Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
General Plan Amendment 77-1 - Environmenal Impact Report 77-
GENERAL PLAN AM DI= 77-1 SUMMARY Area of Planning Dept. Planning Commission City Council Concern Location Acreage Applicant Request Recommendation Recommendation Recommendation 2.1 South Of Ellis Ave. 7.14 ac. Classic Dev. Change Industrial to Redesignate 7.14 Redesignate 7.14 ac. Redesignate 7.14 :. West of Huntington St. high density residential ac. to medium to medium density ac. to med. den- density residential residential (by. 5-1 sity residential vote) (by 5-1 vote) 2.2 North of Slater Ave. 4.87 ac. Robert Change Industrial to low Redesignate 4.87 ac. Redesignate 4.87 ac. Redesignate 4.87 and west of Gothard Stellrecht density residential to low density resi- to low density resi- ac. to low density St. dential dential (by 7-0 vote). residential (by 571 vote) 2.3 North of Talbert Ave. 38.7 ac. Frank Bucella Change Industrial to Redesignate 38.7 ac. Redesignate 38.7 ac. and east of Gothard St. and Planning medium density residential to medium density to medium density Department residential residential (by 6-1 vote) 2.4 Gothard St. south 47.76 ac. C.E.L.S. Corp. Change industrial to low Retain industrial Retain industrial des- Retain industrial of Heil Avenue density residential designation ignation (by 6-0 vote) designation (by 6-0 vote) 2.5 North of Heil Ave. 18.83 ac. Willis Miller Change industrial to med- Retain industrial Retain industrial des- Retain industrial and west of Gothard ium density residential designation ignation (by 7-0 vote) designation (by St. 4-2 vote) 2.6 South of the San 7.77 ac. Planning Change Planning Reserve Redesignate 7.77 ac. Redesignate 7.77 ac. Redesignate 7.77 Diego Freeway and Department to high. density resi- to high density resi- to high density resi- ac. to high density east of San Angelo dential dential dential (by 7-0 vote) residential (by Drive 4-2 vote) 2.7 South of Warner Ave. 16.48 ac. Crossman Change low density resi- Redesignate 16.48 Retain low density Retain low density and east of Bolsa Advertising dential to medium density ac. to medium den- residential designation residential desig- Chica St. residential sity residential (by 7-0 vote) nation (by 6-0 vote) 2.8 South of Hamilton 47.16 ac. Ponderosa Change industrial to low Redesignate 47.16 Retain industrial Retain industrial Ave. and west of Homes density residential ac. to low density designation (by designation (by Magnolia St. residential 7-0 vote) 6-0 vote) 2.9 South of Talbert 11.81 ac. Roselle Change industrial and Redesignate 11.81 Redesignate 11.81 ac. Ave. and west of Sommer & commercial to medium ac. to low density to low density resi- Beach Blvd. Planning density residential residential (by 6-1 dential (by -6-1 vote) Dept. vote GG 'Fllvle - 1 »-, 1 1 ' 1 [F=(C(Om(3m AMID D � Elf U 1 1 [DIV i FOR WILLIAM L. MILLER, Huntington Beach 1 June, 1977 EOIf UR wv( J: -� i _ r � •J i I � ��� III_ -- IT -Chl. 1 � ��~`-•'r-= i `-� ti{`�;-v�� tCF-E lli.itir -G Site u- I 1 Prepared by: � • lam_-i ---IT..ri= J L WEBB PLANNING CF-R `k �� _ `• 'i� I ' a ; A MlP\EP wK ' lot T_ ' TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 ' II . REVENUE/COST EVALUATION OF MOBILE HOME PARK DEVELOPMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 ' III. REVENUE/COST EVALUATION OF' INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 ' IV. LAND USE COMPATIBILITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 V. HOUSING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 VI . SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 1 t 1 LIST OF EXHIBITS 1 ' NO PAGE 1 . LOCATION MAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 ' 2. ANNUAL CITY REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES PER ACRE FOR MOBILE HOME PARK . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 ' 3. ANNUAL CITY REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES PER ACRE FOR MOBILE HOME PARK WITH ' ADDITIONAL REVENUES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4. ANNUAL CITY REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES PER ACRE FOR INDUSTRIAL PARK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 ' 5. ANNUAL CITY REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES PER ACRE FOR INDUSTRIAL PARK WITH ' ADDITIONAL REVENUES : : : : : : : : : : : : • . : ' : : : : : : : : : 14 6. EXISTING LAND USE . 16 ' 7. GENERAL•PLAN . . . . • . . • • .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 8. ZONING. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 ' 9. COMPARISON OF INDUSTRIAL TO MOBILE HOME PARK REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES . 23 1 LIST OF CHARTS ' 1 . CITY REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES PER ACRE OF MOBILE HOME PARK USE . . . . . . . . . 4 2. ADDITIONAL REVENUES FROM MOBILE HOME PARK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 ' 3. HUNTINGTON BEACH INDUSTRIAL PARK . . . . . . . . .. 10 4. REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES BY LAND USE . - 12 5. COMPARISON OF ANNUAL NET GAIN TO THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH FOR INDUSTRIAL_ AND MOBILE HOME PARK DEVELOPMENT 22 I I ' INTRODUCTION ' The purpose of this Report is to describe the results of an analysis of the planning and economic impact of a mobile home park develop- ment as compared to industrial development for a site of seventeen ' (17) acres on the northwest corner of Heil and Gothard in the City of .Huntington Beach (see Location Map - Exhibit #1). The present General Plan and Zoning is for industrial uses (see Exhibits #2 and ' #3 - General Plan and Zoning Map). However, the site is currently being proposed for a General Plan Amendment to facilitate the de- velopment of a proposed Mobile Home Park Development. This Report describes considerations for land use compatibility with existing and proposed surrounding land uses, cost/revenue ' impact of each alternative and description of the housing impact of the Mobile Home Park alternative. The planning firm of J. L. Webb Planning and the economic consult- ing firm of Ashley Economic Services were employed to prepare this Study to provide for a professional and objective comparison ' of a mobile home park development to that of industrial. These consultants have prepared numerous studies in planning and eco-nomic evaluations for other cities and areas of the County. The City of Huntington Beach has recently completed a 111976 Reve- nue/Expenditure Analysis of Land Uses" in August of 1976. This Report utilizes the information and results of that Study where ap- plicable in order to avoid duplication of effort and to insure com- parable background data and compatibility of the studies. There also have been meetings y.nd discussions with the City Staff of Huntington Beach and the County of Orange to verify and obtain ' additional information for this Study. 1 1 14 Tr - L CL iC 4 v E Pi u E f 1 1 I } i m i D 1 I 7 Q Q' 1 � J l/ O Q 1w- Iker D W C— G. O to 0 • w o R N E � r 1 ECONOMIC AM? FLANNIN&I e2- L)p`e 1•7 DC21✓ SI1rF5 A-6r N0L`r&4- wES"r CANE ©>_ 1 &0-rH49P S- EE;r 44412 i-tel eWUr, 4uNT 4&-r0" SSACA-{t 1 JMEV\OeV ram: �%OLLtb,M l_• MIL..LE.9- 1 LOCATION 1 J L WEBB PLANNING DESIGN PLAZA,220 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE.SUITE 22 NEWPORT BEACH CALIFORNIA 92660 (714)644.7955 Soo 290� O� 500' IGOO' -JvAll✓� I�l-l� 2 , II. • ' REVENUE/COST EVALUATION t OF MOBILE HOME PARK DEVELOPMENT ' The proposed Mobile Home Park could accommodate up to 153 units at the permitted maximum density of 9 dwelling units per acre over the 17 acre site. This yields a population of approximately 275 per- sons with an average age for head of household of around 55 years. Project characteristics important to this evaluation are projected ' as follow: Average cost of dwelling unit is assumed to be $29,750 ' which reflects use of double-wide units throughout which typically range from $24,500 to $35,000. - The projected land value of $65,000 per acre with im- provement cost of $5,500 per dwelling are used. This project also assumes that all sales of mobile home units will be made at the site and therefore the tax revenue from these sales will accrue to the City of Huntington Beach. ' This Study builds upon the 111976 Revenue/Expenditure Analysis of Land Uses" prepared by the Huntington Beach Planning Department. ' Discussions and meetings were held with the City of Huntington Beach to determine an acceptable approach for evaluating the spe- cific cost/revenue impact of this proposed project. The results of ' that input are as follow: A. For the general category of Mobile Home Park, reve- nues and expenditures were revised to reflect 1977 dollars using a 12% inflation per year for two years as recommended by the Staff of the Huntington Beach ' Planning Department. This is depicted on the follow- ing Chart #1 . This is revised here in order that com- parisons in this Report will coincide with information within this Chart in 1977 dollars. (see Exhibit #2) 1 3 CHART NO . 1 tCITY REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES PER ACRE OF MOBILE HOME PARK USE ' (Revised to 1977 Dollars) Mobile Homes 0-9 un/gr.ac. * 1975 Dollars 1977 Dollars ' REVENUES ' Bike and Animal Licenses . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . 15 19 Business License Fees . 21 26 Civic Improvements Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276 346 ' Home Occupations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 10 Mobile Home Licenses 260 326 Park-Related Revenues apportioned to Residential• . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 26 Per Capita Revenues . 318 399 Property Tax (excluding portion ' of share collected for recreation and parks purposes). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235 295 Water Utility . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186 233 ' $1 ,340 $1 ,680 EXPENDITURES ' City Support Services . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 404 507 Civic 7.mprovement Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 112 Fire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 298 374 ' Park-related Expenditures apportioned to Residential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 120 Police . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 387 485 ' Public Works 327 410 RefusE: Collection - - ' Special Gas Tax Fund . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 8 10 $1 ,599 $2,018 NET GAIN OR LOSS PER ACRE PER YEAR -$ 259 -$ 338 *1975 Dollars from Figure 2-1 in "1976 Revenue/Expenditure ' Analysis of Land Uses" ' 4 ANML)Aj- GIW REVENvE`7 ANP EWENDl UZE-5�' PEfZ, ACC FDf MOt5i -E I-PM e„, PAPJ<.. o �oo200 o0 I I I I ci � I I I I � N�r. C'Ai 0 9C clO7 I 1 0F3cx;� I15 i 2so I27500I7 I-�5 cn 1975 —$25c' 15� �1�8D 1CI77 � t�t7�' GY�L_L..a�Z�, �� FROM "lq�s (ZEVENVE/EXPENDI�Vt�. aNAL`-(`�t`� �F 1•-aND V�E`�' VNTINC�TC�N F3�gG4-{ PL4�ININCr DEPq�ZTM�. t�tT, aVGcJ�jT t9"75• P 7"7 t 2? ��qrL- B . To determine the specific impact of this project, additional specific revenues which could be quantified ' were calculated and included within the revenue portion to produce a revised cost/expenditure result. These include: 1 . P rope rty Tax For a mobile home park only the land and perma- nent improvements are taxed as secured property tax. Upon review of the approach the County Tax ' Assessor would take regarding this project, it was concluded that the taxes would be based on the cur- rent fair market value for the land and the actual ' improvement cost to prepare the pad for the mo- bile home unit along with any permanent recreation or service facilities. The fair market value is ' estimated to be $653,000 per acre and the projected improvement cost is approximately $5,500 per space. Thus, on a per, acre basis, a total value of $114,500 per acre would have an assessed value of $28,625 and with the C ity's $1 .62 per 100 assessed value, this would yield $464 per acre in property taxes revising the figure above shown as $295 per acre ' per year for a net gain of $169 per acre per year. The prime reason this change occurs is because the City based their estimate shown in "A" on ' existing mobile home parks which have a lower assessed land value and improvement cost. ' 2. Sales Tax From Mobile Home Sales Since this project proposes "on-site" sales of all ' units, the City of Huntington Beach will receive benefit from the sale of these units through the sales ax rate of $.0095 on the dollar which when ' figured for 153 units at an average cost of $29,750 yields $43,242 which is $185 per acre per year discounted at 6% for 30 years. We have described ' the benefit in these terms in order to compare the impact per acre over an extended time and to be able to add it to other benefits described in dollars ' per acre per year. ' 6 1 3. Tax From Resale of Units ' The point of resale will also be Huntington Beach and therefore sales tax �-evenue will accrue to the City as units are sold. The projected resale rate is around 8% per year which for an average unit value of $30,000 per unit would yield $201 per acre per year. This is believed to be a conservative estimate since in the newer parks appreciation of units has been substantial and has consistently pro- duced equity build-up for the owner and could eas- ily be 30% to 60% more than the figure projects over the next five to ten years. ' 4. Retail Sales Tax From Residents Because this projectwill introduce new residents within Huntington Beach, they in turn will purchase goods and services within the City. It is believed to be a conservative estimate that at least 50%* of all retail sales purchases will be within Huntington ' Beach. Therefore, for a family with an average income of around $17,000 (below the City average income of over $18,000), approximately $238 per ' acre per year would be generated by this means. This does not account for expenses and subsequent revenues from taxes through expansion of commer- cial facilities which could further increase the bene- fit of this development. ' 5 . Mobile Home License Fees License fees for mobile homes depreciate from year to year and for double-wide units up to around twenty ' years. Beyond this point they remain constant at $90 per year per unit which would yield about $270 per ac,re per year after about year twenty. ' Although these fees would generate about $759 per acre for the first year, the average over ':he first ' ten year period. would be $640 per acre per year dis- counted at 6% per year which would be a net gain of $320 per acre per year over the 1977 estimate of ' fees for the first 10 years. *This capture rate was recommended by the Staff of Huntington Beach and is probably a conservative estimate of the potential capture rate for sales tax revenue within the City of Huntington Beach. 7 '' • CHART NO . 2 • ' ADDITIONAL REVENUES FROM MOBILE HOME PARK Using the figures developed by the City of Huntington Beach updated then to 1977 dollars, the loss of $338 per acre per year would be offset by the four items as shown: ' Net loss shown in general for mobile homes in 1977 dollars -$ 338 ' 1 . Add gain in property tax because of higher land value and increased im- provement cost +$ 169 ' 2. Add revenue from Sales Tax for on- site sale of mobile home units +$ 185* ' 3. Add revenue from Tax for resale of units each year at 8% turnover +$ 201 ' 4. Add retail Sales Tax revenue received e e from these new residents of Huntington Beach +$ 238 ' 5. Add License Fees for first 10 years of development +$ 320 ' TOTAL NET GAIN $775/ac./yr.** ' * Shown in dollars per acre per year over 30 years depreciated at E%. See "2" on previous page. ** This yearly income per acre would apply for the first 10 years. ' Reduction of No. 5 would occur after that time and after 30 years, No. 2 would be reduced to 0. ' Thus over an extended period such as 50 _years, the following income would accrue to the City above the expenses projected for a total of about $378,250 in 50 years with $131 ,750 or about $13, 175 per year received in the first 10 years. ' 10 Years 20 Years 30 Years 40 Years 50 Years $131 ,750 $209,100 2861450 $332,350 $378,250 8 i MIN _y ANNUAL GI`T� REVSNVEe7 AND XPI✓N�1TViZ��, P E Z. FCOZ.. M051 LE I-P M L PARK.. MVENUE- EXPEND{TVA PE.iZ. Isc� PEg-', . g— • o Zoo 1400 600 Boo 1000 iZoD 1400 160o ISoo ZOorD 2100 ZZICO zkw Z8co NET C-A{t-4 100 -1 0 � 13, ISoo 1700 IgOo Zioo � Z� ua0 y Fill 7� JC177 POLL-AtZS 4-r IZ&/, INC2EASE, PE.2. yF,&p-. R.E.VENVE INC-WCINC� APCWIIONL�,' 9-F-VENUE FRD_M_.PRLePF.I 'r _TA)C-• _- --- - _. - -- - �vVcno►� of ApC>IT'ION&%- UcjmNc w- FEZ-A-s OcWg-°a AT {O `( -Ar-S. AT Tr1E ENV OF 34 YSW.0:-7 5&LE,S TAX FROM 02.16FIN&L- VNIT y&LF-47 A¢E 2F-DtjrFn. i III. REVENUE/COST EVALUATION ' OF INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ' The industrial development alternative is assumed to provide around 295.9000 square feet of building area over the seventeen (17) acres. 1 For reference in current dollars, Figure 8-1 from the 111976 Reve- nue/Expenditure Analysis of Land Uses" is shown and updated to depict 1977 dollars. (see Chart #3) ' 1 , Although two types of industrial uses are shown and either would be permitted under the current zone, this analysis assumes that the site would develop at 100% other manufacturing, wholesale trade and miscellaneous business services. This has a decided economic advan- tage as shown on page 55 of the August, 1976 "Revenue/ Expendisture Analysis of Land Uses" . CHART NO . 3 HUNTINGTON BEACH INDUSTRIAL PARK (Revised to ;977 Dollars) Other Manufacturing, Whole- sale Trade & Miscellaneous Business Services - $/Acre ' _1975 Dollars 1977 Dollars CITY REVENUES ' Business License Fees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 156 Civic 'Improvements Fund . (Utility Tax) 177 222 Property Tax . . 1 ,034 1 ,297 . • . Water Utility . . • • . . • • • . • • . • . • • • 371 465 _ . TOTAL +$1 ,695/ac. +$2, 140/ac. CITY EXPENDITURES City Support Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 411 516 Civic Improvements Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 114 ' Fire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169 212 Police . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170 312 ' Public Works . . . : : : : : : : : : : : : . . . . . . . . 694 871 Special Gas Tax 24 30 -$1 ,559/ac. -$1 .956/ac. ' NET GAIN PER ACRE $ 136 $ 184 *These figures increase the 1975 dollars by 12% a year (see also Exh. #4) ' 10 1 t ANNUAL GI1Y IzEVENvES AND EXPENMIVIZ.E,�e2 PEK, AcRe, froK, INR)5 1z l L . PARR. O IzE�/ENUE EEC?ENDt�Vt2E FED �S'Zl� Q>`.���IZ. *, d00 60 t K.-Op 1200 1400 IbOO IeOO 2 00 2 � N er 6'&11-O �0 � 2 � loo � r 7Oo 4� IIOn 13C�0 fib (700 1900 212O V5� 2� 2700 OQ L � j r Ml � l9"l5 t�l..L4R�, "CA,KEN �4ZOM "Ig75 �EV�NVEIE,)CP<✓N171"fV2� 1�NAl-ASK �F ��1� l.��E�j�� j 1q7� oL-L L.SQ4T NG-t2N�St� P l9`75- 1 2• Additional Property Tax Revenue ' In addition to City revenues shown on Chart No. 3, additional Property Tax revenue would be anticipated ' due to increased land values. Using $80,000 per acre* for: land value and improvements of $280,000 per acre, the tax on $360,000 per acre would yield $1458 per acre ' per year revenue or a net increase over $1296 per acre per year of $162 per acre per year. ' 3. Sales Tax Revenue Upon review with the City of Huntington Beach Finance ' Department and Planning Department, it was determined that there is no present knowledge of how much Sales Tax revenue is generated by industrial dev?lopment areas. ' Therefore, since a maximum amount of 25% of the indus- trial area can be used for commercial uses, it is assumed that the commercial area per acre could not exceed this ' ratio. It is li kely that at least 50% of this use would be office-professional in nature. The balance is assumed to produce a net gain similar to community commercial uses. ' Thus, as taken from Page viii of the "1976 Revenue/Ex- penditure Analysis of Land Uses" , the following revenue would be projected: ' CHART NO . 4 REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES BY LAND USE Revenue Expeno. Net Gain or Loss 25% Comm. ' Development Type Generated Incurred per acre per year for Ind. Dev. Commercial 1975 Dollars ' Commercial 5380 4062 +1318 +330 Office-Prof. 2299 3357 -1058 -265 NET DOLLARS PER ACRE PER YEAR + 260 + 65 ' 1977 Dollars Commercial 6749 5094 +1655 +414 Office-Prof'. 2884 4211 -1327 -331 ' NET DOLLARS PER ACRE PER YEAR + 328 + 83 ' Thus, 50% use of each type yields a net income of $328 per acre per year. * This figure was recommended by the City of Huntington Beach Planning Staff' and is felt to be above the, market value for this parcel up to $20,1000 per acre. ' 12 Using figures for 1977 dollars from Chart No. 3: ' 1 . Net gain for industrial = $184/ac/year 2. Additional Property Tax = 162/ac/year ' 3. Sales Tax Revenue = 83/ac/year ' TOTAL NET GAIN $429/ac/year (See Exhibit #5) The following information is taken from the Huntington Beach "Industrial Land Use Study " of June, 1976: ' "Application of the C ity's 'ndustrial density of 15.3 employees per acre to the expected employment growth yields the follow- ing future industrial land requirements: Years ' 1976-1980 + 2,622 employees + 171 .4 acres 1980-1990 + 4,538 employees + 296.6 acres 1990-2000 + 3, 192 employees + 208.6 acres + 10,352 employees + 676.6 acres In the high suitability classification, 664.4 acres are vacant and would account for approximately 23 1/2 years' supply or approxi- mately 28 acres per year. It is fair to assume that Huntington Industrial Park area has a greater propensity to absorb land sooner ' than in the Central Industrial Corridor or Gothard Strip. If all of the la-)d in the high or prime category were to sell in the Huntington Industrial Park before the Gothard Strip, it would take 17 1/2 years before development would begin in the Gothard Strip. Then after the Gothard Strip would begin to develop, another 6 years' supply would be available in this strip accounting for this 23 1/2 years' ' supply in these two areas. Assuming a better than average absorp- tion rate of 10 years for industrial development of this site, the in- come from the industrial alternative would be as follows: ' 10 Years 20 Years 30 Years 40 years 50 Years Industrial ' starting at $72,930 $145,860 $21 8,790 $291 ,720 year 10 13 mm A�NWUAL- C4W REVENUES ANP EYPENVML)K�S P E Z. APZ.F, FOR IWPc)gf?—rIz lA.L-.. FPAizV... o ?.l=VENUE E)CPENOII-U2r-- pE2. A<-- E PE�12 -q�L * O Zoo yoo 600 BM 1000 IZOO lgOO Iboo 1800 2-000 Z200 2-40O ZbOO Zeoo NET CAA►N too 300 1 5?0 1 Too I top 1 1300 1500 I700 14� -100 231 2.SCb 270oI DR LOGS 1 �ZINO ig77 i i 1 . 1 I 1�77 Pou-A,24, 4T 1Z°y INCzE-::ASE PEA YE&e-. T_QT4L_-ZE.VEN-UE .INGWC>lN- T PV—OPE Zj-Y -T41�C -- - - �- IV. LAND USE COMPATIBILITY ' To assess this aspect, three factors have been depicted: (1) existing land use, (2) the proposed General Plan and (3) existing zoning. These give the conditions today as well as those which will poten- tially affect the future compatibility of the use for this site. 1 . Existing Land Use (See Exhibit #6) The existing land use to the south across Heil Avenue is vacant land with no preference to compatibility with a mobile home park or industrial development. To the west is single-family detached residential development which would favor compatibility with a mobile home park over that of industrial. To the north is light in- dustrial uses and a Fire Station which would favor com- patibility to industrial uses. To the east is Gothard and industrial uses which would favor industrial compatibility. Therefore, there are conflicts and compatibilities with each land use relative to existing land uses. 2 . Existing General Plan (See Exhibit #7) ' The General Plan depicts industrial on three sides of the site. However, because arterial highways have been traditional ' edges or barriers between different land uses, compati- bility with either a mobile home park or industrial could ' be considered. Alsc to the north there is industrial de- velopment and to the west there is residential. ' 3. Existing Zoning (See Exhibit #8) Since the Zoning Maps coincide with the General Plan, the same conclusion_: can be drawn with these conditions affecting compatibility and conflicts with either use. ' 15 i C u g v E E 1cl 1 1N01K17ZIAL G INDt*rVJAj. Vi>AwT 1 ' cTORnC,E P� � � 4r4 d 1 S I-rEr p -vAcANT'- Ii VVSrRIAL F—NTlAL- All v �s 1 l�c�lq� l2��i!DF�►T l�_ ' VACr WT 'VACA"T a� 7 z z `. GOMM,L 1 0. �.. a. c. p2►�/C- to i W w s R N A r 1 ECONOMIC AMP FLANNINC-ow- S-rJD%e 1 l� Aa'Ce, SITS AT N01�4{— �✓E�iT C�2�IE2 OAF C�rr�.o,�zv �.�E�' NOD Ham►L, qv ENu�, �{VNTINC�ON C�,�C.F-t, C.AL��ORN1l� 1 VVEPA�%ZEC7 J OlZ: \\JlI_Ll4tdj L• MILLEk` 1 EXISTING J L WEBB PLANNING _ LAND 1 GL%.Cv 77npFWP0AlllllER1-VE 9J,LE7? �,;1.YP•..P•bi GBH ::�L IrOp"'P 97aw ". 6.4.'3-3` 50d Z�' o'� 901' IDoo� USE 1 •JuN�� 19�� f ' 16 W%mrl XN1�'�T —c- i N c- L 6 t re •1 aI B f 1 d o° a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 000000000000000 o°a°c°c°a°o°o�o°O°0 0 0oo°O°°° ` 0 0 0 0 0 0 G 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 / 000000000000000 caa00000000-c°a 0000000000OooOo 000000c00000000 ,. 000000000000000 :..: • :•• 000000c00000000 •••.'. 000000000000000 •:::::::. 000000c•00000000 ::::::. c°u°c0 o00000000000Ooo 000 OOOOOOo0O00O000 '::'r;:;:' OOOO 00000000000°000 •::•:•; •:::.:•.�...::.: 0000 O°O°O°O°O°O°OCO°O°O°O°O O0 O d O°O°O°O°O O O O O O O C O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0°0°0 0 000aoao°oaoap°oa000000°000000 000000c00000000 C o 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c o°o o o°000°o°°°oo°000°000go°o°ooa°oo°°°0000voo 000000000000000' o0000000000000 oo�o„pp0000° 000aOOOOO*o °0000 000000c0000000o p "bboo ``7900 00000moo0 0c o00 000000O000000o p o 000 00000gOoo 00 000000c0000000o p° pppOOppP 000° °°o°°°°°9000 00000000O00000 f o a00000°00000°000000000 0 000000000000000 000'0000000000000000000000°00 000000O0000000 0000000000000000aoo 0000 0 0000000OooO0000 00000O0000000000000°0000 00000000000000 00 0 0000 00000000 0000000000 0000 00o°oo°q• oog0000000 00000000O�oOoo o °o "b°0400°°°°0°°0 000000000000000 oo°poo°o OO0000000 00000000000000 o''bboo 0qq,,,00000000 00000oc00000000 00 oa°oQod'000000000 000000c0000000 o00000 oo0000 0-o0U-000000000 o9O0°o0a O a°O°O° o0000 ' 000000000000000 0 0 0 0 0 o c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0°O°o°o°o�o°Ap°�o°o oo°o°b°o°o 000000JOO00000 O°p O O°O O 00000 000000c00000000 o�od° o�q„od0oo°ooOooO m 0000000O0000000 bb o00000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0000000000 oPo°o°o°000 0000000 0000`boc00000000 o•ooa o0 00000000 000000�0000000 00000°000 00000000 000000000000000 0000a0000b0000000 ' 000000O00000000 0000000000000000 0000000c00000000 v. 0 000000000 00000O000000000 00000 0000000°00000000000O000 °00000°0°00000000000000000000 iH 000000O0000000000000000 000 000000000 00000000000000°eoo 000000000°00000000000000000 ' O O O O O O O O O O O O O O p�0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O°O°O°O°0°O°O°O°O°O°O°O°O°O°O°O°O°O°O°OO O°O°O°O°O°O°O°O°O°O°0°0- 0 O°C°O°O°O°O°O°O°O°O° O°O°O°O°O°O°O°O°O°O°O°O°O°O O°0000000000a00004 0000000000°0000000000000000000000000000000c 000000000000000000000 0 o 0 090 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • 0000 000°0 0000a Do 00000000000000° Q . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 v 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' O O O O CPO O O O O O O O O co 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O 0 a O O O O O O z I o°o°°°°°o ° O°0°O°o°o°000°0°0°0°0°0° o°O°O°O°o°O°O°o°o°o°o° o°o°o°o°°°°°o°0 �l 00°O 0 0000 oocooaoao 0 0 00 0 1 000 0 � o. c- G. c— P. a c. 0 �.......•..�..5 ECONOMIC AND' FLANWIN& e7TUp"firl FO ►-T AGOZ, SITE qT NCO( &4- `64E Ff CA02NE4?- OF ' RE.S ID E AL. &O—r,449D e7TRF-ET N4D i AeA Lr o°o°o o ti 7 V��`rY ►.{UNT11�lC ON 8�'1�C < <-�1�•-��''O��1 ' MEO.PEW34Ty � �PL��1F_.CJ -+CJ2: \VtLL.16�M L•• I`�ti L..L1��Z >15 UN/0%4f- 7MM�. GENERAL ' lHVUGr%Z%A.t - J L WEBB PLANNING PLAN ®GENERgL ^EbI,-I,PLAZA 220 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE SUWTE 22 r.Di "'a:c-. „ALIFC;aN;A 92bw :1. 644••75.'. 500 290' food puBu OPEN d�pAc� -•.ivNE� 19Z� ' 17 l_,L61 °�Nel1 HA ,0001 ,OY'$ .O ,O6Y G% SIC.,r" Piz INZ6 diNtlOd,lv�, .+,v dA.af_.aM iN 22 31-n6 dA-UO b31NX)IUO-M3� O22 VZV'W N^..IS30 a UNNOZ ZIA ::�® zsram?ao? _1. ;Pam o K►ZON JOV 3�usp -A-D 1-1 � <i ' M v v M 00 00 O O o 0 000 00 000 00 0000000000000 000000 2.. o•000000000000 000000 ¢t,�••-�,;;?c��- - � ?- � 0000000000000 000000 .` 0000000000000 - �, 'ti 'Cs-.l':r-••%ir 00000000000 00000aoaoo a 000°o°0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 000000000 0°0°0---0000 0°00000000000°0° 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 oaoaoao°o°oaoao ;N i.,�;;, � •_ ,YS:_'i=;•k:, �i;, °O O°O )P-�?'�? J,�.'�4Cryi °o°o° F.r_;t r�c '� 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000 O 000 O 0 0 000a00000a0 ,_"�T�� �Nir'���;���:4.`_ .., 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000000000000000000000 �•- S(;.r`�t `";;f_,-•�," O O O o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 � o000000000000000000o p p o°o°o°o°0°0°0°0 �1-;�z'��` ``• `;"' � ;4'{,�.'' Q 0000000000 0_00D OD 00 0000000000000000000 .� o000000 �,,;•��_�ti�`: ,,,�„�•. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000000000000000 °°a°aa0 p°O°O°O ati,�,Ky•:1 t� S.°,.� `;; 0000 o°o°o°o°o°o°o°o°o°o°o o°o°a° O O O O 11000 o 0 o 0 DODO o 00000000 O O O O O °o o°o°o°o o°o°o°o°o°o°o o°o°o o° 0 n 000 000 o°o°o°o°o°o°o°o°0- 7 O O O O O aoo aoa000°oaoo 00000000000o O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 = _ aoo°oo00o0oa0°o Y 00000000000 O O O O O O 00000000000 - •: 00000000 n °0o0o00°0 0o a O O O O O ° 0000 o000000 1. 000000 �� a0000000 00 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000000000 o O o O O O O O °0000000 o°o°O0°0°0 000000° ? O O O O O O O a°o°o°oMO°o°° 00000000 _ o000000 00 0000°0000 D O O O O O O O O D o0°a o 0 o°o o 00 000°° 000000 00000000 O O O O O O O O o00 L 0000°000000 C+O O O O O O'O O �Q 0000o O O O O O O O O O 000000o N� oo000 o000000 pLF��J 0 0000 o O O O O O O O O O o°o°0°°o°0 no-( o O O O O O O O O O O 0 00000°o°oO 000000 O O O O O O O O a O O•O O.O 0 0 OO 0 °O OHO°O°O°O O O O O O O O O O O O o°0°0°0°0°0°0°0°0 000°o°o°o°o°o°o°o c O O O O O O O O O O o00000000c0000000 000000000000000000 000000000c000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 oO000000000000 00000000 O O O O O O 0 O O 0 0 O 000°000a0000000ao°0°oa000aoaoa000O N O O O O 0 O O 10 O O O 00 V 000a0000000000000 ro n F° %P O O O O O O 0 O O O O W O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O 0 O O 0 � O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O 0 0 0 0 O O O 0 O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C o°oaoao° 0 0 0 0 0 o Q o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o°o°o°o° o o o o o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O o 0 o .0 0 0 O o 0 0 0 0 o 0000 _ O O O O O O O O O O O O O y r °o°o°o°o O O O O O O 0 O O O 0 O O O o0oa0°°aa _ - .O O O O O O O o°oo°o°00000000 ^+;; 0000000000000o W: '.' O O O O 0 O O O °°°a0°°°0o°° 000°o°000000000°°000 0°0°000°0°0°0°0 000000000 %0' o00000000000o O O O O O O O 000°o°000 0 0 °o°o°o°o°0°0°0°0°0°0°0°0°0° O O O O 0 O O O 0000000o0o000 0001000 00o000 000000000O000 O 0000° 000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 o°o°o°o°o°O°°°o°a°o°o°o°o°o°o°o°o°o°o°o°o°o°o°o°o°0 C.o°o°o°o° 0000000°00°°0000000000000000000000 O O O o O 0 0 0 000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000o O O O O O O O 000000000000°000000000000000c0000 000000000000000000000000000000000o O O O O 0 O O O 000000000000000000000000000000000 0 0000000000000000000000000 0000 o O O O 00 p o0000000O000000 00000 The compatibility of industrial versus mobile home park develop- ment is further evaluated using the following factors: ' 1 . Noise 2. Traffic and Circulation 3. Odor t4. Visual Impact 1 . Noise ' There is more potential for traffic and noise from in- dustrial development to impact the residential develop- ment to the west. There would be less impact on this area from a mobile home park. 2. Traffic and Circulation Heil and Gothard form the southern and eastern: edges of the site. In terms of compatibility, these roads form ' traditional edges to land use changes. The primary con- sideration here is that with extensive industrial traffic, there would be less compatibility with a residential mo- bile home park development. However, more traffic would be generated from the industrial development creating less compatibility City-wide because of in- creased pollution from traffic and trucks. 3. Odor ' Historically, more potential for odor pollution exists with industrial development. Therefore, considering this aspect, the mobiel home park would be more com- patible with the residential development to the vilest. 4. Visual Impact Without controls, either development could create visual blight along Heil and Gothard. Conversely, either could have pleasing views from the roads. All things considered, the site could be compatible with either in- dustrial or residential development. However, if ?.00ked at overall, there is a favoring of residential development because of its less noise, traffic and odor as affects adjacent residents to the west. 19 V. ' HOUSING ' The Planning Department of Huntington Beach in January of 1977 identified through a Multiple Listing Survey the following cost for housing in the Huntington Beach area. We have added the column which shows what income would be required to afford this housing based on 2.5 times income. REQ'D ANNUAL ' HOUSE TYPE AVERAGE COST- INCOME TO AFFORD 1 13R $ 42,450 $16,980 2BR 74,225 291690 3 f3R 73,360 29.9344 4 BR 85,O60 34,024 5 BR 1 13,578 45.9431 Homes with pools 1050220 42.9488 Condominiums 61 ,764 24,706 The average income for the Huntington Beach area is between $18,000 J and $19,000 per year. The average household in Huntington Beach could not afford more than an average one bedroom home based solely on inc;ome. . Using S .C.A.G. (So. Calif. Association of Governmen`.$) r information from the 1975 "Regional Housing Allocation Model" , it is estimated that less than 20% of the households in Huntington Beach could afford to purchase more than a one bedroom house with only about 4% who could afford the average 4 bedroom or larger home ' based solely on income. The mobile home park would be potentially affordable to about 50% of ' the households in Huntington Beach according to the S.C.A.G. infor- mation. In other words, this would be affordable to the average house- hold income of Huntington Beach. The housing problem in Orange County has reached critical proportions. Speculators in the market are a symptom of the extreme shortage of ' the supply of housing. 20 According to Gil Ferguson of CEEED, only two methods are available to meet this critical shortage outside of direct subsidization. These ' would include: 1 . Increase supply of houses to 30,000 units per year for at least three years to promote filtering process. It ' is estimated that approximately 3 1/2 to 5 1/2 move-ups occur with each new house sale and 1/3 of these move- ups occur in the lower and moderate income areas. ' 2 . Build mobile home parks which provide affordable housing. ' We are taking about an area with over 50 percent of its population under 27 years of age. With the price of housing, we are pushing our people to Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. If the current trend continues as it has, only the very rich will be ' able to live in Orange County or Huntington Beach. Those working in the area will have to live in other counties. ' In order to meet toda_y's living costs and cost of housing, sixty per- cent of the households have two workers. Even with this, around eighty percent of the households in Huntington Beach still can't af- ford more than a one bedroom house based on income alone. The price of housing has demonstrated no correlation to inflation or ' wages according to Gil Ferguson of CEEED. It is strictly related to supply and the critical need for housing. ' A July 6, 1977 Daily Pilot article related that about 8000 people jammed the lottery area to try to obtain housing in an 85 unit low and moderate income project. Those allowed to purchase must ' qualify for HUD 235 financing. Huntington Beach, as one of Orarge County's major cities is in the 1 midst of this critical housing shortage. The impact is local and upon the children, parents and grandparents of Huntington Beach and upon the needs for the elderly, the widows and residents who wish to remain in Huntington Beach, but who cannot. The Mobile Home Park is one way that affordable housing can be ' placed in Huntington Beach and it provides for a positive impact. The residents of a mobile home are usually older without children living with them. They make fewer automobile trips and seek a ' quiet, safe and clean environment. Their recreational and social needs are in great part met with facilities within the park. ' 21 VI . SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ' The Mobile Home Park provides for a more positive revenue/ex- penditure in terms of net gain to the City of Huntington Beach as ' illustrated in the comparison in Exhibit #9 - Comparison of Mobile Home Park and Industrial Revenue/Expenditures Per Acre Per Year. Even if the industrial development were to begin in year one as the mobile home park does, it would sill provide less income to the City over this 50 year period. ' The following Chart shows the total net gain to the City over a 50 year period . ' CHART NO. 5 COMPARISON OF ANNUAL NET GAIN ' TO THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH FOR INDUSTRIAL AND MOBILE HOME PARK DEVELOPMENT ' 10 Years 20 Years 30 Years 40 Years 50 Years IND. A $72,930 $145,860 $218,790 $291 ,720 ' M .H . P. $1 31 ,750 209, 100 286,450 332,350 378,250 1 (Also see Exhibit #9) The site is compatible with either a mobile home park development or ' an industrial development if proper site planning and design consider- ations are made. ' The Mobile Horne Park Alternative provides for a critical need in housing for the residents of Huntington Beach. No other form of new housing ha.3 offerred the potential for providing affordable housing ' as does the Mo'Dile Home Park. ' 22 r rr r rr r� rr ■� rr r r� r �r rr �r r it r rr GQ MP IZ15ON OF 1 NR)lFrIZIA.L_ -rO (M051LE. �OME PAR i C 1ZEVENUE:5 ANP E:WENQITUZF-,S '2EVEWUE AC12V, PEE NET GAS t,! 02 LD�f, 1977 N co ►a77 6 +4gzct It�t? mz zm F z 4 1a77 Pot_L4v-S qT t2- 7o PEZ 'volewz TOTgL 2EVENUE INCL.UDlt ACG APD1-rIOW&,L. 2EVENUE F2DM P2DPFf��� -t'q�C SALES TZ4X 4-- L-IGE.NSE TAX• — A�PPLIE-,� F=C v?- Fl2ZT to Lt-E42S -- P-evC-TtoN �'`-�.L S 4X F OM OV-�hG4L L)"V-C S,�LJE:,S `4PZr- ZE LC-E=C? T�E cN0 OF ?jC� REFERENCES ' 1 . Booz, Allen and Hamilton and E.M,A. , Report on Household Income, May 24, 1976 ' 2. CEEED 3. City of Huntington Beach Planning Department 4. City of Huntington Beach Finance Department ' 5. County of Orange - Housing Section of E.M.A. 6. Orange County Tax Assessor's Office 7. Irvine Industrial Complex 8. Southerr. California Association of Governments 9. Miller, William., "Social, Esthetic, Environmental and Economic Analysis of 17 Acres at the Corner of Heil ' and Gothard Street" , Huntington Beach, California. 10. Huntington Beach Planning Department, "Industrial Land ' Use Study I and II;' June, 1976 and February, 1977. 1976 Revenue/Expenditure Analysis of Land Uses" , ' August, 1977. 1 1 . Gobar, Alfred and Associates, "Benefit/Cost Analysis" , :Placentia, California, December 1976. ' "Fiscal Impact Analysis Mobile Horne Park vs Industrial Development" , September, 1976 ' 12. Webb, J . L. Planning, " Lake Park -- Placentia Draft E.1.R" , December, 1976. ' 13. Daily Pilot, June 6, 1977. 14. Huntington Beach General Plan, December, 1976. ' 15. Menard, Owen and Associates, "I.I.C. - Garden Grove E.I.R." , :March, 1976. 16. Orange County Cost of Housing Committee, "Cost of Housing in Orange County" , February, 1973. 17. "Attorney General's Report on Low and Moderate Income t Housing" , January, 1976. 18. L.A. Area Chamber of Commerce,"Low Income Housing Needs in L.A. County; July 24, 1975. ' 19. "Orange County Progress Report'; Vol. 13, 1976 20. County of Orange Administration Office. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 77=1 MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS P july, 1977 r r P huntington beach planning department r TABLE OF CONTENTS L DRAFT f GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 77-1 SECTION PAGE 1. 0 INTRODUCTION 1 1. 1 Methodology 1 2. 0 AREAS OF CONCERN 3 2. 1 South of Ellis Avenue and West of Huntington 3 Street 2. 2 North of Slater Avenue and West of Gothard 6 Street 2. 3 North of Talbert Avenue and East of Gothard 8 Street 2 . 4 Gothard Street, South of Heil Avenue 11 2 . 5 North of Heil Avenue and West of Gothard 13 Street 2. 6 South of the San Diego Freeway and East of 15 San Angelo Drive 2 . 7 South of Warner Avenue and East of Bolsa .17 Chica Street 2 . 8 South of Hamilton Avenue and West of -20 Magnolia Street 2. 9 South of Talbert Avenue and West of Beach .23 Boulevard 3 . 0 AMENDMENT SUMMARY 27 3. 1 Area by Area Summary 27 . 3 .2 Summary of Proposed General Plan Amendment 77-1 29' 4. 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 31 4. 1 Introduction 31 4 . 2 Environmental Setting 35 4 . 3 Environmental Impacts and Mitigating Measures 41 4 . 4 Alternatives 60 4:5 Short-Term and Long-Term Productivity 61 4 . 6 Irreversible Impacts 61 4 .7 Growth Inducing Impacts 61 1 1 1 DRAFT . 1. 0 INTRODUCTION This document constitutes an amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element. All previous amendments are reflected in the December, 1976 General Plan Land Use Diagram. r 1. 1 Methodology This amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element is designed to investigate some areas where changing conditions require re- consideration of past decisions. The changes considered in the amendment derive from requests from property owners- and the 1 Planning Department. In Section 2.0, Planning Issues, each case is discussed and analyzed in terms of existing conditions and impact on surrounding areas as well as consistency with City goals and policies. Section 3.0 summarizes the recommendations contained in Section 2 .0 in the form of a comprehensive text and plan to be adopted. Section 4. 0 presents an Environmental Impact Report for the amendment as required by the California Environmental Quality Act. MM 1 • 1 - Land Use Categories RESIDENTIAL IM Estate 5 2 un/gac • , M Estate <_4 un/gac EE Low Density <_7 un/gac vi'J - Medium Density ._ <15 un/gac ---- -- High Density >15 un/gac COMMERCIAL • '� ®General at :u Office Professional XX : Development®Mixed o nt 4 INDUSTRIAL 0 n a I Ge er PUBLIC USE • Public 6�uasi--public, Institutional c� : w r , :.®.. P .............................. :::::::. .................................. :ram � „u .,,,., � Open Space b. Ur ............... ......................................................... t• \ PLANNING UNITS .............................. �Planning Reserve ................................ ................................. ...... Community .............. ::: ::. \, a� ...........::^.:. 9 .. � � OTHER Planned .,�„ ............. Resource Production ...... ............... .......... s 'f „ \ his r s r y: r..f. + W v :. 1: rN Y !i/q-�r J TT SYf. XXX "rh zF ryrr t I v ?: 1 s m l ..� H.c 1 G °I U H s. n Co"' i.t I•rA C r.W 1 F C 1 II f ..... ... >;::.... ..._ u 1. , .,,.. . .. .... ,n r� ., .....i .. .. .::: ,� } •:5" " �Y S Kr pp ".y,. ,�?�,. fi s; ?s'�r•,.��•y`..,�..,�.F�'1.C-n..r< � i7'µ'�e£'1 �r ';3 y 50 PACgC i :ha:,"' �••��'i I'�`�_.t.�/�<��I �7 - 3.Fv'r: — — PW+,_ • HUNf1NGTON B64CH, G4LIFORNIA GENERAL PLAN PONNINIG DEPARTMENT LAND USE DIAGRAM December 1976 l� N-tM 1+t • a ''o}, dry¢Do ctPo°d 44,y� ``�t �v�y ,�`• q, sr Gbryg4 1`� •�♦i . I■I a nn� 'Fi � 07 le • 1 I _1 ' �qf cEc:. ♦�. PALM ORANGE 1 i PACIFIC COAST NWY FIGURE 2-1 m HUWINGTON B64CH, GILIFORNIA PLANNING DEPARTMEW Areas Of Concern GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 7 7 - 1 • • • • • 2. 0 AREAS OF CONCERN This section deals with each issue area designated in Figure 2-1. 2. 1 South of Ellis Avenue and West of Huntington Street. 2 . 1. 1 Background The area of concern is located south of Ellis Avenue and east of the Pacific Electric Railroad (Figure 2-2) . • In June, 1976, Classic Development Corporation requested that the Planning Department consider redesignating the property from industrial to high density residential. The 7. 14 gross acre site is presently vacant and desig- nated light industrial. The partially developed property to the south and the vacant property to the west are designated industrial. The developed property to the east is designated medium density residential. The developed property to the north is designated low density residential. • �}r'f 3 Y4' UKAtTl 2 .1. 2 Analysis Residential uses border the subject property on the north and east, while the southern boundary abuts industrial uses. These two uses create a question as to what is the best use for the property. The site received a moderate suitability rating in the Industrial Land Use Study, Part II and was recommended • for deletion from the Central Industrial Corridor. In- dustrial use of the property would continue the in- dustrial character to the south and west but would not be consistent with residential uses to the north and east. Local access would have to be provided through the existing residential section of Ellis Avenue until such time as • Ellis Avenue is extended under the existing railroad tracks to Gothard Street. Construction of this link is tentatively scheduled for the summer of 1977 . However, freeway exposure potential of the site is still only fair to poor as is much of the Central Industrial Corridor below Ellis Avenue. In addition to land use compatibility • and traffic access, severe on-site topography reduces the property' s capability to attract quality industrial development in the future. Topography is less a constraint to residential development because a planned development concept could be instituted to circumvent such difficulties. At best, market potential for this site is long-term. Residential use of the property is possible as it would provide for the transition of industrial uses on the south to the residential neighborhood on the north. An issue arises as to which would be a more appropriate density. A high density development would result in the addition of 259 dwelling units with a population of 552 people. Whereas a low density designation, 0-7 units per acre , would establish 52 units with a population of 261 people. , The low density residential would create the fewest dwelling units and would be compatible with the single family homes to the north. However, it .would not be compatible with industrial uses to the south. The medium density residential use would be compatible with all the • surrounding uses because it is most transitional between industrial and low density residential. The high density residential uses would be in conflict with the single family residential neighborhood on the north. Therefore, the property should be designated medium density residential. • 4 x� { W F— C v pq NCR— . -GUEBEC LI GHT INDUSTRIAL � _,_ ALBERTA D _ W- E S I Y R w RANKLIN- 4z a F YUKON DR i a z ,: MIU' ___:__ -- 4� -� LIGHT IiJDUS ---__ COMMERCIAL _ � C L N COMMODORE CR. r: 0 F I C • LIGHT I14DUSTRI PROF J L�:.:::... Z SHA 1 p W cr • AREA OF CONCERN 2.1 SOUTH OF ELLIS AVENUE,a WEST OF HUNTINGTON STREET Ina FIGURE 2-2 5 i 2. 1. 3 Recommendation The area of concern south of Ellis 990 Huntington Street should be redesignated medium density 49 residential.. 2. 2 North of Slater Avenue and West of Gothard Street. 2 . 2 . 1 Background The site is located. at the northwest corner of Slater Avenue and Gothard Street (see Figure 2-3) . A request to change the present general plan designation of light industrial to low density residential was received in January, 1977 . The requested change covers an area of 4. 87 acres. The site is now vacant and the existing zoning is M1 (light industrial) . The area of concern is bounded by the Huntington Beach City Yard on the north and vacant R1 land on the west. The General Telephone maintenance yard is located to the south across Slater Avenue. A mixture of older single family homes and small industrial businesses (Ml) form the eastern boundary across Gothard Street. 2 . 2 . 2 Analysis The Industrial Land Use Study designated the site as a moderate suitable area for industrial development. It has good traffic and utility access on Gothard Street. Physical land constraints are minimal. However, General Plan Amendment 76-2 redesignated the adjacent west 5. 36 acres to low density residential, reducing the former 10. 23 acre site by more than one-half. The smaller site makes it increasingly probable that quality industrial uses will not locate here. It is likely that future use would resemble other industrial uses around it, i.e. , open storage or mini warehouse. Such uses have been found by the Industrial Study not to financially benefit the City. Low density residential use of the property would be com- patible with the low density designation to the west and existing single-family homes across Gothard Street. The City Yard and General Telephone Maintenance Yard border the site on the north and south but they would not necessarily be. a nuisance to a single-family development. Fences surround the facilities, and noise and traffic are minimal. Moreover, the site is separated from the General Telephone facility by Slater Avenue. • 6 � f Y�9 f s Z J Q • o T•- -j:- - �- --- - -- - — -— BETTY DR LIGHT IPA L STRIAL _.._ � w - io D ��s_ _ Q - - C F — C w -- - J - W -- --- Z - 3 - - - w w - a -- FORD DR Z CF- J : :DR.NI O 5 -------- " 10 ........................... RI AL L- PB ST s o ........................... ............ .......................... ....................... ............ . .................... SLATtR PUBLIC UTILITY LI HT AL CF— R L AREA OF CONCERN 2.2 NORTH OF SLATER AVENUE & WEST OF GOTHARD STREET • 2 . 2 . 3 Recommendation DPAFT The area of concern north of Slater Avenue and west of Gothard Street should be redesignated low density residential. 1 2 . 3 North of Talbert Avenue and East of Gothard Street 2. 3 . 1 Background The area of concern is located north of Talbert Avenue and east of the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way (see Figure 2-4) . It extends along the north side of Talbert Avenue to 1320 feet west of Beach Boulevard. Only the east 19 . 81 acres of the 38 . 7 acre site is requested for change from light industrial to medium density residential. The planning staff expanded the area of concern to include the whole small lot area in order to encourage the development of compatible land uses in the general area. Present zoning is M1 (light industrial) . The area of request is vacant, while a portion of the small lot area to the west contains a recreational vehicle storage yard. Land uses to the north of the subject property include vacant industrial land, manufacturing and storage build- ings, and apartments. To the west across the railroad tracks is an automobile wrecking yard and a ready mix concrete business. Across Talbert Avenue to the south is vacant industrial property and a 10 acre industrial park. The site adjoins apartments and single family homes along the eastern boundary. This area was first addressed in a previous amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element (July, 1975) . The analysis at that time focused on whether the site should be designated industrial or residential. The planning staff concluded that the entire area should retain the • light industrial designation. Among the reasons cited was that residential development would be incompatible with industrial uses on three sides, subjecting the residents to :increased arterial traffic, noise, and aesthetic problems. This conclusion assumed that the industrial corridor concept would be preserved in the • future. The Industrial Land Use Study (June, 1976) has questioned the validity of this assumption. As a result, the property owners resubmitted the request for residential use in time to be considered in General Plan Amendment 76-2 (October, 1976) . The application has • been pending completion of the Industrial Land Use Study, Part II with its specific land reduction guidelines. r = ■ �■■ Elm I Ask ?6 � E B ;:'�E ! B�•< 1!� ta�E ElE! E to tEM t tat lataatAtA Ali 11 is atatlgilalltat $ fatAA$ A$ BBAA$R later tall" $ - $fitt oil I i ��"g$ $ ililllllllalllll - #M? EE! IA It E If I to it wle �Eq Atg as "oIt A r A A fill $AEi1A$A$1 �$ bat tar �®�ag�Aananbai r �-iw w}ir w-- www.----w-w-• ---- I Iil�i I I I II --=�---- ---- ----- - -- - ----------- 1S T R I A �iTQ�Id1��11/:1 ■Ilion ■ MM ��i�������i�=■ .. .Y�,. • wmh'MFT 2. 3. 2 Analysis The results of the Industrial Land Use Study, Part II • indicate that the subject property is poor as a potential industrial site. The 40 acre small lot area received a low suitability rating, and the study recommended that the entire site be deleted from the Central Industrial Corridor. Industrial use of the site would conflict with resi- dential uses to the east and north. In addition, a sizeable portion of the surrounding land is undeveloped or in marginal industrial activity, and was also recom- mended for deletion from the corridor by the Industrial Study. One purpose of the proposed land reductions between Talbert and Slater Avenues was to improve compatibility with Central Park and the Library, and along arterials leading to these facilities . From this standpoint, in- dustrial use of the subject property would be incon- sistent. The site contains other problems that result in a low industrial suitability rating. Talbert Avenue is not yet a fully developed primary arterial and freeway access is only fair. The property is also unserviced by drainage • facilities. Probably a more significant factor retarding industrial development is small lot fragmentation and multiple ownership. The small lot area is over 90 percent consolidated but the remaining lots appear sufficient to discourage industrial interest. Miscellaneous small lots could better be integrated into a residential use through a planned development concept. In evaluating alternative uses, low density residential and medium density residential should be considered. Which use is most appropriate depends to a great extent on the disposition of surrounding industrial properties. The site is surrounded on three sides by industrial land most of which is recommended for deletion by .the In- dustrial Land Use Study, Part II. However, a firm de- cision on these properties has yet to be made. Some sites, such as that west of the railroad tracks, contain . marginal industrial businesses that may delay attention indefinitely. To designate the area of concern low density residential at this time could create land use inconsistencies in the future. If it is decided to retain industrial sites around the concern area in the future, low density residential would be incompatible with such uses. 10 40h 3011 k. nn uKmr i j A medium density designation retains greater rflexi i i y. It is consistent with existing R2 and R3 developments to • the east and north, and the transitional nature of medium density makes it most compatible with industrial uses if they remained. Although a wrecking yard exists to the west, it would be separated from the site by the rail- road right-of-way. A medium density designation would not foreclose the future possibility of either low • density residential or industrial uses between the tracks and Central Park. In fact, the railroad right-of-way would be a more logical boundary between low and medium densities than would any point farther east. The residential areas below Talbert Avenue are developing to low density. Talbert Avenue would therefore serve as a suitable boundary between these developments and medium density residential uses to the north. Residential development within the area of concern would need adequate recreational areas , schools, and commercial establishments. Central Park and Library and sufficient commercial activity exist within one-half mile of the property. Several elementary schools are also located within one-half mile of the site but arterial crossings would be necessary. A low density designation would generate more students than would a medium density de- velopment. At a maximum of seven units per acre, single family development adds 197 elementary and 66 high school students to the local school systems, whereas medium density development at 15 units per acre generates 186 elementary and 44 high school students. 2. 3. 3 Recommendation 1 The area of concern north of Talbert Avenue and east of Gothard Street should be redesignated medium density residential. 2. 4 Gothard Street, South of Heil Avenue 2 . 4. 1 Background The property consists of 47. 76 acres south of Heil Avenue and extending along .Gothard Street to the Orange County Flood Control District Channel (see Figure 2-5) . The site is currently zoned Ml and designated light industrial by the General Plan Land Use Element. Across Heil Avenue to the north lie a small industrial park and storage facility, and vacant M1 property. To the west are apartments . (R3) and the Park View Elementary School. The southern boundary consists of apartments (R3) and a • drive-in theater. Single family subdivisions abut the area of concern on the east. The property owner has requested that the property be redesignated low density residential. . } 11 ..} 0 • v J _ R—J c�_ z z W 0, F Q -- <ELL-- J— HT Z oR. LIGHT INDU TR IAL __ N • J = m ALHAMBRA N lFll ::: .f: T_ z ,FFT ::.$ �,: ..... ................ a ............................. ..... ........................ ............................................ .. . DANU eE acr M z J U ?� 1J— U Z — m D J Q K W 7C J Z J : 2 F.;:::;:. ::::::: . . ............................ _ HT.. . . . ........ UT I z J Z J _ — N vc W — F C E W J J W cr z m I 0 _ — z r~ _ R Fi&W i r I l A 1lANCNA CR - Z J P _ M r = GE ocr P 1 CORSOC 0 • ,F R r AN m oR I JF: �'/ .1 r FFM :f I II TOULOOSE OR � N I rSHINITON AVF ELK CR O RETAIL AREA OF CONCERN 2.4 SOUTH OF HEIL AVENUE AND • EAST & WEST OF GOTHARD STREET 12 <:x <. F t GU R E 2-5 4:ait 2. 4. 2 Analysis • There is little question that the area of concern would make a good low density residential area. The surrounding land uses are compatible and even the industrial uses to the north across Heil Avenue are of low intensity. However, the property is also excellent for industrial use. The Industrial Land Use Study determined that all • industrial properties to the north of Warner Avenue are among the best industrial sites in Huntington Beach. Freeway and arterial access are excellent. Topography is flat with no local drainage problems. Probably more important, the entire 48 acres is under a single owner- ship. These areas should be the very last along the Central Industrial Corridor to be redesignated to other uses. In addition, the Planning Commission' s direction to pursue a minimum land reduction alternative implies the retention of industrial sites north of Slater Avenue. 2. 4. 3 Recommendation • The area of concern along Gothard Street and south of Heil Avenue should retain its light industrial designation. 2 . 5 North of Heil Avenue and West of Gothard Street 2. 5. 1 Background The area of concern consists of 18. 83 acres of vacant land at the northwest corner of Heil Avenue and Gothard Street (Figure 2-6) . The property is presently zoned M1 • and designated for industrial use by the General Plan Land Use Element. The parcel is surrounded to the north and east across Gothard Street by existing industrial uses and a fire station. The industrially designated land to the south across Heil Avenue is presently used for agriculture, and single family homes abut the subject • property to the west. The property owner has requested that the land use designation be changed from industrial to medium density residential to accommodate a mobile home park. 2. 5. 2 Analysis Although the Industrial Land Use Study indicates there is a surplus of industrial land within the City and recommends reduction of some of the acreage, the sites north of Warner Avenue have been identified as the most attractive locations in the Gothard Corridor for future industrial development. Elimination of surplus acreage should occur in less desirable locations. AlMlrx 13 SAS LNN SABOT LN m v -� O SERENADE LN z r=n i I I O m I � -4 REL!NCR MAQELLAN IN $ M w L IL G7 2 � C O D 1'T1 70 O V4 -1 fT1 :n D r. n O In O O .n •:: :. � = G O T H A R D •--•-•--- "�ti'�..,.�.......__k,.c_.t....�..V.:A•.�1�.Y:...1:.A.�.:i:i.-....... 3 T. Q m n O '^ t� s = D Z ZZ 7Dp M m C_7 t= Z m v c c i m Z 70 � f a M N m D i„ 4 Z r r v LN RHONE L KIM N I J! GANGES LN. v rn T Di ! z EL rn ANITA m OKAr 1 Since . the area of concern is surrounded on three 81M. J by existing industrial uses and vacant M1 land, retention of the present industrial land use designation would provide for the most compatible development. The in- tensity of industrial uses in the immediate area and the arterial traffic these uses generate could create noise problems for residents if the area of concern is de- veloped residential. • 2 . 5. 3 Recommendation The area of concern north of Heil Avenue and west of Gothard Street should retain its- light industrial designation. 2 . 6 South of the San Diego Freeway and East of San Angelo Drive 2 . 6. 1 Background The subject property consists of approximately 7 . 77 acres of land and is located on the south side of the San Diego Freeway at the east end of San Angelo Drive (Figure 2-7) . The subject property is presently designated planning reserve under the Land Use Element. The Planning Department is requesting that the • study area be redesignated high density residential. 2 . 6. 2 Analysis The Planning Reserve land use designation is designed to allow the City time to carry out an analysis and study • of the possible land uses for apiece of property prior to identifying a specific land use designation. The subject property .is presently general planned, Planning Reserve with a zoning classification of R3 , High Density Residential. In February, 1976, the current property owner filed Use Permit 76-12 for the development of 193 apartment units. The Use Permit was initially denied by the Board of Zoning Adjustments and the Planning Com- mission. An appeal was initiated by the property owner to the City Council for consideration. The Use Permit was conditionally approved by the City Council on June 7, 1976. In light of the approved development plans, there is no longer any reason to maintain this property under the planning reserve designation. In order to bring the property into conformance with present density levels, it is necessary to change the .planning reserve desig- nation to high density. h "`' 15 • J+- L EDINGER AV • o C IAL :5 s DE J 4� m RETA I L `' ........... _t, G0 Z Ew: • DENSITY FF,� ........... D� �!c STARK AVE ............................................. ... PAZ g - ...:::...... .. .........::::.......................... ... ... ............................... ... 9c'.t C5.5 O • G F G O • T o U Z Q Q W J m W Z • _ HEIL _ -�� _ r 1 .(TT-?�T� CITY �T-7�T��� .� .�OF. . ..1 ...1_ AREA OF CONCERN 2.6 SOUTH OF THE SAN DIEGO FREEWAY & EAST OF SAN ANGELO DRIVE 16 FIGURE 2-7 2. 6. 3 Recommendation owl The area of concern south of the San Diego Freeway and east of San Angelo should be redesignated high density residential. 2 . 7 South of Warner Avenue and East of Bolsa Chica Street • 2. 7 . 1 Background The .area of concern encompasses 16. 48 acres, located between Warner and Los Patos Avenues, and extending from Bolsa Chica Street to Greentree Street (Figure 2-8) . • The study area is currently designated low density resi- dential. The property includes approximately sixteen single family homes, a mushroom nursery and vacant land. Existing land uses to the north consist of retail commercial and office professional. Also, to the north, across Warner Avenue, is Meadowlark Airport. Land use • to the east is medium density residential which currently has approved on it Tentative Tract 9235. The property to the south is currently designated high density (R3) and is partially developed with apartments. Use Permit 75-65 has been approved for development of the remainder of the vacant R3 property. To the west • immediately across Bolsa Chica Street are high density residential apartments (R3) and retail commercial uses . Requests have been received from some of the property owners within the study area asking that the land use designation be changed from low density to medium density residential. This area of concern has been- previously addressed in General Plan Amendment 76-2 and 76-3 at which time the Planning Commission continued the matter requesting that a detailed study of residential uses in the area be undertaken before amending the land use designation. The issues that need to be analyzed are compatibility with surrounding land uses and the • availability of facilities such as open space and schools that would support an increase in residential density. 2. 7. 2 Analysis The commercial and office professional designations to the • north provide a logical separation of the study area from Warner Avenue, a major arterial highway. The medium density residential to the east and the high density to the south would be compatible with a medium density land use designation on the properties within the study area. • 17 • Ulu ` iL Cr ST. LOW ENS I TY01 WT � '.:..... .... ....... ._.: : ::: , `6JF • CkI ENE Cp Id - - RETAIL ''r • - COMMER WARNER AVE h � — Il N N _R T bil, :Q I S I0 W.�. — RET IL i J --- X • I Ow --- - LAID DR 7 Q DENSITY :ti jP W HIGH - Z ENSITY 2,7,1 GLEhRoY LOW � :.......:�...}:?::..:.:.:::..: :::.......f::::�- w • LT DENSITY f f::::`.•. P 'A w (n Cr 0 NIGH DE�JSITY ���v DNioRYH cn i •TON AVE% • \ A Single Family Residence Developed Property AREA OF CONCERN 2.7 BOLSA CHICA STREET SOUTH OF WARNER AVENUE & EAST OF BOLSA CHICA STREET a + 18 FIGURE 2-8 ry; m� • UKAt A question is raised with regard to t e c residential development within the study area with the • operation of Meadowlark Airport. Concern has been voiced by the Airport Land Use Commission concerning probable sight and sound disturbances to future inhabitants within the study area. Aircraft presently avoid flying directly over the study area. However, additional residential development on the property would still be • affected by aircraft noise from planes taking off and would be exposed to the hazard of planes failing while attempting to take off. The City Council at its January 17_, 1977 meeting deleted the condition for placement of a blast fence at the north end of the Meadowlark runway. This action by the City Council will allow the • planes an additional 150-200 feet of runway for take-off. This will allow the planes to be at a higher altitude when flying in the vicinity of the subject property, thus reducing the sight and sound disturbances. A water and sewer assessment district has been formed • for these properties that front on Dunbar Street, a private street, that extends through the study area. The projected sizes for the water (6" ) and sewer lines (8" ) will be able to accommodate low or medium density residential development. The lots that front on Bolsa Chica Street will take water and sewer access directly • off existing lines extending down Bolsa Chica Street. Storm drainage will be accommodated by street flow down Dunbar Street to Bolsa Chica Street which has storm drain facilities. Another consideration when analyzing this property for • residential development is the availability of supporting facilities (open space and schools) . If the entire 16. 48 acres are designated medium density, a maximum population of 600 persons could be generated. The Open .Space and Conservation Element identifies the area bounded by Slater Avenue; Graham Street, Warner Avenue and Bolsa • Chica Street as being deficient in neighborhood park land by 1. 6 acres. The requested change from low density to medium density residential will intensify this park deficiency to 2. 3 acres. If the land use is changed to medium density residential, effort should be directed toward securing a neighborhood park site. The seven acre parcel of land lying immediately behind the parcels on the south side of Dunbar Street and north of the proposed R3 high density development (UP 75-65) was once a land fill dump site. . In order for development • to occur on this seven acre parcel, extensive excavation of the parcel would have to be carried out. The parcel 19 • • Uaff mnow may be in a good location for development of a neighbor- hood park. The area of concern as well as the surrounding properties have need for a park site and recreational facilities. The Ocean View School District has indicated that as the • area south of Warner Avenue develops and the school age population in the area expands, the school district would construct an elementary school on an existing school site located within . the area owned by Signal Landmark Properties, Inc. The City may wish to • explore the possibility of an adjoining neighborhood park site to provide the needed recreational facilities for the area of concern and the surrounding properties. In conclusion, the Planning Commission believes that the lack of supporting facilities such as a park site, school , and sewers and the sight and sound disturbances from • Meadowlark Airport provide ample support for retaining the low density residential land use. 2 .7. 3 Recommendation The area of concern south of Warner Avenue and east of Bolsa Chica Street should be retained as low density residential. 2. 8 South of Hamilton Avenue and West of Magnolia Street • 2 . 8. 1 Background The site is located at the southwest corner of Hamilton Avenue and Magnolia Street (see Figure 2-9) . A request to change the present general plan designation of light industrial to low density residential was received in • January, 1977. The area of request comprises approxi- mately 47. 16 acres. It contains a former rotary mud pit and scattered oil production facilities. The area of request covers about 40 acres of which is occupied by the mud dump. The Planning Staff expanded the study area to include a 7 acre vacant parcel abutting the • Edison power easement and Hamilton Avenue. This was done to encourage compatible development within a logically defined area. 20 nl AN1A -- ATLANTA. ---- — - - — 'U ------- ..�� •, _ . I _ _ � III I n o I I- CF—R ?)W Eii I I UY • I_ .I . ..� _. — — — p�:�� : ___. - 1 I. c�( Ll ♦MILTON .��•• ..........----µµ �µµ{jj;alj.4RFtJ l�ii ti•• •IAMI T N • :733{ nRREGATTA I' _ N lAN I 1 I I z -1 I. i - } W11T•DR I - - Z 2 - D {{ - D I - e� _ - o _ _ _ Y 1 E I Ii i Lo - I • M q J1 4 14 R DEl C a I I I i v� 3I I... i I__y - I _-I__ O I L.__LJ.1J I` I :3'• u M D In OR - MDNINANA i I I I I I O !iStiY• I I I g I 4 I lo BFFMUn.- I DP NI/DSON p ANULUI DR • EDSp1\ I N A In C F-E DElERATNG RANT P, Q a_L1 u �1 1•• I it J M__A Iq� T`�' z I 1 K4Pnq BANNING AREA OF CONCERN 2.8 • SOUTH OF HAMILTON & WEST OF MAGNOLIA FIGURE 2-9 21 • nnA 1mr, • unmr i Edison Community Park and single family residences are located north of the site . These developments are separated by Hamilton Avenue and the east-west extension • of the Edison right-of-way. To the east across Magnolia Street are single family subdivisions. The Edison generating plant abuts the property on the south and partially on the west across the Orange County Flood Control District DI-1 Channel. Also across the channel are several small industrial businesses. The west side • of the property separated by the Edison power easement is bounded by a mini-warehouse opeartion. 2. 8. 2 Analysis The entire Edison Area had one of the lowest ratings in • suitability for industrial development. The Industrial Land Use Study found a variety of impediments to development. Great distance from freeway interchanges, incomplete arterial system, poor soil conditions, local drainage problems, and regional flood hazard were among • the most significant factors. As a result, the Planning Staff recommended that the Edison Area be phased out of the City' s industrial land inventory. The area of concern more than any other site embodies the severest constraints to development in the Edison Area. The dump site occupies much of the request area and contains rotary • muds, brine, and oil wastes to depths of 20 to 40 feet. The analysis of the property must focus on low intensity uses, even assuming that soil and drainage problems are adequately addressed. Open space use of the property would be compatible with • Edison Community Park to the north and recreational facilities at Edison High School. It would also be compatible with adjacent residences. However, the need for additional park space in the general area must seriously be questioned. With a community park and high • school adjacent to the site and the beach within one- quarter mile, additional open space would be in excess of community and neighborhood requirements. It is doubt- ful that the City could purchase the entire site in the near future because of the scarcity of funds. Private open space would be an alternative but user and building intensity would still require the developer to deal with the mud dump at great expense. As a result, such a use of the property would be of marginal feasibility. 22 V.001 A low density residential designation would be compatible with the park uses to the north and single family resi- dences across Magnolia Street. The Edison. easement and the OCFCD channel serve as logical boundaries with the power plant and industrial uses to the west. Oil tanks are located to the south but at 200 foot setback from the property line. Chemical treatment of waste materials has been suggested by the property owner as a means of dealing • with the physical problems of the dump site. In addition, a planned development concept could be used to circumvent severe on-site problem areas and improve compatibility with industrial uses to the south and west. Low density residential use within the area of concern would need adequate schools and commercial establishments . A sufficient supply of such facilities exists within one- half mile of the site. A low density residential designation may be premature at this time. The Southern California Edison Company has • recently announced plans for the construction of a $750 million to $1 billion turbine power plant expansion at one of four proposed locations in Southern California, in- cluding Huntington Beach. It is uncertain whether the study area would be used for the plant expansion or merely purchased as a buffer zone. Until the plant expansion is • settled, therefore, the area of concern should retain the existing light industrial designation. 2 . 8 . 3 Recommendation The area of concern south of Hamilton Avenue and west of • Magnolia Street should retain its light industrial desig- nation. 2. 9 South of Talbert Avenue , West of Beach Boulevard 2. 9. 1 Background The area of concern consists of approximately 11. 81 acres of land and is located on the south side of Talbert Avenue approximately 527 feet west of the centerline of Beach Boulevard (Figure 2-10) . The current General Plan land use designation within the area of concern is • general industrial and general commercial with a zoning classification of MI-A, restricted manufacturing district , and C4 , highway commercial district. A General Plan Amendment petition has been filed by a property owner, • I. 23 ViOl ry; vzg • �':> 9 v... r � i •� ���� �ae�sea� a�asa�ea�ee�esaaaf � mom ammonanmo"MMGM atom moue w#ucmm ON M IOU roa.eeoaexs�masee�neee�aaeusar�e gem IRS cc ffi� a m ma eoa aoaaeomaowon gmaos am .�.0.mMm m M W9 O Issuzzle"Ma wago WA twain .�����m•�noaeae.aaae aaaWeeimapaaea+rre I,oe aeeWSJ •���es���•aa�aoaexme esearea+��aee�t:>a9aam�,:eotim,:,ac ----�� r.�..n.�wneee�emeaemam®siera�:a® ■�Ti��sa ewn ar.aaa at+as aag aaas•mt nine�m aaar :UZZ aesmeoanan M o.eQ"Mwpwow �i�� �oae9°Qae���������4" IN oil ean� evil 11111 1�111�11�11111111111/1111/111111111 � 11111111111 111 it 11 1 11 11111111111111111 1111 .' Ilia 1111111�1111111 11 1 �D 11111�IIIIIIIIIIIDIIg1 111111111 IIlia IIIIIII II�II�IBIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII _ 1 1=�111 r it r1111111i 11111111111�i11i1111 11 I i1l11�t1111 111``111 ii 111ii 11 1 �11 111�111111 111111111 111�111�1 11 — —1=1�111���1== 1 �1 � 11=It��l�lliilillili��rll - � ' 1 � ,�illlilitlllllllr rliirl Iltf�lllllilitli1111111111 11111 11=i=oi lii�i— HIIiii1111111111111i1� 1 1 11111111��- 111 111� 1�111IN 1 11111111 Illlul, ,. �1 I�IrI 1111111� Ilillllil tliiilll�l 1111 A l Ililr 1 i �111 1 1 �' 111 I��lul 11_1111�11� �111 111111111 �illlll 1III 1111111�11u _ � 1'� 111r11�11 I�rl�l1 � 11 1��11 ��1111�11�11� s e 11111 11 UNIONS 11�11�1111 ii`iri00 DRAFT requesting that 4 . 50 acres be changed from general indus- trial to either low density (for a condominium development) or medium density residential (for apartment development) . The Planning Department has increased the area of concern to include the additional encyclopedia lots, approximately 7 . 31 acres , that lie adjacent to the property the petiti- oner has requested for a land use amendment. This has been done with the intent of encouraging development of com- patible land uses within the general area. The area of concern has located upon it nine older single family dwelling units . The majority of the property is vacant . The area of concern is bounded on the north by Talbert Avenue, with multiple family units across Talbert , to the east by general commercial, (.new shopping center and medical complex) and by vacant general industrial land to the west and vacant low density residential land to the south. 2. 9. 2 Analysis In analyzing a change of land use from general industrial to residential, an analysis of municipal facilities that would support residential land use within the area of concern are addressed as well as a discussion of why the area is no longer suited for a general industrial land use designation. The area of concern; if developed residential, would have access to 8" water and 8" sewer lines which are presently within the Talbert Avenue right-of-way. The size of the lines are designed to adequately accommodate a change to residential land uses. The Public Works Department has indicated that a storm drain would have to be extended east from Redondo Circle to the area of concern to assure proper drainage. The area of concern has a sufficient amount of park acreage to justify an increase of residential land uses . To the south, fronting on Taylor Street is a 5 acre un- developed neighborhood park site (Terry Park Site) scheduled for development this fiscal year. Also, the area of concern lies approximately 1./2 mile from Huntington Central Park with access provided along Talbert Avenue. If the area of concern was changed from general manu- facturing to low density or medium density residential_ a maximum of 7 and 15 units per acre respectively would 2 • be permitted, resulting in the construction of 83 low density residential units or 177 medium density • residential units. An increase in population would result from a change to a residential land use. A low density residential land use would generate an estimated 286 persons. A medium density residential land use change would generate an estimated 451 persons. The lower density would approximate the lower density residential character • of the developments to the south . The area of concern lies within the Oceanview Elementary School District. A change in land. use to low density residential would generate an estimated 109 elementary school aged children. A' medium density land use would • generate an estimated 71 elementary school aged children. The School District Administrative offices have indicated that these children would under present circumstances attend Crestview or Lakeview Elementary Schools, or be bused to schools having available space. The Oceanview Elementary School District has no plans to purchase land for a new school site near the area of concern. If sub- stantial land use changes are undertaken along the Gothard .Street Industrial Corridor, the School District may have to reassess .the school needs . The area of concern is also served by the Huntington Beach • High School district. A low or medium density. residential land use change would generate an estimated 24 and 11 students respectively. These students would attend Oceanview High School which is located approximately 1-1/2 miles from the area of concern. • The area of concern was analyzed 'in the Industrial Land Use Study to determine the desirability of continuing to designate the property with a general industrial land use. The Industrial Land Use Study suitability criteria . gave the area a low overall rating for use as industrial land. The lot and ownership considerations created the most serious problem for continued general industrial. Also, freeway access and utilities and municipal services contributed to the undesirableness of continuing the property as general industrial. 2. 9. 3 Recommendation The area of concern south of Talbert Avenue, west of Beach Boulevard should be redesignated low density residential. .4:Zry:ir�::{j. • ED ORAFT • 3 . 0 AMENDMENT SUMMARY 3 . 1 Proposed Amendment 77-1, Area of Concern Summaries The following sections summarize the recommended changes in General • Plan land use designations for the affected areas. If no change is recommended, the area is not discussed. All changes are shown in Figure 3-1. 3. 1. 1 South of Ellis Avenue and West of Huntington Street • The 7 . 14 acre study area should be redesignated from light industrial to medium density residential. Proposed Land Use Acreage Summary Category Gross Acres Medium Density Residential 7 . 14 Projected Population Residential Gross Maximum Total Population Estimated Type Acres Units/gac Units Per Unit Population Medium 7. 14 x 15 = 107 x 2. 35 = 252 Density • ..� 27 • 3 . 1. 2 North of Slater Avenue and West of G UKAt I The 4. 87 acre study area should be redesignated from ligh • industrial to low density residential. Proposed Land Use Acreage Summary Category Gross Acres • Low Density Residential 4 . 87 Projected Population Residential Gross Maximum Total Population Estimated • Type Acres Units/gac Units Per' Unit Population Low 4 . 87 x 7 = 34 x 3. 45 = 117 Density • 3 . 1. 3 North of Talbert Avenue and East of Gothard Street The 38. 7 acre study area should be redesignated from light industrial to medium density residential. Proposed Land Use Acreage Summary • Category Gross Acres Medium Density Residential 33 . 7 • Projected Population Residential Gross Maximum Total Population Estimated Type Acres Units/gac Units Per Unit Population Medium Density 38 . 7 x 15 = 581 x 2. 35 = 1, 365 3 . 1. 4 South of San Diego Freeway and East of San Angelo Drive The 7 . 77 acre study area should be redesignated from • planning reserve to high density residential. Proposed Land Use Acreage Summary Category Gross Acres • High Density Residential 7 . 77 <k.A 28 ' }ry. A 1. �4 owl 10 J�61 !T �'� �IR+I�PI •'� �m \ 'O +i♦\I pro .F ` � �� ■ SAP � \♦`♦- '�i ■ `Pe 9y0 ♦ �. O �i �i ■ � PALM �1�1■1�♦a .. S } ■ ORANGE • i PACIFIC COAST HWY FIGURE 3-1 Adft LEGEND PROPOSED HUf11NGTON Bfi4CH, OILIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL PLANNING DEPARTMEIa _ _ _ Low Density °-' -un/gac GENERAL PLAN -AMENDMENT 77-1 Medium Density 8-15 un/gac ® High Density above 15 un/gac F . 3. 1. 5 South of Talbert Avenue and West of Beach Boulevard The 11. 81 acre area of concern should be redesignated from light industrial and commercial to low density residential. Proposed Land Use Acreage Summary Category Gross Acres Low Density Residential 11. 81 Projected Population Residential Gross Maximum Total Population Estimated Type Acres Units/gac Units Per Unit Population Low 11. 81 x 7 = 83 x 3 . 45 = 286 .Density 3 . 2 Proposed Summary of General Plan Amendment 77-1 f Proposed Land Use Acreage Summary Existing Proposed Net Land Use Category Gross Acres Gross Acres Gross Acres Residential Low Density 0 16 . 68 16. 68 Medium Density 0 45 . 84 45 . 84 High Density 0 7 . 77 7 . 77 Commercial Retail 2. 24 0 - 2 . 24 Industrial Light 60.28 0 - 60. 28 Others Planning Reserve 7 . 77 0 - 7 . 77 Total land involved in the Amendment: 70 .29 gross acres. 29 Net Projected Population mu"kRAFT Residential Net Gross Maximum Total Population Estimated t Type Acres Units/gac Units Per Unit Population Residential Low Density 16 . 68 x 7 = 117 x 3. 45 = 404 i Medium Den- sity 45. 84 x 15 = 688 x 2 . 35 = 1, 617 High Density 7 . 77 x 35 = 272 x 2. 13 = 579 Total: 2 , 600 As xq 30 fs s • uRAFT • 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL . IMPACT REPORT 4 . 1 Introduction The Environmental Impact Report for the proposed amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element has been prepared by the Plan Develop- ment Section of the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department. • 4. 1. 1 Planning Area The proposed plan amendment is located in the northwestern section of Orange County, California, in . the City of Huntington Beach, as shown in Figure 4-1. The amendment includes nine concern areas throughout the City, encom- passing a total of 200. 52 acres {(..-igure 2-1.) . Only seven sites covering 133.93 acres are recommended for change in land use designation. 4. 1. 2 Project Description The proposed project is an amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan. The amendment studies areas where changing conditions require reconsideration of past 31 fw{yrnr.•+ yr . 'ry 40 YI. _ .S:^.wo0 ?I o /e� 5 _ rr ALSO. \ v e rW (r l^ \...e. �r� ALt. D:z •� Mr •S 1 O L• �;/V:r� Z'U.) Oo lroo �1 30 YI.134 C.I.E.S.S `J GLCNOALE I.&..DENA ARCADIA •-To fan Francisco 1 - -� •ro"o• C.tv oµ Orir C CL.\E+ar• MICL j A O O' »a..rooDO �A i ..R. icol_IN\ ,�i r TILL' \:R SAS Bx a.:Rl' 1 : OI COVINA r �/ +' I LOS -'ALES I SAS. :]�P. ' �jl:\ 1 .eror` lC» `I-- J l_� O _ `+ (.Nt.YOMiCA� CU r= USC f DI CNO .� QcorrEllce 20 mi. RAM 1 ' ww.tlrGro. sA =,( SOS aNGELES Pf Cc Li - n� f 1 w"•.'w" �wc,.[+ooD ow0 r R:.0% RANGE COUNTY •`9eq� r/ Z GALS?A?E COLLEGE r EL stcuwoo•J ----__ - AT ULERT011 57) � \ rOR riL• »�• ! 11 �rcRe• ::rOA C7 \•J \V, W G.ROEN\ — C......o.•EJIi ER•�M 1 !.110»1�, \ r\rn\:TAM\EACH r /l "Lvo_ 9t ..T(SI. FRAty I• n�ACC r��A "LE 1 9 \ _` .—.� _ — ► o \- = 9' 1 DUE LAAEr'OOD 1 '7•' ,. REOONDO Of.Cw^/ TO ANCC PAR. L ♦ALOS�EROEs' .. .I • • •• E Gi; l E STYE — i_� -A�tOkGE A:y`-uE,,,, '�.; ,,.. .,.. ..,o. I �unti ng ton `/C LONG\\ `" 22 =,N., _ .w. SPIN L E SEA ••GOLDEN•WEsT 5 7 i S •' 0'"5 •GOLLE4E_ ,.4G �QO \�•• ... NEs.I� i -; FIGURE 4-1 C.IRVINE=� 73 VICINITY MAP �� _' 0 , A S ti OI O O HUNTINGTON BEACH \� REAC» 1 -DRAr t decisions, establishing land use policy description of the specific concern areas and proposed actions follow. 4 . 1. 2.1 South of Ellis Avenue and West of Huntington Street The area of concern contains 7 . 14 acres and is bounded by Ellis Avenue on the north, medium density planned develop- ment on the east, vacant and developed industrial on the south, and vacant industrial on the west. This amendment proposes redesignation from light industrial to medium density residential. 4 . 1. 2. 2 North of Slater Avenue and West of Gothard Street The area of concern contains 4 . 87 acres and is bounded by the City Corporation Yard on the north, Gothard Street on the east, Slater Avenue and the General Telephone Maintenance Yard on the south, and ,vacant low density residential on the west. This amendment proposes that the existing light industrial designation be changed to low density residential. 4 . 1. 2. 3 Worth of Talbert Avenue and East of Gothard Street The area of concern contains 38.7 acres, and is bounded on the north by vacant and developed industrial, medium density apartments on the east, Talbert Avenue on the south, and the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way on the west. This amendment proposes redesignation from light industrial to medium density residential. 4.1. 2. 4 Gothard Street, South of Heil Avenue The area of concern contains 47. 76 acres, and is bounded by Heil Avenue on the north, the Southern Pacific Rail- road right-of-way and low density residential on the east, medium density residential and a flood control channel on the south, and a school and medium density residential on the west. This amendment proposes that the existing light industrial designation be retained. 4. 1. 2 . 5 North of Heil Avenue and West of Gothard Street The area of concern contains 18. 83 .acres , and is bounded by a fire station and industrial development on the north, Gothard Street, and developed industrial on the east, Heil Avenue on the south, and low density resi- dential on the west. This amendment proposes that the existing light industrial designation be retained. 33 yy$ o:�; oft JAR rssr�� i 4 . 1.2 . 6 South of the San Diego Freeway and Ea t o Drive The area of concern contains 7. 77 acres, and is bounded on the north and east by the San Diego Freeway, medium density residential on the west, and the City boundary on the south. This amendment proposes redesignation from planning reserve to high density residential. The proposed change has received prior environmental approval on June 7, 1976 , under Negative Declaration 76-11 . - 4. 1. 2. 7 South of Warner Avenue and East of Bolsa Chica Street The area of concern contains 16. 48 acres, and is bounded on the north by commercial and office professional uses, on the east by medium density residential under construc- tion, high density residential on the south and Bolsa Chica Street on the west. This amendment. proposes redes= ignation from low density residential to medium density residential. 4. 1. 2 . 8 South of Hamilton Avenue and West of Magnolia Street The area of concern contains 47. 16 acres, and is bounded on the north by Hamilton Avenue and a park, on the east by single family residences , and on the south and west by the Southern California Edison Power Plant and indus- trial businesses. The Edison Plant and the developed industrial are separated from the site by a flood control channel and an Edison power line easement. This amendment proposes redesignation from light industrial to low density residential. 4. 1. 2 . 9 South of Talbert Avenue and West of Beach Boulevard The area of concern contains 11. 81 acres, and is bounded on the north by Talbert Avenue , on the east by a shopping center under construction and a medical facility, on the south by low density residential, and on the west by vacant industrial. This amendment proposes redesignation from light industrial to low density residential. 4 .1. 3 Project Objectives General Plan Amendment 77-1 is designed to investigate some areas where changing conditions require reconsidera- tion of past decisions. Most of the amendment requests involve industrial areas. The disposition of these properties reflect thq results of the land requirement and suitability analysis presented in the Industrial Land Use Study, Parts I (June, 1976) and II (February, 1977) . 34 s 4. 1.4 Methodology 0 To determine changes generated. by the amendment, potential development under proposed land uses will be compared to potential development under existing use designations. Only those areas of concern having recommended land use changes will be evaluated. Areas of retained designation will not be discussed. Concern Area 2. 6 (south of the r San Diego Freeway and east of San Angelo Drive) will also not be analyzed, since it has already been approved under Negative Declaration 76-11. The environmental assessment will focus on concerns developed in the initial study. Where there is little or no effect, it will be so indi- cated in the report. 4. 2 Environmental Setting 4 .2. 1 Natural Environmental Setting Huntington Beach is a metropolitan city and, as such, �S its environment - both local and regional - is primarily an urban one. Even in this urban area, however, natural resources remain. The following sections reference the land, water, air, biological, and cultural resources in the City. 4 .2. 1. 1 Land Resources A general description of the land resources in the City is presented in Section 6. 4. 1 of the Land Use Element: Phase Il and updated in Section 6. 3. 2. 1 of the Seismic Safety Element of the General Plan. Additional informa- i tion is contained in the Conservation Potentials Report, Sections 2. 1 and 3. 0; Open Space Potentials Report, Sections 2. 0, 3. 0, and 4 . 0; Geotechnical Inputs,D and Flood Hazard Study. 6 4. 2. 1. 2 Water Resources A general description of the water recources in the City is presented in Section 6.4 . 2 of the Land Use Element: Phase 17 (as modified by EIR addendum #10, December 7 , 1973) and updated in Section 6. 3. 2. 2 of the Seismic- Saf_ety .Element8of the General Plan. Additional - in-forma-tion is cited in the Conservation Potentials Report, 9 Sections 2.2 and 3. O; Open Space Potentials Sections 2 .1. 1, 2. 4 . 2 , and 4. 0; Flood Lazard Study; i and Fire Hazard/Fire Protection Study, Section 3. 3. 4.2.1. 3 Air Resources A general . description of the air resources in the City is presented in Section 6.., 3 of the Land Use Element: ry: 35 In Phase I and updated in Section 6. 3. 2. 3 C' Safety Llement. l4- Additional discussion of air resources is presented inthe Conservation Potentials Report, Section 2 .3. - 4.2. 1. 4 Biological Resources A general description of the biological resources in the City is resented in Section 6. 4 .4 of the Land Use Element: Phase I1bp and updated in Section 6. 3. 2. 4 of the Seismic Safety Element.l7 Additional discussion and species listings are availabA in the Conservation Potentials Report, Section 2. 4. 4. 2. 1. 5 Cultural Resources A description of the cultural resources in the City is presentei in Section 6. 3. 2 . 5 of the Seismic-Safety Element of the General Plan. Additional information is cited in Conservation P2�entials Report, 20 Section 2. 5 , Open Space Potentials, Section 2. 1. 5 , 2. 1. 6 , and 2 . 3; and Scientific Resources Survey and Inventory. 22 4. 2.2 Urban Environmental Setting This portion of Section 4. 0 addresses the urban or man- made environmental setting. The major topics covered are: (1) land use, (2) circulation, (3) public services , (4) utilities, (5) population, (6) noise, and (7) socio- economics. � . 2. 2. 1 Land Use i A description of the existing land uses in the individual study areas is presented in Section 2. 0 of the proposed General Plan Amendment 77-1, March, 1977. 23 4. 2. 2. 2 Circulation A general description of existing circulation in the City is presented in Section 2. 3 of the Land Use Element: Phase I24 and u dated in the Circulation Element Back- ground Report,2 2nnd The General Plan for the City of Huntington Beach. 4. 2.2 . 3 Public Services A. Police Service Police protection for the City is provided from one station. This station is located in the south central section of the City at Main Street and Mansion Avenue. 3 6 ::D l�IGY,.J,�9 • The present level of police manning is about 1. 14 officers per 1,000 persons (June, 1976) . B. Fire Protection Huntington Beach maintains seven fire stations to provide fire protection to the City. The manning rate is approximately one fireman per 1, 120 persons. • C. Schools The following school districts provide educational services for the City of Huntington Beach. Elementary Huntington Beach City Ocean View Fountain Valley Westminster !. Seal Beach High School Huntington Beach Union College Coast Community The public school system is supplemented by several private schools, most of which are parochial. • At present, the Huntington Beach school system could withstand an increase in school children population of 3, 385 . The increase in total City population relating to this increase in school population would be 13,586. 27 D. Library Service The Huntington Beach Central Library is located on Talbert Avenue east of Goldenwest Street. Three supporting library annexes are located at 9281 Banning Street, the corner of Edinger Avenue and Graham Street, and at 525 Main Street. An annex has a service area of 1� to 2 miles. E. Hospital Service There are two hospitals located within the City. Both Pacifica Hospital (located on Delaware Street north EN �� 37 A of Garfield Avenue) and Huntington _ Munrit 1 I omm Hospital (located at Beach Boulevard and Talbert Avenue) provide 24-hour emergency service. F. Parks and Beaches The City of Huntington Beach contains 350 acres of parks. Acres Neighborhood 123 Community 56 Regional 171 TOTAL 350 acres Huntington Beach also contains 315 acres of beach, with an additional 36 acres abutting the City' s northwest corner, Sunset Beach, under County juris- diction. ! For further information on all City parks and beaches, refer to the Open Space and Conservation Element Background Report, Section 5. 0 , the Conservation Potentials Report, 29 Section 2. 5 , and the Open Space Potentials Report,30 Section 2 . 0. 4. 2. 2. 4 Utilities A. Natural Gas The Southern California Gas Company supplies natural gas to the City of Hunting?n Beach. Yearly consump- tion rates are as follows: Residential Single-family 122,000 cu. ft./d.u. Multiple-family 95 , 000 cu.ft./d.u. Commercial 250, 000 cu. ft./d.u. Industrial . 250 , 000 cu. ft./d.u. Current natural gas usage in the City is estimated at 6 billion cu..ft. per year. 38 ? '" .'t{F Dan ' '; B. Electricity The -Southern California Edison Company provides .electricity to the. City of Huntington Beach. Th following annual consumption rates are assumed: H Residential Single-family 5700 kwh/d.u. Multiple-family 5700 kwh/d.u. Commercial 500, 000 kwh/gr.ac. Industrial 500, 000 kwh/gr.ac. Current usage of electricity in the City is estimated at 612 million kwh per year. C. Sewer `i Sewer service is contracted for through the City as a member of the Orange County Sanitation District. Assuming an overall generation rate of 120 gal/person/ day,33 current sewage production in the City is estimated at 22. 7 million gallons per day or 8 . 3 billion gallons per year. f D. Solid Waste Solid waste pick-up in Huntington Beach is provided by the Rainbow Disposal Company. After collection, the trash is delivered to the Orange County Transfer i Station on Gothard Street near Huntington Central Park. The trash is then transferred to larger trucks and hauled to the Coyote Canyon landfil]34site. The following generation rates are assumed: Residential 5. 5 lbs/person/day Commercial 75 lbs/ac/day Industrial 100 lbs/ac/day Current solid waste generation in the City is estimated at 488 tons per day or 178, 000 tons per year. E. Water The City of Huntington Beach provides water to its residents. A consumption rate of 150 gallons/person/ day is assumed. 35 Current usage in the City is estimated at 22. 7 million gal/day or 8. 3 billion gallons per year. :..0 39 Via >ez P • 4 .2. 2 . 5 Population WTI] ED I The population of Huntington Beach is 151, 500 (January, 1976) . The current growth rate is less than 3 percent and is likely to be less than 2 percent in the future. This represents a decrease over previous years, down from 22 percent in the 1960 ' s when growth in Huntington Beach was explosive. •7 The City' s median age is 26 years. Recent data indicates the median age is increasing, however, because senior citizens are making up an increasingly larger share of the population. (See the Population Growth Element Background Report 36 for further information. ) • 4.2 . 2. 6 Noise Noise sources in Huntington Beach are: highways and free- ways, railroads , airport and helicopter operations, residential/institutional sources , and oil pumping opera- tions.. Noise contours showing existing noise levels for major transportation elements are presented in the Noise Element Background Report. 37 Major transportation elements in Huntington Beach are as follows : (1) freeways and highways . (2) railroad operations (3) airport operations Using the noise contours together with the maximum noise levels presented in the Noise Element, potentially noise- sensitive areas in Huntington Beach can be determined. Random noise sources are tested separately from constant noise sources like vehicle traffic and railroad and air- craft operations. A field measurement survey conducted by Wyle Laboratories found that trucks on arterial high- ways are responsible for the highest noise exposures in Huntington Beach. Sources producing the lowest noise levels were typically found in residential areas .away from arterials, residential areas near arterials but with barrier walls, and in school areas. Generally, the single event noise intrusions observed in Huntington Beach fell within the "acceptable.' noise criteria levels. 38 4. 2. 2. 7 Socio-Economic Characteristics Because Huntington Beach is one of the newer residential communities in Orange County, it has attracted a mobile, affluent, and relatively young population. According to estimates for January, 1976, the median family income for Huntington Beach residents is $16 ,276 . 39 For those 40 households reporting incomes in the 1973 Special Census, the median incomes by family size are as follows: f One member $ 8,517 Two members 12 , 945 Three members 14 , 399 DRAFT Four members 14 , 941 Five members 16 , 658 Six or more 15, 614 f. The United States Department of Housing and Urban Develop- ment uses the following criteria for classifying low and very low income households: • (1) A family is low income if its annual income is less than 80 percent of the median income for that area as adjusted for family size. (2) A family is very low income if its annual income is less than 50 percent of the median income of that area as adjusted for family size. From estimates of 1976 household incomes based on 1975 SCAG estimates, 13, 303 households or twenty-five (.25) percent of all households in Huntington Beach are classified as low income. Of these households, 6 ,283 families or 12 percent can be classified as very low income. Ninety-five (95) percent of the population in Huntington Beach is Caucasian. The 1973 Special Census reported minority concentrations of 325 black; 4 ,034 Spanish surname; 1, 877 oriental; and 287 people of other racial or cultural backgrounds . 4 . 3 Environmental Impacts and Mitigating Measures 4 .3 . 1 Land. Resources 4 . 3. 1. 1 Land Use The total effect of General Plan Amendment 77-1 will be to reduce potential intensity of industrial activities, and increase residential uses and/or densities in the areas of i concern. The following table summarizes the acreage change in land use . designations : Existing Proposed Light Industrial 107. 44 0 General Commercial 2. 24 0 Low Density Residential 16 . 48 63. 84 Medium Density Residential 0 62. 32 R , s if2 a' i 41 UMry A land use analysis is presented in Section report for each of the areas of concern. The proposed uses generally improve the compatibility of the areas with surrounding land uses over the long-term. Short-term con- flicts may occur between residential development and marginal industrial activity. However, in such areas where compatibility is questionable due to the transitional nature of uses, the amendment provides greater flexibility in dealing with problems peculiar to the area of concern. 1 The proposed uses also balance the need for housing in the City with the apparent over-supply of industrial space. The effect of this on surrounding uses will be to hasten the recycling of existing marginal industrial businesses to more compatible and higher revenue generating uses. These considerations are in effect mitigation measures. 4 . 3. 1. 2 Topography Topography within the study area is relatively flat. Elevations range from sea level to 100 feet above sea level. Regardless of whether the existing or proposed use designation is implemented, grading activity will modify the generally flat to rolling topography in order to accommodate development. However, to reduce the possibility of adverse impacts on the topographic land- scape in particular concern areas (Area 2 . 1 - south of Ellis Avenue and west of Huntington Street) , development plans should incorporate topographic variation with minimal grading and limited landform alteration. This is best accomplished through residential uses by employment of planned development concepts. The change from in- dustrial to residential is, therefore, essentially a mitigation measure. The City' s natural blufflines will not be affected by the proposed amendment. 4 . 3. 1. 3 Soils The study areas contain a number of various types of sandy and clay soils. Expansive clay soils have the potential to cause serious damage to lightly loaded structures, pavements, driveways, sidewalks, etc. due to changes in moisture content. Study areas which are inland north of Talbert Avenue have major deposits of clay having moderate to high expansion potential. Portions of the Rotary Mud Dump (Concern Arco 2, 8) also have ` moderate to high expansion potentials. The study areas located on the Huntington Beach and Bolsa Chica Mesas contain loamy soils of the Ramona series. The upper one to two feet .may be considered as having low expansion potential, while the underlying soils have a . moderate expansion potential. 42 :< ><.....::f:: x; {:: :0 The study areas having low expans on Wie fc r the most part located southeaster y o e un i Beach Mesa. The soils in this area are predominantly silty fine sands and sandy silts with about 6 to 7 per- cent clay size particles . To mitigate the potential hazard associated with expansive soils, soil engineers can be employed by the developer to evaluate the problems and make proper design recommend- ations for individual structures. The location of peat and organic soils is shown in the Geotechnical Inputs Report, February 1974 Figure 3-7 . The only study area lying within identified locations of peat and organic soils is the Rotary Mud Dump (Concern Area 2. 8) . This deposit represents an area where long- term and large settlement may occur and where, during major earthquakes, potential liquefaction of sub-soil and ground shaking may be anticipated. To mitigate the potential hazard, soils samples and borings should be performed for any development or structure to be located within or near this area. Compounding the peat problem at the Rotary Mud Dump site is the waste materials that have been deposited there in previous years. The dump occupies approximately 30 acres of land, and contains solid chemically inert wastes , - all types of clay base rotary drilling muds, and wastewater brines from oil well operations. The disposal depth is 20 to 40 feet. Settlement and damage could occur to structures and paved areas if not mitigated properly. The proponent proposes the application of a lime treatment that will theoretically solidify most of the waste materials. However, the unknown consistency of substances below the surface may require some waste removal to another Class III solid waste disposal site in the County. Soil engineers should thoroughly investigate the site ' s problems, conduct sample borings, and make proper design recommendations for individual structures. Planned development concepts could also be employed to prevent the location of structures in problem areas. These measures would also mitigate liquefaction potential during seismic events and reduce possible loss of life. Concern area 2. 7 (south of Warner Avenue and east of Bolsa Chica Street) also contains an old landfill occupying about six acres. The area was once used as a dump site - for oil related waste materials. The wastes are solidified but soil engineers should conduct boring tests to evaluate the site' s problems and make proper design recommendations . prior to any construction. ��Y ; � 43 4. 3 . 1. 4 Geologic Considerations uRAFT Active faults within the City of Huntington Beach, known specifically as the. North Branch, Bolsa-Fairview and South Branch Faults, are all contained within the Newport- Inglewood Structural Zone. This fault zone enters the City in the Huntington Harbour area and extends in a south- easterly direction. Under the Alquist-Priolo Geologic Hazard Zones Act, Special Study Zones have been established within Huntington Beach. The General Plan for the City of Huntington Beach, December 19.76, ' details these special Study Zones on page 29 and sets forth guiding criteria. The only area of concern that is directly affected by the Special Study Zone is 2. 7 , located east of Bolsa Chica Street south of Warner Avenue. Concern areas 2. 1 (south of Ellis . Avenue and west of Huntington Street) and 2. 8 (south of Hamilton Street and west of Magnolia Street) are traversed by the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone but do not lie within the Special Study Zone. The City' s Department of Building and Community Develop- ment requires either an engineering geologist' s analysis of construction sites or that buildings for human occupancy be designed to resist a seismic force equal to . 186 gravity. These requirements are imposed for all dis- cretionary acts. Loss of life and structural damage is thereby reduced. 4. 3. 2 Water Resources di 4. 3. 2. 1 Regional Flood Hazard Only area of concern 2. 8 (south of Hamilton Avenue and west of Magnolia Street) located in the Talbert Gap is subject to flooding in the 100- and 200-year storms. This amendment would increase residential development in the flood plain by 330 dwelling units with a population of 1.,139 persons over the potential development to be generated by existing land use designations. Industrial acreage exposed to the regional flood hazard would be reduced by 47. 16 acres. A program to minimize danger from flooding was adopted by the City Council in October, 1974 as part of the Seismic-Safety Element (refer. to Section 5. 2 in the Seismic-Safety Element, Huntington Beach Planning Department) . Further, as a participant in the Federal Insurance Program Huntington Beach flood hazards are governed by the regulations imposed by the Federal Insurance Administration. 44 f tol !N f.. ■ Certain steps are also being taken t ina e e ood hazard posed by the Santa Ana River. The United States i' Army Corps of .Engineers has proposed a plan that would make the City (and all of Orange County) flood safe from the 200-year storm. It will be several years before the project can mitigate flood potential, however. In the meantime, development of flood hazard areas will be regu- lated by the programs for flood hazard abatement in the • adopted Seismic-Safety Element. 4. 3. 2. 2 Local Drainage and Groundwater In terms of the flooding. potential from local channels, all areas of concern would be subject to local surface drainage problems during heavy rains or storms in excess of the 25-year. Development of vacant areas will result in decreased ground percolation and increased surface runoff. Under 25-year storm conditions , full development according to this amendment would reduce storm runoff by approximately 8. 7 cubic feet per .second below that generated by develop- ment under the existing plan. Under these conditions, the City' s Public Works Department indicates that local surface drainage can be accommodated by existing and proposed drainage facilities. However, the concern areas along Talbert Avenue (2 . 3-north of Talbert Avenue and east of Gothard Street, and 2 . 9 - south of Talbert Avenue and west of Beach Boulevard) are currently unserviced. The change in designation from industrial to residential will hasten the need for drainage facilities in the' area. Groundwater level is very :important in a coastal city like 11unt: ington Beach (subject to salt water intrusion) which rel. ies can groundwater as a major source of domestic water . The amount of percolation will be reduced by development ` + under the Land Use Amendment. Less percolation will mean decreased fresh groundwater storage and possible increased salt water intrusion. • Runoff is characteristically of poor quality and can adversely affect surface water. It .is probable that runoff from development will flow into the Bolsa Chica wildlife preserve, the ocean , and fresh water bodies in the City. Primary pollutants would include vehicle hydrocarbons , greases, oil , rubber, plastics, asbestos, paint, industrial metal fragments from paved surfaces , and fertilizers and pesticides from landscaped areas . dlrl^K 45 7�/fir •% �/'may •j�/ i PatControl of urban runoff and its impaci on ce duality is still in the elementciry stages . At present, the only effective mitigation measure is to. process such runoff in a sewage treatment facility. 4. 3. 3 Biological Resources Two of the study areas recommended for change are partially developed, thus the proposed land use designation changes will have minimal impact upon vegetation and wildlife in these areas unless existing structures and trees are removed prior to new development. These are study areas 2 . 7 (south of Warner Avenue and east of Bolsa Chica Street) and 2. 9 (south of Talbert Avenue and west of Beach Boule- vard) . All of the sites except the Rotary Mud Dump (concern area 2 . 8) are primarily characterized by low growing weeds, all other vegetation having been previously removed. Development of these sites will have minimal adverse effect on the biological environment, including the displacement or elimination of wildlife species . Concern areas 2. 1 (south of Ellis Avenue and west of Huntington Street) and 2. 9 support a number of large eucalyptus trees, which could be removed if the land is developed under the new land use designations. These effects can be mitigated through landscaping requirements. 4. 3. 4 Cultural Resources S Two of the study areas recommended for change have been identified by Archaeological Research Incorporated as . archaeologically significant sites. These are located in study areas 2. 2 (north of Slater Avenue and west of Gothard Street) and 2 . 7 (south of Warner Avenue and east of Bolsa Chica) . The development of these areas may adversely affect the sites unless regulatory policies are enforced through cluster development or estate zoning. Full ownership rights of these sites could also be acquired through purchase, condemnation or donation. Even if such measures are implemented, it is recommended that a qualified archaeologist sufficiently clear con- struction areas of archaeological data prior to any grading for development. An archaeologist should also be present during all phases of grubbing and grading. - If significant data are discovered during grading, the machinery should be diverted until adequate salvage is performed. 4 . 3. 5 Transportation/Circulation The areas of concern being considered in this General Plan Land Use Amendment lie adjacent to existing arterial ! streets or are directly connected to the arterial street system by existing local streets. 46 ��,.;��<. VEJO. x � � ORCAF1 Sections of some arterial and locc acent to the properties included under this General Plan Land Use Amendment will need improvements. The improvements would occur as vehicular traffic increased or as properties are developed. Under the existing land uses included in this. General Plan Amendment traffic volumes will generate 7 , 993 vehicular trips per day along the City' s arterial street system. The proposed changes to the existing land uses will result in an increase of 2 , 499 vehicular trips .per day, increasing total vehicular trips generated by the new land use designa- tion to 10, 492 per day. The change in land use will result in increased congestion , air pollutants and noise along the City ' s arterial street system. Figure 4-2 presents a comparison of existing and proposed land uses by type in terms of acreage and trips per day. The bulk of the increased traffic will occur on arterial streets lying adjacent to area of concern 2. 3 (north of Talbert Avenue and east of Beach Boulevard) andArea of Concern 2 . 9 (west of Beach Boulevard and south of Talbert Avenue) . The proposed land use changes within these two Areas of oncern will increase traffic along Talbert Avenue, between Gothard and Beach Boulevard but will not be so great an increase to require upgrading Talbert Avenue above its present primary arterial road classifica- tion. FIGURE 4-2 Existing and Proposed Land Use Acreage and Vehicle Trips per Day Existing Existing Proposed Proposed Gross Acres Trips Gross Acres Generated Trips Low,Density 16.48 11188 63.84 4,603 Medium Density 0 0 62.32 51889 Retail Ccnr ercial 2.24 896 0 0 General Industrial 107.44 5,909 0 0 TOTALS 126.16 7,993. 126.16 10,492 y y %M AA, / j 47 r Sf I.J ffi:f!<f �� . 4. 3. 6 Air ResourcesURAFT Air quality within the City and th will • experience an increase in pollutants above that otherwise experienced under the existing land use designations. This General Plan Land Use Amendment will generate approxi- mately . 26 tons per day more than would occur under the existing land use plan. The increase in air pollutants primarily results from the increased vehicular traffic • movement: Figure 4-3 compares existing land use pollutants with the proposed land uses. FIGURE 4-3 POTENTIAL GENERATION OF AIR POLLUTANTS Existing Land Uses Proposed Land Uses (Tons/Day) (Tons/Day) Pollutant Stationary Mobile Total Stationary Mobile Total • Carbon .01 1.36 1.37 .01 1.67 1.68 Monoxide Hydrocarbons .01 .13 .14 0 .15 .15 Nitrogen .07 .16 .25 .04 .20 .24 Oxides Particulate .01 .02 .03 .02 .03 .05 Sulfur Oxides .13 .01 .14 .06 .01 .07 TOTAL .23 1.70 1.93 .13 2.06 2.19 The estimated tonnage of pollutants may be reduced as newer model automobiles replace older models. Also, new advances in engine design and availability of cleaner fuels may contribute to reduced air pollution. Area of concern 2-8 lies adjacent to the Southern Cali- fornia Edison generating plant. The area of concern may be affected by pollutants spewed from the- generating plant ' s exhaust stacks. Such pollutants consist primarily of nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide and particulate matter. The direct effect upon the subject property will be similar to the other low density dwelling units within the area. The effect of the pollutants from the exhaust stacks on the subject property may, however, be minimal, due :zHIN�s 48 i�f ;- J primarily to the close proximity _ to the property. The wind direction is primarily from the southwest and has a dispersing effect upon the pollutants. It is conceivable that properties located a greater distance from the exhaust stacks than the subject property would be impacted to an equal or greater extent due to the wind currents. Development within area of concern 2 . 7 (South of Warner Avenue and East of Bolsa Chica Street) and 2 . 8 (South of Hamilton Avenue and West of Magnolia Street) may cause the dispersal into the atmosphere of strong odors. A portion of the area of concern 2. 7 was once used for a solid waste dump site. It is believed that some amount of oil waste materials were deposited at the dump site. If development takes place on that portion of land that was once a dump site excavation and removal of existing fill would be necessary. During such an operation strong odors may enter the atmosphere. The odors would have resulted from chemi- cal reaction of the waste material buried at the dump site. Final Tract9235 which lies in close approximation to the dump site experienced the escape of strong odors into the atmosphere, during construction, that disturbed persons living in adjacent dwelling units. Soil samples should . be taken prior to development to determine the extent of the land fill and the potential of escape of strong odors into the atmosphere. Development of area of concern 2 . 8 , the Rotary Mud Dump Site, may produce odors in the atmosphere that are the result of dumping oil related waste materials over time and the chemical reaction resulting from the mixture of the waste materials. The developer of the -subject property is proposing to treat the soil containing the waste mater- ial by mixing it with a lime base substance thus causing the soil to solidify. Liquid materials that are not con- ducive to treatment will be removed from the' site. During the treatment of the soil there may be dispersed into the • atmosphere undesirable odors that may affect residents living in existing dwelling units in the surrounding area. 4. 3. 7 Noise The noise impacts to be experienced in the various areas of concern are typical of the sound disturbances exper- ienced in an urban environment. Generally the sounds from automobiles , trucks, and motorcycles cause the greatest disturbances to residential land uses (Noise Element Background Report, p. 98) . Land uses adjacent to the heavier travelled arterial streets will experience a • greater amount of noise intrusion. The Noise Element Background Report presents noise contours for use on City' s arterial street . f`system , nd indicates specific areas of�%`?%fib x, l� :149 � 10 I unRn noise impact. (Noise Element Backgroun epor , page 4, 65. ) Figure 4-4 identifies those areas of concern that are recommended for change inland use designation and indicates the impacted areas and contour range for each. Also presented is the acceptability rating based on standards established in the Noise Element (The General Plan, p. 40) . The Noise Element provides suggested methods for minimizing • the noise impacts upon city land uses caused by vehicular traffic along the arterial streets and highways. Included in these suggestions are: • Local reduction of traffic noise through operation modifications (e .g. revise flow control methods, rerout- • ing of traffic) • Outside to inside noise reduction for dwellings through modifications to improve sound insulation (e .g. minimize "sound leaks" around doors, windows and vents; replace "acoustically weak" components; structurally improve • weak walls and roofs) . The maximum noise level for all residential uses is Ldn 60 for outdoors and Ldn 45 for indoors. Utilizing a maximum noise level of Ldn 60 does not mean that further resi- dential development in all areas exceeding the. level of Ldn 60 should be prohibited. It simply means that acoustical analyses should be required in areas where the maximum standard is exceeded and that structural modifi- cations for new development (more insulation, no windows facing street, etc. ) would be necessary. Residential development in areas exceeding the level of Ldn 70 should be prohibited. The criteria level of Ldn 60 for residential uses is compatible with the California Noise Insulation Standards. FIGURE 4-4 NOISE EXPOSURE ASSOCIATED WITH RECOMMENDED LAND USE CHANGES Area of Recommended Land Ldn Concern Use Chany@s Contour lntmr.prott jt.[.on • 2. 1 Medium Density Residential 60 Acceptable 2. 2 Low Density Residential 60-65 Acceptable 2. 3 Medium Density Residential .60 Acceptable �.rrrsZ . 50 s.'> Mx.x.-M r FIGURE 4-4 Cont. • 2. 7 Medium Density Residential 60 DRAFT,,, ,n1 2 . 8 Low Density Residential 60 Acceptable 2. 9 Low Density Residential 60-65 Acceptable 4 . 3. 8 Public Services 4. 3. 8 . 1 Police Service The Police Department operates from one police facility • located in the south central section of the City near Main Street and Mansion Avenue. The present level of police manning is approximately 1. 14 officers per 1000 persons. The proposed change in land use would result in a net increased population of 3, 342 . Police levels would have to be increased by four officers to provide adequate « protection to the new residents. On-site security protection could minimize the increased demand on the Police Department. Future developments should conform to the California Attorney General' s • security provisions. 4. 3. 8. 2 Fire Protection Of prime importance to the adequacy of fire protection coverage is response time, which is basically a function • of the distance from the fire station to the incident location and the average speed of travel by fire apparatus . Fire stations should be located to .provide an average response time of five minutes or less in 90 percent of the incidents. All study areas are located entirely within this response limit and can be adequately serviced. When comparing development under the existing Land Use Element with General Plan Amendment 77-1, no difference in response time is expected. Manpower is a secondary factor in fire protection coverage because manning practices are normally based .on the City' s financial capability rather than the fire hazard potential. As the areas of concern develop, higher levels of manning will be necessary if the Fire Department is to maintain the level of service required. Based on current manning levels, an additional three firemen would be needed to serve the higher population. 4. 3. 8. 3 Schools The proposed land use changes in General Plan Amendment 77-1 will generate the following number of additional 51 students within the local school distri e ementary - 541, high school - 146, and junior college - 215 . The elementary school districts have indicated that they can accommodate additional students generated by new .housing developments within district boundaries. The Huntington Beach Union High School District has five schools which are already overloaded with a total capacity of 14 , 798 and a current enrollment of 18 , 661. This student overload is being accommodated by temporary structures and extended-day schedules. Continued enrollment growth will . intensify the need for extended school day schedules and force the continued implementation of other classroom alternatives. These effects will be partially mitigated by the new Ocean View High School at Gothard Street and Warner Avenue, within the Huntington Beach Union High School District. The Coast Community College District indicates that their facilities can adequately accommodate the anticipated student increase from expected City growth. 4. 3. 8. 4 Recreation and Parks The Planning Staff has analyzed development under the proposed amendment for supply and demand of park lands, and found a need for 16. 7 additional acres of park space. However, all concern areas except 2. 7 are located in close • proximity to community and regional park facilities. Access to such recreational areas minimizes the need for more neighborhood park space . The City should consider acquistion of the dump site at study area 2 . 7 to meet future park needs south of Warner Avenue and east of Bolsa Chica Street. 4 . 3. 8 . 5 Hospitals Local hospitals will be required to serve an additional 3 , 342 people under General Plan Amendment 77-1 There are two hospitals in the City of Huntington Beach which serve the City' s population. An estimated 2, 500 people are served by Huntington Intercommunity Hospital in some capacity every month. Pacifica Hospital serves an estimated 350 people every month. Both hospitals are centrally located. Given the wide range of services offered at the two hospitals, there should be no problem providing health care to residents of Huntington Beach. In addition, the Amendment maintains ample land area for office professional uses to permit future medical develop- ment to accommodate the City' s ultimate population. 52 4 . 3. 9 Utilities DRAFT 4. 3. 9. 1 Energy Utilities The proposed amendment will increase the consumption of natural gas in the study areas by approximately 98 . 9 million cubic feet per year. This can be attributed to an increase in land designated for residential uses. • Gas service is generally provided as a normal extension of existing facilities. However, the availability of natural gas service is based upon present conditions of gas supply and regulatory policies . As a public utility, the Southern California Gas Company is under the juris- diction of the California Public Utilities Commission. Federal regulatory agencies can also affect gas supply. Should these agencies take any action which affects gas supply or the conditions under which service is available, gas service will be provided according to the revised con- ditions. 4D The proposed amendment reduces the annual consumption of electricity by 9. 9 million kilowatt hours, due to a decrease in industrial and commercial designated land that supports uses associated with high electricity con- sumption. The Southern California Edison Company has indicated that electrical load requirements can be met through 1977 provided that. electrical demand does not exceed estimates and there are no unexpected outages to major sources of electrical supply. The total demand is exPected to continue to increase annually. If Edison ' s plans to pro- ceed with future construction of new generating facilities . continue to be delayed, the ability to serve customer loads could become marginal by 1978. The following energy conservation measures are recommended • for new structures: 1. Open gas lighting should not be used in public or private buildings. 2 . Electric lights should be strategically placed to maximize their efficiency. Their size and power consumption should be minimized as much as possible . 3. Electrical heating in public and private structures should be discouraged. Solar-assisted heating systems should be encouraged. • 4 . Reflecting and/or insulating glass should be used in structures where wiadows are not shaded by exterior MINA. . YF/ nnAUT i architectural projections or mature plants. 4. 3. 9. 2 Sewer and Water The proposed amendment will increase total sewage produc- tion by 400, 000 gallons per day and water consumption by 500, 000 gallons per day above levels generated by uses under existing General Plan designations. • Sewer and. water service are generally provided as a normal extension of existing facilities. The Orange County Sanitation District' s master plan outlining ultimate land uses and flow coefficients for Huntington Beach approxi- mates the proposed intensity of land uses under the Land_ .U•se Element and proposed amendment. The City' s Public Works Department foresees no problems with City water production capabilities in providing local sewer and water service. Minor enlargements and extensions of existing lines would be required in new developments at the time of actual development. s The following water conservation measures are recommended for the community at large and individual structures where appropriate. 1. Reduce evaporation from reservoirs by encouraging underground storage or coating water surfaces with evaporation hindering films or substances. 2. Encourage tertiary treatment of and reuse of the return flow of public water supplies wherever such use ! is acceptable and safe. 3. Discourage development in areas where air conditioning may be used frequently and for long periods. 4. Land use planning should be sensitive to the under- ground water level and not produce greater demand on the underground water supply than is available. 5. Waterspreading where appropriate should be encouraged in order to recharge the underground water supply. 6. Metering of water can stimulate more economical use and encourage repair of leaky connections. 7. Toilets and showers are commonly over designed and use more water than necessary. Consumption can be reduced by introducing appropriate modifications to toilets and showers. 54 • 4 . 3. 9. 3 Solid Waste Disposal DRAFT NUN-N The proposed amendment will increase overall solid waste generation by 1360 tons per year above that produced under existing General Plan designations. The Rainbow Disposal Company, who provides trash collection to the City of Huntington Beach, foresees no local service constraints. Orange County Refuse Disposal indicates that the refuse transfer station in Huntington Beach will operate indefinitely. The Coyote Canyon landfill site is projected to reach capacity during 1981, but several replacement sites will begin operation at that time in accordance with the Orange County Solid Waste Management Plan . The change in designations at concern areas 2 . 7 (south of Warner Avenue and east of Bol-sa Chica) and 2 . 8 (south of Hamilton Avenue and west of Magnolia Street) may hasten the treatment or removal of soild wastes deposited at the • respective dump sites, thereby removing significant . nuisance factors from the community. Any solid waste materials requiring removal would be disposed at the County landfill. Oil related wastes not chemically treated would be removed to other Class III solid waste disposal sites in the County. • 4. 3. 10 Human Habitat 4. 3. 10. 1 Population Intensity The, General Plan Land Use Element maintains a relatively • low development and population intensity throughout the City. The following residential density standards apply to the areas of concern: 1. Low Density Residential : 0-7 units/gross acre • 2 . Medium Density Residential : 7-15 units/gross acre At full development according to the proposed amendment, the study areas will contain approximately 1 , 267 dwelling units more than development under existing 'land use • designations. Of this total, 332 units will be single family and 935 units will be multiple family. Development according to the proposed designations will increase the potential population by 3 , 342 above development under the existing Land Use Plan. Population intensity in low . density areas will be approximately 24 persons per acre, • while that in medium density areas will toal about 35 persons per acre. The following table summarizes the 55 xom wg go • 'qv $ ''<; 0 changes by residential category: DRAFT Existing Proposed O DU Population DU Population Low Density Residential 115 397 447 1, 542 Medium Density Residential 0 0 935 2, 197 O Total 115 397 1, 382 3 , 739 The impacts associated with these changes as well as O mitigating measures necessary to deal with the impacts have been detailed throughout Sections 2 . 0 and 4. 0. 4. 3. 10. 2 Aesthetics Rolling topography has some aesthetic value and can best be preserved by planned development concepts under the new residential designations. Concern areas involving a change from industrial to residential uses may subject some residents to unsightly • industrial operations. Landscaped buffers and on-site structural arrangement and design can minimize objection- able visual effects. 4. 3. 10. 3 Demolition/Relocation The .change from industrial to residential uses at concern areas 2. 3 and 2. 9 and the increased residential density at study area 2 . 7 may raise land values. As a result some relocation of businesses and residents could occur as property taxes increased. A recreational vehicle storage facility and four older residences along Talbert, and fourteen older residences near Warner Avenue and Bolsa Chica Street could be affected by such changes. 4.3. 11 Economic Considerations This section of the Environmental Impact Report details the fiscal costs and benefits of General Plan Amendment 77-1. The economic analysis is based on a special study by Planning Department Staff entitled the 1976 Revenue/ Expenditure Analysis of Land Uses, August, 1976. The report deals only with short-range costs and revenues, _and does not consider the long-range implications of the different development types. 56 j,f;: •: nn a rmar LUKAN The cost analysis of the amendment assesses Mis tJ and benefits as they relate to the City in terms of services provided and property tax and other revenues received. The analysis also examines the fiscal costs of educating the population and financing the local school system through district taxes. Total revenues and expenditures for development as specified by existing uses and General Plan Amendment 77-1 are detailed in Figures 4-5 through 4-8 . Land use, - as proposed by the amendment, will result in an additional annual net surplus to the City of approximately $12 , 184. Land use according to General Plan Amendment 77-1 reduces the annual net surplus to the school districts by • $133, 508. Although the net surplus to the school districts is lower under the proposed amendment, the redesignated uses are generally more compatible with surrounding land uses. Improved compatibility will mean a long-term increase in the rate at which assessed values rise, thereby reducing the net surplus difference in future years. The amend-' ment also balances the need for housing and oPen space with the apparent over-supply of commercial and industrial space in the City. fill • • �4•�y +4�SS E'r r f g • FIGURE 4-5 EXISTING LAND USE ELEMENT • Summary of Annual Revenue and Expendi Estimates as They Apply to the City of Huntington Beach • Land Use Category Revenue Expenditures Residential Low $46 , 523 $46, 474 Commercial General 17 , 593 9 , 099 Industrial General 182, 111 167 , 499 TOTAL $246, 227 $223, 072 NET SURPLUS $ 23, 155 FIGURE 4-6 • EXISTING LAND USE ELEMENT Summary of Annual Revenue and Expenditure Estimates as They Apply to the • School Districts Land Use Category Revenue Expenditures Residential Low $117 , 239 $ 81, 395 Commercial General 13, 832 Industrial General 428, 901 4 TOTAL $559, 972 $ 81,395 NET SURPLUS $478, 577* *School Districts do not actually receive a surplus rather the local 4 share of the cost of educating students is increased. 58 A.�..:� ,: FIGURE 4-7 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 77-1 mom 0WTW 1- • Summary of Annual Revenue and Expenditure, Estimates as They Apply to the City of Huntington Beach Land Use Category Revenue Expenditure Residential Low $180, 220 $180 ,029 Medium 209, 208 174 , 060 • TOTAL $389, 428 $354, 089 NET SURPLUS $ 35, 339 -40 FIGURE 4-8 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 77-1 Summary of Annual Revenue and Expenditures Estimates as They Apply to the School Districts Land Use Category Revenue Expenditure • Residential Low $454, 158 $315, 306 Medium 492 , 577 286, 360 TOTAL $946,735 $601, 666 • NET SURPLUS $345,069* *School Districts do not actually receive a surplus rather the local share of the cost of educating students is increased. • �.• F 5 9 4 . 4 Alternatives to the Proposed Action [:A: FT 4. 4. 1 No Project • The first alternative is that of taking no action, The implications of such a decision would be to continue the policies and land use designations set forth by the General Plan Land Use Element. The areas of concern now designated. industrial would continue vacant in the • long-term in waiting for quality industrial development, or develop to marginal industrial uses in the short-term. The Industrial Land Use Study, Part II indicates the cause as a persistent over-supply of industrial land in the City' s Central Industrial Corridor and Edison Area. In the meantime, the need and demand for a variety of • housing in the City will continue to be acute. The no project alternative thus reinforces the inbalance between industrial over-supply and housing needs in the future. The perpetuation of industrial over-supply also means that the City will forego significant revenues because of long- term vacancy or the attraction of marginal industrial uses. Pursuing the no project alternative would further result in a less comprehensive, more disjointed approach to growth that would provide neither proper development guidelines nor adequate environmental regulations . The no project alternative would eliminate some of the adverse effects associated with the amendment proposals . There would be a lesser impact on utilities, public services , traffic, air quality, and noise. Demolition of structures or relocation of residents and businesses would be reduced. There would be fewer or no permanent . residents impacted at concern areas of serious flood and seismic hazard potential, i .e. , areas 2 . 7 and 2 . 8. However, the nuisances produced by the disposal of waste materials at these sites would continue unabated, and to adversely affect surrounding residential areas. 4.4 . 2 Land Uses Other Than Existing and Proposed Designations Individual project alternatives for each of the study areas are discussed and analyzed in Section 2 . 0 of this report. The alternatives considered are generally not entirely consistent with the goals and policies of the • City of Huntington Beach as stated in the General Plan. The amendment as prepared is in conformance with these goals and policies and will result in a balance of the important environmental values and an optimum environment in terms of the physical, economic, social, and psycho- logical factors. 'r r, fIVeW • 4 . 5 Short-Term and Long-Term Productivit DRAFT Being a long-term guide for future development, enera an Amend- ment 77-1 establishes a positive relationship between the local short- term uses of man' s environment and the maintenance and enhancement . of long-term productivity. The amendment identifies short-range issues within a context of long-range goals, policies, and environ- mental planning programs. General Plan Amendment 77-1 is in itself • a mitigation measure designed to minimize any adverse effects on long-term productivity resulting from short-term uses. Concerning underdeveloped and vacant industrial lands, the long-term effect will be a balancing of the City ' s residential and open space needs with an industrial land supply that is more in line with the • City' s capability to attract viable business activities. One of the steps required to implement the amendment is an analysis of the zone changes necessary to bring the zoning into conformance with the General Plan. The zoning changes that would result would have significant short-term effects, such as creating non-conforming uses , reducing or increasing intensity of development permitted, and providing stimulus for development. The long-term effects. would be land uses that are reflective of the plan' s provisions. 4 . 6 Irreversible Environmental Changes The Amendment will mitigate most adverse effects. However, irreversi- ble environmental changes of a secondary nature can be expected from development under the proposed amendment. Loss of open space as vacant land is converted to other uses will • be a change. Although the option to recycle the land to open space after development is available, it is probably not economically feasible. Alteration of topography will be an irreversible change. Although mitigating measures can be imposed as part of the development • process, the natural topography will experience some degree of change. Construction materials of mineral origin will be needed for develop- ment to occur, and fossil fuels will be committed for long periods to satisfy local energy demand. 4. 7 Growth Inducing Impact Land uses under General Plan Amendment 77-1 will provide the stimulus to encourage residential development in most of the vacant areas surrounding the study sites. In the case of study area 2 . 7, • residential development of the surrounding properties would be in conformance with the General Plan Land Use Element. There would 01 wgr n .4 • Y 40 nRAFT I also be increased residential pressures in the Central Industrial Corridor and Edison Industrial Area. However, many of these sites were found to be marginally attractive to quality industrial 1 development by the Industrial Land Use Study, Part II. The further change in industrial designations to residential ones would be con- sistent with the study' s findings. The proposed amendment will also have growth inducing effects within the areas of concern. An additional population of 3, 342 persons would be generated by uses under General Plan Amendment 77-1, thereby creating an increased demand on public services and utilities and incrementally affecting air quality, water quality, traffic, and noise levels. However, the proposed uses in accord with General Plan policies and programs will mitigate many of the adverse effects generated by the expected growth, and will help to insure that the future growth is well-planned and serves to increase the viability of the City' s economic base. OW • • 62 49 � : .:3h III`... t FOOTNOTES DRAFT r•• 1. Land Use Element : Phase I, Huntington Beach Planning Department, December , 1973 , pp 6. 8 , 6 . 9. 2. Seismic-Safety Element, Huntington Beach Planning Department, August, 1974 , pp 103-105. 3. Conservation Potentials Report, Huntington Beach Planning Department, March, 1974 , pp 9-47 ; 133-141. 4 . Open Space Potentials, Huntington Beach Planning Department, • February, 197T, pp-17-21; 77-91; 93-110. 5. Geotechnical Inputs, Huntington Beach Planning Department, . February, 1974 . 6. Flood Hazard Study, Huntington Beach Planning Department, April , 1974. 7 . Land Use Element: Phase I , .p 6. 9 . 8 . Seismic-Safety Element, pp 105-106. -� 9 . Conservation Potentials Report, pp 47-92; 133-141. 10. Open Space Potentials, pp 17-25; 68-71; 93-110 . 11 . Flood Hazard Study. 12. Fire Hazard/Fire Protection Study, Huntington Beach Fire and Planning Departments, July, 1974 , pp 21-24 . 13. Land- Use Element: Phase I, pp 6 . 9 , 6. 10. 14. Seismic-Safety Element, pp 106-107 . 15. Conservation Potentials Report, pp 92-104 . 16. Land Use Element: Phase I, p. 6.10. 17 . Seismic-Safety Element, p. 107 . 18. Conservation Potentials, pp 104-124 . 19 . Seismic-Safety Element, pp. 108 , 109 . 20. Conservation Potentials Report, pp. 124-133 . • 21. Open Space Potentials, pp. 39-45. � { 6 � 63 / . �r/Jh: uRAFT- 22. Scientific Resources Survey and Inventory, Archaeological Research, Incorporated, January, 23 . General Plan Amendment 77-1 (proposed) , Huntington Beach Planning Department, August, 1976 . • 24 . Land Use Element : Phase I , pp. 2 . 12 - 2 . 13, 2 . 15 2 . 16 . i 25. Circulation Element Background Report, Huntington Beach Planning Department, August, 1976, pp 10-15, 42-46, 51-57 , and 65-67 . 26 . The General Plan, Huntington Beach Planning Department, August, 1976 , Section 3 . 1 . 27 . Population Growth Element Background Report,. Huntington Beach Planning Department, August, 1976 . 28 . Open Space and Conservation Element Background Report, pp. 3 - 29 . Conservation Potentials, pp. 125-128 . 30. Open Space Potentials, pp. 50-58 . • 31. Southern California Gas Company, 1974 . 32 . Southern California Edison Company, 1974 . 33. Department of Public Works, City of Huntington Beach, • July, 1976 . 34. Rainbow Disposal Company, July, 1976 . 35. Department of Public Works, City of Huntington Beach, July, 1976 . 36. Population Growth Element Background Report, Huntington Beach Planning Department, Auquot, 1976. 37 . Noise Element Background Report, Huntington Beach Planning • Department, August, 1976. 38. Noise Element Background Report, Huntington Beach Planning Department, August, 1976, pp. iv. 39. Housing Element Background Report, Huntington Beach Planning • Department, August, 1976, ion 3 . 2 . 3.. 64 .�' • • DRAFT ] - ' • ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 77-3 ON GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 77-1 (Includes distribution list, comments on the • draft EIR, responses to the comments, and initial studies. ) • .......X. nN. 65 i DISTRIBUTION LIST "U"'RAFT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 77-1 • EIR 77-3 CITY DEPARTMENTS STATE DEPARTMENTS Department of Public Works' Air Resources Board Harbors and Beaches Public Utilities Commission City Attorney Regional Water Quality Department of Building and Control Board • Community Development Regional Coastal Commission Fire Department Police Department SCHOOL DISTRICTS Recreation and Parks Department Library Ocean View Elementary School City Clerk District City Council Huntington Beach Elementary Planning Commission School District Environmental Council Huntington Beach Union High School District COUNTY DEPARTMENTS Coast Community College District _ • Orange County Water Department Orange County Transit District INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES Orange County Sanitation District Environmental Management Agency SCAG • • yr, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEN" INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION 11UNi1NGi(1N 81AC11 DRAFT • To John M. Cope From Mike Zambory Associate Planner City Engineer Subject General .Plan Amendment 77-1 Date April 28 , 1977 • As requested in your memo of April 21, 1977 we have reviewed the General Plan Amendment 77-1, Miscellaneous Items, dated March 19, 1977. , We have comments to offer on three of the nine land use changes recommended in the amendment as follows: 1. Area of Concern 2. 2 This land is located immediately south of and adjacent to the existing street department Corporation Yard. At the present time street sweepers leave the Yard area at 4 :00 A.M. and intentionally drive south on Gothard in order not to disturb the trailer park residents to the north of the Yard. By altering the land use of the property on the south of the Yard from light industrial to low density residential, we can anticipate complaints from the residents due to the noise emanating directly from the Yard. as well as from Yard vehicles traversing Gothard Street in the wee hours of the morning. 2. Area of Concern 2. 7 The southerly half of -this area once contained a totally uncontrolled dump site. Anything and everything was accepted for dumping. We might anticipate odor problems when this area is excavated comparable to that experienced on Mr . Buccella's development immediately east of this site. • 3. Area of Concern 2. 8 For a number of years this land has been used as a dump site for drilling mud. We the present time all sorts of rip rap including blocks of Portland cement concrete, old asphalt, and large diameter reinforcing steel bars are being dumped adjacent to and into the drilling-mud ponds. It is difficult to imagine how this land will physically support low density residential development. / f amb ry . City Engineer .MZ:jy • • 67 • HUNTINGTON BEACH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENq. DRAFT • 1. Response to Comment #1 (Area of Concern 2. 2) : No response necessary. 2. Response to Comment #2 (Area of Concern 2 . 7) : • No response necessary. Potential odors at concern areas 2 . 7 and 2. 8 are noted in Section 4. 3. 6 (Air Resources) on page 51. 3 . Response to Comment #3 (Area of Concern 2. 8) : • It is also difficult to imagine how this land will ever support viable industry. Poor freeway access and the high cost of mitigating soil, odor, and drainage problems will discourage quality industrial developers indefinitely. Possibly non- structural storage or low intensity warehouses could find advantage here, but the soil problems would still have to • be addressed, and the revenue benefits to the City would be minimal. The same would apply to uses other than industrial and residential as well. 68 111.11`11 1110 11 V" ° PLANNING DEPT. o ,� �oUNTY OF MAY 17 1977 U P. 0. Box 190 A N G E Huntington Beach,CA 92648 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY TELEPHONE: 834_4843 ADVANCE PLANNING DIVISION AREA CODE 714 811 NORTH BROADWAY SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA MAILING ADDness! P.O. BOX 4109 SANTA ANA• CALIFORNIA 92702 May 13, 1977 H. G. OSBORNE 014ECTOR FILE 280-752 RICHARD G. MUNSELL ASSISTANT DIRECTOR - ADVANCE PLANNING MUM mub"PAFT John M. Cope Associate Planner City of Huntington Beach P.O. Box 190 '0 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Subject: General Plan Amendment 77-1 Dear Mr. Cope: a This is in response to your form letter dated April 21, 1977 that transmitted the document entitled "General Plan Amendment 77-1) , Miscellaneous Items, March, 1977" and solicited written comments no later than May 19, 1977. The document has been reviewed and we have. the following comment to offer re- . garding possible constraints to the development of some of the land use areas discussed: 1. The current policy for residential development prohibits direct residential frontage and access onto arterial highways; therefore, an internal circulation system should be established for each • affected parcel. Thank you for the opportunity of reviewing and responding to your Draft EIR. Very truly yours, Rich r G. Mun ell, Assistant Director Adv ce Planning JEB:bim cc: EMA-Advance Planning (Drennan) EMA-Development (Gilbert, Schwarze) 69 • ORANGE COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY •_ 1. Response to Comment #1: [0" DRAFT No response necessary. • • • • • • 70 n >. +j>r G1:NLRAL PLAN AMENDMENT 77-1. INTRODUCTION: Fill Important to maintain a balance of land uses in co mun> Fuel Consery Lion Freeway access riot necertsary in halane.:ed communiLy. t Rehabi l it:rtti.on or Downtown Aran s wi l 1. result 1.1i movement of light industry inLo other i.ndu�;Lrlal areas of community. Concern for loss of industrial property to maintain. Piecemeal approach t.o planning is unsound . Area should be exten- sively masLerplanned to take total community into consideration. In my opiniPn the General Plan Amendmendment is not in the hest interests of Huntington Beach when considered as a whole. In coming; years a "bal- anced community11 is g;oifig; to be of more importance. This type of commun- Ity where tilt: number of job, offered in Lhe imrmedi.ate area equals Lhe number of residents should be n prime goal. for out- city. With the energy crisis being what it is; in future years people ,are going; to need employ- ment near their homes and aren' t, going; to he ,rhl.e' to bury and of ford fuel Lo drive great distances to work. This "balanced 'Communit.y"concept should be encouraged in ilunLi.ng;ton Beach by retaining; our industrial lands for future demands. Also when you look at the industri.al. areas in Lhis light, the lack of free- way acces, which is often cited as a reason for abolishing industrial use, Is minimised. The employees and much of the maTkeL wig i he local.. One aspect of deve.lolmuerrt of i.he industrial land has riot. been. cited in this report. The city keeps pushing; for redvvelopuxvnt. in the downtown area and some type of redevelopment is inevitabbi. ilundr•eds of business-, men will be looking; toward the industrial areas of our city to relocate. This is a fact evidenced by their ownership of much of the property in these areas already. Howt,Vvi", many cannot sell Lheir downtown land at this time due to lack of investor interest since too firm redevelopment plan has been adopted and artifi.cial.l.y Inflated land values. However the industrial. lane) will ovent7►rilly he needed by Lhesv businesses. These are the type of sntal l bllsilv!%Sv�; who arc beneficial to the ci Ly from a revenue standpoint, created jobs and products utilized by this city and that forms the backbone for any community. These types of businesses are duality r businesses that do not need freeway access but are invaluable to the city. They need the industrial land to be there. As a long term plan t.lre, preae•rv;tt.i,on oC Lhe+ ittidustrtnl iand is the oitl sensible rouLe to consider. • I persortial 1y deg not he•1ieve in breaking, up lifts and, piece, or industrial • land buL lollowing; arc illy comments ()It indi.vidttnl piece,.;: 2.1 Generally acceptable for change to resi.denLi.al duo to i 1 ack of access for industrial use. i.tivironment.ally unsound - lights, noise, pressure from residents to get land for light industry. 7l 2.2 NO! The character of Lhis land is de[ini toly industrial . The fence around the city yard is siotL.od chain li.nlc. The oquipmont and indus- trial uses are re;ulily visible ;tad auclib.lo. 1'I10 General Telephone facility is tit up by many mal)v hifh intor:i.ty light.s at. ni.y.ht. ;end is readily i.denti.fioble ;is an industrial. sits. Al,,() their many vehicl.ee are visible tbrough the [once and rliit'i.it}; iho d:;v c.r-oa1-0 ;i l"r-eal. deal. of i.nrlustrial traffic. `.Phis roo-:idont.i.al :ircn i.!; right i.n 01v mi.ddl.e of prime industrial and toI.nl I cot;iccoptobIv. or•.r-es Is a vary t adequate_ amount of. kind for nuinv duality Ini!;inosses. 2.3 Residential. use not cnmpati.hle with current industrial uses in area. This residential development would create many more people needing jobs but the city would be eliminating the joh market by eliminating the i.ndustr. i.al corridor. T,-0h I-L. could provide ncc_es route to Highway 39 and the freeway and sitos are ideal. size for industrial. 2.4 Agree with City - recommend this area be retained for industrial use. • 2.5 Agree with City recommendations. • 2.6 Acceptable for commercial.. Rocommend trees and shrubs as buffer be- tween f.roeway and residences to mitigate noise. 2.6.3 Air pol.luti.on in locat-ions with liroximity to frcr.way. Commercial be-. cause of surrounding uses. 2.7 No. Too many problems with aircraft noise, open space requirements, etc. ReLain industrial. 2.7.1 Noise polluLion. 2.8 Due to prcvirnis uses this propot'ty needs furthor extensive sail rind � geological' studies to determine feasible land use. City should demand that developer fully alter soil conditions. Mud dump is 40 feet deep. Pollution from Steam Plant. May be i.nappropr. iate for either residen- tial. and industrial. High Ris; So�ni.c Arca. 2.9 No. This is a vital part of the i.ndkisLri.al corridor. 'I•;Ilbert.is al.- ready supporting quality industrial use. Retail industrial consist- ing; with aurroutadinl; orr!a. 11t r rti �A MOOM D M Co N N t � / t A AJ 0 1 C. ' HIFACS C K '.7--r��- 1V i o tv 72 HUNTINGTON BEACH DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL 1. Response to Environmental Council Comments : The Planning Department' s analysis of the study areas appears in the amendment •and draft environmental impact section of this report. The staff' s recommendation to reduce industrial acreage rests on the findings of the Industrial Land Use Study, Parts I and II and the 1976 Revenue/Expenditure Analysis of Land Uses. 73 • `eys ..4� .f. .y ' O BMW r DRAF1 ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT HUNT INGTON SEA( ", PLANNING DEPT. jurj 3 1�► + P. 0. Box 190 I �i��n!inpto:l l3c3ch,CA 9264E May 31, 1977 , • I Mr. John M. Cope City of Huntington Beach P. 0. Box 190 • Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mr. Cope: i Thank you for submitting a copy of the draft environmental impact report, for the proposed Huntington Beach General Plan Amendment • 77-1 to us, for our review. i Our only comment, at this time, is that there is no mention of transit service and accessibility to buses in the analysis of transportation and circulation. The items considered in this amendment will increase the residential density and the traffic • i flow on arterials adjacent to the study areas, and the impact on transit service should be considered. i Sincerely, V - Robert C. Hartwig Manager of Planning i i RCH:L i • 'l I 1 f� 1200 NORTH MAIN STREET P.O.BOX 688 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92702 PHONE 1714)834-6190 74 DRAFT • ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT 1. Response to Orange County Transit District Comments: The proposed project would add approximately 2 , 600 people to the Orange County Transit District service area in Huntington Beach. As a general rule, the district considers areas within one-quarter mile of a bus route to be adequately serviced. All concern areas except 2 .1, 2 . 2, and 2 . 3 meet this require- ment. About 1, 700 people in the three study areas would be located beyond one-quarter mile but within one-half mile of a bus route. To mitigate potential inadequate service, the City should continue to work with the Orange County Transit District in support of expanding the long haul fixed bus route service into Huntington Beach. • • 751 PVK FILING AUMI J15TRATIVE REGULATIONS WITH THI S :tRETARY OF STATE (Pursuant to 0avemm.nt Code Section 11380.1) 74. Appendix I is added to read: DRAr 11 APPENDIX I • ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM (To be completed by Lead Agency) I. BACKGROUND • 1 . Name of Proponent Classic Development 2 . Address and Phone utn er o Proponent: • 3 . Date of Checklist Submitted March 14, 1977 It . Agency Requiring Checklist 5 . Name of Proposal, if applica e Area o Concern 2 . 1 - South of Ellis Ave. and west of Huntington Street II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS • (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets. ) 0. YES MAY E NO F • i 1 . Earth . Will the proposal result in: W a . Unstable earth conditions or in o changes in geologic substructures? X Z °o b. Disruptions, displacement:,, com- paction or overcovering of the soil? X C . Change in topography or ground surface relief features? x d . The destruction, covering or • modification of any unique geologic or physical features? X Y C . Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? X f . Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of . a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? X 76 -36 FOR YKINU AVh1II` 15TRATIVE REGULATIONS WITH THE SE METARY OF STATE (Vunuant to Oorernmefll Code Soolon 11]80.1) — _— ,UJU • � . Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? X 2 . Air', Will the proposal result in: • a . Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? X b. The creation of objectionable odovs? X c ., Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or an;r change in climate, either locally or regionally? X 3 . Water . . Will the proposal result in: W a . Changes in currants, or the course N or direction of water movements, in LN either marine or fresh waters'? X b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage pattex sn, or, the rate 3 and amount of surface water runoff? X O o c . Alterations to the course or Q flow of flood waters? X d . Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? X e . Discharge into surface waters, or • in any alteration of sur-face water- quality , includinf; but not limited to termperature, dissolved oxygen or : turbidity? X ' f . Alteration of the direction or, • rate of flow of ground �•.aters? X 1;. CI-:ange in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions ov withdrawals , or, thr'Ough interception • of an aquifer by cuts or excavatiorl:s? — X FOIL FILING ADMIT 13TRATIVE .RI GULATIONS WITH THE SE+.AMMY OF STATE I (Purtuont to Govern-ery Code Sectlon 11380.1) 7FnM31 11) A r I LIMF YE" MA YBL' NO h . Substantial reduction in the • amount of water otherwise available for public. water supplies? X I . Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as • flooding or tidal waves? X . Plant Life . Will the proposal result n: a . Change in the diversity of species, • or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, microflora and aquatic plants) ? X b . Reduction of the nwiibers of any unique, rare or endangered species • of plants? X U C . Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? X • z d . Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? X 0 Z 5 . Animal Life . Will the proposal • S resuS�in: a . Change in the diversity of species, or .n webers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and • shellfish, benthic oranisms, insects or microfauna�-? X b . Reduction of the nwnbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? C . Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result. in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d . Deterioration to existing fish i or wildlife habitat? X -38- n.1.1.0 7 0 Fromm A001► CONTINVf.TIGN 51111T FOR FILING A.DMIM'!TRATIVE REGULATIONS WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE ► ! (Pursuant to GorernrnenfCod• Section 11780.1) nRA FDRAFT YES MAYBE NO 6. Noise . Will the proposal result in: a . Increases in existing noise X ' levels? i • b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? X 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new ig t or glare? X i 8. T.and Use . Will the proposal result in a sIABstantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? 9. Natural Resources . Will the proposal resu - in: a . Increase in the rate of use of W any natural resources? X _ IL • b . Substantial depletion of any _z nonrenewable natural resource? X W 10. Risk of Upset . Does the proposal involve a r1T3k of an explosion or 0 the release of hazardous substances o (including, but not limited to, oil, 0 pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? X ' 11 . Population . Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human popu- lation of an area? X 12 . lion,inE; . b1117. the proposal affect • exisTln_ hou,,s .ng, or create a demand for additional housing? X 13 . Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a . Generation of ubstantial addi- tional vehicular movement? X • I -39- 79 FOR ►IUP1C3 ADPIII (WTI:ATIV! 119GULATIONS WITH TM SUJUTARY OF STATE • (Pursuant to Government Code Section 11380.1) U11 YL MA M: NO • b . Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? x C . Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? X d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of . people and/or goods? X e . Alterations to viaterborne, rail i or air traffic? X f . Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? X �. 14 . Public Services . Will the proposal have an e ec upon, or result in a need for new or altered govern- mental services in any of the x following areas : z a. Fire protection? X W b. Police. protection? X 0 o c . Schools? X 0 d. Parks or other recreational facilities? X e . Tlaintenance of public facili- ties, including roads? X f. Other governmental services? X 15 . Energy. Will the proposal result in: a . Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? X b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing source; of energy, or require the development of new 4 sources of energy? X -40- .,n.,.,b..,...�a.. •vn r.v:rav iUJ(Y1ti IJII9HIIYR Ki17 90 0./9 1 19JIVJ WITH THE S:CRETARY OF STATE (Pur(ucnl'to Govunmonl Code Section 11380.1) �.. ---- yES iiilyBi iaU i 16. .- Utilities . Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: f I a . Power or natural gas? X r b. Communications systems? X C . Water? _ d.. Sewer or septic tanks'? r e . Storm water drainage? _x f. Solid waste and disposal'? X_ 17. Human health . Will the proposal result—'in: a . Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excludini; N mental health) '? X b . Lyposur e of people to potential « ? health hazards? X W F 3 18. Aesthetics . Will the proposal. resuit o in t ee obstruction of any s:ccnl c x vista or vicV; open to the p,ahlic, or, o will the proposal .result in the * creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? X 19. crcat::ion , biil]. the proposal resi.)lt Sn ati mEr ct tipon the quality or qua.ntit.y of existinE recreational opportunities? X 20. Archeologica.I '111stovical Will the propb:;al r,( :;LiAt in an ;iltcratlon of a significant avcheological or, hlstorical site , structure, oi)ject or building? X 0 -41- 81 •vn r„n7V A1,11% I,+IJI It It I IV N[UULAI IVI'OJ WITH THE ViCRITARY OF STATE t (Purwont to Go,ammant Code Section 11380,1) nnA UiMFI , 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance. . (a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat- of a fish or wildlife species , cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels , threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, ° reduce the number or . restrict the range of a rare or endangered � plant- or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of .California history or prehiatory? X b. Does the project have the poten- tial to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environ- mental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brie', x definitive period of time while Z long-term impacts will endure W well into the future . ) t C . Does the project have impacts Z which are individually limited, g but cumulatively considerable? 41 (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant . ) X d . Does the project have environ- mental effects which will cause t substantial adverne effects on hwnan beings, either directly or indirectly? X III. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMEWAL EVALUATION -4 2- 82 lb. Displacement, compaction, or overcovering of the so DMFcT at the time of development. lc. Grading activity may modify the rolling topography at the north end of the site. • lg. The site is not in the special hazard zone , but the Bolsa-Fairview branch of the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone traverses the property east and west. 2a. Deterioration of ambient air quality due to higher probability of short-term residential development versus industrial. Also , medium density residential will generate more vehicle miles traveled and emissions than industrial development. 2b. Objectionable odors may occur during construction. R 3b. There will be a decrease in the absorption rate and an increase in surface runoff if the area is developed medium density residential. However, the magnitude of these changes would be greater if the site is developed industrial. 4a. Natural grass species eliminated by construction. Industrial use results in the same impact. Landscaping will mitigate these effects, probably more significantly under residential development. i 5a. Ground animals such as rodents and insects will be eliminated and birds temporarily displaced by construction. Industrial use results in the same impact. Landscaping will mitigate temporary displacement problems, probably more substantially under residential development. • 6a. Noise levels will increase temporarily during construction. Medium density development will generate more local traffic than industrial use, resulting in higher noise levels. • 8. The change in land use would be from light industrial to medium density residential. . 12. A medium density designation could spur residential demand for in- dustrial properties to the west. 13a. Median . density residential may generate two times more traffic than industrial use. 13c. Higher traffic volumes may temporarily increase at Beach-Ellis-Main intersect until Ellis is extended through to Gothard. 13f. Higher traffic volumes may present increased hazard to bicycle users. 83 • 14b. A medium density residential use may require ad iti e service above that required for a comparable in ust 1 - ment. 14c. Medium . density development would add students to the local school system. The Huntington Beach High. School District is overcrowded. • Any additional students would be significant. No elementary school presently exists in the general area. A new one might be required or busing may be implemented. 21c. The cumulative effects will be in combination with other proposed • land use changes recommended by GPA 77-1. Primary cumulative effects will be reflected in demand on school system, utilities, and municipal services. Lesser cumulative effects would include those on traffic, air quality, noise, and water quality. 21d. The location of a fault trace on-site could subject residents to A seismic hazard. f • 1 84 W — MNTCN CR. QU BEC LL LIGHT INDUSTRIAL a DR ALBERTA W- Ell S I N Z YUKON DR RANKLIN ' a .......... c� U oa. T ! PpQ`EgY MEDI'U' -------- �- i LIGHT INDUS EASJJY COMMERCIAL 1 r�.. 1 I CO 0EDDORE CR. OF F I CE LIGHT I fJDUSTR I P OF J L: :. • rx a \tl. Z JnQ Q 3 � R AREA OF CONCERN 2.1 SOUTH OF ELLIS AVENUE & WEST OF HUNTINGTON STREET :..:;:::. FIGURE 2-2 or, rvn r1a.41'1v KUm'tvi!�TRATIVE REOULATION5 WITH THE !'ELRETARY OF STATE (Pursuant to 0orernment Code Section 11390.1) FTV4, Appendix I is added to read: uRA • APPENDIX I ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM (To -be completed by Lead Agency) I. BACKGROUND � 1 . Naive of Proponent Robert Stellrecht 2 . Address and Phone Number of ProponenE: • 3 . bite of Checklist Submitted March 14 , 1977 11 . Agency Requiring Checklist _ 5 . Name of Proposal, if applicab2C Area of Concern 2 . 2 - North of slater Avenue and east of Gothard Street II . EUVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ( Lxplanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets. ) M1 YES MAYBE NO r ? 1 . LarLh . Will the proposal result in: to F a . Unstable earth conditions or in o changes in geologic substructures? X $ b. DIsruption3, displacements, com- pactlon or overcovering of the soil? X C . Change in topography or ground surface relief features? X d . The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? X e . Any j.ncrease in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or of'f the rite? X f' . Chang;ea In deposition or evoslon of beach sands, or changes in siltation, depo3it_lon or erosion whictl may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? X -36- .,o.. .� 86 CVNIIIWATION SHEET FOR FILING ADMI'IISTRATIVE REGULATIONS WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Pursuant to Government Code Section 11380.1) YES MA Y13E NO Ex osui�e of people or p p p property to I_;eologic. hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? x 2 . Air. Will the proposal result in: a . Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? x b. The creation of objectionable • odors? x c . Alteration of air, movement , moisture or, temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? x 3 . Water. Will the proposal result in: U a . Changes In currents, or the course N or direction of water movements, In either marine or fresh waters? x z b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage pattersn, or the rate 3 and amount of surface water runoff? x 0 z C . Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? x d . C'hange in the ainount of surface water in any water body? x e . Discharge into surface waters, or, in any alteration of surface water, quality, Including; but not ] united to tcrnrperature, dissolved oxygen or, turbidity? x f . Alteration of the direction or rate. of flow of I;round waters.,? x I; . Change in the quantity of I;rouivi wagers, elthe.r through direct addi_tl.o►is or withdrawals , or through irrt:erception of an aqull'e.,r by cuts or ei:cavatl.on:.;? x II -37- FOR FILING ADVII .131-RATIVE REGULATIONS WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Pursuant to Govmmnent Code Section 11380.1) it DKAr I MA YBE NO • h . Subatantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? X I . Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as • flooding or tidal waves? X 4 . Plant Life . Will the proposal . result n: a . Change in the diversity of species, • or number of any spe-cle3 of' plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, microflora and. aquatic plant:) ? X b . Reduction of the numbers of any • unique, rare or endangered species of plants? X C . Introduction of new species of N plants into an area, or in a barrier to the 'normal replenishment of r existing species? X z d . Reduction in acreage of any 3 agricultural crop? X • o 7 5 . Animal Life . Will the proposal • S r e s dIE_f p a Change In the diverBity of i3pecies, or numbers of any species (�f animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic or anisms, Insects or microfauna�? X b. Seduction of the numbers of any 1_inigiae, rare or endangered species of animals? X c . Introduction of new specieo oi' 4nimals into an area, or, result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? X d . Deterioration to existing fish i or wildlife habitat? X -38- ,— „ „ - FOR FILING ARMIN'STRATIVE`•REGULATIONS WITH THE. SE':RETARY OF STATE !: (Pursuant to Government Code Section 11380.1) IR:ff "40 r�lll YI3E No 6. Noise . Will the proposal result in: a . Increases in existing noise X levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? X 7. Light and Glare . Will the proposal produce new light or glare? X ! 8. land iJc•e . Will the proposal result in . a subsf;antial alteration of' the present or planned land use of an area? X • 9. Natural Reso►rrrces . Will the pro— posal resu Ein: a . Increase In the rate of use of W any natural resources? X 2 • b . Substantial depletion of any z nonrenewable natural resource? X W ' 10. Risk of Upset . Does the proposal. Ix involve a risk of an explosion or o the release of hazardous substar►cc:, Z (including, but not limited to, oil., ° pesticides , chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or, upset conditions'? X 11 . Population . Will the proposal alter the location, di:,tr:i bution, density , or, growth rate of the human popu- lation of an air ea? X 12 . 1loi.mIng. 111 1.1 the propo^al affect f>xl�-Ind; h011:'t.1 rnrT, or create a demand i'or additional housing? X 13 . TransportatIonjC1r,culatIon. WllI the proposal result in: a . Generatlon of -ijbstantlal addl- . • tional vehicular movement? X -39- R4 COt1'1ltVA110N. 11411T FOR PILING ADI►1°ISTRATIVE RIGULAT10NS WITH THE SACRETARY OF STATE (Pursuant to Government Code Section I1380.1) nni EOW YES MAY11L NU • b . Effects on existing; parking facilities, or demand for new parking? x C . Substantial impact upon existing • transportation systems? x d . ' Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? x e . Alterations to' waterborne, rail or air traffic? x f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? x 14 . Public Services . Will the proposal have an e ec T upon, or, result in a need for new or altered govern- mental services in any oi' the �^ following; areas : r z a. Fire protection? x W b. Police protection? x o C . Schools? x a d . Parks or other recreational facilities? x e . Maintenance of public facili- ties, including roads? x f. Other governmental services? x 15 . Energy. Will the proposal result in: 1 a . Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? x h . "jubstantial :Enerease, In demand upon r.xi,t;irltr sources of energy , or, require the development of new sources of energy? x -40- 90 TVIIrl IrIC 0 :bKCI OAK I Vr a1NIC (Pursuant to Government Code Section 11300.1) how" as —7JU Now 16. Ut;llities . Will the proposal result In a need for new s,ysteins, or • substantial alterations to the following utilities : a . Power or natural gas? X b. Communications systems? X • C . Water? X d . Sewer or septic tanks? X e . Storm water drainage? X • f . Solid waste and disposal? X 1'( Numan Health . Will the proposal resul��-t: a . Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding N mental health) ? X T b. Exposure of people to potential Z health hazards? X W F- 3 18. Aesthetics . Will the proposal result o in the obstruction of any scenic Z vi -ta or view open to the pl.thllc, or o will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view'? X 1`). Recreation . b1111 the proposal result 1n an :impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational • opportunities'? X 20. Ar,el-ieo:Logical/1[istorica.l. . Will the proposal result In an alteration of a s:i.gnificaiit archeological or, historlcal cite, :3tructurc, object • or huilding ? X • =41- • 91_ VY11H U"I stGRETARY OF STATE (Pursuonf to Oo.ornmenl Code Section 11380.1) NO 21. Monda tort' Findings of Significance. (a) Does. the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, • substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species , cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining level), threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? . X It. Does the project have the poten- tial to achieve short-term, to the • disadvantage of long-term, environ- mental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while z font;-teem Impacts will endure W well into the future . ) X I 3 C . Does the project have impacts z which are individually limited, g but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more, separate resources where the impact on each resource 113 relatively small, but where the effect of the .total of those Impacts on the environment is significant . ) X d.. Doea the project; have environ- mental effects which will cause substantial adverfle effects on hkunan beinga, either directly ` or indirectly? X III. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENPAL EVALUATION 1 -42- I 92 • lb. Displacement, compaction, or overcovering o t occur at the time of development. No signi ica e e between industrial and residential use. lc. Grading activity may modify the topography at the bluff line. lg. The site is located less than one mile north of the Bolsa- Fairview fault. People and structures could be exposed to seismic hazard from severe ground shaking. • 2a. Deterioration of ambient air quality due to higher probability of short-term residential development versus industrial. Also, low-density residential will generate more vehicle miles traveled and emissions than industrial development. 2b. Objectionable odors may occur during construction. 4a. Natural grass species eliminated by construction. Industrial use results in the same impact. Landscaping will mitigate these effects, probably more substantially under residential Ab development. 5a. Ground animals such as rodents and insects will be eliminated and birds temporarily displaced by construction. Industrial use results in the same impact. Landscaping will mitigate temporary displacement problem, probably more substantially under residential development. F t 6a. Noise levels will increase temporarily during construction. Low density residential will generate more local traffic than i industrial use, resulting in higher noise levels. 6b. Residents could be exposed to high noise levels from City sweepers, trucks, and telephone maintenance vehicles during early morning hours. 8. The change would be from .light industrial to low-density residential. 12 . A low-density designation could spur residential demand for • industrial properties to the south and east. 13a. Low-density residential may generate 1. 3 times more traffic than industrial use. • 13c. Traffic may be relatively heavy along Slater Avenue and Gothard Street until the arterials are widened. • 93 • . 13f. Higher traffic volumes may present incrdasel h bicycle users along Slater Avenue and Gotha d W T Central Park. • 14b. A low-density residential use may require additional police service above that required for industry. 14c. Low-density development would add students to the local school systems. The Huntington Beach Union High School District is overcrowded. Any additional students would be significant. • No elementary school presently exists in the general area. 20. Archaeological site 185 at Gothard Street and Slater Avenue could be altered by development. • 21c. The cumulative effects will be in combination with other pro- posed land use changes recommended by GPA 77-1. Primary cumulative effects will be reflected in demand on school systems, utilities, and municipal services. Lesser cumulative effects would include those on traffic, air quality, noise, and water • quality. 21d. The close proximity of a fault trace could subject residents to seismic hazard. i • • AA z a BETTY DR LIGHT IN LSI RIAL J-URAFT cr jrcr c V r -- 0 D AS- -- - ' - - C F - C W - -- FORD OR LLJ • O �h,• N DR. ---...-- � f --I-0 ST I AL SLATER MAN PUBLIC UTILITY LI HT - US F,I AL C F- R -- AREA OF CONCERN 2.2 NORTH OF SLATER AVENUE & WEST OF GOTHARD STREET • 95 WITH THE S AURETARY OF STATE (Pursuant to Doveinm.nt Coda S.ctlon 11380.1) • 11HAt I 74. Appendix I is added to read: APPENDIX I ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM (To be completed by Lead Agency) I. BACKGROUND • 1 . Name of Proponent Frank Buccella 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: • 3. Date of Checklist Submitted March 14 , 1977 4 . Agency Requiring Checklist 5 . Name of .Proposal, if applicable Area of concern 2 . 3, North of Talbert Avenue and east of Gothard Street II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required W on attached sheets . ) 0. m YES MAYBE NO _Z 1 . Earth . Will the proposal result in: W F 3 a . Unstable earth conditions or in o changes in geologic . substructures? X 7 $ b. Disruptions, displacements, com- paction or overcovering of the soil? X C . Change in topography or ground surface relief features? X d . The destruction, covering or • modification of any unique geologic or physical features? X e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either, on or, off the site? X f' . Changes in depo3ition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of • the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? X 96. -36- FOR FILING ADMM ISTRATIVE REGULATIONS WITH THE SE METARY OF STATE (Pursuant to Government Code Section 11380.1) Y1.S MAY13" NIO • g . Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, inudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards'? X 2 . A1r•. Will the proposal result 1n: • a .. Substantial air emissions or de:;erioration of ambient air quality? X b. The creation of objectionable odors? X c . Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or, anI, change in climate, either locally or regionally? X • 3 . Water. Will the proposal result in: a . Changes in currents, or the course N or direction of water, movements, In T either marine or fresh waters? X x z b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage pattern, or the rate 3 and amount_ of surface water runoff F X 0 C . Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? X d . Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? X e . Discharge into surface waters, or • in any alteration of surface water, quality, including; but not limited to termperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? X f' . Alteration, of the direction or rate of flow of t-round waters? X f; . Change in the quantity of Ur•ound waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or, throUgh interception ;• of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? X I • I -37- FOR FILIM0 ADMIT' Si RATIVE .REGULATIONS WITH THE Slk.R[TARY OF STATE (Pursuant to Governmeq Code Section 11380.1) LL YL;; MA YI E 110 h . Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? X I . Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? X . 4 . Plant Life . Will the proposal result n: a . Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrub,, grass, crops, microflora and aquatic plants) . X b. Reduction of the nwnbers of any unique, rare or endangered species X • of plants? C . Introduction of new species of N plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? X • x I d . Reduction in acreage of any F agricultural crop? X 0 = 5. Animal Life . Will the proposal • $ resul��: a . Change in the diversity of species, or nwnbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals Including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic or anisms, Insects or microfauna�?. X b . Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? X • c . . Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or X movement of animals? ' d' Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? X 981 -38- ., r0010 400A CONTUMPTION $1111T { FOR FILING ADMINIT!111ATIVE REGULATIONS WITH T14E SECRETARY OF STATE (Pursuant to Govornmonf&d• Sectlon 11380.1) — I , • i 6. Noise . Will the proposal result in: i a . Increases in existing noise X levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? X 7 . Light and Glare . Will the proposal produce new light or glare? X • 8. Land Use . Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration or the present or planned land use of an area? X .9. . Natural Resources . Will the proposal resu in: a . Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? X a N • " b . Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? X x 10. Risk of Upset . Does the proposal involve a rl—sk of an explosion or o the release of hazardous substance • o (including, but not limited to, oil, ° pestIcides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? X 11 . Population . Wiil the proposal alter • the location, distribution, density, or, Urowth rate of the human popu- lation of an area? X .12 . Ilou ink;_ V;1..11 the proposal affect ex is lnt; housing, or, create a demand for additional housing? X 13 . Transportation/Circulation . Will the proposal result in: a . Generation of ;.substantial addl- tional vehicular movement? X • f -39- I .I-. .9 9 FOR FILING A!?MI?-157 RATIVE RIOULATIONS WITH THI 51'.RETARY OF STATH t (►unuonf to Government Code Seaton 11380.1) YIS M1 YIII: 1IU • b. Effects on .existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? X C . Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? X • d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? X e . Alteration:) to waterborne, rail • or air traffic? X f . Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? X • 14 . Public Services . Will the proposal ave an eMe-FE—upon, or result in a need for new or altered govern- mental services in any of the 01 following areas : • r z a. Fire protection? X W F b. Police. protection? X o c . Schools? X • 0 d: Parks or other recreational facilities? X e . Pjaintenance of public facili- ties, including roads? X f. Other governmental services? X 15 . Energy. Will the proposal result in: a . Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? X b . Substantial increase in demand upon existing; sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? X ..;- O -40- FOR FIIITIO AnAW 15TRATIVE REGULATIONS WITH THE S:ZCRETARY OF STA71 — +� (Pursuant to Govunment Code Section 11380.1) O: r 1 16. .- Utilities . Will the proposal result • in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a . Power or natural gas? x • b. Communications systems? x c . Water? x d . Sewer or septic tanks'? x • e . Storm water drainage? x f. Solid waste and disposal? x 17 . 111-MI In Health . Will the proposal resut in: a . Creation of any health hazard or U potential heal hazard (excluding x En health) . N • b. L�xposure of people to potential i health hazards? x W 3 18. Aesthetics . tJ:Ll.t the Pcsult 0 1.n Idie obso'uctjon oC any ,!cc rile z vlc:ta or view open to the pi.iblic, or- 0 will the proposal - result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public vicvj:- x 19. Recreation . Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or •, quantity of existing recreational opportunities? x 20. Archeological/Ifistorical . 6Jill the propoo'sal rcr,u.I t in an o l.terat.i.on of a I-ignIf'lcant archeological or • I:1 toi•lcal 21.te , structure, object or building? X • -41- • 101 .. ... "Wil•7 •IJIIVaII•G @A&WWF"%I1V1VJ ' WITH TH® ViCRITARY OF STATE (Purtuont to do,omment Code Section 113e0.)) OVA M A J0 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance . i (a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish • or wildlife epecies , cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels , threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a- rare or endangered • plant or animal or eliminate important: examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? X b. Does the project have the poten- • tial to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environ- W mental goals'? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brie', • definitive period of time while z long-term impacts will endure W well into the future . ) X t C . Does the project have Impacts z which are Individually limited, $ but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact; on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the . environment is significant . ) X d . Does the project have environ- mental effects which will cause substantial adverne effects on hlunan beings, either direcLiy or indirectly? X III. DISCUSSION , OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION 1 102 -4 2- lb. Displacement, compaction, or overcovering[e. 1 occur at the time of development. No sig e ence between industrial and residential u lc. Grading activity may modify the rolling topography of the small lot area. The large depression west of the railroad tracks will require fill. lg. The site is located less than one-half mile north of the Bolsa-Fairview Fault. People and structures could be exposed to seismic hazard from severe ground shaking. 2a. Deterioration of ambient air auality due to 'higher probability of short-term residential development versus industrial . Also, medium-density residential will generate more vehicle miles traveled and emissions than industrial development. 2b. Objectionable odors may occur during construction. 3b. There will be a decrease in the absorption rate and an increase in surface runoff if the area is developed medium density resi- dential. However, the magnitude of these changes would be greater if the site is developed industrial. .4a. Natural grass species eliminated by construction. Industrial • use results in the same impact. Landscaping will mitigate these effects, probably more substantially under residential development. 5a. Ground animals such as rodents and insects will be eliminated and birds temporarily displaced by construction. Industrial use results in the same impact. Landscaping will mitigate tem- porary displacement problem, probably more substantially under residential development. 6a. Noise levels will increase temporarily during construction.. ' Medium- density residential will generate more local traffic than industrial use, resulting in higher noise levels. S . The change would be from light industrial to medium-density • residential. A recreational vehicle storage yard, auto wreck- ing yard, and a ready concrete business would become less viable due to increased land values. Failure or relocation of these businesses would result. 12 . A medium-density designation could spur residential demand for industrial properties to the north and south. • 103 13a. Medium-density residentialmay generate two me than industrial use. 13c. Traffic may be relatively heavy along Talb rt uRAFenue the arterial is widened. 13f. Higher traffic volumes may present increased hazard to • bicycle users along Talbert Avenue to Central Park. 14b. A medium-density residential use may require additional police service above that required for industry. • 14c, i-iediurn-Density development would add students to the local school systems. The Huntington Beach Union High School Dis- trict is overcrowded. Any additional students would be significant. No elementary school presently exists in the general area. A new school might be required, or busing � might be implemented. 16e. There may be a need to extend the existing storm drain that exists along Talbert Avenue to serve the area of concern when it develops.. � 20 . Archaeological site 372 along Gothard Street could be altered by development. 21c. The cumulative effects will be in combination with other pro- • posed land use changes recommended by GPA 77-1. Primary cumulative effects will be reflected in demand on school sys- tems, utilities, and municipal services. Lesser cumulative effects would include those on traffic, air quality, noise, and water quality. • 21d. The close proximity of a fault trace could subject residents to seismic hazard. • • • i nA 11 It II II a inn �1 Area of Concern 2. 6, south of Sian Diego Freeway DRAFT San Angelo Drive, has received prior environmental approval. on June 7 , 1976 , under Negative Declaration 76-11. 106 LEDINGER _ o C IAL s - � J 4� m RETA I L ............ F nc0 IU DENSITY ' .. . ;.:.. FF� P`LAiht1N ��- : REfZ ' E STARK AVE c� ................ ..... ....................::::. ... ........::.:..:::::::................... G • F. G O • U Z 4 a W J [0 w Z _ HEIL _ AV • I-1 .( 'T��� CITY r—r-�m c��m� T OF 1 • 4 AREA OF CONCERN 2.6 SOUTH OF THE SAN DIEGO FREEWAY & EAST OF SAN ANGELO DRIVE • • 107 rVK rILMU AUNII 115TRATIVE RIUMATION5 WITH THH 5 :CRETARY OF STATE (Punuonf to Government Code Section 11380.1) nA DRHFTI 74. Appendix I is added to read: APPENDIX I ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM (To be completed by Lead Agency) I. BACKGROUND 1 . Name of Proponent Various property owners within the study area . 2 . Address and Phone Number of- Proponent: . 3 . Date of Checklist Submitted March 14 , 1977 4 . Agency Requiring Checklist 5 . Name of Proposal, if applicable Area .of Concern 2 .7 Bolsa Chica Street south of Warner Ave. & ease of Bolsa Chica_ St. II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanat-ions of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets. ) a YES MAYBE NO _ . Z 1 . Earth . Will the proposal result in: W f 3 a . Unstable earth conditions or in o changes in geologic substructures? X Z $ b. Disruptions, displacements, coin- • paction or overcovering of the soil? X C . Change in topography or ground surface relief features? X d . The destruction, covering or • modification of any unique geologic or physical features? X e . Any increase in wind or water ` erosion of soils, either on or off the site? X • f . Changes in deposition or erosion of teach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of • the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? -36- .,o...,.a ..,.• FOR FILING ADMM ISTRATIVE REGULATIONS WITH THE SE:RETARY OF STATE (Pursuant to Oowrnmegt Code Section 11380.1) MAYL'i: tJi) E; . Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? X • 2 . Air. Will the proposal result in: a . Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? X b. The creation of objectionable . odors? X C . Alteration of' air movement, moisture or temperature, or and change in climate, either locally or regionally? X 3 . Water . Will the proposal result In: a . Chani;es hn currents , or the cour:3e N or direction of water- movements, in either marine or fresh waters? X z b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage pattersn, or, the rate and amount of surface water runoff'? X 0 z C . Alterations to the course or • flow of flood waters? X d . Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? X e . Discharge into surface a;aters, or • in any alteration of surface water quality , including; but not limited to termperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? X 1' . Alteration of the direction or, • rate of flow of ground waters? X E; . Change in the quantity of tround eaters , either through direct additions or withdrawals , or, through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? X I • I -37- .. FOR FILING ADMIU13111ATIVE REGULATIONS WITH THE 5E1..RITARY OF STATE (Punuanl /o Oorarnmenj Coda Sadlon 11380.1) / h . Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? X 1 . Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? X 4 . Plant Life . Will the proposal result Tn: a . Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, X crops, microflora and aquatic plants) ? b. Reduction of the numbers of any , unique, rare or endangered species of plants? X C . Introduction of .new species of N plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? X z t d . Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? X 0 Z 5 . Animal Life . Will the proposal S resul��n:— a . Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic or anisms, insects or microfauna ? X b . Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered specie3 of animals? X C . Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? X d . Deterioration to existing fish i or wildlife habitat? X i 11� -38- ^.t.1r0 nunq•vvr - CONT1141'rTIGN 811[[T ' FOR FILING ADMIK!MATIVE REGULATIONS WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE ' + (Pursuant to Governmenf&de Section 11]80.1) i Yz.2 tYL N0 • 6. Noise . Will the proposal result in: ' a . Increases in existing noise X levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? X 7. Light and Glare . Will the proposal produce new. light or glare? X 8, land Use . Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? X 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result-in: a . Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? X 0. N b. Substantial depletion of any z nonrenewable natural resource? X W 10. Risk of Upset . Does the proposal involve a ride of an explosion or o the release of' hazardous .substance;; o (including, but not limited to, oil, ° pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? X 11 . Population . Will the proposal alter. • the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human popu- lation of an area? X 12 .. 11ou,,1njT, , V,'1.11 the proposal affect CX.�surn ho11 .1.nj.", or Create a .� demand for additional housing,'? X 13 . Trans portation/Circul,Ztlon . Will the proposal result in: a . Generation of substantial addi- tional vehicular movement? X rUK MUM APPAIVI;TPATIVE RUGULATIONS WITH THE 511,:RETARY OF STATE - ! (Purouont to Oovornm.nt Code Sectlon 11380.1) YES MA Y13L•' NO b . Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? X C . Substantial impact upon existing; transportation systems? X �► d . Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? . X e . Alterations to waterborne, rail • or air traffic? X f. Increase 1n traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? X 14 . Public Services . Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered govern- mental services in any of the. . following areas : ` z a. fire protection? X I W b. Police protection? _X r O o c . Schools? __X_ • c d. Parks or other recreational facilities? X_ e , Maintenance of public facili- ties, including roads? X 41 f . Other governmental services? X_ 15 . Energy. Will the proposal result in: a . Use of substantial amounts of � fuel or energy? X b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? X -40- .. .. ,w..,...�o..l �:` 2 tFVK fmiriU AUMV-15TRATiVE RECUI.ATION5 WITH THE S iCRETARY Of STATE HOL (Pursuant to Government Code Section 11380.1) nwA ---- Yl,"'.; MA Y U1-: 1,40 16. - Utilities . Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities : a . Power or natural gas? X • b. Communications systems? e . Water? X d . Sewer or septic tanks? X e . Storm v)ater• drainage? X f. Solid waste and disposal? X 17.. Human Health . Will the proposal result;1F1 a . Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding N mental health) '? X N b. EXposure of people to potential z health hazards? - X • H 18. A(!sthetics . W1:1.1 the pr0p03al. Cesult o In the—obatructjon of ai)y ::c:enic z vi:.,ta or vier: open to the public , or 8 will the proposal. result In the creat,l.on of an aesthetically offerl�;lve site open to public view? 19. Rccr•eation . Will. the proposal result In an impact upon the quality or (Juantit,1 of existing recreational opportunities'? X 20. Archeological/llistorical . 6Vill the prol.)o:,aa r(",—;uJt in are ;0.terrat.i.on of a s.igniflcaiit archeoloirical or rlj ° hls•toracal ,,1te, structure, object or building? X i -41- 113 FOR FILING ADV i'IISTRATIVE REGULATIONS WITH THE :ECRETARY OF STATE - (Funuont to 00formnont Code Section 11380.1) rh 21. Mandatory findings of Significance. (a) Does the project- have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species , cause. a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels , threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered � plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California h is tory or prehistory? x b. Does the project have the poten- tial to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long;-term, environ- mental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brier, definitive period of time while Z long-term Impacts will endure well into the future . ) x Ix - 3 C . Does the project have impacts i which are individually limited, $ but cwnulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource Is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant . ) x d . Does the project have environ- mental effects which will cause substantial adverne effect, on human beingri, either directly � or indirectly? x III. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION 114 -42- lb. Displacement, compaction or overcovering of th so required prior to development. i DmfT] lc. There may be need for changes in the topography through grading , lg. The property lies within the earthquake hazard special study zone and is subject to the provisions of the Alquist-Priolo Geologic Hazard Zones Act. 2b. Development on the site may cause objectionable odors. Tract Map 9235 which lies adjacent to the area of concern experienced usually strong odor with trenching. This odor resulted from the general area once being used as a dump site for oil related waste materials. i 3b. There will be a decrease in the absorption rate" and an increase in surface water runoff in the area -proposed for medium density resi- dential. 6a. Increased density will bring an increase in noise levels within the study area, primarily due to increased vehicular traffic. 8. The proposal calls for a change from low density residential to medium density residential. 10. A portion of the area of concern was once a land fill dump site. There is a possibility that development of this area could result in re- lease of hazardous substances. 11. An increase from low density residential to medium density residential will increase the density from 7 units per acre to 15 units per acre. Also, the change in land use may stimulate an increase of the growth rate in the general area. 12. ' The change in land use may cause an increase in housing within the area of concern. Property tax of the existing housing will increase. 14b. The proposed increase in residential density, from low to medium may require additional police service within the area of concern. 14c. The area is presently lacking an elementary school. The school district plans to build an elementary school at a site located within the Signal Landmark properties, south of Los Patos , once the general area is developed. 14d. There is need for a park and recreational facilities to service the area of concern as well as the entire general area. 115 17b. The land fill dump site may have a potential f r h DUFT 19 . Same as 14d. 20. A portion of archeological site 86 lies within the area of concern. There is the possibility of an archeological finding within the area of concern. 21c. The cumulative effect will be felt primarily by a need for school, park and recreational facilities. Also, the cumulative effect of vehicular traffic may be substantial. • 21d. The presence of the Inglewood fault, the dumpsite and the fact that the area was once used for dumping oil related waste materials all contribute to the area possibly having the potential of causing substantial adverse effects on human beings . • • • 116 f P1 T. WAFT I 10 IN L T r . & -- ST. ENSITY -- G{ARLENE ffY • — — - -- RETAIL .r ° WARNER AVE N N ...R� T ILL - 7 - .f... .i. :Q. I.E _ O.E S I U A , ' . RETI I L i _ .#► — — il z — :x - - — -�� E.D-I M- -- -- -- r. ,��. 1T a — - ..-- Vv1k LAND DR Z - - - - CY DENSITY - - -- H I GI-i - - - - - - ENS i. ..------- 2 , 7, 1 __ ----- ��. - - ? G L E.Iti RQ Y LOW DENS I TY \ " P , -.1-- -- W DENS1I Y-[- - Cr o HIGH DENSITY �IFFITF1 KENILWORTH AVE - \ A Single Family Residence Developed Property AREA OF CONCERN 2.7 '. BOLSA CHICA STREET SOUTH OF WARNER AVENUE &, EAST OF BOLSA CHICA STREET 117 rv►c r1L11Av P+utVll 4141KA11VE KWULA11UN5 WITH THE S X;RETARY OF STATE (Punuonl to Government Code Section I1380.1) • 74. Appendix I is added to read: DRAFT APPENDIX I • ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM (To be completed by Lead Agency) I. BACKGROUND • 1 . Name of Proponent Ponderosa Homes 2 . Address and Phone Number of-Proponent: • 3 . Date of Checklist Submitted March 14 , 1977 4 . Agency -Requiring Checklist 5 . Name of Proposal, if applicable Area of Concern 2 . 8 South of Hamilton Avenue and west of Magnolia it-. II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required UL on attached sheets. ) a Ln YES MA YBI: NO _ 1 . Earth . Will the proposal result in: W f 3 a . Unstable earth conditions or In o changes in geologic substructures? X z $ b. Disruptions, displacements, cons- • paction or overcovering of the soil? X C . Change in topography or ground surface relief features? X d . The destruction, covering or • modification of any unique geologic or physical features? X e . Any Increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off' the site? X .• f . Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, .deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of • a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? X 118 -36- • FOR FILING AUl:111` ISTRATIVE REGULATIONS ~� WITH THE S€:RETARY OF STATE (Purevont to Clovernme0t Code Section 11380.1) Ho g . Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, .Landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards'? X 2 . Air. Will the proposal result in: a . Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? X b. The. creation of objectionable odor's? X C . Alteration of air moveincnt, moisture or temperature, or an,,,,, change In climate, either, locally or regionally? X 3 . Water . Will the proposal result in: 4 a . Changes in currents , or the course 0 or, direction of water' movements, In T either marine or fresh waters? X • _ z b . Changes in absorption rates, drainage pattersn, or the rate 3 and amount of surface water runoff? X 0 c . Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? x d . Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? X • e . Discharge into surface waters , or in any alteration of surface water cuali.ty , including but not limited to terriiperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? X 1' . Alteratior, of the direction ur' rate of flow of ground water:;? X G. Charige in the quantity of trr.ound waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals , or, through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? X I FOR FILIU10 ADMIT` SYRATIVE REGULATIONS WITH THE SE,.RITARY Of STATE (Pursuant to Oovernmery Cod• Sectlon 11380.1) is h . Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? X I . Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as • flooding or tidal waves? X 4. Plant Life . Will the proposal result T—n: _ a . Change in the diversity of species, • or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, . crops, microflora and aquatic plants) ? X b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? X C . Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of � existing species? X z d . Reduction in acreage of any 3 agricultural crop? X 0 Z 5. Animal Life . Will the proposal S re`sul��— a . Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of anlrmals ( birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic or anIsms, insects or microfauna ? _X_ b . Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? X C . Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result . in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? X d . lh,ter iorat; ton to existing fish i or wildlife Habitat? X - 120I -38- CQNTRAI' .TIGN SUINT FOR FILING QUMIK MIATIYE REGULATIONS +. 1 WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE ._....__ (Pursuant to Gorornment&d• Section 11380.1) i nnrtP%. Unni YL•'S MAYBL T10 6. Noise . Will the proposal result in: 4 a . Increases in existing noise x levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? X 7. Light and Glare . Will the proposal produce new 'ligTt or glare? X 8. T_and Use . Will the proposal result in a substantial altc;ratlon of the present or planned land use of an area? X y. Natural Resources . Will the proposal resu a . Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? X a • _ b. Substantial depletion of any Z nonrenewable natural resource? W t 10. Risk of Upset . Does the propo.sa.l involve a r:Isk of an explosion or, o the relea.�e of hazardotAs riibstanc.(,s • a (including;, but not .Limited to, oil, ° pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? X 11 . Population . Will the proposal alter 40 the location, di-Itribution, density, or growth rate of the human popu- lation of an area? 12 . lio+isint,, . U'111 the proposal affect e`xiis—ng; hoi1: .Lng;, or, create a • demand for additional housing? X 13 . Transportation/Circulation. Gli11 the proposal result in: a . Generation of addi- • tiorial. Vehic:iA.ar. 111ovemc:nt? X -39- FOR FILING Af hIff 15"72ATIVE MOULATIONS WITH THI SIif.RETARY OF STATE r (Punuonl to Oovornm.rR Code Section 11380.1) ! DKW 11 YES MAyIIII N0 b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? X C . Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? X ! d . Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? X e . Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? X f . Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? X 1 14 . Public Services . Will the proposal have an eMeH—upon, or result in a need for new or altered govern- mental services in any of the following areas : z � z a. Fire protection?W F b. Police protection? _ 0 o C . Schools? 0 d. Parks or other recreational facilities? X e . Maintenance of public facili- ties, including roads? X ! f . Other governmental services? X. 15 . Energy. Will the proposal result in: a . USC of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? X b . Substantial increase in demand upon) existing; sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? X • •: 1.-Tl- 2 —40— .1-,1.09.,.81M o..• FOR FILING ADMI."ISTRATIVI PECULATION'S WITH THE S*ZCRETARY OF STATE (Pursuant to Ooveinm:nt Cod• Section 11780.1) Yl: HAYPH i1t) 16. _Utilities . Will the proposal result in a need 1'or new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a . Power or natural gas? b. Communications systems? x c . Water? X ' a. Sewer or septic tanks? x e . Storm water, drainage? x f. Solid waste and disposal? x 17 . Human Health. Will the proposal a . Creation of any health hazard or u potential health hazard (excluding; . N mental health) '? x y b. Exposure of people to potential _ health hazards? x F 18. Aesthetics . Will the proposal result 0 In t o structjon of any _scenic; Z vista or, view open to the public, or, o will the proposal result in the creation of' an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? ly. Iiccrcatlori. Will. the proposal result in 'an iMINICt upon the quality or, • duarltity of existing; recrea.tiona.l opportunities? x 20. Arclieolo[;ica.1 IIistorical . Will the propo:,a]. rccuat In ar-, "Iltc'rat.i.on of a s.I.C.nificant arc.hcoloi;lcal ol. a h a 3t-I0Vi l cite•, f,trUCtur'C, object or building? x -41- 1 )3 _ rW1% FILIVIas 1ALJA.FTi311ZN11VE K9UULA11V WITH THE :MIETARY OF STATE am 10 rip ' (Purtuonl to Oo.e,nmrnl Code Section 117e0.1) menu an 0 Yf;S MAY111; NO 21. Manda torn Findings of S ign i f ica iice. (a) Does 'the project havo the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce tho habitat of a fish ! or wildlife species , cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels , threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered ! plant or animal or eliminate. important: examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? x b. Does the project have the poten- tial to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long;-term, environ- mental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment Is one which occurs in a relatively brie', ! definitive period of time while Z 1orr,-terrn impacts will endure W well into the future . ) x C . Does the project have impacts °z which are individually limited, $ but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate reBources where the impact on each resource In relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant . ) d . Does the project have environ- mental effect: which w1ll cause subntanti,s.l adverne effect:, on human beinga, either directly � or Indirectly? x III. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMEWAL EVALUATION 1 124 -42- la. Even after chemical treatment of mud and sludge ma eri 1 earth conditions could persist. The lime reaction sup DRAFT neutralizes the mud wastes, but the effect on oil was es a is not known at this time. lb. Displacement, compaction, or overcovering of the soil will occur at the time of development. lc. Grading activity will modify the dump site and reduce the outer berms to road level. lg. The South Branch Fault traverses the property. People and structures could be exposed to seismic hazard from severe ground shaking. Liquefaction would be a notable hazard. 2a. . Deterioration of ambient air quality due to higher probability of short-term residential development versus industrial . Also, low density residential will generate more vehicle miles traveled and emissions than industrial development. 2b. objectionable odors from waste materials and construction activity may occur periodically. i 3b. There will be a decrease in the absorption rate and an increase in surface runoff if the area is developed low density residential . However, the magnitude of these changes would be greater if the site is developed industrial. 3i. The site is located in the regional flood hazard zone. Residences could be inundated by six feet of water. 6a. Noise levels will increase temporarily during construction. Low density residential will generate more local traffic than industrial use, resulting in higher noise levels. 8 . The change would be from light industrial to low density residential. The dump site would be modified and oil operations removed to accommodate residential development. 10. Since the area was once a dump site, there is a possibility that development could result in the release of hazardous substances. 13a.. Low density residential may generate 1 . 3 times more traffic than industrial use. 13f. Higher traffic volumes may present increased hazard to bicycle users. i 1 125 14b. A low density residential use may require additio . �> ; t-P =ter S above that required for. industry. 14c. Low density development would add students to the ocW:jt . The Huntington Beach High School District is over - additional students would be significant. Two elementary schools are located within one-quarter mile of the site. 17b. Remnant waste materials and substances from the dump site could present a health problem to residents. Also, the extremely close proximity of the site to the Edison generating plant could expose residents to high levels of smoke stack emissions. 21c. The cumulative effects will be in combination with other proposed land use changes recommended by GPA 77-1. Primary cumulative effects will be reflected in demand on school system, utilities, and municipal services. Lesser cumulative effects would include those on traffic, air quality, noise, and water quality. 21d. The following potential hazards to life exist at the site: a. Seismic - earthquake and liquefaction. ! b. Flood - located in regional flood zone. C. Air - residents in close proximity to Edison plant emissions. d. Dump Site - potentially harmful substances from waste deposits. 1 126 ` Ai LAMA AVE ATLANTA—..- j T 77, out CF-E \ v — �^ •lilt rD fw �/I ,"•'1 1 I /_. _ C LL IT 21-11 P M •.]5•.• .... IIAML I(�N ] �TI _•� 'L ... I[ 10 A 32, I f . LLU T NEO ANI J 10 HIE CR .HAIII OR -� 0 I 2 01-2 f l<[ 1 I II 1 I - -l-- - _00 F]. 1 EN' TY AfALIA fR Ji _ AHIN .O O O o _bol � __ O� OR 1 MONINANA O , :: . . ........:i:j OI 00.00 \ 111 H II IA IIR N• I II IIl:.I�I_F IND \ TRI A - -1-�.1 1-1 _;- JJII CF-E MA;lllllll D" OFfi'R41ur; \\\ it 1TI r�ANt I �_.�O-LlO o tl 7 I M I I rT _ TT,n' ', T Tom.' R Y r,F R . BANNING AREA OF CONCERN 2.8 SOUTH OF HAMILTON & WEST OF MAGNOLIA 127 - -. .. .. r....... •,.,•nn c nevu�o• wna WITH THE S '.LRIlTARY OF STATE (Pursuant to Government Code Section 11380.1) • 74. Appendix I is added to read: DUFT APPENDIX I • ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM (To be completed by Lead Agency) I. BACKGROUND • 1 . Name of Proponent The Sommer Office 2 . Address and Phone Nwnber o roponen : 11232 Los Alani_t-os Blvd_ Los Alamitos Calif, 90720 (213) 430-2588 • 3 . Irate of Checklist Submitted March 14, 1977. 11 . Agency Requiring Checklist 5 . Name of Proposal, if applicable Area of Concern 2 . 9 , west of Beach Blvd. & south of Talbert Avenue. II . ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all "yes " and "maybe" answers are required w on attached sheets . ) a tn In YEa MAYBE NO z 1 . Earth . Will the proposal result in: w r a . Unstable earth conclitions or in changes in geologic substructures? X Z o b . Disruptions , displacements, com- paction or overcovering of the soil? X C . Change in topography or grourld surface relief features? X d . The destruction, covering; or • modification of any unique geologic or physical features? —_ e . Any Increase in wi rid or, water ` erosion of soils, either on or off' the rite? X f . Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in si.ltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? X 128 -3 6- FOR FILING ADMIT` ISTRATIVE REGULATIONS WITH THE SF.RETARY OF STATE �.. (Pursuant to Government Coda Section 11380.1) nna nr __ . unmr Yl:�; [•Ul'YL'1�; 10 �* . Exposure of people or property to t;eolotric hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? x 2 . Air. Will the proposal result in: a . Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? x b . The creation of objectionable odors? x c . Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? x 3 . Water . Will the proposal result in: W tj a . Chantres in currents, or, the course, N or, direction of water- movements, In either marine or fresh waters? x Z 1). Changes in absorption rates, drainage pattersn, or the, rate 3 and amount of surface water rurlol'f x _ O Z c . Alterations to the course or- flow of flood waters? _x__ d . Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? x C . Discharge Into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water duality , includinf; but not .Limited to termperature, dissolved oxygen or, turbidity? x / 1'. Alteration, of the direction ov rate of flow of E;round 1•jater;;? x g . Change in the quantity of frround waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception 1 of an aquifer, by cuts or excavations? x li -37- ., 1nn FOR FILING ADMIU'31.11ATM REGULATIONS WITH THE SV-RITARY OF STATE (Pursuant to Oovernmeq Code Section 11380.1) -- Y. KA Y13 L• h . Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? X 1 , Fxposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? X 4. Plant Life . Will the proposal result a . Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, microflora and aquatic plants) ? X b . Reduction of the nwnbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? X U C . Introduction of new species of N plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of X existing species? X z d . Reduction in acreage of any 3 agricultural crop? X 0 0 5 . Animal Life . Will the proposal C r—es u IE—fH a . Change In the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of anifflaIs (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic or -anisms, insects or microfauna ? _ b. Heductl.on of the numbers of any unique, rare; or, endangered Species of animals? X c . Introduction of new speciecl of animals into an area, or result. in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? ' X__ d . Deterioration to existing fish i or wildlife habitat? 13� -38- CUNT114U 'TIGN 31111T FOR FILING ADMIM s F MTIVE REGULATIONS WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE ____._�� __• (' (Pursuant to Government'Gd• S.ctlon 11380.1) L. YES MAYBh 1,10 • 6. Noise . Will the proposal result .in: . a . Increases in existing noise X levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? X 7. Light and Glare . Will the proposal produce new light or glare? X 8 . r.ana Use_' . Will the proposal 1�esult in a su s antia.l alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? X 9. Natural Resources . Will the proposa resu in: a . Increase in the rate of use of W any natural resources? X a En T b . Substantial depletion of any X nonrenewable natural resource? __ W 10. Risk of Upset . Does the proposal invo lve a risk of an explosion or o the release of' hazardouo substances o (including, but not limited to, oll, ° pesticides, chemicaas or radiation) in trie event of an accident or upset conditions? X 11 . Population . Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or l;rowth rate of the human popu- lation of an area? X 12 . 11oi)^,anf� . 6LL=1.7. the proposal affect FxTstTrig hoilsirn1,;, or cre".1te a demand for additional housing? X 13 . Transportation/Circulation , Will the proposal result in: a . Generation of ,ubstantlai addi- tional vehicular movement? X � I i I -39- ,13.1„� ,. 'Allvr. •11111 FOR FILI144 i1!?1MU-1467PATIVE INGULATIONS WITH Till Slt-:RETARY OF STATE(Pursuan►►o Oovornme,.l Cod• Seaton 11J80.1) AOL - YES MA YIll: 1.10 b . Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? X C . Substantial impact upon existing; • transportation systems? X d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? X e . Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic'? X f . Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? X 14 . Public Services . Will the proposal have an eTre_ct upon, or result in a need for new or altered govern- 0. mental services in any of the following areas : • x r X a. Fire protection? X W b. Police protection? X r o c.. Schools? X • 0 d: Parks or other recreational facilities? e . Mv'Lintenance of pu5i1c facili- ties, including; roads? X � f. Other governmental services? X 15 . !Le I— Will the proposal result in: a . Use of substantial amounts of 4 fuel or energy? X b . Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? X —n o— FOR FILING ADMIC]STIZATIVE REGULATIONS WITH THE S ZCRETARY OF STATE nnAlL IV (Pursuant to Government Code Section 11980.1) 16. • , Utilities . Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities : a . Power or natural gas? X b. Communications systems? X c . Water? X d . Sewer or septic tanks? X e . Storm water, dvalnage? X f . Solid waste and disposal? X 17 . Human Health. Will the proposal resu1E-Tn: a . Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excludinf. N mental health) ? X r b . I,,:posure of people to potential i health hazards? W V- 3 18. W111 the proposal Pesuit 1.n L 0 16 ob ntruct.lon or ail,\ z vi:-,ta or view open to the ps.ibllc, or, a will the proposal result in the crcat,l.on of i.n acstheticall,y offen:;ive site open to public view? X 19. JICCrea1-1.01"1 . bli_11. the proposal result in an impact upon the qualiLy or quantity of exlstinj� recreational opportunities? X 20. Archeological /ifistorical . �-Jill the proposal rc';';U-Lt ill ,_In r1 .I.Lc1'at.1.011 of a s Ignificailt avcncolr. jjcal ov hlst:or.lcal. -Itc, structure, object or building? X _41_ .... ., •1&-#1 1,1I411%P411Ti /\il7'\/1.l\IIVIiJ WITH PH �,WIZTARY OF STATE (Purlvan►to Go,ernmenf Code Secllon 11780.1) • E fOR AT 1J ) 21, Mandatory Findings of Significance . (a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish • or wildlife epecies , cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels , threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered � plant or animal or ulim.i.na Le important_ examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? X b. Does the project have the poten- • tial to achieve Bhort-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environ- W mental goals? (A short-term impact 0. on t;he environment is one 1.rhich occurs In a relatively 1)r•lwl definitive period of time tir111.1c • z long;-term impact: i•.,ill endure well into the future . ) a c . Doe: the project: have impacts i which are individually limited, $ but ewnulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate re(sourceB where the impact on each reeource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of thoBe impacts on the environment is significant . ) X d . Does the project have environ- mental effects which will cause substantial adverne efrects on human belrigo , either directly or indirectly? X III. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION -4 2- 134 a� lb. Disruritions, displacement, compaction or overco er ' it will occur at the time property is developed. 1 • 3b. A .low density residential land use classification will reduce the amount of water absorption rate compared to general manufacturing land uses. The drainage patterns will continue to flow toward Talbert Avenue to. storm drain facilities located within the Talbert Avenue right-of-way. 8. The General Plan Land Use Diagram designates this area of concern as general industrial. The proposal is to change the designated land use to low density residential. ll. The property will probably be more marketable with a residential land use classification and thereby increase the likelihood that the population growth rate on the property will occur. 12. Nine older single family homes are presently in a non-residential land use classification. Adoption of a low density residential land use will bring them into conformance with the land use. However, if development on the land takes place soon after a change in land use to low density residential, the existing home and resident would likely be removed for new development to occur. ,.• 14b. There may be need for increased police service if the land use is changed from general manufacturing to low density residential. 14c. If the proposed land use is changed to residential, the elementary school system within the immediate area may be impacted. The school site that was planned to serve the area has been sold by the district to the City, with the understanding that the general manufacturing land use would remain. 14f. There may be a need to extend the existing: storm drain that exists along Talbert Avenue to serve the area of concern when it develops. 16c. Same as 14f. 21c. The cumulative impacts may be felt by the Oceanview School District. This would be especially true if the General Manufacturing property • on the north side of Talbert Avenue is changed to residential land uses. 135 -- LIBERTY AVE U L I G H - — — I r - - - �. _ r.. _r. ._. NEWMAN • # D_ E d ._ ..ITt - t RONAED DR I, i Z O _ JREIAIL - a � m • TALBERT AVE 4 07 LiGHT :j IiJDUSTR AL _ MME-RC-I-A cc €T-A-- _ U m I TAYLOR UR F- 3 4 ONTARIO DR ]=r-n AREA OF CONCERN 2.9 WEST OF BEACH BOULEVARD & SOUTH OF TALBERT AVENUE :>. 136 MINUTES • Council Chamber, Civic Center Huntington Beach, California Monday, August 1, 1977 A tape recording of this meeting is on file in the City Clerk's Office. Mayor Pattinson called the regular meeting of the City Council of 'the City of Huntington Beach to order at 7:30 P.M. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilwoman Wieder. The invocation was given by Jack Wallace, in the absence of Laurie Hill, Huntington Beach Coordinating Council. ROLL CALL - Bartlett, Wieder, Coen, Gibbs, Siebert, Shenkman, Pattinson PROCLAMATION - "TAMMY'S BIRTHDAY FOR CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL" JoJo Byrtus on behalf of the employees of Hair Therapy accepted the Proclamation and stated that the Children's Hospital greatly appreciated the generosity of the local merchants in their contribution of services to raise funds for Tammy Bichlmeier. CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEMS APPROVED On'motion by Bartlett, second Shenkman, the following items were approved, as recommended, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Bartlett, Wieder, Coen, Gibbs, Siebert, Shenkman, Pattinson NOES: None ABSENT: None MINUTES - APPROVED Approved and adopted minutes of the adjourned regular meeting of July 18, 1917 and the regular meeting of July 18, 1977, as written and on file in the Office of the City Clerk. PARCEL MAP 77-8 - BG WILLIAMS - Approved Parcel Map 77-8, located at the southwest corner of Adams Avenue and elaware Street, accepted offer of dedication and instruc- ted the City Clerk to execute same and to release for processing by the County. PARCEL MAP 77-19 - KAISER-AETNA - Approved Parcel Map 77-19, located -at the north— west corner of Argosy Avenue and Graham Street, accepted offer ofdedication and instructed the City Clerk to execute same and to release for processing by the County. NOTICE OF COMPLETION - TRACT 7636 - SIGNAL LANDMARK - Accepted improvements dedicated to public use in Tract 7636, located on the northeast corner of Springdale Street and Talbert Avenue, authorized release of the Faithful Performance Bond, Monument .• Bond and termination of the Subdivision Agreement, and directed the City Clerk to notify the developer and the Treasurer to notify the bonding company. Page #2 Council Minutes - �/77 • NOTICE OF COMPLETION - TRACT 8993 - NEWPORT HOMES - Accepted improvements dedicated to public use in Tract 8993, located on the west side of Newland Street, north of • Talbert Avenue, authorized release of the Faithful Performance Bond, Monument Bond and termination of the Subdivision Agreement, and directed the City Clerk to notify the developer and the Treasurer to notify the bonding company. SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT - TRACT 9618 - SUNSET VISTA ESTATES - Accepted Guarantee and Warranty Bond #005579, Monument Bond #005580, Faithful Performance Bond #005579, Labor and Material Bond #005579 (Covenant Mutual Ins. Co.) and approved and author- ized execution of the Subdivision Agreement for Tract 9618, located on the west side of Green Street, south of Warner Avenue. SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT - TRACT .9771 - MOLA DEVELOPMENT - Accepted Guarantee and Warranty Bond #7SM170322, Monument Bond #7SM170321, Faithful Performance Bond #7SM170320, Labor and Material Bond #7SM170320 (American Motorists Ins. Co.) , and approved and authorized execution of the Subdivision Agreement for Tract 9771, located on the northeast corner of Los Patos Avenue and Green Street. FINAL TRACT 9437 - PORTION OF TT 5419 - WT NEWLAND ESTATE - Approved map and accepted offer of dedication and improvement as shown on Final Tract Map 9437 - located northeast of Newland Street and Atlanta Avenue, examined and certified by the Director of Public Works and the Secretary to the Planning Commission as being substantially in accordance with the tentative map as filed with, amended and approved by the Planning Commission. Acreage: 20.358; Lots: 2 and 1 lettered; Developer: W. T. Newland Estate, Irvine; adopted map subject to stipulations as follows: deposit of fees for water, sewer, drainage, engineering and inspections; certificate of insurance; Park and Recreation Fees shall be paid or dedication of land received prior to recordation of the final map; the final map shall be recorded prior to expiration of Tentative Tract Map 5419 revised on November 4, 1977; and further instructed the City Clerk that she shall not affix her signature to .the map nor release such map for preliminary processing by the County or for recordation until the aforementioned conditions have been met. FINAL TRACT MAP 9907 - ALL OF TT 9907 - HUNT INGTON BEACH INDUSTRIAL PARK - Approved map and accepted offer of dedication and improvement as shown on Final Tract Map 9907 a located at the extension of Engineer Drive from Tract 8694, west to Graham Street, examined .and certified by the Director of Public Works .and the Secretary to the Planning Commission as being substantially in accordance with the tentative map as filed with, amended and approved by the Planning Commission. Acreage: 13.966; Lots 17; Developer: Huntington Beach Industrial Park, Irvine; adopted map subject to stipulations as follows: deposit of fees for water, sewer, drainage, engineering and inspections; certificate of insurance; the final map shall be recorded prior to the expiration of Tentative Tract 9907 on December 7, 1978; and further instructed the City Clerk that she shall not affix her signature to the map nor release such map for preliminary processing by the County or for recordation until the aforemen- tioned conditions have been met. PARCEL MAP 8688X-5 - KAISER AETNA - Approved Parcel Map 8688X-5, located on the north side of Argosy Avenue, south of Bolsa Chica Street, accepted offer of dedi- cation and instructed the City Clerk to execute same and to release for processing by the County. PARCEL MAP 8688X-11 KAISER AETNA - Approved Parcel Man 8688X-11, located on the • west side of Graham Street, south of Bolsa Avenue, accepted offer of dedication and instructed the City Clerk to execute same and to release for processing by the County. 1 Page #3 - Council Mi r* - 8/l/77 PARCEL MAP 8688X-13 - KAISER AETNA - Approved Parcel Map 8688X-13, located at the southwest corner of Bolsa Avenue and Graham Street, accepted offer of dedication and instructed the City Clerk to execute same and to release for processing by the County. RELEASE OF LABOR & MATERIAL BONDS - Authorized release of the following Labor and Material bonds: Bond 2061186 - Tract 5613 - Sunbeam Homes - e/o Bushard - s/o Yorktown Bond U743069 - Tract 7628 - Classic Development - s/o Ellis -_ e/o Chapel Bond 2061313 - Tract 7872 - Signal Landmark - $E Cor Newland & Adams Bond 124131 - Tract 7899 - Continental Dev of Calif - s/o Atlanta, w/o Locklea Bond 2061870 - Tract .8168 - Signal Landmark - n/s Atlanta - w/s Magnolia Bond 7078805 - Tract 8192 - Covington Bros - SW Cor Delaware & Ellis Bond B100896 - Tract 8248 - Mansion-Hall - NW Cor Palm & 17th Bond 8882744 - Tract 8662 - Graziadio & Graziadio - SE/o Pearce & Blanton Bond 400EB0822 - Tract 8689 - Huntington Green Co - e/s Green - s/o Pearce and directed the City Clerk to notify the developer and the City Treasurer to notify the bonding company. NOTICE OF COMPLETION AND CHANGE ORDERS - CC-368 - Approved Change Orders 6 through 11 for a total cost of $3,859.66., accepted work completed by Sully Miller on the Warner Avenue, Bolsa Chica and Magnolia Street improvements for a total contract + price of $83,973.95 and instructed the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion upon receipt of the required guarantee bond. • NOTICE OF COMPLETION - TRACT 7547 - MARINER'S COVE VENTURE, - Accepted improvements dedicated for public use in. Tract No. 7547, located west of Newland Street, south of Atlanta Avenue, authorized release of the Faithful Performance Bond, the Monument Bond and termination of the Subdivision Agreement, and directed the City Clerk to notify the developer and the Treasurer to notify the bonding company. NOTICE OF COMPLETION - TRACT 7991 - 'DONALD BREN CO. - Accepted improvements dedicated for public use in Tract No. 7991, located at the southeast corner of Yorktown Avenue and Newland Street, authorized release of the Faithful Performance Bond, the Monument. Bond and termination of the Subdivision Agreement,. and directed the City Clerk to notify the developer and the Treasurer to notify the bonding company. NOTICE OF COMPLETION AND CHANGE ORDER - 'CC-357 .- Approved Change Order #1 for a total cost of $2,302.71; accepted work completed by Technical Utilities on the construction of Water Well #7 for a total contract price of $62,347.01 and instructed the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion upon receipt of the required. guarantee bond. NOTICE OF COMPLETION - CC-389 - Accepted work completed by Honeywell, Inc. on the installation of traffic signal controllers at Bushard Street/Yorktown'Avenue, Bushard Street/Indianapolis Avenue and Warner Avenue/Newland Street for a total contract price of $23,108, and instructed the City Clerk to"file a Notice of Completion upon receipt of the required guarantee bond. DRAWINGS AND PROJECT MANUAL - WARNER RELIEF SEWER PROJECT - 'CC-421 - Approved the • attached drawings and project manual for the Warner Avenue -Relief Sewer Project, Phase I, CC-421, and directed the City Clerk to advertise for bids upon expiration of the Environmental Impact Report posting period. Page #4 - Council Minutes - 077 i ti POLICE/FIRE DEPARTMENT VALIDATION STUDY - APPROVED The Clerk presented an agreement between the City and Biddle & Associates for a Police/Fire Department Validation Study for Council consideration. Councilwoman Gibbs stated that if Affirmative Action guidelines were followed she did not believe a validation study to be necessary. A motion was made by Shenkman, second Pattinson, to approve and authorize execution of an agreement between the City and Biddle & Associates for a Police/Fire Depart- ment Validation Study. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Bartlett, Wieder, Coen, Siebert, Shenkman, Pattinson NOES: Gibbs ABSENT: None GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 77-1 AND EIR 77-3 - APPROVED - RES NO 4505 -ADOPTED The Clerk presented General Plan Amendment 77-1 and EIR 77-3 on which the public hearing had been closed at the July 18, 1977 Council meeting with decision deferred to this date. General Plan Amendment 77-1 proposes changes to the Land Use Element which include the following areas and proposed land use redesignations: 1. South of Ellis Avenue and West of Huntington Street: Industrial to medium density residential. • 2. North of Slater Avenue and West of Gothard Street: Industrial to low density residential. 3. North of Talbert Avenue and East of Gothard Street: Industrial to medium density residential. 4. Gothard Street, South of Heil Avenue: Retain industrial designation. 5. North of Heil Avenue and West of Gothard Street: Retain industrial designation. 6. South of San Diego Freeway and East of San Angelo Drive: Planning reserve to high density residential. 7. South of Warner Avenue and East of Bolsa Chica Street: Retain low density designation. 8. South of Hamilton Avenue and West of Magnolia Street: Retain industrial designation. 9. South of Talbert Avenue and West of Beach Boulevard: Industrial to low density residential. At the July 18, 1977 Council meeting, straw votes were taken on Areas 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. Voting was continued on Areas 3 and 9, pending field survey by Council of the areas. Councilman Shenkman expressed concern regarding a newspaper article which had inferred that he had a possible Conflict of Interest in'Areas 2 and 9, having received campaign contributions from the companies of Buccella and Stellrecht. • • Page #5 - Council Min - 8/1/77 • He stated that he had conferred with the City Attorney on the matter and had been advised that a conflict of interest did not exist. Councilman Shenkman stated that • he has never had an interest in the property, project, or conducted business with anyone involved in the project, and that he intended to vote on the proposal. He stressed that he was in no way critical of the press, but that he wished to clarify the situation. Councilman Coen and Mayor Pattinson concurred with Councilman Shenkman and discus- sion was held between Council. Councilman Siebert requested a retraction from the Daily Pilot_ and an apol from Mr. Buccella as he personally had never received monies from Mr. Buccella, as it was his policy to run his own campaign. Councilman Coen stated that voting on Areas 3 and 9 had been continued at his request in order to give him the opportunity to personally survey the areas, and that following the survey, he was in favor of retaining Areas 3 and 9 as industrial parcels. The City Administrator stated that he had been provided with a report dated July 29, 1977 from William Back, Economic Development Officer, regarding the present market values of the properties-which had been provided by three developers and a report dated July 28, 1977 from the Planning Director providing statistical information and stating that the Planning Commission supported their previous recommendations for the areas, together with a one-page summary sheet of recommendations under consideration by the City Council. • Councilwoman Wieder stated that she had also personally surveyed the Areas 3 and 9 with the Planning Director and was in favor of staff's recommendations. Straw votes were taken at this time on Areas 3 and 9, as follows: Area 3 - North of Talbert Avenue and East of Gothard Street: Industrial to medium density residential. Vote: AYES: Bartlett, Wieder, Gibbs, Shenkman, Pattinson NOES: _ Coen, Siebert ABSENT: None --- - Area 9 - South of Talbert Avenue and west of Beach Boulevard: Industrial to low density residential. Vote: AYES: Bartlett, Wieder, Gibbs, Shenkman, Pattinson NOES: Coen, Siebert ABSENT: None The Clerk was by title - i'A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN BY ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 77-1 AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 77-3 THERETO." Councilwoman Gibbs stated that she had listened to the tape of the. July 18, 1977 meeting, as she had been absent for the greater portion of the public hearing. She • also stated that she was not in full agreement with all of the ri►ajority straw votes taken and reflected in the July r$tTi mutes. The City Council requested that the August 1st straw votes also be made a part of the record. Page #6 - Council Minutes - 807 • � 4 On motion by Wieder, second Bartlett, Council waived further reading of Resolution No. 4505 and adopted same by the following roll call vote: AYES: Bartlett, Wieder, Coen, Gibbs, Siebert, Shenkman, Pattinson • NOES: None ABSENT: None PUBLIC HEARING - REVOCATION OF BUSINESS LICENSE - BANNER TOWING - FINDINGS OF FACTS TO BE DETERMINED - DEFERRED 9/.6/77 Mayor Pattinson announced that this was the day and hour set for a public hearing to consider the revocation of the-business license issued to Robert Cannon, SKY-AD on the grounds that the towing of banners from the. aircraft constitutes a threat of danger to the public_health and safety of t_he community_ The Clerk informed Council that all legal requirements for notification, publi- cation and posting had been met and that she had received no communications or written protests to the matter. The City Administrator stated that there was no additional information on the matter. Mayor Pattinson declared the hearing open. Jeanne Collins, City, addressed Council and presented reasons why she believed SKY-AD should not have been granted a business license and why she believed the . operation should cease. Richard Hawkins, attorney, Newport Beach, representing Mr. Robert Cannon, oper- at or of SKY-AD, spoke in favor of banner-towing, stating that the Department of • Transportation, Division of Aeronautics had been to the airport and determined that banner-towing at the relocated site did not make the airport unsafe for pub- lic use. He elaborated on the functions of the banner towing operation. Mark Porter, President of Home Council, distributed photographs of banner-towing in the Meadowlark Airport area, and spoke in opposition to the banner-towing oper-_ . ations. Mr. Porter spoke in favor of the revocation of the SKY-AD license, alter- natively suggesting that an investigation of the means to provide some regulatory provisions for the City be reviewed. Robert Cannon, owner and operator of SKY-AD, addressed Council, and stated that he was endeavoring to operate within the rules set for banner-towing and spoke regar- ding the decision made by the Department. of Transportation, Division of Aeronau- tics who had determined that banner-towing at the relocated site did not make the airport unsafe for public use. He stated that he had been in business for a little more than one year, that the banner is made of sailcloth with plastic rods and would not hurt anyone even if it fell. Mr. Cannon stated that he would like to ask the City Council for their recommendations for discussion. Mark Garner employee of the banner towing operation, addressed Council in favor of the banner-towing operation. There being no one further present to speak on the matter, and there being no further protests filed, either oral or written, the hearing was closed by the Mayor. Page #7 - Council Min* - 8/1/77 i Councilwoman Wieder referred to a comment which had been made earlier by Jeanne Collins • regarding banner-towing, relative to whether it was an expansion of the non-conforming use." The City Attorney stated that more facts would be necessary. The City Attorney stated that he would investigate the expanded use point and stated that all information available should be reviewed to determine whether banner-towing constituted hazardous activity. Following discussion, the City Attorney reported on the procedure by which the City could institute a civil action in Superior Court petitioning the Court to declare the airport a -public nuisance. Councilman Shenkman stated that he did not feel that Council has the same legal constraints with the banner-towing business license as they do with the airport 4 itself, and that he believed banner-towing does present a potential hazard and he would be prepared to make recommendations to direct the City Attorney to prepare findings of fact to support the revocation of the business license for banner-towing. Councilman Coen stated that Council would have to decide whether there are sufficient findings to determine whether a hazard does exist in banner-flying. Mayor Pattinson suggested to Mr. Cannon that he find a site for banner-towing which is not populated. Mr. Cannon stated that he believed that if Council had all the information and specifics on banner-towing and what specifically was involved, they might consider the matter differently. He stated that many people had been asked, and were in favor of banner-towing. Considerable discussion was held between Council and staff on the matter of suspending or revoking the license. A motion was made by Coen, second Gibbs, that operation of that particular use be suspended effective September 1, 1977, in order to give Mr. Cannon the opportunity to relocate his business and if he does not relocate, the Council could revoke that particular use but allow him continued operation of the other portion of his business. Councilman Shenkman made an amendment to the motion to direct the City Attorney to prepare proposed findings of fact. Discussion was held regarding the wording of the motion, and the motion was re-worded as follows: That Council continue decision on the revocation of the banner-towing _license issued to Robert Cannon, SKY-AD, to the September 6, 1977, Council meeting, _ allowing Mr. Cannon the opportunity of finding a more suitable site for the banner- towing operation^and that the City Attorney prepare proposed findings of fact to be presented to Council at said meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Pattinson requested that Mr. Cannon meet:'-with the City Administrator to clarify the matter. PUBLIC HEARING - LIST OF WEED ABATEMENT CHARGES FOR 1977 - HEARING OF PROTESTS - RES NO 4502 - ADOPTED Mayor Pattinson announced that this was the day and hour set for a public hearing to hear objections of property owners shown on the list of Weed and Rubbish Abatement charges for the year 1977 as posted at the outside entrance to the Council Chamber in accordance with Government Code, Chapter 13, Article 3, State of California to the charges listed thereon. Page #8 - Council Minutes - 077 • The Clerk presented the Affidavit of Posting Notices of Weed Abatement Charges as sworn to by H. E. Hartge, Street Superintendent. • Mayor Pattinson declared the hearing open. Councilwoman Wieder requested that attention be given to the City property located at Goldenwest Street and Talbert Avenue. There being no objections voiced, the Mayor declared the hearing closed. The Clerk was directed to read Resolution No. 4502 by title - "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CONFIRMING REPORTS OF COST OF WEED ABATEMENT, 1977 SEASON, ON LOTS WITHIN THE CITY. On motion by Bartlett, second Gibbs, Council waived further reading of Resolution No. 4502 and adopted same by the following roll call vote: AYES: Bartlett, Wieder, Coen, Gibbs, Siebert, Shenkman, Pattinson NOES: None ABSENT: None On motion by Gibbs, second Bartlett, Council directed that any charges listed thereon be certified to the County Assessor for inclusion on the 1978-79 tax roll. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Bartlett, Wieder, Coen, Gibbs, Siebert, Shenkman, Pattinson NOES: None ABSENT: None • ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Donald Vena, representative of Teen Challenge, addressed Council and requested to use a public address system on the afternoon of August 7, 1977 in connection with their activities. He elaborated upon the objectives of Teen Challenge and stated that it was their intention to use the public address system in the downtown area of Huntington Beach in an effort to communicate with those persons having drug addic- tion and alcoholism, with assemblage planned under the pier. Mr. Vena stated that this. method of communicating had been successful in the past and that Teen Challenge had been able to assist a number of people with problems. Discussion was held between Council and staff to determine if the City had an ordin- ance which would prohibit such a use, and concern was shown as to the noise factor involved, length of the address and route to be traveled. Councilman Shenkman supported the program's intent but expressed concern as to whether approval of the proposal would be in violation of the separation of church and state, in terms of the City Council sanctioning a specific religious activity. Mayor Pattinson expressed concern regarding the group's intention of meeting under the pier and the problems which could arise from such a meeting. Councilwoman Wieder stated that she believed Council should support the program and Councilwoman Gibbs concurred. • • Page #9 - Council Mi0s - 8/1/77 • The City Attorney read the portion of the Municipal Code applicable to the request. • A motion was made by Wieder, second Gibbs, to support the request for use of the public address system for the afternoon of August 7, 1977, _contin ent upon the guidelines set forth by the City Administrator and the Chief of Police. Motion carried by the following vote:_ AYES: Bartlett, Wieder, Coen, Gibbs, Siebert, Pattinson NOES: Shenkman ABSENT: None The City Attorney stated that the ordinance would not be waived and that the use to which the public address system is put must conform with the sections of the Municipal Code to which he had earlier referred. TRANSIT SHELTERS - REFERRED TO CITY TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE Robert Birdsall, Transit Shelters of America, Chicago, addressed Council and displayed a model of a transit shelter, which could be used at commercial and industrial bus stops. Mr. Birdsall elaborated on the function of the shelter, adding that the adver- tising covered the cost of the building and maintenance of the shelters. He stated that only first-class advertising material would' be displayed, with 407. being local and 6090 national. Mayor Pattinson stated that the matter should be placed on the agenda as a regular item. The City Administrator suggested that the matter be referred to the City Transportation'Co mi3t—tee, then ba o City Council. • A motion was made by Wieder, second Gibbs, to refer the matter to the City Transpor- tation Committee for further information. Motion carried unanimously. BID PROCEDURE - SALE OF CITY PROPERTY Thomas Whaling, Attorney at Law, addressed Council and stated that he had sent a numbers of letters to Council to which he had not received a response; however, the City Administrator had informed him that a written response was forthcoming. Mr. Whaling expressed concern regarding the bidding procedure for the sale of real property in the City. He urged Council to adopt a real property ordinance pertaining to the disposal of City-owned property, with provisions for a bid procedure. Mr. Whaling requested information as to whether the City was planning to sell the recently purchased Phillips Petroleum property located at southwest corner of Main Street and Orange Avenue. The City Administrator stated that the City had just closed escrow on the property which had been purchaseU from Phillips Petroleum and that there has been no dis- position of the property, however, prior to sale the property would have to be declared surplus, then presented for public bid. Mr. Whaling stated that he would like a response to the letters he had submitted as he had made some charges against the City Attorney. The City Attorney replied that • said charges were not true. Page #10 - Council Minutes - 40/77 • RECESS - RECONVENE Mayor Pattinson called a recess of Council at 9:30 P.M. The Council was reconvened • by the Mayor at 9:55 P.M. MEADOWLARK AIRPORT - PROPOSED LITIGATION APPROVED Mayor Pattinson announced that during the recess, it had been brought to'his atten- tion that a plane had crashed at Meadowlark Airport, injuring the three occupants. He requested the City Attorney to reiterate the proceedings which Council could take relative to Meadowlark Airport. The City Attorney stated the procedure whereby the City Council could file a civil action in Superior Court petitioning the Court to declare the airport a public nuisance. The .City Attorney stated that as a preliminary measure, the Attorney's office should prepare some findings of fact for Council's consideration in connection with the airport and its operation, so that the City will have a foundation upon which to place a petition for an injunctive action before the Superior Court. He stated that it would be worthwhile taking the matter as a test case before the Superior Court to see if, in fact, the judge would rule that a nuisance did exist at Meadow- lark Airport. Pursuing the action, he stated, would place Council in a good pos- ition to negotiate with Mr. Nerio, owner of Meadowlark Airport, to place some re- ------------------------- -- strictions and limitations to make the airport safer and more compatible with the surroundings should the action to close the airport fail. Mayor Pattinson stated that he concurred with Councilman Coen's opinion made some time ago that night flying should be prohibited as unsafe. He stated that it was • time for Council to take a hard stand on this matter. A motion was made by Wieder, second Gibbs, to direct the City Attorney to prepare findings of fact relative to the operation of Meadowlark Airport in connection with the filing of a petition for injunctive action before the Superior Court. Motion carried unanimously. RECESS COUNCIL - CONVENE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Mayor Pattinson called a recess of the Council. He then called a meeting of the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency to order. Members Present: Bartlett, Wieder, Coen, Gibbs, Siebert, Shenkman, Pattinson Members Absent: None MINUTES - APPROVED On motion by Bartlett, second Shenkman, the minutes of the regular meeting of July 18, 1977 were approved and adopted, as written and on file in the Office of the Clerk. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Bartlett, Wieder, Coen, Gibbs, Siebert, Shenkman, Pattinson NOES: None ABSENT: None • Page #11 - Council M es - 8/1/77 •" ADJOURNMENT • Chairman Pattinson adjourned the regular meeting of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach. RECONVENE COUNCIL - RECESS COUNCIL Mayor Pattinson reconvened the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach. He then called a recess of the Council. CONVENE PARKING AUTHORITY Chairman Pattinson called a meeting of the Huntington Beach Parking Authority to order. ROLL CALL Directors Present: Bartlett, Wieder, Coen, Gibbs, Siebert, Shenkman, Pattinson Directors Absent: None MINUTES - APPROVED On motion by Siebert, second Gibbs, the minutes of the regular meeting of July 18, 1977 were approved and adopted, as written and on file in the Office of the Secretary. Motion carried unanimously. • ADJOURNMENT Chairman Pattinson adjourned the regular meeting of the Parking Authority of the City of Huntington Beach. RECONVENE COUNCIL The Mayor reconvened the meeting of the City Council. RESOLUTIONS ADOPTED On motion by Siebert, second Bartlett, Council directed the Clerk to read Resolution, Nos. 4495, 4496, 4497, 4498, 4499, 4500, 4501 and 4503 by title, waived further reading and adopted same by the following roll call vote: AYES: Bartlett, Wieder, Coen, Gibbs, Siebert, Shenkman, Pattinson NOES: None ABSENT: None RES NO 4495 - ADOPTED - SCHEDULES OF AWARDS COMMENDATIONS & CITATIONS "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ADOPTING A SCHEDULE OF AWARDS, COMMENDATIONS AND CITATIONS." RES NO 4496 - ADOPTED - SUPPORT OF OC TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION & OC TRANSIT DISTRICT "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH EXPRESSING ITS SUPPORT OF THE ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AND THE ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT • DISTRICT." Page #12 - Council Minutes 01/77 • ,� RES NO 4497 - ADOPTED - FULL PAYMENT - REIMB AGRMT #97 "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AUTHORIZING FULL • PAYMENT TO MACCO REALTY COMPANY ON REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT NO. 97." RES NO 4498 - ADOPTED - PARTIAL PAYMENT REIMB AGRMT #70-D7 "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AUTHORIZING PARTIAL PAYMENT TO WILLIAM LYON DEVELOPMENT ON REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT NO. 70-D7." RES NO 4499 - ADOPTED - VACATION ON ENGINEER DRIVE "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH OF INTENTION TO VACATE A PORTION OF ENGINEER DRIVE." RES NO 4500 - ADOPTED - PROOF OF FINANCIAL PRESPONSIBILITY DRIVER'S LICENSE "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH URGING THE ENACT MENT OF LEGISLATION REQUIRING PROOF OF FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY PRIOR TO THE ISSU- ANCE OF A DRIVER'S LICENSE." RES NO 4501 - ADOPTED - EVALUATION OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE PROJECTS "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING EXISTING POLICIES, OBJECTIVES, CRITERIA AND PROCEDURES FOR EVALUATION.OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE PROJECTS." RES NO 4503 - ADOPTED - TRANSFER STATIONS & LANDFILLS "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH URGING THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO AUTHORIZE THE PURCHASE OF AND BUDGET FOR EQUIPMENT URGENTLY NEEDED AT TRANSFER STATIONS AND LANDFILLS." DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THE CIVIC CENTER COMPLEX - PFC FUNDING TO BE EXPLORED • The Clerk presented a staff report relative to deficiencies currently existing on the Civic Center site plan and Phase III modifications. Considerable discussion was held between Council and staff regarding the parking facilities and various approaches were suggested to extend them. In response to a question by Council, Public Facilities Corporation Director Ruth Bailey commented on the building of a parking facility and the high cost involved. The following modifications to the Civic Center were recommended by staff: Estimated Cost 1. Proceed with the improvement of Yorktown (Mansion) Avenue (already budgeted) ; N/A 2a. Initiate an official street closure for 17th Street to determine the feasibility of providing additional parking. (Cost is only applicable if the proposal is approved) ; 40,000 2b. Construct additional parking spaces (not to exceed 100) on the lawn area along 17th Street and Main Street. (It is anticipated that most of the parking • deficiency will be picked up within the 17th Street right-of-way) ; 50,000* Page #13 - Council Minute- 8/1/77 • 3. Install the circulation system to the emergency • water tank within the Civil Defense area; 5,000 4. Install the needed offices within the Public Works Department; 30,000 5a. Third floor modifications should not be undertaken at this time but rather a study should be made of the physical layout of the entire third floor area. (Cost applies to study only) ; 2,000 5b. Modify third floor (estimated costs) ; 12,000* 6. Install the needed offices in the Administrative office (fourth floor) ; 7,000* 7. Construct one additional Council office and a conference room; 15,000* 8. Personnel offices (moved to fifth floor) ; 34,000* 9. Main line valving for water system within the 5,000* Civic Center complex; 10. Drainage modifications; 7,500* 11. Professional consultation - We do not anticipate • going with the full 12% architect's fees. However, it may be necessary to retain outside consultants for the air conditioning and heating. 5,000* * Eligible PFC Expenditures Total Estimated Cost 212,500 Total eligible PFC expenditure 170,500 A motion was made by Shenkman, second Coen, to direct staff to contact the Public Facilities Corporation to determine the feasibility of Public Facilities Corporation funding of eligible expenditures; with additional funding for project completion to be derived from Contingency Funds. Motion carried unanimously. Ruth Bailey, Director of the Public Facilities Corporation stated that she did not believe that the Civil Defense water tank would be eligible for the funding. The City Administrator stated that he would look into the matter. RES NO 4504 - ADOPTED - RECREATION & PARK FEES The City Administrator brought Council's attention to proposed Resolution No. 4504 .entitled - "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH EXEMPTING DEVELOPMENTS FOR WHICH AN APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT WAS MADE PRIOR TO JULY 19, 1977 FROM REQUIREMENTS OF RESOLUTION NO. 4490." . • The Planning Director -reported on the reasons for his recommendation that Resolution No. 4490 be amended to exempt those projects for which a building permit was applied prior to July 19, 1977. Page #14 - Council Minutes 01/77 • ' The Clerk was directed to read Resolution No. 4504 by title. On motion by Gibbs, second Wieder, Council waived further reading of Resolution • No. 4504 by unanimous vote. On motion by Wieder, second Coen, Council adopted Resolution No. 4504 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Bartlett, Wieder, Coen, Gibbs, Shenkman, Pattinson NOES: Siebert ABSENT: None ASSEMBLY BILL 101 - BINGO - PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE - APPROVED The Clerk presented a transmittal from the City Attorney regarding AB 101, which authorizes the City to permit additional non-profit organizations to play Bingo. Mayor Pattinson stated that the City Council should now decide, as a policy matter, whether or not the City's local Bingo ordinance should be modified to make it con- sistent with AB 101. Following consideration, Council directed the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance amendment which would modify the City's local Bingo ordinance to make it consistent with AB 101, for transmittal to the City Council on August 15, 1977. . COMMUNICATION RE: PARK AND RECREATION FEES - ARTICLE 974 TO BE AMENDED The Clerk presented a communication from Mr. Eddie L. Ogden regarding Parks and Recre- ation fees and the intent of Article 974 —Park and Recreational Facilities as it • pertains to his building plans. Councilman Coen stated that he believed a distinction should be made in the ordinance code when single family homes are demolished and rebuilt, as in Mr. Ogden's case. The Planning Director stated that the present ordinance was directed specifically to instances where the type of units were being changed, such as a home being demolished in order to construct units or apartments. Discussion was held between Council and staff as. to the intent of the ordinance._ _ On motion by Coen, second Wieder, Council directed the City Attorney to amend the existing ordinance to clarify the intent of waiving Recreation and Parks fees when a dwelling unit is demolished and replaced by a dwelling unit of the same classification, irrespective of the number of rooms, and further made a finding that the ordinance as presently written, was not intended to be applicable to Mr. Ogden's situation. Motion carried unanimously. ORDINANCES ADOPTED On motion by Bartlett, second Coen, Council directed the Clerk to give Ordinance Nos. 2210, 2211 and 2212 a first reading by title, waived further reading and adopted same by the following roll call vote: AYES: Bartlett, Wieder, Coen, Gibbs, Siebert, Shenkman, Pattinson NOES: None • ABSENT: None Page. #15 - Councolinutes - 8/1/77 • ORD NO 2210 - UNDERGROUNDING OF PUBLIC UTILITIES - ADOPTED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY *OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ORDINANCE CODE TO AMEND SECTION 9730.8 PERTAINING TO UNDERGROUNDING OF PUBLIC UTILITIES." 0RD NO 2211 - PAYMENT OF UTILITIES TAX - ADOPTED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE BY AMENDING SECTIONS 3.36.160 THROUGH 3.36.210 PERTAINING TO THE PAYMENT OF UTILITIES TAX." ORD NO 2212 - WARNER/GOLDENWEST SMALL LOT REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT - ADOPTED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE RE- DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE WARNER-GOLDENWEST SMALL LOT REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT." ORDINANCES - FIRST READING Discussion was held between Councilman Siebert and the Personnel Director re- garding provisions of Ordinance. No. 2215. On motion by Gibbs, second Coen, Council directed the Clerk to give Ordinance Nos. 2214 and 2215 a first reading by title and waived further reading of same by the following roll call vote: AYES: Bartlett, Wieder, Coen, Gibbs, Siebert, Shenkman, Pattinson • NOES: None ABSENT: None ORD NO 2214 - FIRST READING - TRAILER PARKS AND REGULATIONS "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE'BY REPEALING SECTIONS 17.36.030 THROUGH 17.36.080 OF CHAPTER 17.36 ENTITLED, "TRAILER PARKS AND REGULATIONS." ORD NO 2215 - FIRST READING - PERS "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM." COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENTS - DEPARTMENT HEADS - DEFERRED TO 8/15/77 Mayor Pattinson brought Council's attention to an item which Councilman Siebert and he had submitted regarding cost of living adjustments for Department heads for Council's approval. Councilman Siebert stated that he had discussed the matter with the City Admini- strator and stated that the term "cost of living" adjustments was, in his opinion, being misapplied; that department heads were considered under a "merit and performance" system. He stated that "cost of living" is arrived at by determining the cost of living per average family for one year, as opposed--to-the cost of living the following year. Page #16 - Council Minutes -01/77 . Following discussion, a motion was made by Siebert, second Coen, that the subject of department head salaries be deferred until August 15, 1977 to enable the City Administrator, Assistant City Administrator and staff to review the matter. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Bartlett, Coen, Gibbs, Siebert NOES: Wieder ABSENT: None CONFLICT OF INTERESTS CITY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS DESIGNATED The Clerk presented a communication from the Mayor dated July 29, 1977 regarding Conflict of Interest - City boards and commissions summaries for Council's consideration. Councilman Siebert stated that Mayor Pattinson and he had independently reviewed the boards and commissions and with two exceptions, their recommendations had been identical. On motion by Wieder, second Bartlett, Council designated the following bodies to submit Conflict of Interest Codes to the Conflict of Interest Committee by October 1, 1977: Board of Appeals, Boar Zoning Adjustments, Design Review Board, Economic Advisory Commission, Environmental Council, Environmental Review Board, Personnel Board, Plan- ning cormissiionn., P_ro7ect Area Committee, Public Facilities Corporation, Recreation and Parks Commission, and Redevelopment Commission. Motion carried unanimously. COMPUTER ATLAS Councilwoman Wieder complimented the Planning Director on the computer atlas and stated • that it was a good resource to have available at the library for citizens to utilize. REQUEST FOR JOINT MEETING - CITY COUNCIL AND TAXING AGENCIES Councilwoman Wieder expressed concern relative to the need to reduce taxes, and referred to the Daily Pilot newspaper editorial and a letter from a citizen which had been dis- tributed in the Council packets. She spoke regarding the need to meet jointly with the taxing agencies prior to adopting the City tax rate, and commented on the extensive memorandum on the matter prepared by Councilman Shenkman. A motion was made by Wieder that an adjourned meeting be scheduled for August 15, 1977 for the purpose of meeting jointly with representatives of other taxing agencies. Mayor Pattinson informed Councilwoman Wieder that he believed that it was policy that items submitted under the "New Business" portion of the Agenda were to be acted upon at a later time and that a motion at this time was out of order. Councilman Shenkman stated that he believed Council, themselves, could meet to discuss the matter, however, it would be very difficult to arrange a meeting with taxing agency rep- resentatives at this time of the year and in such a short time period. The motion died for lack of a second. Further discussion was held between the Council members. REQUEST TO BE ABSENT FROM COUNCIL MEETING - COUNCILWOMAN GIBBS - GRANTED On motion by Shenkman, second Pattinson, Council granted Councilwoman Gibbs' request to be absent from the next Council meeting. µ Page #17 - Council lautes .- 8/1/77 • • Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Bartlett, Wieder, Gibbs, Siebert,. Shenkman, Pattinson NOES: None ABSTAIN: Coen BOARD AND CARE HOMES Councilwoman Gibbs informed Council that she believed the City would be subject to litigation in the near future regarding board and care homes in the City, and suggested that the Board of Zoning Adjustments, the Planning Commission and Council should get together to discuss the matter of allowing board and care homes in the City. APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS Mayor Pattinson requested that the Council members submit their recommendations relative to appointments to City boards and commissions, in time for the appoint- ments to be made at the next regular meeting. APPOINTMENT OF WATER SUPERINTENDENT - ELEVATORSKI - APPROVED The Clerk presented a communication from the Department of Public Works requesting that Council approve the appointment of Edward Elevatorski as Water Superintendent of the Public Works Department. Motion carried unanimously. • The City Administrator introduced Mr. Elevatorski. BID AWARD - STREET IMPROVEMENTS - HEIL/BOLSA CHICA - CC-297 - J B CROSBY_CO. , INC. The Clerk presented a communication from the Director of Public Works stating that bids for the construction of street improvements within the City had been opened on Friday, July 22, 1977 at 10:00 A.M. , in the Council Chamber by the City Clerk and the Director of Public Works. The bids submitted were. as follows: J.B. Crosby Co. , Inc. , Orange $ 145,260.86 Griffith Co. , Irvine 153,310.55 Savala Construction Co. , Costa Mesa 164,863.95 Silveri and Ruia Construction Co. , Fullerton 165,200.10 Nelson & Belding Contracting Corp. , Gardena 195,159.00 A motion was made by Coen, second Siebert, to award the contract for the con- struction of Heil Avenue improvements from Springdale Street to Bolsa Chica Street, and improvements of portions of Bolsa Chica Street from north of Heil Avenue to Pearce Street, to J.B. Crosby Company, Inc. , Orange, the lowest responsible bidder, for a bid amount of $145,260.86; hold all other bids until J.B. Crosby Co. , Inc. has executed the contract for said work and filed the necessary bonds and insur- ance and directed the City Clerk to notify the unsuccessful bidders of the action, and return their bid bonds forthwith. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: • AYES: Bartlett, Wieder, Coen, Gibbs, Siebert, Shenkman, Pattinson NOES: None ABSENT: None Page #18 - Council Minutes /77 • BID AWARD - STREET LIGHTING - MAIN STREET - CC-414 - BIDS REJECTED The Clerk presented a communication from the Director of Public Works stating that • a bid for the construction and modification of street lighting on Main Street had been opened on Monday, July 25, 1977, at 10:00 A.M. , in the Council Chamber by the City Clerk and the Director of Public Works, and recommending that the sole bid re- ceived from Smith Electric Supply, Stanton, in the amount of $55,691 be rejected and the City Clerk be directed to re-advertise upon the re-evaluation by the Depart- ment of Public Works for possible re-design to keep within the budget. On motion by Coen, second Siebert, Council rejected the sole bid received from Smith Electric Supply, Stanton, in the amount of $55,691 and instructed the City Clerk to re-advertise upon the Department of Public Works' re-evaluation of the project, for possible re-design to keep within the budget. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Bartlett, Wieder, Coen, Gibbs, Siebert, Shenkman, Pattinson NOES: None ABSENT: None ITEMS RECEIVED AND FILED BY COUNCIL Southern California Edison Co. application to Public Utilities Corporation to modify its Energy Cost Adjustment Clause to Increase its Energy Cost Adjustment Billing Factor. ADJOURNMENT On motion by Bartlett, second Shenkman, the regular meeting of the City Council of the • City of Huntington Beach adjourned to August 15, 1977 at 6:30 P.M. in Room B-8, Civic Center. Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California By: Deputy City Clerk ATTEST: Alicia M_ W ntworth City Clerk Ronald R. Pattinson Mayor By: Deputy City Clerk • 1 f Affidavit of Publication GIs � State of California County of Orange ss City of Huntington Beach oq George Farquhar, being duly sworn on oath, says: That he is a ?ublished Huntington Beach News, June citizen of the United States, over the age of twenty-one years. That he is the printer and g ?3, 1977. p ' publisher of the Huntington Beach NOTICE of PUBLIC HEARING News, a weekly newspaper of general circulation printed and pub- General Plan Amendment 77-1 lished in Huntington Beach California and circulated in the said Environments! Impact Report 77.3 � NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a publ c County of Orange and elsewhere and published for the dissemination tearing will be held by the City Cou,ci, of local and other news of a general character, and has a bona fide :)f the City of Huntington Beach, in the subscription list of paying subscribers, and said paper has been council chamber of the Civic center I Huntington Beach, at the hour of 7:30 established, printed and published in the State of California, and ?.M., or as soon thereafter as possib;e. County of Orange, for at least one year next before the publication an Tuesday the sth day of July, 1977. for of the first insertion of this notice; and the said newspaper is not the purpose of considering General Plar, M devoted to the interest of, or published for the entertainment of any Amendment 77-1. The amendment will be particular class, profession, trade, calling, race or denomination, or proposing changes to the Land use Ele- rnent that include the following areas' any number thereof. and that land use redesignations: The Huntington Beach New was adjudicated a legal newspaper 1. south of Ellis Avenue and West of Jude G. K. Scovel in the Superior Court Huntington Street: Industrial to medi- of general circulation by g Pe um density residential of Orange County, California August 27th, 1937 by order No. A-5931. 2. North of slater Avenue aM West of Gothard Street: Industrial to Mow densi- ty residental That the GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 77-1. 3. North of Talbert Avenue and East of Gothard Street: Industrial to medium density residential ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 77-3 �4. Gothard Street, South of Heil Avenue: of which the annexed is a printed copy, was published in said news- � industrial to low density residential. 5. North of Heil Avenue and West of Gothard Street: Industrial to medium I..-density residential. paper at least one Issue 13. South of the San Diego Freeway and East of San Angelo Drive: Plannins i reserve to high density residential. commencing from the 23rd — day Of June I' Soth of st oi Bolsa Chic a rStre Stner reet: Lownue nd density tz medium density residential. 6. South of Hamilton Avenue and West 1977 , and ending on the � day"of June of Magnolia Street: Industrial to Imv density residential. 19. South of Talbert Avenue and West of 191Z_, both days inclusive, and as often during said period and Beach Boulevard: Industrial to medium j times of publication as said paper was regularly issued, and in the density residential. p p p � Y The Commission will also be considering; regular and entire issue of said pewspaper proper, and not in a the approval of EIR 77-3 which has been'. supplement, and said notice was published therein on the following orepared on the proposed amendment. dates, to-wit: A copy of the proposed amendment and EIR are on file in the Planning Depart- ment Office. June 23 , 1977 All interested persons are invited tc attend said hearing and express theig, opinions for or against said proposed, 3eneral Plan Amendment 77-1 & Envirpol�d mental Impact Report 77-3. Further information may be obtained fmm the Office of the City Clerk, 2¢1^ Main Street, Huntington Beach (7•-14) O�Publisher 53fi5226. DATED: June 14, 1877. Subscribed and sworn to before me this 24th day of CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH By Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk_ .- June 191Z_ = --- Notary Public Orange County, California ------------------------------ THOMAS D. WYLLIE ; _+ Notary Public-California 1. r � .•.:�s' T Orange County r \ My Commission Expires September 12, 1978 ------------------------------ City of Huntington Beach r' County of Orange State of California h .ffidavitof Publication of GEORGE FARQUHAR Publisher Huntington Beach News i i Filed Clerk By Deputy Clerk i I Huntington Beach Planning Commission P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Planning Commission ATTN: Floyd G. Belsito, City Administrator DATE: July 5, 1977 RE: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 77-1 AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 77-3 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AT THE MEETING OF JUNE 7, 1977 1. ON MOTION BY BOYLE AND SECOND BY SHEA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 77-3 WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Parkinson, Finley, Gibson, Slates, Shea, Newman, Boyle NOES: None ABSENT: None 2. ON MOTION BY BOYLE AND SECOND BY SLATES RESOLUTION NO. 1196 ADOPTING AMENDMENT TO GENERAL PLAN 77-1 WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Parkinson, Finley, Gibson, Slates, Shea, Newman, Boyle NOES: None ABSENT: None PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt Environmental Impact Report 77-3. 2. Adopt General Plan Amendment No. 77-1. SUMMARY ANALYSIS: The proposed land use changes considered in General Plan Amendment 77-1 derive from requests from property owners and the Planning Department. Most of the requests have been continued from previous General Plan Amendments. These primarily involve industrial properties that have been pending completion of the Industrial Land Use Study, Part II. Concern areas 2. 2 (north of Slater and west of Gothard) , 2 . 8 (south of Hamilton and west of Magnolia) , and 2. 9 (south of Talbert and west of Beach Boulevard) are the only new requests. These involve industrial properties . Courses of action are recommended on all industrial land requests based generally on the results of the Industrial Land Use Study, Part II. / I r � Page 2 Concern areas 2 . 6 (south of the San Diego Freeway and east of San Angelo Drive) and 2. 7 (south of Warner and east of Bolsa Chica) are the only properties involving non-industrial areas. These also represent continuations from 1976 amendments. Environmental Impact Report 77-3 analyzes the overall effects of the recommended land use changes in General Plan Amendment 77-1. Although no change is recommended, concern areas 2.7 and 2. 8 are included in the assessment because of the serious environmental problems that must be considered by any use of the sites. .Respectfully submitted, I Edward D. Selich Secretary Attachments: 1. General Plan Amendment 77-1 2. EIR 77-3 with addendum 3. General Plan Amendment 77-1 Summary EDS :CC:gc v 1 crl GENERAL PLAN AMKU1ENT 77-1 SUNaVM Area of Planning Dept. Planning Con¢nission City Council Concern Location Acreage Applicant Request Reccam-endati.on Recommendation Recannendation 2.1 South of Ellis Ave. 7.14 ac. Classic Dev. Change Industrial Redesignate 7.14 Redesignate 7.14 West of Huntington St. to high density ac. to medium ac.' to medium residential. density resi- density resi- dential dential 2.2 North of Slater Ave. 4.87 ac. Robert Change Industrial Redesignate 4.87 Redesignate 4.87 and west of Gothard Stellrecht to law density ac. to low density ac. to low density St. residential residential residential 2.3 North of Talbert Ave. 38.7 ac. Frank Bucella Change Industrial Redesignate 38.7 Redesignate 38.7 and east of Gothard and Ping. Dept. to medium density ac. to medium ac. to medium Street residential density resi- density resi- dential dential 2.4 Gothard St., south 47.76 ac. C.E.L.S. Corp. Change Industrial Retain Industrial Retain Industrial of Heil Ave. to low density designation designation residential 2.5 North of Heil Ave. 18.83 ac. Willis Miller Change Industrial Retain Industrial Retain Industrial and west of Gothard to medium density designation designation Street residential 2.6 South of the San 7.77 ac. Planning Dept. Change Planning Redesignate 7.77 Redesignate 7.77 Diego Freeway and Reserve to high ac. to high density ac. to high density east of San Angelo density residential residential residential Drive 2.7 South of Warner Ave. 16.48 ac. Crossman Change law density Redesignate 16.48 Retain low density and east of Bolsa Advertising residential to ac. to medium den- residential desig- Chica Street medium density sit_y residential nation residential 2.8 South of Hamilton 47.16 ac. Ponderosa Change Industrial Redesignate 47.16 Retain Industrial Ave. and west of Homes to law density ac. to law density designation Magnolia St. residential residential 2.9 South of Talbert 11.81 ac. Roselle Change Industrial Redesignate 11.81 Redesignate 11.81 Ave. and west of Sommer & and Commerical to ac. to low density ac. to low density Beach Blvd. Ping. Dept. medium density residential residential residential D 77 U„,a-Q !s3 �-Pcak�s- Kll Say& � N y5�u�J-w W Y dY N YZ HOME CCUIdUCIL .4ome o,,46.of and gmc4d�e .9me- RECEIVED- P.O. BOX 1601, HUNTINGTOW-df9MJC*4F. 92647 It UNTtNGTO 3ACll, CAL IF'I . AN OPEN LETTER TO:HUN.TINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL JUL ta;� Q ' C q July 15, 1977 FROM:MARK PORTER, PRESIDENT HOME COUNCIL SUBJECT:GOTHARD INDUSTRIAL REZONINGS (General Plan Amendment 77-1) HOME Council, which has long maintained a position of supporting continued industrial developmpnt, and measures designed to preserve our industrially zoned land inventory, wishes to go on record as opposing the changes contained in General Plan Amendment 77-1. specifically items 2. 1 to 2. 3 and 2. 9, which propose to rezone industrially planned property to residential uses in the Gothard Industrial Corridor. The proposed rezoning of areas 2. 2 and 2. 3 is particularly unsuit- able. The first, area 2. 2, because it proposes. to " sandwich" a residential area between two industrial "yard-type" uses, . the General Telephone facility and the city' s corporation yard. The nature of the traffic generated via heavy vehicles. repair opera- tions, etc. , is less than compatible with residential development. The second area, 2.3, is property which has access to both a primary highway and rail. In addition, it ' is directly across Talbert from current industrial building activities now under way. The rezoning of area 2.3 would, in effect, establish a pattern for rezoning of land east of the Southern Pacific tracks, much of which is suitable for long term industrial development. The argument that its rezone will consolidate a property fragmented by multiple ownerships is false in that it could and should be consolidated into piece of industrial land and the redevelopment authority of the city could readily ac- complish that task. Probably the most disturbing factor in this proposal is its effect on previously proposed industrial development contemplated for the area. Because of the city' s actions in viewing with favor, residential rezoning within the Gothard corridor, reports of property owners backing out of industrial land sales in favor of residential options continue to crop up. This is understandable, since the market for residential property is much more lucrative than industrial. But it still leaves •open to question what our city policy is with regards to industry in the Gothard area. Are we promoting industrial develop- ment there, and really attempting to build an area which will support the 10,000 jobs we said in securing the EDA grant to improve Gothard .4 Street, or not? It seems a prudent position would be to determine, in writing, from the Department of Commerce, what our financial jeopardy is before we embark on wholesale amendments to the General D Plan and, ultimately, the zoning in this area. It would be an unfair burden on the taxpayers of Huntington Beach to have to support the improvement of Gothard at a price of over $400, 000 because the city is unwilling to honor its earlier committment. Furthermore, recent revelations of the inability of our sewage disposal system to handle contemplated loads should be further investigated- as it relates to this whole area. Since Public Works is as yet unable to measure flows in our system it would be wise to withhold rezonings on that basis alone . Finally, the objectivity of the planning staff documentation for the Gothard rezonings is lacking in that it ignores the signifi- cance of current industrial activity and interest of industrial developers in the area. Huntington Beach is experiencing a higher than average level of activity in both the Huntington Beach Industrial Park and the Gothard area than planning statistics would lead one to believe are or will occur. With the Huntington Beach Industrial Park filling out, a continual effort to place industrial developers will focus on the Gothard area, if we keep the land available. We are talking about an expendable resource, namely industrially zoned land. At any point in time, literally, it can be rezoned to residential and it will be developed. But that time is not now. We need a tax base made broader by ndustry and its products and jobs, with its low demand for city services and the absence of further impact on schools, not the contrary. If the city ' s policy is truly to encourage and develop industrial uses, then itshould concentrate on making Gothard more attractive to industrial users by phasing out marginal operations in favor of more substantial industrial uses, and ignore the 'siren-song" of of clean-up by way of extnesive multiple-residential rezonings. Mark Porter,`--Pwdent HOME Council jHFCI-_TY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Recreation Parks-:,--,&_'H ~ '`�� ' ' � � y � -` umanSerVices De ar en -p POST OFFICE BOX 190 • HUNTINGTON BEACH—, CALIFORNIfi 926'48 e1• TEL:`(-TI4) 5'56,-5486 OFFICE: 2000 MAIN STREET4ti NORM WORTHY Director v - TOM BUSHARD Park Superintendent VIVIAN BORNS t Superintendent Recreation& Human Services July 6 , 1977 t.jn e7 Mr. Randy W. Blanchard, Manager Sandollar Development Company fj 16371 Beach Blvd. Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Dear Mr. Blanchard, We are certainly appreciative of your generous offer to add recreational facilities to Edison Community Park over and above the required park acquistion and development fees required as a condition of your proposed residential development to the south of the park. We are happy that you enjoy living in the neighborhood and that you and your family use the park now for many recreational pursuits. The attached plan indicates the modifications we would suggest on the. handball/racquetball courts to add two additional lighted courts to the six (6) court complex since this has proven to be a super popular activity. The cost of two additional lighted .courts would run approximately $21, 000 to $25, 000 depend- ing on whether the three new walls could be tilted up and attached or if they will have to be formed and poured in place, r--- If this project .is more than you wished to donate, we could consider additional playground equipment which could range from $1, 000 to $15, 000 . next page, please . . . . . Pn RECREATION IS A FAMILY AFFAIR � 8 , i Mr. Blanchard, . . . . C2) July 6 , 1977 Your proposal to develop the 40-acre mud dump south of Edison Community Park into an R-1 single-family development would certainly be an improvement to the neighborhood. Good Luck! Sin erely, �N m r hy4Dector Recreation, & Human Services Department NW:ps Attachment cc: Floyd G. Belsito, City Administrator Recreation and Parks Commission I � I --I s so I _ .s .r. IIA I - - - a - I June 20, 1977 PETITION n� TO: City Council " City of Huntington Beach RE: Tract 9843 Huntington Beach As a homeowner in the vicinity of the subject property on the south side of Hamilton between Newland and Magnolia, I strongly support the staff recommendation to ammend the General Plan to change the zoning of this property from M-1 to R-1 as a major step in cleaning up the area which is directly across from Edison Park. � r � �f f I Z44' e 0/ (1 ) Petition Tract 9843 Huntington Beach June 20, 1977 � 1 /,,//116�v 12A �q 0(�/ Ile, I '4 �f /I i - V � r ✓'� l � r 0Ni�rJ /41-&-x-z (2) Petition Tract 9843 Huntington Beach June 20, 1977 rr 1 , 91 /70, (3) THE CITY OF HUNTINGION BEACH Recreation, Parks & ,H a W Services Departmdnt . POST OFFICE BOX 190 • HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648 • TEL: (714) 636-5486 OFFICE: 2000 MAIN STREET NORM WORTHY Director TOM BUSHARD Park Superintendent VIVIAN BORNS Superintendent i Recreation&Human Services July 6, 1977 1 I \1� .4 t Jr Mr. Randy W. Blanchard, Manager P� Sandollar Development Company S 16371 Beach Blvd. Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Dear Mr. Blanchard, We are certainly appreciative of your generous offer to add recreational facilities to Edison Community Park over and above the required park acquistion and development fees required as a condition of your proposed residential development to the south of the park. We are happy that you enjoy living in the neighborhood and that you and your family use the park now for many recreational pursuits. The attached plan indicates the modifications we would suggest on the handball/racquetball courts to add two additional lighted courts to the six (6) court complex since this has proven to be a super popular activity. The cost of two additional lighted courts would run approximately $21,600 to $25,000 depend- ing on whether the three new walls could be tilted up and attached or if they will have to be formed and poured in place. r-- If this project is more than you wished to donate we could P 7 Y ► ..,,` consider additional -playground equipment which could range from $1, 000 to $15,000. next page, please . • 1� Q RECREATION IS A FAMILY AFFAIR � 4 Mr. Blanchard, . . . . . (2) July 6, 1977 Your proposal to develop the 40-acre mud dump south of Edison Community Park into an R*-1 single-family development would certainly be an improvement to the neighborhood. Good Luckl Sin erely, /N m r hy, D Kks tor Recreation, Pa & Human Services Department NW:ps Attachment cc: F1oyd .G. Belsito, City Administrator Recreation and Parks Commission � T P � - � s I I/ v � g � 06 I,�. CORAL PLAN ;VL'NM++ENf 77-1 S(HVM Area of Planning Dept. . Planning Camtission ,7oncern Location Aerea aMlicant. st Recamrendation Recamendation 2.1 South of Ellis Ave. 7.14 ac. Classic Dev. Change Industrial Redesignate 7.14 Redesignate 7.14 West of Huntington St. to high density ac. to medium ac: to medium residential. density resi- density resi- dential dential 2.2 North of Slater Ave. 4.87 ac. Robert Change Industrial Redesignate 4.87 Redesignate 4.� 1 and west of Gothard .SteUrecht to low density ac. to .low densi ac. to low density •,may St. residential residential residential 2 North of Talbert Ave. 38.7 ac. Frank Bucella Change Industrial Redesignate 38.7 Redesignate 31.7 and east of Gothard and P]ng.-Dept. to medium density ac. to medium ac. to medium Street residential density resi- density resi- dential dential 2.4 . Gothard St., south 47.76.ac. C.E.L.S. Cozp. Change Industrial Retain Industrial Retain Industrial ' of Heil Ave. to low density designation designation residential 2.5 North of Heil Ave. 18.83 ac. Willis Miller Change Industrial. Retain industrial Retain Industrial . and west of Gothard to medium density designation designation Street residential ' 2.6 South of the 'San 7.77 ac. Planning Dept. Change Planning Redesignate 7.77 Redesignate Freew Diego ay and Reserve to high ac. to high density ac. to high density • east of San Angelo density residential .residential residential Drive 2.7 South of Warner Ave. . 16.48 ac. Crossman Change .low density Redesignate 16.48 Retain low density and east of Bolsa Advertising residential to ac. to medium den- residential desig- Chica Street medi= density sity residential nation residential 2.8 South of Hamilton 47.16 ac. Ponderosa Charge Industrial Redesignate 47.16 Retain Industrial Ave. and west of Homes to low density ac. to low density designation "ay-nolia St. residential residential 2 South of Talbert 11.81 ac. Roselle Charge Industrial Redesignate il.$i Redesignate 11.81 /-- Ave. and west of Somrnr & and Comnzrical to ac. to low density ac. to law density Beach Blvd. Ping. Dept. rnediu„i density residential residential residential r t GENERAL PLAN AMMCM NT 77-1 SLHVM Area of Planning Dept. Planning'Commission- ::oncern Location Acreage Applicant Request motion Reea►mer�datian 2.1 South of Ellis Ave. •7.14 ac. Classic Dev. Change Industrial Redesignate 7.14 t signate 7.1+ West of Hamtington St. to high density ac. to medium ac. medim. residential. density resi- dens ty 'resi- dential den 1 2.2 North of Slater Ave. 4.87 ac. Rcbert Change Industrial Redesignate 4.87 Redesignate 4VA". and west of Gothard .Stellrecht to low density ac. to low densi ac. toy low. density St. residential residential residential North of Talbert Ave. 38.7 ac. Frank Bucella Change Industrial Redesignate 38.7Redesignate 31.7 v and east of Gothard and P]ng. Dept. to medium density ac. to medium ac. to medium Street residential density resi density resi dential dential 2.4 Ck*l and St., south 47.76 ac: C.E.L.S. Corp. Change Industrial Retain Industrial - Retain Industrial -of Heil Ave. to low density designation designation /''O residential 2.5 North of Heil Ave.. 18.83 ac. Willis Miller Change Industrial Retain .Industrial Retain Industrial ^ and west of Gothard to medium density designation . .designation Street. residential 2.6 South of the San 7.77 ac. Planning Dept. Change Planning Redesignate 7.77 Redesignate 7.*17 Diego Freeway and Reserve to high ac. to high density ac. to high .density east of San Angelo density residential residential residential Drive 2.7 South of Warner Ave. 16.48 ac. Crossman Change law density Redesignate 16.48 Retain low density and east of Bolsa Advertising residential to ac. to medium den residential desig- Chica Street mediu+n density sity residential nation residential _ 2.8 South of Hamilton 47.16 ac. Ponderosa Change Industrial Redesignate 47.16 Retain Industrial Aye. and west of Homes to low density ac. to low density designation Ma no14a St. residential residential ' South of Talbert 11.81 ac. Roselle Change Industrial Redesignate 11.8i Redesignate 11.81 Ave. and west of Sommer & and Commerical to ac. to low densit_,• at. to. law density Beach Blvd. -Ping. Dept, mediums density residential residential residential Post paid postcards &di- NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING General Plan Amendment 77-1 Environmental Impact Report 77-3 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held by the . City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, in .the Council Chamber of the Civic Center, Huntington Beach, at' the hour of . 7:30_ P.M. . or as soon thereafter as possible, on Tuesday the 5th day of July , 19 77, for the purpose of considering General Plan Amendment 77-1. The amendment will be proposing changes to the Land Use Element than include the following areas and proposed land use redesignations: 1. South of Ellis Avenue and West of Huntington Street: Industrial to medium density redidential 2. North of Slater Avenue and West of Gothard Street: Industrial to low density residential 3. North of Talbert Avenue and East of Gothard Street: Industrial to medium density residential 4. Gothard Street, South of Heil Avenue: Industrial to low density residential. 5. North of Heil Avenue and West of Gothard Street: Industrial to medium density residential. 6. South of the San Diego Freeway and East of San Angelo Drive: Planning reserve to high density residential. 7. South of Warner Avenue and East of Bolas Chica Street: Low density to medium density residential. 8. South of Hamilton Avenue and West of Magnolia Street: Industrial to low density residential. 9. South of Talbert Avenue and West of Beach Boulevard: Industrial to medium density residential The Commission will also be considering the approval of EIR 77-3 which has been prepared on the proposed amendment. A copy of the proposed amendment and EIR are on file in the Planning Department Office. All interested persons are invited to attend sold hearing and express their opinions for or against. said proposed' General P14n Amendment 77-1 & Environmentaf Impact Report 77-3 Further information may be obtained from the Office of the. City Clerk, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach. - (714) 536-5226. DAM- 6/14/77 CITY. OF- HUMTINGTON BEACH BY: .Alicia .M. Wentworth City Clerk affidavit of Publication State of California l •--•— County of Orange j as PUbhshed-Hunt'Ingion Beach News, May.. City of Huntington Beach JJ 26, 1e77•:. ',' LEGAL NOTICE George Farquhar, being duly sworn on oath, says: That he Is 8 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING citizen of the United States, over the age of twenty-one years. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 77.1 That he is the printer and publisher of.the Huntington Beach :ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 77a News, a weekly newspaper of general circulation printed and pub- 1 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a pub- lished in Huntington Beach, California and circulated in the said lic hearing will be held. by the City County of Orange and elsewhere and published for the dissemination Planning Commission of .the City of of local and other news of a general character, and has a bona fide i Huntington. Beach, California, for the. subscription list of paying subscribers, and said paper has been I Purfwse of considering feneral Plan I Amendment 77-1. The amendment will established, printed and published in the State of California, and +be proposing Changes to the Land rise County of Orange, for at least one year next before the publication Element that Include the followlhg areas of the first insertion of this notice; and the said newspaper is not end proposed•.land!use radesignations:" devoted to the interest of, or published for the entertainment of any ,-South of Ellis Avenue' and'.Wesv'of particular class, profession, trade, calling, race or denomination, or Huntington Stree': Industrial to me., any number thereof. i dium density residential. i 2. North of Slater Avenue and West of l The Huntington Beach New was adjudicated a legal newspaper Gothard Street:'.Industrial to low den of general circulation by Judge G. K. Scovel In the Superior Court sity residential. - j of Orange County, California August 27th, 1937 by order No. A-5931. 3. North of Talbert Avenue and East of. Gothard Street: Industrial to medium density residential. . That the GENERAL PLAN AMEND. 77-1 .•.4. Gothard Street, South,of Hell Avenuel. Industrial'to low -density residentiat:' S. North of Heil Avenue and -West of ENVIRONIENTAL IMPACT REPORT 77--3 Gothard Street: Industrial to. medium of which the annexed is a printed copy, was published in said news- density residential. 6. South of the San Diego Freeway and East of San Angelo .Drive. Planning paper at least Oh@ la a uI2 reserve to high density residental. 7. South of Warner Avenue and E4st of Balsa Chica `Street: Low density to commencing from the 26th day of May medium density residential. 8. South of Hamilton Avenue and West of Magnolia Street: Industrial to low 19-22 . and ending on the 261h day of May density residential. 9. South of Talbert Avenue and West of. Beach Boulevard: Industrial to medium density residential. 1922— both days inclusive, and as often during said period and be consider-. times of publication as said paper,was. regularly Issued, and In the Ing the oa�ovalnof HEIR ll 177.3 which has regular and entire issue of said pewspaper proper, and not in a been prepared"on the proposed"anlend- supplement, and said notice was published therein on the following meet. dates, to-wit: A copy of. the proposed amendment and EIR are on file•in the Planning De May 26. 1977 p-�•t ° and hearing w be held•at the hour: . of 7:W.j0.M.; on June 7,. 1977, in the Council Chambers Building of the Civic Comer, 2000• Main Street, Huntington Beach, California. // Jn Ali interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and express their Publisher opinions for or against the proposed General Plan Amendment 77.. and En- Subscribed and sworn to before me this 27th day of vironmental impact Report 77.3. Further information may be obtained from the City Planning Department. MAy , 19 77 - Tetephone No. (714) 536-5271. ,DATED this 24th day of May, 1977. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Notary Public By Edward D. Selich, Secretary Orange County, California HUNTINGTON BEACFI PLANNING. DEPT. --- - MAY 31 lyl7 -,,. -----THOMAS D. WYI-UE ; ..-` Notary Public-California i ' Orange County P. O. BOX Igo My Commission Expires Huntington 1903ch, CA 92648 --------- September 12_1978---- ---� NOTICE TO CLERK TO SCHEDULE PUBLIC HEARING TO: CITY CLERK'S OFFICE DATE: )looms /3 1977 FROM: P�LANA�//VG I�FPA/eTMT PLEASE SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING USING THE ATTACHED LEGAL NOTICE FOR THE DAY OF Ij 04 , 19741. V� AP's are attached AP's will follow No AP's Initiated by: Planning Commission Planning Department {/ #E 77-3 Other f4/NlrBti��rtUli�i Adoption of Environmental Status #--VL '7 -3. YES NO Published Huntington Beach News, June 6. South of the San Diego Freeway and 23, 1977. East of San Angelo Drive: Planning j l -NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING reserve to high density residential. General Plan Amendment 77-1 7. South of Warner Avenue and East of Epvironmental Impact Report 77-5 Boise Chico Street: Low density to NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public medium density residential. hearing will be held by the City Council 8. South of Hamilton Avenue and West of the City of Huntington Beach, in the of Magnolia Street: Industrial to low Council Chamber of the Civic Center, density residential. Huntington Beach, at the hour of 7:30 9. South of Talbert Avenue and West of P.M., or as soon thereafter as possible, Beach Boulevard: Industrial to medium on Tuesday the'Sth day of July, 1977, for density residential. the purpose of considering General Plan The Commission will also be considering Amendment 77-1. The amendment will be the approval of EIR 77-3 which has been proposing changes to the Land Use Ele- prepared on the proposed amendment. ment that include the following areas A copy of the proposed amendment and and proposed land use redesignations: EIR are on file in the Planning,Depart- 1. South of Ellis Avenue and West of ment Office. Huntington Street: Industrial to medi- All interested persons are invited to um density residential attend said hearing and express their 2: North of Slater Avenue and Vilest of opinions for or against said proposed Gothard Street: Industrial to low densi- General Plan Amendment 77-1 & Environ- ty residential mental Impact Report 77-3. 3. North of Talbert Avenue and East of Further Information may be obtained Gothard Street: Industrial to medium from the Office of the City Clerk, 2000 'density residential Main Street, Huntington Beach — (714) 4..Gothard Street, South of Heil Avenue: 536.5226. Industrial to low density residential. DATED: June 14, 1877. 5. North of Heil Avenue and West of CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Gothard Street: Industrial to medium Byl Alicia,M.Wentworth density residential, City Clerk Published Huntington Beach News, June 6. South of the San Diego Freeway and _23, 1977. East of San Angelo Drive: Planning NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING reserve to high density residential. General Plan Amendment 77.1 7. South of Warner Avenue and East of %nvironmental Impact Report 77.9 Bolsa Chico Street: Low density to NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public medium density residential. hearing will be held by the City Council 8. South of Hamilton Avenue and West of the City of Huntington Beach, in the of Magnolia Street: Industrial to low Cb;ancil Chamber of the Civic Center, density residential. Huntington Beach, at the hour of 7:30 9. South of Talbert Avenue and West of j P.M., or as soon thereafter as possible, Beach Boulevard: Industrial to medium on Tuesday the 5th day of July, 1977, for density residential. the purpose of considering General Plan The Commission will also be considering Amendment 77-1. The amendment will be the approval of EIR 77-3 which has been h proposing changes to the Land Use Ele- prepared on the proposed amendment. ment that include the following areas A copy of the proposed amendment,and. and proposed land use redesignations: EIR are on file in the Planning Depart- 1. South of Ellis Avenue and West of ment Office. Huntington Street: Industrial to medi- All interested persons are invited to um density residential attend said hearing and express their _ -2. North of Slater menue and West of opinions for or against said proposed i Gothard Street: Industrial to low densi- General Plan Amendment 77-1 & Environ- ty residental mental Impact Report 77.3. 3. North of Talbert Avenue and East of Further information may be obtained Gothard Street: Industrial to medium from the Office of the City Clerk, 2000 density residential Main Street, Huntington Beach — (714) 4. Gothard Street, South of Heil Avenue: 536.5226. Industrial to low density residential. DATED: June 14, 1977. 5. North of Heil Avenue and West of CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH F Gothard Street: Industrial to medium By: Alicia M.Wentworth density residential. � City Clerk CG—��ZCdf/ 93%-87-072 933-87-089 bang S Han Area of 674aCern 2.1 Alm R.Riohn 7702 Rapids Drive- 7662 Ellis Avenue fHuntington Beach, Calif -HuntingtonBeach, Calif 92648 92648 933-87-073 933-87-081 933-87-090 Donald S Qhadd 2nd om3s Ciaccio` Willfma L Short 770.4 Rapids Drive 7637 Rapids 'Drive 7648 Brookwood Derive Beach,Huntington Cal Huntirigtcan :Beach, Calif. tisagbc� Beach, Calif 92648 92648 92648 933-87-074 933-87-082 -933-87-091 - Charles M Bowers Oliva 8.,AraW A et al Dennis.E tkise 7706 Rapids Drive •7635 Rgt3& Drive 7652 BxooJCtawcst Drive Huntugtcn Heath, Calif 9264Reacb, Mai 92648 9 Beach, Callif 92648 933-87-075 93..,8?,.,p83 933-87-092 Virginia S BeMesWalift"�C;_Gouge James E Nicholas. . 7708 Rapids Drive 7=., ,Bwida L r im 7658 Brookwood Drive Huntington Beach, Calif so&* Calif B ti n9ton Beach, Cali f 92648 9261E 92648 87-076 .: 933-•87-084 933-87-093 0b ld J_Norwood et al. die a TitW&- Pauline D Garry 7687 Rapids Drive M7 Rap�a lkivie 7662 Brookwood Drive Huntington Beach, Calif. HmtiiVbm BOW*. Cali Bead, Calif 92 64 8 92648 92648 933-87-077 933-87-M Swan L Lvw. 14ar+gaYiat'mod .7681 Rapids Chive 'Itailgos Drive Huntington Beach, Cah.fingtmHea cb4 Calif 92648. 92648 933-87-078 933-87-0$6 David L Robinscn et al Raymond G,Mimi 7677 Rapids Derive 7648 EhlistA a im Huntington Beach, Calif Beech, 92648 92647 933-87-079 . . 9331-87-087- Henrietta Maddox Zigur�x+easzf 8 7671 Rapids Drive 7652 M irMuMn Huntington Beach, Calif Huntitigt m•Bead, Calif 92648 92648 933-87-080 933-87-0M. Jerry M Monroe Craig Nidlao . 7641 Rapids, Drive 7658 Ells':Atva a Huntington beach, Cali Beach, Calif 92648 92648 933-87-046 933-87-063 Laverne M Freeman Area of Oonc ern 2.1 Fred M Drab Jr 7667 kbitewater Drive 7658 Rapids Drive Huntington Beach, Calif Huatingtwz Beach, Calif 92648 92648 933-87-047 933-87-055' 933-87-064 IW i le H Ray Albert J jiartng Moi d S Jews Jr 7661 Hhiitewater Drive 18592 Cxeok Lame 7671 Rapids Dative Huntington Beach, Calif Hunt r�gbon Ba�c3i;'Calif Mptington Beach, Calif 92648 92649" 92648 933-87-048 933-.87-056 933-87-065 Richard M Sparks Dow.1d, .�`8 iin ' Caml L Mattis 765. Tnhiitewater Drive 7632' Rap ds Drive 7675 Rapids Dive Huntington Beach, .Calif Fhintirigtion Beach, Calif Hunt#gton Beach, Calif 92648 92648 92648 933-87-049 933-87-.057;•,,, 933-87-066 Ralph R Shelton Donald D Hawes 7651 Rbitewater Dive 7636 Rapids. Drive 7692 Rapids Drive. Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beal, Calif Mmtitygtm Beach, Calif 92648 92648 92648 933-87-050. 933-87-6SB';� 933-87-067 Midiael`•S Feeney Kathy. Gar3arian `�� Pamalea Pfeil et al 7647 Whitewater Drive. 7638. Rapes§''" rc ve"' 7688 Rapids Drive Huntington Beach, Calif Hunk' Bpi;` C31if Hunt i ngtm Beach, Calif . 92648 92648 92648 933-87-051 933-87-059- 933-87-068 Michael R Misciagna Frank E Charles E Lambert 7645 iitewater Drive764�;:r �' -i ' �§ r 7692 Rapids Drive Huntington Beach, Calif I tingbon DeaLti; Cali Beach, Cali f 92648 92648 92648 933-87-052 933-87-060 933-87-069 Nlaiwel Perez Hazel a7460bem et al Tern L Brown 18602 Creek Lane 7646 Raapids Dove 7694 Rapids Drive .Huntington Beach, Calif Huntiiygto i Be3c-!s; Calif: tingt�ori Beach, C aW 92648 92648 92648 933-87-053 933-87-661, . 933-87-070 82ffray R Bowman RichardA(;, ,. mice Wood 18698 Creek Lame 16 7696 Rapids Dative RaP �d ,., Huntington beach, Calif FDW?tim48 " iti s Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92648 92648 92648 933=87-054 933-87=062. 933-87-071 Herbert A Davidson et al irk G R James H Howell 18596 Creek'Lane 7652 Ra4Pi - rt'�vie 7698 Rapids Drive Huntington Beach, Calif Bj1 'tee Calif Hmtisx� Beach, Calif 92648 92649 92648 933-87-022 933-87-037 Gene Beck Area of Oonaern 2.1 HUntington Creek Hcmeawrers 18531 Edgebrook Lane 'P.O. Boa U785 Huatirbgtm Beach, Calif Santa Ana, Calif 92648 92711 933-87-023 933-87-031 933-87-038 Dennis F Wood et al Ralph E W alace James E Singer Jr 18537 Edgebrook Lane 18581 Edgebrbok Lane 7711 Whitewaber Drive Huatingt= Beach, Calif Beau; Calif Htmtiggt ogi Beach, Calif 92646 92648 r.,t:A L.1• ,t .; . . 92648 ' • J 933-87-024 933=87-032 933-87-039 Wani.s N 'Aatchell James A Cavalier 18541 Edgebrook Lane 5 r 7707 Mit ewater Lame Huntngtai Beach, Calif H►m9Beach, Calif 92648 92648 •933-87-025 933-87-032 933-87-040 Martha Cochran Jabn R Stiirtiptmr 18547 Edgebrook Lane L 7701 Whi.bew•ater Drive '. j Huntingtm Beach, Calif amengi= Beach, Calif 9264$ 92648. . 933-87-026 933-87-032 933-87-041 Helen Newcastle VaLerie 'J-Dieckilman et al Dale C Pace . 18551 Edgabrook Large 18587 aook-Lane 7697 Wnitewater Lane Huntington Beach, Calif Hu itingtod fib.. Calif Huntirx7tion Beach, Calif 92648 92648 92648 933-87-027 933-87-033 933-87-042 WI l iam L Allen Anthony=P-Frandl os` Robert G Walsh 18557 Edgebrook Lane 18S91'idgebYCdk Lane 7691 whitemter Drive Huntington Beach,. Calif Hsu tingtan:Ba x h, Calif Huptincfto n Beach, Calif 92648, 92648. 92648 933-87-028 933-87-034 933-87-043 Charles M Miller Michael ill•L'Hjey. Paris J inbcds 18561 Edgebrook Lane 18595 Wg0rbck. Lane 7687 hftitewa ber Drive Huntington Beach, Calif Huntirr3toci Beath Calif Huntington.Beach, Calif 02648 92648 : 92648 933-87-029 Ronald R Duvendack 933-87-035 933-87-044 . 5042 Cornell Avenue Janet M Gavney Joe B Stallworth Wtstmi nor, Cali 18597 Edgebivdk Lane 7681 VdAtewater Drive 92683 Htaitjtic, oci Beach,:•Calif . Huntington Beach, Calif 92648 92648 . �3s-8i-0s0 • Daniel Mc Cue 933-87-036.. 933--0-045 18577 Edgebrook Lane Joseph.-J-Clemens. James E Heed et al flunti.ngtcn Beach, Calif 1860l' EoY +000k'Iana-: 7671• Whitewater Drive 92648 Ham Calif HuQiti.TlgtDari Beach, Calif 92648: 92648 933-87-013 !: 111-242-23 Raynnnd O Klein r Classi6' Develognent Oarp Area of Oonoern 2.1 7712 Brookwood Drive 12700 Knott Avenue Huntington Bch, Calif i Garden Grove, Calif 92648 92645 I933-87-005 933-87-014' 111-242-24 Maria R Sugranes Robert M Brown Jr Huntington Beach Co 7698 Ellis Avenue 7708 Brookwood Drive Standard Oil Lb of Calif Rmtington Beach, Calif Bch, Calif Prupe ty Tax Division 92648 92648 225 Bush Street San Francisco, Calif 933-87-006 933-87-015 I: Russell F Flynn Walter A Behr et al 94120 P'.O. Boa 319. 7702 Brookwood, Drive 9 - - Cbrocna Del Mar, Calif Hu<ntfrngtocn Beach, Cal if i ' 92625 92648 111-242-18 . 933-87-007. 933-87-016 C Curti Ghan Harry C Parrino Dean H Brown Jr 18771 Huntington Street 7717 gxxxk,ood Drive 7698 Brookwood Drive - Huntington Beach, Cal i Beach, Calif Huntingbonn Beach, Calif 92648 92648 92648 833-87-008 933-81-017 111-071-44 Mary:Ln.R E Thomas Joseph C Arnone R Howard Strasbaugh Inc 7722 Ellis Avenue 7692 Brookwood Drive .,3400 Airport Way ong Beach, Calif auto 41hon Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 90806 92648 92688 I, 9c 933-87-009 933-87-018 933=87-001 piyid Kill;am James H Alexander Thntias J Moseley 10282.Mededith Drive 7688 Brookwood Drive 7678 Ellis Avenue B unt4ngtxnt Beach, Calif Hun htington Beach, Calif tingtann Beach, Calif HI 92648 92646 92648 933-87-002 933-87-010 933-87-019 William R 5hii.th Balls Paterson L G Valdes 7692 E11iG Avenue 7732 Ellis Avenue 7682 Brookwood Drive Huntington Beach, CalifHuntin Beach,ton Huntington Bead, Calif ! 92648 92648 92648 933-87-003 933-87-011 933-87-020 I: r9 � Jr Alan Sussman Myra S Unan George C 77316..E,i l i n Avenue 7678 Brookwood Drive 7688 Ellis Avenue Huntington Beach Calif 92648 IbIn, agtr- Bch, Calif Huntington.Beach, Calif 92648 92648 933-87-004 933-87-012 933-87-021 Robert A Zbfft Jerrald B Hutchings Robert T Russell 7692 Ellis Avenue 7738 Ellis Avenue 18527 Edgebrook Lane Hunti�tion Beach, Calif' Califn Beach, Cali 92648 92648 92648 i 1 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH • ; :�, INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HI-NIINCTON BFACH To Floyd G. Belsito, From Bill Back, Cit Administrator Economic Development Officer Subject REPORT ON PRESENT MARKETABILITY Date July 29 , 1977 OF TALBERT AVENUE INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES The following is in response to your request (7/20/77) for the latest marketing information on industrially zoned property on Talbert Avenue This office has contacted a number of industrial developers and "spec" builders who have contributed several buildings to our industrial areas ; in the BIP, the BBP and along Gothard. Attached are their responses to my request. Several that we had wished to respond are on vacation or were unable to make the deadline. It ishoped that their responses will provide some of the answers that the Council is seeking for their decision making. Specifically, as to the deferred parcels along Talbert Avenue, listed as 2. 3 and 2. 9 under the General Plan Amendment 77- 1 , we learned: Re : 2. 9 - In the week' s interim since the last Council meeting , we have contacted three brokers actively working in the Gothard area. We advised them that Mrs. Roselle Sommers , the appli- cant requesting a zone change, wished to sell the 11 ,81 acres and stated that she would sell "for any use as long as I get my price . " The report back to us indicates that the price being asked is not at all realistic in the present market . Further, there are two other owners of land surrounding the applicants and are part of the reported 11 . 81 acres . Both stated that they do not wish to sell or consolidate at this time. The other owners are named; Jolly and Collins . Since Mrs . Sommer ' s control is on but 4. 76 acres , there is no industrial developer' s interest since the parcel by itself is too small for an indus- trial park development. We attach a map to show the three major ownerships of the whole 11. 81 acres . Re : 2. 3 - It was announced that this parcel is fully assembled for devel- opment , but there seems to be some question as to its presently being in one salable package, due to hold-out owners. • It has a ready industrial market, according to two active in- dustrial brokers in the area who will , I hope, advise you of that fact directly. Floyd G. Belsito - 2- July 29 , 1977 • As to the current sales market, we attach a current listing being sent to site seekers showing some of the variety of facilities available in the City at present . Great Western Industrial Realty, our first and most active "spec" builder in the HBIP reported that they sold Sand leased 3 buildings in the list- ing book during last week. The activity ranged from units of 11 , 941 square feet to 30 ,600 square feet. Great Western reports 3 of these sales were results of the City' s listing folder. The firm also added last week 8 more buildings nearly completed WJB :p Attachment 1 , , , I I 1 I i , ► � , r I � 1 Al 1AL X XL 1 I I . I , I I t- 1 , 6 1 1 , 1 1 , , , I , 1 1 I , , 1 Ilk .' N N- T 1 1 1 1 1 ( I ' 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I , 1 �I , - CD 0 �l_t I ® 1 d4 /fy ' 1 A x" all i pS 1 ., i r v r r • � '� 1 1 � I I I I ` 1 . I I 1 ' A 1 k' o I I :' • O FFIC t9: ANAHEIM ASHWILL-BURKE & CO. LOS ANGELES SAN DIEGO INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE SPECIALISTS VAN NUVS. • PROPERTY MANAGEMENT SAN JOSQ 17910 SKYPARK (ARCLE, SUITE 101 IRVINE 1714, IRVINE. CALIFORNIA 92714 49- 13f I July 29, 1977 Mr. Floyd G. Belsito City Administrator City of Huntington Beach P.O. Box 190 California 92648 Dear Mr. Belsito: We have been asked by your economic developer, Bill Back, to give our evaluation of the Gothard strip as an industrial area. First, it might be well to explain our investment to date in your city. We have erected industrial buildings in both the Huntington Beach Industrial Park and along the Gothard strip, and we see a continuing active market for industrial buildings in your city. Now that all the land is almost completely sold out in both industrial parks in the northern portion of the city we have increased our activity in the past year in the Gothard area. Presently we have in escrow • 26 acres at the southeast corner of Heil and Gothard, and we have industrial clients that would occupy the 17 acres opposite at the southwest corner once the zoning question is resolved by your city council . As to the land along Gothard and the railroad, south of Warner to Garfield: the soil and terrain problems that formerly kept this area from growing have dissipated greatly in the past year, primarily because of the great demand for industrial land. The present problem with the Gothard strip is not so much soil and terrain as it is consolidation of the multi- ownership postage stamp lots that frequent much of the acreage in this area. Re-zoning to another use will not eliminate this problem. We see this problem as one in which the city should take a leadership role, perhaps by having your redevelopment commission act to assemble parcels for development. We have clients that could utilize any of the land from Slater south to Garfield, provided title was cleared on the postage stamp pieces. Developers cannot get a proper return on their investment if hold-out small lot owners or their heirs delay consolidation by protracted legal action. ` • • OFFICES:ANAHEIM , ASHWILL-BURKE & CO. LOS ANGELES SAN DIEGO INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL REAL NOTATE 01110ECIAL19TO VAN NUYS rIROrERTY MANAGEMENT SAN JOSE 17910 SKYPARK CIRCLE, SUITE 101 IRVINE • (714 IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92714 !40.936) To: Mr. Floyd G. Belsito Page - 2 - Only the city has the power and authority to accomplish this long- needed consolidation of the Gothard parcels for the general good of the whole community. Let it be said that the city should be commended for having the foresight, three years ago, in preparing the Gothard strip for industrial development by providing water, sewer and a wider roadway from Warner south to Ellis. It is unfortunate that the federal grant couldn't have included the key Ellis to Garfield portion because we have had considerable interest in the large parcel that lies in this area, We understand that funds were somewhat limited during that year. These off-site improvements have generated the expected interest in your Gothard area for future developers. It showed the city truly supported industrial development. The resulting savings to the developer could be used to mitigate the costs of correcting the soil and terrain problems. This, coupled with the demand, makes the whole Gothard area desirable to us for industrial growth and development. We at Ashwill-Burke feel that the City of Huntington Beach needs such development, and we encourage you to give us the opportunity to prove it can be developed industrially. incerely, Don W. Gilmour General Manager ASHWILL-BURKE & CO. Jg • • GREAT WESTERN INDUSTRIAL REALTY CO. 225 WEST TORRANCE BOULEVARD. CARSON. CALIFORNIA 90745 (213) 532-2222 (213) 770-3333 July 26, 1977 Mr. Floyd G. Belsito City Administrator City of Huntington Beach P. 0. Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648 Dear Mr. Belsito: We have been asked by Bill Back, your Economic Developer, to • give your City Council an appraisal of the Huntington Beach industrial attraction market as we see it. We have been dealing with your City since 1972 and was the first "spec" builder in John Lusk ' s park. We have been associated with Bill during this period and he is well aware that our firm has produced about 40% of all the buildings to date in the Huntington Beach Indus- trial Park. Our confidence in your City followed John Lusk' s significant investment there. We learned of the area from Bill Back who coat-tailed an Irvine industrial tour in 1972 by Los Angeles industrial people. Our Webb Morrow and Al Rose were on one of the busses that spent no more than ten minutes looking at the raw land at the corner of Graham and McFadden. Mr. Rose and Mr. Morrow are interested and our firm has continued to have much confidence in the City, evidenced by its rather significant investment. All the land in both industrial parks appear to be sold and if the current demand for finished, attractive industrial facili- ties continue as strong as it has been in the past two years we expect to continue to build in Huntington Beach. We under- stand that currently there is a zone change imminent in your reserve industrial area bisected by the Southern Pacific Rail- road. When we reach .that industrial built-out point in the nor- thern industrial area we would be interested in continuing our investment in the central industrial area. • No developer can pay the escalating industrial land prices in SALES • LEASES • ACREAGE • NEW CONSTRUCTION • INVESTMENTS MEMBER ..'AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL REAL ESTATE ASSOCIATION 0 INDUSTRIAL MULTIPLE LISTING SERVICE Mr. Floyd Belsito • July 26, 1977 Page 2 your city and handle the legal fees accompanying such a conso- lidation endeavor -- this is best brought about by government using its power of eminent domain for the common good, Meanwhile, please be assured by our firm that we see a conti- nued firm market. for our product in Huntington Beach and will pursue other land purchases, but only if there is the important supportive role by the City of making that land available in a salable package. Great Western Industrial Realty Co. by: ( _�&cA1 Al Rose by: We b Morrow • • Propertil3s Rd I C I TELB4 ONE: (714) 894.3377 12080 WESTERN AVENUE, GARDEN GROVE, CA. 92641 July. 20, 1977 Mr. . F l o,ycl G . Bel s:i to City Adminstrator City of Flunt:ington Beach 0. Box. 1.90 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 lie : Industrial usage Dear. Mr. 13e1_sito : Your Economic Development Officer, Mr. William J. Back, has requested a statement from our firm as to the marketability of industrial. land in the area south of Warner to Garfield, along the Gothard and rail line. It is our opinion that the prospects are excellent for development in this area, part- iculary since properties in the Lusk Industrial Park have sold and there is no more land in that area available for development. We are disturbed to learn that your City plans to rezone ,your remaining industrial property in the Gothard -j.re t to res.i.dential use. rh.i.s appears to be the only remaining industrial land left in your city and .it seems unfortunate, now that western county industrial development momentum is so strong, that your city would consider turning its back to added employment, investment and taxes (sales, inventory, real property and machinery) generated through "M" zoning. We have moved into tfie Gothard area now, despite the handicap of your encyclo- pedia Jot situation. Assembling large enough parcels to do a. modern industrial. park area ( tliat ,your city would be proud of in the years ahea(l) has been extremely difficult. Now that this rezoning problem has arisen .it might be well to suggest that 'your ci t,y could suddenly 'be the only vehicle to accomplish this assembling. Given this ability to put together parcels of land, unencumbered by the small lots problem, we can assure you that we can provide a number of light Mr. I'Joyd G. lie 0to -_'- Ju I *)y 1-07 7 industry cl :icnts who :in turn could provide a number of new Jol)s i n your community. `l'he crrc 1 osed T.I ycr indicates the most recent land sale in the me.rn t,i osed area. Our firm sold the property within the 1' i rst. -two weeks of representation and could have sold ten more ir► the immediate area had they been available. Make more inciustrial land available and we will generate greater city dollars and more employment than other possible uses with the mentioned area. Very truly yours, c I G . obert Dung General. Manager rr crre-.l osure Cc : Mr . Wi l..l.iam J . Back (-,0MM03C'1Al. AND C1,14 Properties TELEPHONE: (714) 8943377 12080 WESTERN AVENUE, GARDEN GROVE, CA. 92UI FOR SALE ! . 584 - 1 . 14 7 ACRES WESTERN ORANGE COUNTY 00 M T-AVENUE IDEAL FOR: 3�'.R Developers �- 5 Develo Contractors Manufacturing Suppliers ^A Xc--i ko �r,ra,: - ;aelf m 1 wg � OYAx w00D fl E] m INAVAL. -- •.!:NGAQl STATON 1 I ' ve wtsn.iN,rusemoor ,xcNu.s.orldU.S.NAVALWDrld n. L Westminster' �.t LAILN,rr LL L - _ PONS--I pj YeoLSA Ar[ Ac,6. SPECIAL FEATURES: _ Midway ' Bolea STATION u _ - - C.EL;oY- _r,oDLx - • - i AVE r H * Talbert Avenue Frontage * Corner Idenity & Access OOLt ELD. AVE 1 �' *, Zoned M-1 With Possibility tBesch �AI�LD,.,TOS x, w;ntere urg = •o�D� Medium To Heavy Use "> AVE ,"L" �i 9w _ * _ -1 " li - s a Utilities . In The Street p''``" ''"EBEeT '""W F' [YIG, I ; I, Fountain Ali , i Valley A,, cIELOY n z•.vE "[. ti� ? A— 1 / 2 A[E " FOR DETAILS CONTACT: BOB YOUNG Haatington�,"r~'F t`I"_. ..•.'~'e` UN (714) 894-3377 sesch NT = :cCosta� • fin .�,a [r CT HA'•E MeILTON sa - fp' THE ABOVE INFORMATION HAS BEEN OBTAINED FROM SOURCES WE DEEM RB IABIF. WE CANNOT,HOWEVER,ASSUME RESF'ONSI&UTY FOR ITS ACCURACY. • CITY OF HunTmGTon BEACH • , DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES P. O. BOX 190, HUNTINGTON BEECH, CALIFORNIA 92648 (714) 536-5271 TO: Floyd G. Belsito, City Administrator. FROM: Edward D. Selich, Planning Director95 DATE: July 2.8, 1977 RE: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 77-1 - ADDITIONAL INFORMATION The following additional information is submitted for the Council 's consideration concerning the industrial development issues surrounding General Plan Amendment 77-1. Central Industrial Corridor Applications To illustrate the lack of significant industrial development activity in the Gothard Corridor, staff researched the applications made for industrial uses in the Corridor in 1977 . Seven applications -totaling 174, 000 square feet have been approved or are pending. Five are in the Jones and Mountjoy industrial tracts and are "spec" buildings except for one mini-warehouse which was tabled at the applicant 's request. Of the other two, one is' at the southeast corner of Gothard and Heil and the other is in an old industrial tract south of Slater Avenue ' What this illustrates is that even with the current industrial boom a lack of activity on the industrially zoned and planned lands in the Gothard Corridor. The Planning staff feels this is due to the factors cited in the Department' s industrial sand Study. Current construction activity along Gothard is for applications approved in 1976 and again is in the two industrial tracts previously referred to and a third tract at Slater and Nichols . SUMMARY OF 1977 APPLICATIONS Application Type Square Feet Pending AR 77-129 Light manufacturing and ware- 60,000 housing' (spec. ) AR 77-120 Miniwarehouse 34,244 (Tabled) AR 77-17 Light manufacturing (spec.) 14,000 Approved AR 77-24 Light manufacturing (spec.) 10,000 AR 77-75 Light manufacturing (spec. ) 12,625 AR 77-88 Light manufacturing (spec.) 21,000 AR 77-128 Light manufacturing (spec. ) 22 ,000 Page 2 Status of Industrial Development Citywide One of the confusing issues confronting the City Council is how the industrial boom is affecting the City 's industrial inventory. To consider a piece of land used for industry when it is sold or sub- divided is misleading as it is really not used until there is an industrial tenant. The industrial land falls into five categories: 1 . Vacant - Large parcels not subdivided into an industrial tract or undeveloped small parcels. 2 . Subdivided - Large parcels subdivided into industrial park. In some cases development has been approved for some of the lots. The remaining lots are awaiting sale and/or application for development. 3. Developed. - Lots upon which construction is occurring and has not been completed or spec. buildings have been completed and are awaiting tenants. 4 . Developed and Land upon which development has been completed and in use - is occupied by industrial use. 5. Non-Conform- Industrially zoned or planned land that is being ing - used for some use other than industrial. The following table shows how the Kaiser-Aetna and Lusk Industrial Park compare to the Gothard Corridor. LUSK & KAISER AMNA IND. PARKS GOTHARD CORRIDOR ACRES PEE ACRES PERCENTAGE OF TOT.ACRES OF TOT.ACRES 1. Vacant 70 9% 520.4 61% 2. Subdivided 331.2 45% 31 3- �% 3. Developed 70 9% 12.3 lh% 4. Developed and in use 271.5 37% 231.4 27% 5. Non-Conforming 0% 56.3 7% Total 724.7 100% 851.4 100% What . this .table says is that contrary to reports otherwise the Lusk and Kaiser-Aetna Industrial Parks are not near full use. In fact, only 46% is developed or under development with many of these being speculative awaiting tenants. In the Gothard Corridor only 28h% is developed or under development with many of these uses being the marginal uses identified in the Industrial Land Study or speculative buildings in the three previously mentioned industrial parks . It also indicates that much of the development is for spec.. buildings which still need tenants . When the spec . buildings are subtracted, the land ctually used for industrial drops even lower. The spec . building aspect warrants carefV_1 monitoring to insure that when the current demand declines the City does not have a glut of empty industrial buildings . Page 3 Revenue/Expenditure Analysis industrial development tends to have a mixed effect on municipal finances depending upon the type of activity and location. On the ,average, the aerospace industry shows a net gain to the City, whereas general light industry exhibits a net loss. The significant positive effect of McDonnell-Douglas on net City revenues is a function of revenues generated (mainly from property taxes) exceeding expenditures for municipal services . Municipal service expenditures for light industrial developments exceed revenues accrued to the City. The major reason for the $250 net loss per acre of light industry is found in the low revenues generated by developments along the Central Industrial Corridor. Light industry in the Huntington Industrial Park Area shows a net per acre gain to the City, while the' Central Industrial Corridor shows a considerable net loss . Total revenue from the Huntington Industrial Park Area is almost 74 percent higher tnan revenue generated by sites along the Gothard strip. With the exception of the area north of Heil Avenue, many corridor de- velopments represent marginal improvements (such as wholesale distributors, warehousing; and open storage operations) upon land of low assessed value. As a result, property tax revenues to the City are almost three times lower than those from the Huntington Industrial Park Area. REVENUE'S AND EXPENDITURES PER ACRE CiF INDUSTRIAL LAND • City City Net Gain c City Revenues Expenditures Loss per Gr.Ac. Generated Incurred per Year Citywide Light Industry +1,309 -1,559 250 Aerospace +2,489 -1,464 +1,025 Huntington Industrial Park Area Light Industry +1,626 -1,.559 + 67 . Aerospace +2,489 -1,464 +1,025 Central Industrial Corridor Light Industry + 955 -1,559 - 604 An additional analysis of the Huntington Beach Industrial Park was per- formed and divided into two categories: (1) general manufacturing, whole- sale trade, and miscellaneous business services; (2) warehouse and storage . General manufacturing, wholesale trade, and miscellaneous business services showed a net gain for the City while warehouse and storage showed a net loss for the City. HCTNTING'I N INDUSTRIAL PARK City City City Net Gain Revenues Expenditures loss per Gr.Ac • Generated Incurred per Year r..� Manufacturing, wholesale trade, miscellaneous business services +1,695 -1,559 +136 Warehouse and storage +1,248 -1,559 -311 Page 4 Land Use Plan for Gothard Corridor •�,,, At the study session preceding the July 18 , 1977 Council public hearing on GPA 77-1 the Planning staff presented a proposed land use plan for the Gothard Corridor which would be included in GPA 77-2 . This plan was based on the conclusions of the Industrial Land Study and presented what would be an ambitious program to insure that the industrial lands proposed would be developed into the quality types of industrial use referred to in the Industrial Land Study. This program included all techniques available to the City short of redevelopment. Since land assembly is one of the greatest barriers to quality industrial develop- ment in the Gothard Corridor, assuming redevelopment to be an implementin tool may change the proposed land use patterns somewhat. . Some industrial developers or realtors may have some interest in part of the Gothard Corridor if assembled land was available at the right price. This would involve use of the Redevelopment Agency and in all probability tax increment funding and write down of land from assembly cost to market value for industrial development. However, short of using redevelopment, the Planning Department stands behind the proposed land use plan which is in concert with the recommendations of GPA 77-1 for the Gothard Corridor. EDS: ja • CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH f �Z? INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BFACFI To Floyd G. Belsito From Ed Selich City Administrator Planning Director Sul)ject Economic Development Office Date July 28 , 1977 Contribution to Industrial Land. Use Study This responds to a recent inquiry of the City Council concerning the use of the Economic Development Office in the formulation of the Industrial Land Use Study. As you know; the Industrial Land Use Study has been an ongoing project for the past two years . During that period, the Planning Staff solicited input from all departments on numerous occasions. In compiling data for the study, the Economic Development Office provided year-end reviews of industrial development in the City, industrial business and employment inventories , competitive summaries of major industrial parks in the County , and comments at a Planning Commission study session concerning industrial development ih the City . Most of the statistical data was collected during 1975 and 1976 . In April, 1977, the Economic Development Officer • extensively critiqued the Industrial Land Use Study in a memo to the City Administrator, to which the Planning Department responded in May . The Planning Staff since then has forwarded General Plan Amendments based on the finding's of the Industrial Study to City staff interested in industrial land use changes for review and comment. The Economic Develop- ment Officer chose to respond before the Planning Commission at a May study session. In evaluating the role of the Economic Development Officer in preparing the Industrial Land Use Study, the yearly employment and new business inventories were useful in determining the existing industrial picture in the City at given points over the two year period. Such data aided in constructing trends and projections . It seems the problem arises that the office ' s title connotes expertise in economics which is not the case. The office is not able to project industrial demand and provide locational suitability assessments for the City 's various industrial areas, including a regional perspective of where the City stood in context of the L.A. -• Orange County Area. Also, the office was not able to give the Planning Staff any significant information concerning the role of industry in a city like Huntington Beach, i .e. , costs and benefits to the City, and the extent of secondary effects on the local economy. Thus, it became the responsibility of the Planning Department to amass con- siderable economic data and utilize staff expertise in land economics and planning to do the job. Page Two The Economic Development Officer is essentially a marketing and public • relations person. This may indicate much why .fundamental disagreements existed from the beginning of the Industrial Study. The Economic Development Officer' s job is to market land that is planned or zoned industrial. All industrial land was assumed by the Economic Development Officer to be good for the City as it was planned and zoned for such use. The Planning Staff never made such an assumption. The staff used the latest data to study the existing condition and role of industry, establish growth projections, analyze industrial impact on the City, and suggest alternatives to compliment industry. The two differing. philosophies were best expressed in the Economic De- velopment Office and Planning Department memos on the Industrial Land Use Study. The Economic Development Office provided a critique of the study with little supporting data. Virtually any industrial activity was considered beneficial so long as it utilized the remaining vacant land and provided jobs. In determining industrial land needs, demand was apparently based on inquiries for available land. Land was considered used for industrial if sold or subdivided rather than when the developments would be constructed and fully occupied. Rapid growth in the Lusk and Kaiser Industrial Parks was assumed to be imminently ready to spread to the slow growing Gothard and Edison Industrial Areas without regard to site advantages and constraints. The thesis generally was that Gothard would develop out soon and that additional land should be rezoned to Ml . The Gothard Corridor in the Planning Staff ' s opinion is a poor industrial area and it will never realize benefits like those from the industrial parks , EDS: ja • CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH • f�•�: 'z INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION EIUNIINGFON BEACII To Richard A. Harlow From Edward D. Selich Assistant City Administrator Planning Director Subject. INDUSTRIAL LAND NEEDS Date March 25 , 1977 There- appears to be a significant disagreement between the Planning Department and the Office of Economic Development as to future needs.. and existing demand for industrial acreage in the City. Though we have kept Bill Back informed of our progress on the Industrial Study and sought his advice occasionally, I believe it would be useful for him to prepare some kind of statement to document his opinion that demand is exceeding supply. The divergence of opinion between our staff and his office is causing some confusion among Council members and consternation among industrial developers and landowners. When Bill has formalized his opinion, we should meet together with you and hopefully resolve this conflict. • EDS :MF: ja • CIYY OF HUNTINGTON ILACH rt .: 17 •A, DMINISTRATIVE COMMUNICATION + IIIINIIN(,Y0N BIA(11 To BiAl Rack From Richard A. Marlow J.cullorrl.ic Development Off i.cer t Assistant City Admi.l)i5t:rator ;;F Subject SUPPLY/DEMAND h1ANt) FOR INDUSTRIAL Date March 30 , 1977 ,. V A(:RFAGI; IN CI;NTItAL INllUSTRIAL ,ry CORRIDOR bra �►.:`" � - ;`,-+i liv i cleric ty there i.s some disagreement between. the Planning Department rn�1 the Office of Economic Development concerning the future needs and .}rk' +' ca i �t: int demands for industrial acreage in the City. I believe the `r difference of opinion primarily centers around the demand for acreage in the central industrial corridor. Could voii please prepare a. memorandum stating your opinion on the supply/ demand for industrial acreage in this area and include any documentation ,,you may have available. +�.. RAII: bb Jf J1{i y 7�7• 1 • y; J • 1 Y'H= r y(• , • CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION • .. 1111NIINCIIIN IIIM 11 eft ' To v l oyd G. liels i to Frois B_i.11. Back City Administrator Economic Development Officer Subject LATE INDUSTRIAL .BULLETIN Date April 12 , 1977 � AND MARCH MONTHLY REPORT INUUSTRlAL BULLETIN Before we review the department ' s activity for March we wish to. report something; so recent that it should be called to your special attention and cannot wait another month to report. It concerns the :fact that we arc almost out of industrial land in the 410 acre ind'ustria.l park area , just south of McDonnell Douglas . Here ' s the status of the two industrial parks , a6 of Friday, April 8 , 1977 : 1. The Lusk Huntington Beach Industrial Park was sold out. accordint,, to Dave Ar:i.ss L,usk ' s MaT -etin V. P. Ariss a 11 -. clone a Phenomenal. j501b in the past ew years that he has handled the park' s sales . This office :is currently assisting • Ari.ss to get tusk to pick up other industrial parcels in the city - their contribution of investment , tax and job generation has been s:i.gn.hF:i.cant and further, we would like to keep them in town ; they understand what the city wants in attractive industrial units and their staff and the city' s development departments have a good and e.ff.:icient working relationship. 2 . The Kaiser HuntinQton Beach Business Park now has less than 20 a .► es rtvni.l.ah1_c for sale ac,J r5r' i.ng to John ll:ile , Kaiser ' s hlri rk� t i_i�g -1►i�r e t,or.. At present. Kaiser has over 75 acres in-escrow' - ll)�of these we. sold since your body approved their request for a change to smaller• lot size - that was only on March 21st ! Here too., and :for the same reasons as in I above , this office is attempting Lo interest them i.n , the Gothard strip , our only industrial reserve outside the oil. fields . 3 . Status of Industrial Land Inventory L', Rate of Absorption. Since. 1971-ti,E- Lusk. constructe�Ic the first industrial uilUA9 at the corner of McFadden/Commerce we have set a goal of utilizing 15- 50 acres ,of industrial land per year and thereby producing ;r pprox i.ma t el.y 1 , 2S2 to 1 , 750 new industrial jobs annually within out- c i.t:y borders . In light of .the"discovery" of Iiuntington Beach as :a prime industrial site since that time ; records show that between the const.rrrct:i.on along, the Gothard strip and in the northwest park area investors have absorbed better than a 100 acres a year since 1972 ! Fnrt.h.r. r- , a. gain during 1976 alone of some 3 , 100 plus workers in the MI zones . Page 2 . 4 . Re : " 1 1)7 7 l;111 ld i_n ermi t 'The l first quarter reports I r(11 Ul1I' IZ1II -d-ili raid (:oiiiinun ty. I evelopnlcnt: Department: throw more: I i g li t on the i.ndust.rial and commorc i aa. wave that i.s headed for Oul• sllo)re durirlgl 1977 . Dur.111g. the I�lrst quarter of- ' 77 Building, ��• and Communi.ty Development reports 18 indust.r:ia.l. permits , totaling $1.0 , 287 , 308 - that surpasses the entire years of :1975 and 1976 , when 82 permits were issued , total ii`g$J , S70 , 321 . I As to commercial : with 11 permits issued furi.ng the 1st quarter 177 , total inl; $3 , 944 , 303 , that is already 360 of the total dollar valuation 1'ccordcd for our h1gllest single commercial year , 1976 , when 97 permits were :issued totaling $10 , 942 , 592 . Now on to our March 1977 activities . A. Advert.i.siiig Responses 1. . The .lanluary 9th small ad sllowing the cover of the city ' s Area Inventory produced 247 responses from 24 states and 5 foreign countries . The rough winter in the New England, Middle Atlantic and Upper mid-west states showed up in the responses - 87 . 50 of f al .) requests fame from these 3 areas , with New York City and New York State accounting for 51. 80 of the whole . 13 . Other Activities 1. . The office did a market study for a bank contemplating; locating. .1.11 George Buccoli ' s new shopping center at Beach/Garfie.ld . It. shc)wcd that retai'l sales i_n the ten census tracts around the site slll)U.I d prodl.lcc $116 m1l.l .lon in retail sales in 1980 , contrasted with the $16 . 2 million that area produced in 1970 . 2 . Contacted four more L.A. area industrial brokers , n previous L . A. contact. now has si_g;ns up on McFadden , west of Graham proclaiming Hic.Ir belief 1n the area. The competition could get pretty keen among these brokers as we run out of industrial land. We had one example o l' that on' the Gothard stri.l) a week aho . Two companies were bidding for the last remaining parcel (see 3 below) . j 3. On 'Thursday., the Economic Development Committee met , conferred and agreed w:Lth a Long; Beach industry wishing to come in on Redondo Circle. What weekend the developer sold the lot to another firm. we. are attempting to find our SEG approved firm another site along Gothard. 4 . 'I'hc "industrials" last is just about read), for publication . (A the) responses we ' ve gotten back from firms contacted through ;`larch it shows a 3 , 100 increase in industrial employment in Huntington Beach , when compared with 1975 . I industrial bulletin/Rep -Page 3. 1 • S . Mailings went to : a. 31 firms responding to the city' s advertising . b. 214 persons around the country who wrote the Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce for information. c. At least 30 phone calls or walk-ins requesting a variety of information were handled. 6. Banking and restaurant leads went to John Hile for his 11 acre commercial corner at the S/W corner Springdale/Bolsa. These , coupled with a few office structure inquires , might just fill out this corner that could serve both the surrounding industrial and i residential areas. 7 . Attended monthly meetings of: a. L.A. Industrial Breakfast Club . b. L.A. Area Chamber of Commerce ' s Economic and Job Development Committee luncheon. C. International Marketing Association, Anaheim. COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL REVENUES VS . RESIDENTIAL Our Internal Auditor provided this interesting piece of intellegence re : the above which was gleamed from the Southern falifornia Edison' s 1975 Annual Report. 49 , 349 residential properties generated $12 ,252 , 297 while 3 , 040 commercial/industrial properties generated $13 ,632 ,808 . In other words 5 . 8% of all the accounts billed produced $1 . 4 million more than the residential which represented 94 . 2 of the whole. i CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUN TING TON BEACH My To From. Richard Marlow William J : Back Assistant City Administrator Economic Development Officer Subject SUPPLY/DEMAND FOR INDUSTRIAL Date April Si 1977 ACREAGE IN CENTRAL CORRIDOR Responding to your request for an opinion from this office as to : "the future needs and existing demands for industrial acreage. in the City" , we offer the following. I believe you will agree that whatever/whenever it happens to the Gothard strip is dependent to a great extent upon the accoptability/saleability of the northwest corner industrial park area. It presently appears that together Kaiser and Lusk had less than 75 acres remaining unsold as of 4/l/77. Both seem certain that their respective parks will be sold-out and/or built-out by year-end 1977 , if the present enthusiasm for this area continues . • Before we leave this area we should mention the suitability of two parcels , relative to the Planning Departments Industrial Land Use Study II , 2/77 . IZe : the first parcel . It can be agreed that McDonnell Douglas ' 60 acres at the northwest corner of Springdale/Bolsa is desirable but we should not include it in our industrial inventory. This office had a potential user, along with 40 acres to the south involving also Kaiser and Lusk. Pete Horton of McD checked for us in St . Louis and the answer came back from Sanford M. McDonnell that it was "not for sale" and "the company had plans for the 60 acres". The second parcel , Tract 8746 , is the s/w corner. of Lusk' s park , where they originally wanted to put apartments for the park eventual workers. It is listed as "medium suitability" when in fact Dave Ariss reported these 53 lots on 31 acres sold-out by the end of 176 , one of them to the City for a fire station. Further, all lots in Tracts 7090 , 7999 , 8327 and 9723 are sold- out and in Tract 6948 only one lot is left unsold out of the original 46. As to the Gothard Strip; starting from the northend! On DM 26 1. The small parcel , practically land-locked just south of Edinger and west of Pedigo Products , was recently rezoned to commercial and will be part of the Gemco complex. A good move since it was impossible to develop industrial with parking etc. on this site . INDUSTRIAL > EAGE �• April 5, 190 Page 2 . 2. The long , narrow parcel fronting on Gothard and running east to the R. R. should be low suitibility not high as shown. .� Tile two sale possibilities for this piece , left after surrounding parcels sold, is another long line of storage units with one driveway -or a link-up with the Golden West Industrial Park, directly north, utilizing Lorge Circle as an entry point. 3. The Murdy parcel of 17 . 07 acres at the northwest corner Heil/Gothard is "not for sale ," in fact we had a RV manufacturer -who - would lease the site for 20 years but was turned down. Apparently the family wants to keep it in trus.t for their grandchildren. So , as to suitibility it rates low at this point , not high as suggested. 4 . Both of the Levinson properties just south of Heil , . 17. 3.5 acres west of Gothard and 18 ..26 acres east rate high, not medium -when we consider the various moves made and rejected by the City .Council for any other use . (tomorrow night a church will make a try) . They are both good level parcels and the eastern portion has rail available to it. Presently, one of our developers is attempting to buy these two parcels plus the not-for-sale-parcel covered in 3 , above) for fall industrial Tevelopment . If he is successful in acquiring this land there ' s no doubt that he 'd be sold-out within a two year period with the tide of interest that 's heading to Huntington Beach. • Un DM 31 5. Taking the east side of Gothard from Warner to Slater we can report much interest and two known sales . a. The 7 acre parcel , directly opposite the City Yard, will house a lumber operation shortly. It wraps around behind the Texaco tank , a fact that previously didn' t help its saleability. A local , active broker had the listing during 168 and 169 with no success . Apparently the rail on. the site helped on the eventual sale. Don Kiser wanted this piece for a portion of his department ' s operation. We have suggested 98 , below as an. alternative for Don. b . The northwest corner Slater/Nichols just got approved for an upcoming industrial development so these two parcels (5a & 5B) should therefore be considered high suitibility since they have sold. 6 . The James Lumber Company has occupied the site on Nichols (the old Alpha Beta Packing Plant) for many months and are gene- rating many tax dollars for the City. It ' s just east of 5a, above , with rail on its west side. This operation proves the saleability of the Gothard strip . Jim Harrington took an' ugly, old-styled building , stripped the brine lines and tanks from the outside of the building , surmounted many of the problems of upgrading an old building to meet present City codes and created d successful business , employing 53 persons , at present . INDUSTRIAL 1EAGE ' April 5, l Page 3, 7. Since the sale of 5b, above , completes the east side of track for industrial development and the 5a sale has taken place «r anchoring industrial , along with the Texaco tank , on the west side of the R. R. it seems what remains are parcels that are non-conforming and eventually will find the industrial market as demand grows . 8. The square at the northwest corner of Gothard/Slater would be utilized by the City for the Public Works sweepers and storage . I:t' s the last piece contigious Eo the City Yard, unless the mobile home park is phased out and the City Yard could be extended north to the• Wintersburg School line. 9. Next., the panel from Slater south to Talbert besected by the R. R. . First , a. the parcel at the southeast corner of Gothard/ Slater. A developer has . pulled together all but a few hold-out encyclopedia lots . This could easily be the next project for our Redevelopment Commission to address . As it is the hold-outs block or control the access and egress suggested by the City to make it a good industrial area. T.he City could back up the developer' s present investment handsomely by acquiring the hold- outs . Now, b.. , which is the Meredith property that abuts the R. R. on • its east , just south of Slater. It was understood late last year that an industrial developer was ready to break ground here - its medium suitibility rating is therefore doubtful . This office hasn' t had the dealings with this developer - handled solely by Planning. 9 . The Manthei property at the north side of Talbert with rail on the west hasn' t had a solid plan submitted, to our knowledge , since Wycliffe Bible Translators submitted details for developing the whole parcel a few years ago . We have had several L.A. industrial brokers recently pursuing this parcel - the problem, they report , is getting hold of the owner. On DM 39 10. Now, Talbert south to Ellis - a. The Mountjoy 30 acres on the west side of the R. R, are moving well with about half of the lots already sold. Mrs . Strasbaugh, widow of the owner of the firm plans to make the plant move from Long Beach this year. (They were required to sign a two year non-relocation agreement with EDA before the City could get the EDA grant - reason: the plant move was from one SMSA to another) . The optical machinery business has increased and there is further need for their -edpanding to the Gothard site. This will fill about 10 acres at the south end of the Mountjoy property. b . Easterly, across the track , Jerry Jones 10 acre parcel is now completely sold-out . Last week end there was a battle for the last lot and the man that the SEG Committee met with and okayed last week lost out . We ' re attempting to get him something in this area - he liked" it. ��. • INDUS'1'ItIAL ACREAGE April 5, 1977 Page 4. .r. Construction will start shortly on the remaining six buildings to go up on this site . Again, the medium suitibility rating is academic - the 10 acres are .sold. C. Considerable interest mostly by L.A. based brokers , has been shown in all the land rezoned last year to M1-A from the Jones property east- ward to the commercial, strip on the west side of Beach. They all liked the proximity to Beach Blvd. The completion of the U-shaped street to the eas.t , through the .City-owned parcel and back north to Talbert would create a :good industrial park area, one developer thought. To date no one has come forward with a firm offer , to our knowledge. But , alternative 1 of Land Use Study II suggests rezoning this property along with the Manthei piece. Unless we are mistaken the City assured the School District that there would be no more residential growth in this area when the district sold the then-declared surplus school site on Taylor so that Parks and Recreation could build a 3 , now 5 acre park. An early clarification on this would be appreciated by this office so that we might stop showing this parcel and advise those interested that the industrial zoning will not continue to hold true .. On DM 39 11 . Next , the land south of Ellis to Main: When the R.R. terminates • at Main and Gothard rerouted to link-up with Crystal , --to the west , we are looking at the last piece of reserved industrial land in the City (unless use is made of the surface areas in the existing oil fields) . Along with the Ellis underpass completion, the filling of the swale at the north end of this parcel to accomplish the Gothard reroute to Crystal a linkage with the existing industrial on Crystal and the Mountjoy property would be accomplished. As it. stands it appears the Crystal industrial is spot zoning. Despite what we might hear there are fail-user industries looking for good sites . When the rail terminates at Main there are two alternatives ; on to create a team track that would accommodate the occasional rail -user industry who unload to truck to plant (any industry in the City could use it , but more conveniently the Gothard firms) . Two , plants utilizing the City' s original industrial area, the Holly Sugar site , could run spurs. off the main rail westward into their plant yards . _ We have tried this out on industrial brokers and they liked it but when will it happen we are asked? We 've waited four years for the Ellis underpass . With the present route of Gothard from Ellis to Main we are denied use of: the Holly site for rail-users because of Gothard in its present location. By moving it` west we create a rail access to all this- industrial land 'and at the same time produce an attractive frame to the southern end of the Gothard industrial strip. INDUSTRIAL ACREAGE April 5, 1977 Wage 5 I ' 1 Another plus is the elimination of the five street crossing at Main, Gothard and Garfield before the City grows to the point where such a crossing is a hazard. 12 . When the EDA grant was made for the improvement of Gothard .from Ellis to Warner we tried .to include the Gothard-to-Crystal link but they didn' t have enough funds that year to do it . The. City qualified for ,the grant due mainly to three underemployment areas abutting the Gothard strip. Assurances that several thousand jobs would be created along the Gothard strip were made by the City. Jobs that would alleviate the un-and underemployment in these three areas in particular, but also the City as a whole. If it is the desire of the City Council to rezone the Gothard strip to some other use we might consider an alternate to residential/ industrial-only. This is to create a new industrial/commercial zone which would allow more than 25% commercial activity in an a industrial zone . Fountain Valley' s retail sales have grown significantly by allowing retail in the industrial area along Ellis , the San Diego Freeway and Euclid (j'ust north of the Sanitation District) . • In this form the tax benefits of both commercial and industrial are gained and the employment factor in the community grows in both areas . Further, both uses pay school taxes but of themselves they. add no children to the school population. Also Police and n Fire service requirements are less for such areas when compared ' w.ith residential . We include DM' s 18 , 26 , 31 and 39 with all known areas that are sold so marked for your reference . { i WV'y ..ANNING ZONING DM 18 SECTIONAL ' DISTRICT MAP 16-5-1 I NOTE CITY ADOPTED OF ,..�., e...,,., ,.,.. ADorT Eo JU N[ 2D,IDDO fvc, •w�o. ... LEGEND urr counca ONOINANC[ No ire ryul n . AN`ND EU OND.NU �4�M.psQ QII�I� 1�11�.Nr1'iN(�'r1�UN I31�,�C�� 6.9 I.,I „,..,. .,..,.., I _I. I la.rs alo ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA " r' ,...,...............c.........1n,.,u. AMf.NDCD 0Y ZONE CASf, av-n,rt•Ao,a•q,wr>,•D hoLSA Koo u s i n -sPpa r k AVE. / �L 0 Fcl�lal LC400 -T Dl - ONL I t if . ° I ' ! ! °I ARG �O r °I I I j M,-A j a so Lt M,S ., RI � j C�f ! I I-A MI-A RI r RI RI I I V RI R� LO It I f b1c FADDEN l� I — AVE. I PRRQ-{sN CF-E ' I I I I I i' I , I �AHIr�=RICR RI ooV_EwoOo oa I [ - 20, 000 V QUA-L-__c11 I I 11, I II �R' I KI>G., Rl RI 03, t3 RI r R3 a,,lJer .. to RI R3 S l� w i R I _.J .E ._._. _ C F—E ( RI �N 1 n _.__ _ �y�Q r _ nnNOw--'---.._._.._._.._°N f •P I CF-R 3 a o: � !IL Rl , _RI _ o c c c r c u EDINGER i J AVE .I Ind u s �r�al Park 'ANNING ZONING ` DM 26 SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP 23-5-II NCIIt CITY OF ADOPTED MARCH 1, 4e0 CITY COUNCR ORDINANCE NO 7e4 eMr �• I.f GC NI> AMLNc'l0 e"6�. A-0VLD O.O.W. AK&-VLD R•D.NV, 163) .l•,01+, •w• rn ,.. ,•L t,.n•rwL rnnK, .11UNTING .rON BEACH N-•.il •rr .[ rR nrr L':) MMwrn cnrw.oLL ,cr 1 ie eI p• ion ro IM1" ["^) ax•,r r,.rtr .1,•n Mcl. On,.KT t•mer ero ,rn.[o .. e•n et u• [.u.n xIv [u coxwxn• .umM,» maT•K, ORANGE (:U U N T Y G A L I I'fl R N I A V.S.•t Ns It a.n rre. W.. N.w..Lrv.,- aer.n 1 ,-Ie-ee ntat t•u�ir nre - wnr•n mcr,r n r•r • i l y u)! f_I-/f .11. _.._ FROM? FARO S[ra•C•UM[ AMENDED BY ZONE CASE' -m•e ns, Fen: Rao [..1 1-110 wm r11 r•.s•."..MCI wr•, i-.-u nu �� e-, ee 173• ,-•' ir0 I•Yly x[S.p[Ki pSi.CT 107,10tD ,116,1st ID0 211,212.219,220. 3-i; .11e 222,t ,. 2f. p , e (�-J •^dCalWl.•.co.r,i[I.A MA OF ..I •ul[II,Mc 4]r'°t Sr.[R LLrdM1 ee-e4,".3e1/1.64,66.e1./P 66-4.PP 67.4,66•12.ee•14 1-w.ar nn bt0-•I Ir0 [n1�C[NwMIr♦F•L4P 43I[out•FIOMI o,sn,u 6e.7D,ee-2, ee•3.66•!,PP ee•! t0•t.TO.1,,P/70-e,PP 70•e, ,-,a-ee Ise• Prn•,.noe,n wN.w)r,u,rl.n+,n,u�, e•,T-u Nu [(i_] cc•xwM,n naurrteua.[•,rornl o-er., a-n-•e u:o - cr�c covxuMl,r r•<a1r43 aw.0 onr.,cr E DINDER AVE C4 $ 8 J$ CZ C4, Id-ID eo C4 V 2 C2 C2 346 AL DRICM ` R 1 t -- i( e�w2s'dlls__. 3 �RR3 I v RI acA Da-� R3 R3" R ' J R 3 s7ARN sr N 00 DR' R I i 3 R I I AMAZON DI R3 4 R 3_� C F-R y COI ANILIOM ,a01pU(I o. I R3 -I IM R3 ve M[w uc to-e•N h LT ST 3TA11LIDNT RI �I CF-E R3 c4 . Rt I RI RI RI WiLL- I ANITA LN ISUNYIEN (,.I+.'•UI.) ; ._—�J• �//a I —ten M NI�GRIT CA ; l'r RI ._ L_, DONALO 51 R I ) IV ,VULI t M L.0 r rr xo et: r N =��: R 2 c4 vALTNiNe S 0 1. R I DR = N11MCY u DR ; S N RI RI R 2 C4° R I = AL MAMBR4 Da . = RI lR 2 a4 VF EIL R3 RI = RI f;R'3 DANUOE D11 yRIRI R3 R3' R3 R3 R3 R 173.�yr� /Or� SEINE DR RI ao I? RI C 4 e• of - RI r MI RI RI J RI DON e' `"""[[" � 09 R3 R3 ]13R3 CF-E M I M' J RI i°A'IN'aiE'x£�:NLtin.I _ i O. 3 Y . w RMINE �ug.1��w,rw o- nmTl°° on "'sic t35 u^' •�, G 78'3�c.. U Y-CM•IL p,Jl R3 `r' C4 C F-R FR R3 S R3 ..•rc•« _d L o —C �c o ce-1 W 3�3 R�_] "0 z RA a„[ —)° R 2 R 5 = .11111 C3 I _aef_ . O „ RA 1�R31S R3R z MI N � as �, R3 C4 I � C4 � RA R3 C4 �— �p ../ � r�o - �•1t WARNER \\\ AVE 'W- SING • ZONING • DM 310 + SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP 26 - 5 - 11 N'Jit ADOPTED APRIL 11.1960 •••r'•r'°o.'••, .. �•p• • CITY OF CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE No. 7e9 u .. p < ,1• LEGEND:� .MENDED ORO.NO. AMENDED ORD NO (.l] Il tl++,w ••+tut•u+•l ai„K, r _.___ _ (,1] rrC r•rl, of sCr.«f[ Dit,+,<, ll UNrI'1NCTON BEACH :�- : �u. .,, . .r•,,,[f1tD�rO.:D,f,.,lr ffa... 'r r .I4 [ !] L+ftt r• • ,l t�D[KI af,+K1 \ l •^�i t1rl,rp ,Merl[ r•r4, +I 1.01 K/ 61,K• (:) K A N G 1� CUUN1 Y, CALIFORNIA i i l c:J •. cp••.ucot Ds,•K, •+ • �yo; (ram cn..wrrt.,•uuntf urc+r.r,e,yl of nK, AMENDED BY ZONE CASE a�":d [TP7 c•+•c o�s•.c, IOI,:A9,Irr.167.192,702,206•tn,212.237.304,y2.313 .ep+: mio cr-c coRruNr.,•cu+as,u.«c,Dn*+m 300,)7{.3l9.SAI,lA6.!!{.)6t,lF9.lTI,19f,A97,!0{,900,706{6-r,{{-I!,!!-1{,61•e7,PP 66-! i.i.»+; nS. _.._ I.o+, ..,° sn s•c• 66.00,97.1. {7.22.PP{7.0,PP{9•I,PP69.2.M70.1,70..•PP70-9,71-I?.72.2A.72.29.74-16•PPT4-2. ---- W.+.rE +a«,ar•, -n.< 'i.»:� iu '•ZC. RRc.m It•.1 or t,r[t,-nw.trr X.., �:: rat r• WARNER ... : i; AVE m R2 R5 � , I r I,R OR so C4 cuN AVE I FR2 ,0` CF—E r.. ' IW:.'-lILR5tl1'Nf!NM/I lSNDOI l W MI II R2'- R2- °I m i ! el I CF-R rD C(DAR AVE. r` ' I R 2' R2 R2 MI � RI —RI I CF-E 3,0'°/ 9ETTf— OR f M+ M I ' 1(.,.AK/:c'M i..?A:.1.1 R—/ •+e +C, �]�'{ iANORELL DR RI ;pD:a7st I `";a I R3 allR , i R34RI I RI RICF—CR33R.17'r 'iApl/ R3' In to to r0 D RI• CD R3 �RI•C J RI CO MI—CD �O/D 3• [ - �_— _.— R3 R3 _'9! C Co ,r;: R _ I I MH c41� C)✓ p O -11 RA-C D I Q 5-E E R A.[7 R2 cat CF—R MI :::r64 R2 I W.°rr:fl:if."N C[N!p►L rwo R3 " v 1 <MI R2 of W ) fl,m T1{ Ff Vie Ftp�el f t. RON.LO DR AAI11_y� If-TIS4{ I J I V R2 W - n I o Z p CD "" 1 r t R3 R3 Q V '� R2 R2 C4 W m ii rtrr i R36 R i [PtDf [ Dz l TALBERT AVE �Y I BANNING ZONING ©M 3 SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP 35-5-11 I •1 ADOPTED MARCH 7, 1660 NOTE: .r r CITT COUNC I[ ORDINANCE NO 75A •.. Darn nnn • .ram CITY or ) °• ;•,•nf�'011.rrna•,0 r•(°rl Nrl• tea ao we w A t as tno s A7flbSA uI11R LEGEND a-)-ao i�f r b n av • .a° rf• a b,) Uri ■vorNn•L NwcuL,a•Al 6,f,rrcl ' �7A•o n• n.r) �s ri f ro u •TO i1 CAN 1 ING10N BEACH u 7 a .+° .,., � - r 1 1 1 a« •ra ,7�,.) wn, �1,7 [,-•., ,.wf,..•l o,sr•,r, �,.,.a A•.,00 ,°-,,,, b,a LEi7 [°••••awn. .aunt,) oa,•rcr ..Tree saa s s w w)e rnonr .u( vne•r• uN[ C7u7 vn•.0 + col nct au••c• rr a) ,w i•i-vs low L37 arc[-r•or tsvw•r o•sr•,c, Y f) IiAN(, L COUNTY CALIFORNIA p° a" • 1 \ rE-,3 "o •• •I),e[nc(a)r•Icr 7 I 'l" n f "^J l�a,i[0 N......[ r•arll r[fW[ntt AMENDEO•BY ZONE CASE: +�y +%f [ nA-••• coavnua a a av new K ��j nrsn,ertro v..w•r,ua,.,e°bn�u m.116,127JY1,IlLlle.qp,lAl,la),w{,212.237,23{, n couun„r r.+rrtrt•I•rt•ur,oaui l30,731.77A,7p3,a2{,pOp,6A2.{7A1,1{H.pp•6A.{{•11,{{.21.I0-10,70-27,71-1a,71.17,7t-6FP72.6 a°ri° ••iw CU.a [n•+mrn•n nunu...... ,ffnr- 77'{J2-it,12•{,/lJA,72•N,/)•p,t3•{,7+t6,p•I{,Pr'47SL7)•2',/3-23,73.20,T4A,7r H,rP7a J,16.17 ar' •t'f a•..+wr, „N a, r•rni , .rt nod r+.I �,�,�� III +; ;�. I•o [o .ar°..u.a ..oacf,n/,'IT I I .f•�7 Ito If TALBERI FAu:If"' AVE. .rl.,.rr,+ IaH a J f 4 CC4 ,.r C 4 i I >01 J �x m CF—R --'—— — — MI—A --{<� MI-CD -- --- - i C2 . MOUNTIOY R� RI RA-0-CD A L ---- ONTAg10 DR PAR C - RI _ e ....... FC s fYJ! CA F.:UET.�CE- DR RI RI •_ rr..�r4 ~ ' 1 C:: t. R I RI ya •••e•�R 3 ALBEATA ONt MI-CD RI RI RI ' RI rI. rRANN LIN OR �� I NON- OR RI Mb CO3« ,=' .RI MI-0-C R2 , 'MI-01 MI—A C 2 M. Mk. IT RA-0-GD R5 o R 3 • "—_— •� � COMA•OOOfeE Cq / ,/lAMRR ►A I M2-0 R3 aeof 4 „ a )arsrof R5 n $ o R 3 RZ RA-0 M I—Q k °,, )°° � 1 12L. RA-0 CL C MI.O a R2 R5 R a: U ENEST AVE R5 C4' fl\ R5 ` • C . I • 3�.. 3 ;AI-o-Co 4 R5 Ina y MI•A•CD MI-0 A J — 1 ., N� t R 3 x ' I R5 z v MI-o Rb k r R 2 f m 7 r a —� tq aL_ t' R 5 E R2o-- �' R2 GARFIELD � ) AVE e , CITY OF HUNTIN TON BEACH > `2 INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION NUNUNGION BEACII �. To Richard A. Harlow From Edward D. Selich Assistant City Administrator Planning Director k Sul,j.ect INDUSTRIAL LAND USE STUDY Date May 26, 1977 • This responds to questions raised by the Economic Development Office concerning the validity of the conclusions reached in the Industrial Land Use Study, Parts I and II . The first series of responses addresses points. raised in the interdepartment communication dated April 5, 197.7 . A second set of responses to an April 12, 1977, Industrial Bulletin follows. The Planning Department stands by the conclusions derived from the Industrial Study. There .is too much poorly suited industrial land in the City relative to projected needs, and the excess should be reduced. PLANNING DEPARTMENT RESPONSE TO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OFFICE COMMENTS (DATED APRIL 5, 1977) Northwest Industrial Parks 1. The Kaiser and Lusk industrial parks are developing very rapidly and may be sold out by 1978 . However, it is not necessarily true that the Gothard Strip will instantly become a rapid growth area once the land supply in the northwest industrial parks is depleted . According to the opinions of industrial developers around Orange County (including Kaiser and Lusk) , the Gothard and Edison industrial areas will never be highly desirable. Where the northwest parks are almost ideal from the standpoint of locational criteria , the Gothard Corridor contains problems that most industrial developers find too costly to mitigate. Most indicated that the area north of Warner Avenue is good but land costs are too high . Below Warner Avenue, poor access to freeways, drainage and topographic constraints , fragmented lot ownership and poor aesthetics make costs even higher. Small industrial developers are entering the Gothard Corridor, but much of the industrial land is expected to remain vacant or in demand by primarily low revenue generating marginal activities (lumber yards, wrecking yards,. recreation vehicle storage, etc. ) 2. In determining the suitability of sites for quality industrial development, the planning staff applied a consistent set of criteria viewed by industrial developers to be important in .location decision; These included: freeway, arterial access, and rail access ; compati- bility of surrounding land uses; utility access; topography and drainage; lot and ownership considerations; and economic factors . The' compo`site evaluation of these criteria presented a broad description of a . site' s industrial suitability in terms of low, medium, and. high. Page 2 ' Such an analysis of suitability cannot be equated with saleability of the .land. Saleability as applied by the Economic Development Office closely approximates immediate demand pressures . However, it fails to offer decision-makers a reliable measure of desirability over the .long .run. - There are definite problems in the Central Industrial Corridor and Edison Area. The use of locational criteria (such as transportation access and lot size) enables decision-makers to identify development obstacles that are likely to persist into the future. This is important in the Gothard area where sites have long-term vacancy potential, or contain marginal activities that result in under productivity of the land and discourage quality industrial development. Saleability is also misleading because it may or may not reflect the location 'of existing or potential quality industry at the site . i Many areas along the Gothard Corridor are identified as sold without regard to whether the uses substantially or marginally benefit the community . Some of the areas noted as sold contain wrecking yards , lumber yards, and other open storage facilities that generate little revenue to the City. The Industrial Land Use Study con- sidered such areas as recyclable and evaluated them on the basis of their potential for change to a quality industrial use. 3. The 60 acre McDonnell-Douglas site at Springdale and Bolsa is prime industrial land from every locational standpoint - except . saleability. If McDonnell-Douglas decides not to sell the parcel, it does not follow that the site should be excluded from the industrial inventory. The firm plans to use or "lease the site for ancillary industrial purposes . This was .considered in the Industrial Study' s projected land requirement. The site, whether sold or not, ' will produce jobs and additional revenues at some point in -the } future, and it is invalid to say the site does not exist for lack o.f .short-run sale potential. 4 . Tract 8746 in the Lusk park is sold out and will be developed to quality industrial uses. The 31 acre site was rated medium suitability by the Industrial Study to reflect the site' s relative locational advantages and disadvantages . If scores had been used in the analysis instead of three broad suitability categories , the parcel would have been shown as very close to being prime industrial land. In such an instance, a medium suitability rating does not preclude the location of quality industry there. Gothard Corridor on DM 26 1. No response necessary. 2 . The long, narrow parcel fronting on Gothard and running east to the railroad is an excellent industrial site from the standpoint of the criteria listed in the Industrial: Land Use Study, Part II . Current saleability is low but the site should be retained in the industrial inventory. This would apply as well to the entire are north .of Warner Avenue. A M. .y Page 3 3. The Murdy parcel at the northwest corner of Heil and Gothard is { not for sale" because the owner is seeking a General Plan amend- ment and zone change to residential . This does not alter the Planning Department 's contention that this site, as well as the entir area north of Warner Avenue', constitutes the best industrial land in the Gothard Corridor. The staff has recommended in the past and will continue to recommend that any application other than- industrial be denied for this parcel . Only if decision-makers commit to retaining the best sites will land prices assume a level that is attractive to industry. Convincing the landowner may • take some time and the site. may not develop industrial in the near; future. The Industrial Study takes such considerations into account and ranks sites .according to locational advantage, not. immediate saleability. 4 . The properties between Heil and Warner present a similar situation as the Murdy property. The owner is requesting a General Plan amendment to .low density residential on the entire 36 acres . At the same time, a .conditional use permit for a church and school on the west side of Gothard is pending City Council action. Again, if scores were used instead of the three broad suitability categories this entire area would be seen as very close to a prime industrial rating. Regardless of the owner' s intentions, locational criteria show this area to be one of the best in the Gothard Corridor. Concerning the prospective industrial developer, it is over enthusiastic to categorically suggest that the area would be sold out within two years . This may not happen. In -the recent industrial developer survey, all expressed the opinion that the current rapid industrial growth around the County (not just Huntington Beach) is a unique situation and some felt that it would not last more than another year. At that time, there could be a glut of speculative buildings with only the really excellent areas of the County surviving. Gothard Corridor on DM 31 5. a. The 7 acre site directly across from the City Yard is proposed for a lumber yard. The sale of this property for such a use shows that much of the Gothard Corridor south of Warner is attractive only to something less than quality industry. Sales 'tax revenue derived from lumber yards is good but improvement and inventory property tax revenue is low to moderate because of the large area occupied, relative to value. Employment per acre is also low. - For comparison, the businesses north of Heil Avenue show an employment density of 14 workers per acre, while the average density for lumber yards in the Gothard Corridor is only 6 employees per acre. Although the property is thus sold, the City is not maximizing revenue from the area. Lumber yards are becoming as common as wrecking yards in the Gothard Corridor . With the use under application, five lumber yards will occupy_ approximately 40 acres . !Page 4 5. b. Suitability cannot be equated only with short-run saleability. Also, a medium rated site in the Industrial Study does not preclude quality industrial development. On the other hand, moderate sites could attract- marginal uses as has happened / with much of-the Gothard Corridor below Warner Avenue. 6. The same argument concerning lumber yards as in 5 . .a . would apply here. 7.' Growth in demand will not guarantee recycling of the non-conforming areas to quality industrial development. These areas contain old residential structures on small fragmented lots. The department found in the industrial developer interviews that fragmented owner- ships, clearance costs, and poor aesthetics repel potential quality industrialists even when demand is as strong as now. Redevelopment is a possible solution but most developers are not willing to wait long 'if the City is without strong commitment. 8 . The Public Works Department is no longer pursuing acquisition of . the Stellrecht property at the northwest corner of. Gothard and Slater. ' 9. a. The small lot area at the southeast corner of Gothard and Slater is 90 percent consolidated but only redevelopment or assessment district can make it a viable industrial area. j These are not easy processes. However, such programs would require considerable time to complete . Unless the City is firmly committed, most developers would not be willing to await the uncertain outcome of these processes . 9 . b. The developer interested in the Meredith property east of the railroad and .south of Slater intends to develop the site residential. The Planning Department has received a General Plan amendment request to change the industrial designation to medium density residential. This request will be evaluated in General Plan Amendment 77-2 . 9. c. The 40 acre Manthei property consists of small fragmented lots . This is the primary reason for developer disinterest in the site. The only use able to locate there so far has been a recreation vehicle storage yard. The east 20 acres is under General Plan amendment request by the property owner to be changed to medium density residential. Although 90 percent consolidated, most industrial developers are unwilling to risk investment in the uncertain outcome of a redevelopment project. Gothard Corridor on DM 39 y 10. a. No response necessary since the Mountjoy Industrial Park is one of - the- better areas in the southern Gothard Corridor. Industrial Land Use Study II recommends retaining the 30 acre site in the City' s industrial inventory. 10. - b. No response necessary since the Industrial Land Use Study , Part II, recommends retaining the Jones property in the industrial inventory. t. Page 5 10. c. The former school site east of the. Jones property .was recommended for deletion from the industrial inventory in the Industrial Land. Use Study, Part II . A change .of this site to residential use would not burden the Ocean View School District' s capability to serve the area. The department ' s recommendations in General Plan Amendment 77-1 to change industrial designations across Talbert- and east of the. former / school, site to residential uses partially reflects this con- sideration. The Ocean View School District was contacted, and they indicate that projected student populations can be accommodated by existing schools within .75 mile of the subject properties. The school district plans no new schools in the area in the near future. 11. The area south of Ellis Avenue and west of Gothard Street is the � i least desirable area of .the Central Industrial Corridor. This is evidenced by the area ' s long term vacancy and/or attraction of marginal storage users . It is too far from freeways, and good rail access can never compensate far such a disadvantage. 12 . The planning staff seriously doubts that industrial development in the Gothard Corridor will significantly change unemployment and underemployment rates in the abutting areas or anywhere else in the City . Most of the City ' s residents work outside the com- munity. Few of the under- or unemployed have found work in local industries. Most of the employment in our industrial parks reside elsewhere in Orange and Los Angeles Counties . . In considering alternate land uses, residential offers the greatest return to the City in terms of property tax revenues and the high disposable income generated by residents . In areas retained for industrial use, it .is agreed that an increase in allowed commercial floor space in the M-1 zone would probably increase the productivitJ of the land and maximize revenue returns to the City . In fact , Industrial Land Study, Phase I , recommended such a change in the Ordinance. • hi ANNING DI.PA[fI' 'I' RESPONSE TO [:i.'ONOMIC D4W0PMLN,r OFFICEDUS IN '1'IZ r BULLETIN (DATE'D APRIL 1 1977) 1. . Lusk Industrial Park it Industri.a1 land in the 440 acre industrial park area south of McDonnell Dougfas is developing at a ' very rapid rate at the present time. It is doubtful that such growth will be trans- ferred to the Gothard Corridor and Edison Area in the near future. The planning staff recently interviewed Dave Ariss , Lusk' s now former Marketing Vice-President. He indicated that the Gothard .Corridor has too many obstacles for his firm ever to be' interested. The area north of Warner Avenue is good but the land is too expensive to be considered for industrial .0evelopment. South. of Warner Avenue, costs would even be 41.igher due .to soil and earthmoving problems , and fragmented lot ownership. Added to this are the eyesores created by marginal inaustrial. activities locating in the area . . 2 . Kaiser Business Park The Kaiser-Aetna Business Park is also developing rapidly , and tlio firm has expressed some interest in the Gothard Corridor north of Warner Avenue. In a recent interview with John Hile, Kaiser ' s Marketing Director, many serious development constraints were expressed . 'These included poor freeway access , fragmented ownership, high land costs , topography and site clearance prob- lems , and poorly controlled environment. The best area is lo- cated north of Warner Avenue but the asking price is too high, i. . ��. , in excess of $2 . 00 per square foot . Although Hil.e recommended retaining- even the most undesirable land in reserve, he doubted . that Kaiser-Aetna would ever be interested in the Gothard Corridor. Only small developers and industrial users would find it feasible to locate there, probably in the long-term . for quality development. 3 . Industrial_Land Inventory. and Absorption Rate In establishing a land absorption rate, area sold and/or only pa rt i.s7i1.1 y .improved is not an adequate. measure .. Much of the area defined ,is sold may be in various phases of development, from vacant to fully occupied . The time lag from the sale of vacant lend could range from six months to three or more years . A case in point is the recent addition of the Weiser Lock Division of Norris Ind.ustr.ies to the .City ' s industrial inventory. The near17 50 .-acre site is shown as sold and absorbed , while the recant industrial . farm survey (dated February 1977) shows 1200 employees . The plant is under. construction. However , one J b6ildincl and approxi.mate.ly 400 employees, are expected to be fully in place over the next year . Two more buildings and the remain- ing 800 employees will be phased in the following year . The point. '.is that the ahsorption rate should reflect activites l that are in actual operation , providing jobs: to workers and i full tax benefits to the City . The projections used by the • i i 1 r , 7 ' Nr�ya planning staff. in the Indu tr. i.al. Land Use Study use these % cri.t.eria. for an area to b,:., considered absorbed , improvements must be constructed and occupied by the industrial user and iris employees. .Using these criteria, the industrial Land Use Study shows an -absorptiv.n of about 24 acres in the industrial parks for 1976 . Approximately 75 acres will be developed and occupied during 1977 . A similar figure might be realistic ' for 1.978 . in the Central Industrial Corridor. , approximately 1 four additional acres were absorbed during 1976 . This figure will increase to about 40 acres in 1977 , but would fall back j to .10 - 15 acres in . 1978 . Opinions derived from the industrial � I developer surveys indicate that the current rush of industrial demand is based on a strong economy. Rapid growth is not expected to continue much longer, maybe one to two years at• most. The result could be a glut of speculative buildings with only the good areas surviving . l:;val.uati.on of industrial growth shows a 1, 662 increase in employment: (excluding McDonnell Douglas) from 1973 to 1976 (Orangr._ County Annual Progress Reports) . Using the industrial . firm surveys developed by the Economic Development Office for February 1976 and -1977 , real employment growth over the one year period was 1 , 293 , not 3 , 100 workers as indicated in the industrial bulletin . Weiser Lock should not be counted until they aro actually here benefiting the community . Their pro- AD jectc�d 1 , 2 0- _00 .mp.loyees will be phased in over a two year period beginning approximately in September, 1977 . 4 . Commercial/Industrial Revenues vs. Residential The, revenue figures in the report are total utility revenues clr..ner.atcd by commercial/industrial and residential properties to the, i' ;on Company . The City realizes approximately $3 million from tho c1r-:ctrical utility tax which amounts to 9 . 5 percent of total r.rvenues . Other revenue; are not considered in the hull. ti.n . The 1976 Revenue/Expenditure Analysis of Land Uses details revenues and -exf)enditures generated by various uses per acre of land . it: shows commercial and certain types of resideritial development to have the most beneficial impact on the City !; finances . Edison' s bulletin did not differentiate bet-.wron commercial and industrial users . .It is not clear from thio figures which use, or both, is the significant utility revenue_ generator . I-"L)`i:(..t,:ja 1 • AFEA OF SRN 2.1 4/14/77 -ja 159-131-06 159-131-25 159-055-18 Francis B. McCrory Pobert E. Winn Maus E. Berwmrd 17861 Whitford Lam 2308 Port Durness Place 20722 Spindrift Lane Huntington Beach, Cal. 92649 Newport Beach, Cal. 92660 Beach, Cal. 92646 159-131-07 159-131-26 159-055-19 Joseph Marino Barbara Fa aiaz John Yee 17362 Walnut St. 3792 Montego Dr. 7101 W. 85th St. Fountain Valley, Cal. 92708 Hu:ltinytcn Beach, Cal. 92649 LOB Angeles, Cal. 90045 159-tikc -055-06 159-055-20 159-131-08 Hannah E. Sl.igar Marcus A. Senerrhi.a Charles R. Hart P. O. Boot 368 7631 E111a Ave. 16683 Channel Lane Balboa Wand, Cal. 92662 Pacific Palisades, Cal. 90272 RattingCan Beach, Cal. 92648 159-055-10 159-055-21 159-131-12 Rabert F. Meiklejohn L cnor, Medina Michael Halle 7622 YW= Drive 13245 Adelen Circle 12761 Longden St. Beach, Cal. 92648 Garden Grove, Cal. 92643 Garden Grove, Cal. 92645 159-055-U 159-054-04 159-131-18 Marius Pape Elarold F. Morn David F. Harbin 7632 Yukon Dr. 15241 Vennont St. Huntington Beach, Cal. 92648 6901 Los Amigos circle Westminster, Cal. 92683 Beach, Cal. 92647 159-055-1'2 159-054-05 159-131-21 Steven G. Fink Freda F. McBurnett William M. Ross 28 N. Giralda Weak 6712 Jardines Dr. 7651 Yukon Dr. Huntington Beach, Cal. 92647 , �' 90803 beach, Cal. 92648 159-131-22 159-055-13 159-054-06 James 11. Eblen James C. Holman Ronald A. Havis 19439 7662 Yukon Dr. 177 The Masters Circle Santa Alberta circle Huntington Beach, Cal. 90803 Costa Mesa, Cal. 92627 Fountain Valley, Cal. 92708 159-131-23 159-055-14 159-054-07 Glenn Y Jgnes Dartbrook Hilly P. Barnes 1717 Crestview Ave. 10082 Garfield Ave. 7621 Yukon Dr. Seal Beach, Cal. 90740 Huntin gtron Beach, Cal. 92646 Llu-- ngtan Beach, Cal. 92648 159-131-24 159-055-15 159-054-08 Albert Johnson Grace H. Wright Jimmie D. Holt 19111 cr yden Terrace 7682 Yukon Dr. 7622 Alberta Irvine, Cal. 92715 Huntington Beach, Cal. 92648 &x*Angtm Beach, Cal. 92648 AAA OF CCNCERN 2.1 4/14/77 - ja 159-054-09 159-9§AmM 061-27 159-061-42 Thurlow E. Spohr Michael D. Spencer Gerard B. Ryan 7632 Alberta Dr. 18432 Gaspe Circle 18452 Carnaby sane Huntington Reach, Cal. 92648 Beach, Cal. 92648 Huntinc�,on Beach, Cal. 92648 159-054-10 159-e5*-36 061-28 159-061-43 Karen R. Sullivan James Bar)=eyer Steven A. Lvvato 7652 Alberta Dr. 18422 Gaspe Circle 18442 Carnaby Lane Huntington Beach, Cal. 92648 Huntington Beach, Cal. 92648 Mz*d gtan Beach, Cal. 92648 159-061-20 159-061-35 159-061--44 1884433111Huntirgtcn St. 18 21 Gaspe Circle 18 K. Larson 432 Carnaby en Hates Huntington Beach, Cal. 92648 Huntingtni Beach, Cal. 92648 Huntington Beach,,ch Calif. 92648 159-061-21 159-061-36 159-061-45 Frank A. Police Nioo]as Prank Nicholas Krill 18441 Huntington St. 18431 Gaspe Circle 18422 Carnaby Lane Fhu*J ngton Beach, Cal. 92648 Huntington Beach, Cal. 92648 Huntinyt-pan Beach, Cal. 92648 159-061-22 159-061-37 159-063 -01 James R. Caspio H. G. Bevington Rober C. Kliewer 18451 Huntington Street 18441 Gaspe Circle 7612 Appleby Dr. IIuntingtcn Beach, Cal. 92648 Huntington Beach, Cal. 92648 Huntington Beach, Cal. 92648 159-061-23 159-061-38 159-063-02 Glenn W. Fkibank William H. Osness Richard Onstott 18461 Huntington St. 18451 Gaspe Circle 7602 Appleby Dr. Huntington Beach, Cal. 92648 Huntingtni Beach, Cal. 92648 Huntington Beach, Cal. 92648 159-061-24 159-061-39 159-063-03 William G. Susnan William R. Smith Oscar J. Rosales 3035 Country Club Dr. 18461 Gaspe Circle 7582 Appleby Dr. Costa Mesa, Cal. 92626 Huntington Beach, Cal. 92648 Huntington Beach, Cal. 92648 159-061-25 159-061-40 159-063-04 Allen J. Stevens Charles B. Mountfo¢d Robert P. Winstein 13452 Gaspe Circle 18472 Carnaby Lane 7572 Appleby Dr. Huntington Beach, Cal. 92648 Huntington Beach, Cal. 92648 Huntington Beach, Cal. 92648 169-061-26 159-061-41 159-063-05 Harold Uradano Barry Reymolds Arthur E. Tuokkola 18442 Gaspe Circle 18462 Carnaby Lane 7562 Appleby Dr. Huntington Beach, Cal. 92648 Huntington Beach, Cal. 92648 Mantingtcn Beach, Cal. 92648 C AREA OF CUiOE 4 2.1 4/14/77 - ja 159-063-06 159-063-15 Barry L. Morgan James R. Gt rdm 7552 Appleby Dr. 18431 Carraby Lane Huntington Beach, Cal. 92648 Huntingtm Beach, Cal. 92648 159-063-07 159-063-16 EJwsrd Harvey Patrick E. GarvW 7532 Appleby Dr. 18421 Carnaby Lane Huntington Beach, Cal. 92648 Beach, Cal. 92648 159-063-08 Richard C. Morley 7522 Appleby Dr. Huntington Beach, Cal. 92648 159-063-09 Philip Hebert 7512 Appleby Dr. Huntingtm Beach, Cal. 92648 159-063-10 Mike A. Klubniken 18481 Carnaby Lane Huntington Beach, Cal. 92648 159-063-11 Brian M. Kelly 18471 Carnaby Lane Huntington Beach, Cal. 92648 159-063-12 Dept of Vets Affairs William A. Risse 18461 Carnaby Lane Huntington Beach, Cal. 92648 159-063-13 Michael T. Dicken 18451 Carnaby Lane Huntington Beach, Cal. 92648 159-063-14 William R. Douglass 18441 Carnaby Lane Huntington Beach, Cal. 92648 ill-ulU-68 ]11-Ue1-14 William A Slater Wilbur E Metler 16992 Fairfield Circle Area of Ooncern 2.2 11143 S Budtong Avenue aunt xKgtan Beach, Calif Iva Angeles, Calif 92648 90044 111-010-43 111-061-13 Jesus Aguilera I&Km F Rcudine Joeephina Solor=io et al P.O. Box 147 17101 Tiffany Circle 7412 E Slater Averwe Sunset Beach, Calif Hcsutington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 90742 92649 92647 111-010-67 111-010-08 111-061-12 Imbert L Stellrecht et al Gi I E Wallace Patsy MWoepeaoe 16i21 Graham Street 502 Calif znia Street 10213 Pangborn Ihurtington Beach, Calif HM*ingtm Bescu, Clyaif Downey, Calif 92647 92648 90241 111-010-34 111-010-17 Ul-062-39 Glenn A Smith Leslie Hana1gy et al Jerry PazmAIa 17362 Gothard Street Jesus Aguonva 17592 Gothard Street Ilunti ngtcn Beach, Calif P.O. Banc 147 Huntingtaz Beach, Cali f 92647 Sunset Beach, Calif 90743 92647 111-010-27 111-010-07 111-062-U2 Garth A Haskins Curtis Lloyd W Dye 17382 Gothard Street P.O. Boat 1367 17532 Gothard Street iiuntingtoon Beach, Calif Saugus, Calif 91350 I3untington Beach, Calif 92647 92647 111-010-12 111-061-20 111-062-03 Leota P Miller L A Dye Dorothy O Clint 17412 Gothard Street 17532 Gothard Street Rt 1 Booc 116 I1witi.ngtcn Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif McFarland, Calif 92647 92647 93250 lll-010-13 111-061-18 Donald E Goode 111-062-72 Walter L Abbott Anthony J Oliveri 219 Alabama Avenue 13431 Wilson Street 11232 Los Al mitos Blvd Huntington Beach, Calif Carden Grove, Calif Los Alamitos, Calif 92648 92644 90720 111-010-63 111-061-25 111-062-47 5evi M Aguirre Anthony i Oliveri Albert J Geis 17432 Gothard Street 13966 Seal Roach Blvd P.O. Boac 412 Huntington Beach, Calif Seal Beach, Calif Upland, Calif 92648 90740 91786 lil-UlU-42 111-061-21 111-032-35 Jesus Aguilera Alffed H Dalot City of Huntington Beach P.O. Box 147 7372 Slater Avenue Sunset I3eacli, Calif tgtatingbon Beach, Calif 90742 92647 159-141-06 165-181-02 Larry J Strong 1,e icy b Collins et al Area of Concern 2.3 723 Santana Drive iweibel, Charlotte 231 1 92625 ,/2 S Gale Dr Corona Del mar, Calif Beverly Frills, Calif 90211 2625 159-141-07 159-141-17 165-191-03 W E Jolly John F Chilton La Parne , Salvatore 7766 Talbert Avenue 670 Valparaiso Drive 15921 Butterfield Street Hunt xxjtcn Beach, Calif C18r+enDtnt Calif Ftxsitain Valley, Calif 92647 917U 92708 159-141-08 159-141-18 165-181-04 Adelbert E We� Buie Swinntertran John R Silva George V Baker Billy D Wolfe 9191 Ski Harbor Circle Galway P.O. Box 122 S001 Circle Huntington Beach, Calif rruntingtcn Beach, Calif 92648 Hmtington Beach, Calif 92649 92646 159-141-09 159-141-19 165-181-05 Timothy Bresnahan Benjamin B Nartsolf Carl J Hainz 2nd %:,age Baker Alice B Hitotcedc Aft 17941 Baron Circle Apt 1 P.O. Box 122 3405 Garfield Street FAntingdon Beach, Calif Humtington Beach, Calif 92648 Carlsbad, Calif 92008 92647 159-141-10 159-141-20 165-181-06 Nora Wilder et al Florence M Linthicum Lyle Skillestad George V Baker 1928 Thomson Street 1204 S Athw a Way P.O. Box 122 Riverside, Calif Anaheim, Calif Hhmtirxjton Beach, Calif 92648 92507 92806 159 41-13 159-141-22 165-181-07 159-1 D JonesLuarett F witli'm Richard L Wallingford FUsha Hilly D Wolfe 895 E 9th Stsaet 17062 Tiffany Circle 5001 Galway Circle • Cal�.f Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92647 91786 92649 159-141-14 159-141-34 165-181-08 Lures F Rech an Anna Longwell at al Wayne E Brown 1724 Minnewawa Sp 85 Geor V 16056 Susmuershade Drive Clovis, Calif P.O. .Bloc 122 La Mirada, Calif 93612 Htntjnytan Beach, Calif 92648 90638 159-141-15 159-141-30 165-181-10 Uxold W Wood DoLvthy L Vaughan Ralph B Crane 1367 NW Riverview 277 East H Street 17882 Baran Circle Gresham, Oregon 97030 Cat, Cal if Hunttington Beach, Calif 159-141-16 165-181-01 165-181-11 Billy D Wolfe Dorrria L Arcutcik James H Barlow 5001 Galway Circle 4053 LarAn Aueenua 10062 Poad s End Dr a=tingtcn Beach, Calif Cypres, Calif Garden Gr+o%%, Calif 92649 90630 92640 ? -L--C,1rr.r 111-080-03 Fai List tx. u tub Co. Area of concern 2.3 ebb Miller 10131 Mar�c�� Drive x 1 11untungton Beach, Calif rax ttzer, L 92646 9U�0» 111-064-27 IU-080--04 tae�t U Y>rr A E Arnold et al James Lange 1589: Ovextcu-i Street P.O. Bcxsc 370 17621 San Rogue Lane RAaix.aisa Va..)-ley, Calif Bead, Call f 11 90630 � 92647 ill-01u--u1 Ul-260-54 111-0810-12 C -. Ax-.k Products Co old A Jonm Joe C Aguirre P.O. Bay. 4009 P.O. a=Ila 120 Stafford Street Ck a;}tx Calif 90224 Sunseto Santa AM, t3l"f 90742 1 92701 141-066-01 111-260•-51 l.lt-080-38 Wltur L Metzler Danie3. G 14irmw at al Steverson, Bros U143 S. Budlong Avenue Ueliablo Lumber Inc P.O. WK 335 Los Angeles, Calif P.O. BORC " 19172 � Blvd 90044 �s 91770 Bun, tingtm Beach, Calif 92648 s 1.1-1-066-03 111-260-42 159-1d1-01 Paul y�1,y J Paul Faliatt 3oseprt R Bye et al 7327 11 214 S Garfield Avenue 6(a Payne Stye - P+'� i4f C" wat�ey Park, Calif a.al wtard, N Y 90723 91754 111-260-41 159-141-02 Aurjust F&g-dfs Lases RAAW+e Jo Scott Clara M Pchifs 4645 4 E�so Cal 4 V c Covistshy w61 Blvd2944 30th sit jolly �f Sara Diego, C&Uf 921!04 . IN , Calif 92683 sr - 159-141-03 11acharrl-Raster ��t-614 an Charles V Lindsay Jr .R435 W lst tereet 10071 Catty Sdidc Drive 304 La Veta 9 t Ana, Calif �� w� 1�, if 0 2024 tas, Cal,f lilw-066-17 ` �` C J Peev04 es c7f 592rry E Ptkard 6 74U WA13wt Av�a 1120 Pacific Coast Higtxaay 17592 tootx�rd street Calif w Beach, Calif Aintin4ton 1ewr,, Calif 92648 92647 111-065--22 S 159I-141-05 L can ore M Ric hardam et al AngelIf V&V&U at al G Russell Shaw 049 C arri bos Avenue 7Johap"M xtpwrbqu 1049 W Bhi.tacmb Zcng Beach, Calif A&VOUS , Calif 90612 Qaif 92648 91740 OF CX)Nd�ki 2.3 1/18/77 Ul-322-02 111-322-49 Ul-312-10 Ralph Labelscn CAayton Oakley Vista Marlin et al 7752 Liberty Ave. 7801 Newnan Ave. Lillian L Warner Huntimjton Beach, Cal. 92647 tkmtirgtcn Beach, Cal. 92647 315 S Rose Street Burbank, Calif 91503 111-322-06 111-322-50 111-312-19 leonard L. Bern D. L. Dickey Boddie E tole et al 7812 Liberty St. 7762'Liberty St. Theo Mauthei. Huntington Beach, Cal. 92647 Huntington teach, Cal. 92647 74565 Dillon Rd • - Desert Hot Springs, Calif Ul-322-29 111-322-51 _ 111-313-20 Jan A. Nagel Anna prought3on Theo Manthei et al 7837 Newnan Ave. 7772 Liberty St Manthei-Brown Venture Huntington Leach, Cal. 92647 Huntington Beach, Cal. 92647 74565 Dillon Rd Desert Hot Springs, Calif 92240 IU-322-31 111-322-55 ,,, 111-314-01 Leon Gainen Peter G. Him_ Mary L Lawis et al 1615 W. 22nd St. 77al Newsman Ave. Theo Manthei San Pedro, Ca1.90732 Huntington Beach, Cal. 92647 74565 Dillon Rd Desert Clot Springs, Calif 92240 111-322-32 111-322-56 111-315-14 Della Isom Sau D. Lawler Mildred D Mllovich 7751 NE6 M 77,92,Liberty St. 330 E Pine Street Inntington Beach, Cal. 92646 Huntington Beach, Cal. 92647 Bishop, Calif 93514 Ul-322-33 111-481-04 111-315-08 .. F Joseph Capoociama Nathan `' ,re Herman L Kennedy et al 19232 Beach Blvd. L. Eugene Pickett to. Zoo Manthei fluntirx3ton Beach, Cal. 92646 2192 Dupont Dr. - Suite 113 74565 Dillon Rd Irvine, Cal. 92664 Desert Hot Springs, Calif 92240 111-322-37 111-311-15 111-316-06 Gilbert S. Brown Earl O k AwilVe of al John C Large Est 7802 Liberty Theo Manthee. ,. I i Theo Manthei Huntington beach, Cal.. 92647 74565 Dillon Rd 74565 Dillon Rd Desert Hot Springs, Calif 92240 Desert Hot Springs, Calif 92240 111-322-41 111.312-1,3 111-317-03 Sam 0. Lawler willis x coaelyt Thee Manthei et al 7792 Liberty St. Fidella M Conely Mary Manthei Huntington Beach, Cal. 92647 7864 Sterling Avenue 74565 Dillon Rd San Benm#ino, Calif 92410 Desert Hot Springs, Ca. 92240 111-322-48 111-33,2-OS ; 3 • Ul-318-01 John L. Isom Dpris, $ Gale _ Wm F Barry 7791 E. Newman St. 4422 Uplinson Avenue Ray M Keck I1unt ngton Beach, Cal. 92647 Arlington, Calif P.O. We Drawer K 92503 totulla, Texas 78014 z 111-301-06 111-307-24 Lenore Shanewise ut al Area of mmoern 2.3 Frank B Repine 41 Treasure Island Mabel Kel1y. Laguna leach, Calif 260 Fenenar Avenue 92651 La -Habra, Calif 90631 i 111-302-01 j 111--301-23 Vises Marlin et al U -308-08 Albert B ODhen Matilda J Mttcalf 1509 Greenfield Ave #105 TA114a n L der OD11ins-Embibel 315 S Rose Street Los Angeles, Calif 8649 E 7th Street 90025 91antan�C' Downey, Calif 90241 111-301-40 111-303-36 1U-308-02 Larry W Bennett Bather F Brnnila . eb0000t 528. Begonia Street 1237 °S.,irlsyler Ontario, Calif San •Piedwj, Calif 91762 90731 Ul-301-41 111-304-31 111-308-03 Theodore Mathei et al Richard'B et al Ida Maile'=Est 74565.Dillon Rd 9 Oak Ttew,.Bd ' Gordan F Hh"oe Desert Hot Spring, Cali 1555 Chickasaw Avenwe' 92240 60090 Ias Angeles,. Calif 90041 111i301-09 111-364-20 111-308-20 Flokm= M Scherbart Fired A Iamden Angus R Alexander 446 W Broadway Charlotte ,. Dampsey e0 Manthei et al Glendale' ' 4 Calif 456 25th.Stnmt- 74565 Dillon Rd 91204 Sanja Vim, Calif 90402 Desert Hot Springs, Calif 111-301-25 111-305-34 111-308-14 Janet R MoQuinn Marne G. gi, ,erg Edna F Borden Harold Edelstein .1635 S Prinaoee Avenue Eva (ranger 11725 Wilshire Blvd Rm 607 Albambra#. Cal J 519 13th Stet LosAngeles, Calif 90025 91803 Hun. ti�to�n Beach, Calif 92648 111.301-36 Ul-305-37 111-291-01 Jawas F Johnson John W Medbery Mabel RanWAy 14111 llama Bella Jeanm C MoClintnc k 7742 Newnan Avenue Arleta, Calif 324 Seeman Derive HIm ' 91331 ���, Calif 92024 926447 Calif �3rn01-1Shanewise et al 111-307 .30 111-291-02 41 'Leasure Island Bijan Xboklm. George W S Johnson C`a l i f 11920 ingle�aood, R&K Avenue 2926 Club House Rd .IaTma. Beach,,92651 Hmtbo�a, -Cm] Costa Mesa, Calif 90250 92626 111-301-15 111-30748: 1 .1-291-09 Anna A FAaards . Clara P. Est of Jack O Ellis E Bids Le Pay B C0314aa • . . 7772_Heenan Avenue 1964 Wateman 8649,E 7th Street San Be uirdim, Calif 92410 Hurttingbon Beach, Calif Downey, Calif 90241 92647 111-291-05 111-292-05 Martha A Archer Area of concern 2.3 Phuoc T Chi et al Martha Gallivan 7782 Ronald Rd Apt C 7782 Neva= Avenue Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92647 92647 111-291-06 111-291-60 111-292-06 EDnald L Farnam Robert L Van Zandt Richard R Failing 1 i ng 429 Snug Harbor Rd 1512 Ben Immond Dr 7792 Ronald Rd NmImit Beach, Calif Glendlal,e, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 9266 3 91202 92647 111-291-07 Ul-291-58 111-292-07 Marilyn R Guy Donald E Washburn Edgar Kimball 7802 Newman Avenue P.O. Boot 821 14406 Suffolk- Street Huntinton Beach, Calif Westminster; Calif Westminster, Calif 92647 92683 92683 111-291-08 Ul-291-59 111-292-09 Fremiiit A Moore Walter D Lipps Mario A Faearo ce 6241 Warner Ave Spa 104 10129 Holborn Drive 5512 Caliente Dr Hunti� Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntingt+an Beach, Calif 92647 92646 92649 111-291-09 111-291-52 111-292-10 John C IDOdiart David A.Kelley et al Ames Margerum 9582 Hamilton Avenue 7801 Ronald Rd 17620 Oak Street Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Flountain Valley, Calif 92646 92647 92708 111-291-10 111-291-53 111-321-25 Leila Wagner, David A Kelley et al David C Fra�ton 7832 I*manan Avenue 305 34th Street 1834 Main Street Huntington k3each, Calif Newport Beach, Calif Huntfngton Beach, Calif 92649 92660 92648 111-291-33 111-291-56 Ul-321-33 C1at+e G Crawford Laoumd Spielman Jain P Smith 24214 Hawtixxne Blvd. 20101 Oak lame: 7761• Liberty Avenue Zbrranoe; Calif Orange, if Huntington 90505 92669 � 9264 Beach, Calif 111-291-32 �o� 3nitti�. 111-292-01 111-321-35 8633-A-18 Pbztola Ct Pobert C Sangster Franchone W Hoffman i 2304 Cliff Drive* P.O. Boot 1003 H264tington Beach, li i• Calif Newport Beach, Caf H�timgton Beach, C;;lif 92660 92647 i ll1-291-61 111-292-03 111-322-01 Earle V Roberts et al m Jerome M Baane � Robert Smith 21731 Ing3ala La Huntington Beach, Calif 18582 Beach Blvd. Suits 213 9412 Nautilus Dr. 92646 92648 bon Beach, Cali 92649 f Huntingdon Beach, Cal. 92646 I " i 165-181-12 Ialaenoe W Simon Area of Oonoern 2.3 P.O. Box 3545 Anaheim, Calif 92803 165-181-13 Thonnas A Hammond 4748 Fir Avenue Seal Reach, Calif . 90740 165-181-15 William R Shinen 17952 Baron Circle #1 Rmtingti n Beach, Calif 92647 1.65-181-16 Paul A Leaman 1 5377 Grandview Avenue Yorba Linda, Calif 92686 165-181-18 George Roudanez 435 Aliso Avenue NEA� Beach, Calif 92663 165481-19 Edgar C Scott Norris Fier 2045 Holiday Rd Newport Beach, Calif 92660 aZ"IaA 165-181- 20 Edgar C Scott MI Talbert Avenue Huntington Beach, Calif 92648 165-181-21 Huntington Beach Oongretion of Jehovahs Witnesses Inc 7851 Talbert avenue Huntington Beach, Calif 92646 111-471-14 William L Jones 7660 Liberty Avenue Area of aDamm 2.3 Huntington Beach, Calif 92647 111-471-15 Prince DeveloFment Inc 7700 Slater Avenue Hmtington Beads, Calif 92647 111-471-16 Pabert Zi:ebarth et al 1639 9th Street Santa Mica, Calif 90404 ,G 111-471-17 Socrates Skinas 301 Canal Newport Beach, Calif 92660 111-471-18 Tan Tully Victor De-Stefano 18196 Goldenwest Stn--et Huntington Beach, Calif x. 92646 111-471-07 Allen Klingensmith 17791 Beach BlvLI Iuntington Beach, Calif 92647 OF CDNCF:RN 2.4 - ja 4/13/77 142-141-5 142-231-16 142-231-25 Albert Levinson Warren A. Bratfisch William A. Lynch P. O. Boat 5149 7241-A Corsican Dr. P. 0. Box 1623 Campton, Cal. 90224 Hunt Beech, Cal. 92647 Bmtington Beach, CA. 92647 142-142-02 142-231-17 142-231-26 Lillev, Inc. Patrick F. Sheehy Fred B. Schell Tanlev, Inc. 1401 Avocado Avenue 16782 Bardon Lane - Apt. A 222 E. Manville St. Newport Beach, Cal. 92660 smitixton Beach, Cal. 92647 Ccnpton, Cal. 90224 142-231-8 142-231-18 142-231-27 Jahn E. Bauer James E. Olmsted Ibard V. Shensky 14181 Elystan Circle P. 0. Hoot 326 16762 Bardon Lane Westininster, Cal. 92683 Silverado, Cal. 92676 Ekn*A x3ton Beach, Cal. 92647 142-231-09 142-231-19 142-231-29 Richard L. Reel Clark D. Banter Birdie W. Tucker 16802-B Bardon Lane 7260 Ooo.BirCan Dr. 1623 Tradewinls Lane Huntington Beach, Cal. 92647 axntingtcn Beads, Cal. 92647 Newport Beach, Cal. 92660 142-231-10 142-231-20 142-231-30 Patrick W. Kline Brian Cameron Lee Carnahan 16791 Bardon Lane - Apt. A 9642 Caithness Dr. 7311 La Mancha Circle Huntington Beach, Cal. 92647 Huntington Bench, Cal. 92646 Htuitington Beach, Cal. 92647 142-231-11 142-231-21 142-231-31 John R. Carlson Adriam B. Eckstein Eugene Mmakaird 168010A Hanson Lane 7290 Corsican Dr. Apt. A 7291-D La Mandy Circle Huntington Beach, Cal. 92647 Htn iegton Beech, Cal. 92647 Hm*Jxrjtcn Beach, Cal. 92647 142-231-12 142-231-22 142-231-32 John R. Francis Melba Shoats John Niemela 7291 Corsican Drive 6322 PA ubans Dr. 22303 S. Evalyn Ave. Huntington Beach, Cal. 92647 Huntitsgi , beach, Cal. 92647 Ttzrance, Cal. 90505 142-231-13 142-231-23• 142-231-33 David E. Dorton Doweld IL. "khIner Benjamin S. Chao 7281 Corsican Dr. W62 Litsin Circle 9844 Pawlet Circle Huntington Bead, Cal. 92647 Beech , Ca. 92647 Fountain Valley, Cal. 92708 142-23bdA-15 142-231-24 142-231-34 Ralph I. Smith Victor A.,Badund Frank V. Armendariz 7251 Corsican Dr. 2300 IetNcf At." � Apt. A 7251 La Mancha Circle - Apt. A Huntirx3ton Beach, Cal. 92647 A'Ihmd=, Cal.. 91801 H=*Angton Beach, Cal. 92647 .,<EA OF CONQEM 2.4 - j a 4/13/77 Wz12i 142-231-35 142-232-02 142-232-13 Jack R. Lightner American National Iamrenae L. Flower 820 Hillside Drive Properties Inc. 18623 Plu Dsa St. Gong Beach, Cal. 90815 P. O. BoK 10077 Fbuntain Valley, Cal. 92708 Santa Ana, Cal. J 142-231-37 142-232-93 142-232-14 James R. Hagen Lee A. Can Jeanne M. Bankhardt 7242 La Mancha Circle 18173 SamU Sophia Circle 7292 Toulouse - Apt. 1 3untirgtcn Beach, Cal. 92647 Fmmtain Vallsy, Ca. 92708 Beach, Cal. 92647 L42-231-38 142-232-04 142-232-15 :tort H. Buehn Harvey H. Raahsb@iner Richard M. Jones L5812 Dundalk Lame 17041 Pinebwcat Lane 2951 Tigertail Dr. iuntington Beach, Cal. 92647 H Beach, Cal. 92647 We Alamitos, Cal. 90720 L42-231-39 142-232-05 142-232-16 Tames D. Haran ROArt F. FeCg%won Ieris F. Davis 7262--A La Mancha Circle 73U Toulouse Drive - Apt. 1 16652 Golden West St. #1 iuntir�gton Beach, Cal. 92647 Beach, Cal. 92647 Cal. 92647 L42-231-40 * t 142-232-fk 07 142-232-17 tyro G. Heavin Haril E. %Uktsell Betty A. Moraghan '712 Duquesne Place 7291 Toulouse Drive #1 7291 Elk Circle - Apt. 2 Test aster, Cal. 92683 Beach, Cal. 92647 Hantingtm Beach, Cal. 92647 .42-231-42 142-232-08 142-232-18 ale W. Hibbs Dean A. Bidgood Louis B. Kaplan .7451 Duello Lane 14161 Dew-am P1. 116-12 237th St. luntington Beach, Cal. 92647 Garden (row, Cal. 92643 Elmont, N.Y. U003 .42-231-41 142-232-09 142-232-19 effrey R. Maguire Ronald S. Butyak Samuel Buscemi .7581 Wrightwood Lane 18611 Demiari ianc #A 7251 Elk Circle '.untirz3ten Beach, Cal. 92649 Huntirx7ton IBeach, Cal. 92646 � Bauch, Cal. 92647 42-231-43 142-232-11 ReMbedi■s 142-232-21 . W. Bruynzeel Jacob Aandia-►oe Gerald N. PhaYris 6752 Bardon Lane 1543 Shacbw Lane 2520 N. Shadow Ridge Lane untington Beach, Cal. 92647 Fullerton, Cal. 92631 grange, Cal. 92667 42-231-44 142-232-12 142-232-20 Samuel A. Buscemi Herman G. He Ferrante 2701 W. 141st Place 220 San CarLDs Way Gardena, Cal. 90249 Placentia, Gal. 92670 i _.itkA OF Wt C:LIN 2.4 - j a 4/13/77 142-232-22 Fcnald W. Pharris 142-212-06 Rockne Lambert 142-232-31 Michael Acosta 231 San Carlos 10349 Slater Avenue - Apt. 204 7582 E. Washington Ave. Placentia, Cal. 92670 Fountain Valley, Cal. 92708 Htnt3.rgton Beach, Cal. 92647 142-232-23 George W. Gebhardt 142-232-32 142-212-07 7272 Elk Circle #1 Jason H. Fan Carlos E. De Arcos Huntington Beach, Cal. 92647 U609 Fireside Dr. 321 Adams Ave. Whittier, Cal. 90604 Huntington Beach, Cal. 92648 142-232-24 142p=-02 142-212-08 Raymond N. Hilken Natiror�ide Theaters Corp. Harvey DuWCW 7302 Elk Circle - Apt. 1 141 S. ftbertgon Blvd. 7602 W%WAngtan Ave- Huntington Beach, Cal. 92647 Ios Angeles, Cal. 90048 Beach, Cal. 92647 142-232-25 142-221-,05 142-212-09 Raynnn d N. Hilken Pacific nuntres Corp. Mamiel O. Torres 141 S. Pk*aftson Blvd. 7593 Washington Ave. Ios Angeles, Cal. 90OU Huntirxjtm Beach, Cal. 92647 142-232-27 142-212-01 142-212-10 David R. Mc Afee G. D. Cantrell Juan A. Varela 3273 Washington Ave. 6527 1/4 Specht St. 7581 E. Wi.ntersbburg Ave. Costa Mesa, Cal. 92626 Bell Gardens, Cal. 90201 Huntington Beach, Cal. 92647 142-232-26 142-212-02 142-212-11 Arthur L. Langston Mary E. Grudan Robert Wtight 7312 Elk Circle 7532 Ave. P. O. Boot 1271 &mtincgtoon Beach, Cal. 92647 Humtirgtm Beach, Cal. 92647 Huntington Beach, Cal. 92647 142-232-28 142-212-03 142-212-12 Lee A. Carnal-san Edward Vareaa Jahn aarela 18173 Santa Sophia Circle 14682 ALoestW St. 7581 E. WinterWxz g Ave. Fountain Valley, Cal. 92708 Westminster, Cal. 92683 �� Beach, Cal. 92647 142-232-29 142-212-04 142-212-16 A. Lyle Skillestad Jesus R- G"VU Vi'ctror'ia Hernandez 1204 Athena Way #1 14731 Jefferson St. 17696 Beech Street Anaheim, Cal. 92805 'may City, Cal. 92655 Four twin Valley, Cal. 92708 142-232-30 142-212-05 142-212-17 Stuart M. O 'Qutirn Frederick C. Savage 16931 Ralph D. Smith, . Apt. 1 7572 i� inghgn Ave. David C. Savage Hunting-ton . Beach, Cal. 92647 13292 Amarillo Dr.Westininster �. Hunting-ton Beach,St.ach, Cal. 92647 A. , Cal. ° n AREA OF OCNCEM 2.4 - ja 4/13/77 142-212-18 142-211-08 142-451-01 Gilberto Ruan et al Janes A. Wood herb Rosenthal 17696 Beech Street 7521 Washingtm 16741 Iftne Lane Fountain Valley, Cal. 92708 Huntinqt I Beach, Cal. 92647 Ekmtinftm Bead, Cal. 1 142-212-19 142-211-09 142-451-02 Miguel E. Torres CamiI ADxdr3guez Judge,Aobert H. 7541 E. Wintersburg Ave. 8232 Flight Ave. 16751 Rhooes bane Huntington Beach, Cal. 92647 Midway City, Cal. 92655 aw&Angtm Beach, Cal. 92647 142-212-20 142-211-12 142-451-03 Ri bard F. Ortiz NwAiel D. 'Dorreis Frank H. Clarks, 3rd 7531 Warner 7593 Wasltin967 Ave. 16761 Ahona Leese Huntington Beach, Cal. 92647 Beech, Cal. 92647 limtincyton, Beach, Cal. 92647 142-212-21 142-211-13 142-451-04 Frrnca.soo Tin000 Geome KCW Ban Sakaguchi 7521 E. Wintersburg Ave. 4733 Dor hiester 16781 Rhone Lars Huntington Beach . 92647 Corona del Hhr, Cal. 92625 f1witington Beach, Cal. 92647 California 142-212-22 142-211-38 142-451-05 Morton J. Thiebaud Hmard R. Fbrtiley John H. Siammm c% Edward Varela 7501 Warner Ave. 16791 Rhone Lane 16482 Alcester H►u*tington Beech, Cal. 92647 Hwxtfngtm Beach, Cal. 92647 Westminster, Cal. 92682 142-211 142-211-51 142-451-06 Lloyd E. Moral Jose Fe;liciwv:f 1 �� 16541 Rhone Lane BL�ook mod iknat Apts. Ta Huntington Beach, Cal. 92647 2424 N. Qmrtd he. - Suite J IAX]t Beach, Cal. 92647 E Santa Ana, Cal. 92701 142-211-03 142-211-52 142-451-07 E1owani R. Fortney Rl i zab th BailW Adolph E. Bemger 7501 Warner Ave. 7561 Washingtm Ave. 16811 Rhona Lane Amtimjton Beach, Cal. 92647 Huntington Beach, Cal. 92647 --1 iniftoin Beach, Cal. 92647 p L42-211-05 142-211-53 142-451-08 Buis Ortiz Jesse J. Goroa2w Icres J. Jefferson L6922 Lyrrlon St. 7551 Waehi igb Ave. 7502 Vmtage Drive iurrtingtcn Beach, Cal. 92647 Hunt3 Beach, Cal. 92647 A9"Xx Beach, Cal. 92647 L42-211-07 142-211-54 142-451-09 iokm R. Contreras Andxvw L. Duren Johnny E. Wilson 3 L6912 S. Lyndon St. 7541 E. Washiskjten, Ave. 7512 Vantage Drive iuntington Beach, Cal. 92647 IAattingtJon Beek t, Carl. 92647 Hts kh y t en Bau h, Cal. 92647 i t AFC (;F ODNuM 2.4 a/13/17 -ja I 142-451-10 142-451-n33.. 142-156-05 Rayburn H. Gibson GAlbertf E: Vein.:.; Lloyd E. Hoaral 7522 Vantage Dr. 16792 Rhone Line 16541 Rhone Iane Huntington Beach, Cal. 92647 Mmtingtcn Beech, Cal. 92647 amtingum Beach, W. 92647 f Ii 142-451-11 142-451-34 142-156-06 Willi,atn R. Hurst L>onel.A, Dabaeac Howard.D. Subnick � 7532 Vantage Dr. 16782..Rhme jam 16551 Rb ane Lane HuntinRm Beach, Cal. 92647 Eftnttil 919n Beach, Call. 92647 !�iqgtopBeach, Cal. 92647 I6 142-451-12 142-451-35 142-156-07 Inuise Mitchell Will iaM P. Udbetbwv. Jdm H. G.uaznieri 7552 Vantage Drive 16762•.Rhme 1 16561 r4wpe Lame Huntington Beach, Cal. 92647 HIU*4_ B , Ga1.. 92647 Beach, Cal. 92647 N 142-451-13 142-451-36 142-156-08 Horace M. Seyster Albeit R..Fba&i�._>; Wilford ZHfford 7562 Vantage Dr. 167.52 iQ; Lone 16.571 166iie Lase Huntington Beach, Cal. 92647 Hiftington, Beacch, Cal. 92647 �iuitfngton Beach, Cal. 92647 142-451-28 142-451-31 142-156-09 Philip R. Warden Pawl J.{ >-{: Thmoas W. Vapek I 16752 Hermit Circle 16742 Rhooe-law 16591 Rhone Dane HuntiMtan Beach, Cal. 92641 ,-• , Cah.'92647 *7*n+ Beacb, Cal. 92647 E; 142-451-29 142-AM-356-01 142-156-10 ' F Bert D. Bertram E�tid M. Raymond R. Vidal 16751 Hermit Circle 16501 ame Len 16601 Rhone Labe Huntington Beach, Cal. 92647 AMU^° `^^ Beach, Cad.. 92647 Beach, Cal.. 92647 142-451-30 1426-356=02 142-156-11 Gerald S�perda Funk X Willis AObett D. Wbmxlen 16761 Hermit Circle P. .O. Bow $711 16611 Rhone .Lane � Humtington Beach, Cal.. 92647 F=*ai n*V&IUIMi.Cah.9-27.08 Bunn bon ftach, Cal. 92647 142-951-31 142-156-03 142-156-12 Wilfred L. Gonzales Charles Atchisoon beNu%q B. -Hacker 16781 Hermit Circle 16521 Lene 16621 Plum Lame HuntU gtcn Beach, Cal. 92647 bOW14Cal. 9264.7 Beach, Cal. 92647 142-461-32 142-L6iO4 142-15643 Ronald L. Orr DowId A:- r,4iAwka William S. (lynn I 7551 Vantage Dr. 16531 low 16631.rawne Lame Huntington Beach; Cal. 92647 Rz*Ingtce'Beachh, !Cal: -92647 m Beach, Cal. 92647 ' AREA OF CONCERN 2.4 4/14/77 - ja 142-156-14 kl42 152-07 142-152 26uc6-17 Kathleen A. Jones Margaret F. .Fisher TIorny Lard 16641 Rhone Lane 7552 Danube Dr. 16612 Rte Lane Bmtington Beach, Cal. 92647 q rn bm Beach, Cal.. 92647 g��ng� Beach, Cal, 92647 142-156-15 142-152-08 142-152-18 Roux J. Zinngrabe Carl A. Jb nsM[ " Robert M. Maochi 16651 Rhone Lane 7542 Danibe Dr,. „ 16622 Rhone Dr. Huntington Beach, Cal. 92647 Huut„tngton Beach, Cal. 92647 Hmtingtm Beach, Cal. 92647 142-156-16 142-152-09• 142-152-19 James R. Dodd Richard L.•Overstr eat, Royal 8. Clark, Jr. 16671 Rhone Lane 7532-.Dan ,Dr. , 16632 Rhone Lane Huntington Beach, Cal. 92647 Hunt tgbgn BG*dh1;,C&l. 92647 ' Dxting6on Beath, Cal. 92647 142-156-17 142-152-10 ! 142-152-20 Robert B. Rios Car" D. PeomeM Rpbext,Bull' 16681 Rhone Lane 16522_F43MBiIaM 400 Cartes Circle Huntington Beach, Cal. 92647 ..Cal. 92647 Qwom Dal Mar, Cal. 92625 142-156-18 142-152--11 142-152-21 Harold Urmston A.B. Jacobs 4 Associates Doris Jr. Mihn 16691 Rhone Lane 10547 Putney,-,Vd. 16652 Rhone Lane Huntington Beach, Cal. 92647 Los Arel", Cal.. 90064 Aiantirgtcn Beach, Call. 92647 142-156-19 142-152-12 142-152-22 James A. Curtis Donald E. Rmpton Gale C. Volz 16701 Rhone Lane 16542 Rhone Lane 16672 Rhone Lane Huntington Beach, Cal. 92647 amtingtcti Bola%, Cal. 92647 Mmtington Beach, Cal. 92647 142-156-20 142-152--13 142-152-23 George R. Staff Joel F. Ayer*j pl: Kennedy 16711 Rhone Zane 16562 Rhone 16682 Rhone Iarye Huntington Beach, Cal. 92647 Hmtinqt= Beach, Cal. 92647 tU'Kftm beach, Cal. 92647 142-156-21 142-152-14 142-152-24 FraGeorge Aboud c C ragchygl�o Corinne H. Rieth 16731 Rhone Lane 16572Corinne7521 Rhine Dr. Huntington Beach, Cal. 92647 Hucx i �Cal• 92647 Hunti�ctton Beach, Cal, 92647 142-151--15 • . 142-151-07 142-152-25 Robert E. Hufan Zone G. �ibcic fm Jinmfe L: Axton 7551 Danube Dr. 1659.2 Ibmie tans 7531 Rhine Dr. Huntington Beach, Cal. 92647 Beech, Cal. 92647 Rm*ingtc n Beach, Cal, 92647 ;AREA OF CONU:RN 2.4 4/14/77 - ja 142-162-26 142-152-35 142-155-10 Donald A. Nelson Gary L. Cooper Elscia A. Kelsh 7541 Rhine Dr. 16591 Tiber Lane 7522 Rhine Dr. Huntington Beach, Cal. 92647 Beech, Cal. 92647 Huntiix�t°n Beach, Cal. 92647 142-152-27 142-152-36 142-151-06 Pjzhard C. Pearson L mavnce W. Boulger William P. Ledbetter 16681 Tiber Lane 16571 Tiber Ta 16762 Phom Lane Huntington Beach, Cal. 92647 Hut Bokch, Cal. 92647 Huutingbon Beach, Cal. 92647 142-152-28 142-152-38 142-151-08 Earl L. Clancy, Jr. Jack J. Apodaca James A. Pavlu 16671 Tiber Lane 16541 Tim Lane 7541 Dante Dr. Huntington Beach, Cal. 92647 H Hem, Cal. 92647 Huntinngton Beech, Cal. 92647 142-152-29 142-152-37 142-151-09 James C. Gable Irene T. WarwhaU Beryl K. Bruner 16651 Tiber Lane 16561 Tiber Lane 7531 Dambe Dr. Huntington Beach, Cal. 92647 MMtinc3tgn Bench, Cal. 92647 Hmting on Beads, Cal. 92647 142-1.52-30 142-152�-39 142-151-10 H. L. Kinkade Dept of Veta,,Affairs Janes A. B ward 16641 Tiber Lane Of1. Cal. 7521 Dom bs Dr. Huntington Beach, Cal. 92647 Gary Mmw Dr. � Beach, Cal. 92647 7561 SeimHuntington Beech, Cal. 142-152-31 142-155-07 Rity of H.B. Chickering Nelson, Jr. pow P. OotAo . 142-281-01 16631 Tiber Lane 7552 Mine Dr. Huntingtm Beach, Cal. 92647 Akx*- Bew2b, Calit. 92647 142-152-32 142-155-08 142-281-07 James F. Giffin ,en H. 16621 Tiber Lane Ism D' Pel Turpin I6411 Rhone Lane Huntington Deach, Cal. 92647 1542 Ifsne or. HttmtJj, �t r, - B , Cal. 92647 '0n Cal. 92647 142-152-33 142 155-09 142-281-08 Joseph J. Spaniac Ruth W. Jones Francis D. Nagle 16611 Tiber Lane 7532 Fhita Dr. 16421 Rhone Lane Huntington Beach, Cal. 92647 Hunk Beach, Call. 92647 Huntington Beech, Cal. 92647 142-152-34 142-155-10 142-281-09 John L. Young 81eCia A. KKelsh Bertha A. Quinn 16601 Tiber Lane 7522 16431 Rhone Iane Huntington Beach, Cal. 92647 Ifii m Dr. 'Irn't Heeds, Cal. 92647 Hlantit�gtSon Beach, Cal. 92647 142-261-10 142-284-25 142-375-10 Donald F. McCaffrey Sam Ventura Sidney C. Lee 16451 Rhone Lane 7561 Alhamg= Dr. 7192 Sunlight Dr. Huntington Beach, Cal. 92647 Huntingtca Beech, Cal. 92647 Huntington Beach, Cal. 92647 142-261-11 142-284-27 142-375-1.1 Lionel A. Laurin Ball. A. Gau39t Robert J. Klocek 16471 Rhone Lane I"= Rhone Lane 7172 Sunlight Dr. auiting n Beach, Cal. 92647 Ekarti afton Beach, Cal• 92647 HuntIngton Beach, Cal. 92647 142-285-01 142-122-6 142-375-12 James K. Talmage William P. Ledbetter RalL D. Bowles 7542 Alhambra Dr. 16762 Rhone Lane 7162 S%xil.ight Dr. Huntirxgtcn Beach, Cal. 92647 Huntington Beach, Cal. 9264 7Rx*Jx6tOn Beach, Cal. 92647 142-285-02 142-375-04 142-375-13 Carl R. Lester Dept of Vets Affairs of State Charles R. Roper 3075 Loren Lane Edward S. GarakiAn 7152 Sunlight Dr. Costa Mesa, Cal. 92626 16392 Magellan law Beach, Cal. 92647 Beach, Calif. 142-285-03 142-375-05 142-375-14 Bill Newton William ia E• Malloy Terry A. Lee 16402 Magellan X ane 7151 Heil Ave. fDuntirx3trn Beach, Cal. 92647 7562 Alhambra Dr. Umc*i, Cal. 92647 Huntington Beach, Cal. 92647 142-285-04 142-375-06 142-375-15 George H. Derry Maurice S. Marootte Robert S. Kasper 7572 Alhambra Dr. 16412 Magellan 14ne 7161 Heil. Ave. Buntington Beach, Cal. 92647 — - gr'cn Beadbe, Cal. 92647 lhz*Angtcn Doh, Cal. 92647 142-284-01 142-375-07 142-375-16 Clifford A. Lang Ptancix X Raprich Dominic Scolarro 16412 Rhone Lane 16422 Magellan Lane 7171 Heil Ave. Huntixigton Beach, Cal. 92647 Beach Cal. 92647 Huntington Beach, Cal. 92647 142-284-02 142-375-08 142-375-17 Glenn C. Pillskwzy Ira Martin Leon L. Keirkes 7562 Nancy Dr. 7212 Sunlight Dr. 7191 Heil Ave. Huntington UNich, Cal. 92647 amtingtcn Beacb, Cal. 92647 Huntington Beach, Cal. 92647 142-284- 26 142-375-09 142-375-18 James J. Mackin Haily Krueger B z7ti m R. H 7201 Heil Ave. 16432 Rune Lane 7202 Suilight Drive Huntizigton Beach, Cal. 92647 lkmtington Beach, Cal. 92647 Huntin9bon Baabh, Cal. 92647 AWA OF CUNCM 2.4 4/14/77 - ja 142-375-19 142-441--04 142-441-15 Janes L. Keller Margaret M. Wilbelmi Jerry F. Pierce 72U Heil Ave. 7202 Heil-Ave. - Apt. 1 . 16561 Delton Circle Huntington Beach, Cal. 92647 gmtingtm Beach, Cal. 92647 Huntington Beach, Cal. 92647 142-375-20 142-441-06 142-441-16 Hilton, Ttxxy John A. Mastright Arnold E. Acker �. 7221 Heil Ave. 17382 Dreg Lane Mitzi Acker Huntington Beach, Cal. 92647 Huntington Beach, Cal. 92647 16782 Samfercloud Lane Huntfngtm Beach, Cal. 92647 142-375-21 142-441-07 142-441-17 City John B. Mac Dm alyd David A. Eis4mn 7162 Heil Ave. 2869 Boa Vista Dr: Hm*-U-gbon Beech, Cal. 92647 Costa.Mesa, Cal. 92626 U4 142-373-5 1g2._441..08 142-441-18 Joseph L. Buzer. rest L. Richer faintington 1�64USerenade Lane FoorBeach, Cal. 92647 4181 B�l,ackfin Ave. 16532 Dalton Circle Irvine,. Cal. 92705. H<utti=x3toit Beach, Cal.. 92647 142-373-06' 142-441-10 142-441-19 Joseph H. Bast, Jr. William A. Wood Peter R. Dcrsa 16412 Serenade Ianie 16902 Canlyoct Lane 18484 Santa Isadcra St.. Huntington Beach, Cal. 92647 , Cal. 92649 Fbtattain V alley, Cal. 92708 142-373-07 142-441-U 142-441-20 Mary E. Anger 164U Magellan Lane Jimw C. Hau Charles W. Mxwhardt Huntington Beach, Cal. 92647 16572. Sabot Lane 18082 FielAbury Lane Beach, Cal. 92647 Huntington Beach, Cal. 92647 142�373-08 142-441-12. -142-441-21 Charles G. Murray Joseph E. 1Y Kam Choy 16401 Magellan Iane � 2762 .Standish St. , 951 summit Dr. Huntington Beach, Ca],. 92647 Anaheim, Cal. "92806 Laguna Beach, Cal. 92651 142-441-01 142-441-13 Edward H. Wilheni 7202 Heil Ave - Apt. 1 Aram A. Poladisn i Huntington Beach, Cal.. 92647 8604 Bluebird Ave.. . Foie n Va ley,. Cal. 92708 142-441-02 f Henry Jan 142--441-14 E 4818 Cake Lewin F. DaviB- Laketcod, Cal. 90712 5931 Tres 7bp Circle Beach, Cal. 92649 ARFA Oil CCNCERq 2.4 4/14/77 - ja 142-121-24 McIntosh Lumber Co. P. o. Box 428 Blue Lake, Cal. 95525 142-121-27 Ashwill, Burke & Co. 8100 Garden Grove Blvd. Suite 12 Garden Grove, Cal. 92644 142-121-28 Ronald Gross, Huntington Leach Investors 3505 Broadway - Suite 1115 Oakland, Cal. 22694611 142-121-29 Ashwill, Burke & Co. 1833 S. State College Blvd. Anaheim, Cal. 92806 142-121-30 AREA OF CONd:-�M 2.5 4/14/77 - ja 142-121-24 142-351" 28 142-351-37 McIntosh Lumber Co. William 8. Henry Jack K. Livingston P. O. Banc 428 7222 6tcaxewood Dr- 16232 Magellan Lane Blue Lake, Cal. 95525 amatington Beach, Cal. 92647 -ington Beach, Cal. 92647 142-121-27 142-351-29 142-W t 363-01 Asbwill, Burke & Co. et al Tb mas A. Sargioot . William A. Lyons C zr1en �� P. O. B 2357 16242 Serenade Lane Calif. 92644 HuntJ ngtan Umc1, Cal. 92647 Huntington Beach, Cal. 92647 Ashwill, Burke & Co. et al 142-351-30 142-363-02 1833 S. State College Blvd. David Moatcbiik Perry H. Carter Anaheim, Calif. 92806 7202 Stcam ood Dr. 16252 Serenade Lane Hunt �g6cu B�arc#i, Cal. 92647 ttian Beach, Cal. 92647 142-121-29 Huntington Beach Investors 142-3517 31 142-363-03 Ronald Gross Edward J. Knobbe Robert S. Farah 3505 Broadway - Suite 1115 16192 Senenads Lane 16262 Serenade Lane Oakland, Cal. 946U llen • Cal. 92647 Huntington Beach, Cal. 92647 142-122-06 142-351-32 142-363-04 Dorothy M. Miller et al John C. lCyxe[ Leo P. Obrien 11091 Coronel. Rd. 16202 Sarenftw Lane 16282 Serenade Lane Santa Ana, Cal. 92705 11untington Beech, Cal. 92647 Huntingtxn Beach, Cal. 92647 142-321-05 142-351-33 142-363-05 Freeway Industrial Park Richard C. Nousoek James Craft J. A. Mundy 16222 Serenader law 16292 Serenade Lane 334 Via Lido Nord rsftm 1• Col- 92647 Beach, Cal. 92647 Newport Beach, Cal. 92660 142-321-17 142-351-34 142-363-06 Freeway Industrial Park Glenn W. Emmons Manual G. Verdugo 7201 Dr. 16302 Serenade Lane 14NewQQrtLincoln BeacYi, Cal. 92660 � • Cal. 92647 Itntingt�on Beach, Cal. 92647 142-351-26 142-351-35 142-363-07 Herma H. Bloan H. Cypirt Charles S. Mansfield 72U or. 16312 Serenade Lane Moonglow La HHun6tington Beach, Cal. 92647 Hunt3'n#06 ,• Cam. 92647 Beach, Cal. 92647 142-351-27 142-351-36 142-363-08 Jahn F. Murray Lyle D. Jagd*m Geraldine Mu)a* 16182 Moonglow Lane 16222 UAU Iia 16322 Sera wade Lane Huntington Beach, Cal. 92647 Hunt W. 92647 Huntingtcn Beach, Cal. 92647 AREA CIF C IDNCER V 2.5 4/14/77 - ja 142-363-09 142-363-18 142-364-07 Hugh pplkinghprne Acbert J. Reed Rdber't W. Shelton 16332 Serenade Lane 16261 Magellan Lam 16312 Magellan Lane Huntington Beach, Cal. 92647 Ingtm Beach, Cal. 92647 Huntington Beach, Cal. 92647 142-363-10 142-363-19 142-364-08 Francesco Faridoni Jc�tni E. +easeeo Frank R. Pfeifer 16352 Serenade Lane 162-U Mpgellm 1Ane 16322 Magellan Lane Huntingtcn Beach, Cal. 92647 Huntingm Beach, Carl. 92647 Hunts bOa Beach, Cal. 92647 142-363-11 142-363-20 142-364-09 C amine M. Faello Rufus S. Hmme Dean Zitko 16351 Magellan Lane 16241 NegaLUm Lane 16332 Magellan bane Huntington Beach, Cal. 92647 lbmti=rUm Reach, Cal. 92647 - Beech, Cal. 92647 142-363-12 ibilfifit 142-364-01 142-364-10 Irvin G. Helsley Aobezt T. Hardin Frank G. Waller 16331 Magellan Iane 16242 Mwje11an Lane 16352 Magellan bane Huntington Beach, Cal. 92647 Hunt3nut o beach, Cal. 92647 Beach, Cal. 92647 142-363-13 i*bft M 142-369-02 142-373-01 Howe11 E. Banar, Jr. Aciaart W. Ged3ods Harold Buniigton 16321 Magellan Lane 16252 MmUejUt, Lam 16362 Serenade Lane Huntington Beach, Cal. 92647 Huntitx3tcn Bencif Cal. 92647 Hunntngton Beach, Cal. 92647 142-363-14 142-364-03 142-373-02 Randall L. Stricklin Potis DO 'Neorgateos Jahn D. Gilliland 163U Magellan Lane 16262 Mrg*U&n;Lans 16372 Serenade Lane Huntington Beach, Cal. 92647 inftWISmechs Cal. 92647 Huntington Beach, Cal. 92647 142-363-15 142-364-04 142-373-03 Charles J. Buhrcyw Ray A. Baroglip Harry S. Keast 16301 Magellan Lane 16282 Magellan:Law 16382 Serenade Lane Huntington Beach, Cal. 92647 mmUngton Beach, Cal,. 92647 H1a7tington Beach, Cal. 92647 142-363-16 142�-364-05 142-373-04 Joseph A. Mastropaolo Russell D. mast Mildred McGinley 16291 Magellan Lame 16292 magellanjam 16392 Serenade Lane Hunt.ingtcn Beads, Cal. 92647 IAwt4r4rt u Beach, W. 92647 tfrgtan Beach, Cal. 92647 142-363-17 142-364-06 142-373-05 Jack A. Colby Fabart A. )m Larry H. Kasulka 16281 Magellan Drive 16302 Me y 16402 Serenade Iane Huntington Beach, Cal. 92647 Hui ingbeu Damph, Cal. 92647 Beach, Cal. 92647 ki(FA OF CmCERN 2.5 4/14/77 - ja 142-373-06 142-375-03 142-375-12 Joseph H. Bast, Jr. Joseph Hramt Rolla D. Bowles 16412 Serenade Lane 16382 Magellan 1 7162 Sw igght Dr. Huntington Beach, Cal Huntington Beach, Call. 92647 Htamt Beach, Cal. 92647 142-373-07 142-375-04 142-375-13 Mary Anger Dept. of Vets Affairs les R. Raper 16411 Magellan Large Bird S. Garak3an 7152 Slmlight Dr. Huntington beach, Cal. 92647 16392 Magellan Lane bead, Cal. 92647 Iitartingt�on Bench, Cal. 92647 142-373-08 142-375-05 142-375-14 Charles G. Murray William R. Mallory Terry A. Lee 16401 Magellan Lane 16402 Magsllan 7me 7151 Heil Ave. Huntington Beach, Cal. 92647 Huotingt�w Berth, Cal. 92647 F�m ngton Beach, Cal. 92647 142-373-09 142-375-06 142-375-15 Nemeth Roseuerne Matirlroe S. Mirootte Robert S. Kasper 16391 Magellan Lane 16412 RagaXIan Iane 7161 Heil Ave. Huntington Beach, Cal. 92647 IAz*Jnqtm Beek h, Cal. 92647 amtington Beach, Cal. 92647 142-373-10 142-375-07 142-375-16 Leslie Crew F rancix S. ftawich Damini c Scolaro 16381 Magellan 16422 NsgeUm.1 7171 Heil Ave. Huntington Beach, Cal. 92647 F *JU- bon tbacb, Cal. 92647 Rz*ingtm Beach, Cal. 92647 142-373-11 142-375-08 142-375-17 William S. Hata Ira Martin Leon L. Heeitmkes 16371 Magellan Lane 7212 Sunlight Dr. 7191 Heil Ave. Huntington Ueach, Cal. 92647 antingtm Heed, Cal. 92647 Huntington Beach, Cal. 92647 142-373-12 142-375-09 142-375-18 Thaws Avdeef Bu nhan R. Becmer James J. Mackin 16361 Magellan Lane 7202 &m►iight Dr. 7201 Heil Ave. Huntington Beach, Cal. 92647Ibmti Beach, Cal. 92647 HuntirxJton Beach, Cal. 92647 142-375-01 142-375-10 142-375-19 Darrell D. Wilkinson Sidney C. Lee James L Keller 16362 Magellan Lane 7192 &siligbt Drive 72U Heil Ave. litultirlgtAn Beach, Cal. 92647 HW*i -gboa Beach, Cal.. 92647 Huntirigtm Bench, Cal. 92647 131- 355-02 142-375--U 142-375-20 Harry R. Palmquist AOberts J. Klocoek Hilton R. Terry 16372 Magellan Lane 7172 SmLight Dr. 7221 Heil Ave. Huntington Beach, Cal. 92647 HtmctJ gU Beach, Cal. 92647 ax& ngGon Beach, Cal. 92647 1 ,',REA OF Corkll1N 2.L) 4/4/77 - ja 142-ibNx441-01 142-441-13 142--441-22 Edward H. Wilhe1mi Ata4 A. Poladian FraWdin Sun 7202 Heil - Apt. 1 8604 Blutebdrel Ave. 6102 Palisade Drive Huntington Beach, Cal. 92647 Fountain Valley, Cal. 92708 Mmtington Beach, Cal. 92647 142-441-94 03 142-441--14 142-141-05 Henry Jessner LEwis F. Davie Albert Levinson 4818 Coke 5931 Tkow Slop Circle P. O. Boot 5149 Lakewood, Cal. 90712 E1untingbc 7bach, Cal. 92649 Campton, Cal. 90224 142-441-04 142-441-15 142-142-02 Margaret M. Wi1hpimi Je=Y F. pla me T.1IIev, Inc. 7202 Heil. Ave #1 16561 Delt M Ci=l a Tonlev, Inc. Huntington Beach, Cal. 92647 Huaitingtion leech, Cal. 92647 222 E. Mwnrille St. Carpton, Cal. 90224 142-441-06 142-441-16 John A. Mastright Arnold E. Acker 17382 Drey Lane Mitzi Acker Huntington Beach, Cal. 92647 16782 Stmercl A Lane �luntirxJtan Beach, Cal. 92647 142-441-07 142-441-17 John B. Mac Donald DWAd A. e %n 7162 Heil Ave. 2869 Box VUDr. Huntington Beach, Cal. 92647 Costa"Meea, W. 92626 142-441-08 142-40-18 Josiah L. Buzer Fcrrest L. Rill w 4181 Blackfin Ave. 16532 DeItoa CArcle Irvine, Cal. 92705 H ntingtan bahch, Cal. 92647 142-441-10 142-441-19 William A. Wood Peter R. DorsiA 16902 Canyon Lane 18484 Sena& ;podoza $t. Huntixigton Beach, Cal. 92649 Fa retain`'Vail*, Cal. 92708 142-441-11 142-441-20 Jimmy C. Hall Charles W. Eft 16572 Sabot Lane 18082 Firalclbugy Lane Huntingtor► Beach, Cal. 92647 Be ft, Cal. 92647 142-441-12 142-441-21 Jose E. Murphy 27662Sltandish St. Rim ChW Anaheim, Cal. 92806 951 &=nit DC. Laguna Bead, bal. 92651 i 107-220-59 107-773-04 State of Calif. Dept of AP's Asva of Concern 2.6 J Richard Foster transportation AP's typed by Jana 16101 A Malaga Lane Sacramento, Calif Beach, Calif 95814 92647 IMF 107-771-08 Adolph P Imixer 107-773-03 16132 M& aga Lam Apt A BVatingtm Beach, C31if William F Voorhes 92647 16111 Malaga Lane Apt A Huntington Beach, Calif DMOL of transportation 107-771-09 92947 120 So. Spring Street HdWin NbodD'y8n 107-773-02 Ins Angeles, Calif 90052 16072 Nslaga Lens Attn: Staff Assistant 'h. Calif Emil B Pesek Design B 92647 16121 Malaga Lane. Apt A Huntington Beach, Calif 107-220-58 107-771-10 92647 H=ti ngton Villa Assoc. Louts Aquiline, 10 7-7 7 3-01 555 S Flower Street 16082 Malaga Lam Gordon Kramer Suits 2525 3agton Beach, Calif 16141 Malaga Lane Apt A Las Angeles, Calif 90071 92647 Huntington Beach, Calif 107-220-55 107-773-09 92647 Orange County Flood Control Donald A Meebert District 25155 bum Vista Dr 10 7-511-5 9 P.O. Box 1078 Lague Niguel, Calif 92677 John C Andrus SantaAna, Calif16340 Woodruff Westminster, Calif 107-220-66 107-77-08 92683 D & P Associates bw07-511-65 M DavidIGelly John M Lovely 68 Emerald Bay 8480 Wells Rd Laguna Bead, Calif 92651 Westminster, Calif 107-771-01 107-773-08 92683 Donald D Doresa k George Sakurai 16152 Malaga Lane 9302 Dmaiing C1file 10 7-5I 1-6 4 Huntington James E Short Beach, Calif WeWestminster, Calf 92647 92683 8470 Wells Road Westminster 92683 107-771-02 107-773-10 Gordon Kramer Claude Yacml 16141 Malaga Lane 9131 San Angelo Drive 10 7-511-6 3 H mtingtcn Beach, Calif Hbntingtan B"Ch' Cal;f Naron L Neelands 92647 92647 8460 Wells Rd Westminster, Calif 107-771-06 107-773-05 92683 Wayne M Moore Stewart B V= Dye 11-62 9222 Caladium Avenue 14885 Vhla win Plaza Freded Youngblood Jr r Fountain Valley, Calif Wester, Cal 1 oung 92708 92683 8450 Wells Rd Westminster, Calif 92683 David A Farmer . 107-511-61 ' 107-521-07 , 8440 Wells Rd Area of Concern 2.6 Ronald J Erickson Westminster, Calif Robert J Farrell 92683 8360 Wells Rd -Westminster, Calif 92683 107-511-58 107-522-06 107-521-08 { Harn' H Maher Lloyd J Haring Thi V Wright 16350 Woodruff Street 16290 Jinn Street- 8370 Wells Rd , Westminster, Calif Westminster, Calif Westminster, Calif , 92683 92663 92683 107-511-60 101-522-07 107-521-09 Brock M Wickman William E Detain Jr Carl C Harvey 16330 Woodruff Street 16300 .Jim Street 8380 Wells Rd Westminster, "Calif Westminster, Calif Westminster, Calif 92683 92683 92783 j 107-422-01 107'�-521-01 107-521-10 Leslie D De Mille Htasberto M Ochoa at al Paul Garland 10698 El Toro Lane 16430 Jody Circle 8390 Wells Rd Fountain Valley, Calif Westminster, Calif Westminster, Calif 92708 92683 92683 107-522-02 107-511=02 107-521-11 Ralph Del Ponte Caroll Wood Stanley R Fencel 8421 Wells Rd 8310 We116 JLd. 8400 Wells Rd Westminster, Calif Westminster, Calif Westminster, Calif 92683 92683 92683 107-522-03 107-521-03 107-521-12 Donald C Smythe Daniel DAft0 hams Lloyd O German 8411 Wells Rd 8320 W62,16 2d 8410 Wells Rd Westminster, Calif Westminster, Calif Westminster, Calif 92683 92683 92683 107-522-04 101-521-04— 107-521-13 gu}xZxXQskaxxx Dan D Courtney John R Shepard *22MI22X 8130 Wells Rd 8420 Wells Rd Westminster, Calif Westminster, Calif 92683 92683 107-522-04 107-521-05� 107-521-15 Carl E Moecker Richard P Stauffer Theodore R Koenigsmark 8401 Wells Rd 8340 Wells kd' 16331 Woodruff Street Westminster, Calif Westminster, Calif Westminster, Calif 92683 92648" 92683 107-522-05 107r=521-06 107-521-16 Dept of Vets Affairs of Wayne' Digutledge Daniel G Larson State of Calif 8360 Wells Rd 16341 Woodruff Street George J Martinez Westminster, Calif Westminster, Calif 16280 Jim StreQ t 02683 92683 Westminster, Caaif 96683 - A 107-' 521-17 Robert E Heumann Area of Concern 2.6 16361 Woodruff Street Westminster, Calif 92683 107-521-35 107-501-32 Loyd D Reeher Edward X Ruh 16360 Dana Circle 1641 S. Pomona Ave #D33 Westminster, Calif Fullerton, Calif. 92683 92632 107-521-34 107-501-3.3 Bruce E Murphy , T Robert Lambrose 16370 Dana Circle 16331 Timothy Lane Westminster, Calif Westminster., Calif 92683 . 92683 107-521-33 B:RR Franklin Belohovekzlt 16380 Dana Circle Westminster, Calif 92683 107-521-36 LuAe T Dodge PERK. 16371 Dafta .Circle 610 Main Street Westminster, Calif Los Angeles, Ckiif 92ii83 90014 •107-521-37 Westminster School District .Richard Nuest 13211 Cedarwood Street Michael W Farris Westminster, Calif 16381 Dana Circle 92683 Westminster, Calif 92683 I 107-521-38 H. B. Union High School Charles W Willmott 1902- 17th Street 16391 Dana Circle Huntington Beach, Calif Westminster, Calif 92648 92683 107-521-49 H. B. Elementary. School. Ocean View School District ' 770 - 17th Street 7972 Warner Avenue Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92648 92647 107-501-31 Fountain Valley School.. Michael S Dumm #1 Lighthouse. Lane 16320 Timothy Lane Fountain Valley, Calif Westminster, Calif 92708 92683 iI I ►Jiiiis L. Miller 3927 A W. McFaciin Auenue Santa Ana, Calif 92704 Ron Russell 7711 Ontario Drive Huntington Beach, Calif Classic Develpgnent Core 12700 Knott Avenue Suite B Ga mlen Grove, calif 92641 C.E.L.S. Corp 4570 C utAm Drive Suite 10 Newport Beach, Calif 92660 Thowas Kardos 17112 Bolsa U ca Street Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 aDselle Scm er 11232 LDS Alamitos Blvd. Los Alamitos, Calif 90720 163-121-01 Area of.,CoAcern 2.7 163-121-24 ijo glas Stations Inc Millie C Sanders ,P.O. Bows 2500 2236 E Broadway Costa Mesa, Calif lang 90803�h, Cali 192626 ' 163-121-02 163-121-U 163-121-25 isster W Kuehne Hatvey E ambe -9 John D 2bkaruk 17032 Holsa Chian Street 6050 1em■c Avemm 16591 Channal Lane H=Umgtm Beach Calif Hue ti cigbot►.Bqach, Calif Huutiix,�toa Beach, Calif 92649 92647 92649 163-14-03 163-121-15 163-121-26 Richard M Dam Hugh 8e� et:. Al Michael Sarkin et Al D L Elm 16931 Sam Clom street 600 Mu—ina Drive 5271 Heil Avenue • �I ` Seal �• Cif amtingbcn Beach, Calif 92649 92649 90740 163-121-04 163-L71 18 163-121-27 Rick*rd R Mule et'al W at al Charles F Fuinsch 5075 Warner Aveenue Suite C 15604 Cisymont Drive 5051 Dunbar Lane FAMtinytAn Beach, Calif IA dadkr :OOA. ' . Huntington -Beach- calif 92649 90638 92649 163-121-05 163-1Z1--19 163-121-28 Kenneth J Ferrara ftankl i n 4,Siwp@,lla et al. Martin B Slatta 4126 Monja--Ct 1866 9bo3eet:.Vg*m 5041 Dunbar Avenue Las Vegas, Nevada 89104 008ta 0sa• Calif Ikmtington Bead; Calif 92626 92649 163-121-06 163-121-20 163-121-29 Esther F Szabo Mmx9ax*t 9 St Doge► Paul H Penrod j 1105 Hurl i*gh3» Drive 24001 *drIwAm•Blvd apace 363 5021 Dunbar_ Avenue Inng Beach, Calif El moo,..CiIA _ Ieuittngbori Beach, Calif 90807 92630 92649 163-121-07 163-IU-21 163-121-30 Stephen F Downs Jobn D T katiuk Barbara E Baker i 5092.warner Avenue P.O. Boot 1657'1: 17042 eolsa Mica Street l amtingtan Beach, Calif inftm DN)c h* Calif Hkzt3ngtoa Beads, -Caalif 92649 92647 92649 163-121-08 163-121--22 163-121-31 Same] C Hirt Aodolfo .gym. Jean M Anderson . 8750 Shannon River Circle .5121•DIWA Am 17062 Bolsa Chios Fountain Valley, Calif ULmtjUgt= BnCh,: Calla B�haticx9ton Beads, Calif 92708 •92649 92649 163-121-10 163-lU-23 163-M-32 Wn A Cruikshank Lw:xy L.-Woobley et al Walter B Ni lliron 8383 Wilshire Blvd L''Muoa Suite '1040 Seal Heemb,..Cpl1 663 Lindwy.Street Beverly Hills, Calif 90211 90740 C 3ttanoga, Tem 37403 163-121-J3 163-045-09 Noiman J De Grace et al Area of 2.7 Paul J Fritts 17112 Bolsa Chica Street 17222 Greenleaf Lane �n Beach, Calif Rantingto n Beach, Calif 92649 92649 163-121-34 163-LU-02 163-045-10 Milo E cow Haasrd Richey et al Robert J Allen 14851 Jackson Street 1655 Pa3ais FA 17232 Greenleaf Lane midway City, Calif Anmhelm,'Cali> 'j: Bkult3ngtnn Beach, Calif 92655 92802 92649 163-121-35 163-131-03 163-04.3-01. K FrankWytLia Gbosge idcae et al Tbocias L D Alessandro 3970 Grand View Blvd. Apt. 23 %MW,dm .B Roddy • . . 5242 Vineland Drive Ins Angeles, Calif 41,,FOWAVU Ave Apt 7 Mintit-gtioa Beach, Calif 90066 Ung•tReach, Calif 90803 92649 163-121-36 163-131-06 163-043-02 No3a J Wal>-Ame et al F.31 Cle admom it al My Jadcaon Nola J Delleney 250 Pgyp +' 5252 Vineland Drive P.O. Box 103 Oobrooa mal Mar,4`19t11t-. Santingtaa Beach Calif Slxsset Beach, Calif 90742 92625 t' ` ,#.,� 092649 163-121-38 163-046-01 163-043-29 Ibbiart W Karger Hisa Ota et'al-.: John C Davis' 5072 Dunbair Street 5242 washer.Averme 52.51 Glenxvy Drive H�tingt�oa Beach, Calif 8ucitiag6oa Beach;'Calif Runtirgtoa Beach, Calif 92649 92649 92649 163-121-41 163-046-02 163-043-28 Hugh Seeds et al S%utbe m Cal I Savings and lied M Scott . 16931'Bolsa► Chica Street Loan Asm,,' f 5241 Glenr y Drive ntingta¢� Beach, Calif 9100 Wilshire Blvd: ltuntington Beach, Calif 92649 Beverly:Hills, Odlif 00212 92649 163-121-42 163-045-06. 163--043-27 Alexander C Conan Robert m 03610a Paul V-Chileott P.O: Box 1123 5262 Kenil-worth Drive 17151' Gteeoleaf Lane...: HIhltitlgt0[i Beach, Calif 13umt4ngtoa Beach, Cali f Hisnting6oh Beach, Calif 92647 92649: 92649 163-121-43 163--045-07 163-043-26- Cromnari Advertising Co. Denied D Armbelm# - Marianne V Brizendine 5162 Dunbar Aveme 5252 Kenilearth Dative 17171 Greenleaf Lane Fi tirygtion Reach, Calif Btaztingbon Heaah,,`Calif mmU ngtnn Beach, Chi' 92649 92649 92649 163-131-01 163y-045-08 163-043-25 Jobhn V Cooper et al Edgar 3 Beck , `,, ' Stacslay O rxm 320 Pine Ave Roan 305 5242,AMW I woacth.Drrlve ;: 17191 Greenleaf Lane Beach, C3 cif FAac1 Hia>t3ugbon 8a�adi, :Cal if IaV tingt�on-Beath, Calif 9083.2 92649 92649 163-0.43-22 146-241-46 Richard R Tdnti Area of Concern 2.7 Don L. Byrnes Jr et al 17191 Greenleaf Land 5075 Warner Avenue Huntington Beach, Calif Huntirx3ton Beach, Calif 92649 92649 163-043-23 178--263-10 164-241-47 Harold B Seifert Curtis L Woolsey William i i am B Ogg 17201 Greenleaf Lane 15091 Beach Blvd %Padio Opezaticnal School ihmti ngton Beach, Calif Westsninsber, Calif .5075 Warner Avenue 92649 92683 Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 163-043-21 178-263-09 146-241-25 -- i David M Hanson Lewis Szallay et al Masao Nerio et al P.O. Box 605 16961 Balsa C hica Rd 7795 Westminster Avenue Bedford, Texas Huatingbau Beach, Calif Westninster, 'Call 76021 92649. 92683 163-643-20 178-263-08. 146-491-01 Francis H Bergmz Lloyds Calif Bank Art M Nerio et al 17221 Greenleaf Lane ZR #6493-8507601. 7795 Westminster, Avenue Hunti gtcn Beach, Calif P.O. Me 5436 Tann Annex Westminster, Calif 92649 Los Angeles, Calif 90054 92683 163-043-19 178-263-07 110=014-09 James F La Norte Wf lhw W I Signal OmVanies Inc 17231 Greenleaf Lame 23 57th Place Attn: D G Nahin Huntingt01n Beach, Calif Beach, Calif 17890 Sky Park Circle 92649' 90803 Irvine, Calif 92714 163-044-07 146-241-39 110-014-78 Donald M Hatch Sid CIMBlley Metropolitan Water District. I 17172 Greenleaf Lane 1055 Rose Avenue of So; Cal ifprn Huntington Beach, Calif Palm Springs, Calif P.O. Boa 54153 92649 92626 Los Angeles, Calif 90054 163-044-08 146--241-38 110-051-01 Barry Spiegel Breuer-Harrison Inc Statewide Stations Inc 17182' Greenleaf Lane. C J Breuer Texaco Inc Huntington Beach, Coif 1750 Lades Vista Drive 3350 Wilshire Blvd 92649 Fullerton, Calif 92631 Los .Angeles, Calif 90005 12fak 163-044-09 146-241-43 110-051-02 RLIssell A Gibson Virgie M Tadca-erxy Andres Developnent Inc et al 17192 Greenleaf Lane 5061 Warner Avenue 16381 Balsa Chita Street luntington Beach, Calif Hurtinygton Beach, Cali Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92647 92649 163-044-10 146-241-12 110-051-03 Clovis E Mathena Win chi ca Omavdty Water Cb btntieello Ltd hunt. Beach 5251 Kenilworth Drivie •Balsa C hirA Water Co. Ankirk Dev. Corp Huntington Beach, Calif P.O. Boot 103 2035 E Ball Rd 92649 Sunsdt Beach, Calif 90742 Anaheim, Calif 92806 1]A-051-05 The Cambridge 203� L Ball Rd Anaheim, Calif 92806 GwmAL PLAN AMormENT 77-1* Ot �g`9 149-012-3s 149-041-049 149-041-2ls Folsan, Clarence S Jr MOC omnick, Henry Sheehan, William F 21772 Kiowa Ln 9042 Niguel Cir 9062 Adelia Cir Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Humtington Head, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 149-013-01s •149-041-12s 149-0 1-22 Buckland, Donald M Zirbel, OArwin D Carml M 21771 Kiowa In 9061 Adelia Cir' 9072 is Cir Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Hun Beach, CA 92646 149-013--02s 149-041-139 149-0 -23 Gr Hilde F Van Wie, Merle J Casti o Cipriano Jr 2 F. 3-03s awa Ln 1041 Adelia Cir_ • 9082 Cir on Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beth, CA 92646 BEach, CA 92646 14 149-041-149 149-041-29 Kastrff, Louis,D Beactuier,. Patrick E Maisano, Eleanor M 21pal Kiowa IA 9031 Adelia Cir 9061 Rhodesia Dr Hu Z- 13-04s on Beach; CA 92646. Htmtirgton Beach, CA92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 14 149-041-15s. 149-041-29s Eft M Chur bward, Donald Palmer, Ellis N 21811 Kiowa Ln. 9121 Adelia Cir 9641 Rhodesia Dr Hu n Beach, CA"92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Alintingbon Beach., CA 92646 F0113-05s 14 149-041-16s 149-041-30s Hoonald G Houston, Frank C Archibald, David A 21wa Ln 0001 Adelia Cir 9031 Rhodesia.Dr Huntington Beach; CA 92646 Htntizigton Beach, Chi 92646 Htimtington Beach, CA 92646 14 3-06s 149-041-17s 149-041-31s Milton B Johnsen, Joseph H Faecht, John R 218 Kiowa Ln 9602 Ade3ia Cir .9021 Rhodesia Dr Hun nyton Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Htntingtori Beach, CA 92646 149-041-01s 149-041-18s 149-041-32s Hall, Dennis K Clark, Clyde C Schofield, Robert L 9002 Niguel Cir 9022 Adelia Cir 9001 t4iodiesia Dr Huntington Bead, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntfngbon BE'aah, CA 92646. 149-641-02s 149-041-19s. .. 149-041-339 Havnxcroft, Robert A Ids, James D Earley, John. M 9022 Niguel Cir 9032 Adelia•Cit 9002 Roodesia Dr. Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 149-041-03s 149=041-20s 149-041-34s Hastings, Earl D MoyrzaghI lAwd L Kuhar, Robert M 9032 Niguel Cir 9042 Adelia.Cir 9022 Rhodesia Dr Duntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 3d _,&ML PLM AMMM4MU 77-1 149-031-11s 149-031-25s 149-031-39s Johnson, George P BinklW, Phillip G Zbrkells, Wallace D P 9032 Regatta Dr. 9002 Bobbie Cir 9021 Niguel Cir Huntington Beach, CA A6888 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 92646 149-031-12s 149-031-26s 149-031-38s Oovey, Claude Nicoll, Charles Young, James R 9042 Regatta Dr 8152 Slater Ave 9031 Niguel Cir Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntiv ton Beach, CA 92647 Huntington Bch, CA 92646 149-031-14s 149-031-40s Dannnd S 149-031-27s (rant, VerLon S. Sinpscn, James L Regatta Dr 9032 Bobbie Cir. 9001 Niguel Cir tington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 1--13s 149-011-1s. Nillles, Raymond N ta, Craig , James F 3rd Ota, Craig K 9062 Regatta Dr 9642 Bobbie- Cir 9001 Bermuda Dr 1. cpn Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 31-19s 149-031-299 149-011-2s ES 1, Warren R (ate, Robert 22102 Ao� L-I Oollier, Karen A 9071 Bobbie Cir 9021 Bermuda Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Iiutnington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 pand 31-20s 149-011-3s 149-031-30s hard, Randall W etal Rozisc3uek, Albert J Richardson, Edward B Beach Blvd. Suite N-O 9072 Bobbie Cir 9031 Beiztax3a Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92647 FitmtingGoci Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 1 31-21s 140-031-299 149-011-04s V zquez, Edward Caron, Robert Ashurst, -Albert J 90 Bobbie Cir 9051 Bennida Dr 22102 lbockport Ln Hu gton Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646. Huntington Beach, CA 92646 149-031-22s 149-031-3s 149-011-05s Weingartner, William A Horton, Ray=-d.. E Gray, Wesley H 9031 Bobbie Cir 9071 Niguel Cir 9061 Beuda Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntingtm Beach, CA 92646 149-031-23s 149-012-18 149-031-369 StatzenbacJc, Edward G. Jr Oourt3 ey0' John Miller, Barry K 9021 Bobbie Cir 21802 Kiam Ln Huntington Beach, CA 92646 9061 Niguel Cir Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach CA 92646 149-031-24s 149-031 149-012-2s --37s Griffithe, Shirley J Dmpsey, Robert G Battenfield, Alva L 9001 Bobbie Cir 9401 Niguel. Cir 21782 Ki�owa Ln Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 77-1 148-073-16s Ponderosa Hanes . 148-071-17s 0onavay. Carl F 2082 Business Center Dr. 21391 Breton Dr Irvine, CA 92715 Thais, Edward R Sr Huntington Beach, CA 92646 21392 Breton In Huntington Beach, CA 92646 114-150-11s 148-071-18s 149-23103s Steverson Bros Martin, Douglas W etal Hunt. Beach Union High School Hox 335 21402 Breton In District Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 5201 noHuntingtoun Ave. . n Beach, CA 92647 4-150 148-071-19a 149-031-03s 11 -28s 11 28s Flood Control Hill, Ernest H , Lyle C 9071 tta Dr �l .'13 1078 BHuntington Beach, CA 92646 Beach, CA 92646 Ana, CA 92702 11 0-40s - �148-071-21s 149-031-4s Seabuxy Development Co Dunkovich, Louise A Pebersen,. Donald M rMesa., 1587 8702 Hatteras Der 9061 Regatta Dr CA 92626 Huntington Beach, CA.92646 Huntington Beach, CA ,92646 43s148-071-22s WNTr",� _BEACH Seabury Devhlofxt nt Co 149-031-5s Rretzschmar, Paul Martin, William E 8692 Hatteras Dr .9041 Regatta Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Hutnington Beach, CA 92646 or F County Sanitation Dist. :148-071-23s 149-031-06s P. Box 8127 House, Leland R Jr Evans, Bryant R Fbin Valley, CA 92708 8682 Hatteras Dr 9031 Regatta Dr . Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Fl�tington , CA 92646 So California Edison 148-071-24s 149-031-07s 812 Garfield Ave Cash, Jack D Kocal, David J Hun r gtoon Beach, CA 92646 8662 Hatteras Dr 9021 Rgatta Dr Ihmtingtan Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 1 148-0 2-4s / 148-073-13s 149-031-08s Security Ebre Corp Cadiz, Manuel J Reichle, James W Standard acific Corp 21392 Yarmouth, Ln 9001 Regatta Dr Attn 'Do='36 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 . Huntington Beach, CA 92646 1565 W. on ur Blvd. Costa Mksa, CA 92626 148-073-146 149-031-09s // Smith, Gary C Westgate, Verlyn C 21402 Yainouth in 9002 Regatta Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Ilutnington.Beach, CA 92646 148-073-15s 149-031-10s. 148-012-lls Johnson, Carlton H Wallis Cecil E 1untington Beach City Schools 21401 Breton Ili 770 17th St. 9022 Pegatta Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach'.CA 92646 Hunnington Beach, CA 92646 CORAL PIM AMENDMENT 77-1 149-041-35s Montoya, John 9032 I*wx esia Dr Huntingbon Beach, CA 92646 149-041-36s Hutton-Potts, George P C '9042 Rhodesia Dr HLmtingban Beach, CA 92646 149-041-37s Kipper, George W 9062 Rhodesia Dr Huntingtrm Beach, CA 92646 D 165-181-21 tiuntirigton Beach C ngregatmon Area of oonoern 2.9 of Jex3vahs Witnesses Inc 7851 Talbert Avenue HUntingtcn Beach, Calif 92646 165-181-22 Bruce E Miller et al 6953 Warner Avenue Ukntington Beach, Calif 92647 165-181-24 Manuel Hidalgo Investment Concepts 770 S Main St Suite 161 Orange, Calif 92668 165-181-34 Aubomabile Club of So. Calif 2601 S Figueroa los Angeles, Calif 90054 165-181-35 Waldcn A Hunter et al Robert Taube 2622 Circle Drive Na%port Beach, Calif 92660 165-181-36 Donald P Jones et al 17931 Beach Blvd Huntington Beach, Calif 92647 165-181-37 R Burr DilcJay et al 244 Redondo Avenue Fang beach, Calif 90803 165-181-38 Allen E Ham Williams Bros Furniture i3838 S. Figueroa Street Los Angeles, Calif 90061 i�9-141-30 165-181-03 Dorothy L Vaughan Area of Concern 2. 9 Salvatore La Parne 277 Last H Street 15921 Butterfield. Street Colton, Calif Fountain Valley, Calif 92324 92708 1z)9-141-34 159-141-44 165-181-04 Anna Longwell wt al LB Any B Collins et al John R Silva George V Baker 8649 8 7th Street 9191 Ski harbor Circle P.O. Box 122 Dc>tauey, Cat t ft f Huntington Beach, Calif fiuntingtcn beach, Calif 92648 90241 92646 159-111-35 159-141--45 165-181-05 Richard Bucbner et al Mmalomho P Aranda Carl J Heinz 2nd 9 Oak Tree Rd 7862 Talbert Avemie 17941 Barron Circle Apt 1 Buffalo Cove, Ill. 00090 Amy Beach, Calif Huntington Bead, Caif 92648 92647 169-141-36 159-141-47 165-181-06 imbert J Warner et al mean E Rb=ai.d Lyle Skillestad 3650 E 5t1'i Street Rt 2 Boot 255 1204 S Athena Way Long Beach, Calif Denison, Teams Anaheim, Calif 90814 75020 92806 159-141-37 159-141-48 165-181-13 George R Knapp et al Aonald E Beard Thomas A Hammond Agnes Bernett 6332 NeWbwcy Drive 4748 Fir Avenue 291 S Euclid Ave Apt P11-7 Huntington Beach, Calif Seal Beach, Calif Pasadena, Calif 91101 92647 90740 159-141-38 159-141-52 165-181-15 ibbert J Warner et al R'abert L King et al William R Shinen 3650 L 5th Street 7801 Taylor Avemn 17952 Baran Circle #1 ling Beach, Calif Htaii - Bdach, Calif Huntington Beacl*,Calif 90814 92648 92647 L�9-.141-39 159-141-53 165-181-16 C E Bigford Balton Blanchard Partners Paul A Lechman George V Baker 2011 W Clayman, Avenue 5377 Grandview Avenue P.B. Box 122 Grange, Calif 92668 Yorba Linda, Calif luntington Beach, Calif 92648 92686 19-141-40 165-181-01 165-181-18 acul Maurel Dorris L Kzutci.k George Roudl nez it)senk ry Barker 4053 Larwln Aveme 435 A'>,iso Avenue '7807 N 34th Street Cypros, Calif Newport Beach, Calif Pix)e ii.x, Ariz. 85021 90630 92663 139-141-41 165-181-02 165-181-19 A E Arnold et al Larry J Strong Edgar C Scott 11.O. Box 370 723 Santana Drive Morris Fier LWress, Calif 0orona vet Mar, Calif 2045 Holiday Rd 90630 92625 Newport Bead, Calif 92660 111-307-18 Clara P lin �7lb Novacs Area of concern 2.9 Est. of Le Pay B wilins 4645 E Pacific Coast Highway 8649 E 7th Street Lang Beach, Calif 90804 Downey, Calif 90241 111-308-03 111-260-52 111-260-56 Ida Est Maile Paul Weatherly Bank of America Nt i Tr Gordon F Mile 7327 E Rbsecrans TR #8340-IW-51816/17 1555 Chickasaw Avenue Paramount, Calif P.O. Hoot 20160 Ins Angeles, Calif 90041 90723 Long Beach, Calif 90801 Ul-308-14 111-260-55 111-260-25 Edna GS Borden Gerald A Jones F13knk J Richmond Eva Granger P.O. Box 101 18151 Reach Blvd 519 13th Street Sunset Beach, Calif HUntingbon Beach, Calif Hun - x�pbon Beach, Calif 9264E 90742 92648 111-308-08 111-260-51 111-260-49 Nktilda J Metcalf 1w el G higuan et al Fxed S South Conine-Zweibel skPeliatjre Lumber Inc 20642 Tabenaory Circle 8649 E 7th Street P.O. Box 545 Hvatington Beach, Calif Downey, Calif 90241 Pose mead, Calif 91770 92646 111-308-20 City of Hunt x gtan Beach 111-260-50 Arn3us R Alexander P.O. Box 190 8*aioc Theo Manthei et al Itington Beach, CalifiMmfiMmkXMWMdbdMz 74565 Dillon Ad Attu: Administration 9m� Hot Springs, Calif 111-260-38 111-260-50 Merced Maloonado CVtain Jack No. 2 Inc 7771 Taylor Avenue Jack W Raley iiuntington Beach, Calif 110-1 Surfsicie C7 AMW 92648 Surfaide. Cali 90743 111-260-29 111-307-13 Robert L King 7 eod=10 MantbBi et al 7801 Taylor Avenue 74565 Dillon Rd Runtington Reach, Calif Desert Hot brings, Calif 92648 92240 111-260-27 111-307-30 Uianas W King B jam Nooklan 7841 Taylor Avenue U920 Lagl0000d Avenue 11untington Beach, Calif HMAIlorne, Calif 92648 90250 111-260-28 111-307-24 1•tary K van Arsdel et al Frank B R%Am UM Sutton Avenue Mabel K^11y Westminster, Calif 260 Per Aveam 92683 Ls Habra, Calif 90631 9363; 159-141--01 159-141-18 J Paul L111ott Area of ooaooern 2.9 Sepie ihdrnterton 214 S Garfield Avenue 5001 Galway Circle Mont mW Park, Calif Huntingtact Bead, Calif 91754 92647 159-141-02 159-141-10 159-141-19 Jo Scott Mora Id]+c]er at al Benjamin B Martsolf W E Jolly George V Baker Alice B Hitchoock Arlo 13561 Beach Blvd P.O. Boot 122 3405 Garfield Street Calif 92683 Watingtm Beach, Calif 92648 Carldmd, Calif 92008 1-9-141-03 159-141-11 159-141-20 Charles V Lindsay et al Wave C S Mdk1Ln FLornnos M Linthictm 304 La Veta 962 Id d=side Drive 1928 Thorton Street Eminitas, Calif Jimu aia, Cal.I ids. Calif 92024 91016 92507 159-141--04 159-141-12 159-141-22 L C J Reeves Cal.ia Haloes Lucretia F Will mm U20 Pacific Ooast Highway P.O. Hoot 122 895 E 9th Street Iiantington Beach, Calif H�utington Beach, Calif Lbland, Calif 92648 92648 91786 159-141-05 159-141-13 159-141-23 G Russell Shaw Rumba D Jcnes Waives C S Mc Mullen 1049 E Uhitcamb Billy D Wolfs 862 Ridgeside Drive Glendora, Calif 5001 Galway Circle Monrovia, Calif 91740 Hasitingbon Beach, Calif 92648 91016 159-141-06 159-141-14 159-141-24 le Roy B Collins et al Tam F Pefoan Fa r't A Gentry Charlotte Zweibel 1724 Minnewima Sp 85 13648 Lamont Street 231 1/2 S Gals Dr Clovis, Calif Whittier, Calif Beverly Hills, Calif 90211 93612 90601 159-141-07 159-141-15 159-141-25 W E Jolly Donald W Wood Celia Y Baker 7766 Talbert Avwm 1367 NW Riverview P.O. Boot 122 ikmtingtan Beach, Calif Gkvsham, Oregon 1203 Park Street 92647 97030 Fhnht3ngtan Beads, Calif 92648 159-141-08 159-141-16 159-141-28 Adelbert E Wellman Billy D Wolfe Brendan Dixon et al George V Baker 5001 Galway Circle 460 Darroca Avenue P.O. Box 122 --- i gtm Beanch,Calif long Beads, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92648 92649 90814 225 159-111-09 159-141-17 159-141-2 9 Timothy Bresnahan John F Chilton George V Baker %George Baker 670 Valparaiso Drive P.O. BOx 122 P.O. Box 122 Clax+�Dnnt, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Flmtingtan Beach, Calif 92648 917U 92648 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION NI-NIINC.TON BFACN To Floyd G. Belsito , From Bill Back, City.,;Administrator Economic Development Officer Subject REPORT ON PRESENT MARKETABILITY Date July 29 , 1977 OF TALBERT AVENUE INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES The following is in response to your request (7/20/77) for the latest marketing information on industrially zoned property on Talbert Avenue This .office has contacted a number of industrial developers and "spec" builders who have contributed several buildings to our industrial areas ; in the BIP, the BBP and along Gothard. Attached are their responses to my request. Several that we had wished to respond are on vacation or were unable to make the deadline. It ishoped that their responses will provide some of the answers that the Council is seeking for their decision making. Specifically, as to the deferred parcels along Talbert Avenue, listed • as 2. 3 and 2. 9 under the General Plan Amendment 77- 1 , we learned: Re : 2. 9 - In the week' s interim since the last Council meeting , we have contacted three brokers actively working in the Gothard area . We advised them that Mrs . Roselle Sommers , the appli- cant requesting a zone change, wished to sell the 11 ,81 acres and stated that she would sell "for any use as long as I get my price. " The report back to us indicates that the price being asked is not at all realistic in the present market . Further, there are two other owners of ' land surrounding the applicants and are part of the reported 11 . 81 .acres . Both stated that they do not wish to sell or consolidate at this time . The other owners are named; Jolly and Collins . Since Mrs . Sommer ' s control is on but 4. 76 acres , there is no industrial developer' s interest since the, parcel by itself is too small for an indus- trial park development. We attach a map to show the three major ownerships of the whole 11. 81 acres . Re : 2 . 3 - It was announced that this parcel is fully assembled for devel- opment , but there seems to be some question as to its presently being in one salable package, due to hold-out owners. • It . has a ready industrial market, according to two active in- dustrial brokers in the area who will , I hope, advise you of that fact directly. V�j r r Floyd G . Belsito - 2- July 29 , 1977 As to the current sales market, we attach a current listing being sent to site seekers showing some of the variety of facilities available in the City at present . Great Western Industrial Realty, our first and most active "spec" builder in the HBIP reported that they sold 5 and leased 3 buildings in the list- ing book during last week. The activity ranged from units of 11 , 941 square feet to 30 ,600 square feet. Great Western reports 3 of these sales were results of the City' s listing folder. The firm also added last week 8 more buildings nearly completed.. . WJB:p Attachment now _.• �..la 11 i-�bANIL - �� • _ J P _ I. A. .ice .., -: ,. - r CAME IN � o�x- ;�� ;a-;� a-�• -�- ;�-��-`: .,w I IN I C 1 ,a o IY ISR. �8 I I i Ito 1 T� 1'p 11+_ •may � 1 i vl t I I I I I 1 I - I I C'A1Cl t n th ED— Th- q Ile- Soft— OFFICES: ANAHEIM ASHWILL-BURKE & CO. LOS AN ELES SAN DI EGO INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE •PECIALIGTO VAN NI.IYS • PROPERTY MANAGEMENT SAN JOSE 17910 SKYPARK CIRCLE. SUITE 101 IRVINE 1714, IRVINE. CALIFORNIA 92714 n49 936I July 29, 1977 Mr. Floyd G. Belsito City Administrator City of Huntington Beach P.O. Box 190 California 92648 Dear Mr. Belsito: We have been asked by your economic developer, Bill Back, to give our evaluation of the Gothard strip as an industrial area. First, it might be well to explain our investment to date in your city. We have erected industrial buildings in both the Huntington Beach Industrial Park and along the Gothard strip, and we see a continuing active market for industrial buildings in your city. Now that all the land is almost completely sold out in both industrial parks in the northern portion of the city we have increased our activity in the past year in the Gothard area. Presently we have in escrow 26 acres at the southeast corner of Heil and Gothard, and we have industrial clients that would occupy the 17 acres opposite at the southwest corner once the zoning question is resolved by your city council . As to the land along Gothard and the railroad, south of Warner to Garfield: the soil and terrain problems that formerly kept this area from growing have dissipated greatly in the past year, primarily because of the great demand for industrial land. The present problem with the Gothard strip is not so much soil and terrain as it is consolidation of the multi- ownership postage stamp lots that frequent much of the acreage in this area. Re-zoning to another use will not eliminate this problem. We see this problem as one in which the city should take a leadership role, perhaps by having your redevelopment commission act to assemble parcels for development. We have clients that could utilize any of the land from Slater south to Garfield, provided title was cleared on the postage stamp pieces. Developers cannot get a proper return on their investment if hold-out small lot owners or their heirs delay consolidation by protracted legal action. i .0 \ OFFICES: ANAHEIM ASHWILL-BURKE & CO. LOS ANGELES SAN DIEGO INOUOTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL DEAL EOTATE •PECIALIST• VAN NUYS CABI rROr[PITY MANAO[MRNT SAN JOSE (7141 17910 SKYPARK CIRCLE, SUITE 101 IRVINE 5a9-936t • IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92714 93 To: Mr. Floyd G. Belsito Page - 2 - Only the city has the power and authority to accomplish this long- needed consolidation of the Gothard parcels for the general good of the whole community. Let it be said that the city should be commended for having the foresight, three years ago, in preparing the Gothard strip for industrial development by providing water, sewer and a wider roadway from Warner south to Ellis. It is unfortunate that the federal grant couldn't have included the key Ellis to Garfield portion because we have had considerable interest in the large parcel that lies in this area: We understand that funds were somewhat limited during that year. These off-site improvements have generated the expected interest in your Gothard area for future developers. It showed the city truly supported industrial development. The resulting savings to the developer could be used to mitigate the costs of correcting the soil and terrain problems. This, coupled with the demand, makes the whole Gothard area desirable to us for industrial growth and -development. We at Ashwill-Burke feel that the City of Huntington Beach needs such development, and we encourage you to give us the opportunity to prove it can be developed industrially. incerely, Don W. Gilmour General Manager ASHWILL-BURKE & CO. ig • GREAT WESTERN INDUSTRIAL REALTY CO. 225 WEST TORRANCE BOULEVARD. CARSON. CALIFORNIA 90745 (213) 532-2222 (213) 770-3333 July 26, 1977 Mr. Floyd G. Belsito City Administrator City of Huntington Beach P. 0. Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648 Dear Mr. Belsito: We have been asked by Bill Back, your Economic Developer, to • give your City Council an appraisal of the Huntington Beach industrial attraction market as we see it. We have been dealing with your City since 1972 and was the first "spec" builder in John Lusk' s park. We have been associated with Bill during this period and he is well aware that our firm has produced about 40% of all the buildings to date in the Huntington Beach Indus- trial Park. Our confidence in your City followed John Lusk' s significant investment there. We learned of the area from Bill Back who coat-tailed an Irvine industrial tour in 1972 by Los Angeles industrial people. Our Webb Morrow and Al Rose were on one of the busses that spent no more than ten minutes looking at the raw land at the corner of Graham and McFadden. Mr. Rose and Mr. Morrow are interested and our firm has continued to have much confidence in the City, evidenced by its rather significant investment. All ,the land in both industrial parks appear to be sold and if the current demand for finished, attractive industrial facili- ties continue as strong as it has been in the past two years we expect to continue to build in Huntington Beach. We under- stand that currently there is a zone change imminent in your reserve industrial area bisected by the Southern Pacific Rail- road. When we reach that industrial built-out point in the nor- thern industrial area we would be interested in continuing our investment in the central industrial area. • No developer can paythe escalating industrial land prices in SALES 0 LEASES • ACREAGE • NEW CONSTRUCTION • INVESTMENTS MEMBER :'AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL REAL ESTATE ASSOCIATION 0 INDUSTRIAL MULTIPLE LISTING SERVICE Mr. Floyd Belsito • July 26, 1977 Page 2 your city and handle the legal fees accompanying such a conso- lidation endeavor -- this is best brought about by government using its power of eminent domain for the common good. Meanwhile, please be assured by our firm that we see a conti- nued firm market for our product in Huntington Beach and will pursue other land purchases, but only if there is the important supportive role by the City of making that land available in a salable package. Great Western Industrial Realty Co. by: Al Rose by: Web Morrow • C I Properties TELEPHONE: (714) 8943= 12080 WESTERN AVENUE, GARDEN GROVE, CA, 92641 Jul y 20, 1977 Mr. F.I o•yd. G . Bel sito City Adminstrator C:i ty of Huntington Beach 1'.0. Box. _1.90 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 fie : Industrial usage Dear. Mr. Belsito: Your Economic Development Officer, Mr. William J. Back, has requested a statement from our firm as to the marketability of industrial. land in the area south of Warner to Garfield, along the Gothard and rail line. It is our opinion that the i►r.ospects are excellent for development in this area, part- iculary since properties in the Lusk Industrial Park have sold and there is no more land in that area available for development. We' are disturbed to learn that your City plans to .rezone ,your remaining industrial property in the Gothard area to residential use. This appears to be the only remaining industrial land left in ,your city and .it seems unfortunate, now that western county industrial development momentum is so strong, that your city would consider turning its back to added employment, investment and taxes (sales, inventory, real property and machinery) generated through "M" zoning. We have moved into the Gothard area now, despite the handicap of your encyclo- pedia lot situation. Assembling large enough parcels to do a. modern. industrial park area (that ,your city would be proud of in the years ahead) has bean extremely difficult. Now Chat; this rezoning problem has arisen .it might be well to suggest that your city could suddenly be the only vehicle to accomplish this assembling. Given this ability to put together parcels of land, unencumbered by the small lots problem, we can assure you that we. can provide a number of light Mr.. Floyd G. Bel. ► -2- duly 1-977 ' iuciust:ry clients who :in turn could provide a number of new • ,johs i rn your couununity. `l'hc� oric I osod f.l yer indicates tlic most recent l and sale in 1.116 men I.i oned area. Our firm sold the property within the I' i :rst. two weeks of representation and could have sold ten more irc the immediate area had they been available. Make more -i.rrdustrial land available and we will generate greater city dollars and more employment than other possible uses with the mentioned area. Very Lru l y yours , G . obert oung General. Manager rr eric'.l osure Cc : -Mr. Wi. l..l_iam J . Back Dill Properties COMM03CIA1 AND INDUSTRIAL TELEPHONE: (714) 894-3377 12080 WESTERN AVENUE, GARDEN GROVE, CA. 92"1 FOR SALE ! . 584 - 1 . 14 l ACRES WESTERN ORANGE COUNTY s„ BE��oNo't3Lvo� • TALBERT-AVENUE IDEAL FOR: Develo ers .3� R � 5 p Contractors Manufacturing Suppliers AA 9C- y •� w lees'' _Q- _ - ,���iM•, (`�� , " NAVAL--- - - i+ i e Gardenoi AM STATION ; I 11 wrsnvlxsru ' Grove' .. 11 s/tt' - 088IflOOr :7 _ AY"SDNO - VE I, 3 "E GA E. GAOvt :LL IVE Leisure iu U.S.NAVAL 2 World L__wt[T•:xsrEs__ _ 4„. All s„ AVE I '"' w[}T•:xaT[ uu o � e z _ Westminster`_ ' ' O _ . ----WEAPONS_— �o 4 N —_._ 8ilrer-: Y [OLsa ��B�I I AVE Aa- < SPECIAL FEATURES: _ <� . MCii y B°'way L - ° <DL _ _ ' STATION � * Talbert Avenue Frontage A * Corner Idenity & Access "v * Zoned M-1 With Possibility tlgeach d ''111- _ AVEI •o°� � rL , os'.Tos Winters urg - L., F SLATER 1 Mediate To Heavy Use Utilities , In The. Street -� P°`k" }"LBE"T B°UAC"KA �. Fountain A,z yrValley 1 N F[ELD All 6 I 1 wiSA viADB`<"~ rt. OR e • 'i �� ADAx 1 /L 2 AV �. izlmrrwr�l[sucunmv,.nrresu ` �� FOR DETAILS, CONTACT: wweeww�e ww�eE.. •..�,?HW.�•n$floY�♦f� ATLA"TA •vE BOB YOUNG (714) 894-3377 Heath , „ :, �Costa�K. • [ten `scyE`Fl iLrox o = Mesa THE ABOVE INFORMATION HAS BEEN OBTAINED FROM SOURCES WE DEEM REI!ABLE. WE CANNOT, HOWEVER,ASSUME RESPONSIBILITY FOR ITS ACCURACY. • CITY OF HunTmGTon BEACH • '� DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES �...� , �•� P. 0. BOX 190, HUNTINGTON BEkCH, CALIFORNIA 92648 (714) 536-5271 • c TO: Floyd G. Belsito, City Administrator FROM: Edward D. Selich, Planning Directo 5 DATE: July 28, 1977 RE: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 77-1 - ADDITIONAL INFORMATION The following additional information is submitted for the Council 's consideration concerning the industrial development issues surrounding General Plan Amendment 77-1. Central Industrial Corridor Applications To illustrate the lack of significant industrial development activity in the Gothard Corridor, staff researched the applications made for industrial uses in the Corridor in 1977 . Seven applications totaling .174, 000 square feet have been approved or are pending. Five are in the Jones and Mountjoy industrial tracts and are "spec" buildings except for one mini-warehouse which was tabled at the applicant' s request. Of the other two, one is' at the southeast corner of Gothard -and Heil and the other is in an old industrial tract south of Slater Avenue. What this illustrates is that even with the current industrial boom a lack of activity on the industrially zoned and planned lands in the Gothard Corridor. The Planning staff feels this is due to the factors cited in the Department's Industrial Land Study. Current construction activity along Gothard is for applications approved in 1976 and again is in the two industrial tracts previously referred to and a third tract at Slater and Nichols . SUMMARY OF 1977 APPLICATIONS Application Type Square Feet Pending AR 77-129 Light manufacturing and ware- 60,000 housing (spec. ) AR 77-120 Miniwarehouse 34,244 (Tabled) AR 77-17 Light manufacturing (spec.) 14 ,000 Approved AR 77-24 Light manufacturing (spec.) 10,000 AR 77-75 Light manufacturing (spec. ) 12,625 AR 77-88 Light manufacturing (spec. ) 21, 000 AR 77-128 Light manufacturing (spec. ) 22,000 Page 2 Status of Industrial Development Citywide One of the confusing issues confronting the City Council is how the industrial boom is affecting the City' s industrial inventory. To consider a piece of land used for industry when it is sold or sub- divided is misleading as it is really not used until there is an industrial tenant. The industrial land falls into five categories: 1 . Vacant - Large parcels not subdivided into an industrial tract or undeveloped small parcels. 2 . Subdivided - Large parcels subdivided into industrial park. In some cases development has been approved for some of the lots. The remaining lots are awaiting sale and/or application for development. 3 . Developed. - Lots upon which construction is occurring and has not been completed or spec. buildings have been completed and are awaiting tenants. 4 . Developed and Land upon which development has been completed and in use - is occupied by industrial use. 5. Non-Conform- Industrially zoned or planned land that is being ing - used for some use other than industrial. The following table shows how the Kaiser-Aetna and Lusk Industrial Park compare to the Gothard Corridor. LUSK & KAISER AETNA IND. PARKS GOTHARD CORRIDOR ACRES PEE ACRES PERCE MAGE OF TOT.ACRES OF TOT.ACRES 1. Vacant 70 9% 520.4 61% 2. Subdivided 331.2 45% 31 311% 3. Developed 70 9% 12.3 131% 4. Developed and in use 271.5 37% 231.4 27% 5. Non-Conforming 0 0% 56.3 7% Total 724.7 100% 851.4 100% What . t.his .table says is that contrary to reports otherwise the Lusk and Kaiser-Aetna Industrial Parks are not near full use. In fact, only 46% is developed or under development with many of these being speculative awaiting tenants. In the Gothard Corridor only 28�% is developed or under development with many of these uses being the marginal uses identified in the Industrial Land Study or speculative buildings in the three previously mentioned industrial parks . It also indicates that much of the development is for spec. buildings which still need tenants . when the spec. buildings are subtracted, the land &ctually used for industrial drops even lower. The spec . building aspect warrants carefu01 monitoring to insure that when the current demand declines the City does not have a glut of empty industrial buildings . Page 3 Revenue/Expenditure Analysis industrial development tends to have a mixed effect on municipal finances depending upon the type of activity and location. On the average, the aerospace industry shows a net gain to the City, whereas general light industry exhibits a net loss. The significant positive effect of McDonnell-Douglas on net City revenues is a function of revenues generated (mainly from property taxes) exceeding expenditures for municipal services . Municipal service expenditures for light industrial developments exceed revenues accrued to the City. The major reason for the $250 net loss per acre of light industry is found in the low revenues generated by developments along the Central Industrial Corridor. Light industry in the Huntington Industrial Park Area shows a net per acre gain to the City, while the Central Industrial Corridor sows a considerable net loss . Total revenue from the Huntington Industrial Park Area is almost 74 percent higher tnan revenue-- generated by sites along the Gothard strip. With the exception of the area north of Heil Avenue, many corridor de- velopments represent marginal improvements (such as wholesale distributors , warehousing, and open storage operations) upon land of low assessed value. As a result, property tax revenues to the City are almost three times .lower than those from the Huntington Industrial Park Area. REVENUE'S AND EXPENDITURES PER ACRE CF INDUSTRIAL LAND City City Net Gain c City Revenues- Expenditures Loss per Gr.Ac. Generated Incurred per Year Citywide Light Industry +1,309 -1,559 - 250 Aerospace +2,489 -1,464 +1,025 Huntington Industrial Park Area Light Industry +1,626 -1,559 + 67 Aerospace +2,489 -1,464 +1,025 Central Industrial Corridor Light Industry + 955 -1,559 - 604 An additional analysis of the Huntington Beach Industrial Park was per- formed and divided into two categories: (1) general manufacturing, whole- sale trade, and miscellaneous business services; (2) warehouse and storage. General manufacturing, wholesale trade, and miscellaneous business services showed a net gain for the City while warehouse and storage showed a net loss for . the City. HUNrIlN13TON INDUSTRIAL PARK City City City Net Gain Revenues Expenditures Loss per Gr.Ac • Generated Incurred per Year Manufacturin g, wholesale trade, miscellaneous business services +1,695 -1,559 +136 Warehouse and storage +1,248 -1,559 -311 Page 4 Land Use Plan for Gothard Corridor At the study session- preceding the July 18, 1977 Council public hearing on GPA 77-1 the Planning staff presented a proposed land use plan for the Gothard Corridor which would be included in GPA 77-2 . This plan was based on the conclusions of the Industrial Land Study and presented what would be an ambitious program to insure that the industrial lands proposed would be developed into the quality types of industrial use referred to in the Industrial Land Study. This program included all techniques available to the City short of redevelopment. Since land assembly is one of the greatest barriers to quality industrial develop- ment in the Gothard Corridor, assuming redevelopment to be an implementin tool may change the proposed land use patterns somewhat. Some industrial developers or realtors may have some interest in part of the Gothard Corridor if assembled land was available at the right price. This would involve use of the Redevelopment Agency and in all probability tax increment funding and write down of land from assembly cost to market value for industrial development. However, short of using redevelopment, the Planning Department stands behind the proposed land use plan which is in concert with the recommendations of GPA 77-1 for the Gothard Corridor. EDS: ja HN CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION To Floyd G. Belsito From Ed Selich City Administrator Planning Director Subject Economic Development Office Date July 28, 1977 Contribution to Industrial Land. Use Study This responds to a recent inquiry of the City Council concerning the use of the Economic Development Office in the formulation of the Industrial Land Use Study. As you know, the Industrial Land Use Study has been an ongoing project for the past two years. During that period, the Planning Staff solicited input from all departments on numerous occasions. In compiling data for the study, the Economic Development Office provided year-end reviews of industrial development in the City, industrial business and employment inventories , competitive summaries of major industrial parks in the County, and comments at a Planning Commission study session concerning industrial development in the City . Most of the statistical data was collected during 1975 and 1976 . In April , 1977 , the Economic Development Officer extensively critiqued the Industrial Land Use Study in a memo to the City • Administrator, to which the Planning Department responded in May. The Planning Staff since then has forwarded General Plan Amendments based on the findings of the Industrial Study to City staff interested in industrial land use changes for review and comment. The Economic Develop- ment Officer chose to respond before the Planning Commission at a May study session. In evaluating the role of the Economic Development Officer in preparing the Industrial Land Use Study, the yearly employment and new business inventories were useful in determining the existing industrial picture in the City at given points over the two year period. Such data aided in constructing trends and projections . It seems the problem arises that the office' s title connotes expertise in economics which is not the case. The office is not able to project industrial demand and provide locational suitability assessments for the City' s various industrial areas, including a regional perspective of where the City stood in context of the L.A. -, Orange County Area. Also, the office was not able to give the Planning Staff any significant information concerning the role of industry in a city like Huntington Beach, i .e. , costs and benefits to the City, and the extent of secondary effects on the local economy. Thus, it became the responsibility of the Planning Department to amass con- siderable economic data and utilize staff expertise in land economics and planning to do the job. • 1 � Page Two The Economic Development Officer is essentially a marketing and public • relations person. This may indicate much why fundamental disagreements existed from the beginning of the Industrial Study. The Economic Development Officer' s job is to market land that is planned or zoned industrial. All industrial land was assumed by the Economic Development Officer to be good for the City as it was planned and zoned for such use. The Planning Staff never made such an assumption. The staff used the latest data to study the existing condition and role of industry, establish growth projections, analyze industrial impact on the City, and suggest alternatives to compliment industry. The two differing philosophies were best expressed in the Economic De- velopment Office and Planning Department memos on the Industrial Land Use Study. The Economic Development Office provided a critique of the study with little supporting data. Virtually any industrial activity was considered beneficial so long as it utilized the remaining vacant land and provided jobs. In determining industrial land needs, demand was apparently based on inquiries for available land. Land was considered used for industrial if sold or subdivided rather than when the developments would be constructed and fully occupied. Rapid growth in the Lusk and Kaiser Industrial Parks was assumed to be imminently ready to spread to the slow growing Gothard and Edison Industrial Areas without regard to site advantages and constraints. The thesis generally was that Gothard would develop out soon and that additional land should be rezoned to Ml . The Gothard Corridor in the Planning Staff 's opinion is a poor industrial • area and it will never realize benefits like those from the industrial parks , EDS: ja • �� CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH • f� , 'T INTER DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION H HUNIINGTON Bf AC11 To Richard A. Harlow From Edward D. . Selich Assistant City Administrator Planning Director Subject. INDUSTRIAL LAND NEEDS Date March 25, 1977 There appears to be a significant disagreement between the Planning Department and the Office of Economic Development as to future needs . and existing demand for industrial acreage in the City. Though we have kept Bill Back informed of our progress on the Industrial Study and sought his advice occasionally, I believe it would be useful for him to prepare some kind of statement to document his opinion that demand is exceeding supply. The divergence of opinion between our staff and his office is causing some confusion among Council members and consternation among industrial developers and landowners . When Bill has formalized his opinion, we should meet together with you and hopefully resolve this conflict. • EDS :MF: ja • ST'ly OF HUNTINGTONtEACH 'ADMINISTRATIVE COMMUNICATION �+ 11UNIIN(,TON BTA(11 itBill Rack From Richard A. Harlow ` l:cuiiont.ic Development Officer Assistant City Administ.rator',F > > Date March 30 Siihi+tct SUP L L,Y/DEMAND FOR INDUSTRIAL , 1977 r; ACREAGE IN CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL ,h ; : CORRIDOR / +� I,v i dent. ly there is some Disagreement between the Planning Department an(I t he Off i ce of l:conomi.c. Development concerning the future needs and ;�.f:t'4 i :;t inl; demands for industrial acreage in the City. I believe the cl i f ference of opl.Ill.ori primarily centers around the demand for acreage : in the central industrial corridor. Cc nid vote please prepare a. memorandum stating your opinion on the supply/ demlalld for industrial acreage in this area and include any documentation sa� > ,yo►� may have available. 1' 1 r, RAII : hb 1 r1 �ry 1 y r � t.• l'.'.�v'r'•J i.II 1 , .,i k. V • CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH +, } INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION • III IN I IN(.WN III 11 To F.I ovd C. Begs i to From B:1.:11. Back City Administrator Economic Development Officer Subject I,ATI: INDUSTRIAL BULLETIN Date April 12 , 1977 AND MARCH MONTHLY REPORT 1 N1)1ISTRa.AL, BULLETIN Before we review the department ' s activity for March we wish to report something so recent that it should be called to your spec:i.al attcnt:i.on and cannot wait another month to report. It concerns the :fact that we are almost out of i 11dust r i.aa land in the 440 acre industrial park area , just sourli of McDonnell Douglas . here ' s the status of the two :i.ndustr:ial parks , as of Friday, April 8 , 1977 : 1.. The Lusk Itunt�toll Beach Industrial Park was sold mlt_L ,lccord i_n`; to Uavc Ar:i.ss L.usk' s Mar keti.li V. P. Ariss kris done a p11C11onlClla.1. j O In the past few years that lie has h.lndl.ed the park' s sales . This office :is currently assisting SAI- i.ss to get Lusk to pick up other :industrial parcels in the city - t:1101' C011trlbUt1.011 0f l.nvestment , tax and job generation Ims heed s:Lgli i. F.i.cant: and further, we would like to keep them in rows ; they understai-id what the city wants in attractive industrial units and tlic:ir staff mica the city' s development departments have a good and efficient working relationship. 2 . The K I_i.ser 11t.mt.i_ilg;ton Beach BuSilleSs Park now has less t.hrin ZO ;Icrc s :rva:1_l.mhlc for sale acc�or�_ng to John Mile , Kaiser ' s I�j:l r-k� t 111 _I)] rector. Ati-resent Kai! er has over 75 acres in escrow - .'�U'ci I�these we1'e sold since your body approved their request for a cllang;e to smaller lot size - that was only on March 21st ! here too ; ind :for the same reasons as in 1 above , this office is attempting to i.nterest them in the Gothard strip , our only industrial reserve outside the oil fields . 3 . Status of l:ndustri�11 Land Inventory f, Rate of Absorption . S i lice. :1972—wlien Lusk cons tructecc —t ee first industrial uilTiT_ng at the corner of 11cFadden/Commerce we have set a goal of utilizing : 5- 50 acres ,of industrial. Iand per year and thereby producing 'i pp rox imia t:ely 1 , 252 to 1 , 750 new industrial jobs annually within slur city ])orders . In light of .the"discovery" of Huntington Beach ;is a pr.i.me -i.ndustrial site since that time ; records show that between the coiistrrrct .on along, the Gothard strip and in the northwest park ;ii-ci investors have absorbed better than a 100 acres a year since 1 '17"'. ! I urt:hr. l , a gain during 1976 alone of some 3 , 100 plus workers ill the NIL zones .,, Ll% 1. L I L I 1\.0 110 � - I1•r gc 12 4 . Re : 1977 1iuIIdizit Permits . The first quarter reports I•rom our lilri l.clinl; and (:ouununaty,�)cv(, lol)ment: l)Cpal•I.IIIC111: L11CUw more I i gli t on the i.rldus trial and comme-i-C l a-1. wave that is 1)cadcd for our sliorre during; 1977 . During. tlic iFi.rst dearter of7 ' 77 Building Irrd Conurrurri.ty Development reports 1.8 industr:ial permits , totaling $10 , 7.87 , 368 - that surpasses the on�tt=ir�c�years of :1975 and 1976 , when 82 permits were issued . total i�i 9 , 770 , 321 . As to com►nercial : with 11 permits issued furing the 1st quarter 177 , total. irrl; $3 , 944 , 303 , that is already 360 of the total dollar valuation recorded for our highest single commercial year , 1976 , when 97 permits were :issued totaling $10 ,942 , 592 . Now on to our March 1977 activities . A. Advert.isi.rrl; Responses I. The ,lanuary 9th small ad showing the cover of the city Arca Inventory produced 247 responses from 24 states and S foreign corn)tries . The rough winter in the New England, Middle Atlantic rind Upper mid-west states showed up in the responses - 87 . So of requests name from these 3 areas , with New York City and New York State accounting for 51. 80 of the whole . 11 . Other Activities 1. . The off::i.ce (11d a market study for a bank contemplating 1 oca t i n}; i.n George lirtccol.a ' s new shopping center at Beach/Garfield . It. showed that: retail sales in the ten census tracts around the site :.hou.l d produce $116 million in retail sales in 1980 , contrasted with the $16 . 2 million that area produced in 1970 . 2 . Contacted -four more L.A. area industrial brokers . A previous L . A. contact now leas s i.l;ns up on McFadden , west of Graham proclaiming � thc.ir belief In the area. The competition could get pretty keen among j these brokers as we run out of ' _i.ndustrial Land. We had one example of t.hrlt oil' the. Gothard strip a week ago . Two companies were bidding � for the last remaining parcel (see 3 below) . j � . On Thursday., the Economic Development Committee met , conferred clad g,,reed with a Long Beach industry wishing to come in on Redondo circle . That weekend the developer sold the lot to another firm. wo. are attempting to find our SEG approved firm another site along Gothard. i 4 . The "industrials" last is just about ready for publication. 01 1.11c responses we ' ve gotten back from firms contacted through March ) l , it shows a 3 , 100 increase in industrial employment in Huntington ]Beach , when compared with 1975 . I I � i I lnaustrial Bulletin/Relft -Page 3. • S . Mailings went to : a. 31 firms responding to the city' s advertising . b. 214 persons around the country who wrote the Huntington "+ Beach Chamber of Commerce for information. c. At least 30 phone calls or walk-ins requesting a variety of information were handled. i 6. Banking and restaurant leads went to John Hile for his 11 acre commercial corner at the S/W corner Springdale/Bolsa. These ,. coupled with a few office structure inquires , might just fill out this corner that could serve both the surrounding industrial and residential areas. 7 . Attended monthly meetings of: a. L.A. Industrial Breakfast Club . b . L.A. Area Chamber of Commerce ' s Economic and Job Development Committee luncheon. C. International Marketing Association, Anaheim. i COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL REVENUES VS . RESIDENTIAL Our Internal Auditor provided this interesting piece of intellegence re : the above which was gleamed from the Southern r.� Oalifornia Edison' s 1975 Annual Report. 49 , 349 residential properties generated $12 ,252 , 297 while 3 , 040 commercial/industrial properties generated $13 ,632 ,808 . In other words 5 . 8% of all the accounts billed produced $1 . 4 million more than the residential which represented 94 . 2 of the whole. i i CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH •` INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION • � NUNTINGTUN BEACH To Richard Harlow From William J . Back Assistant City Administrator Economic Development Officer Subject ,SUPPLY/DEMAND FOR INDUSTRIAL Date. April 5 , 1977 ACREAGE IN CENTRAL CORRIDOR .Responding to your request for an opinion from this office as to : "the future needs and existing demands for industrial acreage. in the City" , we offer the following. I believe you will agree that whatever/whenever it happens to the Gothard strip is dependent to a great extent upon the acceptability/saleability of the northwest corner industrial park area. It presently appears that together Kaiser and Lusk had less than 75 acres remaining unsold as of 4/l/77 . Both seem certain that their respective parks will be sold-out and/or built-out by year-end 1977 , if the present enthusiasm for .this area continues . • Before we leave this area we should mention the suitability of two parcels , relative to the Planning Departments Industrial Land Use Study II , 2/77. Re : the first parcel . It can be agreed that McDonnell Douglas ' 60 acres at the northwest corner of Springdale/Bolsa is desirable but we should not include it in our industrial inventory. This office had a. potential user, along with 40 acres to the south involving also Kaiser and Lusk. Pete Horton of McD checked for us in St . Louis and the answer came back from Sanford M. McDonnell that it was "not for sale" and "the company had plans for the 60 acres". The second parcel , Tract 8746 , is the s/w corner. of Lusk' s park , where they originally wanted to put apartments for the park eventual workers. It is listed as "medium suitability" when in fact Dave Ariss reported these 53 lots on 31 acres sold-out by the end of ' 76 , one of them to the City for a fire station. Further, all lots in Tracts 7090 , 7999 , 8327 and 9723 are sold- out and in Tract 6948 only one lot is left unsold out of the original 46. As to the Gothard Strip ; starting from the northend! On DM 26 1. The small parcel , practically land-locked just south of Edinger and west of Pedigo Products , was recently rezoned to • commercial and will be part of the Gemco complex. A good move since it was impossible to develop industrial with parking etc . on this site . INDUSTRIAL ADAGE • ° April 5 , 1977 Page 2 . 2. The long, narrow parcel fronting on Gothard and running east to the R. R. should be low suitibility not high as shown. NM The two sale possibilities for this piece , left after surrounding parcels sold, is another long . line of storage units with one driveway -or a link-up with the Golden West Industrial Park, directly north, utilizing Lorge Circle as an entry point. 3. The Murdy parcel of 17 . 07 acres at the northwest corner Heil/Gothard is "not for sale ," in fact we had a RV manufacturer .who , would lease the site for 20 years but was turned down. Apparently the family wants to keep it in trust for their grandchildren. So , as to suitibility it rates low at this point , not high as suggested. 4 . Both of the Levinson properties just south of Heil , 17. 3.5 acres west of Gothard and 18 ..26 acres east rate high , not medium -when we consider the various moves made and. rejected by the City .Council for any other use . (tomorrow night a church will make a try) . They are both good level parcels and the eastern portion has rail available to it. Presently, one of our developers is attempting to buy these two parcels plus the not-for-sale-parcel covered in 3 , above for fall industrial Tevelopment. If he is successful in a quiring this land there ' s no doubt that held be sold-out within a two year period with the tide of interest that 's heading to Huntington Beach. • On DM 31 5. Taking the east side of Gothard from Warner to Slater we can report much interest and two known sales . a. The 7 acre parcel , directly opposite the City Yard, will house . a lumber operation shortly. It wraps around behind the Texaco tank , a fact that previously didn' t help its saleability. A local , active broker had the listing during 168 and 169 with no success . Apparently the rail on. the site helped on the eventual sale. Don Kiser wanted this piece for a portion of his department ' s operation. We have suggested #8 , below as an. alternative for Don. b .. The northwest corner Slater/Nichols just got approved for an upcoming industrial development so these two parcels (5a & 5B) should therefore be considered high suitibility since they have sold. 6 . The James Lumber Company has occupied the site on Nichols (the old Alpha Beta Packing Plant) for many months and are gene- rating many tax dollars for the City. It ' s just east of 5a, above , with rail on its west side. This operation proves the saleability of the Gothard strip . Jim Harrington took an ugly, old-styled building , stripped the brine lines and tanks from the outside of the building , surmounted many of the problems of upgrading an old building to meet present City codes and created a successful business , employing 53 persons , at present. 0 ' INDUSTRIAIMIZEAGE April 5, 1 ' Page 3. 1 • 7 . Since the sale of 5b , above , completes the east side of track for industrial development and the 5a sale has taken place «v anchoring industrial , along with the Texaco tank, on the west side of the R. R. it seems what remains are parcels that are non-conforming and eventually will find the industrial market as demand grows . 8. The square at the northwest corner of Gothard/Slater would be utilized by the City for the Public Works sweepers and storage . It' s the last piece contigious fo the City Yard, unless the mobile home park is phased out and the City Yard could be extended north to the Wintersburg School line. 9. Next, the panel from Slater south to Talbert besected by the R. R. . First , a. the parcel at the southeast corner of Gothard/ Slater. A developer has. pulled together all but a few hold-out encyclopedia lots . This could easily be the next project for our Redevelopment Commission to address . As it is the hold-outs block or control the access and egress suggested by the City to' make it a good industrial area. T.he City could back up the - developer ' s .present investment handsomely by acquiring the hold- outs . Now, b,. , which is- the Meredith property that abuts the R. R. on • its east , just south of Slater. It was understood late last year that an industrial developer was ready to break ground here - its medium suitibility rating is therefore doubtful . This office hasn ' t had the dealings with this developer - handled solely by Planning. 9 . The Manthei property at the north side of Talbert with rail on the west hasn' t had a solid plan submitted , to our knowledge , since Wycliffe Bible Translators submitted details for developing the whole parcel a few years ago . We have had several L.A. industrial brokers recently pursuing this parcel - the problem, they report , is getting hold of the owner. On DM 39 ' 10. Now, Talbert south to Ellis - a. The Mountjoy 30 acres on the west side of the R. R, are moving well with about half of the lots already sold. Mrs . Strasbaugh, widow of the owner of the firm plans to make the plant move from Long Beach this year. (They were required to sign a two year non-relocation agreement with EDA before the City could get the EDA grant - reason: the plant move was from one SMSA to another) . The optical machinery business has increased and there is further need for their .,edpanding to the Gothard site. This will fill about 10 acres at the south end of the Mountjoy property. b . Easterly, across the track, Jerry Jones 10 acre parcel is now completely sold-out . Last week end there was a battle for the last lot and the man that the SEG Committee met with and okayed last week lost out . We ' re attempting to get him something in this area - he liked it. INDUSTRIAL ACRT'AGE • April 5, 1977 Page 4. Construction will start shortly on the remaining six buildings to go up on this site . Again, the medium suitibility rating is academic - the 10 acres are .sold. C. Considerable interest mostly by L.A. based brokers , has been shown in all the land rezoned last year to MI-A from the Jones property east- ward to the commercial strip on the west side of Beach. They all liked the proximity to Beach Blvd. The completion of the U-shaped street to the eas.t , through the .City-owned parcel and back north to Talbert would - create a . good industrial park area, one developer thought. To date no one has come forward with a firm offer , to our knowledge. But , alternative 1 of Land Use Study II suggests rezoning this property along with the Manthei piece. Unless we are mistaken the City assured the School District that there would be no more residential growth in this area when the district sold the then-declared surplus school site on Taylor so that Parks and Recreation could build a 3 , now S acre park. An early clarification on this would be appreciated by this office so that we might stop showing this parcel and advise those interested that the industrial zoning will not continue to hold true . On DM 39 11 . Next , the land south of Ellis to Main: When the R.R. terminates at Main and Gothard rerouted to link-up with Crystal , --to the west , we are looking at the last piece of reserved industrial land in the City (unless use is made of the surface areas in the existing oil fields) . Along with the Ellis underpass completion, the filling of the swale at the north end of this parcel to accomplish the Gothard reroute to Crystal a linkage with the existing industrial on Crystal and the Mountjoy property would be accomplished. As it stands it appears the Crystal industrial is spot zoning. Despite what we might hear there are fail-user industries looking for good sites . When the rail terminates at Main there are two alternatives ; on to create a team track that would accommodate the occasional rail-'user industry who unload to truck to plant (any industry in the City could use it , but more conveniently the Gothard firms) . Two , plants utilizing the City' s original industrial area, the Holly Sugar site , could run spurs off the main rail westward into their plant yards . , We have tried this out on industrial brokers and they liked it but when will it happen we are asked? We 've waited four years for the Ellis underpass . With the present route of Gothard from Ellis to Main we are denied use of: the Holly site for rail-users because of Go'thard in its present location. By- moving it' west we create a rail . access to all this- industrial land *and at the same time produce an attractive frame to the southern end of the Gothard industrial strip. INDUSTRiAL ACREAGE April 5, 1977 Wage 5 Another plus is the elimination of the five street crossing at Main, Gothard and Garfield .before the City grows to the point where such a crossing is a hazard. 12 . When the EDA grant was made for the improvement of Gothard from Ellis to Warner we tried to include the Gothard-to-Crystal link but they .didn' t have enough funds that year .to do it . The. City qualified for -the grant due mainly to three underemployment areas abutting the Gothard strip . Assurances that several thousand jobs would be created along the Gothard strip were made by the City. Jobs that would alleviate the un-and underemployment in these three areas in particular, but also the City as a whole . If it is the desire of the City Council to rezone the Gothard strip to some other use we might consider an alternate to residential/ industrial-only. This is to create a new industrial/commercial zone which would allow more than 25% commercial activity in an a industrial zone . Fountain Valley' s retail sales have grown significantly by allowing retail in the industrial area along Ellis , the San Diego Freeway and Euclid (just north of the Sanitation District) . In this form the tax benefits of both commerc-ial and industrial are gained and the employment factor in the community grows in both areas . Further , both uses pay school taxes but of themselves tiiey. add no children to the school population. Also Police and n Fire service requirements are less for such areas when compared ' with residential . We include DM' s 18 ,26 , 31 and 39 with all known areas that are sold so marked for your reference . fl' ,.ANNING i ZONING mh DM I B SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP I6-5-11 •..,, NOTE' C OFcoorrto JuNc z9.roso LEGEN GEN*D.unrluw, 1I�1,Y 1 1 urr COUNCIL ORDINANCE No rn ryuI ,•,.,r.r.,,,. n11�1f-r AN NDlD 9RD NU AY N R IAI I r�,a.r r•,i�. ,I•in,„r n�...v, H UNTINGTON 131..A.CH y.rR Ry ,l,t I i• I lr.r, 11' r, ia10 D la 1.9 7rNM Li•1 ................. In.,r•,•.0 l or„u UI( AN(.; 1; COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AW.NDED 9Y ZONE CASE ay.n,rt•w,r..q,ar►»•a I ) r nDLI5a ou-sinlns Ppark%_. _ _ ._ ' -0-0 0 0 A N _—.. bi . . .. N u () L C 4 • ��0 11 a .-• • • . e- Od - I 0;1 0% L DR. I, • ARclosy MI-A4p 1 MYN__ _ _ •ON y o RI v�� I I I I-A MI-A .i'.... __... HI r RI RI I V I a 1 ' I II A Cv HI _ I I d II� I� M1 ADOEN—J AVE. -- -� CF-E RI �}} ["IEIIIAN'HI LR a I II I I I y ti RNj---- I! I I MI—A Dov_twcwD r 5 DR = i I I I I 20.000 RI RI RI RIMir t3 _ RI _-'-� JdiAl ... Ca RI R3 5 a1 R 1 CF_E u RnDiNwDnO Da w — 5l•/,RROw_ _ CF-R j �w Q E� RI JI S.YI o✓ _ DR RI .. .-'-- IJ1. 1_ I u o C r C 1 c D •-� %- j EDINGER AVE I Industrial a ' k L ANNING ZONING • DM 26 SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP 23-5-1I °.E:.. - NOII - .IIr O�H Y1•o�wr ;..=.y rn CITY ADovt[D 4ARlN 7, 16e0 IN—.OF .;'N 1 Y:t.i,rr 1:Iir COUNtII OROINA NCI NO 7pa I.E. . o wr+ Lf GCNU AYLnVIp ONO NO, A-0LIP One.NP. 414-110 one,Ne, A2 KlN0l Nrly p U.KrWL ll DnKf aeu• rrr I). 1_.. I 1L NrI'1NGrl,ON BEACHA 11a" ' I13 r1 a 1 II ,p Ifa1 °_I `NoN.n C'...C..1 N1,.ICr I la of Mr 10 I) 0 lIN°II I.Yily Nl lql Y[I. OlairlCT }-If-a} ar0 1•Ia ar aa. 1-I.-•, I.)r �f} tOYYU,nry .ullvf 11 01)1.K1 0 II A N G E COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. iaaa a•-IiIr..--ruu.aae xrr-r}a IuInrr1a)a6 rul»Pn0oNY r.r onAYYr An.mR•oa,.,Str fs olrYora.r.INN.cuf.n• LINEaaNs.[ •se, f -1 `nH . Ela-ftno1.i1 N} Ym UuI[ a.•lrF N.lnKo:rT N c[w wa..Ym AMENDED BY ZONE CASE' D ,oa K)l ile,L! %to.21,212,2".220. a-.1 .. 414 n tSSNA ..o,[> a r.a}.—m— n .ee,501.505,l06,el7,6 •.,66-26 - Ie272.2,N62•lL 2r0.327, f« xc [s wrn[ aN or nfl M-Ba 6,66.04.Go.61,//66•4.rR 67•4,66.12.66-14 Ila-a+ 1}a, }-}0- 1 IxM �:1�ClYYUNIr•4CILI,R31[aKAT10Y1OH,NKr 66.30.664.{1-!.6h t,W66.2 M•t.10•N,PP TQ-p,�P 70.6, I-I.1. T rrh•1.ry•la.il N-han,Ir lU,R•Na.rl'a�• �.1-1: MIS CC C CCCWYYYUuNwITv.IrFACILITIEFACILITIESIEl)IICNI[VCKN DISTACT aSTnn EDINGER AVE C4 $ r 8, T ro W C 2 a o I C4 s s C2 C2 m AL DPICH 346 �. C4 ST R1 L- l�- i`ew[`sA1Le___ S ��` z VOLGA DR w R I I �- R 3 R 3 STARK ST N oD —'3dJ R w�R 3�� lw R I S 3 R I AMAZON _ Dn R 3 4 R3 CF-R sp CANOI[LION .f0u01.aT ¢' I I R] ___-- S .n f ii ,M M. ,= R! IN Yr N[W ut rra•N h LT ST R I = YFf LIE - lTAl11.IGMT �I. R1 RI RI R15 WIO.. 1CF—E � R3 �4 --- J LN 1.^•llhil�'N V.r•f`!.) '° ' �.V DONALD of ON�/ N[n[ •N6:T�} R2R C4},_- V_ NINE _ Eb RI 110frAc. 4LCNCOCI N11NCT DR x I F _ on �g DR = RI RI a R2 C4° R I ! R I I = ►LNA4BRA RI C�R... VEIL w R 2 A O R3 RI DANUBE DR a R1 R1 V R1 W oP R3E R3 R3 R3 DR3 R3 R3 RI W SEINE DR ,R1 C4 a of M( R1 si a J RI DON �` o° tNN•suK la RI RI M oq J R3 R3 R3 R3 : CF-E MI R1 ,, ' C 2 I•ARK IIE'N e-:HCn'LI � t.! _ O ' RHINE N 4,I Yli} W .IA O' iLNP ON ^S[C 3). f rbR3 4 CF-R R3 ;n R3 C4 • (4!IN;Si!:CV 4:uC:_:7 Of RKl CpITKAN M R3-._]� O.��is ON�r1 In A C. r C D }- O C [ C D C6-1 R3 400 ).o i 7 RA 0 R2 R5 _ yY/} E3 ! RA SR3 R z Mi N �, R3 C4 °I m ri.o [�4 R3 C4 — y�RA Wr b Li WARNER AVE � ,4ING • ZONING DM 31 (. SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP 26 - 5 - II OF NOTCITY ADOPTED f1PRIL I1,f960 's,,'..��p•s•�.°'/+:•• .r,.r.o. .. • CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 739 LEGENO-• eME NDfO ORO.NO. 4Y(ND(D ORD NO [e(] •(f'(Y.+4 A,•.,<ua•w•l pfr•Kr Vrroa. Nt Vrrnnu,.l.,.uPt,snrit[(rNc[D u(D.cn(Dwr,c,D. ,fr„(rHJNTINGT N BEACH 1.:; I '� ucwr .wfn„l onr•,cr Y'�::- h�o i i : ,. i N+. r,•,a„erl D,(,•,(. 1 i„••+ ' [�] Y.flf /,(r,l+ •(f�D(rCl Dfr•Kf , •Dir.� L,Y,1 rD •M•'rl( /.••l+ Kt of,K, (MANGE COUN '1 Y, CALIFORNIA i�i3i '"' milli� ..»1.1 1 ; h� co—.— AMENDED BY ZONE CASE pfi.ti3 [z� r•c ps•..a IUI,Ne,g7,IM,192,20T,20e.211,2R.2)7,JDA,y7,y) eo+:: 0io cr-e cp.uu.n.+.,n�•K,¢rvK,onrner 3 06,376.739.lel,)ee,l36,7e6.7e9,)71,te6,A67,$06,506,e06.6e-7,66.17,66-16,66.67.PP 66.7 •i.;f.,�?i _..- sr rs,c, 66.00,41.1, - •7.62,►►67.6,PP6f-I,PP69.2.PP70.1,70..,PP70-6,71-17,72.2A72.29,N rra., I.--Ie,PP7A-2. �.ir.i((i --_- oL,lust .41T 1111 r•r n rl .iN i i Ai. rZG /,Cox rL•.a f,r(t+ AL'c+•rr, WARNER 4'': : ((D AVE I ,'f " II L FrIR DR C4 IN AVE i I BEE CF-E D�2 a MI R 2' i - R2 .01 co r CF-R CEDAR AVc. ,n P2 ,(o R2 R2 MI RI AI' CF-E Fp� )10101 6f T Y OR I R�7 fa M 1 M 1 (::1R •C, fit ( .fV+DRELL DR R 1 ---'0D:-A-Ts 1 l �'-7 � R3 I_ F23 p1 RIR C4I RI uRl R C-F—C , I 9ARrCrf DR 3 •- (OTY YAR14 I R3 E 5 L I r0R0 D C �D p1 �,(,.,„�"cr � � R37I1f NT RI- CD f► R3 ¢ Cr ¢ + u / I �RI•C j Po GD M1'CD O• 3• ~ y=—" R3 R3 X R3 8 R3 Ik �C'4;'D £ R III v f �.• MH C4, it�i— 1- e O v le RA-CD j o� g � r .I . --- Q✓ a pl.N.I R2 C4 •I CF-R �f M1 x R2 C4 (l MIINM.'N UNIRAI,r•.lii.) r R3 I ,D� I - � Nf+.MAN AEI KMI R2 C. RONALD GR 'R W 6IC n 0 R3 R3 0 CD R2 R2 Y C4 m "i •n•( I = R3i R _ ��/ TALBERT AVE A.ANNING ZONING DM M SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP 35-5-11 - - NOTE T ADOPTED NARCN 7, I960 l D• r.;rnr( •.1 .. (rrr C�r�r[/ OF CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO 7!1 •r•('O+r •n.nr.(•r • , Or. lr n r •Ixn(�;OWl.rl Or,Ox((l Rt(• r!va[B ouw N+s�D wDru. NsxtB a�nnn •"' ••• nRRO ,.n -re 1, .e• s-e0 ", a-re:r, R+, LEGEND' q"11 r.r• UK] ■90(MTIL•rwK1._TU•Al Dral.Ki r, arr r mz rglSiw•l p)i•Ki H N I ING T1ON BEACH :ru 6rD - r r r 1 r a,r RrR 7 NR, C6KI rr r.0 nlsao rD n n wre = co+wrn. ..w.n Ors,Pre) P4e7 r,6 .s i• n)R rnoxi ...[ s(n•n urd rn[=Rr (}. -q J• MSr �� Swa(r . rl�MKt pf,rxcr 'a) 1- 1.6-76 [O• [aS� Or,Kt r+,a[sYDr•l D•)r.K• ORANGE, COUNTY, L CA IFORNIA °�� ``� ""D( .+•([ORANGE, I rr-r.R• n) Cj� +ri[D• �.(( • .[hD(x<[ AMENDED BY ZONE CASE: r 11 e•. +s a•N xa el)r•KgO+•ron[,wn,O Drs,wcr III,r76,127,I�rr,l�l,171,1)e.111,119,rB6,rlr.2n,Z36 .r- n77 CCYYV.r,•r•rKr•r(.I•It•[•rrp.•lIL ZlO, >ee,7T1,7Bs.17B,600,61Z,6771,66.11,M-e1,ee•11.68 21,70-I0,7O-Z7,11.11,/1•17,72.6.PP)Z•6 q ago .rw t •M EELD [n++nxrr,r•Clr•KSr[rvKl Orl i•..1 7Y•V,7t•N,1Z•e,»•),,70.61.77•!.7!•6,1y16,/}Ie,PpA7SI,/]•71,1l 23,77•20,7/-1,71-15,P►71 e,70-17 . )i' rrNi L•.rRHln •" M•grKlgll 1 rr, I-n I CO+RrHr Or'•w p( MOOKTIOr, ((I, TALBERT min, •rr(ust-•xw v•rr1xr rii �ii AVE. r.rr.rt v.rn J `4 E lad C q l i , 1 co CF—R -- -- -- MI—A I --n° MI-CD A. -- `--_ 3 4 C2 " M 0 U N T 1 0 Y RI RI RA-0-CD ' I N•D•0 S T R�I A L . RI ONTARIO J OR C2 ...I....aanE - (` R 1 �F P.A.R.K CF-C L -�-�7 OY([::::— R11 — OUEBEC DR R I R I R�-�r r..r }o ` RI � 1rn I RI ALBERTA D„ A, ; ."•. R 3 MI-CD RI RI RI ( RI� _ i 7RANKlIN OR-ON —OR G4_ . E a • `rii r �I[71 RI He N} -0- MI-co ! '(•((°. RI „n°[ R3 .RI R2 .1R2 .1 AN W RI MI - - i: R2 V J MI-O-C + R2 Iof C 2 '° ...__ R2 RA-0-CD +7..[r � p _ — -- �i6o so R 3 COMMODORE CR / • ,eT1[Nq M M2-Q R3 R5 MI-0 $ R3 R R2 RQ-p " 1 (D,[ ,DD RA•05..__. j -oCL R2 �zo I i Lj R5 C4f ERNFsr - AVE J R5 9n Irl ��Dv--,.o.co ; R5 I' R5 s I MI•A•COr-.._ MI-f� W I R5 e. R3 = )Dy •f U I MI-0 R RSf R2 �-,^r a m [! F 5 - / GARFIELD AVE ),1,r CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION 110N11NGTON OFAC11 To Richard A. Harlow From I,dward D. Selich Assistant City Administrator Planning Director k Sul;j.ec} INDUSTRIAL LAND USE STUDY Date May 26, 1977 • This responds to questions raised by the Economic Development Office coricerning. the validity of the conclusions reached in the Industrial Land Use Study , Parts I and II . The first series of responses addresses Points. raised in the interdepartment communication dated April , 5, 1977 . A second set of responses to an April 12, 1977 , Industrial Bulletin follows. The Planning Department stands by the conclusions derived from the lndustriial Study. There is too much poorly suited industrial land in the City relative to projected 'needs, and the excess should be reduced. PLANNING DEPARTMENT RESPONSE TO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OFFICE COMMENTS (DATED APRIL 5, 1977) Northwest Industrial Parks 1. Thb Raiser and Lusk industrial parks are developing very rapidly and may be •sold out by 1978 . However, it .is not necessarily true that the Gothard Strip will instantly become a rapid growth area once the land supply in the northwest industrial parks is depleted. c According to the opinions of industrial developers around Orange County (including Kaiser and Lusk) , the Gothard and Edison industrial areas will never be highly desirable. Where the northwest parks are almost ideal from the standpoint of locatiohal criteria, the Gothard Corridor contains problems that most industrial developers find too costly to mitigate. Most indicated that the area north of Warner Avenue is good but land costs are too high. Below Warner Avenue, poor access to freeways, drainage and topographic constraints , fragmented lot ownership and poor aesthetics make costs even higher . Small industrial developers are entering the Gothard Corridor, but much of the industrial land is expected to remain vacant or in demand by primarily low revenue generating marginal activities (lumber yards, wrecking yards; recreation vehicle storage, etc . ) I . 2. In determining the suitability of sites for quality industrial development, the planning staff applied a consistent set of criteria viewed by industrial developers to be important in location decisionE These included: freeway, arterial access, and rail access; compati- bility of surrounding land uses; utility access; topography and drainage; lot and ownership considerations; and economic factors . The' compo`site evaluation of these criteria presented a broad description of a . site' s industrial suitability in terms of low, medium, and high. "-Page 2 ' Stich an analysis of suitability cannot be equated with saleability ' of the land. Saleability as applied by -the Economic Development Office closely approximates immediate demand pressures . However, it fails to offer decision-makers a reliable measure of desirability K over the .long .run. - There are definite problems in the Central Industrial Corridor and Edison Area. The use of locational criteria (such as transportation access and lot size) enables decision-makers to identify development obstacles that are likely to persist into the future. This is important in the Gothard area where sites have long-term vacancy potential, or contain marginal activities that result in under productivity of the land and discourage quality industrial development. Saleability is also misleading because it may or may not reflect the location 'of existing or potential quality industry at the site. i Many areas along the Gothard Corridor are identified as sold without regard to whether the uses substantially or marginally benefit the community . Some of the areas noted as sold contain wrecking yards , I lumber yards, and other open storage facilities that generate little revenue to the City. The Industrial Land Use Study con- sidered such areas as recyclable and evaluated them on the basis of their potential for change to a quality industrial use. 3. The 60 acre McDonnell-Douglas site at Springdale and Bolsa is prime industrial land from every locational standpoint. - except saleability. If McDonnell-Douglas decides not to sell the parcel, it does not follow that the site should be excluded from the industrial inventory. The firm plans . to use or lease the site fore ancillary industrial purposes . This was considered in the Industrial Study' s projected land requirement. The site, whether sold or not, will produce jobs and additional revenues at some point in the future, and it is invalid to say the site does not exist for lack of short-run sale potential. 4 . Tract 8746 in the Lusk park is sold out and will be developed to quality industrial uses. The 31 acre site was rated medium suitability by the Industrial Study to reflect the site' s relative locational advantages and disadvantages . If scores had been used in- the analysis instead of three broad suitability categories , the parcel would have been shown as very close to being prime industrial land. In such an instance, a medium suitability rating does not preclude the location of quality industry there. Gothard Corridor on DM 26 1. No response necessary. 1 2. The long, narrow parcel fronting on Gothard and running east to the railroad is an excellent industrial site "from the standpoint of the criteria listed in the Industrial: Land Use Study, Part II . Current saleability is low but the site should be retained in the industrial inventory. This would apply as well to the entire areae north -of Warner Avenue. _A �i .�. v Page 3 3. The Murdy parcel at the northwest corner of Heil and Gothard is "not for sale" because the owner is seeking a General Plan amend- ment and zone change to residential . This does not alter the Planning Department ' s contention that this site, as well as the entire area north of Warner Avenue, constitutes the best industrial land in the Gothard Corridor. The staff has recommended in the past and will continue to ,recommend that any application other then" industrial be denied for this parcel . Only if decision-makers commit to, retaining the best sites will land prices assume a level that is attractive to industry. Convincing the landowner may • take some time and the site, may not develop industrial in the near. future. The Industrial Study takes such considerations into; account and ranks sites according to locational advantage, not' Ammedla'to saleability. 4 . The properties between Heil and Warner present a similar situation as the Murdy property . The owner is requesting a General Plan amendment to ,low density residential on the entire 36 acres . At the same time, a .conditional use permit for a church and school on the west side of Gothard is pending City Council action. Again, if scores were used instead of the three broad suitability categories this entire area would be seen as very close to a prime industrial rating. Regardless .of the owner' s• intentions, locational criteria show this area to be one of the best in the Gothard Corridor. Concerning the prospective industrial developer, it is over enthusiastic to' categorically suggest that the area would be sold • out within two years . This may not happen. In -the recent industrial developer survey, all expressed the opinion that the current rapid industrial growth around the County (not just Huntington Beach) is a unique situation and some felt that it would not last more than another year. At that time, there could be a glut of speculative buildings with only the really excellent areas of the County surviving. Gothard Corridor on DM 31 5. a. The 7 acre site directly across from the City Yard is proposed for a lumber yard. The sale of this property for such a use shows that much of the Gothard Corridor south of Warner is attractive only to something less than quality industry. Sales tax revenue derived from lumber yards is good but improvement and inventory property tax revenue is low to moderate because of the large area occupied. relative to value. Employment per acre is also low. For comparison, the businesses north of Heil Avenue show an employment density of 14 wor.kers per acre, while the average density for lumber yards in the Gothard Corridor is only 6 employees per acre. Although the property is thus sold, the City is not maximizing revenue from the area. Lumber yards are becoming as common as wrecking yards in the Gothard Corridor . With the use under application, five lumber yards will occupy_ approximately 40 acres . ANNILP. �.•; ;i. Page 4 • 5. b. Suitability cannot be equated only with short-run saleability. Also, a medium rated site in the Industrial Study does not preclude quality industrial development. On the other hand, moderate sites could attract marginal uses as has happened / with much of-the Gothard Corridor below Warner Avenue. 6. The same argument concerning lumber yards as in 5 . .a . would apply here. 7.' Growth in demand will not guarantee recycling of the non-conforming areas to quality industrial development. These areas contain old residential structures on small fragmented lots. The department found in the industrial developer interviews that fragmented owner- ships, clearance costs , and poor aesthetics repel potential quality industrialists even when demand is as strong as now. Redevelopment is a possible solution but most developers are not willing to wait long 'if the City is without strong commitment . 8 . The Public Works Department is no longer pursuing acquisition of the Stellrecht property at the northwest corner of. Gothard and Slater. ; j 9. a. The small lot area at the southeast corner of Gothard and Slater is 90 percent consolidated but .only redevelopment or assessment. district can make it a viable industrial area. These are not easy processes. However, such programs would require considerable time to complete. Unless the City is firmly committed, most developers would not be willing to await the uncertain outcome of these processes . 9. b. The developer interested in the Meredith property east of the railroad and .south of Slater intends to develop the site residential. The Planning Department has received a General Plan amendment request to change the industrial designation to medium density residential. This request will be evaluated in General Plan Amendment 77-2 . 9 . c. The 40 acre Manthei property consists of small fragmented lots . This is the primary reason for developer disinterest in the site. The only use able to locate there so far has been a recreation vehicle storage yard. The east 20 acres is under General Plan amendment request by the property owner to be I changed to medium density residential. Although 90 percent consolidated, most industrial developers are unwilling to risk investment in the uncertain outcome of a redevelopment project. Gothard Corridor on DM 39 y 10 . a. No response necessary since the Mountjoy Industrial Park is one of -the- better areas in the southern Gothard Corridor. Industrial Land Use Study II recommends retaining the 30 acre site in the City' s industrial inventory. • 10. b. No response necessary since the Industrial Land Use Study , Part II , recommends retaining the Jones property in the industrial inventory. t: Page 5 10. c. The former school site east of the. Jones property was recommended for deletion from the industrial inventory in the Industrial Land Use Study, Part II . A change of this site to residential use would not burden the Ocean View School / District' s capability to serve the area. The department ' s recommendations in General Plan Amendment 77-1 to change industrial designations across Talbert- and east of the. former / school. site to residential uses partially reflects this con- sideration. The Ocean View School District was contacted, and they indicate that projected student populations can be accommodated by existing schools within .75 mile of the subject properties. The school district plans no new schools in the area in the near future. 11. The area south of Ellis Avenue and west of Gothard Street is the ( � least desirable area of .the Central Industrial Corridor. - This is evidenced by the area ' s long term vacancy and/or attraction of marginal storage users . It i , too far from freeways, and good 1 : rail access can never compensate for such a disadvantage. 12 . The planning staff seriously doubts that industrial development in the Gothard Corridor will significantly change unemployment and underemployment rates in the abutting areas or anywhere else in the City. Most of the City ' s residents work outside the .com- munity. Few of the under- or unemployed have found work in local industries . Most of the employment in our industrial parks reside elsewhere in Orange and Los Angeles Counties . In considering alternate land uses, residential offers the greatest return to the City in terms of property tax revenues and the high disposable income generated by residents . In areas retained for industrial use, it -is agreed that an increase in allowed commercial floor space in the M-1 zone would probably increase the productivity of the land and maximize revenue returns to the City . In fact, Industrial Land Study, Phase• I , recommended such a change in the Ordinance. I • PLANNING DEPART, I' RESPONSE TO ECONOMIC DF�,OI'MEN'T OF'I�ICE DUS + IN 'TR BULLETIN (DAT1;D APRIL 12 , 977) rk. Lusk .industrial Park _rY i� Industrial land in the 440 acre industrial park area south of McDonnell Dougfas is developing at a ' very rapid rate at the present time. It is doubtful that such growth will be trans- ferred to the Gothard Corridor and Edison Area in the near future. The planning staff recently interviewed Dave Ariss , Rusk' s now former Marketing -Vice-President. He indicated that the Gothard .Corridor has too many obstacles for his firm ever to be- interested. The area north of Warner Avenue is good but the land is too expensive to be considered for industrial .development. South. of Warner Avenue, costs would even be ')iigher due .to soil and earthmoving problems , and fragmented lot ownership. Added to this are the eyesores created by marginal industrial activities locating in the area . 2 . Kaiser Business Park The Kaiser-Aetna Business Park is also developing rapidly , and tho firm has expressed some interest in the Gothard Corridor north of Warner Avenue. In a recent interview with John Hile, Kaiser ' s Marketing Director, many serious development constraints wort, expressed . These included poor freeway access , fragmented ownership, high land costs , topography and site. clearance prob- lems , and poorly controlled envirorintent. The best area is lo- cated north of Warner Avenue but the asking price is too high, i . e. , in excess of $2 . 00 per square foot. Although Hile recommt�tided retaining- even the most undesirable land in reserve,* he doubted that Kaiser-Aetna would ever be interested in the Gothard Corridor. Only small developers and industrial users would find it feasible to locate there, .probably in the long-term -for quality development. 3 . Industrial Land Inventory and Absorption Irate In estah1ishi.ng a land absorption rate, area sold and/or only part i.7i11y improved is not an adequate. measure. Much of the area defined as sold may be in various phases of development, from 1 vacant. to fully occupied . The time lag from the sale of v� cant land could rancie from six months to three .or more years . A case in point is the recent addition of the Weiser Dock Division of b Norr. .i _ Tndustries to the City ' s industrial inventory. The nearly 50 acre site is shown as sold and absorbed, while the recent industrial firm survey (dated Fcbr.u,iry 1977) shows 1200 employees . The plant is under construction. However , one buildincj and approximately 400 employees are expected to be fully .in pl.<..ic-e over the next year . Two more buildings and the remain- ing 800 employees will be pleased in the following year. I The point, 'is that the absorption rate should reflect activites 1 that are ..i.n actual operation , providing jobs to workers and full tax benefits to the CiL-y . The projections used by the • i i i r YI f!• planning staff. in the Industrial- Land Use Study use these crit.eria. For an area to be considered absorbed , improvements must be constructed and occupied by the industrial user and his employees . .Using these criteria, the Industrial Land ,M Use Study shows an -absorption of about 24 acres in the industrial parks for 1976 . Approximately 75 acres will be developed and i occupied during 1977 . A similar figure might be realistic for 1.978 . In the Central Industrial Corridor. , approximately four additional acres were absorbed during 1976 . This figure will increase to about 40 acres in 1977 , but would fall back I to 10 - 1:5 acres in . 1978 . Opinions derived from the industrial cleveloper surveys indicate that the current rush of industrial demand is based on a strong economy . Rapid growth is not expected i1 to continue much longer, maybe one to two years at most. The result: could be a glut of speculative buildings with only the good areas surviving . E'valuati.on of industrial growth shows a 1, 662 increase in . employment: (excluding McDonnell Douglas) from 1973 to 1976 (Orange_ County Annual Progress Reports) . Using the industrial firm surveys developed by the Economic Development Office for February 1976 and -1.977 , real employment growth over the one year period was 1 , 293 , not 3 , 100 workers as indicated in the industrial bulletin . Weiser Lock should not be counted until they are actually here benefiting the community . Their pro- j ec:tud l , 2.00 employees will be phased in over ..a two year period Sbegiruring approximately in September, 1977 . 4 . Coniniorcicil/Industrial Revenues vs. Residential . The revenue figures in the report are total utility revenues I'll(- by commercial/industrial and residential properties t.o the Edison Company . The City realizes approximately $3 million from the cl ec—t:ri.cal utility tax which amounts to 9 . 5 percent of total r.rvehues . Other revenues are not considered in the bulletin . The 1976 Revenue/Expenditure Analysis of Land Uses details revenues and -expenditures generated by various uses per acre of land . It: shows commercial and certain types of rt.�sidential. development to have the most beneficial impact on the City ' s finances . Edison' s bulletin-did not differentiate between commercial and industrial users . It is not clear from thio figures which use, or both, is the significant utility revenue generator. I:DS:0- ja y