale Ito.bf-2 201113 L A AVAE-oEIINO $&able Ra. 1" Ewa>Wma-Om AMICABILITY (taskined) Applicable to single- and three-phase general Service Including lighting and power, subject to motor availability. TEMITOY Within the entire territory served. Rem tm ff= RAW 1. Voltage: Service will be spiled at w stendarl voltage. Par MOIAW 1. H111mg Demand: Tha billlq demand shall be the Wwltts of maeimm demand. determined to Per Neal the nearest AM. Demand'Margot At l kr or b1111 demand. per kr t. tluto Dowd: Tha VARUM d mead In any month shall be the measured mawisnJO eve,Iqe y ............................................. f3.eo tilantt input, Indicated or recorded by 1Mtramorts to be supplied by the Company, during any 15- month. got (aae"t ltamert Slatting (Subject to Minimum Demand Charge. See Special Condition No. 6) Contract Minute et0emandered imas definedterval in tIn theme SpKlai Cardf�enf�Ml�not Its 110 than the diversified Energy Charge (to be added to o...Na Charge). resistance welder load Computed 1n Steps Me with the iKtidn designated Welder Service 10 Rule ha. 2. Where the demand is /Rtermlttent or SmAJKt to violent fluclumtions, a S-minute interval May All kWh. per kWh ..............................................I.............. 6.8749 be used. M&Dow rates ate subject to the Steel Surcharge Adjustment as sat forth In Special 4. 34ay IMUII$tlom: When 04 Caia Installs the standard transformer capacity requested The Con above No. 11. by a CustWW to serve nap&rehly We t-rsy IMtellatien,the mlnfwn charge will be,Increased by 11.00 per kvA of transformer CoWilty requested. _ For service on Santa Catalina Island. the &bows rates are subject to the Catalina Energy g, CwmtrLLt Rased: A contract demand will be K M tobllshed by the COM Y bd en ppiiCent's Cost B&lance Adjustment, as set forth to Special Condition No. 12. demand ryOuil M o 6 for any Cvs beep with Mond reeulraaentt greeter than 25 AM ase wed requests ferr/Ce . Nialmom Charge. an this schedule had for any costae. of record on this schedule oft requests an Increase In transformer CapKlty in KCerd&nce with Role ft. 12 8. A Contract demand Is required of all customers ad Charge plus ides Bane Rate portion of the Energy Charge shell be subject to a newly request)n1q0 Welts on this seAable for rMISUMI Soldier leads or utter lead whits does not The Osmo monthly red Charge Charge of 100.0. create senwrable dmwW. A contract demand Arrangement Is available open request for all Customers of record on this $CANw)t. The Contract demand will be used only for purposes of ntablishing the The Energy Charge saclodes the following Energy Charge Compensate. minimum demand Chorgofor 14C111t1M rWred to provide service &.der the rate and will Not be otherwise used for killing purposes. Contract demand Is based upon the nominal kilovolt-ampere ratty of the Company's serving tranaforaer(s)or tha standard transformer site determined by the Company a required to serve the Customer's stated aeasurNle kilowatt Mande Whichever Is less end Is&■pressed Par kWh In in kilantts. Sass Rater f. felnfifmm.awed taarge: ore a contract demand is ettakifshed, the monthly minfmmm demand All kWh ........................................................................ 2.92se cherpe shall ha$1.00 par kilowatt of Contract Hand. Adjustment Retool demand CaCMS TrMf~ C+eeitrt Tha troafenler CoeKity In taexss of o Cwitoaer's antrKt 4mand which is olden required r the Company btcmwse Of the Rdure of the Customer's load or Energy Cost Adjustment Biding Factor .......................................... 2.601e requested by the tastiness gates%troMfsew Capacity shall be bilitd at 11.00 per JVA per Moth. Annual Energy Rate ............................................................. 0.354e Conservation Load Management Adjustment Billing Factor 0.0269 R. Voltage Msonntl Tha verges mitre adjustments will be reduced by39 for orrice Electric Revenue Adjustment Billing Factor ..................................... 0.0409 delivered &.d metered at Walta i of free t kil se 10 b1;by at for service delivered Ord metered at Major Addltl ons Adjustment Billing Factor ...................................... 0.767e Sacalt&gtt of from 11 Ali to 90 btj and by N for Service dell.ered and MUmd At veltogn ever s0 AS; Annual Major Additions Rate .................................................... 0.1Sad espt that mice" only on transformation free a tremselssfon Walter level Is Involved, a ceitoaw PUC Reimbursement Foe .......................................................... D-007d normally entitled to a X Hscewat will be entitled to a K discount. Total Adjustment Rates ......................................................... 3.9499 The PUC Reimbursement Fee Is described In Schedule No. or-E. The Adjustment Rates ors described to Parts 0. t. J. and L of the Preliminary Statement. (0oatinood) (Caetlamed) Ir.M�n..nN.r•..+rl Ito e.• c..u.I Advlc.LNter No 651-E Michael R.Peavey Date filed March 30. 1964 e ore r-w.d b masr) how ore Rs 1.w—W or Cd d:e n Docisla+No. 84-03-059 Effective April 1. 19U Adwice UTM No.An4-r S#wW A.Mrta b. Dm lied gkeember 30, 1902 12-12-055 to-iW January 1, l9s) 11"Preoldenl ResolulionNo Decision No l2-12-I15 Yia rasiderm laeokrdoe No__ NXITNERN CALWORNIA ED1fON COWANY 2241 Wohm Grove A owe Revised CAL P.U.C.Sheet No. 67 18-E Rosemood,California fil"D COO-11lro6 Revised Cam.P.U.C.Sheet No.73974 Sebodale Me.W2 Yl f XUM-OEIIIIQ thatlaoed! fSCI&Saffinm lCmatlmmed) 9. h.er ractx Adjsefaertl anon the billing domand has exceeded 200 kW for ran consecutive months. a allover-hour eater •Ill be Installed as soon as practical, and, thereafter, oath the ban demand has ba less than ISO kW for teal vo consecutive months, the charges will be adjusted secs month for po.er factor, as follows, i The Charges will be decreased by 20 cents per kilowatt of measured maximum demand and will be Increased by 20 cents per allover of reactive demnnd. 'However. In an case shall the kllevers used for the adjustment be leas than one-fifth the header of kilowatts. The kilovars of reactive demand shall be calculated by multiplying the bllowetto of measured , maxi■um demand by the ratio of the kilover-hours to the kilowetthours. Demands In kilowatts and ktI*or a shall be detoreihed to the nearest unit. A ratchet device will be Installed on the kilovar-hour motor to prevent its reverse operation on leading power factors. 10. Temporary Discestimeemca of SoeNNe Whore the use of energy Is "asewan��I of Intermittent, no adjustments will be made for a temporary discontinuance of service. Any cust r to servico within tvslvo months after such service was discontinued will be repaired to pay all charges which would have boon billed If sorvice had not been discontinued. 11. Steal Umbargo Adjosto mtr The rates above are subject to adjustment as provided In Part K of the Preliminary Statem.nt, at a baling factor of 0.0499 par kWh. U. Catellse Eoorgy Cast Swishes Adjosts is for service on Santa Catoliha Island, the rates .bow are subject to adjustment as previdod in Port C of the preliminary Statement, at a billing factor of 2.3939 par kWh. 1 I ITC b.i.wn,a b,wtdnvl hoed M IT.be inrned b,C.1.►.0 C.) Advice Letter No 630-E EJ,Ward A. Myers,Jr. Date Filed�tylenber 19. 1983 83-09-025 -- _ DaisimNo._ 83-09-007 EBectivt__october_9. 198L-_. Vice President Rcsulutiup N,, --Tip-- — - — • • • APPENDIX K HUNTINGTON BEACH OIL CODE 1r W • rr+ •rr.. r.r 15.04.010--15.04.020 ti.,)v.)30--15.04.060 Title_15 fare. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) HUNTINGTON BEACH OIL CODE 1 .04.0 0 Administration. The fire chief, or his duly appointed representative, is hereby authorized and directed to Chapters: enforce the provisions of this code, except that requirements pertaining to fences, walls and gates, and idle wells shall 15.04 General Provisions he Jointly enforced by the fire chief and the director of de- 08 Teflnitiona velopment services, or their duly appointed representatives. 15.�2 Permits an3 Fees (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) 15.17 Bonds 15. 0 Drilling Operation and Safety Regulations_ 1�.04.040 011 committee--Authorization and duties. The 15.22 Screening and Landscaping council may from time to time appoint, on an ad hoc basis, an 15.N Cleanup and Maintenance oil committee which shall include, but is not limited to, the 15.28 Wastewater S stem following: a member of the city council, a member of the planning 15T fton rolucin an Idle Wells commission, the city attorney, fire chief, director of development 1515Nuisance Oil We s and Sites services, or the duly authorized agents of such members, a repre- 15 Activation of Idle Wells sentative of the Western Oil and Gas Association, and a member of the Independent Oil Producers Association. A representative of the California division of oil and gas may be requeste.i to serve Chapter 15.04 as an ex officlo member of such committee. The committee shall act as an advisory body to the department and city council with GENERAL PROVISIONS regard to the contents of this code and its revision. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) Sections: 1 04.050 R1Righ�t�_of�entr�(. Whenever necessary to enforce any o tf he provisions—o this code, or whenever the fire chief 15.04.010 Title. has reasonable cause to believe that there exists In any build- 15.04.020 Purpose. Ind or upon any premises any condition contrary to the provisions 15.04.030 Administration. of this code, the chief, or his authorized representative, may 15.04.040 Oil committee--Authorization and duties. enter such building or premises at all reasonable tt,ses to in- 15.04.050 Right of entry. spect the same or to perform any duty Imposed upon the chief by 15.04.060 Operator's agent. this code If such entry is refused, the chief shall have re- 15.04.070 Well acquisition notice. course to ever . y remedy provided by law to secure entry. 15.04.080 Transfer of operator. Uo owner or occupant or any other person having, charge, 15.04.010 Title. This title shall be known and may be care or control of any building or premises shall fail or neg- lect, after proper demand, to permit prompt entry therein by lied as the City of Huntington Beach O11 Code. "Code, as a ferred to In this title, unless the context clearly indicates the chief for any purpose pursuant to this code. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) otherwise, shall mean the City of Huntington Beach Oil Code. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) 15.04.060 Operator's agent. Every operator of any well 15.04.020 Purpose. It is hereby declared to be the ur- shall designate himself or an agent, or agents, who is a resi- t p dent of the state of California, upon whom all orders and notices pose or this title to establish reasonable and uniform limits- provided in this code may be served in person, or by registered tions, safeguards and controls for present and future opera- or certified mail. Every operator so designating such agent shall tions related to drilling for and production of oil, gas, and witliln ten (10) days notify the department in writing of any other hydrocarbon substances within the city so that this ac•tivlty change to such agent or such mailing address unless operations may he conducted in harmony with other uses of land, thus pro- within the city are discontinued. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) tceting the people to the enjoyment and use of their property and provtding for their comfort, health, safety and general wel- 424 423 15.08.010--15.08.030 1 .04._010 vie:: a"qu,eltion notice. Every person who ac- lulrrr any welL, property ur sltt� upon which o1L operations exist, Sections: (Continued) whether by purehaa-�, tran3P?r, as signment, conveyance, exvhanr;e 011 uth.•rwise, shall within t,•n (10) days after acquiring such well . 15.08.020 Abandonment. property, ov site, not t('y tree ,epartinent Li writing of his owner- 15.08.030 Approved type and approved design. ship. The notlre .,h;il; cor,tatr, the folLowing: 15.08.040 Blowout preventer. 15.08.050 Cellar. (a) Tne nanr- an,! :viir.,.;s of the person acquiring such well, 15.08.060 Completion of drilling, redrilling and rework. 15.08070 Department property or bIte; 15.08:080 Derrick. (b) The cane ant location of the well; 15.08.090 Desertion. 15.08.100 Developed area. (c) Tne date ,r' aa)•itsttion; 15.08.110 Division of oil and gas. 15.08.120 Drilling. (d) A description of tne properties and equipment trans- 15.08.130 Drilling equipment. 15.08.140 Drill site. f:rred; 15.08.150 Enhanced recovery. (e) i-.e nacre and aairess of any person designated for serv- 15.08.160 Fluids. ice of not] 15.08.170 Gas.e. (Ord. iu91, 1 Jul 81) 15.08.180 Injection well. 15.04.080 Transfer of a 15.08.190 Lessee. operator. The operator of every 15.08.200 Lessor. well shall nott'y the department In writing of the transfer to 15.08.210 Maintenance. another operator of such well for any purpose. Within ten (10) 15.08.220 New well. days after such transfer by reason of sale, assignment, transfer, 15.08.230 Oil field recovery heater. conveyance or exchange, said notice shall be given and shall 15.08.240 Oil operation. contain the following: 15.08.250 Oil operation site. (a) The name and address of the person to whom such 15.08.260 Operator. 15.08.270 Outer boundary line. well was sold, assigned, transferred, conveyed or exchanged; 15.08.280 Owner. 15.08.290 Processing. (b) Tiie name and '.ocation of the well; 15.08.300 Redrill. 15.08.310 Reworking. (c) The date of sale, assignment, transfer, conveyance or 15.08.320 Source of ignition. exchange; 15.08.330 Sump or sump pit. 15.08.340 Tank. (d) The date when possession was relinquished by the 15.08.350 Well. former operator, and a description of the properties and equip- 15.08.360 Well servicing. ment transferred. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) 15.08.010 Definitions. The terms used in this title shall, unless the context indicates otherwise, have the respective mean- Chapter 15.08 ings herein set forth. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) DEFINITIO143 15.08.020 Abandonment. "Abandonment" shall be as defined ----- by the division of oil and gas of the department of conservation and shall include the restoration of the drill site as required 3ectlons: by these regulations. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) 15.0b.01U Definitions. 1 .08.0 0 Approved type and approved qe3 ig n. "Approved type an approve design"-shall mean and Ine u e Improvements, rr�' 426 1y.08.040--15.08.110 0.08.120--15.08.200 equipment or facilities of a type or design approved by the gas" shall mean the Division or Oil and Gas of the Department of development services department, fire department, or public. Conservation of the state of California or any other state agency works Department. (Ord. 2491, 1 .Jul 81) charged with its responsibilities. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) P.OB.040 Blowout preventer. "Blowout preventer" shall 15.08.120 Drilling. "Drilling" shall paean Jigging or boring mean a rnechanlcal, hydrau Sc, pneumatic or other device or com- a new well for the purpose of exploring for, developing or pro- binatton of such devices secured to the top of a well casing during oil, gas or other hydrocarbons, or for the purpose of in- including valves, fittings and control mechanism connected jecting water, steam or any other fluid or Substance into the therewith which can be closed around the drill pipe, or other earth. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) tubular goods which completely closes the top of the casing and is designed for preventing blowout. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) 15.08.130 Drillinetg equipment. "Drilling equipment" shall mean the derrick, togher with all parts of and appurtenances 15.08.050 Cellar. "Cellar" shall mean an excavation around to such structure, every piece of apparatus, machinery or equip- and above the top ,Joint of the casing of a well. (Ord. 2491, ment used or erected, or maintained for use In connection with 1 Jul 81) drilling. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) 15.08.060 Completion of drilling, redrilliJ and reworking. �1 .08.140 _Drill site. "Drill site" shall mean the premis.�s Drilling, red-rIl ing an reworking is comp etc or the purpose of used during the rimer reworking of a well or wells located these regulations, thirty (30) days after the drilling, redrilling thereon. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) or reworking crew has been released through completion of its work or released by those so employing said crew. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) 15.08.150 ELha_need recovery. "Enhanced recovery" shall mean any product on met which involves the injection of water, gas, 15.08.070 Department. "Department," unless specified steam, or any other fluid into the earth for the purpose of ex- otherwLae in this tittle, shall mean the fire department. (Ord. 2491, tracting oil or other hydrocarbons. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) 1 Jul 81) 15 0.16o Fluids. "Fluids" shall mean any gas or liquid. 15.08.080 Derrick. "Derrick" shall mean any portable (Ord. 2491. 1 Jul 1 framework, tower, mast or structure which is or are required or used in connection with drilling, reworking, operating, or main- 15.08.170 Gas. "Gas" shall mean any fluid, either com- tainLng a well ror the production of oil, gas or other hydrocarbons bustib a or noncombustible, which is produced in a natural state from the earth. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) from the earth and which maintains a gaseous or rarefied state at standard temperature and pressure conditions. It shall also 15.08.090 Desertion. "Desertion" shall mean the cessation mean the gaseous components or vapors occurring in or derived of operation at a drill site without compliance with the pro- from petroleum or natural gas. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) visions of this title relating to suspended operations, Idle wells, or abandonment. (0rd. 2491, 1 Jul 81) 15.08.180 I1 ctlon_ well. "Injection well" shall mean a well or gas we us or the purpose or injecting water, waste- 15.08.100 Developed area. "Developed area" shall mean: water, brine, hydrocarbons, steam or any other substance as a means of enhanced recovery, repressurization or disposal whether (a) 'Any area within 150 feet of an occupied residential, under pressure, gravity or vacuum. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) commercial, or office/professional structure which is itself 15.08.190 Leeaee. "Lessee" shall mean the person who has within one hundred (100) feet of another occupied residential, executes an of or gas lease or sublease, or the owner of the co mer,:tai, or office/professional structure; or land or minerals, or hie heirs, or who conducts or carries on (b) Any area within a public park, beach or recreation area any oil or gas exploration, development and operation thereof, which has heen developed and opened for or any person so operating for himself or others. (Ord. 2491, pe p public use. (Ord. 2491, i .Jul 81) t Jul 81) 15.08.110 _Division of oil and gas. "Division of oil and 15.08.200 Lessor. "Lessor" shall mean the owner of surface _ 428 421 15.08.210--15.08.?7� or mineral rights who has executed a lease. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) the lease or unit shall be deemed to interrupt such contiguity. 15.08.210 Maintenance. "Maintenance" shall mean and (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) Include the repair or replacement of machinery, equipment, ap- paratus, structure, facility and parts thereof, used in con- 15.08.280 Owner. "Owner" shall mean a person who owns nection with an oil operation site or drill site as well as any a legal or equitab a title in and to the surfaces of the drill other work necessary to reduce fire hazards or any hazards to site or oil operation site. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) my , public health, safety and welfare. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) 8.290 Processing. "Processing" shall wean the use of oil operations or gauging, recycling, compressor repressuring, 15.08.22Q New well. "Mew well" shall mean a new well bore injection, reinjection, dehydration, stimulation, separation or well hole e.tb lished at the ground surface and shall not in- (including but not limited to, separation of liquids from gas), elude redrilling or reworking of an existing well which is not shipping and transportation, and gathering oil, gas, other abandoned. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) hydrocarbon substances, water or any combination thereof. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) 15.08.2 0 Oil field recovery heater. "Oil field recover heater" shall mean an steam y 1 08.300 Redrill. "Redrill" shall mean recompletion of y generator, or air or water heater -�' used in an oil field thermal recovery operation. (Ord. 2491, an exis�ng well e by deepening or sidetrack operations extending 1 Jul 8L) more than 150 feet from the existing well bore. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) 15.06.240 011 operation. "Oil operation" shall mean the 15.08.310 R_eworklng. "Reworking" shall wean recompletion of use or maintenance of any natallation, facility or structure an existing we l within the existing Dore hole or by deepening or used, either directly or indirectly, to carry out or facilitate sidetrack operations which do not extend more than 150 feet from one or more of the following functions: drilling, redrilling, the existing well bore, or replacement of well liners or casings. reworking and repair, production, processing, extraction, en- (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) hanced recovery, stimulation, abandonment, storage or shipping of oil or gas from the subsurface of the earth. (Ord. 2491, 15.08.320 Source of Ignition. "Source of ignition" shall 1 Jul 81) mean any flame, are, spark or heated object or surface capable 15.08.250 O11 operation site. "Oil operation site" shall of igniting liquids, gases or vapors. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) mean the physical .cation where oil operations are conducted. 15.08.330 Sump or sump pIt. "Sump or sump pit" shall mean (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) an ear—the-fit fine or un ins for the or of oil field 15.08.260 Operator. "Operator" shall mean any person wastes. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) drilling, maintaining, operating, pumping or in control of any 15.08. 40 Tank. "Tank" shall mean a container, covered or well. However, if the operator, as herein defined, is different uncovers-use nf�conjunction with the drilling or production from the lessee under an oil or gas lease of any premises af- of oil, gas or other hydrocarbona for holding or storing fluids. fected by the provisions of this title, then such lessee shall (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) also be deemed to be an operator. In the event that there 1s no oil or gas lease relating to any premises affected by this 15.08.350 Well. "Well" shall mean any oil or gas well or title, the owner of the fee estate in the premises shall also well drilled for the production of oil or gas, or any well rea- be deemed an operator. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) sonably presumed to contain oil or gas. "Well" shall include the injection wells for the purpose of enhanced recovery, re- 15.08.2 0 Outer boundary line. Where several contiguous pressurization of the field and disposal wells for the purpose parcels of an to one or dl ferent ownerships are operated of disposing of wastewater. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) .as a single oil or gas lease or operating unit, the term "outer boundary line" shall mean the exterior limits of the land in- 15.08.360 Well servicing. "Well servicing" shall mean eluded to the lease or unit. In determining the contiguity the maintenance work per o-Nked within any existing well bore or any such parcel of land, no street, road or alley lying within 430 429 15.12.010--15.12.030 15.12.o40--15.12.060 which does not Involve drilling, redrilling or reworking. e'asary, each producing oil well and suspended or idle well or (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) any oil well deemed idle by this title for the purpose of ascer- taining whether the well Is being operated or maintained within the standards of this code. On the first day of July next after Chapter 15.12 the issuance of a drilling permit and on the first day of July of each year thereafter until the well has been abandoned, as pro- PERMITS AND FEES vided in this code, an annual renewal Inspection permit shall be obtained from the department for each and every well, Including Injection wells. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) Sections. 15.12.040 Annual renewal ins ection ermit--Additional 15.12.010 Permit required. requirements. a Fencing: Beginn ng m y 1, 1953, an annual 15.12.020 Drilling or redrilling permit. renewal inspection permit shall not be issued for any well In a 15.12.030 Annual renewal inspection permit. developed area, as defined in this title, which is not enclosed 15.12.040 Annual renewal inspection permit--Additional by a fence which conforms to the specifications contained in requirements. Chapter 15.22 of this title, and the regulations of the division 15.12.050 Wastewater annual permit. of oil and gas as contained in the California administrative 15.12.060 Reworking permit. code as they presently exist or may hereafter be amended. The 15.12.070 Activation permit. chief may grant an extension of six (6) months so that fencing 15.12.080 Other permits. requirements may be met if the area has become developed since 15.12.090 Encroachment permit. the issuance of the last annual renewal Inspection permit. 15.12.100 Fees set by resolution--Fee payment date. (b) Landaca 1 Beginning Jul 1 1 an annual re- 15.12.110 Permit procedure. 8 nd Y 983, 15.12.120 Permit utilization. newal inspect on permit shall not be issued for any well in a 15.12.130 Additional permits. developed area, as defined in this title, which has not been 15.12.140 Persons liable for fees. landscaped to conform to the requirements of this title and to 15.12.150 Penalty for delinquency. a landscape plan, submitted for the review and approval of the 60 Grounds for suspension or revocation. chief and the director of development services. The chief may 15.12.1 15.12.10 Effect of suspension or revocation permit. grant an extension of six (6e) months so that landscaping re- 15.12.180 Appeals, quirements may be met if the area has become developed since the issuance of the last annual renewal inspection permit. Land- 15.12.010 Permit requlr_ed. Permits shall be obtained from scaping shall not be required for any well or tank which is not the city OF Huntington sac or the oil operations, activl- visible from a public street unless the well is within a public ties, or structures in the city limits of Huntington Beach, as park, beach se. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81} or recreation area which has been developed and open for public use required by this title. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) 15.12.050 Wastewater annual permit. Oil well wastewater 15.12.020 Drilling or redrilling permit. Drilling or re- shall not be lac ar�ge�Into the Myra s sanitary serer system drillingng shall not be commend unSesa or until: unless a permit therefor Is obtained each calendar year from the public works department for every well discharging such (a) A copy of approval for such operations from the di- wastewater into the system. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) vision of oil and gas is submitted to the fire chief; and 15.12.060 Reworking permit. Reworking shall not be com- b) A permit for such operations has been obtained from menced unless or unt Ir. — the department. Said permit to herein referred to as a "drilling permit." (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) (a) A copy of approval for such operation from the di- vision of oil and gas Is submitted to the chief; and 1�12.030 Annual renewal ins ectlon ermit. The fire chief shall inspect annually, an at such other times as he deems nec- (b) A reworking permit for such operation has been ob- 431 432 1`). 1 •070--15.12.1I 15.12.120--15.12.140 talne,l from the department. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) (c) A plot plan showing the location of all oil facilities 15.12.070 Activation permit. No Shce well shall be actl- on the oil operation site including, but not limited to, wells, tanks, dikes, pipelines, heaters and storage sheds; vated without obtaining an activation permit in accordance with the provisions of this title. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) (,1) The location of the pearest public road or alley, oc- 15.12.080 Other permits. Building, plumbing, electrical, cupied residences and commercial structures within five hundred mechanical, fire demolition, tags, and other permits shall be obtained rest of the well; also the location all churches, hospl- P tals rest homes, schools, preschools, nurseries ries and places of from the appropriate department in accordance with the require- public assembly within five hundred (500) feet of the well; ments of, and In the manner specified by Title 17 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 8':) (e) A corporate surety bond in conformity with the provisions of this title; 15.12.090 Encroachment permit. An encroachment permit shall be obtaine rom tjie pub 1�c works department when it is (f) A landscape plan which meets the requirements of this necessary to encroach over public property with any oil oper- title. Exe�I12n: Reworking permits and wells which are not in ation. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 1) develops areass, as defined in this code shall be exempt from this requirement. 15.12.100 Fe ea set b resolution--Pee payment date. Fees shall be required for the sauance of each or the permits re- quired pursuant to this chapter. Such fees shall be set by perjury declaring that he is duly authorized to sign on behalf resolution of the city council. Said resolution shall also of the operator and file the application and that the information determine the conditions of payment and collection of the contained In the application is true and correct. (Ord. 2491, required fees. 1 Jul 81) The annual inspection fee shall be due and payable on 15.12.120 Permit utilization. No permit issued hereunder July 1 of each year and, if not paid, shall be delinquent on shall be valid unless utilization of the privileges granted August 1 of the same year. thereby be commenced within one hundred twenty (120) days from and after the date of issuance of the permit, or if after com- The wastewater annual permit fee shall be due and payable mencement, such activity is suspended or abandoned at any time on January 1 of each year and, if not paid, shall be delinquent for a period of one hundred twenty (120) days. on February 1 of the same year. If no work has commenced and the one hundred twenty (120) The drilling, reworking, and activation fees shall be due days commencement period has not expired, the permittee may re- and pa able at the time of application therefor. (Ord. 2491, quest, In writing, a refund for his fees paid minus ten dollars 1 Jul 81) (i10). (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) 15.12.110 Permit procedure. The application for a drilling, 15.12.130 Additional permits. The permits required by this reworking, or activation permit shall be obtained from and filed title are in addition to and are not in lieu of any permit which with the department. Said application shall contain the follow- may be required by any other provision of the Huntington Beach ing required information: Municipal Code or by any other government agency. The department shall not issue any permit under this title until all other per- mits required by other municipal departments, if any, have been Issued and a fee, If required, has been paid. (Ord. 2491, (b) Plans and engineering specifications of structure's, 1 Jul 81) drilling derricks, drilling masts, tank and high-pressure 15 12.140 Persona liable for fees. Each of the persons systems regulated by this code. Applicant need not file plans whose duty it is to obtain any permit shall be declared and and engineering specifications of standard derricks, masts and made to be Jointly and severally liable for the payment of the tanks when such standard plans and specifications are already on fee required to be paid. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) file and approved by the department; 433 434 1'i.12. 150--15.12.1'10 t5.1?.tdo 15.12.150 Penalty for delinquency. Any delinquent fee shall he subject to a penalty in an amount equal to 10 percent 15.12.180 Appeals. In addition to the hearings provided or such fee. Such penalty shall he added thereto for each for by this title, any person or entity whose drilling, re- month for such delinquency, and shall be collected as part of working, activation or annual renewal inspection permit is re- voked or whose well or equipment is deemed by the fire chief to such fee. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) be Idle may, within thirty (30) days of the decision of the 15.12.160 Grounds for suspension or revocation. The fire chief, file a written appeal to the planning commission 1n chief may, in writing, suspend or revoke any permit issued under accordance with the following procedure: the provisions of this code upon finding any of the following: (a) The planning commission shall have and exercise the (a) A permittee has failed, neglected or refused to per- power to hear and determine appeals where It is alleged there form, comply with and abide by any neglected the conditions of the Is error or abuse of discretion regarding the revocation of any permits issued hereunder or determination of the existence of permit; an idle well, as provided by this title. (b) That permittee has failed or neglected or refused to (b) An appeal shall be in writing and shall be filed in comply with or abide by, or has in any way violated any of the triplicate in the department of development services. The provisions of this code, or of any other ordinance of the city, grounds for appeal must be set forth specifically and the error or any other law, rule, or regulation either directly or in- described by the appellant. directly, by reason of or in connection with or incidental to his conduct of oil operations; (a) Within ten (10) days from and after the filing of (c) If any of the permlttee's operations or the contin- t the the appeal, the director of development services shall transmit planning commission all papers Involved in the pro- uance thereof upon the premises covered by the permit are a ceedings and two (2) copies of the appeal. In addition, the menace or hazard to public or private property, or to any in- director of development services shall make and transmit to the terest of the city, or to the lives or safety of persons; planning commission such supplementary reports as he may deem necessary to present the facts and circumstances of the case. (d) Any of the permittee's operations or the continuance Copies shall be mailed to the appellant ten (10) days prior to thereof upon the premises covered by the permit constitutes a the hearing. public nuisance as described in this title; (d) Upon receipt of the records, the director of development (e) If permittee shall have made any willful misrepre- services shall set the matter for hearing and give notice by mall sentation of facts in any application for any such permit, or of the time, place and purpose thereof to appellant, and any other In any report or record required by this code to be filed or party who has requested In writing to be so notified. No other furnished by permittee. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) notice need be given. 1, I%I10 Effect of suspension or revocation of_pe-it. (e) Upon the date for the hearing the planning commission No person s�Ia carry on any operations per ormed un er the shall hear the appeal unless, for cause, the planning commission terms of any permit during any period of permit suspension shall on that date continue the matter. No notice of continuance or revocation, or pending a judgment of the court upon any need be given if the order therefor is announced at the time for application for writ taken to review the decision or order of which the hearing was set. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) the city in suspending or revoking such permit; provided, how- ever, that nothing therein contained shall be construed to prevent the performance of such operation as may be necessary Chapter 15.16 In connection with a diligent and bona fide effort to cure and remedy the default, or violation for which the suspen- BONDS slon or revocation of the permit was ordered, or such opera- Sections: Lion as necessary for the safety of persons or as required by the division of oil and gas. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) 15.16.010 Existing wells--Exception for present bonds. 435 436 15.16.010--15.16.040 15.16.050- 15.16.070 Sections: (Continued) bond. The obligations and liabilities under the bonds required hereunder (corporate, surety or cash) are continuing obliga- 15.16.020 New wells--Bond required. dons and liabilities, and the liability of the surety under 15.16.030 Bond form. this bond may be terminated solely and only at the time or 15.16.040 Single bonds. times, in the manner and by strict compliance with the provi- 15.16.050 Substitutions. sions for termination of liability as set forth in the Huntington 15.16.060 Blanket bonds. Beach Municipal Code. Regardless of expenditures which may in- 15.16.070 Default In performance of conditions--Notice to cur from action on any bond, said bond shall always be main- be given. tamed at its original face value, and it shall be the re- 15.16.080 Exoneration. sponsibility of the principal to insure and provide that the bond shall be fully maintained. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) 15.16.010 ExlatinA wells--Exception for present bonds. Except as to oil bonds existing on the effective date of this 15.16.050 Substitution. A substitute bond may be filed oil code which satisfy the requirements of the previous In lieu of the bond on rye hereunder and the department shall Huntington Beach Oil Code, a bond in the form required by this accept and file same if it is qualified in proper form and title shall be filed for each well drilled prior to said effec- substance. The bond for which it is substituting shall then tive date of this title, which has not been abandoned prior to be exonerated. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) said effective date In accordance with the standards and laws of the state of California and the requirements of the 15.16.060 Blanket bonds. Any operator, in lieu of filing Huntington Beach Municipal Code. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) a separate bona on each well as required by the foregoing, may file a blanket bond in the amount of fifty thousand dollars 15.16.020 New wells--Bond required. A bond or bond rider ($501000) if he has more than five (5) wells. (Ord. 2491, In the form required by this title shall accompany every appli- 1 Jul 81) cation for drilling or reworking of any oil well, injection well, or disposal well. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) 15.16.070 Default in performance of conditions--Notice to beai�ve�n. Whenever the department rinds that a default has 15.16.030 _ Bond form. Bonds or riders to existing bonds occurred in the performance of any requirement or condition of shall be on forms approved by the city attorney and shall be these regulations, a written notice thereof shall be given to filed with the department. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) the principal and to the surety on the bond. Such notice shall specify the work to be done, the estimated cost thereof and the 15.16.040 Single bonds. Corporate surety bonds in the period of time deemed by the department to be reasonably necessary penal sum of ten thousan ollars ($10,000) shall be required for the completion of such work. After receipt of such notice, for each well. The bonds shall be executed by the operator as the surety shall, within the time therein specified, either cause principal and by the authorized surety company as surety and or require the work to be performed, or failing thereupon, shall conditioned that the principal named in the bond shall faithfully Pay over to the department 125 percent of the estimated cost of comply with this title and any other ordinance of the city of doing the work as set forth in the notice. Upon receipt of such Huntington Beach, which ordinance, law, rule or regulation in monies, the department shall proceed by such mode as deemed convenient to cause the required work to be performed and coin- any manner pertains or applies to any of the principal's oil pleted, but no liability shall be incurred therein other than for operations. Compliance by the principal named in the bond shall Include compliance with an and all provisions, amendments the expenditure pe said sum In hand. In the event that the well P Y P nas not been properly abandoned under the regulations of the and changes In the Huntington Beach Municipal Code regularly dtvtsion of oil and gas, such additional money may be demanded adopted. The bond shall secure the city of Huntington Beach from the surety as is necessary to restore the drill site in against all costs, charges and expenses incurred by it for conformity with the regulations or this title. toe failure of the principal to comply fully with the provisions of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code. The bond shall include In the event the surety does not cause the work to be the correct name and number and legal description or precise performed dnd fails or refuses to pay over to the department location of the well and such other Information as may be nec- the estimated cost of the work to be done as set forth In essary to Identify the oil well readily. Any operator may fur- the notice, the city may proceed to obtain compliance and abate nish negotiable securities or cash In lieu of a corporate surety 438 437 j 15.16.o8o :5.2o.u1u--15•zo.a3u the default by way of civil action against the surety, or by criminal action against the principal, or by both such methods. Sections: Contlnue,i) (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) 15.20.280 Setbacks--General. 15.16.080 Exoneration. When the well or wells, covered by 15.20.290 Portable pulling masts and gin poles--Removal said bonds have been properly abandoned In conformity with all of. regulations of this title, and in conformity with all regulations 15.20.300 Pipelines. of the division of oil and gas and notice to that effect has been 15.20.310 Storage of equipment. received by the department, or upon receipt of a satisfactory 15.20.010 Derricks. All derricks and portable masts used substitute bond, the bond issued in compliance with these regu- for drilling or reworking shall meet the standards and specifica- lations shall be terminated and cancelled and the surety relieved dons of the American Petroleum Institute as they presently exlat of all obligations thereunder. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) or may be amended hereafter. All drilling, redrilling or reworking equipment shall be re- Chapter 15.20 moved from the operation site within thirty (30) days following the completion of drilling, redri111ng or reworking unless other- DRILLINO, OPERATION AND SAFETY REGULATIONS wise permitted by the division of oil and gas. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) Sections: 15.20.020 In.pectlon. If a well is to be drilled or re- workea within one hum red fifty (150) feet of any occupied 15.20.010 Derricks. structure or street right-of-way, after the operating equipment 15.20.00 Ina is securely in place and prior to commencement of drilling, the Pcks operator shall notify the department for the purpose of Inspec- 15.20.030 Well setbacks. tion. If an inspection 13 anticipated to be needed other than 15.20.040 Lights. during normal working hours, the operator shall notify the de- 15.20.050 Signs. partment during a working day of the approximate time the 15.20.060 "No smoking" signs. operator will be ready for the inspection and shall not commence 15.20.070 Waste removal. drilling until the department has made an inspection and given 15.20.080 Unlined sump, sump pits or skim ponds--Prohibited. approval to commence. The fire chief shall not give his ap- 15.20.090 Private roads and drill sites. proval until all the applicable provisions of the Huntington 15.20.100 Oil operations--Location--Time. Beach Municipal Code have been met. The chief shall make his 15.20.110 Well servicing hours. inspection within a reasonable time after receiving notice from 15.20.120 Wellhead safety equipment. the operator. 15.20.130 Blowout prevention. 15.20.140 Cellars. Upon completion of drilling or reworking operations, the 15.20.150 Fence permit required. operator shall notify the department, and the chief shall make 15.20.160 Fences. an inspection of said drill site to insure that provisions of 15.20.170 Masonry wall .pecifications. this code and/or any conditions of the drilling or reworking per- 15.20.180 Gate specifications. mit have been met. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) 15.20.190 Operation of oil field recovery heaters. 15.20.200 Notification of installation. 15.20.030 Well setback.. It shall be unlawful to drill 15.20.210 Installation. any we , the center or which at the surface of the ground is 15.20.220 Soundproofing. located within twenty-five (25) feet 15.20.230 Muffling exhaust.15.20.240 Public nuisance declared. (a) From any outer boundary line, or 15.20.250 Fire prevention--Sources of ignition. 15.20.260 Oil storage tanks. (b) From any recovery heater, oil storage tank, or source 15.20.270 Tank setbacks. of ignition, or 439 440 15.20.040--15.20.060 `- (a) Within one hundred (100) feet of any building not nec- essary to the operation of the well, or oackground or white on a red background. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) (d) Within three hundred (300) feet of any building used 15.20.070 Waste removal. Rotary mud, drill cutting, oil as a place of public assembly, institution or school, or or 11qui-a hydrocarbons and al) other oil field wastes derived or resulting from, or connected with the drilling or reworking (a) Within twenty (25) feet of any public street, road of any well shall be discharged into a portable steel tank. or highway or future street right-of-way. Setbacks shall conform Waste materials shall be removed from the operation site within to appropriate provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. thirty (30) days from and after completion of drilling. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) (f) The distances net out in subsections (c), (d) and (e) 1 .20.080 Unlined sump, sump pits or skim ponds--Prohibited. of this section may be reduced at the discretion of the chief if a six (6) foot masonry wall 1s constructed around the perimeter No persons a own, operate, have possession of, be in control of, of the site. For protection of the public health, safety and or maintain any well site, former well site or property on which welfare, the chief may impose additional requirements for a reduc- an unlined sump or sump pit or skim pond is located. All such tlon of such distances. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81} sumps or sump pits and skim ponds shall be excavated of all for- eign materials and filled with compactible earth to the level of .20.040 Lights. No person shall permit or allow any the surrounding terrain. The provisions of this section shall lights located on any oil operation site to be directed In not apply to portable sump tanks as required by the state divi- such a manner so that they shine directly on adjacent prop- slop of oil and gas or the regional water pollution control board. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) erty or property in the general vicinity of the oil operation site. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) 1 .20.0 0 Private roads and drill sites. Prior to the 15.20.050 Signs. A sign shall be prominently displayed commencement o any drilling operations, all private roads used for access to the drill site and the drill site itself shall and maintained in good condition near or on the pumping unit or be surfaced with crushed rock, gravel or decomposed granite, or �.. fence of each well whether producing or not. Such sign shall be oiled and maintained to prevent dust and mud. In particular of durable material and, unless otherwise required by the di- cases these requirements governing surfacing of private roads vision of oil and gas, shall have a surface area of not leas may be altered at the discretion of the chief after considera- than two (2) square feet nor more than four (4) square feet and tion of all circumstances including, but not limited to, the shall be lettered with the following: following: distances from public streets and highways; distances from adjoining and nearby property owners whose surface rights (a) Well name and number; are not leased by the operator; the purpose for which the prop- erty of such owners is or may be used; topographical features; (b) Name of operator; nature of the soil; and exposure to wind. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) (c) Telephone numbers of two (2) persons responsible for 1 20.100 011 operations--Location-Tlme. (a) IL shall be said well who may be contacted in case or an emergency. unlaw uf6rany person to engage In any work whatsoever on any oil operation site within three hundred (300) feet of a dwelling In the event the drill Bite or leasehold in fenced or walled unit, church, hospital, rest home, school, preschool, nursery, or it shall be sufficient if all entrances to said drill site or other place of public assembly, except in the following situations: leasehold are posted with a like sign. In addition, a readily visible sign of durable material designating the well name and (1) Where such work consists of minimum maintenance number shall be posted on or near each and every well within the or surveillance on the oil operation site; and/or drill site or leasehold. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) (2) Where such work Is conducted between the hours 15.20.060 "No amokin " el ns. "No smoking" signs of a of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m.; and/or durable material shall be posted and maintained in all locations approved or designated by the fire chief. Sign lettering (3) In case of emergency; and/or shall be four (4) Inches In height and shall be red on a white 442 441 1 i 1 f i k 0 f ( 0 15.20.110--15.20.130 15.20.140--15.20.160 �- (4) Where so ordered by the division of oil and gas; and/or state division of oil and gas and the safety orders for dril- (5) Where the work Doing so conducted is soundproofed ling and production of the state division of industrial safety. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) and such soundproofing is approved by the chief. (b) Where operations are conducted beyond a distance of to ce15ars�140 _Cellars. The following regulations shall apply three hundred (300) feet from the aforementioned facilities, the chief may, in cases of disturbance, such as excessive noise (a) •Every cellar shall be constructed in accordance with or vibration, require the oil operator to: the Huntington Beach Building Code and with the requirements as they now exist, or are hereafter amended, of the California (1) Enclose the derrick and all drilling machinery division of industrial safety; used in connection with drilling of any well, with fire resis- tant soundproofing material, which shall be maintained in a serv- (b) Except during drilling and servicing operations, such iceable condition. No operations other than well logging shall cellars shall be kept covered, free from water, oil drilling be conducted outside the enclosure; or fluids, rubbish, debris, or other substances; (2) Enclose all drilling machinery used in connection (c) All multiwell cellars exceeding three (3) feet in with the drilling, redrilling, or reworking operations with fire depth and twenty-five (25) feet In length shall have two (2) resistant soundproofing material Including the drilling mast or separate means of exit or entrance. If the cellar exceeds two derrick, which shall be so enclosed on a minimum of three (3) hundred (200) feet in length, a third means of entrance and aides to a height of twenty (20) feet, and conduct no operations exit shall be provided. The depth of such cellars shall be between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. with the exception of the vertical distance between the lowest point of the floor circulation of fluids and well logging. The fire chief may allow of such cellar and the adjacent ground level; other phases of the operation to continue during the restricted hours if, in his opinion, the noise is minimal, or if required by (d) Multiwell cellars shall have a steel grate or covering the division of oil and gas, or in the case of emergency. with no unobstructed openings in excess of three (3) inches. (Ord. 2532, 3 Feb 82; Ord. 2491, 7/81) (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) 15.20.110 Well servicing hours. It shall be unlawful to 15.20.150 Pence petwit rejulred. No fence or wall shall do any work between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. in connec- be eonatructe3-to enc oae any of well site, oil operation site tion with pulling a well which is within two hundred (200) feet or drilling island site in whole or in part until a permit of any residential building, except where circulation In the therefor shall have been issued by the development services Je- well must be maintained, or the well would be endangered If the partment. As a condition of issuing such permit, the director pulling work were not continued. (Ord. 2532, 3 Feb 82; of development services or the fire chief may impose thereon Ord. 2491, 7/81) any conditions as are necessary in the Interest of the public safety, and such fence or wall shall be constructed in accord- 15.20.120 Wellhead safety equipment. On all wells there ance with such conditions. The provisions relating to dedica- shall be connected to the casing string a two (2) Inch steel tion of right-of-way and construction of Improvements shall not valve with a rated working pressure equal to that of the corre- be applicable to the issuance of such permit. All such en- valve with casing head for the purpose of bleeding off casing closures shall be subject to the setback requirements contained pressure and for hookup to kill the well In case of an emergency. in this title. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) 15.20.160 Fences. All oil operation sites, drilling is- 5.20.130 Blowout prevention. In all cases, protection lands, and individual drill sites having external moving parts 1 shall provided to prevent blowout during oil operations as hazardous to life or limb shall be completely enclosed by a chain link fence, masonry wall, or other approved fencing material ac- required by and in conformance with the requirements of the cording to one of the following requirements: 443 `' 444 15.20.160 17.20. : J--lti.20. 180 (a) Individual drill sites: and the director or development services In accordance with the (1) All chain link fence enclosures shall have a mini- provisions of Chapter 5.22. mum height or six (6) feet; (6) Post and rails shall be standard galvanized, welded ' (2) There shall be at least one gated opening for pipe, schedule forty (40) or thicker; provided, however, that access, placed in a nonhazardous position and said gate(s) shall nongalvanized drill pipe may be used if It exceeds schedule forty be kept locked at all times while left unattended by a watchman (40) in thickness; or serviceman; (7) All pipe and other ferrous parts, except chain (3) There shall be no opening below the fence greater link fabric and drill pipe, shall be galvanized Inside and out- than four (4) inches; side with a plating which contains a minimum of 1.2 ounces of zinc per square foot of surface area; (4) Fencing constructed of individual chain link (8) Tension rods shall be three-eighths (3/8) inch panels shall be securely latched, pinned or hinged to prevent round steel bolt stock. Adjustable tighteners shall be turn- unauthorized persona from gaining access to such equipment or buckle or equivalent having a six (6) inch minimum take-up. oil site; Tension bars shall have a minimum thickness of one-fourth by (5) Support posts shall be set In concrete and shall three-fourths, (1/4 x 3/4) inch. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) be Imbedded into the ground to a depth sufficient to maintain 15.20.170 Masonry wall specifications. All masonry walla the stability of the fence; used to enc ose in who a or in part any oil well site, oil operation site or drilling island site shall be constructed in (6) The fence shall at all times be maintained in accordance with standard engineering practices and shall meet a state of good repair. the following specifications: (b) Oil operation sites and drilling islands: All chain (a) The wall shall be of a design compatible with the link fences used to enclose In whole or in part any oil opera- facilities, buildings and structures on and adjacent to the tion site or drilling island site shall meet the following specifi- site; cations: (b) The wall shall be at least six (6) feet In height; (1) The fence fabric shall be at least six (6) feet In height; (c) It shall be constructed in accordance with the pro- visions of the Huntington Beach Building Code. (Ord. 2491, (2) Support posts shall be set In concrete and shall 1 Jul 81) oe imbedded into the ground to a depth sufficient to maintain the stability of the fence; 15.20.180 Oate specifications. For oil operations and drill sites, all chain link fences and masonry walls shall be (3) The chain link fabric shall be galvanized steel equipped with at least one gated area. The gated areas shall wire with a minimum plating of 1.2 ounces of zinc per square foot meet the following specifications: of surface area or shall be coated with vinyl or plastic material, approved by the fire chief, with both selvages barbed; (a) Each gated area shall be twelve (12) feet wide and be composed of two (2) gates, each of which is six (6) feet (4) The chain link fence fabric shall have a minimum wide, or one sliding gate twelve (12) feet wide. The gates thickness of eleven (11) gauge; shall latch and lock In the center of the twelve (12) foot span; (5) The chain link fabric shall be two (2) inch mesh; (b) The gates shall be of chain link construction which provided, however, three and one-half (3 112) inch mesh may be meets the applicable specifications or of other approved material used on any fence where the fabric is interwoven with artificial which, for safety reasons, shall be at least as secure as chain screening of redwood slats or other material approved by the chief link fence; 445 446 15.20.190--15.20.210 15.20.220--15.20.260 (c) They shall be provided with a combination catch and locking attachment device for a padlock, and shall be kept one foot or wrapped with a minimum of one Inch thick approved locked except when being used for access to the site; asbestos pipe insulation. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) (d) Hinges shall be heavy duty malleable Iron or steel 15.20.220 3oun�roofing. Where an oil field recovery industrial service type with a one hundred eighty (180) degree heater la operate within a developed area, the fire chief may, awing. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) In cases of disturbance such as excessive noise or vibration, require the operator to: 15.20.190 Operation of oil field recovery heaters. All (a) Enclose the heater with a fire-resistant, soundproofing oil field recovery heaters steal have a vatld state of California material which shall be maintained in a serviceable condition; or "permit to operate" and shall be equipped with and operated by safety controls which monitor certain essential operating con- (b) In the case of emergency or when it has been determined ditions and which shall shut down the boiler and require manual by the chief that the noise or vibration is detrimental to the restart when any of the essential conditions vary from pre- health, safety or welfare of the surrounding neighborhood, the scribed limits. An emergency shutdown switch shall be in- chief may order the operator to cease operationa. (Ord. 2491, stalled a minimum or fifty (50) feet from the oil field re- 1 Jul 81) covery heater and shall be Identified as such by a sign with let- ters not leas than three (3) inches high. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) 15.20.230 Muffling exhaust. It shall be unlawful for any person, owner or operator to discharge into the open air 15.20.200 Notification of Installation. Prior to the in- the exhaust from any steam engine, internal combustion engine stallation anatlon of any oir-lei recovery heater, the stationary or mounted on wheels, used In connection with the person or entity proposing to install and operate such heater drilling of any well or for use on any production equipment shall so notify the department. All heaters shall be installed unless it to equipped with an exhaust muffler, or mufflers or and operated in compliance with the applicable provisions of an exhaust muffler box constructed of noncombustible materials this chapter. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) sufficient to suppress noise and prevent the escape of obnoxious gases, fumes or ignited carbon or soot. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) 1,.20.210 Installation. The distance between oil field recovery heaters residential, commercial, and public as- I'.20.240 Public nuisance declared. The foregoing sec- sembly buildings shall be as follows: tions notwithstanding, no person shall conduct any oil operation in a manner that would create a noise, odor or vibration detrl- (a) 011-fired recovery heaters: five hundred (500) feet. mental to the health, safety or welfare of the surrounding neigh- Except where enclosed by a six (6) foot high masonry wall, the borhood or any considerable number of persons. Such operation is distance may be reduced to one hundred (100) Peet; hereby declared to constitute a public nuisance. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) (b) Oaa-fired recovery heaters: three hundred (300) feet. Except where enclosed by a six (6) foot high masonry 15.20.250 Fire prevention--Sources of Ignition. All elec- wall, the distance may be reduced to fifty (50) feet. trlcale pment use inata led or maintained within fifty (50) feet of a drilling rig, or within twenty-five (25) feet of any (c) All oil field recovery heaters shall be separated other oil operation shall be installed and maintained in accord- s minimum of twenty-five (25) feet from any oil storage tank, ance with all applicable state and municipal regulations. wellhead or public right-of-way; No boiler, peas-through holler, steam generator, direct- (d) Oil field recovery heaters being operated in a de- fired heater, gas or oil-burning device, or other open flame veloped area, as defined in this title, shall be completely shall be located closer than twenty-rive (25) feet from a well- fenced, including the wellhead, with a six (6) foot high chain head or oil storage tank. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) link or other approved fence complete with two (2) self-closing 15.20.260 011 storage tanks. All tanks used for the storage, gates installed on opposite sides of the enclosure. Steam lines production off` odor t're disposal of wastewater shall conform from the heater to the wellhead shall be buried to a depth of to the following: 447 448 15.20.270--15.�'0.290 i ia) A.r.1. Specifications. All tanks shall conform to American Petroleum Institute TA.P.I.) specifications unless other specifications are approved by the fire chief. (b) Structural Requirements. If, as determined by the chief, any structure used or operated In connection with any oil operation is structurally unsound to the point of being hazardous, he may order the person In charge of such o.'.1 oper- ation to provide licensed civil or structural engineers' analy- sis pertaining to the adequacy of said structure. (c) Dikes and Ca acit Requirements. All persona owning, operating or av ng contro o storage tanks, clarifying tanks or tanks used in connection with the production of oil shall construct and maintain dikes around said tanks. Drainage dikes and walla shall be constructed and maintained to meet the stand- ards of the National Fire Protection Association as they presently exist or may hereafter be amended. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 1) 15.20.270 Tank setbacks. All new tanks, including replace- ment tanks, and permanent structures shall be set back pursuant to the standards of the National Fire Protection Association as I ;i they presently exist or may hereafter be amended, but in all cases shall be at least a minimum of twenty-five (25) feet from \ N fI an ultimate right-of-way as defined in the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. EXCEPTION; The replacement of existing oil storage tanks, which pose a hazard of bursting or of severe leakage or of any other danger to persons or other property, and which cannot meet the required setback limits, may be authorized by the fire chief but in no case may the replacement tank be of a larger capacity diameter or height than the existing tank. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 91) 15.20.280 Setbacks--General. With the exception of pumping units, no oil production equipment over forty-two (42) inches high shall be located or relocated within the safety-eight angle at street intersections. a z The safety-sight angle shall be triangular and formed by p measuring to a point twenty-five (25) feet along the front and exterior side lot lines of a corner lot from the point of inter- section of said lines and striking a hypotenuse between the two Z points, as Illustrated in the diagram included herein. U O (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) m p to 15.20.290 Portable pulling masts and gin poles--Removal Z� of. All well servicing equipment, including portable pulling Z masts and gin poles, shall be removed from the leasehold, oil Z 7 Z x 449 1. 15.20.300--15.20.310 15.22.010--15.22.030 operation site or drill site within seven (7) days after can- Sections: (Continued) pletlon of a well servicing operation. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) 15.20.300 Pipelines. Within six (6) months after adoption 15.22.040 Landscaping for developed areas--Drilling and in developed areas, as defined in activation. of this chapter, all pipelines P 15.22.050 Landscaping--Minimum area. this title, which are not enclosed within a fence shall be placed 15.22.060 Landscaping--Minimum requirements. underground or covered with materials approved by the fire chief. Such covering shall be maintained In a neat, orderly, secure 1, .22.010 Screeni --Develo d areas. On or before July 1, manner. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) 1983, a of we a and tanks ocated n eveloped areas, as de- fined in this title, shall be screened by a fence enclosure con- 15.20.310 Storage of equipment. (a) No drilling, re- structed of one of the following materials: drilling, reworking, or other portable equipment shall be stored on the oil operation site which is not essential to the everyday (a) A solid masonry wall; operation of the oil well located thereon. This includes the removal of idle equipment unnecessary for the operation of gas (b) A chain link fabric with three and one-half (3 112) inch wells, flowing wells, disposal wells, water and steam injectors mesh Interwoven with redwood slats. The director of development and wells produced by electric bottom hole pumps. However, services may approve the use of other opaque materials for use drilling or production equipment may be stored on an oil opera- with chain link fabric if he finds such materials are compatible tion site if such site to entirely enclosed with a fence that with surrounding uses and effectively screen the oil operation; conforms to the specifications set out in this title and the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, and such storage is a permitted (c) Any other material, compatible with surrounding uses, use in the base zone district of the site. which effectively screen the oil operation site, approved by the director of development services. (b) Lumber, pipes, tubing and casing shall not be left on the oil operation site except when drilling or well servicing (d) All fencing, masonry walls, redwood slatting, or other operations are being conducted on the site. comparable materials for use with chain link fabric, shall be of a solid neutral color, compatible with surrounding uses, and (c) Waste control shall conform to applicable provisions maintained in a neat, orderly, secure condition. Neutral colors of the Huntington Beach Fire Code. shall include sand, grey and unobtrusive shades of green, blue and brown, or other colors approved by the fire chief. (d) It shall be illegal for any person, owner or operator (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) to park or store any vehicle or item of machinery in any driveway, alley or upon any oil operation site which constitutes a fire 1 .22.020 Screenin --Drillin redrillin and activation. hazard or an obstruction to or Interference with fighting or Within sixty 0 days of completion of drilling or redrilling, controlling fires except that equipment which Is necessary for or within sixty (60) days of activation of an Idle well if such the maintenance of the oil well site or for gatherin or trans- well is located in a developed area, as defined in this title, such well shall be screened by a fence enclosure which con- I ion of hydrocarbon substances from the site. Ord. 2491, forms to the requirements of this chapter, the provisions set Julul 81) out elsewhere in this code, and the regulations or the division of oil and gas contained in the California administrative code Chapter 15.22 as the yy presently exist or may hereafter be amended. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) SCREENINO AND LANDSCAPING 15.22.031 Screening setbacks. Minimum setbacks for all screening shall ha meet the provisions of the Huntington Beach Sections: Ordinance Code applicable to the oil operation site but In no case shall be less than five (5) feet from the ultimate right- 15.22.010 Screening--Developed areas. of-way of any public street. The director of development 15.22.020 Screening--Drilling, redrilling and activation. services may reduce such required setbacks where an oil well 15.22.030 Screening setbacks. 45o 451 1'?.22.040--1'i.. H)o � .�. or other necessary e.iutpment is or must he located In the set- n back area, In which case special landscaping requirements for ( �� ser'eening purposes may be Imposed. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) w 15.22.040 Landscaping for developed areas--Drilling and n activation. Prlor to the issuance of any drilling or activation j m permit, a landscaping plan which meets the requirements of this s H u chapter, shall be subtultted for review and approval by the fire a z z chief and the director of development services. Within sixty (60) 4 a w days after completion of drilling or redrllling or within sixty (60) days after activation of an idle well, any oil operation site' in a developed area, as defined in this title, shall be land- scaped in conformance with the plan submitted and approved, and the specifications contained in this chapter. Landscaping shall not be required for any well which is not visible from a public street unless the well Is within a public park, beach or recreation area which has been developed and open for public use. (Ord. 2491, O o I Jul 81) rX Y < 15.22.050 Landscaping--Minimum area. The minimum area re- x < w quired to be landscaped at an oil operation site shall be that W a area between each lot boundary line fronting a public street and < �� a line or- lines drawn parallel to each lot boundary line fronting o z on a public street and through the center of any well or tank c on such site. When there Is more than well or tank on an oil c4 u operation site, the well or tank closest to each boundary line o fronting on a public street shall be used to determine the mini- z mum landscape area. Any area enclosed by a fence meeting the re- w quirements of this title, shall be excluded from the minimum area w to be landscaped. (See Figures 1 and 2.) (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) y ° z o x 15.22.060 Landscaping--Minimum requirements. The minimum number of trees and shrubs per square foot shall be as follows: I a I m Square footage of I 3 minimum landscape Minimum trees Minimum shrubs a Q 0-149 1 3 I a 150-249 2 6 i z 250-349 350-449 4 12 I O 450-549 5 15 550-649 6 18 =z 650-749 7 21 u 0 750-849 8 24 850-949 9 27 z o 950-1499 10 30 p 1500-1999 12 36 0 Z 2000 - as determined by the director of development services z Z r �Z 452 �. 15.24.010--15.24.060 15.24,070--15.28.010 Sections: (Continued) operation site shall be painted and maintained at all times, including pumping units, storage tanks, heaters, and buildings 15.24.060 Painting. or structures. When requiring painting of such facilities, the 15.24.070 Gas emission or burning prohibited. fire chief shall consider the deterioration of the quality of the material of which such facility or structure is constructed, 15.24.010 Cleanup after well servicing. After completion the degree of rust, and its appearance. Paint shall be of a of well servicing or abandonment operations, the responsible neutral color, compatible with surrounding uses. Neutral colors party shall pump out the cellar, clean the drill site area and shall include sand, grey and unobtrusive shades of green, blue repair all damage to public property caused by such servicing and brown, or other colors approved by the chief. All produc- or abandonment operations. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) tion equipment shall be painted a neutral color, as defined herein, within six (6) months after the adoption of this chapter. 15.24.020 Oil spill plans required. An oil spill contin- gency plan or spill plan sha 1 be required for every oil opera- EXCEPTIONS: The color requirements of this section shall not tion site, and available for Inspection by the chief at any time. apply where there are continuing and ongoing multiple drilling Plana prepared pursuant to applicable provisions of the California operations which (a) do not have public access; (W are not ad- administrative code as they presently exist, or may hereafter be jacent to existing residential property or property that Ls gen- amended shall satisfy the requirements of this section. eral planned or zoned for residential use; and (a) are screened (Ord. 2491. 1 Jul 81) from public view. (Ord. 2515, 4 Nov 81, Ord. 2491, 7/81) 15.24.0 0_ Cleanu after a Lila leaks and malfunctions. 15.24.070 Osa emission or burning prohibited. No person After any ap1T�lea or ma unction, t e reaponaib a party shall shall—al ow or cause or permit gases to be vented Into the at- remove or cause to be removed to the satisfaction of the chief mosphere or to be burned by open flame except as provided by all oil and waste materials from any public or private property law or as permitted by the division of oil and gas or appropriate affected by such spill, leak or malfunction. (Ord. 2491, air pollution control district. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) 1 Jul 81) 15.24.040 Releasing of fluids. No person shall deposit, Chapter 15.28 place, discharge or cause or permit to be placed, deposited or WASTEWATER SYSTEM discharged any oil, naptha, petroleum, asphaltum, tar, hydro- carbon substances or any refuse including wastewater and brine from any oil operation or the contents of any container used in Sections: connection with an oil operation in, into, or upon a public rlght-of-way, a storm drain, ditch or sewer; a sanitary drain or 15.28.010 Wastewater system. sewer; any portion of the Pacific Ocean or any body of water; or 15.28.010 WastewaterSewer -connect permit--Application fee. any private property In this city. 15.28.030 Contents of application--Property description. EXCEPTION: Treated wastewater and brine may be discharged 15.28.040 Damages. either Into a sanitary sewer If a permit is obtained for such 15.28.0 Discharge line. discharge In accordance with the provisions of this title, or 15.28.060 0 Rules for laying drainpipe to sanitary sewer. Into an outfall approved by the regional water quality control 2g,010 Wastewater system. For the purpose of handling board. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) Indust rlaT waste. From o11 a�na gas wells, including wastewater 15.24.050 Freedom from debris. All property on which an and brine, the public works department shall issue a sewer con- nection permit whenever such waste is to be deposited into the oil well site is located ahall at all times be kept free of city's sanitary sewer system, provided such industrial waste does (a) debris; (b) pools of oil, water or other liquids; not contain more than one hundred (100) milligrams/liter of any (c) weeds; (d) brush; (e) trash, or other waste material, crude, distilled or refined petroleum products, mud, rotary mud, (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) olla, or other residual products mentioned in Orange County rani- 15.24.060 Painting, All production equipment on the oil tation district discharge regulations. Such Industrial waste .. 45y 454 15.28.020--15.28.060 15.32.010--15.32.040 shall be processed through a clarification system approved by the department. At no time shall discharge water be over 1400 Fahren- Sections: (Continued) heft at point of entry to the sewer. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) I5•32.030 Production report--Palae. %2820 Sewer connection permit--Application ree. No 15.32.040 Nonproducing oil wells. connectio .0 n shall be made to the city's sanitary sewer system 15.32.050 Idle wells• until a sewer connection permit has been obtained from the 15.32•o60 Site restoration--Procedure. public works department. An application for such sewer connec- 15.32.070 Extension of nonconforming rights. tion permit shall be filed with the department together with a 15.32.080 Site restoration--Time limit. fee per sewer connection, as established by resolution of the 15.32.090 Abandonment procedure. city council. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) 15.32.100 Abandoned well requirement. 15.32.110 Abandoned well--Surface requirements. 15.28.030 Contents of aDDlicatlon--Property deecriptlon. 15.32.120 Abandonment requirements prior to new Said appiica on s a coRa n a ea ecc�pt o—� off- he propartyconstruction. upon which said water or wastewater is located, the name of 15.32.130 Maintenance of records. the owner of the property, the point where the water will be 2,010 Production re rt--Filing date a. The operator discharged into said sanitary sewer, the location of the clari- of any we shall e w th the epartment, during the first fying plant, type of plant to be used, including plane and specifications approved by the public works department and the thirty (30) days of each quarter, for the last preceding calendar quarter, a statement in such form as the fire chief may desig- method of clarifying and settling the objectionable substances nate, showing: from said water, including plane and specifications of wastewater settling systems. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) (a) The amount of oil and gas produced from each well 15.28.040 Dto c ty. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81)amages. The permit tee shall be responsible during the period indicated and the number of days during which for a damages y proper fluid was produced from each well; (b) The number of wells drilling, reworking, producing, 15,28.05o Discharge line. The discharge line shall have idle, and owned or operated by such person; an approved gate valve and shall be provided with an approved method of observing or testing the wastewater for impurities. (c) In lieu of the above, the operators may submit to the (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) chief copies of state of California, division of oil and gas 15.28.060 Rules for laying drainpipe to sanitary sewer. gas; Form 110 report, as submitted to the state division of oil and The method of installation for the discharge line from the clarifying tank, including all pipe and fittings, shall be (d) Oil operators and buyers of gas from wells in in accordance with the provisions of the Huntington Beach Huntington Beach shall be required to meter such gas for inspec- Plumbing Code. No sewer connection to the city's sanitary tion and review by the chief when the latter requests same. sewer system shall be made by other than a licensed plumbing (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) contractor. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) 15.32.020 Productlon report--Failure. Failure to report product on as req�re3�n this c apter shall constitute a mis- Chapter 15.32 demeanor punishable as set forth in Chapter 1.16 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) NONPRODUCINO AND IDLE WELLS 15.32.030 Production report--False. Piling a false, fraud- ulent, or intentionally inaccurate report shall constitute a mis- Sections: demeanor punishable by fine, imprisonment or both. (Ord. 2491, i Jul 81) 15.32.010 Production report--Piling dates. 15.32.020 Production report--Failure. 15.32.040 Nonproducing oil wells. Whenever any oil well, 456 457 15.32.050 15.32.060--15.32.070 conforming with ti.r 1:rc.vl3ion, o: the Huntington Beach Ordinance the land on which such well la situated as shown on the last Code fails to pro._..,,e r,t Zhu quarterly rate of twenty (20) bar- rels of crude ol, o.• oYner .ydro arbon substances or at a quar- equalized assessment roll, and to the owner of the mineral rights terly rate of one hun:lr­' thousand (100,000) cubic feet of gas on which such well is situated as shown on the last equalized for sale, lease ,in,, or storage for two (2) successive calendar assessment roll, and to the operator of such well as indicated quarters, such well anal; be classified as "nonproducing." Such on either the records of the state division of oil and gas, nonproducing we;!, when located on a site with other oil produc- department of conservation or the records of the department. tion operations, stall be maintained in accordance with the pro- Once the notice is sent, the well or wells specified therein visions of this title. may not be activated unless the requirements of Chapter 15.40 of this code are adhered to and satisfied. When such nonproducing well is located on a site having no of other oil productl�:n activity, the chief shall notify the opera- well The notice shall indicate the name and location ea for that the well nas open classified as nonproducing and, In the the well in h well and I statement by the chief se the rea- event the well is not reactivated within six (6) months of the eons why such well la an idle well, as doused by section date it first became ionproducing, a hearing will be Initiated 15.32.040 0[ this code. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) before the planning. commission to show cause why the "0" zoning .32.060 31te restoration- classification Within thirty (30) classification on the oll. production site should not be removed. days after notice has been mailed, the parties to whom the notice In the event the "0" zoning is removed, the well shall thereafter has been sent shall clean and restore the drill site and surface be an "idle" well and subject to the requirements for such wells in conformity with the following requirements: as set forth below. (a) The derrick and all appurtenant equipment thereto Whenever any oil well, which to nonconforming under the pro- existing above the surface of the ground level shall be removed visions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, falls to produce from the drill site; at a quarterly rate of twenty (20) barrels of crude oil or other hydrocarbon sLbst,ances or at a quarterly rate of one hundred (b) The drilling and production equipment, tanks, towers thousand (100,000) cubic feet of gas for sale, lease use or and other surface Installations shall be removed from the drill storage for two (2) successive calendar quarters, such well shall site or tank farm site; be classified as "nonproducing." When any such well has become nonproducing, the chief shall notify the operator that the well (c) All concrete, pipe (except tubing head), wood and other has been so classifiea and give notice that said well will be- foreign materials existing above or on the surface of the ground come an "idle" well thirty (30) days from the date of such no- level shall be removed from the drill site or tank farm site; tice unless the operator, within that thirty (30) day period, shows cause why the well should not be classified an "idle" well. (d) All oil, waste oil, refuse or waste material including debris, junk, trash and accumulated piles of miscellaneous In the event the operator falls to show cause why the well material shall be removed from the drill site or tank farm site; should not be classified an "idle" well, such well shall be so classified and any nonconforming rights to continue or reactivate (e) The rathole and all holes, depressions, and sumps shall such oil operation shall cease. Documentation that the well is be cleaned out of all foreign material (except well cellar walls) an injection well or is part of a unit operation involved in an regardless of depth and filled and packed with clean compactible enhanced recovery pro,ect shall be considered acceptable for not $oil; classifying a well "idle." (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) (f) The wellhead shall be capped with a blind flange and 15 32.0 0 Iu a wells. When a well is determined to be an a minimum of two (2) inch steel bleeder valve shall be Installed, "idle we -f1. according to the provisions of section 15.32.040 above, which shall be locked in a closed position. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) the surface area of t},.e well site shall be cleaned pursuant to 15.32.070 Extension of nonconformins rights. In the event the following: the fire chief fin a that the operator has shown that the sub- (a) Notice shall be sent by the fire chief, by registered ject well should not be classified an "idle" well, he is au- or certified mail, to the owner or the fee simple interest In thorized to extend the nonconforming rights of such oil opera- / 458 459 15.32.080--15.32.100 15.32.110--15.32.130 tion for a period not to exceed six (6,) months. Such extension confirming compliance with all abandonment proceedings under may be subject to reasonable conditions to insure that the oil the state law; and operation site is maintained In a safe and clean condition. (b) A notice of intention to abandon under the provisions In order to extend the nonconforming rights, the fire chief of this section and stating the date such work will be commenced. shall find that: Abandonment may then be commenced on or subsequent to the date so (a) Because of special circumstances applicable to the stated. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) property, including its size, shape, topography, location, or 15.32.110 Abandoned well--Surface requirements. Abandon- surroundings, the strict application of the provisions of this ment aha be approve by the a chi after restoration of the section deprives the owner or lessee of such property of privi- drill site and the subsurface thereof has been accomplished in leges enjoyed by other owners or lessees of property in the vi- conformity with the following requirements: cinity and in the same zoning classification; (a) The derrick and all appurtenant equipment thereto (b) Approval will not constitute a special privilege shall be removed from the drill site; Inconsistent with the limitations placed upon other properties In the vicinity and in the same zoning classification; (b) All tanks, towers and other surface installations shall be removed from the drill site; (c) Approval will not be detrimental to the public welfare, or injurious to other property in the area or injurious to im- (c) All concrete, piping, wood and other foreign materials, provements thereon; regardless of depth, shall be removed from the drill site, unless part of a multlwell cellar that 1a being used 1n connection (d) Approval will not be in conflict with established with any other well for which a permit is in force; general and specific plans and policies of the city; (d) All holes and depressions shall be filled with clean, (e) That the site Is adequate to accommodate continuation compactible soil. All oil, waste oil, refuse or waste material of the use; shall be removed from the drill site. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) (f) That there Is compliance with the applicable provisions 1� 2.120 Abandonmen__ uirements Qrior to new construc- of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code. (Ord. 2491. 1 Jul 81) tion. aban od ned o_r ddeaer�-te3u wells or 3rril a tes s alb meet the most current abandonment requirements of the division of oil 15.32.080 Site restoration--Time limit. The time period and gas prior to the issuance of any building or grading permit provided for compliance herein shall be suspended from the date for development of the property. an appeal is filed pursuant to the procedure set out in this title until final decision is rendered on the appeal. (Ord. 2491, To the maximum extent practicable, new structures shall not 1 Jul 81) be constructed directly over abandoned wells. When structures are constructed over abandoned wells, however, the installation 15.32.090 Abandonment procedure. Whenever abandonment of vapor recovery systems around the well, as approved by the fire occurs pursuant to the requirements of the division of oil and chief, shall be required. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) gas, the person so abandoning shall be responsible for the 15.32.130 Maintenance of record.. The fire chief shall main- restoration of the drill site and oil operation site to its fain current an accurate records of each well drill site or original condition as nearly as practicable in conformity with lease. Such records shall reflect the status of each well and the regulations of this code, as provided in this title. its drill site or lease with respect to each of the regulatory (Ord. 2491. 1 Jul 81) provisions of this oil code. The records shall also indicate whether each well Is producing, idle, or abandoned and whether it 15.32.100 Abandoned well requirement. The responsible party is in compliance with the Huntington Beach Municipal Code. shall urn ah the chief with: (Ord. 2491. 1 Jul 81) (a) A copy of the approval of the division of oil and gas, 460 461 15.36.010--15.36.030 15.36.040--15.40.020 Chapter 15.36 the county recorder for each parcel of land Involved, and when NUISANCE OIL WELLS AND SITES recorded, shall be delivered by the fire chief to the county con- troller and assessor who is expressly authorized to enter the Sections: amount thereof In the county assessment book opposite the descrip- tion of said parcels, and thereafter such amount shall be collected 15.36.010 Notice and hearing. at the time and in the same manner as ordinary municipal taxes are 15.36.020 Work--Coats report--Hearing on assessment. collected, and shall be subject to the same penalties and the same 15.36.030 Notice of lien filed to pay assessment. procedures under foreclosure and sale in case of delinquency, as 15.36.040 Additional remedies. provided for ordinary municipal taxes. 15.36.010 Notice and hearing. Whenever the fire chief de- Notice to pay the assessment shall be sent to the parties termines that a public nuisance, as described in this code ex- liable to be assessed. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) lsts on any property or in connection with any well, drill site or lease, he shall give notice to the property owner, the lessee 1,.36.012 Additional remedies. As to any lots or property of surface or mineral rights, the oil operator and the occu- declare to be a nuisance hereunTer, the city attorney of the pants of any such property to abate such nuisance. city of Huntington Beach may proceed to abate the same by filing a civil action to abate a nuisance against the owners, or oil The notice shall also state that in the event the nuisance operators, or lesaees or occupants thereon. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) is not abated as directed, the objectionable material or con- dition may be removed and the nuisance abated by the city, and the cost of removal assessed upon the lands and buildings from Chapter 15.40 or in front of which the nuisance is removed and such cost shall constitute a lien upon such land until paid. ACTIVATION OF IDLE WELLS The notice shall also specify a date and time within thirty (30) days of the date of the notice when the city council will Sections: hold a public hearing to afford those so notified an opportunity 15.40.0 to be heard concerning the determination of the chief 10 Activation permit required. and the 15.40.0 notice to remove or eliminate the nuisance conditions. The city 15.40.0 Action 2 on and fee. 0 0 Application chief and director of development council may direct the department to proceed with the work nec- services. essary to remove the objectionable conditions or materials and 15.40.040 Expiration of permit. to take such other action as is necessary to abate the nuisance. 15.40.00 Teat permit. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) 15.40.060 Cease and desist order. 15.36.020 Work--Costs report--Hears on assessment. The 15.40.010 Activation ermit required, No person shall work she 1 proceed under the direction of the fire chief and may activate or put into pro 1ction any oil well that is an idle well be done by city forces or private contractor. The individual in pursuant to this code, or any well whose drill site has bey:n charge of the work shall keep a record and account of the costs cleaned and restored in accordance with this code, unless an or abatement. Upon completion of the work, a report shall be activation permit has been first obtained pursuant to the pro- filed with the city clerk who shall set a hearing before the visions of this title. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) city council. The parties to be assessed shall receive by first class, prepaid mail a notice of a public hearing on the assess- 15.40.020 Application and fee. An application, on a ment. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) form provided-by the department, shall be filed with the depart- ment together with the required permit fee. The application 15_ 030 Notice of lien filed to pay assessment. If the shall include a plot plan and such other information necessary to coat o assesamen s approv by the c ty counci after the show that the property and the oil operation will comply with the hearing thereof, a notice of lien shall be filed in the office of provisions of this title and the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. 462 463 N.a ne IV CITY OF HUTIiVGT BEACH Ile2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK June 18 , 1986 Huntington Beach Company 2110 Main Street Huntington Beach , CA 92648 Attn : W. D. Holman , Project Representative The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at its regular meeting held Monday , June 16, 1986 denied your application for Amendment to the Land Use Element . (LUE Amendment 85-1 ) "This is a final decision . Your 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 June 18 , 1986 to apply to the courts for judicial review" Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk cc : City Attorney Development Services Director AMW:CB: js (Telephone:714436-6227) PublisL 5/22/86 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT 85-1 (HOLLY PROPERTY) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Huntington Beach City Council will hold a public hearing in the Council Chamber at the Huntington Beach Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, on the date and at the time indicated below to receive and consider the statements of all persons who wish to be heard relative to the application described below. DATE: Monday, June 2, 1986 TIME: 7:30 P.M. APPLICATION NUMBER: Land Use Element Amendment No. 85-1 APPLICANT: Huntington Beach Company LOCATION: South side of Ellis Avenue, west of the Southern Pacific Railroad Right-of-Way, north of Garfield and Ernest Avenues and east of Goldenwest Street. PROPOSAL: A proposed Amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan which covers a request from the Huntington Beach Company to change the General Plan designations on approximately 120 acres from Estate Residential 0-2 units per acre, Estate Residential 0-4 units per acre, General Industrial and Office Professional to Planned Community. The applicant's request could result in approximately 1,200 dwelling units. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Environmental Impact Report No. 84-1 has previously been approved by the City Council. ON FILE: A copy of the proposed Land Use Element Amendment and legal description are on file in the Department of Development Services. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. All applications, exhibits, and descriptions of this proposal are on file with the Office of the City Clerk, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, for inspection by the public. HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL By: Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk Phone (714) 536-5405 ��� SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP 35-5-1 1 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA USE OF PROPERTY MAP TALKIIT `AVE. C F-R . iN.aITT'ATMI �.CNTRM.Pa1NS) Ct4�^.v s H = CF-C - I up 4,iK MH I Z "MMLD AVE. LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT 85-1 �t Date 667 NOTICE /�O,� n F PUBLIC HEARING n pp ica ion Num er (Brief Description NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Huntington Beach Planning Commission will hold a public hearing in the Council Chamber at the Huntington Beach Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, on the date and at the time indicated below to receive and consider the statements of all persons who wish to be heard relative to the application described below. nn� VIA DATE/TIME: Vl�l'�. 2 9"(0 ! APPLICATION NUMBER: OF- e)S '- � APPLICANT: ilia- (nn4amt, LOCATION: ZONE: REQUEST: ef ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: -k - f G ON FILE: A copy of the proposed LArA V s A is on file in the Department of Development Services , 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648, for inspection by the public. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions orsubmit evidence for or against the application as out ' ned ove. If there are any further questions please call , Assistant/Associate Planner at 536-5271. James W. Palin, Secretary Huntington Beach Planning Commission (0260D) a— �'''� i..olish June 6, 1985 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEMNG LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT 85'1r'Nr/NGTON BEACH ��'OPPr!E,NT SER+TIC`S NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will beheld by the City Hunting; ., Council of the City of Huntington Beach, in the Council 'MJ6e -,ofr,tbe6Givic Center, Huntington Beach, at the hour of 7:30 P.M. , or as soon thereafter as end 141 aCo possible on Monday, the ImW day of June, ;6"5, for the purpose of considering Land Use Element Amendment No. 85-1, . Land Use Element Amendment No. 85-1 is a proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan (LUE 85-1), which covers a request by the Huntington Beach Company o change the General Plan designations on approximately 120 acres from Estate Residential 0-2 units per acre, Estate Residential 0-4 units per acre, General Industrial and Office Professional to Planned Communit The subject property is located on the outh side of Ellis Avenue, west of the Southern Pacific Railroad Right-of-Way, north of Garfield and Ernest Avenues and east of Goldenwest Street The applicant's request cou resu ap ma e y , dwelling units. A legal description is on file in the Department of Development Services. e e p dment. All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and express their opinions for or against said Land Use Element Amendment 85-l.yNk_ -1. Further information may be obtained from the Office of the City Clerk, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648 - (714) 536-5227. Dated: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH By: Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk See Yee 6791 Loyola Drive Huntington' Beach, CA 92647 111-150-06 Donald Weir 401 20th Street Apt. A Huntington Beach, CA 92648 111-150-13 Robert Anderson 19082 Crystal Street Huntington Beach. CA 92648 111-150-15 Huntington Beach Property 22902 Via Genoa South Laguna, CA 92677 111-150-46,47 i Chauk Moon Chin 25875 Greenbank E1 Toro, CA 92630 111-150-48 i i i f I I I i I I Ignacio Estrada Robert Dunn Travis Mitchell 715 Alabama, Street 00 E. Fairmount Road 2919 Gardena Avenue :i tinqt�n Beach, CA 92648 t-urbank, CA 92501 Signal Hill, CA 90806 lip-2--10 111-110-1K,12,13 111-120-27 Mike Perez William Landis Weir Oil Co Inc 2230 Florida Avenue 1901 Ave. of The Stars #470 401 2oth Srreet Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Century City, LA, CA 90067 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 110-211-11,12,14 111-110-14 111-120-28 Dena Jeanne Zepeda. Wood Jerry Galich James Telford 1310 W. Palma Lane 939 loth Street 3105 Whitis Phoenix, AR 85007 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Austin Texas 78705 110-211-13 111-110-15 111-140-01 Ronald Brindle Prentiss Custer 18851 Golden writ Street 5771 Terrier Drive 401 20 Weir Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 ngt Street 110-220-02,03,04 � Huntington Beach, CA 92648 111-110-16 111-140-02 ,36,37 Victor Di Stefano Robert M,andic Mola & R7eaver 18196 Golden West 1112 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 8072 Adams Avenue 111-071-24 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 111-110-18 111-140-04 Nancy Bradley Smila F4iby Greer 20302 Laverton Bertram ��y 1209 Park Street 2710 Anchovy Ave. Katy TX Lton 111y071-25 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 San Pedro , CA 90732 111-110-19,20, 111-140-27 Richard Pariseau Elmer Goetsch Chauk On Chin 16522 Pro Cir Unit D 610 Main Street New Owner Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 111-150-01 111-071-26 111-110-21 & 111-120-26 James Hudson Elmer Goetsch Chan-Nan Chang 19751 Bluefield Plaza 610 Main Street 16621 Yvette Way Yorba Linda, CA 92686 Huntington eac , CA 92648 Beach, Cerritos, CA 90701 lK1-071-27 111-110-22 111-150-02 S B E Financial Corp. Prentiss Custer Pan Chauk Chin 19671 Beach Blvd. 4th Floor 5771 Terrier Drive 7332 Garfield Avenue Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 111-071-28 111-110-23 111-150-03 City of Huntington Beach, S & X Oil Co Inc. James Deason P.O. Box 190 411 Main Street #B 4597 Fir Avenue Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Seal Beach, CA 90740 111-071-31 111-120-01 111-150-04 Bruce Greer John Thcoas Clinton Silverman 18792 Stewart 19782 Scenic Bay Lane 8272 Le Conte Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 111-110-01 & 02 111-120-25 111-150-05 Bruce Bartels -1intingt-cn Beach Co. Property Michael Niccole 18472 Carnaby Lane .O. Box 7611 TAX Div. 400 Orange Avenue Huntingtcn Beach, CA 92648 San Francisco, CA 94120 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 159-061-40 159-191-05 & 159-281-01,02,05 110-210-03, 10 David Allen Prince fir, Strasbaugh John Schuesler 18462 Carnaby Lane 18460 Gothard Street 4832 Curtis Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach,` CA 92649 159-061-41 159-212-08 110-210-06 Barry Morgan Gloria Bradeson Louis Spelts 7552 Appleby Drive 121 Via Menton 471 Walnut Place Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Costa Mesa, CA 92627 159-063-06 159-281-03 110-210-07 Edward City of� Huntington Beach Huntington Beach Co. 7532 Appleby Drive City Hall P.O. Box 7611 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 San Francisco, CA 94120 159-063-07 159-281-04 110-210-08,09 . i i Richard Morley Mola Development Ruth Gordon 7522 Appleby Drive 8072 Adams Avenue 2219 Greenleaf Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Santa Ana, CA 92706 159-063-08 159-282-07 110-210-11 Philip Herbert Huntington Beach Canpany Gyneth Smith 7512 Appleby Drive Property Tax Box 702 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 P.O. Box 7611 Lake Arrowhead, CA 93252 159-063-09 San Francisco, CA 94120 110-211-01 159-282-14 Mike Klubniken Jackson Bransford Ronald Borghetti 18481 Carnaby Lane 17682 Mitchell 10208 Disney Cir. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Irvine, CA 92714 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 159-063-10 I59-311-01 ! 110-211-02 Brian Kelly Huntington Beach Can Milton Marow 18471 Carnaby Lane 225 Bush Street i 864 N. Bundy Huntington Beach, CA 92648 San Francisco, CA 94120 Los Angeles, CA 90049 159-063-11 159-311-02 110-211-03 Robert Baker, A C Marion P.O. Box 108 Charles Tunstall 18461 Carnaby Lane P.O. Box 546 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Wildanar, CA 92395 159-063-12 110-180-04 110-211-04 & 05 Eugene Venn William Landis Weir Oil Catpany 18451 Carnaby Lane 1901 Avenue of the Stars #470 401 20th Street #A Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Century City Los Angeles, CA Huntington Beach, CA 92648 159-063-13 90067 110-210-01 110-211-06.07,08 Huntington Beach Company Lorna Ross Peter Howell P.O. Box 7611 9152 Lana Street 50 E. Yvon Drive San Francisco, CA 94120 Villa Park, CA 92663 i Tucson 85704 159-191-02 110-210-02 110-211-09 See Yee 6791 Loyola Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92647 111-150-06 Donald Weir 401 20th Street Apt. A Huntington Beach, CA 92648 111-150-13 Robert Anderson 19082 Crystal Street Huntington Beach. CA 92648 111-150-15 Huntington Beach Property < 22902 Via Genoa j South Laguna, CA 92677 111-150-46,47 Chauk Noon Chin 25875 Greenbank i El Toro, CA 92630 111-150-48 i i I i j I I 4 i i 'l I i i i I i i Ignacio Estrada Robert Dunn Travis Mitchell 715 Alabama Street 800 E. Fairmount Road i 2919 Gardena Avenue �tin�� Beach, CA 92648 Burbank, CA 92501 Signal Hill, CA 90806 1,10': I_10 l ]-110-11,12,13 + 111-120-27 Mike Perez William Landis Weir Oil Co Inc 2230 Florida Avenue 1901 Ave. of The Stars #470 401 2oth Srreet Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Century City, LA, CA 90067 i Huntington Beach, CA 92648 110-211-11,12,14 111-110-14 111-120-28 Dena Jeanne Zepeda Wood Jerry Galich � James Telford 1310 W. Palma Lane 939 loth Street 3105 Whitis Phoenix, AR 85007 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 j Austin Texas 78705 110-211-13 111-110-15 i "1-140-01 i Ronald Brindle Prentiss Custer i Donald Weir 18851 Golden West Street 577� Texrier Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92648 ! Huntington Beach, CA 92649 401 20th Street 110-220-02,03,04 111-110-16 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 111-140-02 ,36,37 Victor Di Stefano Robert Mandic j 18196 Golden West 1112 Main Street Mola & Weaver Huntington Beach, CA 92648 8072 Adams Avenue Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 111-071-24 111-110-18 111-140-04 Nancy Bradley Smila _ Ruby Greer Bertram Le voy 20302 Laverton 1209 Park Street 2710 Anchovy Ave. Katy TX 77450 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 j ovY 111-071-25 San Pedro , CA 90732 111-110-19,20, 111-140-27 I I Richard Pariseau 16522 Pro Cir Unit D Elmer Goetsch Chauk On Chin Huntington Beach, CA 92649 610 Main Street New Omer Huntington Beach, CA 92648 I 111-150-01 111-071-26 111-110-21 & 111-120-26 James Hudson Elmer Goetsch Chan-Nan Chang 19751 Bluefield Plaza 610 Main Street Linda, CA 92686 16621 Yvette Way Yorba Linn Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Cerritos, CA 90701 111-07 111-110-22 I 111-150-02 S B E Financial Corp. Prentiss Custer Pan Chauk Chin 19671 Beach Blvd. 4th Floor 5771 Terrier Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 7332 Garfield Avenue Ill-071-28 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 111-110-23 111-150-03 City of Huntington Beach, S & X Oil Co Inc. James Deason P.O. Box 190 411 Main Street #B 4597 Fir Avenue Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Seal Beach, CA 90740 111-071-31 111-120-01 111-150-04 Bruce Greer John Thomas Clinton Silverman 18792 Stewart 19782 Scenic Bay Lane 8272 Le Conte Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 i - n Beach, CA 9264E 111-110-01 & 02 111-120-25 111-1150 05 Bruce Bartels Huntington Beach Co. Property Michael Niccole 18472 Carnaby Lane P.O. Box 7611 TAX Di, 400 Orange Avenue Huntingtom Beach, CA 92648 San Francisco, CA 94120 Huntington Beach, CA 9264E 159-061-40 159-191-05 & 159-281-01,02,05 110-210-03. 10 i David Allen Prince Larry Strasbaugh +i John Schuesler 18462 Carnaby Lane 18460 Gothard Street 4832 Curtis Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92648 159-061-41 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 9264_ 159-212-08 110-210-06 I Barry Morgan Gloria Bradeson Louis Spelts 7552 Appleby Drive 121 Via Menton 471 Walnut Place Huntington Beach, CA 92648 import Beach, CA 92663 Costa Mesa, CA 92627 159-063-06 159-281-03 110-210-07 i Edward Har City of Huntington Beach Huntington Beach Co. 7532 Appleby Drive City Hall P.O. Box 7611 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 San Francisco, CA 94120 159-063-07 159-281-04 110-210-08,09 Richard Morley Mola Development I Ruth Gordon 7522 Appleby Drive 8072 Adams Avenue i 2219 Greenleaf Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Santa Ana, CA 92706 159-063-08 159-282-07 110-210-11 Philip Herbert Huntington Beach Company Gyneth Smith 7512 Appleby Drive Property Tax Box 702 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 P.O. Box 7611 Lake Arrowhead, CA 93252 159-063-09 San Francisco, CA 94120 110-211-01 159-282-14 Mike Klubniken Jackson Branford ( Ronald Borghetti 18481 Carnaby Lane 17682 Mitchell 10208 Disney Cir. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Irvine, CA 92714 Huntington Beach, CA 9264 159-063-10 159-311-01 110-211-02 Brian Kelly Huntington Beach Can Milton Maraca 225 Bush Street 18471 Carnaby Lane 864 N. Bundy Huntington Beach, CA 92648 San Francisco, CA 94120 Los Angeles, CA 90049 159-063-11 159-311-02 110-211-03 i Robert Baker A C Marion i Charles Tunstall 18461 Carnaby Lane P.O. Box 108 P.O. Box 546. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington 92648 Wildanar, CA 92395 159-063-12 110-180-04 110-211-04 & 05 i Eugene Venn William Landis Weir Oil C npany 18451 Carnaby lane 1901 Avenue of the Stars #470 401 20th Street #A Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Century City Los Angeles, CA Huntington Beach, CA 9264 159-063-13 90067 110-210-01 110-211-06.07,08 Huntington Beach Canpany Lorna Ross _ Peter Howell P.O. Box 7611 9152 Lana Street 50 E. Yvon Drive San Francisco, CA 94120 Villa Park, CA 92663 Tucson AS 85704 159-191-02 110-210-02 110-211-09 05 � AMERj� First American Title Insurance Company 114 EAST FIFTH STREET, (P. O. BOX 267)SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92702 • (714) 558-3211 Affidavit on Property Ownership List The Attached List represents the Names and Addresses of all property owners located within 300 feet of the Exterior Boundaries of Property located at 111-072-02,03,04,05,07,08,09,10,11,12,15,17,20,21,22,&23 as obtained from the latest Orange County Assesment Rolls. (Signature) Christopher J. Rouly Assistant Secretary Director of Special Services First American Title Insurance Co. 114 E. Fifth Street Santa Ana, CA 92702 (714) 558-3211 \ - CO, ° NCL Y ° STREET o 3 S Jt so qD e I ® b G RRELD STREET- o O ti POR BC K. G N o Jl st ;o s 29 o sT 3 3 13 14 /3 is " is / ; 'ea _• 9F�`T a ® POR. BLK.B r fi a ` I "Poo 47 /J1A « /9 n I 23 \ ® M I r I f/ ADD! ON I ,©I 0; Q / ly I ,.,o• .aan !r rs fw.rs' ss ss' (s>:e'i sf:-' sn..ao �% Go $ CRYSTAL STREET w o - � 1 �e f _— "� /oo' CRYSTAL STREET p ry 1 O —z©'I'Z I 22 r CiARRELD JrREET L------_ <�+ tj 21` 26 d 1 is r� is is to is tt t/ �! /I /J /t /7 /I /> to ? n is { �3J 31 G /.dOAG -- i ---- O ,a. 4 I/ L I f QDDi rioa' � $ STEb 1RT (s�rfcrzfR ArENUE! STREET - ioo' l g STEWART l SME[IZ£/i AV£Nu£1 STREt;" i GARF/ELO STRE T I � ZP A.F. 99•48 19 Q 26 $ 25 24 23 22 29 Ia O 18 I S SLK. F ti 16 ?2 2J PI PS 161 20 i5 b /8 i /7 /6 14 -—- N 120 30 o I e m I co7v� IS � I � I I 9 i I � p 2�T O �' ' E '+� G l J �/C 14 G h1 Bf AC. jo f I i A U T/ON 1 i2 � rsd ,�.. /�,r• I III h g 60LOtN K'EST ' I EsrM/NsrfA av£auE I g STREET ='j= i 00, s CRrSTAL STREET t J' /I S' I ISO• /Z J' l.J /' GARRELO STREET 1 J � (14 3 i 1 (i3 ; 8 20 19 18 I 21 2© 16 g 4 Q ' C2) °! I S ; I 6 10' o ti iB T 6 /3 14 175 [Or r 11 qr• I /ro' �s I .rs' � I m � i R !J• ..��. I 9 rJ' JY• I ; 8 1 y � op j 0 E io ' /!J' { v LQ II —————— 'ADDITION �1 /!1' !J' ZJS 1 I!• � /IJ• i STEwART r SM£LrZCR AVMT) STREi T , ''i '+ ioo' 159-31 �-19 sic ___ eerr-to-rts- ♦ � arr♦rr-sn-rr,-r _ 159-20 159-21 23 •Q � 3.Y8AC '3 � 2 0 Q pcli � NOLGY AVE 49 t•i J.f/A 9.t1 AC, 54.66 O O 3b 13 22 2q .70' 1[7 3.'/AC. t.S7AG Y.SIAC I.AC tJ2AC. 7 J.SI 9' 9"42 AC 7I i.Jr A G 07 AL A VENUE A O� � 37 f ►�' `1 _ Ae6AQ11 l �OSAC 2r. 22I9.3tAC. ti 4 t•OOAC. 12 R.S.66-29 M 4.WAC. 8 - 21 SrEWART mm-ar£R AV£I J `Sr 5.24 AC. O 9 y r1t� 1.*7AC 10 V� 19 12 �Ca 6 � ♦.le AG 25 JSAC I.78 AC. 416 A r.d)AC V no-17 IIo-.18 1 /r. /e.Jr• to j.oT A R G 3 4 14, 5 6 T 8 9 CIOl �12 13, y f 3 s 9 11C r ! I 1-0 US 9 21 1 to T is /S 4 O 1 2 2 � 2 I ? 18 17 I6 if, 14 P FRNfS T o t SY Ss is 7 S O eYf. C1 i S AC, `5! ) 7 8 Axis/ 49 40*r fs ss ss •s 2.00 AC. Wei .c 2 � v5�4 13. 2 11 0 1. H `6 J i I 0 A O q P 2 @`2 4 28 26� 2� 4 � 4 !.se AG. eo t ------------- T. 5 S., R. i i 0 j `GOLGEf;WEST STREET N R �h !1' 3l' ff FJ• II' 6�' w. SLOPE :rfs• s r :.• y ES T z.e L _ 2ao I � 5 2 rJ iJ � 50 J 54 7 51FJ f j 6 47 6 45 444/ SS d y l3 I II '0 9 T i¢ T CIQ O �8 r: (J AO J _ 23 E•T! AC. ' 2 3 ® S 6 T �9 8 l0 II S/SO ti Ja JJ $4151 St 4 FJ 29 / !O /T /5 /? / I G t9 IT 6 11S 2 r� 4 v ` 10EOAR GLEN wr B 5TREc`T ' J 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 8 IO H ; zpo• _�_ .L._i__ ._ P // D / s• a "71 8 r 1 2 �5� " "C 10)11 ,N1 L O f A LO r A F { 3 i �� 31 4 �6�.�•;i. 8 9 10 �Si'� �2�F3 q 5� 6 7 8 9�10 1',1 fL t.7Q AC. c�.� , _ �_, c �� R. S. 87-z5 I _ I, i ( LOT `ris $� s E _ /. ra He �r r ra 1 fr LOt�.. s 6 T p f' 1�P £�'�9 ,r 3 • L 1 4 - I i 1 �3.�£i)'17 �6 15 '14 !3 12k 12 (1 17 9 15 I3 Tr 3a Jv 1 /�= 100 . .. .. .. .. .. F �16' if ffo• .. .. - .. ZS 1 f I � cor a ; cc* a ` CI3 22 5 b 7 3 8 1 2 3 5.Cr- 7 C8}�9�'O`1 i Z.466 AC. 62 AC. R ` �II1 SS SD 4! ! ! 4f f a ' �Z _ I 14 44 45 46 �t, tA. ` 4 o o Z N 8 21 2 1918 ,17 .!6 '15) 13 �12 �11 txi 2'��.� 2C��19 �,17�16.115.!4 t3 i�� s' s.•ZS Zs � c3a' _ i EL L t S AVENUE ....'.�=-ac,. 1IlI If 'A n-,,er> 3 HUNTINGTON STREET va tz,� TRA�'Tj f I I •r i 1 . � f fO b 9 II w 2 I i 12.00AC. ; '♦ ti � f • � f r.D 6 T 9 P..v,31.35 ,. •u 5 6 ro ---__— ____—_e 4 6,57AC. r LOT 10 4.45AC NO. 37 � v c y 13 s.D.r.Drr-10-rrDA-rrorr. r p ti 413 orr-3o.W-5,• S.I.C,frr-Jo-11r A.s poa, :: 60rHe PO s nt.rn.to-rrr-r STRE-ET i �O i , i o_ U� tti f 1 (ABAA'O. PE. RR. R/W) co' � TRACT LOT C - a �D Q � LOT A a O Z.93 AG NO. 10511 1 ©'_ LOTS " PRO✓Er! 937-t0-CCl-;39 �,,) 0.t6.ct: y 20 ;21 F2 .2J i24 90 SA !^ , H�y STREET 1 STREET , y -LoTaa 1 �o o to BLK. A 1 i 3 9"•,� �j• 1.92 AC I A 11, so so ADD. by ( ADD. [T ='s 3o 50- So .00 JCJ' 60 f _ STREET - 1 159- , — TRACT I PtiR/ PAR.1 n \J I 1 212 PM. 127.I32 _ Q �I 3►^ .rs' 3 ENTERPRISE LAAE x s�• 977s• i•�.»' nsae• rr ,.ese PAR.2 P. M. 151- 47 1 O PAR.c PAR./ I PAR 2 y P.M. /07-46 � 3.173 AG (C) ` N i \ a I /.00 AC. Q PAR. / t 0 i „s 2 I D, '.. I /r /2 ..... ��..:• a ---- ----T------------- A.M.13 6 y I O> PAR.. / PAR. 2 P4R./ _ IO 13 14 g II ; _ 0 $ ° v 292 AC i o ` NO.. 8768 I r L Go SP 5 i q y GGiHARp STREET s ih ' 1 159- 061 R m ? hL___j L_ k 0 srREEr —� tIUYT/N6TDN µ TRACT fo' o TRACT . O ° � ap ° TRACT t � 7 O 6 O 1'• Z 4i ' S 6 7 aye+ 4 • O 1: J 30 33 I er.r7' 2 J/ 3+? R 73 •O" r2 1/ 0 9 31 = 30 4 29 ; 28 27 26 25 0 24 3 Y 3 1� O 1 6 "� ; O •e `�` 13 V N0.4f389 ", :� "rr.++' w• .d ,:r°• N0 3563 a 4e s°' .�> t°' roan i.p' 3 4 ,or' q °° GASPS CIRCLE O gyp• trzto• / 7 -zoo- _ .ds-s B K 70• /to• IS 7°!6 j 47. --��TRACT o O O �Z J TI 06� c .'a ry �n cs rzrr`e_ "1� Cq' o a .° o lJrzso• '� �. t.er 9 -eF $' �, 32 .� 33 3a 36 37 38 ' 39 • ;�, !6.:.a7• 17 J& /9 20 2/ 22 23 ar.,a'..f m • Crso P 6 rnas' O �. /fro LD //• 73 K O 3?"'" 3/ 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 q K,�ry• 3 4 3 tKX' N.w.' w 3�� 17 �4.. 40 +48 47 45 45 4 43 42 4i o O 3 Q � !I p 9 i± �'O,u• v � Q � 7 C.o' �' sue' 74 all 4a' s.a• � '� sl.o' ss• a.cr �� xr �a,s' N.,s�as + 4'�SSxta'u.fs sr.ra' •o' s° .,.ar' ' t,, N CARNABY LA E11 a a t' ° o � c �• � 15 r 18 I7 � r16 1`� � 14 + I 12 it i 1n0 cry. _ I� II =O O 2b Z7 26 O 24 23 E 21 O "o O `e O o J o O c c O r O ✓ I: .r' 1 u @063p, NO. T888NO.T60/ +3 > .y?7 ?6 ?J 24 23 ?? t°' X t:°e !4 33»w 34 SS 36 37 3B J9 40 41 ,a' 42 ,o;°a sac nr•w-ua•roa t a E L'O, c /JCL Y STREET � �f• �c 1c va � 3c s5 /Zb.o' 3 1.0 SA 3 J Ja .co ^ " lV .Q O G RFIEL D STREET 33 39 h POR. BL K. t y' i ►; S .. o / •.9. a I t ». 6 IJ r1 11 /6 POP. BLK.B •, ` 'oo .'r !b t,? � n A ~ \ �g LJO O e r O 47 I rJiz O h W � i Q n ADD! ON I I 23 > Q so c 13 i I ` � iwa iil.6°' 9�S.f ?0.Sl 1s.53' s71E'1 sl z ' Sei 30" g CRYSTAL STREET _ e i /00, CRYSTAL STREET Y /sJ• /+S. /.S 27 /2s ia5 �so ?2• I I M �027' r GARFIELD STREET h o 1g 21 y 4 26 14 S' td YT r6 r5 t4 rJ 1t 1/ \ - !J /4 !J If F1 Id /d 10 s :d ciJ 31 G �h d I.sorC. I Q ! I , ADD/T/OA' O ® G / h O � g STEh:ART (S/t£LTZE R AVENUE) TREET s g STEWART /Slwct ER AVENUE I STREt ! 'b 1 ' GARREL0 STRE T ZR M. 99-48 I J 19 0 �` lv I Q 26 8 25 24 23 22 29 I a (18 I 3 BLK. F ris Ib; 2/ 22 23 24 23 nr 261 ti /7 /6 /3 /4 /J 7---- �;J--- i 9, 9 o I L0727- 15 y . I I 9 � I I n I 14 O CJ ro C, hl6p At. j 3 4j Lo 12 V jo f 1 I AOCITION z I si sa' I isi so' Js" i77 1 s+' r. O � h g GOLGtN NEST ' / Es7M/rvs7ER AVENUE 1 n STREET — — ,1 i III - IT -/oo' s CRYSTAL STREET i.r iiJ- rtv' rt' �e.r •' GARRELD STREET (14 ° Z i a Q 8 20 I g 18 11. 22 16 8 4 �2 I s 7-7 ti I 6 W CIO 19 0 2/ 22 23 14 /B 7 16 /3 1/4 I/3 ,or 7 ter' 1 iro' to 1 n�• � I J 24 _ 9 .tj to' h O G a ' -------- - w ADDITION STEPMRT l SMEC72ER avcnuEl STREET '= 400, 15tJ 19 0( 159-31 114 ct�R `� FRt-_'o-12r-a♦ JAF ll:-!o_rts• rL t_" 159-20 159-21 r 23 / s Q 3.28 4 3 = N� 2 a J (V {C w OQ � HOLLY A AVE a e.n S.9lA 9.4!AQ 54.66'A w 49 35 q0 5� 36 lnr2l 24 J7Q L 9.42AC. ,71 321 AC. .4.VAG P.8/AC L94 4JZAC. + 7 AC 8 G L 9 AC. 3-b4 AG AG H M. 27-30 �; t6l. aO7 y RY AL AV N k cI i 37 /)1 -H 4.06 AG 42 31 _aa 10 22 ' 36.B2 AC. !g•34AC. ~� 4,6CAG P.00AC. 12 R.S.86-29 h 4,M AC. 8 J ST£WART (!M£LT£R AVE) ST jO 3.P4 AC. h s 1 /lc1 L.<T AG 1 0 ` 19 ( 18 14 IS �lt 12 6.8YAC. 4.78 AG ZS .35AC. 4.76 AC. 4.78 A v 2 '.69AG. -t- G'OL DEN t4'ES7" _ 110-17 IIo- 18 �^ Ilo-21 t►D-a�. {� ', 1 (T.) torte A� R G W !R h 3 �4 s 6 Tfe'l !0 „ I2 is k {, ■ 4 c 7 to v/ r PGIF.3 a 3 2' r le 17 rs 1514 O _ I 4.78 A fRh'c'S P a o ! JP 3 34 35 37 e v1�111 I5 AG.+ C6! 1 7 S I . r 100 - 0 49 4e 47 46 45 44 45 49 4/ 40 30 P.90 A6. '45 4,13 29 i, 0 y 16 lI Z i J-06, p 18 1.ee AC. ea' LiL 2�. s,i c+ dye 1 t occ'. J4, 1. 5 S... R. � . Ito 211 a - r j GOL DEfs WES T �' � STREET —q '. wk ss• ��s• rr u• !�' 6c• r. SLOP£ _ y £S T. ! �.•ems• t i �.• 260 t r �J 1 *0' � so 2 4 5 S SI ` J 4847 45 44 1 'J! ITA I( - 9laG to (D 0 o :�. 3.9! tic. /.43 AG a o ZZ J 3 a.ra AC. 2 3 �4 S 6 T 9 8 10013, h P. M. 4.2 - ?J ,Q X JO S! 35 Jt Sl , 4 93 ! tO /7 /S t I G9i8fTK 13 2 C 0 z ;CEDAR GLEN core STREc 1' 4i i r �f 2 3 5 5 7 8 9 ro ti ; t - 1 1 )( !2 2 3 C4 5 6;'(7�;8 Q L o r A LO T A r I - 2 <.7e Ac. i s 31 .. 4 10 t�' rt 4 5 6 7 8 9 Lot LOT 4 I 4 /4 t3r /6 1 ! /9 PJ o e o �p7, P 19 3 i 6 h ,It 4 i� 1 �,t19�'W 17 �6 5)I4 13 12 23)r?�2 2 I9 19 1! I6 15 14 13 tr I so i Je /' ("s /©0 so t rE• r� i Zs I tot` d � rr' rr rr• - rr' rs rr r i� 185 i 6 i 1 � CI 3 22 ?.3 5 7 9 { 2 3 5 , a 7 8 9 10�I i « I 2.46 AC 6?AC. S.9 41 " 4 t 7 48 AF 441 "Ifs \<9• \s < .56 jil 8 ' 21 �2 `I9 18 17 lb'� fx '12 t1 C* 2iI2i !2��9. ,7 •16�i15 -' ELL/S -- c AVENUE o y n r /A6AN0. SdSJ4' 'A srR[et1 S HUNTING TO, • STREET 7-R,61' --�-----2�------ZI-"--- - aoe- ---f roe' 31 r.n' 6 T r 9 v.,wiJ?•33 .+ Da1; 5 6 - --_- _-__-_ � moo+ � sr h n Ss.,sAC. /VO. 37 l t q C S.I.F.Drt-70-ltlA.t POR, i y wJ �V K (y A�or• $ y S.D[. Dn.so-iH-1,f S.D.jr.err JO./t0A-D POI, s,s F.ert-�a-utA-s r I (;OTHePO t.at.an-lo-r!•rSTREET 1 a� -po e t I I �� t 159 R /00 q+� (A8AAD. P£. RR.R/W) �q j 11 rRAcr wro W —_ 007 . W J � 4 1 t� cor A O2-e3 Act NO 10511 282 1z -�.— core I r , PRc9✓E�-9JT-oQ-CC7.;.9 � O./6AC y =' .r 71' 61?rC I x h STREET . I I STREET I e.or ya I o l4 28i 1O BLK. A 21 1 /.9?AC. w - - - -a e -'vo y p� ELK A ADD. � I ADD. U I t° I so J ao" ( so' so ,00 xo I hJLLY STREET + +� ",-7 17 fI i t\ sz ( f dp N' • � rod Ac, i TRACT LOT 6 LoT at 2.06 AC. �O 8LK. F I 1.04 AC, Q <Ci ac. 1 l D92 NO. 7 TIMBER Z CIRCL E D9, �f� e4�i TI.L• SAW r ' �7 1� v rs• N a� e• `+y• �ti b�� �• TRAC ELK. E PART PAR.4 LOT J LOT I LOT B LOT 9 -0 3 j p V "1 2 � PAR.7` PAR. Z 15 40 s, o,. O : NQss78st GD , eer' i s> sr.e• ...�• >.w' s rS[>o' �• S9' S. !%F COR. o _ ' sec. M-3-f! [ IVEAVE D+.. --GAHF/ELO k c i { i i t 159-21 00, SA. 972-50./2I-POR TRACT I FtiR. PAR? I ; J PM. 127.132 " hN .rs' 3 • x ENTERPRISE LAAE x ,�c• 77 as• as' ,f•.ao• rr "•Ife PAR.2 10 1 PM. 151- 47 I $ O PAR.2 PAR. I PAR 2 1 130 A ' O16 15 O o 12 P M. 107-46 3 S.175 A6 (6) I L00 AC. 0 PAR. 14 / I O P M. 105-12 21 I I . f I 16 /3 of!7' i0 fr.n g---'— ----15 ---------- 1 I P.M.13 6 Y I J PAR. / PAR. 2 P4R = 10 13 I✓ -4 /.292 AC. Zk W « NO.. 8788 44 ai GCi yARD STREET s • � s j , §• 1'1 3 J � ~ 03 C. ; TRACT for 5 cot e` Y )a Rt Z06 AC. �gf tarOr BLK. F /.04 AC. •� [.3 dC. D92 NO. 7 i y z N rlmBER aRCL E D9, °r TRAC SLX. E PAR 3 PAR.t• 12 Lor 3 LOrr 4 g LOrr 8 y LAr 9 w '.07 S S? q `LD 2 103 AC. l.CJ AC. /.O3 AC. + r •JN' C (z) P.N BBB-/r �1 ♦. PAR Z` PAR. l p C` 2 IS t6 NO •378;r as J7' i v GD �J•. t..a.' rra' JF.d i " . GQRF1£LD— �CVENUE E r - ~T� 159-C' ".. =iO0, Q V Q W O R Q i Q O srR£Er —•I •--Q HUV MIG rON , . ,a .� .: .,:. 1 1 •� �• �•; tea r.t.'� - 19 20 21 O 23 t,' I so.m j ,; TRACT o to TRACT 6 m ri7 la ne' 3 'O orr. 34? sr.rr' 4 /3 /2 // /0 9 8 }0 �• Ali . ao.ot" so' ra' fr.te. Q O O Q « t5 O • • � 30 29 � 28 27 26 25 "e 24 oz r. ° ..,o- .s? 14 3 ; 3i 3 12 O.4 O? O O O O O 33 i O ■s.. + a^ S c.,.. 4-9o � e i3 'NO.48as :'' " �' N0 3563 h ■o' ion' .00' to' ,er.,f" - +.e' 3 4 cos• q O. ; 64SPE CIRCLE w' szsa• l 7 .orso• .t .d s.is' 8 /4 zo ito• 15 'D'16 iO,�o 47 A ^ O y r O _ ' aTf 1■' .. . .. yt' Ti 11' 1 TRACT 7 Te v 71 d51 M \I�tzso' s+ t.nr 9 roO �- 'fi 70 fi ,+, 32 .• 33 34 36 37 38 39 .L , Oo+ 4e Iw/6,s.11' 17 18 /9 20 2/ 22 23 Ct �• 73 k O 3?—.." 3/ 30 29 TB 27 26 25 14 ; 3 4 S to 'r.u'/O so // .+�N' O O x O 2 2 n 48 47 46 45 4 43 42 41 '0 40 O 46 � � � T o, sa' a �— +e' a.t, 68 r, !* kro• * �q� ssr 2 st.v" ss' 4r.ct' t Kr' raro' Wft xaa'u.f N CARNASY LA E •. y; J gapK r 111 c; '• � I_ IB 17 , 16 I. 14 I 12 II 0 2T F 26 ` O 24 23 F 21 F �:.:/ o �: O O o O" �l s O c c O y'wO S 063 2 'Nr»soi N 7888 ?7 P6 2J P4 P3 2? 2/ ao' 0 t:os•19 -13"W 34 33 36 37 38 3S 40- 4! >t' 4,' .o:as sot t7l-5u-itt•Pon r f j i s Geri Ortega Kent Pierce 6951 Lawnhaven Drive 8101 Slater Avenue Huntington Beach, CA Huntington Beach, CA HB/F. Valley Board of Realtors Lorraine Faber Alan Strasbaugh 15271 Nottingham Lane 18460 Gothard Street Huntington Beach, CA Hutnignton Beach, CA Roger Slates Norma Vander Molen 333 Yorktown 9472 hiokihana Huntington Beach, CA Huntington Beach, CA Tom Harmon Beth Kennedy 2131 Main Street, Ste. 170 7672 Anita Lane Huntington Beach, CA Huntington Beach, CA i REQUES , FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Date Nnx7AMhPr 18. 1989 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson, City Administrator �` w,T , Prepared by: James W. Palin, Director, Development Services Subject: LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 85-1 4-o a,R,t,cw Consistent with Council Policy? beJ Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception aj0 4„1,-4- -fie W>#. W .js Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions,Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Land Use Element Amendment No. 85-1 was a request by the Huntington Beach Company to change the land use designation on 126 acres from General Industrial , Office Professional and Estate Residential to Planned Community. The study area is known as the Holly Property and is located between Ellis Avenue, the Southern Pacific Right-of-Way, Garfield Avenue, Crystal Street, Ernest Avenue and Goldenwest Street. Consideration of the amendment was continued by the City Council from June 17, 1985 to October 21, 1985 to allow a Council and Planning Commission Committee to study the economic feasibility of industrial development on the property. On October 21 , the Council continued the amendment to November 18, 1985, to allow the Committee to report, and to obtain additional comments from the property owner . RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Land Use Element 85-1 be tabled to allow time for staff to obtain additional input from the property owner , the Council and Planning Commission Committee, and a land use consultant. ANALYSIS: Land Use Element Amendment No. 85-1 was considered by the City Council on June 17, 1985. After discussion, the amendment was continued for a period of 120 days (to October 21 , 1985 ) to allow time for a Council and Planning Commission Committee to be formed to investigate the feasibility of industrial development on the site. In the ensuing time, Development Services staff has analyzed the study area in the context of the larger area and has identified potential boundaries and issues to be addressed for an enlarged Master Plan Study Area. Staff has also met with the various departments to review and receive comments on the issues and boundaries. In order to receive input from the property owner , staff also submitted a boundary map and a list of the preliminary issues to the Huntington Beach Company along with a letter requesting comments. To date, no comments have been received. PIO 4/84 Staff will be contacting the Huntington Beach Company again to obtain their comments, and will also request that the Council and Planning Commision Committee representatives meet to provide input. Three or four altertatives are currently being evaluated by staff and the Council and Planning Commission Committee. The most feasible of these alternatives will be evaluated by a land use planning consultant. This new information will be incorporated into the staff recommendation when Land Use Element Amendment 85-1 is considered again. FUNDING SOURCE: Not applicable. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: The City Council may take action to deny Land Use Element Amendment No. 85-1 or adopt any of the seven alternatives analyzed for the amendment . ATTACHMENTS: 1 . Proposed Master Plan Boundary Map 2. Preliminary Issue List for Master Plan 3. Land Use Element Amendment No. 85-1 4. City Council minutes dated June 17, 1985 5. RCA dated June 17, 1985 6. RCA dated October 21, 1985 7. City Council Minutes dated October 21 , 1985 JWP:JAF:kla RCA - 11/18/85 -2- ( 3458d) r Page 10 - Co:incil Minutes - 10/21/85 AYES: Kelly, Bailey, Finley, Green, Thomas NOES: None ABSTAIN: Mandic ABSENT: MacAllister ADJOURNMENT The Chairman adjourned the regular meeting of the Redevelopment Agency. PUBLIC COMMENTS Herbert Lakin addressed Council regarding police procedures in ticketing motorhomes and made suggestions regarding record keeping and anonymous calls. LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT 85-•1 - HUNTINGTON BEACH COMPANY - CONTINUED TO 11 18 8 5 The Deputy City Clerk presented a communication from the Director of Develop- ment Services regarding Land Use Element Amendment No. 85-1. Land Use Element Amendment No. 85-1 is a request by the Huntington Beach Company to change the land use designation on 126 acres from General Industrial, Office Professional and Estate Residential to Planned Community. The study area is known as the Holly Property and is located between Ellis Avenue, the Southern Pacific Right-of-Way, Garfield Avenue, Crystal Street, Ernest Avenue and Goldenwest Street. A public hearing on Land Use Element No. 85-1 and Environmental impact Report No. 84-1 was held and closed on June 17, 1985 at which time Environmental Impact Report No. 84-1 was approved and decision on Land Use Element No. 85-1 was continued by the City Council to October 21, 1985 to allow an Ad Hoc Com- mittee to study the economic feasibility of industrial development on the pro- perty. A motion was made by Kelly, seconded by Finley, to continue consideration of Land Use Element No. 85-1 to the November 18, 1985 meeting so that staff can receive input from the Huntington Beach Company and the Holly Property Council and Planning Commission Committee for a recommendation on issues and bounda- ries. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Kelly, Bailey, Finley, Green NOES: None ABSTAIN: Mandic NOT VOTING: Thomas ABSENT: MacAllister MUNICIPAL PIER RESTAURANT - NOTICE OF COMPLETION - APPROVED - CC-665 - DIREC- TION TO STAFF RE: REIMBURSEMENT OF FUNDS The Deputy City Clerk presented a communication from the Department of Public Works relative to the completion of the Municipal Pier Restaurant construgtion. REQUES i FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Date October zl , lyiSS Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Submitted by: Cnarles W. Tnompson , City Administrator Cw'f- 40 Prepared by: James W. Palin, Director , Development Services Subject: LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 85-1 Consistent with Council Policy? V1 Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions,Attachments: 1 STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Land Use Element Amendment No. 85-1 was a request by the Huntington Beach Company to change the land use designation on 126 acres from General Industrial , Office Professional and Estate Residential to Planned Community. The study area is known as the Holly Property and is located between Ellis Avenue, the Southern Pacific Right-of-Way, Garfield Avenue, Crystal Street , Ernest Avenue and Goldenwest Street . Consideration of the amendment was continued by the City Council from June 17, 1985 to October 21 , 1985 to allow an Holly Property Council and Planning Commission Committee to study the economic feasibility of industrial development on the property. RECOMMENDATION: The Department of Development Services recommends that the City Council continue Land Use Element Amendment No . 85-1 to the November 18, 1985 meeting so that staff can receive input from the Huntington Beach Company and the Holly Property Council and Planning Commission Committee for a recommendation on issues and boundaries . ANALYSIS: Land Use Element Amendment No. 85-1 was considered by the City Council on June 17 , 1985 . After discussion, the amendment was continued for a period of 120 days (to October 21 , 1985 ) to allow time for an Holly Property Council and Planning Commission Committee to be formed to investigate the feasibility of industrial development on the site. In the ensuing time, Development Services staff has analyzed the study area in the context of the larger area and has identified potential boundaries and issues to be addressed for an enlarged Master Plan Study Area. Staff has also met with the various departments to review and receive comments on the issues and boundaries . In order to receive input from the property owner , staff also submitted a boundary map and a list of the preliminary issues to the Huntington Beach Company along with a letter requesting comments . To date, no comments have been received . Additionally, staff has not received any input from the Holly Pro erty Cp ncil and Planning Commission Committee formed by the City Counci . ♦ 1 PIQ 4184 Until comments are received from the Huntington Beach Company and the Holly Property Council and Planning Commission Committee, staff would recommend that action on Land Use Element Amendment No. 85-1 be continued. Specifically, staff recommends that action be continued to the second meeting in November (November 18 , 1985 ) . FUNDING SOURCE: Not applicable. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: The City Council may take action to deny Land Use Element Amendment No. 85-1 or adopt any of the seven alternatives analyzed for the amendment. ATTACHMENTS: 1 . Proposed Master Plan Boundary Map 2. Preliminary Issue List for Master Plan 3 . Land Use Element Amendment No. 85-1 4 . City Council minutes dated June 17 , 1985 5 . RCA dated June 17 , 1985 JWP:HS:kla RCA - 10/21/85 -2- ( 3458d ) � ' NV3D Np1DM1N11N DAID BIZ 011. Y L l l i Ujj a n j, u- 71 __ Ue __ r — U? — — is - - 3 Y e , PROPOSED BOUNDARIES EXPANDED ELLIS—GOLDENWEST/HOLLY PROPERTY MASTER PLAN AREA EXPANDED ELLIS-GOLDENWEST/HOLLY PROPERTY MASTER PLAN AREA ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED LAND USE ISSUES - Industrial corridor boundary - Central Park boundary - Linear Park boundary - Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan - Equestrian Trails - Consolidation or phase-out of oil operations - Transition of non-conforming uses - Small lot consolidation - Topography preservation - Residential densities - Designation of commercial areas - Redevelopment of Commodore Circle - ESHA Issues (Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas ) CIRCULATION ISSUES - Edwards Street-alignment at top or bottom of bluff - Ellis Avenue-realignment to connect with Talbert - Gothard Street-realignment with Crystal, connection with Main - Clay Street between Main and Goldenwest - Garfield-connection to Edwards/38th - Seapoint Street (Seaview/38th Street ) connection at Edwards - Internal collector streets - Seapoint realignment INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES - Sewers-Coast Trunk versus existing sewer system running north - Adequacy of pump stations at Talbert - Water line loop system and booster stations - Water assessment district ( 3121 d) Page 3 - Council Minut 6/17/85 Copies of the roposed budget are available for public inspection from 8:00 A.M to 5:00 P.M. , Monday - Friday at City Hall, 2000 Main Street and the Central Library, 7111 Talbert Avenue. There being no one present to speak further on the matter and there being no protests filed, either oral or written, the hearing was closed by the Mayor. The City Clerk presented Resolution No. 5533 for Council consideration - "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCI ,, OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ADOPTING A BUDGET FOR THE CITY FOR FISCAL TEAR 1985-86." On motion by Mandic, second Green, Council adopted Resolution No. 5533 by the following roll call vote: , h, AYES: Kelly, MacAllister, Mandic, Baileyi._Finley, Green NOES: Thomas ABSENT: None PUBLIC HEARING - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 84-1 - CERTIFIED - LAMi-f= ELEMENT - CONTINUED 120 DAYS - 10-21-85) The Mayor announced that this was the day and hour set f or a public hearing to consider Environmental Impact Report 84-1 which assesses the environmental impacts of proposed Land Use Element Amendment 85-1 relative to several development concepts with the development of 120 acres south of Ellis Avenue and north of Garfield Avenue between Goldenwest Street and Gothard Street known as the Holly property. Environmental Impact Report 84-1 is available for review in the City Clerk's Office. The Mayor announced that this was also the day and hour set f or a public hearing to consider Land Use Element Amendment No. 85-1 in conjunction with Environmental Impact Report 84-1. Land Use Element Amendment No. 85-1 is a proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan (LUE 85-1) , which covers a request by the Huntington Beach Company to change the General Plan designations on approximately 120 acres from Estate Residential 0-2 units per acre, Estate Residential 0-4 units per acre, General Industrial and Office Professional to Planned Community. The subject property is located on the south side of Ellis Avenue, west of the Southern Pacific Railroad Right-of-Way, north of Garfield and Ernest Avenues and east of Goldenwest Street. The applicant's request could result in approximately 1,200 dwelling units. Environmental Impact Report 84-1 assesses the environmental impacts of the proposed Land Use Element Amendment 85-1. 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. Hal Simmons, Assistant Planner, presented a staff report. The Mayor declared the hearing open. Page 4 - Council Minut - 6/17/85 Dave Potter presented ETI Corral's position and supported a master plan for the entire area. Reuben Ortega stated that he was opposed to any change which allows for medium density. He supported an overall plan. Jerry Galich stated that he was opposed to Land Use Element 85-1. Lorraine Faber spoke on behalf of the Amigos de Bolsa Chica and supported the proposed denial of Land Use Element Amendment 85-1. Alan Strasbaugh stated that he believed that the Huntington Beach Company should develop industry on the property. Bill Holmann, representing the Huntington Beach Company, requested approval of Land Use Element Amendment 85-1 and Environmental Impact Report 84-1. 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. Discussion was held regarding the need for a master plan of the area and a fiscal analysis. A motion was made by MacAllister, seconded by Mandic, to approve Environmental Impact Report 84-1. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Kelly, MacAllister, Mandic, Bailey, Finley, Green NOES: Thomas ABSENT: None A motion was made by Kelly to defer consideration of Land Use Element No. 85-1 for 90 days for staff and the Huntington Beach Company to work out an industrial plan. The motion died for lack of a second. A motion was made by MacAllister, seconded by Kelly, to continue consideration of Land Use Element 85-1 for 120 days to work out a solution. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Kelly, MacAllister, Bailey, Finley, Green NOES: Mandic NOT VOTING: Thomas ABSENT: None Ad Hoc Committee to be Established A motion was made by Green, seconded by Mandic, to create an Ad Hoc committee to work with staff, Community Services Commission and the Huntington Beach Company; the members of the Committee to be appointed at a later date; the committee to include one or two councilmembers, one to be Councilman Kelly. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Kelly, MacAllister, Mandic, Bailey, Finley, Green NOES: None NOT VOTING: Thomas ABSENT: None REQUE! FOR CITY COUNC' ACTION Date June 7 , 1985 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson, City Administrator Prepared by: James W. Palin, Director , Development Services Subject: LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 85-1 H &,,,„1 .0D Consistent with Council Policy? Xf Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception IX4 76'a Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Fundinq Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Transmitted .for public hearing is Land Use Element Amendment No. 85-1 . The amendment addresses a request by the Huntington Beach Company to change the land use designation on 126 acres from General Industrial , Office Professional and Estate Residential to Planned Community. The study area is known as the Holly Property and is located between Ellis Avenue, the Southern Pacific Right-of-Way, Garfield Avenue, Crystal Street, Ernest Avenue and Goldenwest Street. The request is being forwarded to the City Council along with the Planning Commission 's recommendation. RECOMMENDATION: Planning Commission action: ON MOTION BX WINCHELL AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER, LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 85-1 WAS DENIED WITH FINDINGS BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND RECOMMENDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR DENIAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe , Winchell , Schumacher , Livengood, Porter , Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine ABSTAIN: None PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Deny Land Use Element Amendment No. 85-1 and any future amendment requests on the property until such time as an overall master plan for development is prepared for the Ellis-Goldenwest Area and approved by the City Council . They further recommended that the City Council consider hiring the services of a consultant to prepare an equestrian oriented plan. The Planning Commission 's findings for denial are included in Attachment 2 . P10 4/84 ---STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Department of Development Services staff concurs with the Planning Commission and recommends denial of Land Use Element Amendment No. 85-1 pending approval of the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan. Denial by the City Council will not require adoption of a resolution. ANALYSIS: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Environmental Impact Report No. 84-1 was prepared for the amendment request by Michael Brandman Associates . The EIR is transmitted with a separate Request for Council Action. FUNDING SOURCE: Not applicable. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: The City Council may adopt the Planning Staff 's original recommendation for Alternative 6 (General Industrial/Medium Density ) or any of the other alternatives indicated in the Land Use Element Amendment document. A resolution adopting the Land Use Element Amendment is attached should the City Council decide to select one of the alternatives. ATTACHMENTS: 1 . Land Use Element Amendment No. 85-1 2 . Planning Commission Findings for Denial 3 . Draft Minutes from Planning Commission Public Hearing 4 . Resolution JWP:HS:kla RCA - June 7, 1985 -2- ( 2610d ) ATTACHMENT 2 PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS FOR DENIAL OF LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. - 1. The City needs to develop a comprehensive plan for the Ellis/Goldenwest area prior to changing the land use designation on the Holly Property. Additionally, the Ellis-Goldenwest planning area should be expanded to include all of the Holly Property as well as non-park land north of Ellis Avenue. 2. There is a need to retain existing industrial designated property in the City in order to accommodate the expanding industrial base. 3 . A continued supply of industrial property is necessary to provide employment opportunities and a balanced community. To rezone a significantly sized parcel at this time would limit future options to develop an additional industrial park . 4 . The City should retain the existing general plan on the Holly Property until Gothard is realigned with Crystal. (2613d ) RESOLUTION NO. ���3 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL QF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH APPROVING •LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN NO. 85-1 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach desires to update and refine the General Plan in keeping with changing community needs and objectives; and A public hearing on adoption of Land Use Element Amendment No. 85-1 to the General Plan was held by the Planning Commission on May 22, 1985 , and forwarded to the City Council ; and Thereafter the City Council, after giving notice as prescribed by Government Code Sec. 65355 , held at least one public hearing to consider Land Use Element Amendment No. 85-1; and At said hearing before the City Council all persons desiring to be heard on said amendment were heard, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach pursuant to provisions of Title 7 , Chapter 3, Article 6 of California Government Code commencing with Sec. 65350, that Land Use Element Amendment No . 85-1 consisting of the following changes is hereby adopted: 1. That 126 ± acres bounded by Ellis Avenue to the north , the Southern Pacific Railroad Right-of-Way to the east, Garfield and Ernest Avenues to the south and Crystal and Goldenwest Streets to the west be redesignated from Estate Residential 0-2 Units Per Acre, Estate Residential 0-4 Units Per Acre, General Industrial and Office Professional to General Industrial on the easterly and southeasterly 116 acres and Medium Density on the northwesterly 10 acres as depicted on the Land Use Alternative Map (Alternative 6 ) in Land Use Element Amendment No. 85-1. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the' City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of , 1985. Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk City Attorney REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED: City Administrator -Director of Development Services (2611d) REQUEO FOR CITY COUNCIL. ACTION Date June 7 , 1985 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson, City Administrate Prepared by: James W. Palin, Director , Development Services Subject: LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 85-1 DEF -D Consistent with Council Policy ?. D] Yes [ ] New Policy or Exceptio BY C(ja�A�=iL GL �� Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative ns-- ttachments:'------' _ ..... -------.--- STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Transmitted for public hearing is Land Use Element Amendment No. 85-1 . The amendment addresses a request by the Huntington Beach Company to change the land use designation on 126 acres from General Industrial , Office Professional and Estate Residential to Planned Community. The study area is known as the Holly Property and is located between Ellis Avenue, the Southern Pacific Right-of-Way, Garfield Avenue, Crystal Street, Ernest Avenue and Goldenwest Street. The request is being forwarded to the City Council along with the Planning Commission 's recommendation. RECOMMENDATION: Planning Commission action: ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER, LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 85-1 WAS DENIED WITH FINDINGS BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND RECOMMENDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR DENIAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher , Livengood, Porter , Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine ABSTAIN: None PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Deny Land Use Element Amendment No. 85-1 and any future amendment requests on the property until such time as an overall master plan for development is prepared for the Ellis-Goldenwest Area and approved by the City Council . They further recommended that the City Council consider hiring the services of a consultant to prepare an equestrian oriented plan. The Planning Commission 's findings for denial are included in Attachment 2. `P10 4/84 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Department of Development Services staff concurs with the Planning Commission and recommends denial of Land Use Element Amendment No. 85-1 pending approval of the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan. Denial by the City Council will not require adoption of a resolution. ANALYSIS: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Environmental Impact Report No. 84-1 was prepared for the amendment request by Michael Brandman Associates. The EIR is transmitted with a separate Request for Council Action. FUNDING SOURCE: Not applicable. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: The City Council may adopt the Planning Staff 's original recommendation for Alternative 6 (General Industrial/Medium Density ) or any of the other alternatives indicated in the Land Use Element Amendment document . A resolution adopting the Land Use Element Amendment is attached should the City Council decide to select one of the alternatives. ATTACHMENTS: 1 . Land Use Element Amendment No. 85-1 2. Planning Commission Findings for Denial 3. Draft Minutes from Planning Commission Public Hearing 4 . Resolution JWP:HS:kla RCA - June 7, 1985 -2- (2610d ) 1 w• Authorized to Publish Advertisements of all kinds including public notices by Decree of the Superior Court of Orange County, California, Number A-6214, dated 29 September, 1961, and A-24831, dated 11 June, 1963. E"+ STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of Orange Public Notice Advertising covered . by this a"idavit is set in 7 point with 10 pica column width - I am a Citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the below entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of the Orange Coast DAILY PILOT, with which is combined the j PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE OF NEWS-PRESS, a newspaper of general circulation, I PUBLIC HEARING ' LAND USE ELEMENT . printed and published in the City of Costa Mesa, AMENDMENT85-1 AND ENVIRONMENTAL County of Orange, State of California, and that a IMPACT.REPORT 84-1 Public. Hearing NOTICE IS HEREBY 'r Notice of )GIVEN that a-public-hearing i? )will be held by the City Coun- ;cil of the City of Huntington lBeach, in the Council (Chamber of the Civic' (Center, Huntington Beach, of which copy attached hereto is a true and complete at the hour of 7:30 P.M., or., as soon thereafter'as poss- copy, was printed and published in the Costa Mesa, ible on Monday,the 17th day of June, 1985, for the Newport Beach, Huntington Beach,-Fountain.Valley, purpose of considering Land Use .Element Amendment Irvine, the South Coast communities and u La na No.85.-1 and Environmental g Impact Report. 84-1. Land Beach issues of said er news a for 1 time Use Element .Amendment newspaper No. 85-1 is a proposed amendment to the Land Use c 9m%=i<thL mm9ek%to wit the issue(s) of Element of the General Plan (LUE 85-1), which covers a request by the Huntington Beach Company to change the General Plan desig- nations on approximately June 6 198 5 120 acres from Estate Resi- dential 0-2 units per'acre Estate Residential 0-4 units per acre, General Industrial, 198 and Office Professional to + Planned Community. The subject property is located , on the south side of Ellis Av- I 198 enue,west of Southern Pa" - + cific Railroad Right-of-Way, north of Garfield-and Ernest. Avenues and east of Gold- 198 enwest Street. The appli- t, cant's request could result in approximately 1,200 dwell- ing units. A legal description is on + 198 file in the Department of De- velopment'Services. Environmental Impact Re- port 84-1 assesses the en- vironmental impacts of the I declare,'under penalty of perjury, that eat the proposed Land Use Element Amendment. foregoing is true and correct. All interested persons are. invited to attend,said hear- ing and express their June 6 5 opinions for or against said Executed on 198 _ mend Use Element Ami-ndAmend- , ment 85-1 and Environmen- tal Impact Report -1. at Costa Mies , California. Further information: may . i be obtained from the Office E of the City Clerk,2000 Main }Street, Huntington Beach, }California 92648 - (714) Signature 536-5227. fDated:June 4, 1985 CITY OF HUNTININGTON kBEACH, BY: ALICIA M. iWENTWORTH, CITY / }CLERK Published Orange Coast Daily Pilot June 6, 1985 • Th-049 PROOF OF PUBLICATION Publish June 6, 1985 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT 85-1 AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 84-1 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 Monday, the 17th day of June, 1985, for the purpose of considering Land Use Element Amendment No. 85-1 and Environmental Impact Report 84-1. Land Use Element Amendment No. 85-1 is a proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan (LUE 85-1), which covers a request by the Huntington Beach Company to change the General Plan designations on approximately 120 acres from Estate Residential 0-2 units per acre, Estate Residential 0-4 units per acre, General Industrial and Office Professional to Planned Community. The subject property is located on the south side of Ellis Avenue, west of the Southern Pacific Railroad Right-of-Way, north of Garfield and Ernest Avenues and east of Goldenwest Street. The applicant's request could result in approximately 1,200 dwelling units. A legal description is on file in the Department of Development Services. Environmental Impact Report 84-1 assesses the environmental impacts of the proposed Land Use Element Amendment. All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and express their opinions for or against said Land Use Element Amendment 85-1 and Environmental Impact Report 84-1. Further information may be obtained from the Office of the City Clerk, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92648 - (714) 536-5227. Dated: June 4, 1985 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH By: Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk T) ` a SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP 35-5-II CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA USE OF PROPERTY MAP TALBERT AVE• > _ J CF-R C9A`S3E ;, .c'41RAl.r'•1RK) NTY "Ns— ,_ ..............' YLOR OR. ONTARIO DR J C F-C 1111EV- -�- TJor`�. $ 4LBERTA pR o i ? i RANKLIN OR '/UKON OR OR. AVE. :l � COMNOOORE CR. ffT ~ :.a3nv U r W kl. - O r z Z ats�pti z y � - z E 0 GARFIELD AV E. �.0 ass LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT 85-1 4 LSD �s � 8 s -f �- �,-P�•�-" LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be Jeld by the City- Planning Commission of the City of Huntington B ch, California, for the purpose of considering Land Use Elemen No. vs{ cia -S '0'W_4,.._r a proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan (LUE 85-1 which covers a request by the Huntington Beach Comparr�r to change the General Plan designations on approximately 120 acres from Estate Residen- tial 0-2 units per acre, Estate Residential 0-4 units per acre, General. . Industrial and Office Professional to planned Community. The subject property is located on the south side of Ellis Avenue;-..west of the Southern Pacific Railroad Right-of-way, north of Garfield and Ernest Avenues and east of Goldenwest Street. The applicant's- request could result in approximately 1, 200 dwelling units* legal description is on file in the Department of Development Services . EI/z arrer..ev GS! /(��tcT' ♦� �� ��epe�� �sy�Utt E�At.� Ahla�lft4� t s Said hearing will be held at the hour of 7 :00 P .M. , on May 7 , 1985 , in the Council Chambers Building of the Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California. All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and express their opinions for or against the proposed Land Use Element Amendment No_ 85-1 Further information may be obtained from the City Planning , Department. Telephone No. (714) 536-5271 DATED this a(Q day of CITY PLANNING COMMISSION By James W. Palin, Secretary Ignacio Estrada -9±101 .abama buntington Beach, CA 92648 110-211-10 Mike Perez 111-120-01 S & C Oil Company New Offer 411 Main Street, Suite B 110-211-11 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Mike Perez Southern Pacific Transportation 2230 Florida Company Huntington Beach, CA 92648 610 South Main Street, Room 645 110-211-12,14 Los Angeles, CA 90014 Dena Wood 111-072-14 ' 1310 Palm Ms. Joyce Whitfield Phoenix, AZ 85007 417 6th Street 110-211i13 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Mike Perez 111-072-14 2230 Florida Mr. and Mrs. Charles Boone Huntington Beach, CA 92648 5803 Rogene 110-211-14 Long Beach, CA 90815 Marion AC 111-072-14 P.O. Box 108 Mr. and Mrs. Dexter Whitfield Huntington Beach, cA 92648 928 South Ross Street 110-180-02,04,05 Santa Ana, CA 92701 111-072-08 Huntington Signal Oil Company 3913 Long Beach Boulevard Long Beach, CA 90807 111-120-28 Weir Oil Company, Inc. 401 20th Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Ocean View Mushroan Mike Klubiken Kenneth Thompson 1819,6*Golden West 18481 Can-aby 4012 Ondine Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 111-071-24 159-063-10 111-150-01 Mabel Bradley Brian Kelly Chan Chang 20302 Laverton 18471 Carnaby Katy, TX 77450 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 New Owner 111-071-25 159-063-11 - 111-150-02 Richard Pariseau Jackson Branford Harvey Rose 5622 Brighton 17682 Mitchell 18600 Main St. #150 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Irvine, CA 92714 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 111-071-26 159-311-01 111-150-03 James Hudson gton Bea Larry Kiapos 19751 Bluefield Plaza 225 Yorba Linda, CA 92686 San i 94120 New Owner 111-071-27 -311-02 111-150-04 Vicnora Corp. on Beach Clinton Silverman 18196 Golden West P.O. 8272 Le Conte Huntington Beach, CA 92648 San sco, Huntington Beach, CA 92646 111-071-28 1-02,05 111-150-05 City of Huntington Beach 4b' Beach Co. See Yee P.O. Box 190 P.O. Box 1 6791 Loyola Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntingt ach, CA Huntington Beach, CA 92647 111-071-31 1 - - 2,03 111-150-06 Huntington Beach Co. n Bea Doanld Weir 2110 Main St. P.O. Box 401 20th Huntington Beach, CA 92648 San Fr sco, CA Huntington Beach, CA 92648 111-072-12 159 -01,02 111-150-13 Larry Strasbaugh Gloria Bradeson Robert Anderson 18460 Gothard 121 Via Menton 19082 Crystal Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 159-212-08 159-281-03 111-150-15 Edward Harvey City of Huntington Beach Huntington Beach Properties 7532 Appleby City Hall 22902 Via Genoa Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 S. Laguna, CA 92677 159-063-07 159-281-04 111-150-46 Richard Morley >nsB1each gton Be7522 Appleby F.O.Huntington Beach, CA 92648 co, 94120 San isco, 4120 159-063-08 -150-47 Philip Herbert Mola Development Corp. Ycon Shin 7512 Appleby 417 Main St. 2132 Edgewood Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Alhambra, CA 91803 159-063-09 159-282-07 111-150-48 Jame Ttelford Ruby Greer Tohn Schuesler MV5 �itiS _209 Park 4832 Curtis Austin, TX 78705 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 111-140-01 111-110-19,20 110-210-06 Donald Weir Elmer Goetsch Louis Spelts 401 20th 610 Main 471 Walnut Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Costa Mesa, CA 92627 111-140-02 111-110-21,22 110-210-07 St, Martin Charles Cal Produce >tington Beach 5225 Wilshire P.O. Box 4489 7Los Angeles, CA 90036 Ccmpton, CA 90224 , CA 94120 111-140-04 111-110-23 8,0 Dorothy Otto S & C Oil Co. Michael Niccoie 2217 29th 411 Main 400 Orange Los Angeles, CA 90018 Huntington Beach, CA ' 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 111-140-27 111-120-01 110-210-10 Doanld Weir John Thomas Ruth Gordon 401 20th 19782 Scenic Bay 2219 Greenleaf Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Santa Ana, CA 92706 111-140-36,37 111-120-25 110-210-11 Bruce Greer Elmer Goetsch Gyneth Smith 18792 Stewart 610 Main P.O. Box 702 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Lake Arrowhead, CA 92352 111-110-01,02 111-110-26 110-211-01 Robert Dunn Travis Mitchell Ronald Borghetti 800 Fairmont 1965 Long Beach 10208 Disney Burbank, CA 91501 Long Beach, CA 90806 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 111-110-11,12,13 111-120-27 110-211-02 William Landis Ronald Brindle Milton Mar.•aw Century City #470 18851 Golden West 864 Bundy Los Angeles, CA 90067 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Los Angeles, CA 90049 111-110-14 110-220-02,03,04 110-211-03 Jerry Galich William Landis Charles Tunstall 939 loth Century City #470 P.O. Box 546 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Wildomar, CA 92395 111-110-15 110-210-01 110-211-04,05 Prentiss Cutter Lorna Ross Weir Oil Company 9152 Lama 401 20th New Owner Villa Park, CA 92663 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 111-110-16 110-210-02 _ 110-211-06,07,08 Robert Mandic Michael Niccole Lora Howell 1112 Main 400 Orange, 11 Orange Grove Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Tucson, AZ 85704 111-110-18 110-210-03 110-211-09 13 Y 36 j,-t Gc Au l / —/Eo J neN$"s5 ea++e,- f e/0 CA•L Pnodvesvd Xmc. ,Os t ^. v mw4�d 19431 S S. FQ C l t MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648, TUESDAY MAY 7,_ 1985 - 7 : 00 p.m. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Rowe, Winchell , Schumacher , Livengood Ers ne, Rlr5ahangir COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Porter A. CONSENT CALENDARS A-1 Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting on April 16 . 1985. ON MOTION BY SCHUMACHER AND SECOND BY ERSKINE THE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 16,-1985 WERE APPROVED WITH CORRECTIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell , Schumacher , Livengood, Erskine r Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAINS None i B. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMISSION ITEMS: Chairman Livengood stated that the City Council would not be meeting on their regular Monday, May 20, 1985, but on Tuesday May 21, 1985. Chairman Livengood asked the Commission if they would like to meet on Monday, May 20, 1985, or Wednesday May 22, 1985. Mike Adams of staff advised the Commission that staff assumed the meeting would be on. May 22, 1985, with which the Commission concurred. C. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: C-1 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 85-1 (Holly Property) Applicant: Huntington Beach Company Land Use Element Amendment No. 85-1 was scheduled for a public hearing before the Planning Commission on March 19 , 1985. At that meeting, the applicant (Huntington Beach Company) requested that the Commission review the Environmental Impact Report (EIR 84-1 ) for the amendment, but continue the hearing on the amendment itself to May 7, 1985. The Planning Commission agreed to the continuance. On April 30, 1985, the Huntington Beach Company submitted a letter requesting further continuance of the public hearing to the May 22, 1985 Planning Commission meeting. i Chairman Livengood asked staff if they were recommending continuarvice of the public hearing to May 22, 1985 Planning Commission Meeting`. I Staff stated yes . j ON MOTION BY SCHUMACHER AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 85-1 (HOLLY PROPERTY ) WAS CONTINUED TO THE MAY 22 , 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell , Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine , Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None C-2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-15, TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11881 , CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-18 , COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 85-2 Applicant: Huntington Bay & Racquet Club On April 16 , 1985, the Planning Commission continued the subject requests in order to allow staff time to research contradicting development standards contained in the Huntington Bay Club Specific Plan. Page 16 of the document states "structures having dwelling units attached side by side shall not be composed of more than six (6 ) dwelling units on any one level . " This section is inconsistent with the density provision which allows for 42 units in two buildings ( 21 units per building, 3 stories in height ) . ti The staff researched the City Council tapes to determine the Council ' s intent when adopting the Specific Plan for the Racquet Club. Attached for the Planning Commission 's review was a transcript from two City Council meetings which addressed the issue of bulk . It indicated that the Council understood and intended to have 7 units side by side for the project . It should be noted that Section 9800 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code states "the recommendations of the Commission in legislative matters shall be only advisory, but its decisions in other matters such as interpreting the applicable provisions of Division 9 , passing on plans submitted to it in accordance herewith, and the disposition of petitions shall be binding and effective, subject to appeal as hereinafter provided. The applicant has also indicated to Staff that the request for Conditional Exception No. 85-18 will be withdrawn, and the height will not exceed 45 feet as measured from the bulkhead line. The meeting tape clearly indicated that building height was a major concern of the Council and that no deviation for height should be allowed. Commission review ensued. Chairman Livengood suggested an amendment to the Planning Commission to correct the Specific Plan as far as the bulk is concerned. Mike Adams of Staff stated that mistake was a clerical mistake so a code amendment is not necessary. _ I MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648; TUESDAY MAY 7, 1985 - 7:00 p.m. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Rowe, Winchell , Schumacher, Livengood Erskine, Nirjahangir COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Porter A. CONSENT CALENDAR: A-1 Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting on April 16 . 1985. ON MOTION BY SCHUMACHER AND SECOND BY ERSKINE THE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 16, 1985 WERE APPROVED WITH CORRECTIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell , Schumacher , Livengood, Erskine j Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter i ABSTAIN: None B. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMISSION ITEMS: Chairman Livengood stated that the City Council would not be meeting on their regular Monday, May 20, 1985, but on Tuesday May 21, 1985. Chairman Livengood asked the Commission if they would like to meet on Monday, May 20, 1985, or Wednesday May 22, 1985. Mike Adams of staff advised the Commission that staff assumed the meeting would be on May 22', 1985, with which the Commission concurred. C. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: C-1 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 85-1 (Holly Property) Applicant: Huntington Beach Company Land Use Element Amendment No. 85-1 was scheduled for a public hearing before the Planning Commission on March 19, 1985. At that meeting, the applicant (Huntington Beach Company) requested that the Commission review the Environmental Impact Report (EIR 84-1 ) for the amendment, but continue the hearing on the amendment itself to May 7, 1985. The Planning Commission agreed to the continuance. On April 30, 1985, the Huntington Beach Company submitted a letter requesting further continuance of the public hearing to the May 22 , 1985 Planning Commission meeting. Chairman Livengood asked staff if they were recommending continuance of the public hearing to May 22, 1985 Planning Commission Meeting . I Staff stated yes . ON MOTION BY SCHUMACHER AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR GENERAL PLAN -` AMENDMENT NO. 85-1 (HOLLY PROPERTY ) WAS CONTINUED TO THE MAY 22 , 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell , Schumacher , Livengood, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None C-2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-15, TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11881 , CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-18, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 85-2 Applicant: Huntington Bay & Racquet Club i On April 16 , 1985, the Planning Commission continued the subject requests in order to allow staff time to research contradicting development standards contained in the Huntington Bay Club Specific Plan. Page 16 of the document states "structures having dwelling units attached side by side shall not be composed of more than six (6 ) dwelling units on any one level . " This section is inconsistent with the density provision which allows for 42 units in two buildings ( 21 units per building, 3 stories in height ) . The staff researched the City Council tapes to determine the council ' s intent when adopting the Specific Plan for the Racquet Club. Attached for the Planning Commission' s review was a transcript from two City Council meetings which addressed the issue of bulk . It indicated that the Council understood and intended to have 7 units side by side for the project . It should be noted that Section 9800 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code states "the recommendations of the Commission in legislative matters shall be only advisory, but its decisions in other matters such as interpreting the a plicable provisions of Division 9 , passing on plans submitted to it in accordance herewith, and the disposition of petitions shall be binding and effective, subject to appeal as hereinafter provided. The applicant has also indicated to Staff that the request for Conditional Exception No. 85-18 will be withdrawn, and the height will not exceed 45 feet as measured from the bulkhead line. The meeting tape clearly indicated that building height was a major concern of the Council and that no deviation for height should be allowed. Commission review ensued. Chairman Livengood suggested, an amendment to the Planning Commission to correct the Specific Plan as far as the bulk is concerned. Mike Adams of Staff stated that mistake was a clerical mistake so a code amendment is not necessary. ` . , SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 85-3: 1. The proposed project is consistent with the City Coastal Zone suffix as well as other provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code applicable to the property; and conforms with the plans , policies,requirements and standards. of- the .,City 's Coastal Land Use Plan. 2. The proposed project can be provided with infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with the Coastal Land Use Plan. 3. The proposed project conforms with the public access and public recreational policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act. C-3 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 85-1 (HOLLY PROPERTY) Transmitted for public hearing is Land Use Element Amendment No. 85-1 . The amendment addresses approximately 126 acres- of property known as the Holly Property located on the south side bf-Ellis Avenue, west of the Southern Pacific Railroad Right-of--Way, north of Garfield and Ernest Avenues and east of Crystal and Goldenwest Streets . The request is to change the Land Use designation from Estate Residential , General Industrial and Office/Profess'ional to Planned Community. Environmental Impact Report No. 84-1 was , prepared for this amendment as a separate document and must be approved by the Planning Commission for recommendation to the City Council before action is taken on the Land Use Element Amendment . r On March 19, 1985 and again on May 7, 1985 the Planning Commission continued action on .Land Use Element Amendment No. 85-1 . EIR 84-1 in conjunction with this Land Use Amendment request was reviewed by the Planning Commission on March 19 , 1985. At that meeting, the Commission approved the EIR, but expressed concern with the fiscal impact section. In response to these concerns staff has reworked the fiscal impact section. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Bill Holman, representing the Huntington Beach Company, was opposed to staff 's' recommendation and proposed that the Holly Property be redesignated from estate residential, general industrial, and office professional to planned community. Jerry Galich, adjacent property owner, spoke in support of the proposal . Bruce Greer , adjacent property owner, spoke in oppositAon of the project. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal and , the public hearing was closed. PA -5- P.C. May '2 2, 19 8 5 Commission Review ensued . After some discussion , the Planning Commission expressed strong opposition to the proposal stating that they want to keep the existing General Plan as is until a study for master planning the area had been done. They directed staff to have a consultant brought in to study and incorporate tha Ellis/Goldenwest Specific Plan with a master plan study of tbe .whole area. Commissioner Porter stated that he would like the Commissioners comments incorporated into findings for denial . ON MOTION• BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. .85-1 (HOLLY PROPERTY) WAS DENIED WITH •FINDINGS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher , Livengood, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine , ABSTAIN: . None FINDINGS FOR DENIAL 1 . The City needs to develop a comprehensive plan for ' the Ellis/Goldenwest area prior to changing the land use designation on the Holly Property. 2. There is a need to retain existing industrial designated property in the City in order to accommodate the expanding industrial base. 3 . Industrial property is necessary to provide employment opportunities and a balanced community to rezone a significant size parcel at this time. 4 . The City should retain the existing general plan on the Holly Property until Gothard is realigned with Crystal. 5. The Planning Commission further recommends that the City Council consider hiring a- consultant to prepare an overall master plan for the area. C-4 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 85-2 AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 85-1 Transmitted for public hearing is Land Use Element Amendment No. 85-2/Environmental Impact Report No. 85-1 . The amendment considers changes in General Plan designations on 22 sites. Twenty-one of the changes are City-initiated Administrative items which are intended to establish consistency between the General Plan and existing zoning. These areas , Items 3.1-3 . 21 are not covered by the EIR. Area 2. 1 is the only amendment item which is covered by the EIR and which is not City initiated . The amendment consists of the following recommended changes : -6- P.C. May 22, 1985 2. 1 - The applicant 's request is to redesignate 10. 1 acres located on the northwest corner of Ellis Avenue and Goldenwest Street from General Commercial to Medium Density Residential . zone Change 85-2 has been filed by the applicant to be processed concurrently with the amendment request.. Staff recommends approval of the requested change to Ned­um Density Residential . Staff 's recommendation on the zone change request is contained in . the separate zone Change 85-2 staff report. 3 .1=3 .21 - A City-initiated request to amend the General Plan designation on 21. sites in order to achieve consistency between the General Plan and existing zoning. Staff recommends approval of all 21' sites. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED George Alvarez , representative for M.D. Janes, spoke``Iin, support -of the proposal Ron Pattinson, consultant for Mr . and Mrs . Marion, displayed renderings of the proposal in support of the project. Geri Ortega spoke in opposition to the proposal stating that she favored Estate-Equestrian Residential and that a long range well defined plan is needed for the area. Steve Feldman spoke in opposition to the proposal . Dave Roberts spoke in opposition to the proposal. Richard Tumora spoke in support of the proposal . There were> no- other persons to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Review ensued. Commissioner Mirjahangir stated that Parks and Recreation should provide written comments on the proposal prior to action by the City Council. Commissioner Schumacher stated that she wds opposed to higher density so close to the City Park . 1 She also stated that she cannot support the change until there i's an overall plan for the area . Commissioner Winchell stated that she would like to have comments from Parks and Recreation and feels the area needs a master plan. Commissioner Rowe also stated that the area needs an overall master plan. Chairman Livengood stated that the area needs an overall plan. He , also expressed concern regarding helicopter patterns and the need for horse access . A straw vote was taken on area of concern 2 . 1 to deny. -7- P.C. May 22, 1985 -; • ON MOTION BY SCHUMACHER AND SECOND BY ROWE AREA OF CONCERN 2. 1 WITH FINDINGS WAS DENIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell , Schumacher, Livengood, Porter , Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: -Erskine ABSTAIN: — None ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY PORTER AREA OF CONCERN 3.1 THROUGH 3 .21 WAS CONTINUED TO THE JUNE 4, 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher , Livengood, Porter , Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine ABSTAIN: None C-5 ZONE CHANGE NO. 85-2 ( IN CONJUNCTION WITH LUE ..,85-2, AREA 2 .1 AND EIR 85-1 ) Initiated by the M. D. Janes Company, Zone Change No.. '05-2 is a : request to rezone the property located on the northwest corner of Ellis Avenue and Goldenwest Street from C2-0-(Q) (Qualified Community ,Business District Combined with Oil ) to R2-PD ('Medium Density Residential, Planned Development ) . This zone change is . being .considered concurrently with Land Use Element Amendment No. 85-2, Area 2. 1 , a request for redesignation from General Commercial to Medium Density Residential. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Ron Pattinson spoke in favor of the proposal . There were, no other persons to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. Commission review ensued. After a brief discussion the Commission in unison were opposed to the proposal because they felt that the zone change was not in conformance with the General Plan or with the draft Specific Plan Study. ON MOTION BY SCHUMACHER AND SECOND BY ROWE ZONE CHANGE NO. 85-2 ( IN CONJUNCTION WITH LUE 85-2, AREA 2. 1 AND EIR 85-2) WAS DENIED WITH FINDINGS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS FOR DENIAL OF ZONE CHANGE NO. 85-2 1 . The proposed zone change is not consistent with "the existing General Plan o.f General Commercial. 2. The proposed zone change is not consistent with the draft Ellis/Goldenwest specific plan study. T s, -8- P.C. May 22, 1985 RESOLUTION NO. �53 1 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CIT OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ADOPTING LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 85-1 TO THE GENERAL PLAN Whereas, the City Council of the City of Hu tington Beach desires to update and refine the General Plan n keeping with changing community needs and objectives ; and A public hearing on adoption of Land U e Element Amendment No. 85-1 to the General Plan was held by the Planning Commission on May 22, 1985, and approved for recommendation to the City Council; and Thereafter, the City Council, of er giving notice as pre- scribed by Government Code sections 65355 and 65090, held at least one public hearing to consi er Land Use Element No. 85-1; and At said hearing before the City Council all persons desiring to be heard on said amendmen were heard, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT SOLVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach rsuant to provisions of Title 7, Chapter 3, Article 6 of alifornia Government Code, commencing with section 65350, tht Land Use Element Amendment No. 85-1 is hereby amended as foltlows : That approximat ly 126 acres, bounded by Ellis Avenue to the north, the Souther Pacific Railroad right-of-way to the east, Garfield and Ernes Avenues to the south, and Crystal and Goldenwest Street to the west be redesignated from "Estate Residential, " 0-2 units per acre, "Estate Residential, " 0-4 units per acre, hnd "General Industrial and Office Professional" to "General Ind strial" on the easterly and southeasterly 116 acres and "Medium Density Residential" on the northwesterly 10 acres as shown on Land Use Alternative Map (Alternative 6) of Land Use Element Amendment No. 85-1. 1. HO TAKEN PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of 1985 . Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk �,r-- Cit, Attorney REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATE AND APPROVED: City Administrato erector of Develo ment Services 0595L/6/7/85 ahb Ho TAKE 2. r AGENDA ROUTING SLIP (� INITIATING DEPARTMENT y SUBJECT AGENDA DEADLINE DATE l,..To Administration MEETING DATE [LEGAL DEPARTMENT WITH EXHIBITS INITIATING DEPARTMENT — REVIEW/APPROVAL By: Yes No Ordinance [ ] Exhibits [ ) Resolution [ ) Exhibits [ ) Contract or Agreement [ ] Exhibits [ ] Financial Impact Statement — Unbudgeted items over$1,000 ) �NSURANCE REQUIRED [ ] BONDS REQUIRED ),,.,rT [ ] RCA [] ADMINISTRATION CITY CLERK FOR AGENDA COMMENTS: V 5- PIO 12/84