Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutGeneral Plan Amendment 77-2 Parts 2 and 3 - Environmental Im i RESOLUTION N0. 4551 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. 77-2, PARTS 2 AND 3, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 77-8, NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 77-94, AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 77-95 THERETO WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach desires to update and refine the Land Use Element of the General Plan in keeping with changing community needs and objectives; and General Plan Amendment No . 77-2, Parts 2 and 3, Environ- f mental Impact Report No . 77-8, Negative Declaration No. 77-94 , I and Negative Declaration No . 77-95 thereto are necessary to meet the 'community needs; and Public hearing on adoption of said amendment, EIR, and negative declarations was duly conducted before the Planning Commission and approved by a majority of the voting members of the Commission. Thereafter, the City Council , after giving notice as prescribed by Government Code Section 65355, held at least one public hearing to consider General Plan Amendment No. 77-2, Parts 2 and 3, EIR No. 77-8, Negative Declaration No. 77-94 , and Negative Declaration No. 77-95; and At said hearing before the City Council all persons desiring to be heard on said amendment , EIR and negative declarations were heard, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the i City of Huntington Beach, -pursuant to provisions of Title 7 , Chapter 3, Article 6 of the Government Code of the State of California, commencing with Section 65357 , that General Plan Amendment No. 77-2, Parts 2 and 3, Environment Impact Report MT: cs 1 , I Attachment 2 i' No . 77-8, Negative Declaration No. 77-94, and Negative Declaration No. 77-95 thereto are hereby approved and adopted and the Land Use Element of the General Plan is hereby amended. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the .7th day of November, 1977 . 4 ATTEST: Mayor s / City Clerk REVIEWED AND APPROVED- APPROVED AS TO FORM: 2A a City Administrator ty Attorney M.� INITIATED AND APPROVED • . AS TO CONTENT: i Planning Director i I 2. j Attachment 2 W.•T v , 10 No. 4551 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) ' I, ALICIA M. WENTWORTH, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the i City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of more than a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 7th day of November , 19 77 , by the following vote: AYES: Councilmen: Bartlett, Wieder, Coen, Gibbs, Siebert, ShenkmanBartlett, Wieder, Coen, Gibbs, Siebert, Shenkma�. Pattinson NOES: Councilmen: None ABSENT: Councilmen: None City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California Attachment `2 i} TJA�'ffMEn�I— 3 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 77=2 • -PART --2 MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS October 1977 Ale huntington beach planning department • I TABLE OF CONTENTS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 77-2 PART 2 . Section 1.0 Introduction 1 2. 0 Areas of Concern 7 2 . 1 South of Adams Avenue and East of Brookhurst Street 7 2. 2 Nichols Street South of Slater Avenue 13 2. 3 South of Terry Drive and East of Viewpoint Drive 13 2. 4 Administrative Items 17 3. 0 Amendment Summary 19 3. 1 Area by Area Summary 19 3.2 Summary of Proposed General Plan Amendment 77-2 Part 2 20 • • • i 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 (Figure 1-1) and as amended in August, 1977 (Figure _ 1-2) . 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 Planning Department. In Section 2 .0, Areas of Concern, each .case is discussed and analyzed in terms of existing conditions and impact on surround- ing '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. • 1 Land Use Categories RESIDENTIAL Estate <_2 un/gac ® M Estate <_4 un/gac •' Low Density <_7 un/gac &..We " �, =Medium Density <_15 un/gac , =High Density >15 un/gac / COMMERCIAL ®General Office Professional C \ \ Mixed De velopment p ent • ® o <\ INDUSTRIAL Genera :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::,:.:•:•:•:.:•:•:•:: ....... .. `` ; PUBLIC USE • Public, Quasi-public, Institutional .ti 1 Open Space P P ................................................... ::. b ........... ............... \ ............................................................. . :.:. PLANNING UNITS :::::::::::::::: :: ;,n ................................................ ,.. ::,,' .............................. 0 Planning Reserve a• a� Planned Community t Y ................... . ® jr, �.:;. c .....:..::: .:...... :: OTHER ®Resource Production .. f?z:;:. R US ES SES ..........::::::::::::: � �rrrL px a ;' 1:4v, �'. .,a 8 h I,., l 4�, iNr. 7 r,;, , !Pr 1y�f1/;, 9'/i1:.r'fr•'.tit/.'•, k?x,�':''`............ •e�t)I t 1 .::;fie ..r�lF'^�r ......::........ } ::. ... .. ... x, iaiY e/.f�/'rrM: r Urp III XXX V/3 f III XXXX '75 ` Y. \ \ lh{5 \ z ;t t j. ,:Y .F`.k Y w;r A n a W L G 1 o va"z's- T 5 r A;,ram CO k' ••n Tv �3'i y, �=s rr'S3 PACIRC C1Tv ,.S I a' Y:o/. �,,,.V iD., '�ilF'l .�, fi�Yr,,'✓d OCEAN ''2:. _ �I/��1.♦ _ ___ - W�•.._ HUNf1NGTON 1364CH, G4UFORNIA GENERAL PLAN PWNNINIG DEPARTMENT LAND USE DIAGRAM December 1976 10 ...I.,II • E ' �I�P ♦♦♦,♦I•I•I�i I lei •o�'♦ �1�111►`♦ I.I. Wm ♦♦O 14, I, r/ S3S �/y '♦i Al ♦ ♦'♦ _ I o ♦' PALM a r G lout•`+ > ORANGE j• PACIFIC COAST NWY Figure 1 -2 m LEGEND PL4NNNING DEPARTTON TIIVIIEf1LIFORNIA RES©NLow D GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 77 1 1 Low Density 0-7 un/gac Medium Density 8-15 un/gac ® High Density above 15 un/gac • • • EA s'40J �� CO �♦/�� Iy �♦ �i I■I F'�I ' 7} ♦ �i I. e r t 4011, all 4� f G,w - i S � S PRIM _ ORANGE • • i — PACIFIC COAST kMfY� FIGURE 2-1 m GTON OILIFORNIA PLANNING Areas of Concern PLANNNING DEPMARTMTMEf1 • GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 77 - 2 PART 2 1 2 . 0 AREAS OF CONCERN This analysis discusses each of the issue areas under consideration in General Plan Amendment No . 77--2 Part 2. The areas of concern are identified in Figure 2-1. 2.1 South of Adams Avenue and East of Brookhurst Street. 2 .1.1 Background r The area of concern is located 320 feet south of Adams Avenue and 696 feet east of Brookhurst Street. In April, 1977 , Mr. Tallas D. Margrave requested that the Planning Department consider redesignating the subject property from general commercial to low density residential . . The 3 .16 gross acre site is presently vacant and designated for general commercial use . The subject property is a parcel that was the result of the development of- a shopping center at the southeast corner of Adams Avenue and Brook- hurst Street. The shopping center bounds the parcel on the north and west.. At the time plans were submitted for the shopping center development now being completed, the subject parcel was represented as the possible site of an office-professional complex. The parking and on-site circulation was therefore designed to allow integration of the office-professional development with the shopping center. Development of the parcel in any use other than an office professional or commercial would not, however, adversely affect the shopping center. 7 J ADAMS AVENUE H W GE ERAL J N COTMERCIAL. W O . C4 a � W O W ? , v m �+ a. N IAGARA DR i 4WI bENSlIfY J S� E WESLEY CR o 2 a � .. E R. e u TH DR � MgFZE� m i a a E � DR 0 pY 4pY► J 00 5T ONE git r F- O N cr- [ = 81 RCHWOOD O � rc E ° m CRAI ET 3° U �Q r WARWILK DR I Co' F- E r x � CYNTHIA AREA OF CONCERN 2.1 FIGURE 2-2 . 8 The subject property is bounded on the east and south by existing single family residential development that is ► designated by the General Plan as low density residential and is zoned R-1. The parcel is not directly adjacent to any street and direct access is currently provided through the shopping center parking lot. 2 . 1. 2 Analysis 1 Residential use of the subject property is possible and the low density residential designation as requested is com- patible with the existing residential uses to the south and east. The primary issue, therefore, is the suitability of maintaining the subject parcels commercial land use 1 designation. As reported in Section 2 . 2 . 1 of General Plan Amendment 76-1 Part B, recent information completed by Urban Projects , Inc. indicates-that by 1990 a demand for 542 acres of general commercial uses will exist in Huntington Beach. 1 At ultimate development, assuming a total population of 223, 000, the demand for general commercial will be 635 acres. Huntington Beach currently has 1131 acres designated as general commercial, or an over abundance of approximately 500 acres. Based on figures quoted by the Urban Land Institute, an "ideal community" should have 5 percent of its area in commercial uses (including hotels, motels, office-professional, etc . ) . This amounts to 953 acres still less than the currently planned for Huntington Beach. An additional study conducted by Harvard University indi- cates that only 2. 9 percent of a city' s area is normal for commercial uses. This would amount to 553 acres in Huntington Beach, also well below our present supply. Due to this apparent over abundance, the removal of the 3 .16 acres under consideration from the supply of land desig- nated general commercial use would not have any signifi- cant Citywide effect. On a more local basis, the removal of the subject parcel from the supply of commercial land should also not produce any significant effect. There currently exists 49 .0 acres of community commercial facilities at the intersection of Adams Avenue and Brookhurst Street. These facilities serve as a major shopping area for the residents of Hunting- ton Beach living east of Beach Boulevard and south of Garfield Avenue. There are also eleven (11) other similar commercial centers within this area totaling approximately 87 acres. The quarter section in which the subject parcel is located has 16 .4 percent of its total area designated and being used for commercial land uses . The majority of this is located adjacent to the subject parcel . On several 11 occassions, residents of the a le family area djacent sing have opposed additional commercial development at this corner. - --- ----- - -- -- Conversion of this property to low density residential i use would be compatible with the adjacent uses, but would result in several impacts. (1) First, a maximum of 22 additional residential units would be added to the City' s housing stock (the I applicant has indicated his intention to construct only 15 units) . These units would be located in a special flood hazard area. They will also be subject to the noise generated by the refrigeration equipment in the supermarket adjacent to the area of concern. Investi- gation of the noise intensity and appropriate miti- 4 gation measures should be required when evaluating development plans. (2) The area of concern does not have direct access to any street at this time except through the previously described shopping center parking and driveway areas . 4 Any use other than integrated commercial or office- professional uses will require acquisition and removal of an existing single family residential unit to pro- vide access through the adjacent residential area . This action would establish access to either Lawson Lane or Meredith Drive. The applicant is considering this alternative and has indicated planned access to Lawson Lane via removal of a single family home on a sixty foot wide lot. This new street will function as a local street and should be constructed with a minimum right-of-way of 52 feet and a curb to curb width of 40 feet. Additional right-of-way will also be necessary 4 for the construction of sidewalk returns at the inter- section of the new street and Lawson Lane. This will have to be obtained from the adjacent lots . A stop sign on the new street would be necessary to control traffic movement onto Lawson Lane from the new street. These concerns would also exist if the access was taken from Meredith Drive. Between 154 and 226 automobiles should be generated by the proposed low density resi- dential use. Each of these cars would pass two single family homes that were not constructed with corner lot sideyard setbacks. It may be necessary to construct a sound attenuating block wall to mitigate noise generated by these cars . The additional traffic generated should not, however, adversely affect the circulation of the area . If the area of concern is developed as a low density residential use, approxi- mately 1000 fewer automobile trips will be generated when compared to that generated by commercial develop- ment. 12 (3) A comparison of the revenue/expenditure ratios for low density residential use and commercial uses on this site indicate a potential net loss to the City of $6 ,625 each year if low density residential uses are constructed. (4) The additional 50 to 74 persons that would be generated will not adversely effect either the level of park service in the area or overload any school serving this area. 2 .1.3 Recommendation The area of concern south of Adams Avenue and east of Brookhurst Street should be redesignated to low density residential. 2 . 2 Nichols Street South ofSlater Avenue 2. 2. 1 Background ' The area of concern is located on the south side of Slater Avenue between Nichols Street and the Pacific Electric Railroad right-of-way. In May, 1977 , Family Home Builders, Inc . requested that the General Plan land use designation be changed from industrial to medium density residential. The 17 .7 gross acre site is included in the area covered by the recently completed Industrial Land Use Study and is addressed in the Central Industrial Corridor Plan that is Part 3 of General Plan Amendment No. 77-2 . 2. 2 .2 Analysis The site is moderately suited for industrial development with large lot size and compatibility with industrial areas on the north, east, and west being favorable attributes. The property to the south was recently approved for redesignation to medium density residential by General Plan Amendment 77-1. A medium density designa- tion ' of the subject property would be consistent with the residential to the south but would be virtually surrounded by industrial development on the other three sides . Because the scope of the proposed land reductions surround- ing the site has been greatly reduced, the area of concern should also remain industrial . 2. 2. 3 Recommendation The Planning Staff recommends that the area of concern at Nichols Street and south of Slater Avenue be retained general industrial. 13 I I INDUSTRIAL ml - liw— .Is ILE III♦ . �� ck`�;�.��:�+.:fi.�a+.S�y'X��t4 �t•� ti fir. '�',~:: n= Nor' a� of �►.��N 4 ■■ � 1,11.1111,1111111.1.11.111.111111,1,11.1111111111111111111111 11111111.11.1.111!'l,11111111. I i 111.1111111111.1.1.11111111 f 1111,I11tILI,1.1,I,II,IIIL11/111,�11!/1/111111//1,/111/1111/ 111.1.111111!!„11!tl1/l��1�„I�A 1111111111111111,111111111 � IIII�lllllllllhi l�lj),�j�rlrllllf;II1'1111111111111l11.11!l11111 _,_ _ _ _ 1111,�1111,11111�1.1.111111111111/1/I�I�IIIIIIIt/1/ill/,' ;;_�,�� , 1111.1,1.1111111111.1.1111111,111.1111,111111111111.1111111! It�l�l�l�ll�l�l�llll,�/III.I.Ie11�1��1���1�1�11�11�1�1 '""' 1111�1/.I,IIIII,IIILIft11.111.1,t,1,1,1;11,1,�t1i:/1Lt11,1,�1,111t. illllliil1111111111.1.11111111.1.1111111111.11.1.1111.11.1.111 .� aF'EA OF CONCERN 2 NICHOOLS STREET SOUTH OF SLATER AVENUE • i 0 d Q Q ALMACIDRAt L R. D d cs DQ6 9Q�L�( DR Q C4 MORE MACH GEOM" DOW COMMERCIAL C2, -e CHRYSLER ® MEDI -DUSITY R3 RES IbNT L C2. . 0 HIGH DENSITY ` � ER _ IAL ® RESIDENTIAL ] C4 R3 C4 D ®. C. tr. C. D c G— ® R3r a d' UP C;7 aG�3 00 AVE I+ fr AREA (OF comcm 2.3 MUTH OF IrER Y DROVE Amo EAS4 OF MomwpaWr LOBE O O FIGURE 2-4 ' O 15 1 ■ � 2. 3 South of Terry Drive and East of View Point Lane 2 . 3. 1 The - site is located at the southeast corner of Terry Drive and Viewpoint Lane. A request to change the present general plan designation of general commercial to medium density residential was received in June, 1977 . The re- quest was submitted by Mr. Robert E. Jarrard and Mr. Thomas A. Bernatz representing the property owner. The area of request comprises approximately 2. 7 acres of an existing 3. 3 acre parcel. The applicant is proposing the change in land use designation for the rear portion of an existing lot fronting on Beach Boulevard. Upon approval of the proposed General Plan Amendment, the applicants have indicated their desire to subdivide the area under consideration into ten (10) residential lots and ' to construct four unit apartment buildings thereon. The area of concern is currently vacant and used for agricul- tural purposes. The parcel is surrounded by an automobile dealership on the north, the vacant portion of the larger parcel to be left for commercial use on the east, an existing restaurant and parking area on the south and multiple-family housing development on the west across Viewpoint Lane. 2 . 3. 2 Analysis Residential use of the subject parcel is possible and the medium density residential designation as requested is compatible with the existing residential uses across Viewpoint Lane. The primary issues therefore are (1) once again the suitability :of maintaining the area of concern for commercial use, and (2) the compatibility of ' residential development with the adjacent commercial uses. As was previously discussed in Section 2. 1. 2, Huntington Beach currently has an excess of commercially planned property. According to the standards and market analysis consulted, the excess is approximately 500 acres. Removal , of the 2 .7 acres under consideration from the City' s supply of commercial property would not have any signifi- cant impact on meeting the City residents ' demand for commercial facilities . A major concern regarding commercial development along , Beach Boulevard has been the existance of many deep lots that have commercial uses only on the front portions of the lots. The rear portions of these lots are often undeveloped and are essentially unusable for commercial 16 purposes. The amendment requested for this area of concern would prevent this undesirable condition from occurring. It would insure that the entire parcel from Beach Boule- vard to Viewpoint Lane is utilized. This larger parcel is, however, suitable for development as a small _ commercial center similar to those recently constructed on other portions of Beach Boulevard. These centers feature one larger, but not large, anchor tenant generally located 0 adjacent to Beach Boulevard and up to ten smaller stores that are community oriented. One such center was recently constructed on a similar sized lot several parcels to the. south. These types of commercial centers do eliminate some of the problems associated with strip commercial develop- ment and are therefore more compatible with the policies of the General Plan. There is , however, no way of insuring that this type of development will occur at this location. Redesignation of the area of concern to medium density residential use would allow the construction of a maximum of 40 residential units. This would generate approximately 95 persons that would be subjected to noise, generated by the adjacent commercial uses. The situation would be similar to that existing for the multiple-family units across Viewpoint Lane. Based on 1974 noise contour in- formation, these units would also be subject to ground transportation noise levels that currently exceed the normally acceptable range of Ldn60 identified in the General Plan. It should be added that the ground trans- portation noise contours projected for 1990 will place the majority of these units within the normally acceptable range. This decrease would be due to legislation requiring noise emission levels to be reduced. Sound reduction techniques should be incorporated into the dwelling unit design. A comparison of the revenue/expenditure ratios for medium density residential use and commercial uses on this site indicate a potential net loss to the City of $3 ,175 each year if medium density residential uses are constructed. The additional population generated by the proposed redesignation will not adversely impact the area' s schools nor will it cause any reduction in service levels provided by the park facilities within the area. 2. 3. 3 Recommendation The Planning Staff recommends that the area of concern at Terry Drive and Viewpoint Lane be redesignated from general commercial to medium density residential. 17 2. 4 Administrative Items In February 1977 , the Planning Commission approved the Multi-Story Policy Plan. They also directed staff to include the policies and multi-story locational map in the General Plan. In April, 1977 , the City Council adopted the Multi-Story Policy Plan and concurred with the Commission' s recommendation. Therefore, General Plan Amendment No. 77-2, Part 2 includes the Multi-Story Policy Plan. The Multi-Story Policy Plan consists of written statements and a location map that sets forth the principles that have guided the preparation of the City' s recently adopted multi-story ordinance. The Multi-Story Policy Plan also contains principles that will guide the preparation of any specific plans containing multi-story structures, and the siting of individual multi-story developments. The goals and development policies contained in the Multi-Story Policy Plan established the basic premise that all multi-story development in the City of Huntington Beach must integrate with and be a complementory component of the character and context of the City. It is also the intent of the Multi-Story Policy Plan that multi-story development be functionally workable, visually pleasing, and consistent with the policies of the General Plan. 2. 4 . 1 Analysis The Multi-Story Policy Plan has been successfully utilized as the basis of the City' s Multi-Story Ordinance and has been used in the preparation of the Pacifica Community Plan. Because it does contain policies that directly effect the physical development of the City and is reflected in the City' s Zoning Ordinances, it should be incorporated into the General Plan. 2 . 4. 2 Recommendation This Amendment to the General Plan proposes that the 4 Multi-Story Policy Plan be included in the "policies for development" portion of the Huntington Beach General Plan. 18 1 1 1 1 1 3 . 0 AMENDMENT SUMMARY 3 .1 Proposed Amendment 77-2, Part 2 Area of Concern Summaries The following sections summarize the recommended changes in General Plan Land Use Designations for the affected areas . All changes are shown in Figure 3-1. 3. 1. 1 South of Adams Avenue and east of Brookhurst Street The 3 . 16 acre study area should be redesignated from general commercial to low density residential . Proposed Land Use Acreage Summary Category Gross Acres Low Density Residential 3 . 16 r I LULT, VV Projected Population Residential Gross Maximum Total Population Estimated Type - Acres Units/gac Units Per Unit Population Low Density 3 . 16 x 7 = 22 x 3 .37 = 75 3. 1. 2 South of Terry Drive and east of View Point Lane The 2.7 acre study area should be redesignated from general commercial to medium density residential. Proposed Land Use Acreage Summary Category Gross Acres Medium Density Residential 2 .7 Projected Population 1 Residential Gross Maximum Total Population Estimated Type Acres Units/gac Units Per Unit Population Medium 2. 7 x 15 = 41 x 2. 35 - 96 Density 1 3 .2 Summary of Proposed General Plan Amendment 77-2 , Part 2 Proposed Land Use Acreage Summary Existing Proposed Net Land Use Category Gross Acres Gross Acres Gross Acres Residential Low Density 0 3 .16 3 .16 Medium Density 0 2. 70 2. 70 Commercial Retail 5 .86 0 -5 . 86 Total land involved in the Amendment: 5. 86 gross acres. 20 `/�, Sol 1` 11 lb •'Iy • a •, s • i C S MlM - S a s G AN iMGFK CQAST MWP� __ • FIGURE 3-1 m HUPTINGTON B64CH, (ALIFORNIA LEGEND PLANNING DEPARTMEPT RESIDENTIAL+ Low Density 0- 7 un/gac GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 77- 2 ® .Medium Density 8-15 un/gac PART 2 1 }; • Net Projected Population Residential Net Gross Maximum Total Population Estimated _Type Acres Units/gac Units Per Unit Population ,�• Residential Low Density 3. 16 x 7 = 22 x 3 .45 = 75 Medium 2. 70 x 15 = 41 x 2 .35 = 96 Density ` Total: 171 • s • h M 23 Gc GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 77=2 • PART -2 MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS huntingion beach planning department 1 � i • • TABLE OF CONTENTS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 77-2 PART 2 • Section 1. 0 Introduction 1 2. 0 Areas of Concern 7 • 2. 1 South of Adams Avenue and East of Brookhurst Street 7 2. 2 'Nichols Street South of Slater Avenue 13 2. 3 South of Terry Drive and East of Viewpoint Drive 13 • 2. 4 Administrative Items 17 3.0 Amendment Summary 19 • 3 .1 Area by Area Summary 19 3.2 Summary of Proposed General Plan Amendment 77-2 Part 2 20 • • i is • • • • • 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 (Figure 1-1) and as amended in August, 1977 (Figure . 1-2) . • 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 Planning Department. In Section 2. 0, Areas of Concern, each case is discussed • and analyzed in terms of existing conditions and impact on surround- ing '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. • • • 1 • • Land Use Categories RESIDENTIAL IN Estate 5 2 un/gac • - !� Estate :54 un/gac 11,1111 ••••• .<.n.. �---,—_? <C- - ....:.....`:.L...:..i.�r\/.:.:........�..:,....(....�.+:.:?.:5.:-:'R,.:....., .,i............a...:....:._':.'::..::.�.:::..;;::.:: - l G'c!e•�-..<—r uy�•r 7T_'1;�fr•'r•lY:G-.S.cl.,:t:5 r.,rii.T t�f'.1ar`- E�.'y•`..i. -`.: r y•: !yrma:�w--Y%:r yF AF;•.-" ✓r_,fil,.'.e�-uni.,���.d.�> .•.'.`¢:,��:.^-r.«"+y2 Y'-�.•.�a.-.'Y'�u-"fl.�Y'-.�'s�d :...: .°®."::°.A.i ..�. .:?'ig:or:�..r•'if/r'.:i: :i�.,..:I..11��.:.i:.:.i,:�.':.•.:.`O::.Yf: :t:•:g., �•.:.�i `. ... I.v 1 ...R..`Il\..®..t�{...?. ...../1�'....:5.... �ti.:.....I:�....." , w. ;....a .:.. ..,.tey....nJ,....- ' a..i:.r_• � I / Ia` U,•JC v H ► .S•'.Ayo' ? ® s3i \ �r• ',X , �Low , D e n s it y <7 u n/ g a c ,^ Medium Density 515 un /g ac High Dens'tY >15un/gac COMMERCIAL General Office Professional Mixed Development INDUSTRIAL . General PUBLIC USE Public,Quasi-public, institutional a l � Open Space :, PLANNING UNITS Planning Reserve . Planned . NX OTHER E Resource Productions i: :J : r / ......�� 1HWAY F1O 1 OCEAN PACHC OCEAN HUNnNGTON BECH, C41FORNIA GENERAL PLANPANNING DEPARTMET ✓ LAND USE DIAGRAM December 1976 • • Al • ♦ S y'ti �♦ I ♦, ■ Sol Ilk ■ S S PALM � � 3 % RANGE • i PACIFIC COAST NWY Figure 1 -2 LEGEND HLIKINGTON BE CH, OILIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL PLANNING DEPARTMENT Low Density 0-7 un/gac 77-1 s-15 un/S � .Medium Densityac GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT ® High Density above 15 un/gac • • � Q - •- s ♦" s's " • j � ♦i � S MLM G lot i ►�nr+c ca►sT Myer FIGURE 2-1 lopHUNIPLANNING DEPARTMEIILIFORNIA Areas of Concern • GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 77- 2 PART - 2 • • • • 2 . 0 AREAS OF CONCERN This analysis discusses each of the issue areas under consideration in General Plan Amendment No . 77--2 Part 2. The areas of concern are identified in Figure 2-1. 2.1 South of Adams Avenue and East of Brookhurst Street. 2 . 1.1 Background The area of concern is located 320 feet south of Adams Avenue and 696 feet east of Brookhurst Street. In April, 1977 , Mr. Tallas D. Margrave requested that the Planning Department consider redesignating the subject property from general commercial to low density residential . The 3 . 16 gross acre site is presently vacant and designated for general commercial use . The subject property is a parcel that was the result of the development of a shopping center at the southeast corner of Adams Avenue and Brook- hurst Street. The shopping center bounds the parcel on the north and west.. At the time plans were, submitted for the • shopping center development now being completed, the subject parcel was represented as the possible site of an office-professional complex. The parking and on-site circulation was therefore designed to allow integration of the office-professional development with the shopping center. Development of the parcel in any use other than an office professional or commercial would not, however , adversely affect the shopping center. • 7 4. i AOAMS AVENUE W, GE E. RAL J cr cr: . COP MERCIAL. W O C4 a � � U m J / NIAGARA DR y LW E SI Y S E WESLEY CR C DR : TO PJ4 f DR jolt Apr J ST ofA4 BROOK • 1— D N CC - = BIRCHWOOD Y • O O w ° n o m CRAI ET 3° z U �Q WARWK.K DR CF E CYNTHI AREA OF CONCERN 2.1 • FIGURE 272 . • 8 � I The subject property is bounded on the east and south by • existing single family residential development that is designated by the General Plan as low density residential and is zoned R-1 . The parcel is not directly adjacent to any street and direct access is currently provided through the shopping center parking lot. • 2 .1. 2 Analysis Residential use of the subject property is possible and the low density residential designation as requested is com- patible with the .existing, residential uses to the south and east. The primary issue, therefore, is the suitability of maintaining the subject parcels commercial land use designation. As reported in Section 2 . 2 .1 of General Plan Amendment 76-1 Part B, recent information completed by Urban Projects, Inc. indicatesthat by 1990 . a demand for 542 acres of general commercial uses will exist in Huntington Beach. At ultimate development, assuming a total population of 223 , 000, the demand for general commercial will be 635 acres. Huntington Beach currently has 1131 acres designated as general commercial, or an over abundance of approximately 500 acres. Based on figures quoted by the Urban Land Institute, an "ideal community" should have 5 percent of its area in commercial uses (including hotels, motels, office-professional, etc. ) . This amounts to 953 acres still less than the currently planned for Huntington Beach. An additional study conducted by Harvard University indi- cates that only 2. 9 percent of a city' s area is normal for. • commercial uses. This would amount to 553 acres in Huntington Beach, also well below our present supply. Due to this apparent over abundance, the removal of the 3 .16 acres under consideration from the supply of land desig- nated general . commercial use would not have any signifi- cant Citywide effect. On a more local basis, the removal of the subject parcel from the supply of commercial land should also not produce any significant effect. There currently exists 49 .0 acres of community commercial facilities at the intersection of Adams Avenue and Brookhurst Street. These facilities serve as a major shopping area for the residents of Hunting- ton Beach living east of Beach Boulevard and south of Garfield Avenue. There are also eleven (11) other similar commercial centers within this area totaling approximately 87 acres. The quarter section in which the subject parcel is located has 16 .4 percent of its total area designated and being used for commercial land uses. The majority of this is located adjacent to the subject parcel . On several • 11 occassions, residents of the adjacent single family area have opposed additional commercial development at this corner. ----- ----- -- Conversion of this property to low density residential use would be compatible with the adjacent uses, but would result in several impacts. (1) First, a maximum of 22 additional residential units would be added to the City' s housing stock (the applicant has indicated his intention to construct only 15 units) . These units would be located in a special flood hazard area. They will also be subject to the noise generated by the refrigeration equipment in the supermarket adjacent to the area of concern. Investi- gation of the noise intensity and appropriate miti- gation measures should be required when evaluating development plans. (2) The area of concern does not have direct access to any street at this time except through the previously described shopping center parking and driveway areas . Any use other than integrated commercial or office- professional uses will require acquisition and removal of an existing single family residential unit to pro- vide access through the adjacent residential area . This action would establish access to either Lawson Lane or Meredith Drive. The applicant is considering this alternative and has indicated planned access to Lawson Lane via removal of a single family home on a sixty foot wide lot. This new street will function as a local street and should be constructed with a minimum right-of-way of 52 feet and a curb to curb width of 40 feet. Additional right-of-way will also be necessary • for the construction of sidewalk returns at the inter- section of the new street and Lawson Lane. This will have to be obtained from the adjacent lots . A stop sign on the new street would be necessary to control traffic movement onto Lawson Lane from the new street. These concerns would also exist if the access was taken • from Meredith Drive. Between 154 and 226 automobiles should be generated by the proposed low density resi- dential use. Each of these cars would pass two single family homes that were not constructed with corner lot sideyard setbacks. It may be necessary to construct a sound attenuating block wall to mitigate noise generated by these cars . The additional traffic generated should not, however, adversely affect the circulation of the area . If the area of concern is developed as a low density residential use, approxi- mately 1000 fewer automobile trips will be generated when compared to that generated by commercial develop- • ment. • 12 1 (3) A comparison of the revenue/expenditure ratios for low density residential use and commercial uses on this site indicate a potential net loss to the City of $6 ,625 each year if low density residential uses are constructed, (4) The additional 50 to 74 persons that would be generated will not adversely effect either the level of park service in the area or overload any school serving this area. -- 2 . 1.3 Recommendation The area of concern south of Adams Avenue and east of Brookhurst Street should be redesignated to low density "• residential. 2 . 2 Nichols Street South of Slater Avenue 2 . 2. 1 Background • The area of concern is located on the south side of Slater Avenue between Nichols Street and the Pacific Electric Railroad right-of-way. In May, 1977 , Family Home Builders , Inc . requested that the General Plan land use designation be changed from industrial to medium density residential. • The 17 .7 gross acre site is included in the area covered by the recently completed Industrial Land Use Study and is addressed in the Central Industrial Corridor Plan that is Part 3 of General Plan Amendment No. 77-2 . • 2. 2 . 2 Analysis The site is moderately suited for industrial development with large lot size and compatibility with industrial areas on the north, east, and west being favorable attributes. The property to the south was recently • approved for redesignation to medium density residential by General Plan Amendment 77-1. A medium density designa- tion ' of the subject property would be consistent with the residential to the south but would be virtually surrounded by industrial development on the other three sides. Because the scope of the proposed land reductions surround- ing the site has been greatly reduced, the area of concern should also remain industrial . 2. 2. 3 Recommendation The Planning Staff recommends that the area of concern at • Nichols Street and south of Slater Avenue be retained general industrial. • 13 O � � FT rwzsw bwr - IIII�IIIIIIIIIIIItit� ��� }• � � - ��� .� ..� �,,:�,, +�.. '••�{rid: 1�1�^•ry7�I��Illll�I�1 ��k::-'•:�. L�� �rr{ 1I� I � I ] it t• t•, ri:. � W iii1; J =:}:':�:" .•.ice•• ••• .,. .vv•. ^I� J 1,111�111�//111/11/�/�iii1/11'i/1/��I/11111111111/11/ INDUSTRIAL mi 1.1111111.11�11��,>111111>11!11.!11111111111111111111 � {11/,1�/111111,1.1�11�111111.�111�1/111/////1/111///�// ' 1111./.11111!�„A!11�/,l�11�IIA 'If1.11111111111111.11111111 - i1111i1111,Ii;Il�t�lil�ru�i�irt:1111111111111111111:111111111 _ t111,/11/111111/.11./.LIi/1ii1111111t1.111/1/1111/lilt 11; • 1111./1,11111111111,1.1.IILIIi11.1.1,1,1111111111.111.11111.111 - 1�1 III1I1 11.1��1�1111111�11�11��11111i11,�lr.�li/1/111111111/. ; - -- IIIIILIILIIIIIIIIILIIIIIIIILLIIIIIIIIII/IIIIIi.11.1.11� .- aF'EA OOF COONCErN 2 "� NICHOO LS STREET SOUTH OOF SLATER AVENUE w t • • O d Q AL aLaoa�arRa �I. a� ca MIME OR CC SEINE �� aFX�; GENHAC"; � p • DOW � COMMERCIAL� C2 UD f CHRYSLER • � � � �� 91 DEALER �-�PdSiTY RES MEWAL C2. . R3 GEN • HIGH DENSITY ` ER IAL RESIDENTIAL C4 R3 • C4 ®. C. F. C. D CCU-1 • R3 AV o0 A U AREA OIL CONCERM 2.3 . SOUTH (OF TERRY DMVE AND EAST OF MW"JPOWr daHE O • O FIGURE 7-4 15 2 . 3 South of Terry Drive and East of View Point Lane 2. 3. 1 The • site is located at the southeast corner of Terry Drive and Viewpoint Lane. A request to change the present general plan designation of general commercial to medium density residential was received in June, 1977 . The re- quest was submitted by Mr. Robert E. Jarrard and Mr. Thomas A. Bernatz representing the property owner. The 41 area of request comprises approximately 2. 7 acres of an existing 3. 3 acre parcel. The applicant is proposing the change in land use designation for the rear portion of an existing lot fronting on Beach Boulevard. Upon approval of the proposed General Plan Amendment, the applicants have indicated their desire to subdivide the • area under consideration into ten (10) residential lots and to construct four unit apartment buildings thereon. The area of concern is currently vacant and used for agricul- tural purposes. The parcel is surrounded by an automobile dealership on the north, the vacant portion of the larger parcel to be left for commercial use on the east, an existing restaurant and parking area on the south and multiple family housing development on the west across Viewpoint Lane. 2 . 3. 2 Analysis Residential use of the subject parcel is possible and the • medium density residential designation as requested is compatible with the existing residential uses across Viewpoint Lane. The primary issues therefore are (1) ' once again the suitability :of maintaining the area of concern for commercial use, and (2) the compatibility of residential development with the adjacent commercial uses. As was previously discussed in Section 2 . 1. 2 , Huntington Beach currently has an excess of commercially planned property. According to the standards and market analysis consulted, the excess is approximately 500 acres. Removal • of the 2 .7 acres under consideration from the City' s supply of commercial property would not have any signifi- cant impact on meeting the City residents ' demand for commercial facilities. A major concern regarding commercial development along Beach Boulevard has been the existance of many deep lots that have commercial uses only on the front portions of the lots. The rear portions of these lots are often undeveloped and are essentially unusable for commercial • 16 • purposes. The amendment requested for this area of concern would prevent this undesirable condition from occurring. It would insure that the entire parcel from Beach Boule- vard to Viewpoint Lane is utilized. This larger parcel is, however, suitable for development as a small commercial center similar to those recently constructed on other portions of Beach Boulevard. These centers feature one larger, but not large, anchor tenant generally located • adjacent to Beach Boulevard and up to ten smaller stores that are community oriented. One such center was recently constructed on a similar sized lot several parcels to the. ' south. These types of commercial centers do eliminate some of the problems associated with strip commercial develop- ment and are therefore more compatible with the policies • of the General Plan. There is , however , no way of insuring that this type of development will occur at this location. Redesignation of the area of concern to medium density residential use would allow the construction of a maximum of 40 residential units. This would generate approximately • 95 persons that would be subjected to noise, generated by the adjacent commercial uses. The situation would be similar to that existing for the multiple-family units across Viewpoint Lane. Based on 1974 noise contour in- formation, these units would also be subject to ground transportation noise levels that currently exceed the • normally acceptable range of Ldn60 identified in the General Plan. It should be added that the ground trans- portation noise contours projected for 1990 will place the majority of these units within the normally acceptable range. This decrease would be due to legislation requiring noise emission levels to be reduced. Sound reduction • techniques should be incorporated into the dwelling unit design. A comparison of the revenue/expenditure ratios for medium density residential use and commercial uses on this site indicate a potential net loss to the City of $3 ,175 each • year if medium density residential uses are constructed. The additional population generated by the proposed redesignation will not adversely impact the area' s schools nor will it cause any reduction in service levels provided by the park facilities within the area. • 2 . 3. 3 Recommendation The Planning Staff recommends that the area of concern at Terry Drive and Viewpoint Lane be redesignated from general commercial to medium density residential. • 17 • • 2. 4 Administrative Items In February 1977 , the Planning Commission approved the Multi-Story Policy Plan. They also directed staff to include the policies and multi-story locational map in the General Plan. In April, 1977 , the City Council adopted the Multi-Story Policy Plan and concurred with the Commission' s recommendation. Therefore, General Plan Amendment • No. 77-2, Part 2 includes the Multi-Story Policy Plan. The Multi-Story Policy Plan consists of written statements and a location map that sets forth the principles that have guided the preparation of the City' s recently adopted multi-story ordinance. • The Multi-Story Policy Plan also contains principles that will guide the preparation of any specific plans containing multi-story structures, and the siting of individual multi-story developments. The goals and development policies contained in the Multi-Story Policy Plan established the basic premise that all multi-story development in the City of Huntington Beach must integrate with • and be a complementory component of the character and context of the City. It is also the intent of the Multi-Story Policy Plan that multi-story development be functionally workable, visually pleasing, and consistent with the policies of the General Plan. 2. 4 . 1 Analysis The Multi-Story Policy Plan has been successfully utilized as the basis of the City' s Multi-Story Ordinance and has been used in the preparation of the Pacifica Community Plan. Because it does contain policies that directly effect the physical development of the City and is reflected in the City' s Zoning Ordinances , it should be incorporated into the General Plan. 2 . 4. 2 Recommendation This Amendment to the General Plan proposes that the Multi-Story Policy Plan be included in the "policies for development" portion of the Huntington Beach General Plan. • • 18 • 1 • , • • 3 . 0 AMENDMENT SUMMARY 3 . 1 Proposed Amendment 77-2, Part 2 Area of Concern Summaries The following sections summarize the recommended changes in General Plan Land Use Designations for the affected areas . All changes are shown in Figure 3-1. 3. 1. 1 South of Adams Avenue and east of Brookhurst Street • The 3 . 16 acre study area should be redesignated from general commercial to low density residential . Proposed Land Use Acreage Summary Category Gross Acres • Low Density Residential 3 .16 • 19 (D 12 Projected Population Residential Gross Maximum Total Population Estimated Type Acres Units/gac Units Per Unit Population Low Density 3 . 16 x 7 = 22 x 3 .37 . = 75 3 . 1. 2 South of Terry Drive and east of View Point Lane The 2.7 acre study area should be redesignated from general commercial to medium density residential. Proposed Land Use Acreage Summary Category Gross Acres Medium Density Residential 2 .7 Projected Population , Residential Gross Maximum Total Population Estimated Type Acres Units/gac Units Per Unit Population Medium 2. 7 x 15 = 41 x 2. 35 = 96 Density 3 .2 Summary of Proposed General Plan Amendment 77-2 , Part 2 Proposed Land Use Acreage Summary Existing Proposed Net Land Use Category Gross Acres Gross Acres Gross Acres Residential Low Density 0 3 .16 3 .16 Medium Density 0 2. 70 2. 70 Commercial Retail 5.86 0 -5. 86 Total land involved in the Amendment: 5. 86 gross acres. 20 • lyf �Lo 11 �i1- 1.1 1` 1 IN, i • • / A i MCIFK COAST 11WY- _- • FIGURE 3-1 m HUIIINGTON BEACH, OILIFORNIA LEGEND lop PLANNING DEPARTMENT RESIDENTIAL Low Density 0-7 un/gac GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 77 - 2 ® Medium Density 8-15 un/gac PART 2 ' � n Net Projected Population Residential Net Gross Maximum Total Population Estimated Type Acres Units/gac Units Per Unit' Population Residential Low Density . 3 . 16 x 7 = 22 x 3 .45 = 75 Medium 2 .70 x 15 = 41 x 2.35 = 96 Density Total: 171 i ,r S 23 CITY CLERK'S COPY General P Amendment 77 ■ ■ Part 1 : Revisions . • July 1977 This report is the third draft of the General Plan Revisions, prepared by the General Plan Team of the Planning Department.The third draft was prepared based on the comments of a standing committee,composed of Planning and Attorney's Staff and Planning Commission representatives, and the remainder of the Planning Staff. The third draft represents Part 1 of General Plan Amendment 77-2, tentatively scheduled for public hearing in September, 1977. • huntington beach planning department • V • CITY OF HUnTin (; T0n BEACH fj J� DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES P. O. BOX 190, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648 (714) 536-5271 ( To Interested Citizens: On July 19 , August 2, and August 16 , 1977, the public is invited to attend the Huntington Beach Planning Commission meetings and speak out on a future direction for Huntington Beach. This effort to get the public involved in the planning of the City stems from the Plan- ning Department' s revision of the General Plan -- the constitution for the physical development of the City. The General Plan covers a broad range of subjects, dealing with everything from housing and the overall mix of land uses to all the elements affecting the public health, safety, and welfare. The Planning Commission meetings will be held in the City Council Chambers, Huntington Beach City Hall, beginning at 7: 00 p.m. I look forward to hearing your comments. Sincerely, L a�U Edward D. Selich Director EDS:EJ:gc . In • TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. 0 INTRODUCTION 1 1. 1 What is a General Plan? 2 1. 2 Regional and Local Context 3 1. 3 Legal Parameters 3 1. 4 Planning History 6 1. 5 Approach 8 2. 0 POLICIES FOR ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCES 11 9 2. 1 Open Space and Conservation Element 1219 2. 2 Seismic-Safety Element 21-2-2 2. 3 Noise Element 4439 3. 0 POLICIES FOR DEVELOPMENT 5345 3. 1 Circulation Element 5345 3. 2 Scenic Highways Element 6556 3. 3 Housing Element 80.69 3. 4 Land Use Element 86-4 4. 0 ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY 4. 1 Zoning Consistency with the Elements of the 115}02 General Plan 4. 2 Finding of Consistency 116}92 5. 0 AMENDING THE. GENERAL PLAN 119}93 5. 1 General Plan Amendment Procedure 119}93 5. 2 Timing of General Plan Amendments 1223:g6 • e • t TABLE OF FIGURES Number 1-1 Planning Area 1-2 Vicinity .Map 1-3 Components of the Comprehensive General Plan 2-1 Reeounce Priority 6pen-6paee Areas i 2-2 Researee-eenservatien-Prieritp-Areas 2-12 Open Space and Conservation Plan 2-3 AAchaeotog.ieat S.i-tez 2-4 Fault and Geologic Conditions 2-5 Geotechnical Land Use Capability 2-6 Special Flood Hazard Area; 2-7 Earthquake Hazard Special Study Zone 2-8 Maximum. Noise Levels 2-9 Ground Transportation - Noise Exposure Contours 1974 2-10 Meadowlark Airport CNEL 60, 65, and 70 Noise Contours �! 2-11 Ground Transportation Noise Exposure 1990 3-1 Traffic Flow Map sad-Be€ieieat-8teets 3-2 O.C.T.D. Bus Routes 3- 3 Park and Ride/Freeway Bus System 3-4 Huntington Harbour Waterways 3-5 Heliports-and-Met rstepa-Wrtltia-tlte-Citp-ef-I�trntrrigten-Beack Meadowlark A.iApoA.t and Exi6ting Land Uzez 3-6 eirenietien-Plan-ef-Arteriai-Streets-and-Highways HetipoAt4 and He. iztop6 Within the City o6 Huntington Beach 3-7 Snmmerp-ef-ehanges-te-the-Master-Pian-ef-Arteriai-Streets- and-Highways CiAcuta-t.ion Ptan o6 Ah.tentiaZ StAeetA and H.ig hwaya 3- 8 Scenic Highway 3-8- 9 Scenic Routes 3-910 Landscape Corridors 3-1011 Criteria for Commercial Uses 3-11 E�ite�3a-fey-lastatuti.enal-Uses 3-12---E�ite�i.a-€e�-9pex-Space-Uses 3-1912 Land Use Diagram 3-1413 General Location of Community Facilities Existing 3-1514 eriter4:a-fer-Beterx3ining-Band-�Jse-Besignatiens GeneAat Location o6 Community Eaeititie6 PAopo6ed 3-1615 Band-Bse-Element-Statistieai-Snmmarp size. CA.i,teA.ia SoA De.tenmin.ing Land U4e DeA igna,t.ion6 3- 16 Land Uz e ftemen-t S-ta.t.i4 t.ieat SummaAy 4-1 Zoning and General Plan Consistency Matrix 5-1 General Plan Amendment Procedure TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. 0 INTRODUCTION 1 1. 1 What is a General Plan? 2 1. 2 Regional and Local Context 3 1. 3 Legal Parameters 3 1. 4 Planning History 6 1. 5 Approach 8 . 2. 0 POLICIES FOR ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCES 11 9 2. 1 Open Space and Conservation Element 1218 2. 2 Seismic-Safety Element 27-22 2. 3 Noise Element 4499 3. 0 POLICIES FOR DEVELOPMENT 5345 3. 1 Circulation Element 5345 3. 2 Scenic Highways Element 6556 3. 3 Housing Element 8069 3. 4 Land Use Element 86-74 4. 0 ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY 4. 1 Zoning Consistency with the Elements of the 113}A General Plan 4. 2 Finding of Consistency 116}g2 5. 0 AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN 1194:g3 5. 1 General Plan Amendment Procedure 119}03 5. 2 Timing of General Plan Amendments 122}96 • • TABLE OF FIGURES Number 1-1 Planning Area 1-2 Vicinity Map 1-3 Components of the Comprehensive General Plan 2-1 Priority Open Space Areas 2-2 Resource Conservation Priority Areas 2-3 Open Space and Conservation Plan 2-4 Fault and Geologic Conditions 2-5 Geotechnical Land Use Capability 2-6 Special Flood Hazard Areas 2-7 Earthquake Hazard Special Study Zone ° 2-8 Maximum Noise Levels 2-9 Ground Transportation Noise Exposure Contours . 1974 2-10 Meadowlark Airport CNEL 60, 65, and 70 Noise Contours 2-11 Ground Transportation Noise Exposure 1990 3-1 Traffic Flow Map asd-8e }eient-Streets 3-2 O.C.T.D. Bus Routes 3- 3 Park and Ride/Freeway Bus System 3-4 Huntington Harbour Waterways 3-5 Heliports-and-Met iatepa-Wit-hfn-tl°rc-C tp-af- urrtrngtorr-BcacYr Meadowlark Aitpon.t and FxiAt: ng Land Uze3 3-6 Eircafatien-Plan-of-Arteriai-Streets-and-Highways Hetipottz and Heti6top.6 Within the City ob Huntington Beach 3-7 St� txtarp-ef-changes-te-tire-PSaster-Plan-ef-Arterial-Streets- and-Highways CiAcutation Ptan od Antetiat Stneet4 and H.ighwayz 3- 8 Scenic Highway 3-8- 9 Scenic Routes 3-910 Landscape Corridors 3-1011 Criteria for Commercial Uses 3-11 E�ite�ia-few-Isstit�tienal-Uses 3-13---Eitea-few-9�aex-Spree-Uses 3-1312 Land Use Diagram 3-1413 General Location of Community Facilities Fx.i4ting 3-1514 criteria-fer-Bete �nining-Banel-Hse-Besignatiens Genetat Location o6 Community Fae.ititie6 PAoposed 3-1615 hand-Use-Element-6tatistieal-6iamxflarp Size. Ct itetia hot De-tenm.i.ning Land Uh e Dez ig natio nA 3- 1 6 Land U,5 e Hemen-t S.ta,t.i4.t.ieat Summany 4-1 Zoning and General Plan Consistency Matrix 5-1 General Plan Amendment Procedure 1 f introduction • • • • • S' 1. 0 INTRODUCTION The General Plan is a comprehensive, long-range policy guide to promote efficient and desirable community growth. It is , in effect, a constitution for the physical development of a city. That the General Plan reflect the desires of the community is vitally impor- tant. The following sections contained within this document are devoted to the "General Plan, " presenting a definition in broad terms and then relating the General Plan to the specific problems • and opportunities for the Huntington ,Beach-Gemmunitp- community. • • • I � � 1. 1 What is a General Plan? • A General Plan is a comprehensive, long-range policy guide designed to promote efficient and desirable community growth. Its defin- itive policies are enacted administered through daily operation of local planning agencies. All General Plans, regardless of the loca- tion of the plannning area, have certain common characteristics: 1 . A General Plan should be long range - the plan should be forward-looking and attempt to provide for the future needs of the community. 2. A General Plan should be comprehensive - the plan should • recognize and define its relationships with all significant factors that affect the development of the community (physical and nonphysical, local and regional) . 3 . A General Plan should be general - the plan should focus on the main issues, the "big ideas" , and should not include any • details that will tend to obscure or detract attention from the major policies and proposals . (The General Plan is distinguished from specific implementation techniques such as the zoning ordinance, subdivision regulations, and the capital improvements priority and financing programs. ) 1 A General Plan has five basic uses for a community like Huntington Beach: 1. Policy Determination - permits the evaluation of a definite set of policies to govern future development of the City, and a general physical design for the City. • 2 . Policy Effectuation - provides for the evaluation of specific projects in terms of a definite framework for long-range development of the City. 3. Communication - permits the communication of the City' s long- to range policies to the business community and the public; encourages constructive debate and stimulates political action. 4 . Conveyance of Advice - allows the City Planning Commission and other advisory boards to make recommendations to the City Council concerning development of the City in a coherent, unified form. 5. Education - facilitates the education of government officials and the community regarding the problems and opportunities of Huntington Beach (physical, economic, environmental, and . social) . 2 • 1 ■ � 1 . 2 Regional and Local Context The Planning Area consists of incorporated Huntington Beach, the territory between the City limits and the center line of the Santa Ana River, and the unincorporated Bolsa Chica and Sunset Beach vicinity (Figures 1-1 and 1-2) . Encompassing approximately 19,000 f, acres, the planning area is located along the coast of Southern California in the County of Orange. Existing development pressures within the planning area can be attributed to the central location within the Los Angeles - San Diego urbanizing corridor and the coastal orientation. 1. 3 Legal Parameters The California Government Code requires that all City and County General Plans contain nine elements : Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Conservation, Open Space, Seismic Safety, Noise, Scenic Highways, and Safety. State requirements for a General Plan date back to 1955 when California State Law required that a General Plan consist of a Land Use Element and a Circulation Element. In 1965, these mandatory elements were specifically defined. A Land Use Element was to desig- nate "the proposed general distribution and general location and extent of the uses of land for housing, business, industry, agri- culture, natural resources , recreation, education, public buildings and grounds, and other categories of public and private uses of land. "l A Circulation Element was to consist of the "general lo- cation and extent of the existing and proposed major thoroughfares, transportation routes, terminals, and other local public utilities and facilities. " • In 1969, the law was amended to include a Housing Element as a mandatory part of the General Plan. This element was to consist of "standards and principles for the improvement of housing and the provision of adequate sites for housing. "3 General Plan law was amended again in 1970 when a Conservation • Element "for the conservation, development and utilization of natural resources" and an Open Space Element "for the compre- hensive and long-range preservation and conservation of open space land"5 were added to the growing list of compulsory plans. Re- flecting an ever-increasing concern for environmental quality, requirements for a Seismic Safety Element consisting of an -'idext- • ".identi- 1Section 65302 (a) , California Government Code. 2Section 65302 (b) , California Government Code. 3Section 65302 (c) , California Government Code. • 4Section 65302 (d) , California Government Code. SSection 65560, California Government Code. 3 • r c S g t o i o w• V .oa+ ► .�Dpx • 8 FONpFF SUNSET BEACH, BOLSA CHICA FWF 1 AREA 7 .ouFF 1 4 JULY 1977 i FIGURE 1-1 IRP PLANNING AREA huntington beach planning department i VENTURA FRWY. 101 r�O FRwY � ASADENA PASAOE NA FOOTHILL FRWr. NOLLYW0000 wy , 0ALHAMBRA OEL MONTE COVINAO SAN SERNARDINO FRl C::D 10 OPOMONA U.C.L.A. POMONA FRWT' mi ypNICA 10 Rrr 60 OINDUSTRY♦ � c O SANTA OIgL cno v� MONICA s us.c CITY UF LOSA -f-LE COMMERCEL Q �ro MONICA v O OPICO RIVERA ' 2$ >r ! 507 /m� (_— L.A.INTERNATIONAL rV4.' ly�r AIRPORT x O Q OWHITTIER HUNTINGTON 7 °!' LL.A. Co. \ EL SEGUND/ 405 11 PARK OSANTA FE ORANGES CO. z % SPRINGS MANH AT TAN O 1 " BRE A O BEACH GARDENAO ARTESIA m FRWr. US OPLACENTIA 9jn9 FULLERTON � : �� AIRPORT �,CAL.STATE COLt.EGE BUENA O� ' AT FULLERTON o PARK OFULLERTON c REDONDOO CAOON W RIVERSIDE 8 FRWY i BEACH O i i 9t 'O TORRANCE u (p 5 LONG !EACH ?� OANAHEIM O AIRPORT A z O VILLA PARK PALOS VERDES o H \ ' 0 ESTATES /n BEACH CAL.STATE COLLEGE Ct AT LONG BEACH GARDEN GROVE ; O �. z SAN GARDEN GROVE FRWY.\ PEDROO ` GOLDEN WEST z2 OTUSTIN `` COLLEGE SANTAO r ANA Oc �untingtoh SAN s, ti O/eG0 1, BeacH NEWPORT ` BEACH ` '� ORANGE CO. AIRPORT ' 0 51 *141b`CA U C IRVINE 133 q �. `446 / SCALE IN MILES LAGUNA BEACH Ln VICINITY MAP ' JULY 1977 FIGURE 1 -2 i 6.ication ifieation and appraisal of seismic hazards, " a Noise Element (S. 65302 (g) ) , and a Scenic Highways Element (S. 65302 (h) ) were added to state law in 1971 . A Safety Element (5. 65302 . 1) became mandatory in 1973. Thusly, the purpose of the General Plan grew from a statement of proposed future land use to an in-depth in- vestigation and analysis of physical and environmental relation- ships within the planning area culminating in a comprehensive 1 design for tomorrow. 1. 4 Planning History The General Plan is the culmination of considerable effort by local • citizens and City Staff. The foundation for the General Plan was created through the adoption of the Policy Plan in September, 1973. That plan, prepared by a Council-appointed citizens advisory committee ender-tine-direetien-ef a.Lded by the Planning Department, assessed community goals and desires in three major areas of citizen concern: development, environment and resources, society and culture. The A Policy Plan is critical to a comprehensive General Plan for Huntington Beach as it provides the citizen input so necessary for a workable planning program. Even though many o� the poticiez o6 ' the Policy Plan have become zomewhat out-o6-date, the Plan hays i berved ab an .invaZuabZe tool .in the 6ormuZat.ion ob the GeneraZ Plan goaZz and poZic.iez -- .it provided the 6oundat.ion upon which mote current goaZz and poZie.ies could be bated and it provided the ztructuraZ Jtamewo&k 6o4 the Gene&aZ Plan document. Direction for the General Plan was further defined by the Growth Policy Study, prepared by Planning Department Staff in October, 1973 . This report evaluated a series of growth policy alternatives in terms of population rate, size, and distribution, and established the framework for a more specific analysis of growth policy in subsequent General Plan background reports. The relationship among the Policy Plan, the Growth Policy, and the General Plan Elements is illustrated in Figure 1-3 . go-date;-the-City-has-adepted-at-least-grelifaixarp-versions-of mGst-e€-the-xiAe-FRandatery-eleFRents-with-the-intentien-of-developing more-definitive-plans.- Prior to preparation o6 a eomprehend.ive Geneta.2 Plan document dut.ing 1976 which wouQd contain the nine mandatory eZementz , the City adopted at .feast pref..im.inary veuidne o6 mort of the State-mandated eZementA . These adopted documents 6Section 65302 (f) California Government Code. 6 i • FIGURE 1 - 3 • COMPONENTS OF THE 1 COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL PLAN • Policy Plan (Quality of Life) Growth Policy Size , Rate , and Distribution Policy Plan: Policy Plan : Policy Plan: Development Environment $ Society & Resources Culture Land Use Element Open Space Element Housing Element Circulation Element Conservation Element Related Elements Related Elements ( Seismic Safety Element Public Safety Element Scenic Highways Element �. Noise Element Related Elements • 7 • Luil VV included: The Phase 1 Housing Element, Phase I Land Use Element and amendments, Master Plan of Arterial Streets and Highways, and the Phase 1 Open Space and Conservation Element. A Seismic-Safety Element (combined into one) has had also been adopted. Buy}pc}-�13e-1aas�-}ea��-we�l4-ee-the-eex�g�ehen9��e-Genera}-P}Qn-bp P1,aRAisg-Bepa���aest-Eta€€-keg-et�e9sed-eempletion-of-the-follvwisg a reseal-Plae-bael�gennel-reperts- i nom 1975 `enough m�d- 1976, wo&k on the Genenat Han by Ptanning Department StaJJ stnez4ed eomptetion of the 6ottowing Genenat Han background %epontA : 1 . Open Space and Conservation Etement Background Report • 2 . Noise Etement Background Report 3. Circulation Element Background Report 4. Scenic Highways Element Background Report 5 . Housing Etement Background Report 6 . Land Use Etement Baekgnound Report 7 . Poputation Growth Element Baekgnound Repon.t • 8. 1976 Revenue Expenditute Anatysiz of Land Uses 9. I ndu4 tniat Land Use Study In .date 1976, a eompnehenzive GeneAat P.tan was adopted by the City Council and Ptanning Commission of Huntington Beach. The Intenim Genenat Ptan was adopted with the undenztanding that Ptanning • Department Stab) would nepott back to the City Council and Ptanning Commission on on be6ore Ju.ty 1977 with an update ob the nine state- mandated Generat PQan Etementb . 1. 5 Approach The General Plan presents the nine mandatory General Plan Elements in an interrelated format to facilitate comprehensive review of the entire General Plan. When-adopted,-f-his document will serve as a systematic guide for the future development of Huntington Beach through 1990. • The elements are divided into two broad categories created in line with the framework for the General Plan established by the Policy Plan. The first .category entitled "Environment and Resources" presents the General Plan Elements which relate to the environmental character of the community - Open Space and Conservation (combined), Seismic-Safety (also combined) , and Noise. The category entitled "Development" presents the General Plan Elements which relate to the physical character of the community - Land Use, Circulation, Scenic Highways, and Housing. Sections 2 and 3 of this report are. devoted to a discussion of the "Environment and Resources" and "Development" categories - pertinent issues, goals, objectives, and policies; and the plan. All General Plan Elements are in compliance with the-EIR-4Geuneil-en-Inter overnmental-RelationsY OPR (06jice ob Ptanning and Reaeahch) guidelines for preparation of the Elements. 8 Criteria and procedures for determining consistency of the General • PlAn are presented in Section 4 . Section 5 deals with procedures for amending the General Plan, limited by law to three times during a one-year period. s • • • • 46 • • r�ri► 9 • • section 2 policies for environment and resources • • • • • 2. 0 POLICIES FOR ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCES In the adopted Policy Plan, "Environment and Resources" was one of three major headings under which guiding policies for future development were organized. The underlying theme of the policies for • "Envirorrnent and Resources" was to capitalize on the environmental potential of the City, to make the best of the City' s resources. The General Plan Elements presented in this section of the General Plan document (Open Space and Conservation, Seismic-Safety, and Noise) , as a group, are designed to protect and enhance these community resources by setting forth long-range policies and pro- grams which focus on the environmental amenities and environmental health of Huntington Beach. With this in mind, a discussion of the relevant General Plan Elements can begin. • 11 • • � I 2. 1 Open Space and Conservation Element The Open Space and Conservation Element focuses on the preservation of open space and the conservation of resources within the Huntington Beach sphere of influence. The objective is to conserve open space in adequate amounts to preserve the environmental amen- ities which embody the quality of life in Huntington Beach. Toward this end, an open space and conservation plan will be im- plemented over the coming years through a program combining public ownership with open space and conservation ordinances . Such a plan would accomplish the City' s environmental objectives by utiliz- ing all its authorized powers instead of placing the total burden for environmental protection on the municipal treasury and the taxpayer . 2 . 1. 1 Issues There are several issues which must be addressed by the Open Space and Conservation Element for Huntington Beach: • a. The future of the natural environment in an urban society. b. The urgent demands of imperiled resources. • C. The coexistence of man and nature--integrating the urban and the natural environments . d. Open space as a vital factor in the general well- being and economic potential of the City. • e. Non-development of certain property as the highest and best use. f. How much open space to preserve based on economic feasibility and the physical and psychological needs of the community. • g. Costs versus benefits of open space and resource preservation. h. Effectiveness of the existing parks program in satisfying the needs and desires of residents . • 2 . 1. 2 Goals,-9b3actiues,. and Policies Goals;-eb?ectivesT and policies Son the City in genetat and Son each te6ounce categony have been formulated to provide basic guiding principles for future growth in • open space and conservation resource areas. Generally; 12 AM�, • J; 1 � � • tire-geeis�-ebjeetiees;-and-pe}ieies-Mich-fe}}eN-refieet tie-statements-in-the-adapted-Peiicp-jinn-as-it-relates to open space and conservation planning far-the-eityls resources---i.eend�-water;-nir�-tieieggcni;-end-cnitarei- �n-�fi.t-E�c��-��.-��.�.e�.a.�-a�.d-�y-�.e�sea.�ee-ea�ege���--4�a�d� water;-air;-bieieeri.Cai;-and-etiiterai4-. T h e o n a P.A and • po. icies ate as 6OZZowA : 2 . 1 . 2 . 1 GenetaZ Goa. • To guide urban development to be hatmoniouA with the natutal enviAonmen.t in loeationz containing open space and conzetvati.on tezoutcez . PoZicieb • 1 . Identi6y vital open space ateaz not already ptebexved thxough public ownetzhip where especial attention and especial open space plans should be d-itected. 2 . E.stabf-ish pxioxitie6 jor natural xesouteeA based on development ptezzutez and other 6aetota which endanger • continued existence o 6 these tea outeez . 3 . Protect 6rag.i,le %ezoutcez by teZianee on ordinance as well as acquisition. 4 . Maintain and ineteas e pubtic access .to tees outeeA in 0 .the community. Z-i-z-} Land Resources 2 . 1 . 2 . 2 Goad. 0 To conserve land resources which enhance the physical, social , and economic life style of the area.by PoZiciez • 1. Pre4exve and protect outstand- ing geographical and topographical features;. 2 . D.eveloping the shoreline as a unique, irreplaceable, regional recreational asset;. • 3 . encearaging E.neouxage beautification of oil-producing areas and restoration of non-productive oil land;. 13 • 4. maximizing M:axim-i.ze the outdoor environmental potential of the City by providing comprehensive, coordinated recreation, parks and open space programs that fulfill the needs of all segments of the community; and Apeci- 6icatty, a. Maintain exi,6ting pubtic necteation anea.e � Jon pubtic uze. b. Expand the exi4ting neckeation AyAtem to prevent ovenuze o4 exizting 6aeititiez . 5 . Cooperate in .the implementation of a gneenbett plan Jon 0 the Santa Ana Raven. S- Seeking joint participation, in all resource categories, 6 . among all levels of government, private citizens, and involved agencies and organizations. 27172-2 Water Resources 2 . 1 . 2 . 3 Goa. To achieve wise management and well-planned utilization of the area ' s water resources. bp- Poticies 1. preserving Ptezenve the ocean and shoreline as a recreational and physical resource;. . a_ eeeperating-Eeelse•�.at2-�a-��ie-���a�e�ea�a�aeu-ef-a 4, premeting Ptomote the preservation of the area' s 2 . marshes and lakes . 4- participating Patticipate jointly with involved 3. agencies to develop flood plain regulations;. 5- eneenraging Encou&age water conservation, reclamation, 4 . and desalinization;-and.. and .the ube o6 nectaincd water in the City Jon ittigation punpoaez . � 57 Protecting the area' s water resources 64om pottution, 5. which ate: domestic supply, ocean and harbor areas, marshlands, and lakes. frext-pellt�tien- 14 1 • I � i 2-172_d, Air Resources 2 . 1 . 2 . 4 Goat To preserve and promote clean air and a quiet environment. hp- Poticies • 1. eeeperating Cooperate in local , state, and national efforts to improve air quality; . 3- eneenraging f�zbn.�.a.��-researofi into-smog prevention tecfinignes;-nnd • 37 Preventing excessive noise intrusion. 2 . 2-1727$7 Biological Resources 2 . 1 . 2 . 5 • Goat To insure the continued exist6nce of- distinctive biologi- cal resources contained within the boundaries of the Huntington Beach sphere of influence. by- • Poticy 1. preserving PneseAve significant vegetation and wild- life habitat now existing in the Planning Area. 2-i72757 Cultural Resources • 2 . 1 . 2 . 6 Goat To create a productive harmony between man and his environment.byT • Po.eic.i,es 1. preserving-and-preteeting P&ezenve and protect areas of significant historic, scenic, and archaeological value;-and. • 2. de�eieping-anal-maintaining-high-standards-ef-nisaai beauty-within-aii-areas-ef-the-eitp- Pnomo-te the deveto pment o b an aeA theticatty pteazing environment within att aneas o6 Huntington Beach. -i:- -6---erect-iWes- The overall objective of the Oper pace and Conservation Element, as previously stated, to conserve open space 1 0 • in adeq/priorities mounts to presery the environmental amen- ities wmbody the qua y of life in Huntington Beach. lying this olr all objective are six add- itionaltives, more imited in scope, which spell out whaOpen Spac and Conservation Plan is designed to accoin mor specific terms: 1 . To fy vial open space areas, not already pre serro ah public ownership, where special -atten- tioecial open space plans should be directed. 2. To ish priorities for natural resources based onendangeredness. 3. To prote/theAsting ile res urces by reliance on ordinance as well sitio . 4 . To maintsti g public recreation areas as permanensp ce lands. • 5. To expan .fisting recreation system to prevent overuse ting facilities. 6. To guideevelopment to be harmonious with the natural ent, especially where scenic features or hazarblic safety exist. • 2. 1. 3 Evaluation and Analysis of Resources A major obligation of the Open Space and Conservation Element is to determine resources worthy of priority consideration. Such a task involves an inventory of • resources within the City, evaluation of these resources to determine their potential for preservation or con- servation, and finally, assigning priorities for the resources most important to the City' s Open Space and Conservation Program. • An inventory of the City' s resources and their open space/conservation potentials was accomplished with publication of the Open Space Potentials report (February, 1974 ) and the Conservation Potentials report (March, 1974) by Planning Department Staff. An evaluation of these same resources was contained in the two reports, resulting • in the assignment of priorities. Figures 2-1 aAd-2-2- detailbthe priorities assigned to the City ' s open space and conservation resources based on previous planning activities and existing development pressures. (Refer-to -t-fie-4ge-R-4;Pafe--Pe€en€4als-and-eons e"atian-Pot entials- • eas e- a -ten€e �aa€€en-en-the-aetuai-anaips is-of-reseeree wsi-fed-te-€#�e-as9i�nrent-a€-prieritiear� These 6 • 1 � � FIGURE 2-1 • RESOURCE PRIORITY E?�S-PAICE- AREAS OPEN SPACE RESOURCE AREAS First Priority Areas - Areas which represent the greatest potential • for preservation as open space: 1. Beaches 2 . Bolsa Chica (Marshlands and Bluffs) 3. Northwest Bolsa Chica 4 . Huntington Central Park Area 5. Meadowlark Area Second Priority Areas - Important open space resource areas which contain fewer resources or resources of less significance than the First Priority Areas: 6. Ocean • 7. 8aeta-Ana-River Beach - Adams Atea 8 . Santa Ana Riven 9. Santa Ana River Marsh • 1.0. Oit Pno ductio n Arrears Third Priority Areas - Areas containing valuable assets (but of lesser significance) which should be incorporated into a comprehensive Open Space and Conservation Program: • 1-Gv-9il-Preduetiem-Areas 11. Flood Control Channels 12. Huntington Harbour • 13. Existing Parks and Recreation Areas • 17 • • • FIGURE -2-2- 2- 1 Cont. RESOURCE-CQ SERV.ATI.aN-RRIORITY-AREAS CONSERVATION RESOURCE AREAS _ First Priority Areas Shoreline Stabilize erosion; improve recreation facilities; prevent blight and • conflicting land uses. Open Space Secure permanent open space areas which maximize utili- zation and conservation of existing resources. Marshes and Lakes Prevent pollution; maximize recreation and scenic assets. Parks Continue park dedication and development program to meet human needs and enhance physical resources . Seismic Hazards Minimize risk to private and public sector. Recreation Facilities Maximize potential of existing recreation resources. Historic/Archaeologic/ Preteet-e►nianbie-Sites-frem Paleontologic Sites thoagi�tiess-or-anneeessary • destraetien; Identify.- and analyze,rand preserve valuable sites: and eneouxa.ge pneaehva-. .tion, whene poAAibte; pno.tee.t vatuabZe 6ite6 6nom .though.tZeba on unnece.6ea4y de.6ttuction. • Flood Plains Control drainage; minimize risk to private and public sectors. Unique Topography Preserve natural integrity of • bluffs and other outstanding physical features. 18 ii& • 2-1 FIGURE -2-2 Cont. Second Priority Areas Ocean Improve quality by minimizing pollution from municipal and industrial wastes; maximize recreation benefits; protect valuable plant and animal inhabitants; enhance scenic values. • Wildlife Where possible, prevent-continued harassment-of pno.tec.t endangered species by Snom encroaching urbanization. Scenic Vistas Prevent blight and obstruction. • Unique Vegetation Prevent undue destruction of native or endangered species . Mineral Resources Encourage utilization of mineral weait+it-prevent-biight;-peiiutien; • and-u»due-aestruetien-ef-natural features.-neeounce6 white minimizing advenae envikonmen.tat eS-Seeta aeeocia.ted w',�h pnoduct.ion. Po.tabte Wa.ten Suppty Fncounage wa.ten eon4e4va.t.ion and • and cun.ta.it wa.teh uAage by City govennmen.t whenever poh4 ibte. Santa Ana River Maximize recreation and scenic potential. • Third Priority Areas Air Quality Minimize pollution; cooperate in regional , state, and national programs. • 19 0 • • I priorities give both scope and order to the environmental • planning program by identifying the resources to be included in the program and allocating relative importance to each one. Organization of this information into a conceptual open space and conservation .plan in line with . the statement of goals and policies was then possible. 2. 1. 4 The Open Space and Conservation Plan • The Open Space and Conservation' Plan provides for the conservation and preservation of natural resources, resources having intrinsic value for present and future generations. (See Figure 2-32 . ) The plan encompasses all existing and planned open space and conservation • programs as well as several additional projects. To accomplish its: objective, . the plan- depends upon the . actions of other governmental iuristictions and private developers in addition to actual City expenditures. Strict policies, regulations, and ordinances designed to incorporate conservation measures into day-to-day develop- ment activities will support the plan and thus mitigate the impacts of such developments on the environment. 2 . 1 . 4 . 1 Open Space and Conzenvation Ca.tegotiez The Open Space and Conservation Plan designates seven • open space and conservation categories : scenic corridor, recreation area, resource preserve, neighborhood park, water area, resource production, and planned open space development. • Scenic Corridor: . linear area protected from disharmonious development or preserved in a natural state; includes scenic roadways and open space greenbelts. Recreation Area: applies to all public and private park and recreation areas that are community-wide -or regional in nature. (Neighborhood parks are excluded from this category. ) This classification is intended for large open areas and active recreation facilities. Resource Preserve: applies to land set aside primarily for the protection of natural and cultural resources. • Neighborhood Park: applies to small, local open space areas .designed for neighborhood use. Water Area: applies to salt and fresh water areas con- sidered for both conservation and recreation purposes. 40 20 a • • • '� �� `I`Ii�♦i 1■1 O J 1 ♦� t j * �E ,1� '♦, ors Cy� � � ewe � ♦�♦� vv' ♦, ?0, • •����' >�' fit• �E �E � '♦ 10+ 7` 9EXxf ' :/1:�: :/.:�•./�:R1./� 3 :•: .- :•••.� :••Y•••:: • :•>:� RANGE ••:•• 2i LEGEND Figure 2 HUNTINGTON Bfi4CH, 01LIFORNIA am PLANNING DEPARTMENT r Resource Preserve •:::; Resource Production OPEN SPACE A N D Scenic Corridor Open Space Development CONSERVATION PLAN Recreation Area 3 Open Space Plan Area # Neighborhood Park (No.Indicates Priority) Water Area Sphere of Influence • Gb BF ! `?�Ea F `�Fti 9�y '"o E� ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES SITE AREA REMAINING m SITE AREA DESTROYED 145 ORA SITE NUMBERS AS �.♦�'•♦ le INVESTIGATED BY A.R.I. 1 _ 296 �y 346 367 //i \ , 5 ... .. .. - 59' , \p\2 \ 356 282 }4 ./ dui •1 / \ (, il`� ', \Vt "� 41F351 ! \. 88 ! r . �'. \ I �. i y' .364 '276' r + - -, _ - \1 ,- 293 -1, ID fl , 292 PACT t _ -- ._ - - - .- 40 +r...r90 co SOURCE: A.R.I AN1E 1974 ® HUNTINGTON BEACH 04LIFORNIA ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1 I Resource Production: applies to land primarily devoted to managed production of resources. Manned Open Space Development: applies to special resource areas, permitting open space uses and other kinds of uses, including residential, which maximize open space benefits by incorporating natural resources into the development plan. 2 . 1 . 4. 2 Open Space Ptanning Aneas The Open Space and Conservation Plan also identifies seven six . open space planrrirrg areas - vital open space areas not already preserved where special attention should be directed. Priorities have been established for the open space. plan areas according to endangeredness. High Priority: areas where valuable resources exist and development presssures are high, making expeditious • planning important. 1. Northwest Bolsa Chica: includes the property in the Northwest Bolsa Chica between the bluffline and City limits. This property , under County jurisdiction, is presently used for agricultural purposes. It contains several valuable open space and conservation resources: the bluffs, tree stands, potential historical sites, archaeological sites , and scenic and mineral resources. Fault traces also exist here. A spee.iat. open space plan 4on the Northwest Botza Chica is needed to .ineune .that any development oecunh.ing .in this toeax.ion .is in harmony with the natunat env.inonment. r�g�ee-Beas4-PLJaRei-r4g -}s-eew-irr-the g�eeeas-a€- rr t}at rig-a-pre-aerie-a€-R6S-t9I--&R- --and IYT-92.r--R9S-st&FA a-felt -reere8tierrrai-epcn-space r--The atr€€i�-�r�es-�i-arre�-��-irr�ieate-that-a-ttse-ra-canrbrnec� � �itl�-aii-pre�t�etio-rr---bi3-represents-iimrteef-arse--a d}strut-wh, �-perr i�tg-ia -uses-a€-a-temporarp-rratrrre €or-t}3e-p�rrp�ae-o€-�r�irrt�rrrri-rzc�-r�r-}rn�-�cerc�-aF r13e-M+-62--&es.rgnatrerr-.ts-bei- -p orasaa-€ar �Y��r�-i-r�-�1°re-Boi sa erica-nbt-aurrred•-or-i-�-asec�-bY �l�vrt�t-er--�Y3e-RC35•,--ROS-(}i,--anc�ROs-���srgiratrrnts ar-�-1 rr��g�ropt�s ed•-€car-thy ro��rtp-ovrne�-vr- zrsed-hY eke vC t-at�--�-sped-a�-�pen-spzrc���a�rr mar-thy-�rt2r- w�e•�Bo-�sa-C-l�i-�a-rg rn=:,-.��-to--inrslrre-tltart any ieerrt-eee"rrirfg-in-this-location-is-=n-harmony-with-the rratt�rai-environment- • 2 . Bolsa Chica: includes the property in the Bolsa Chica between the two bluff lines, excluding the property under State ownership or lease agreement. Contained within this p1anA}r}g area are numerous valuable and 21 0 • I � i unique resources : wildlife habitat, distinctive vegetation, archaeological sites; scenic, historic , and mineral resources. It also suffers flood and seismic hazards. A special open space plan is needed to protect the valuable resources contained within this area. • 3. Seacliff: includes the 600-acre Seacliff Planned Community and the bluff to the northwest, along the City boundary. Valuable resources exist in this location: archaeological sites, the bluffs, vista points, and mineral resources . Approximately 500 of this planning area is still vacant and requires an • open space plan to guide future urban development to be in harmony with the natural environment. 4 . Meadowlark Atea: includes Meadowlark Golf Course, Meadowlark Airport, and surrounding property, much of which is vacant. The City now owns the golf course and some adjoining property. Pressures continue to grow for closing the airport, which could subsequently develop as residential under existing zoning= and .hand uae designation6 . An open space plan is needed in this location to insure compatibility with the golf course - a recreational open space resource and the other natural resources in the area (e.g. , tree stands, archaeological sites, the bluffs) . Medium Priority: areas where development is foreseen, but one or both of the following conditions exist: development pressures are lower than the areas in the • high priority category, and/or the resources contained within the area are not as significant. S- Saarta-Pita-Riven--ineltidea-the-Santa-Arta-River- el�arzrre�-arm-ae��a�s�rrg-�aearzt-�arx�---�13e-g�ege�ty-at . Br-eelr,ktrr-st--and-14aa3il-t-err-aFA-t-13e-Edir er}-easement: �l�-���e�-g�e��es-�e�l��ate�-arx�-seer�}e-�esott�ees asd-ems-fa�ax�sec�-as-a-�eg�oxra�-r-ec3�eat}or�-oo���o� 9p®x�-space-p�axax�€x�g-o€-th€s-�oeat}oxx-w€��-}ae-phased shar-t-t crM T W€ldr-f4p4o.4s-QR-the-max-t-Fr-cip4&r-€y-at -axed -arid-th®-9di-sor4.-easen;&14t -at-a-€at1kr-e-ti a W"R-th4& -tha s ax�ta-Ana _m"ice_(;€-14-yams o€€. 22 • ■ 1 • �.- Santa Ana River Marsh: includes the property at the 5 . moutS of the Santa Ana River now owned by the California Department of Transportation but antic- ipated for sale at some time in the future. This area provides unique vegetation, wildlife habitat, and scenic vistas. It also suffers flood and seismic • hazards. City jurisdiction over this property is minimal . "Nevertheless, special attention is needed in case recommendations for use are solicited. 7-v Beach-Adams Area: includes the property at Beach 6 . and Adams harboring many important resources to be • contained within an 18-acre park site and 10-acre flood retarding basin. These resources include historic and archaeological sites, the bluffs, marsh- lands, and tree stands. Fault traces also exist in ' this location. Special attention is required to • ensure that development within the open space plan area blends harmoniously with the natural environment. =1-�- 1M?1QmeRtatien Open Space and Conse?cvation P,%ognam 2 . 1 . 4. 3 Opportunities for preserving open space and conserving resources are many and varied. This section of the • General Plan presents an open space and conservation program employing the most feasible methods for Huntington Beach. The program combines regulatory tools and acqui- sition, stressing preservation of open space through regulation of development rather than through municipal ownership. The ovekaZZ objective of the Open Space and • Cones envation Pnognam iz to pnez enve Zo caZ open z pace and conservation ne.6ounceb bon 6utune generations , ne.6ounceb that might othenwize be Zort .to urban development. The pnognam is ae Jottowz : Open-Space-and-eonsernation-Program- • Ie-keeping-with-the-Beals-and-pelieies-statement,--the follewisg-pages-set-forth-a-pregraFR-te-preserve-leeal epee-space-aiad-eesservatiex-Fesexrees-€er-€uture-gener- atio�s,-�ese��ees-tkat.-x�}qbt-etherwise-be-lest-te-x�}�aa develepment. • Preservation Through Regulation 1. Utilize development zoning (e.g. estate and cluster zoning) to preserve open space within private developments. • 23 • LT(fiv 2 . Utilize natural resource zoning ' to restrict develop- ment in hazard areas and areas used for production • of resources. 3 . Continue to impose subdivision controls through ordinance. Existing regulations govern: a. Development layout b. Public improvements. C. Park dedication and park fees d. Landscaping e. Grading 4 . Regulate development in the interests of open space preservation through an Open Space Zoning Ordinance, governing development of .areas specified :in the Open Space and Conservation Plan (Figure 2-3) . The ordinance could be broken down into three resource categories, establishing development standards and an overlay district for each. The categories are listed on the following page: • a. Natural Resource Areas of severely restricted or no development. Resource areas within this category, as shown on the plan, are as follows: - Water area - Resource preserve - Scenic corridor - Resource production - Landmark sites - Archaeological sites. ( Figune 2- 3 toc.axe.6 the anchaeotog.ieat .-6 ites_ .in .the City, based on an .inventory conducted by ktchaeotog.icaP- Resea)Lch, Inc. ) b. Outdoor Recreation • Permanent open space lands, no development permitted: - Water area • - Recreation area - Neighborhood park. 24 AM& • r c. Natural Hazard Areas of restricted development due to the existence of natural hazards (e.g. earthquake, flood) . Preservation Through Acquisition 5. Continue to acquire open space with full ownership rights through purchases, condemnation, or donation. Methods for acquiring open space with full rights to the land include: a. Eminent domain b. Installment or negotiated purchase C. Philanthropic donations d. Transfer of ownership among public agencies. Acquisition of full rights to the land is probably the most dependable means of preserving open space. It is by far the best method of preservation for vital resource areas because it gives the City total control of the resource area and its ultimate fate. 6 . Employ "Less Than Fee Ownership" techniques to preserve open space in Huntington Beach. Such . techniques (e.g. easements and leasing) allow the City certain rights and controls over property without having to secure actual ownership. (Cases where these techniques could be employed include scenic roadways and Edison easements in combination with park land. ) Financing Open Space Acquisition 7 . Utilize all financing programs available to the City for open space preservation. Existing and potential methods of financing include: a. Parks tax - share of City property tax presently collected for recreation and park purposes , b. Development fees - park and recreation fees now collected from developers to finance park acquisition and development . C. Federal and State programs offering financial assistance d. Philanthropic donations e. Bond issues - 2s) • 1 • , Improvement of Recreational Facilities • 8 . Conduct a comprehensive analysis of park use and the cost-effectiveness of the parks system, to be init- iated by the City' s Departments of Planning and Recreation and Parks. 9 . Conduct a citizen survey seeking feedback on the physical attractiveness and en oyability of recrea- tion facilities.- , and modi j y t e Cit y' b Pa,%k Ptogtam, as neeessany, based on. .the tecteationat pne6etenee6 ob the community. • 10. Increase-the-flexibility-of-the-pn�tk-standards for eleveiepment-a€-ne#g�iber�ieeel-parks--��-ae popnlation�---upon-afif�h-thy-�c7��zlL1�L-D�-p3YR-'fL��'Y'� -{the-required-number-of-acmes-of-neighborhood-park • could-be-reduced-to-the-dtegree-that-community-and regional-park-acreage-4-s-avniiable--in-the-vicinity- �eua�t�-ae�i-�eg�e�a�-ga�ksT-e�ea-theeg�i-t�e�-kel�a to-zatizzy-aeigkabo�Gueed-park-dGIRaed,-ar-e-lag t—p-Ces®xatly. eeusidQ�ed-ia_tha-assessxaexat-a€-�eigk�}ae�laeed-park � sepp�p-ar�el-demand-} Give neighborhood pa&k etedit to devetopets bon ptiva-te open space on an acne pen acne basis ptovi ded cettain conditions ate met. 11 . Assign park acquisition and development priorities based on the needs .of the community and the individ- ual areas concerned. 12. Seek methods of providing parks if park fees are inadequate or non-existent as in areas developed prior to parks being required. 13 . Increase control over where park fees are spent so that parks are sited in close proximity to the location paying the fees. 14- Eens3der-tine-peaa3bilitp-ef-improving-landscaping , treatment-e�-ne�ghberheeel-pariea-wren-reassessing the-Pares-Program;-to-increase-thezr-physical attraet�*�eness-and.-en?opabilzty- 19T--Gene.de�- let-areas-with-in-ne3ghber- }�sed-gam#s-usher-reassessing-the-Parses-pregrax+-te ge���t-aet�s*e-�ee�eat�eaT 1 26 1 2 . 2 Seismic-Safety Element • The Seismic-Safety Element represents a comprehensive effort by the City of Huntington Beach to reduce loss of life, injury, and damage to property resulting from natural and man-induced disaster. From the standpoint of land use planning, the Element sets forth • measures to reduce the threat to community safety posed by flood, earthquake, and fire in light of certain constraints on develop- ment and design, as dictated by these hazards . The Seismic-Safety Element was originally adopted by the City Council in October, 1974, to satisfy the state requirement for a • Seismic Safety and Safety Element of the General Plan. An amended version of the original Seismic-Safety Element is being included in this report reflecting changes in state law. 2 . 2 . 1 Issues • Two general issues are addressed as part of the Seismic- Safety Element: a. The balance between use of land and the forces of nature. (Rapid urbanization has not always allowed for full consideration of natural forces . ) b. Protection of the public health, safety, and welfare - possible through a community safety program designed to reduce loss of life, injury, damage to property, and economic and social displacement resulting from disaster. • 2 . 2 . 2 Goals-A1a4eet!voGT and Policies The A bummany b.ta.tement of goaZz and potici.ea haz been pnepaned to achieve a dezited level of protection desired by bon City residents from natural and man-induced disasters. as-reieeted-in-tbe-Peiiep-Pan;-has-been trans�nted-into-a-sammary-statement-ef-gears;-ebjeetives; and policies. This statement represents-a-comprehensive directive-en .i.h designed to act aA a guide {ion community 6ecu&ity to insure maximum acceptable public health, safety, and we.E'bane. 2 . 2 . 2 . 1 Goal To reduce to acceptable levels the degree of risk from seismic, flood, and fire hazards to life, property, public investment, and social order in the community. 27 • 1 � i 2.2:271 objectives • 17 To-determine-restive-risk-in-various-parts-of`the city-as-a-gtiide-te-new-development-and-haza--ea abatement.- .- To-aid-in-t-he-determination-of-future/`tand-uses • within-aortes-of-poterrtial-ly-higher-eisk 3 r Te-eaaare-tllat-structures-for-hmrrarr-crccugancy, eritieal-stEaetures;-and-othoe-vital-emergency €aeilities-are-designed-to Aintm.rze-damage-ffom poterttral-hazards-so-as-reu -continue-to-fenction. • 4: To-evalttate-levels-of-'-risk-with-respect-to-damage and-eoats-of-corrc_-etrve-rrreasures-to-mztigafe-of prevent-future-d&,rage.- p Po-€aerl-rtatre-po-et-dlraast-er-recovery. • 6-, To.-er}eoj&r-age-pLtbri-c�-a-wa-rerres-s--af--seis-nrrc,--f kaa(t, and,-f-i-rre,-h-&z-&r-da and--grcy�rve m-�-_asur-e•s.- 2-2-2-3 Policies 2 . 2 . 2 . 2 1 . The-:Eity-shall gecognize hazard-generated constraints in determining land use policies and making decisions on development, particularly in identified areas. 2 . Upghade public facilities 9heald-be-apgraded to . meet risk requirements . 3. Dezign and openate vital facilities si�ali-be-designed and-eperated-in-a-xtanne� to maximize their ability to remain functional during and after disaster. 4. Examine existing vital facilities not designed to � be disaster-resistant shall-be-exaxtined and imphove on demot.i.sh hazardous structures shell-be-impreved-ems demolished in an orderly manner. 5 . Base priorities for improvement of existing non-vital buildings shaii-be-based on hazard to life , type of occupancy, method of construction, physical condition, and location. 6. New-bailelings-shdil-be-designed-to-eompensate-for hazards. Determine netative tizk in va,%iouz pacts o6 � .the City as a guide to new development and hazard abatement. • 7 . Fnsute that sttue.tutez Got human occupancy, ctiticax zttuetutez , and other vital emetge.ney 6ae�.tities ate designed to minimize damage 6tom patentiat hazatdz Aso as to continue to 6unction. 3- the-Seismic-Safety-£lenient-and-relevant-rege�latiens • and-programs-shall-ire-periediealip-re�gsed-te-reflect adnanees-in-technology-and-understanding-ef-hazards- g . Facititate post-dizastet tecavety; zpeci6icatty: 97 a. Maintain and tevize emergency plans dealing • with disaster response shall-ire-centinualip-�tatn- tained-and-reprised- on a co ntinuat basis . 9---the-guhlie-shall-ire-x�ade-aware-ef-hazards-and-how-to protect-their-lipres-and-greperty. • b. Fncoutage public awatenezz o6 seismic, 6tood and 6iAe hazatdz and ptotective meazutes . 197 c. Keep the public of as to what to do in the event of a disaster. • 11- 9 . Fncoutage property owners shall-he-eneearaged to take adequate steps to protect their property against the economic risks of seismic hazards. 2 . 2 . 3 Identification and Evaluation of Hazards • The function of the Seismic-Safety Element is to mitigate the impact of hazards on community well-being. These hazards include both natural risks (such as seismic and geologic conditions, flood, and fire) and the land uses and public facilities they jeopardize. • 2 . 2 . 3. 1 Geotechnical Considerations Geologic and seismic conditions affecting the City are analyzed in the Geotechnical Inputs report of February, 1974, prepared by Leighton-Yen and Associates in con- junction with the Planning Department. This study • represents an investigation of fault displacement; earth- quake shaking; liquefaction, lurching and differential compaction; tsunamis and seiches; peat and organic soils deposits; expansive clays; beach erosion; land subsidence; and groundwater. Figure 2-4 details the approximate location of earthquake faults in Huntington Beach. • J29 • To assist future planning decisions, a summary geotech- nical land use capability map was developed by Leighton- Yen and Associates (Figure 2-5) . The values indicated are relative only and do not represent absolute values. The analysis that was used to develop the map included the following considerations: • 1 . Fault rupture potential 2 . Peat deposits 3 . Liquefaction potential 4 . Beach erosion 5. Tsunami hazards Specifically excluded from this analysis were : • 1. Earthquake shaking 2 . Expansive soils 3 . Areal land subsidence 4 . Groundwater problems The analysis was based upon an accumulation of geologic problems and relative degrees of severity. Based upon this, four values were determined: 1 . Risk I (lowest) 2. Risk II 3. Risk III 4. risk IV (highest) • {Re€er-te-the-Geeteekaieai-feprite-repert-far-additieRai e�etaz�-en-tl�e-fettr-t�eft�es-ef-ris3�-f rem-e�eeteekr�ieai ka�are�s;-enc�-fer-mere-ia€ermatier�-ee-geeteekaieai-eaesider" atien9-€aeieg-I�r�etir�gtea-Beaek-as-a-bakeie-� 2 . 2 . 3 . 2 Flood Potential Situated on a low-lying plain and bounded by the Santa Ana River, Huntington Beach faces a flood hazard of major concern. Drainage and flooding have always posed problems for the community. In fact, only 100 years ago much of the area below the bluffs was marshland . And in the east • side of the City, the Santa Ana River Channel is at a higher level than the surrounding drainage areas. • 30 • k ' I 'YF FP I co� ``� o�y y � 0 RECENT ALLUVIAL & sA � �F �5P f TIDAL MARSH SEDIMENTS ®r � �PP�� `° 0 OLDER ALLUVIUM OLDER MARINE SEDIMENTS . A's BEACH & DUNE SAND f ACTIVE FAULT LOCATION a� o IAr ! €� r �.� 40 k :r 4 hw¢ c .e\\�\ „Ix �. i fir.'' ,m•� : 1 1 +�,�, fie• ice*► y. _ \, �,s'► ,1 17 ioF r :::. \. x.•. I j ii:,::.- ..\\� +. �.�,. � ., .lil ' r r f L m,,.' i yi,x „-•s. rf "s': f d F \ h A ��++". + A '. '� rE �.xi -.xi � ter:,• ,�,�� �,,< \�5 �,. �'`•' �� m � _ 01 r� �_ ..� -r r a� e.-m • .fC,:.S �.. ,. >: _ '`1e+ �+i` ;,.\ ""�...;£, ij': -,� ,.._,. '� ?3 ��.,� 7,r: � .a..�2:.. +.r • :.T+r .; "n •��y, , +.�.. "'•, _' ,,:3*s.„.:, s�=^� '� '�.+. .:.: ,fie S :. ;•'�.?e,, •,�:: ,. ,,. � �_„ �`�� �? �,.� � = ,�'`''` '4."+.+r "� - r-s 5"'x. �v sir-�""--• .•+'�s � .�• �� � -;,w. �` � � - � S y °., ;; •��� •ems -,a ��; — —�3t W. dx� r., �. -,ar ,.t sfi.- a .. .:..:.. .: :�. '""•t i �2_� 01 � y aT,\ xx�4'xar �ssr�r a�}x raay'. ,wl� i a' , SANTA ANA GAP SUNSET GAP 1 BOLM A ICA I BOLSA GAP 1 HUNTINGTON BEACH MESA I SOURCE:LEIGHTON-YEN 3 ASSOC. 9-1-73 i m Figure 2-4 I ' HUNTINGTON BEACH CALIFORNIA FAULT & GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS 1 PLANNING DEPARTMENT II 1 C� I` - I r) tiF O�� ke4,1, �o♦� ♦.. ASP 6F C o jr �9�F; '+ + �► o�`' :` + �P`�♦� RISK IV Highest 2 1' h0°O l 1 •� ,� �,- " �o ( ME RISK III ♦ ♦ - 1 ° ° m RISK II FEZ O h . 0 RISK I Lowest Cyr .:s!" I \ -'\ ,: r• +,� THE GEOTECHNICAL PROBLEM RATING SCALE IS RELATIVE ONLY.THE L'q y y" x•' y " `MAP IS INTENDED TO BE A GENERAL GUIDE FOR PLANNING - PURPOSES.THE MAP IS BASED ON THE FOLLOWING ID RA- ...,# Et., _ \ .+ t xI .. €� O CONS E yy 0 " ;' - `' _` •TIONS•FAULT RUPTURE RISK,PEAT DEPOSITS,LIQUEFACTION »,`*. POTENTIAL BEACH EROSION - . ;-. �� ,:, a t `...p •�...,';,,, �,yy�.t- AND TSUNAMI HAZARD.SPECIFIC �' ',`� �'�.% 3 �"•�'�+` �--.1�-�'': �� €� "t�','��'; •,ALLY EXCLUDED FROM CONSIDERATION WERE GROUND EXPANSIVE SOILS,AREAL LAND SUBSIDENCE, n ,.; <- l X..,? ® '•` '.GROUNDWATER PROBLEMS AND FLOOD HAZARDS. mL \.. _ , °s i r �� ,fir; -. ♦P l \. 10 '� `, r L it '3i-a ip__ .P♦�. fr— ""�i ai axle x _ x \ 5 ''' :�. •% ;.�..., ,•,'.i .... a,,,•.;. .-<.,.,. `, _.., ;��, \. '���:..' -.� .,,.. tam:•. 4'. ,, .., � r. ,.. .. hh• is � �, �' \ y r ' c,t' it II ���,�' A• '. � :. i I'Ilif�l iillil� - nw Mom „ n � r I SOURCE:LEIGHTON-YEN&ASSOC 9-1-73 I m Figure 2-5 HUNTINGTON BEACH cauFORNIAlop PLANNING DEPARTMENT GEOTECHNICAL LAND USE CAPABILITY MAP I I I Ij I The Flood Hazard Study was prepared by Planning DeparInal Staff to provide background data on the flooding pote • for the Seismic-Safety Ilement. The 1'loo(i []azard Stu compiles what is known about actual i Lood daiige.r i_ii City, identifies existing control measures, examines use hazards, and investigates hazard abatement alternatives. Figure 2-6 delineates the Special Flood Hazard Boundary imposed by the Federal Insurance Administration as of August 27 , 1976. �3esd-�ia�a�el-�ae�eQ-;fle�►��ag�ae-$eae�- 2 . 2 . 3 . 3 Fire Danger An overview of the fire safety situation in Huntington Beach is presented in the Fire Hazard/Fire Protection • Study (July, 1974) prepared Jointly by the Fire and Planning Departments. This report identifies existing and potential fire hazards, analyzes fire protection capabilities, and evaluates the effectiveness of fire fighting forces to combat existing and potential fire problems. The report points out that the overall fire • hazard in Huntington Beach is moderate as compared to other cities. And while some concern is justified for conflagration potential in residential areas (due to Santa Ana wind conditions, wood shingle roofs and close dwelling spacing) , in most other types of use, the fire problem is moderate to light. 4Re4er-te-the-Fire-Hasard;4 • gire-protection-3tndy-for-additional-information,-} 2. 2 . 3. 4 Land Use Hazards Certain land uses susceptible to the seismic, flood, and fire hazards are particularly important to community i well-being. This section of the General Plan enumerates the affected land uses : 1. Critical facilities and population centers. 2. Water and sewerage facilities. M 3 . Petroleum and natural gas lines. 4 . Electrical and telephone facilities. 5 . Commercial and industrial areas. • 31 O ,ms TA— :•:ii'r:'�':i�:% ' .sorts . .:::............ mn :•:.\;}{�•' ;{:{;}}:•:X{ •Y.'• tom:•,• : {r, Source:Federal knurance Admiedta.wion Aug. 27,19T6 ouna 2-6 AMAMLA q ,R I SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREAS huntington beach planning department 32 • �Rele�-fie-the-Se�s�}e-Sa€e��-�le�ea�r-Ae�es�r-1��4r • 6ee�les-3:4T-�a�-a-ee�ple�e-�lseass}o�-e�-these land-sses-as-well-as-their--a)iaet-lesati-&i4 These five elements represent vital emergency services, high-value properties, and concentrated population areas related to general safety, disaster efficiency and re- covery, and the economic foundation of the City. The risks they face from seismic , flood, and fire hazards and their ability to survive these risks is a fundamental factor in insuring public health, safety and welfare. 2 . 2 . 4 The Seismic-Safety Plan • The Seismic-Safety Plan is designed to improve public safety to tolerable limits. It is in keeping with the goals and policies statement (Section 2 . 2 . 2) , the seismic and public safety hazards facing the community and the levels of risk determined to be acceptable by the Planning ! • Commission and City Council. 2 . 2 . 4 .1 Geotechnical Hazard Abatement In regard to seismic and geologic hazards, the function of the Seismic-Safety Element is to minimize risk to r critical facilities and disruption of social order, to make new development relatively safe , and to rehabilitate old development on a priority system while minimizing financial burden to property owners. The following pages set forth a program to accomplish these ends. • New Development 1. Implement the provisions of the Alquist-Priolo Geologic Hazard Zones Act and the criteria of the State Mining and Geology Board within the special studies zones in Huntington Beach (Figure 2- 7) ; specifically: A. No structure for human occupancy shall be per- mitted to be placed across the trace of an active fault. Furthermore, the area within fifty (50) feet of an active fault shall be assumed to be • underlain by active branches of that fault un- less and until proven otherwise by an appropriate geologic investigation and submission of a report by a geologist registered in the State of California. This 50-foot standard is intended to represent minimum criteria only for all • structures. It is the opinion of the Board that 33 • • r F a o uib�-�ii'duo•u. "°°S� e r-� mu�r � • o.nuo / rows O / eouwivan • wru,o„ • January 1976 • FW" 2-7 Aft EARTHQUAKE HAZARD SPECIAL STUDY ZONE huntington beach planning department 34 • 1 • , -- and Hazardous Building Ordinance on a priority basis beginning with pre-1933 construction. 9. Encourage tax deductions for building rehabilitiation in hazard areas to minimize personal economic costs. Critical Facilities • 10. Require upgrading of critical facilities as determined by structural review to withstand maximum probable ground motion accelerations. 11. Prohibit construction of future critical facilities within 50 feet of a known fault trace. 12. Seek. legislation to ensure. that freeway facilities within earthquake prone areas have an acceptable level of seismic safety. 13. Encourage legislation to require Federal, State, and County agencies to meet or exceed City seismic- safety standards when constructing facilities within the City. 14 . Require that municipal utilities crossing fault zones minimize damage by utilizing such measures as flex- ible units, valving, redundant . lines, or auto valves operated by differential pressures . 15. Recommend that the Public Utilities Commission re- quire vital utility systems crossing fault zones to • be designed to minimize damage and disruption of service. 16. Request Federal and/or State financial assistance to implement corrective measures. Geologic Evaluation 17 . Maintain a cooperative effort with State and Federal agencies on trenching, instrumentation of micro- seismic activity and other subsurface exploration to gain a better understanding of precise locations • and relative degree of activity of various faults. , 18. Encourage , continuing research on soil dynamics and structural responses to earthquake effects. Disaster Recovery • 19 . Continue to maintain seismic disaster emergency preparedness plan 3 • . I • 20. Continue to conduct periodic exercises to ensIfor that all City departments respond efficiently emergencies. 21. Encourage school districts to develop compreh disaster planning programs including provisioreunitingchildren with parents as quickly as22. Encourage lending. and insurance industries to policy holders of insurance provisions relating to earthquakes. Public Information 23. Develop education and information programs to inform • the public of seismic hazards and measures to reduce personal losses in event of seismic disaster. Further Study 24 . Initiate a special study to investigate the seismic safety situation in the Huntington Harbour area, • especially regarding the structural stability of . the bulkhead system. 25. Look into the crime prevention aspects of land use development such as planning for "defensible space" for possible inclusion in the Seismic-Safety Element during a subsequent amendment. 2 . 2 . 4 . 2 Flood Hazard Abatement The almost total development of the flood plain and the exhorbitant costs involved in "flood-proofing" new and existing construction preclude any comprehensive flood • plain management system. In this case., the Seismic-Safety Element will function primarily to mitigate as much as possible flood hazards to critical facilities and dissemi- nate flood safety information to the public while en- couraging the Federal government to allocate highest priorities to an updated flood control system for the entire Santa Ana River Watershed . The following programs are designed with these purposes in mind. 1. In conjunction with other cities in the Santa Ana River Watershed--through the IEE-aftd-the League of Cities and the Santa Ana Rivet Pnotect-i.on Agency-- • encourage immediate action by the Corps of Engineers to execute a comprehensive flood control plan for the Santa Ana River. 2. In conjuction with other cities in Orange County-- through the lee-etnel-tire League of Cities and the Santa • Ana Rivet Protection Agency--encourage revision of 38 • • the Flood Disaster Protection Act to more realistic- ally approach the flood problems of urban flood plains. 3 . Improve and upgrade critical facilities in flood • hazard areas. (subject to inundation by the 100-year flood) when practical through anchorage to prevent floatation, water tight barriers over openings, rein- forcement of walls to resist water pressures, use of materials to reduce wall seepage, and installation of pumping facilities for internal and subsurface drainage. 4 . Prevent construction of additional critical facilities in hazard areas unless absolutely necessary. New facilities should be flood-proofed. 5. Construct additional water supply and waste disposal systems to prevent entry of flood waters when practical 6. Continue to maintain flood disaster preparedness plans . 7 . Continue to conduct periodic exercises to ensure that all City departments respond efficiently during emergencies. 8. Develop education and information programs to inform the public of flood hazards and measures to reduce personal losses in the event of flood disaster. 9 . Seek Federal and State financial assistance to offset improvement costs. 2. 2 . 4 . 3 Fire Hazard Abatement • Degree of fire hazard is closely related to land use and development type. Compared to other large cities in Orange and Los Angeles counties, the overall fire hazard in Huntington Beach is light to moderate. The purpose of the following hazard abatement program, therefore, is to minimize fire potential and maximize fire protection • through a comprehensive and coordinated system of public fire service combined with the most up-to-date fire safety equipment and design in all new construction. To achieve this objective the following programs-are-&u99osted:. has been developed: • 3 • • Master-Plan • i- Heneiop-a-comprehenside-�ammunitp-Pire-Prvteetiefl Master-Pan-that: a---artieulates-speei€ie-€}re -preteetien-goals- b.---doet��+cuts-et�rrent-ar�c�-piannec� -eorm�trnity-en�riror�- • ment-in-whieh-fire-proteetion-is -to-be-provided, c:--documents-current-and-planned-fire-services; d:--identifies-needs-€er;-and-pregrafR-aiieeatiens-e€T • €ire-proteetion-reseurees es--idexti€ies-aad-establishes-inter--arid-intra-ageney policies-and-operatienai-praeec�nres-and-assigrss resgonsibiiities;-and • €:--sets-and- implements-management-policy, - Fire-In€or�►atiex -2.--The-2Fire-Ineident-Reporting-and-Evaluating-System° �FIRE4-sheuld-be-eestinuossly-updated-.--Data-on-€ire-- • €atal3tiesz-injuries,-property-.legs,-economic-impact, €ire- gniions,---€ire-spread-€actors,-code-vio- 3ations-contributing-to-ignition-or-loss,-and-the €ire-eentrol-factors-are-seeded-to-provide-an-in= €o�-mation-�iase-€o�-management-decisions-and-community action, • 3:--The-Fire-Department-should-maintain-its-current-level- o€-of€eetiveness--relative-to-the-Fire-Investigation- Pregram-in-order-to-accurately-determine-the-causes- o€-all-fires,--Aee+.irate-data,-relative-to-sources-of ignition-and-material-ignited-is-the-eornerstose-of • al-1-tire-preve+ntioa-effortc, Pabi3e-In€ermatien 4.--The-Fire-Department-should-improve-its-Public-In= fermatien-and-Edueatien-Program-to-maximize-public r e€fert-on-the-elimination-o€-€iire-ignition-and-fire hazard: 40 i Fire-Deteetiem uni_tb 5: --ail-neav-and-existing-elare�iir�g-sst}s- s�iouid-be- pro- vided-with-an-automatic-smoke-detection-spstem- Jproducts-of-combustionJ7 16.--Ati-new-buitdi ngs-bui.it-as-a-non-residential-occu- • pancy-of-ifl;066-square-feet-of-gross-floor-area-or- tess-shoutd-be-provided-with-an-automatic-fire detection-system--(products-of-combustionj. Fire-Reporting • q-- -Aetomat3e--fire-detee-t-on-systems- 4 produc-ts-ot-com­ bu6tiont-3+istalle4d-in-multi—family-housing-oEEjjpanE ies a ►d-semmereial-srueturez-e -��T-098-square- or. mare-sitea�d-3�e-cenneeted-d3reetiy-to-tire-F-ire- Department- s-emergen-cy-reporting-system. • 8�--As-gait-e�-a-�ii-.system-c�-eme�geusy-�e�e,��.iagT-the . �'ire-department-si3e�tiel-etttpiey-x�andaterp-eperatiena� standards;-and-encourage-inter-ageneq-cooperation-te insure-an-"immediate-cali-routing'-capabitity-. • 9. -a-l;-Trattinnwirl-e-rre"e-n cy--repert3+lj-a+l+tbeT e - �e�- • 1-0:--zT��3 � �- tuna a� �.cx�tr�-lrchn,ud ntinttA tot 4fop r��zar f -de64.-9lt'C!-tc- - --t4- ---r-e �-0- -f4-r-e- -A- st�oag-additieaai-pu�pese-is-te-.ie.su�e-��at-enaesg=- e�tey-ge�se�tee�.-a�td-equi�a�te�tt-awe-uti�i.aed-au-axt-epti= �tta�tt-�ta�t�te r- • �'i re-Eeetre�. �i--- dew-nest-res�.de�tt�.a3-baiidiags-e�-iA-,���-squaws- er-Mere-a�td-�ii�daags-�te�'e-t�taa-eee-steer-iu-keigkt si3et��d-die-pre�3ded-�ritd-aa-aute�tatie-€i tee-spx,�wkier • s�rste�tt---i�I�tee-ae�.iirated-by-�i�e�-tie-aia��-�aeuid-}a8 tra�te�t�.tted-aet�tatiea�iy-to-tie-�a�'e-�epa�tute�tt �-is�ate�-Eeete�� earl Wiest-pose e-date ---T44e-eac sti tch- tg i te-C4;)Mpa.Qy • �.eeated-at-Aede�so�t-aid-�aei�ie-Eoast-�Ii��i�ay-;v�,�� riot-die-cost-et�eeti�e-eeta�-t�i-is-is-�leae-.--A�.se� 41 • eit3sees-3s-��e-�I�e��.ag�oa-�Ia�fiea�-area-awe-�� �eeei�irig-as-eeltx3�a�.ein�-de��'ee-o-€-g�o�ee��.oe-as-��ie • re ainde -6-f -eo e-.*_-Y,---'44e--re4eea-#_4ea-WU-1- e3i�rrin$�e-t�3e-�o�3e�-, -�3---3f-tine-�o3sa-£mica-is-de�eiaped;-as-3�fia�aeee-o-€=eo�►- mnnitp-f ire-prot-er tiron-�v i33-oeelxr---3rierea sect-eon- s tinatinn-antl-popn-�atirm-in-tisat-awe$-woti�$-�eei�z�.c'e • an-Engine-tbmpany-tv-te-eztrxt3istle,d--Ari--add4+_4, x a 1 3adzler z�mpany-wouitl-zg3so-tre-needed-within-i3�e✓to tan-years edr-ahesl,eV-Qr_ tie-it e-s a 3o r-re-€e-reRe-e4-4e-Z�Eu-43.-3-.i-s- �= • 4�&*e7- ed-'a" a tams .i c.a L& o€--f-i e-eo ae-s-.f-r QM-.the- C Uy af- We w}I1-e1}xa}Fkate-tlke-treed-€er-are-ae�d t3-anet� fare-station-in-the-v=cinitp-of-Springdal�-aiin Ere rnvood. • �5.---the-i3rr farm-Buftcl ng-Code-anc�-the-Urr=farm-p=re-eade shonrd-be-corrtrrraat�p-re�rrevved-rrr-carrcert-with-tne Faster-�rarr--wrth-tyre-rrrtcrrt-ta�rrrrrirrrr2c-tYr�-srz�-Qf pLrb�i-c-fire�rotecti-art-farces---�ar�t-srr-Este-prQ= tectrarr-systams-are-the-bagt-ap'pr6aCPi-f6-6tf Irffe-6f staTrdby-fire-grateatkcm.- i6---his-modern-equipment-becomes-avai�ab3e;-strong-con- sideration-shon3d-be-given-to-improve-the-fire department-coat-benefit-retie. Fire-Prevention • i�---Eemmttnitp-oriented-neighi�erhood-action-programs 9izetx3d-�e-eneetiraged-in-prob3em-areas-to-etiminate the-eae�sat�ve-anel-eeat�}bet}ng-f}tee-ha�a�ds---A- metie�ated-ereative-e�re�tg-p�ege�i�*-fa€e��ed-eae � accextipii9h-att�eh-gin-the-area-ef-€}tee-peer�f}eeT f8---the-fire-prevention-code-should-continuaiip-be-en- forced-te-rednee-ignitten-and-fire-leading-facter9 that-cannot-be-a±iminated-through-information-and cooperative-approaches. Fite I n6otmat.ion I . Devetop a eomptehenz ive Community Fite Ptoteet.ion Mastet Plan that deals with att aspects of 6.ite pto.teet.ion - exizting and planned. 42 Adtk i • 2 . Update the "Fate Incident Repotting and Fvatuating System" on a continuous basis . • 3. Continue the existing Fite Investigation Ptogram, which detetminea the cause o 6 6itez .in the community, as a vital element in the City's 6ite prevention e66ottz . • Fate Detection, Repotting and Cont, 4 . Impose the 6oetowing tequitements Got bite detection, Repotting , and conttot on a phased basis : a. Automatic smoke detection systems in att existing • dwetting units . b . Automatic Aite detection systems connected ditectty to the Fare Depattment'a emergency Repotting system in multi- 6amiZy dwettings and commetciat zttuctuteb o6 1'.0, 000 squate beet of • mote. c. Automatic 6ite 4ptinktut systems in att new non- Aezidentiat buitdingA o6 10, 000 zquare beet oA mote and buitdings mane than 1 btoty in height. • 5 . Incorporate the univetzat, nationwide emergency Repotting number ( 91 1 ) into the City' d emergency tepotting system. 6 . Emptoy mandatory opetationat ztandatds and encourage inter-agency cooperation as part o 6 a 911 system o 6 • emi.tgency tepotting . 7 . Reveiw the Uni6otm Building and Fate Codes in concert with the Fite Ptotection Maztet Ptan on a continuous basis , with emphasis on built-in 6iAe protection .systems in an e66o4t to minimize the size ob pubtic • 6.(te p&otection 6o4ces . Fmetgency Response k . Continue to provide 6ite, protection 6acititiez at apptoptiate toeations throughout the City to main- tain the cuttent tevet o6 6iAe ptotection zetvice. 4 3 • • 9. Review Fine Station tocationd on a continuous • basis to maintain pnopen tesponse times .to att panes o j the City. 10. Continue to .improve the C.ity' s command and contno.� to speed the nespons e o j emeng envy bite s e&v,iees to citizens .in need. Fine Pnevent.ion ll . Improve the Pubtic In6onmat.ion and Education Pnognam to maximize pubZie ej6ont on the eti,m.ina- .t.ion o6 j.ine ignition and J.ine hazard. • 12 . Fncounage ne.ighbonhood action p,%ognamz .in pnobf-em aheas to et im.inate 6.ine hazards . rt 2. 3 Noise Element The Noise Element focuses on noise sources in Huntington Beach - highways and freeways, railroads, airport and helicopter operations, residential/institutional sources , and oil pumping operations. In the interests of protecting the public health, safety, and welfare , the Noise Element sets forth a program based on information pro- vided to the City by Wyle Laboratories designed to reduce com- munity noise exposure. 2. 3. 1 Issues General issues addressed by the Noise Element are: • a. Reducing noise exposure in the community to acceptable levels to promote public health, safety, and welfare. b. Minimizing noise pollution, a form of environmental pollution having potential for hearing damage, speech interference, and sleep disturbance. 2. 3. 2 Goals,--ebtectives- and Policies Goals,--eH'eetives- and •� policies have been formulated to provide basic guiding principles for reduction of noise in Huntington Beach. They are as follows: 2. 3. 2. 1 Goal • To reduce the degree of noise exposure from a3�- ,rates} a 3o -r a �vrrima +-nrrd-btj7er 44 1 ■ i • nuisance sources in the community (t4an6po4tation, ztationaxy, othex) to insure the public health, safety, and welfare whexe Pxe6ent noise ZeveZs axe unaccep.table. • 2. 3. 2. 2 ebj-ectrves Poticiez 1. To coorZlevels governmen 1 efforts to abate noise. 2 . To reduct noise from all types of aircraf 3. To reduhicle noise from streets and freewayroper location and design. 4. To reduels produced by all types of motor v 5. To require acceptable noise levels for f ure modes of transportation. 6. To reduce the impact of railroad ise. 7. To reduce the impact of const ction and industrial noise. 8. To minimize external n ' ses and prevent them from penetrating existing _uieter areas. • 9. To provide the b sis for noise evaluation in land use considera ' ons and environmental impact reports. 10. To acquai people with the seriousness of noise polluti and ways then can assist in reducing noise. • 1 . Coordinate with othex gove4nmentat agencies to abate noise. 2 . Reduce motox vehicle noise boom ztteetA and 64eewayz thxough pxope4 Zocation and design ob ci4eutation bacititiez . 3. Utilize noise Au4veyz to aid in dete4mining .hand use poZicies . 4 . Devetop e4itetia boo Zoeation and design ob cettain • "noise .6 enzitive" .land uses and baciZitie.6 (s ehoots , ho.s pitaZ.6 ) . 45 • • 1 ' 5 . Provide the basis 4ot noise evattiat,ion in .land use • consideta,t.ions and env,itonmen.tat impact Aepotts . 6 . Devetop noise teduet.ion 6ttateg.ie6 and ptiot-it.ie6 to teduce noise in .the highest noise-impacted atea6 . 7 . Utilize on-zite mod.ij.icat.ions to teduce noise tevets • 6tom veh.icf-e -tta6jic (e.g . setbacks , ba)utiets , added insutation, etc. ) 8. Encoutage .the use o6 quie,tet maeh.inety and equipment thtoughout the City. • 9. Requite 6utute modes o6 ttanspottat.ion to meet aceep- tabZe noise ZeveZ6 . 10. Acquaint the pubtic with the .importance o6 minimizing noise pottu.tion and ways .they can assist .in tedue.ing noise. 2. 3.2T3---Policies 1. Noise reduction strategies and priorities t educe noise in the highest noise-impacted areas ould be developed. 2 . The use of quieter automobiles, mac nery and equip- ment should be encouraged. 3 . A sound certification progra of published sound • ratings for various types equipment that are sources of noise should e encouraged. 4 . Noise surveys of th City to aid in determining land use policies sho be conducted. 5 . Criteria for ocation and design of certain "noise sensitive" and uses and facilities (schools, hospital should be developed. 6. Cons ' eration of the noise environment should be a pa of land use planning . 2 . 3. 3 Optimum Noise Levels The Noise Element sets forth guidelines for noise exposure by land use category. The optimum noise level for all residential uses is L dn 60 for outdoors (approxi- • mately equivalent to CNEL 60) , and Ldn45 for indoors. (Ldn and CNEL are noise rating scales, fully compatible 46 .00) with each other. Deviations between the two scals can- e not be detected by the human ear for even the most stringent case. ) Utilizing an optimum noise level of Ldn60 for residential development implies that acoustical analyses could be required in areas where the optimum standard is exceeded_ and that structural modifications - for new development (more insulation, no windows facing street, etc. ) could be necessary. The optimum criteria level of Ldn60 for residential uses is compatible with the California Noise Insulation Standards. Optimum noise levels for the remaining land uses are listed in Figure 2-8 . These noise levels are based on • guidelines for environmental noise criteria for compatible land use as recommended by Wyle Laboratories. Note that these noise levels indicate a target level toward which efforts should be directed. These levels are presented as guidelines in noise control to determine what develop- ment proposals could need acoustical analyses_ and where • structural modifications for new development may be necessary. OPTIMUM NOISE LEVELS • (Normally Acceptable) Figure 2-8 Day-Night Average Approximate CNEL Land Use Sound Level, Ldn Contour Equivalent . Residential Ldn 60 CNEL 60 Institutional Ldn 60 CNEL 60 Golf Courses, Riding Stables, Ldn 70 CNEL 70 Water Recreation Areas, Cemetaries Office-Professional Ldn 75 CNEL 75 • General Commercial, Industrial Ldn 80 CNEL 80 Noise contours prepared by Wyle Laboratories for Meadow- ----- - --:- --- - - - - ------ ----- - - - •.2anfz Ai_)cp_ n _.and �roundtransportationno se sources (highways__ _and railroad operations) and-Meedew+ark-Aiapart are detailed in Figures 2-9 through .2-11. 2. 3. 4 The Noise Abatement Plan The plan for reduction of community noise exposure to acceptable levels is divided into six categories: • 1. Traffic Noise 47 • • • • Heil AVQ ro Meadowlark Golf Course U U) O • lark Airport • ve. • 0 1000 2000 3000 SCALE IN FEET Q - CNEL 60 - 65 El - CNEL 65 - 70 1974 - CNEL 70+ MEADOW LARK AIRPORT CNEL 60, 65, AND 70 NOISE CONTOURS FIGURE Z-9 48 • �•/� }!moo,. L' ,,or ,�•v'J,'• / � +� \�°.s�>: �•�:� ..;':•%.,',::•, `' �/ -y�;�t''y ti`!':;��,''•rlf+', .ff�0``�4),'" `�+ � ,.:.�,�',./flf,%✓•y\�. ''�t sue_ �•' � •-�.�Of•,\��O:''r. J+?:�.`•,.•?Q'", \4!'� � � t� :1�•s(.r��, � i'+y""'`.,+'Sr' +� \ •I' �,. .4+�`y+k r �•� 'JJ•rr"'� .''A'r'' �. t . •v`%///:'••jry..� /.�'"`•\ �,;,'•::Jl., % G�`\�\ ♦� o\�d�. � ;,,, + � �:,,,,,, `. :,®ram,�,�� • '�,�•• �.. �. :�4'J,1��j:.� �>� -o �%.•:• "�%�/?. J Jf'• �`'r+ y �~� tb� � '1\ :a ♦ /,:, � ��• O �, 1,¢•-.h\\r.:J�qr , /(a'I ,::'�.�:•« ♦.��' •.� ��F.` � �< � •\o. F,',`h,,"'•�7 \`p y�,''\: /���0'�:.i\4�'''•r r,J�, �° .�`4 `fig�.,••�?�� •� !%r ��� � a•`tt`''•' % •••,''' 6/� \ o� w,^. •,. fc•A �r00�'�' z/ ',b-:.\, r:;=ti+"�Y� ' ';!\0�6 ,��i •�1� ��� �� � ,�,\�\�.©/%•�>,,Iy' -,///� \fI4 f• moo. .�.G�"/�'\ �oo�• � �\� ;�: ,\�S\,��►i.-y i '�/�� .✓ra;; J /:-�'\..00 ,ll,.',. •,� f�;�\\ / ``.jam\�i^, `•f`«�� \w/, .� �%` ��'.��. y% �\�,.��/:+�,�.+9' + ''+fir,,;i '.:121, ,�'@'� �••, /�,®' ��, •//�\® 'rl ,•♦ •, � � '��0 Y / �'.1/,�'''.®f`'/?�J�`' •/ It or � SN � � ` � � e.S�.' '' �';��� � "; ..,'{\;�, •C�.,'�•;I� -gO�P.' <.C•,',,`;"�q•+16::G:'r•":�'�::;;;I�rf,}r:. :}r.••r,/�J ,- .���'e' -.�a,!r •.%/ .:c�,�\��%sir:� •:3i y � � \ / 4' �: �,,. :,4!•er. / ''%�. �t-? '.. •:��� - i •: 'aa"0�:5• ..Ji,�.•%�•i'•:•',�•J��. tort / �':•:JIJ '� >' .,; `.t6 d •;, ,';�`. � ..I •rr'' p t +C',,�' +�*.;•,Jr p`;::'..J�.J:,,r t t'r''r1,�'� r��. J 1 / •, '/\"�� \� � � -••.� J�MEA :� �� ` �lj�;1�� ,, •;H!4;\,� ,,, ed�� •/ji��, ~'�s�, , °:��!�'�•r.�:�rr::--.. 4; ''/ .q i ���, ( r > i > <'aj4/, ,�.,, `•�•=°\ ., 1 ` �k 7� ' f �:,/: �® ,/i/'f%• .`,'�:;!':..• :1J/• °�J�`r .�+. \� `I,♦ J,Ji4 ;'f\ :�,� ?.•r., i':`'s`'r. or .I��./ _:rig �. :.• ,,,f,r, •'i�;:,JM.',' \9 :y;';A/ '�yt / ••// A. / '.�\��,•'.•<'J ���y,>. ��f!1•• �. �� Qh.�' ,•''\oi.��r�� - ,�' ;may .,./�/�'� `� ��'ii / / j �% •f>'• �:'t+.,•,,,�.J. r '41, l'a�rAtt:.:'i?.�s,, /•', `�..,��" ����• Y,\ �, '`•\.�,,;�tiJ. :i:.:l�;%�\�•::, /� '•'1'�:y gyt'9;�' \��., �� � ;�• •'�/gam:, �. ; / � �.� '� �,;.. �., c'�,;..,, '•••'';Jr./i.: ��A ' ' �,}� � `�\�\ '' \�// ��,.�:� •� �� / �Jay/ •.'��'li; +. �' err/���' \. °"� ..;•,;•'.,, ',�. , ���,-,� ,,. // �`\ 0 ti\ ''• � ` it � •,�`. •, ,�,r+,r.',,'L�:. \ / � '., \•.�{•,.r• �� I � � 't �� ,ii� ♦���� ��. �� �i� •�' '� :.tom � :.�� / �JJ�.�� �7,A, 0 �1 I nn l,7• � �\����`II��o�� � v fs /��, ' `6'/,���••. ;J�•J '�r. ,Qfsl_. -�• ���, �r�l I {ii� J 1S Oil �s;1{I t'.��:( ,i .Il'i1._1 /% \t�_���'-:���z�srir��=-_r=:in"y'^^'s'a"-'�-�// _ �t �i � ii`� i+1t .�G -�I:i .�.` •'1 1;1 � \ . 0 , ilkne im. • Ul W&ANIM (��, '-a"?'4F+" �{'t�`�+����a .v x�x�''''+'%'ei'-`'t.. fJ��;�N•• .i� ���"4. ,..,•1.'.:'i''''.+'%'*.:' ��<�'%f . ��: I'M N M'� 1?a• �1. �i��{�',,��,,'L, <Y/P' 3� .[�+r ,� '� � �{ .� ./. "� '!gyp'' 12§800 _� .�� � ` �14 Sf,�e�1pa :�. �1 q .;� ®�+�y,� `I��• y�2�r •,q;�/ �\'1�'`� y'!\ ���t� �`�",,f� :�,�.�o`�. t _6 qj ,T . ' IlNill 10 iWMfmml'e "tIil ' 9 51 I 2. Noise from Aircraft Operations 3. Noise from Railroad Operations 4. Noise from Oil Pumping Operation, I 5. Noise Reduction Through Dwelling unit Modifications 6. Implementation. Traffic Noise 1. Keep apprised of the State nois/ronmental evels and • lend support or criticism, as ato noise-related measures initiatetate Environmental Quality Study Cou 2. Keep informed of actions by thetal Pro- tection Agency concerning vehicission regulations and lend support oras appropriate. 3. Consider revising flow contr methods on surface streets to maximize steady ow conditions. • 4. Investigate the rerouting of traffic either by type (e.g. , restrict us e by heavy trucks) or by physical relocation (e . , place noiser vehicles on innermost traffic anes to increase path distance to observer and effective barrier shielding • by other vehicles) 5. Examine the conc pt of altering highway designs to achieve improv noise reduction and incorporating these modifie features into new highways. • 6. Study the i pact on noise exposure of reducing allowable ehicle speeds on major highways and freeways 7. Conti e trying to eliminate heavy vehicle traffic thro h noise sensitive areas by utilizing truck rou es. 1 . Investigate using the Jottow.ing methods .to &educe .t&a66 is noise .in Huntington Beach. a. Revised 6tow contAot methods on 4u&6ace s t&eet4 to maximize steady 6tow conditions . 49 • • b. Tna6jie tenouting either by .type (e.g . testticted • usage by heavy .ttuckz ) on by phyz ieat tetocation (e.g . ptae.ing no.ih.ien veh,ictez on innetmos.t tnas6.ic tanez to incneaee path distance .to obdenven and ei6ective ba,%4ien sh.ietd.ing by other veh.ictez ) . • C. Attened highway designs .to achieve .improved noise &eduction. d. Reduced attowabte veh.icte speeds on ma j oA high- ways . • e. Truck toutez .to etim.inate heavy veh.icte -tnajj.ie thno ug h noise sensitive arceae . 2 . Keep .injonmed o6 activities at the State and Fedetat tevet eoncenn.ing tegutation of noise. • Noise from Aircraft Operations 8: Discourage new residential development within the 3. CNEL 65 contour. 9. Consider requiring additional noise insulation for 4. new residential construction under the CNEL 60 contour. 19.- Investigate the redesignation of incompatible land 5. land uses and the revision-a of noise insulation • requirements to achieve long-term reduction of noise. Noise from Railroad Operations Operat ingeede s- • a. Cre uiring rail operations to oo er speeds, especially when passing tise-sensitive areas. b. Ite utilizing nighttime curfews or ring to minimize nighttime disturbances. • c. Snoise-reduction potential of using 1s curves. 12. Land-Use-Geasidera lens- • Analyze the pot tial for noise reduction of : L50 0 • UQLTVV a. Grade le 1 rights-of-way. • b. Concre e bridgework structures. C. Barr ers in noise-sensitive areas. 6. Investigate the potential o6 the bottowing techniques • 6on taittoad noise reduction in Huntington Beach: a. Reduced nail speeds , especiatt y through noise- sensitive ateaa . b. Concrete b,%idgewo)Lk stnuetunes . • C. Battien.s in noise-sensitive areas . Noise from Oil Pumping Operations 43- Consider restric ng new residential development • within 25 fXeetof a gasoline engine-powered pump. 44z Consider cting new residential development within feet of an electric motor-driven pump. • 7. Continue to nestniet new nesidentiat development within 25 6 eet o 6 oil pumps . Noise Reduction Through Dwelling Unit Modifications -1&. Seek total noise reduction o the order of 25 dB • after treatment for A-weig ed noise levels, when necessary, by utilitizng minor" dwelling unit modifications: a. Minimize "sou leaks" around doors, windows, and vents. • b.. Replace, acoustically weak" components. -I& Strive foPdditional oise, r uction on the order of 30 dB aftent or A-weighted noise levels, when nece ilizing "moderate" dwelling • unit modi . a. Emplotems listed under "minor. " b. Give attention to windows. • 51 • rh Seek total noise reduction;bn the order of 40 dB after treatment for A-weAghted noise levels, when necessary, by utilizi "major" dwelling unit modifications: a. Employ thos items listed under "minor" and "moderate b. Stru urally improve weak walls and roofs. 8 . Investigate the potentiat Sot noise teduetion through the �ottowing dwetting unit modificationz a. Minimizing ",sound .beaks " around doots , windows, • and vents . b. Reptacing "aeoubticatty weak" components . C. Sttuctutatt y impto ving weak watts and no o 6z . Implementation 143m Implement the plan for reduction of community 9. noise exposure through a noise control ordinance. 10. Requite devetopets to design development pto1eetz • Aso that noise tevetz , as estabtished by the noise eonttoZ ordinance, ate met and not exceeded. -�A� beok-ante-se�bserbtng-te-tke-servtees-ef Conttact 11. with the Orange County Health Department for tech- • nical assistance in a the City noise enforcement program. • • • 52 • section 3 ies for cl6velopment� A!WL • am an • • • • 3. 0 POLICIES FOR DEVELOPMENT The adopted Policy Plan employed another major heading to • organize guiding principles for future growth -- "Development" . The emphasis here was on the more traditional planning concerns - land use, circulation, housing. This section of the General Plan deals with these same traditional planning concerns, containing a discussion of the remaining elements of the General Plan: • Circulation Scenic Highways (based on the arterial street system) Housing Land Use 3. 1 Circulation Element • The Circulation Element focuses on the City' s arterial streets and highways; public. transportation modes and services; water trans- portation; and air transportation. Circulation issues are dis- cussed, goals and ebjeetives poticiea are established, and a course of action is set forth. • 3. 1. 1 Issues eertain Basic transportation issues relating to the City' s system have been addressed iden-ti6ied as part of the Circulation Element of the General Plan. • J53 e r e -have-�aeea-asld essesl-as-pa-Ft-e€-the- } sedat es -FAemea*_-o-f-tie-Geaeg;al-Rlas4 a. Developing a balanced transportation system. b. Batancing the mobility needs of the community versus with the economic realities of- providing alternative means of transportation for the various segments of the population. c. Consolidation of transportation planning activities. d. Need for accurate, up-to-date traffic data on the City' s arterial street system. e. Providing for safe and efficient inter- and intra- City movement of people and goods. f. weed--f,&r Mass rapid transit in Orange County and the feasibility of providing it. g. Providing a transportation system that minimizes adverse environmental effects. 3 . 1. 2 Goals and Policies • The following goal and policy statements provide the direction necessary for the City to improve the mobility of its residents. 3 . 1. 2 . 1 Goal • To provide a multi-mede balanced transportation system that ensures the safe and efficient movement of people and goods. 3. 1. 2 . 2 Policies 1. Develop a aunsace :street system of that ebbectiveZy integratez arterial streets and highways that with tocat and pAivate stteetz to ensures the safe and efficient movement of people and goods. 2. Support the establishment of public transportation systems within the City that are directed toward meeting the mobility needs of the community. 3. Pretride-ndegnnte-x�nintenenee-nnd-preteetien-ef Protect existing public waterways as recreational transportation facilities and provide adequate public access. 54 I ■ i 4. Participate with Federal, State and County agencies • in studying the advantages and disadvantages of developing navigable waterways and a public access point from the ocean into Bolsa Chica Bay. 5. Provide adequate truck and rail service to industrial and commercial areas while providing minimum dis- turbance to residential areas. 6. Support the development of general aviation facilities in Orange County that3�ct tie-nzts-�f the-eemmumit-y-meet the standanda of the Fedeiat Aviation Admini.6ttca,tion. • 7 . Provide a transportation system that is consistent with efforts to minimize adverse environmental and aesthetic effects. 8 . Provide non-motorized transportation facilities, • especially bike trails, pedestrian trails, equestrian trails and jogging trails. 3 . 1. 3 Operation and Levels of Service of .Existing Circulation Facilities • Operation and levels of service of existing circulation facilities serving Huntington Beach are briefly outlined below: 1. Traffic flow along the City' s arterial streets and highways is monitored by the Public Works Department. • Figure 3-1 details traffic flow aad-ie�}eases-sees y �.�ia�-awe-e�e�a��ag-e�ae�-eagae����--ate€ems-�e-sestfe�a €o -a-�.iasoursiou-of_the-streets-that-are-operating... over- �ae3 �- aton.g the City'. antet tat stneets . • 2. Orange County Transit District (OCTD) provides the City with fixed bus routes. These routes are shown-in Figure 3-2 . 3 . Orange County Transit District also provides Orange County with six Park-N-Ride bus routes (Figure 3-3) . • Huntington Beach is serviced by Route C which extends along the San Diego Freeway from San Clemente to the Valley View Park-N-Ride facility with connecting service into the Long Beach/South Bay area. A temporary Park-N-Ride facility has been designated in the McDonnell Douglas parking lot at the northeast • corner of Bolsa Avenue and Bolsa Chica Street. 5 • V1 • i v IBM 34D, �\ u I J • SOL SA 4VE. 11900 8700 8800 \ --WFADVEN AVE. 2400 9100 [;4VtF vmo IT700 21600 28100 7528NGER AVE. NOD SaW 7500 7500 TWO 3BD0HEIL AVE. I6000 16400N 18900m 22300 22MO 24200. 19100 19800 21 WARNS R Al E. 159DO 3 T qq \ 4600 szao 9200 7900 7600 e+Do e3oo RAVE 3500 4000 4100 TALBERT AVE. I if:FNff \ g400 - SCALE 1*-50' �' aoo 1100 1000 ELLIS AVE. 2 = VI • AVERAGE TRAFFIC VOLUME I = pY O PER 24 HOUR PERIOD / p 52 V1 p i542 a+ Q 5000 o m 19D0 2500 4000 8300 8300 7900 8600 5400 1900 GARFIELD AVE. 0 Y 20000 30000 3600 4200 4300 w 4300 4300 3600 - YORKTDWN AVE. 40000 - S0000 �b 6400 N MOO P Moo 22200 22000„ WOOD V ,� ADAM.S AVE. 70000 c'O 9 St 360G 4700 a 4700 4200 5400 INDIANAPOLIS AVE. 1976 ,3p Ali 3400 8000 v 9500 6 G00 5100 N A7LANT4 AVE. • 4& 6100 8400� 11600 HAMILTON AVE. [ �� b I 7D40 5880 1lPDD FELT �.P `� 2700 22500 BANNING AVE. JAN]4 ] Figure: 3-1 Aft Traffic Flow.Map huntington beach planning department 56 • ♦� o- DETAIL 140 • °�94Os colO�ly� C°fy `1`♦♦�♦i' 1� 1♦� ,,29 ` ,Y, Vol q � sf aSP 4O J .♦ ♦•♦ 1� 1`♦ ♦'J Pam? �'`p 2 �6 i ��r►f c \♦ `♦�1 Jam♦ �♦i� ♦♦♦♦ ?s `♦�1` ♦�i ti�i♦ �♦ 9.` \ �39 OP ♦ ♦ / 10 eq q'Sq� ♦♦♦.♦� ^� ryh,, ♦♦ / ♦ �p °ory �♦`♦ :\ o��`0 warn Aw. , J` +' ♦ ^.y� S`' sl �♦ P.C.H. —37 I I♦� , `♦ � 29�• 41 �sq �yo o``a °sy `♦ O P`r ^ • Ak , 'Lod ♦ q�y 1`♦ Q°`s ♦ �S O ♦ �\ P ba�♦ ry` �� �iq `♦�I 1b ♦\ p\P� 1 ? 1b � ♦ P oCP � ?s • •° "'s `� o APE q ,,' �s i ry 1b ♦\ .tp. ecOP ♦O F 37 f % 37 35 . \< 33 VJ> PALM ♦ b �-25 tF 76 37— _� a 1�1�1■1�`a i- > GRANGE ------- �— 76 _-- _i I -- - - — — 29 PACIFIC COAST HwY I I SEE D All m HWINGTON BFACH, GgLIFORNIA Figure 3-2 0.C.T.D BUS ROUTES lopPLANNING DEPARTMENT • • • Mn ..1 I � I 24 4 • _ _aARTE IA i � a I B FRMIY �" �'N ems` FRW o�-- - RIVERSIDE 2 N�- B �H-�- H. N N I N 3 \ �� � e �•� / E \0� I KotNb r \ 6 SITE LEGEND PARK AND RIDE 7 b1 , FRWY. RESIDENTIAL COLLECTION FARK AND RIDE J �_.tlE p Z COLLECTION AND DISTRIBUTION 9� EA DISTRIBUTION ONLY E r �S� 17 c \W A D �r i _C 2 2 13 a C to Pont Rp F` i a 15 0 r, Miles 0 1 Z 3 4 6 6 18 E F� ' 1 1 SITE INDEX c crown F �Vo11.Y 1 FULLERTON P a R 13 piW qE NO. COMPLEX So. � � 2 NE ANAHEIM IND.AREA 14 FORD RD. 3 ANAHEIM HILLS 15 NEWPORT CENTER A 4 CORONA 16 CULVER DR.go. 5 MALL OF ORAMM 17 qH YER. Q11. 1#.. C 6 ANAHEIM/O11ANK to IAU FORE" DR. 21 1 7 VALLEY VIEW P H1 R 19 LAGUNA HULLS C B BEACH BLVD. 20 CROWN VALLEY PKWY. A 9 SANTA ANA 21 SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO E 10 EUCLID ST 22 SAN CLFMENTE 22 It FAIRGROUNDS 23 GARDEN GROVE It WON WD.COMPLEX No. 24 BREA CeailrE.holHs July 1977 Figures 3-3 AML Park And Ride / Freeway Bus System huntington beach planning department i 57 t 1 � i 4 . Waterways used primarily for recreational boating are located within the Huntington Beach cokpoAa-te timitz (Huntington Hanboun) and Sphere of Influence in Huntington-Harbour-and (Sunset Aquatic Park, -{Figure 3-4) . These waterways provide public access to the ocean through Anaheim Bay for small pleasure craft moored in Huntington Harbour and Sunset Acquatie Aquatic Park. 5. Meadowlark Airport ( Figure 3- 5 ) , a general aviation facil- ity, presently accommodates roughly 1.45 planes (mostly single-engine with some light two-engine aircraft) . 3-6 6. Five heliports exist within Huntington Beach (Figure 3=5) , used primarily for police patrol , air ambulance, executive and short distance business trips. The helicopter does have potential for use as a mode of public transportation as well. �A�d}tieeai-detail-e�►-anp-aspeet-ef-the-a=tills-e=rcutatran-SyS- • rem--is-pFevi-aed-in-the-eiretrtat=an-Etement-Eackgr6and-Izepof t7r 3. 1. 4 The Circulation Plan The Circulation Plan for the City of Huntington Beach is divided according to transportation category: Arterial Streets and Highways, Public Transportation, Water Trans- portation, and Airport Facilities. Arterial Streets and Highways • 1. Adopt the Circulation Plan of Arterial Streets and Highways (Figure 3=6 3- 7 ) . te-replaee-the-existing-Meister Flan-a€-A��e�}ai-Streets-nne3-Highways.---�'3�e-Circn= . latie�i-Flamm-iaesrperates-ehnngea-tv-=mprove-arterfat traffic_flow-aad-laud-aeseas-,-suRuaariaed-la-F�'agure-3-�7 . 4RQfQr-tc-t}ao-Circulation-91Q;RQat-Background-RQFQrt, • SQcticn-3�4.,-fcr-a-ccmplQtQ-clircusrier�-el-thQ-cY�augQ� aA-tbQ-artQrial-rtrQQt-aud-laigbwa�-s}�stQzn�� 2 . Conduct a feasibility study in cooperation with the City' s Data Processing Staff to determine the cost/ benefits that could be derived from instituting a computerized traffic analysis of the City' s entire arterial street system. 3 . Revise the City' s Select Street Map to reflect those arterial streets that are shown on the Cir- culation Plan of Arterial Streets and Highways. 5 8 • ONSET AQUATIC REGIONAL—PARK [s'•'[" 'q'[.n --------- ------------------ --Tr---------------- _= 4�. ___________�•___ -__-==_.LAGOON=_�__-_ =__ __ = i t �1 _= ==_=_== --------— — - -___ - --_' --__-_-- TT 580 TT 863 6 -- ------ - ------- --- - --- __ TT"IS =Y0 O __ �i __=ir+_= °" ===_ '-=�'V4N—="_='=___ ==`_r�__= Dip =___ -____- g•� --CHR_I_STIANA BAY j HARBOUR HARBOUR VIEW __---=---=-- VIEW ELEMENTARY ---_-__=___—'=_=—== _- SCHOOL NI, \\ �� � -_ �,-s[��� c �'•:. 4 0+ _=24c, __ � 'a. ___- -- _ _-_ -= AseArrolq _ --- _ HARBOUR LIGHTS 9�. r° _ � \. __ _='-h as Y APARTMENTS B ♦0, _ FS .%! CONDOMINIUMS - s N _ UNDER CONSTRUCTION " SHOPPING CENTER 1-- • �' - , `Q _ 'yyPQ, �.. / __ ram; E A+ HUNTINGTON 8E4CH CALIFORNIA \\ PLANNING DEPARTMENT -=__—_----------- HOPPING CENTERCD -_ [[.w�� `i" _ c `• aO •a eoueT[ r„r[e j AY[ND[ LO, rATO, AV, NAe,OD[r110[YIATgr July 1977 Figure 3-4 1�, � ■■ �� IIIIIIIf . ft�= •� f111111on N!■■■!l UNION■MN■IIIIIf— firWilli ■ ..:ice. Hsu pw�'� ''' CI!!!!■!!!f� ■�■■�■!■■ ilsC Px f: igloo .■f■f■ff■ i aw � ■ �,111411IIIIl1u111110 ulullfllfl11111Nu11: r•. nnnuuuounnm�uuumuunmuuu �q$ 5 �iiiuuu,uuuulunln nnunuunnnunn �{�` ��&SrZ:���: I mmwummmml umlomuluwuw � uuuuuunnnuun uunnnunu,lunu 'i :p- ' '"%• uununnnuluuw uuuluunnuuam ,{ yc � �s�:G nnnnun1111un1111 nuuonnnnuunu y /I uuunuuuuuuun ununnnanuuou � ��',, �■ uuuuuuunnuun nu ,l„111111 r< S i y e nnuuuuulBuuw .uuienn,$uu genuunuu 's'`"• �•� �'ik?p' �■ uu,nuuuuuuUla uuuu .... nu Y dr >}•Y.:% �. ,, .r Inuuunumnolo amu Be m�l,"-, unmulm - $ % .. {•a:>:: J�� '`Q:�'; 1� 111111111111111111111111 111111111111111111111111 }5w"f'Y M-M ME so on �_�_ �_� qx(y}4�j < �? �Y7`,...,. i.Y�fi"'4: +Y -Yt t ■ff■■ WWA � 11 �1 1 � . ,.� �/,/.. C;.; � xis;;r�:�3R �• � - ' aa, ���/ t$low kv;M opm Am 7.w 1■il■'1� /��� :: %:;' x, .zass es saz��slim" � � =ft mmfi*AEI` 1■111 \�■IIII„ :>' o 'tass�asy swxrc .asss s�lRgft�,36�iR�a,; \�■1 1 11YI 'Yr ...arna�I, f „ tM 388ffd `'fSRBk R8B�888 .',8�`�waspaz } cats/ ,`�' 1' � ,`� Q, ..�Y:, •, `s m Rama 'tax s�x,��`-,�:�r�v,3'.,4�•�` � IIII IHal :%' f{; '' $ 4 i`'a ` . wasaat.,Y�., �� ♦♦ �t'i✓%��~ :"+.:/}}'.y,G.��: •� •:xJ':v::.:n y{• A�;ti�". .Y":.:.,GY !. { �.t�f f',•:tf ,, ,, , • • • • • • • • • • • • ® • pMcDonnell-Douglas Helistop Meadowlark Airport © Police Heliport Signal Oil Heliport Civic Center Helistop • JULY 1977 Figure 3.6 Heliports Hel' •• and Hel�stops Within the City of Huntington Beach huntington beach planning department • 61 • • AMENDMENTS R...p «T. CIRCULATION PLAN OF ARTERIAL STREETS AND HIGHWAYSr�.. ADOPTED BY CITY Oa RESOLUTION NO 4368-DEC.6.1976 LEGEND. • FREEWAY STREET CAPACITY MAJOR- 45DW PRIMARY 301000 SECONDARY_. _20A00 NOTE: (OLIO LAES#=ME E%ISTM RIGHT OF MAY NOT NECESSARILY LUMATE RIGHT OF WAY DASHED LOSS NWffE ARM WHERE NO REM OF%w EXRTS jp- -o �1 -c 1 ��' • r © on ---- CITY OF �9ti HUNTINGTON BEACH '°� ,a - • ORANGE COMITY CALIFORNIA ..,, • 1r+� Figure 3-7 62 • 4 . Designate arxe&iat highways that ate etigibte Got State Highway 6unding and aequiAe and improve ptiot to deve.topmen.t whenever 6ea4ibte. 4: 5. Provide adequate ingress and egress to industrial and commercial land uses.es-well-as-insure-that-resi- � elcntiai-areas-are-pretecte&- 6. Insute .that tez identiat areas ate ptotected 6tom heavy vehicutat tta6 jic and associated noise and satiety pto btems . 3:1r4T� Public Transportation -1. Bus Programs 5. a. Continue to work with OCTD in support of expand- ing the long haul fixed bus route service into the City. b. Encourage OCTD to provide fixed bus route service within the City with reduced headway times. c. Working with OCTD, undertake a land use feas- ibility study for a future bus terminal site within Huntington Beach. -2: Park-N-Ride Program 6. a. Work with OCTD in carrying out a feasibility study for the establishment of a permanent Park- N-Ride facility in the City. PeEfRaaeat-Park=N=Ride-Wacility-is-preuea €easib�e-Dud-aQCQssaryT Encourage OCTD to provide jitney service from the Park-N-Ride facility to ^ity employment centers-4-6 a petmanen.t Patk-N-Ride aaA.tity is proved 4eazibte and necessary. -- a prev�de-res�eleets-�a�.��-as-eeeeea�isai-Dud-�ersou- � aiized-trariaportat�ori--aervice-: a�--Pursue-the-seaa�uuuit�-fixed-route-?aus-service-enl5r it-the-Dial-A=hide-program-is-diccoatinued-by GCTD. 63 • 7. Community Levu. Buis Setvice • PvLzue development o6 a community Zevet bus Aenvice in eoopena.tion with OCTD such as Diat-A-Ride, Community Fixed Route on 6eeden--type zyatemA . -5: Mass Rapid Transit - --- 8. • a. Work with OCTD, Southern Pacific. Railroad and adjoining property owners to protect the Southern Pacific Railroad line that traverses the City as .a future mass rapid transit corridor. b. Work in conjunction with OCTD aad-the-P4t�lti-P4eda� • 'Prenspertaties-Eeittee in the preparation of a feasibility study for the establishment of a multi-modal transportation facility in the City of Huntington Beach. C . Actively monitor the preparation of the Orange County Multi-Modal Transportation Study. 3:I-4-3 Water Transportation T-ht-- prbv'is-ons-ara-zlesign-ed-to-protnct tie-�ee�eat�eea4-e�a�ae�e�-e�-tie-e�}st��g-wate�wa�s-in� - the-i�eant��gten-�Ia�l�e��-Ana1�o��a_�3�_raa���acsdeuclQpment --- and-tn-ensure-that-any-f uture-water=orf ented-development arit��n-tfie-anineorpernted-Bekaa-2hica-ia-comprehenaide�p panned. -1- Monitor the activities of State agencies concerning • 9. future ocean access points into the Sunset-Bolsa Chica Bay. -2- Participate with State and County agencies in the 10. planning of any future public waterways that might • be developed in Bolsa Chica Bay. -37 Require a comprehensive plan of any water-oriented 11 . development that may occur within the areas surround- ing Bolsa Chica Bay upon the area being incorporated into the City. 3-I-4:4 Airport Facilities -17 Support development of general aviation airport 12 . facilities within Northwest Orange County that reflect the needs of the community. 64 • • I -a: Adopt specific heliport/helistops development guide- 13. lines based upon the FAA Heliport Design Guide. for } -etc-tke-G-iij-_ereli man ee-eoae- 3 .2 Scenic Highways Element The Scenic Highways Element focuses on scenic areas traversed by roadways and seeks the preservation of urban and natural scenic resources adjoining roadways . The objective of this Element is to serve the City' s open space objectives while promoting the achieve- ment of the "complete highway" , which incorporates safety, utility, economy, and beauty with the surrounding environment. Toward this end, the Element examines Pacific Coast Highway between the Santa Ana River and Anaheim Bay (eligible for official designation as a State Scenic Highway) , its scenic potential, and the actions necessary to obtain official status. Certain local roadways are • examined for their scenic potential and possible inclusion in a local system of scenic routes. Major beach access routes are also analyzed for their scenic potential and possible designation as landscape corridors. 3.2 .1 Issues • Issues relating to the Scenic Highways Element for the City of Huntington Beach are as follows: a. Conservation of urban and natural scenic. resources adjoining roadways. • b. Preservation of pleasant and distinctive vistas. C. Impact of the auto-highway combination on the local landscape. • d. Planning for scenic roadways in Huntington Beach which should incorporate safety, utility, economy, and beauty. 3. 2 . 2 Goals-6b?eetivesT and Policies • The goalsJ-ebieetive-s and policies which bottow deaf with been;,c and aesthetic vatuez . They have been formulated to provide basic guiding principles for future growth in scenic areas traversed by roadways. Generally;-tire-goal* and-pelzeiea-eshie3�-fellow+-reflect-tile-atatementa-in-the aelepted-Peli.ep-Plan-ea-it-relntea-te-weenie-reaenreea • anel-ae3tbMtie-rralee3- 65 : • • 3. 2 . 2 . 1 Goal.6 • 1 . To protect and enhance the scenic areas traversed by roadways. • -a. To serve the open space objectives of recreation, 2 . enhancement of life , and management of incompatible development of areas which should be preserved for historic, conservation, or public health and safety purposes. • b---Te-pFeFRete-the-aehi-euemest-ef-a-2oamplete-highwsy �a�iie�-}neerpe�ates-safetyT-etility�r-eeer�ex�yT-aed beatxt�*-witk-tl3e-sa��ees�}e�-es�}�eex�eet e---'Fe-maintain-and-en�anee-a-seenie-�et�te-as-aa-lr��eg�al part-of-tire-sett#�cg-tkretzgk-�rkiek-it-gasses-�ritkett�' • impos=ng-anc�tze-restrietiens-on-prrnate-prepertp-ar- constricting-tire-normal-flew-ef-tra€€ie- 3-2_2_3 Policies 3. 2 . 2. 2 To-£ulfill_tlae_procodiug_ob�ectiues.r-the_City-should • consider_th®_£ollo�ring_policies� -a- Establish the City ' s responsibility for the protection 1 • and enhancement of scenic values within the local circulation system. • 2 . Promote the achievement o6 a "eomptete highway" which ineonponate.s satiety, utility, economy, and beauty with the zunnounding envi)Lonment. bT £neeelrage Promote the development of a system of local 3. scenic routes within the City, to be enjoyed by all residents and visitors. -c- Incorporate the applicable goals of the City' s General 4 . Plan (e.g. , conservation and land use control) into the plans for a local scenic route system. 5. Maintain and enhance a acenic route az an integnaZ pant of the, getting through which it pa.5.6e3 without impozing undue nezttictionz on pAivate ptopetty of conzt&icting the nonmat 6Zow o6 tta6 jic. rl,--f3ireet-de-relepment-aleng-seen ie-roadways-in-a-spanner compatible-with-tine-protection-of-seenic-vaines. AdMk 1 -e- Coordinate the local scenic route system with a net- 6. work of trails and greenbelts. -f- Improve and enforce standards for commercial signs 7 . along scenic roadways. -g- Encourage the development of a comprehensive program 8. for undergrounding utilities in the shoreline area. -h- Eliminate billboards throughout the entire shoreline 9. area. • 3. 2. 3 The Scenic Highways Plan The Scenic Highways Plan for Huntington Beach is divided into three categories: State Scenic Highways, Local Scenic Routes, and Landscape Corridors. ' 3. 2 . 3. 1 State Scenic Highways An implementation program has been developed .to qualify the ten miles of Pacific Coast Highway from the Santa Ana River to Anaheim Bay for official Sate Scenic Highway status ( Fiq une 3-8 ) . Prior to discussion of the actual program, however, some insight into the highway' s scenic potential and the City' s efforts to remove the billboards is necessary. a. Scenic Potential Anaheim Bay lies on the inland side of Pacific Coast S Highway. Still a relatively unmodified estuary, it provides the estuarine features now transformed into the marina development l; Huh*fington Harbour. The Bosa--- Chica Marsh is situated opposite Bolsa Chica State Beach, providing a sanctuary for numerous species of waterfowl. Between the Santa. Ana River and Newland Street lies another marshy area inhabited by waterfowl species, not as easily visible from the road, however. These scenic resources offer several scenic vistas to_ the automobile traveler driving along Route 1. From a general standpoint, almost the entire length of the highway offers a view of a vast expanse of land and water combined - sandy beaches abutting an open sea with Catalina Island in the distance. (The view is interrupted in some locations by high ground separating the beach and ocean from the roadway. ) • 6 0 � A N t ru 9 � t rttr Npotr - � • JULY 1977 � Figure 3- SCENIC HIGHWAY huntington beach planning department • AA • • The Long Beach-Palos Verdes Peninsula can also be . viewed in the distance when driving north on the high- way between Goldenwest Street and the Bolsa Chica. In some cases, vistas from Pacific Coast Highway are marred by obstruction of view or blight by uncompli- mentary development. Oil production (including off- shore drilling operations) , structural blight, off- site advertising, overhead utilities , and air pol- lution (especially obstructive to distant vistas) are several of the features which inhibit an unobstructed view of scenic resources from Route 1. b. Effort to Remove Billboards The data collected reveals a ten-year effort by the City to remove billboards along Pacific Coast Highway and thereby qualify the highway for inclusion in the State Scenic Highway system. Although approximately forty billboards have been removed along Pacific Coast Highway near the Santa Ana River, just as many still exist between Beach Boulevard and Anaheim Bay. The City of Huntington Beach is engaged in litigation with the billboard companies. • C. Implementation Program To qualify Pacific Coast Highway--from the Santa Ana River to Anaheim Bay-- for official State Scenic • Highway status the following programs should be pur- sued: 1. Develop a zoning ordinance to govern development within the bcenic highway corridor, designed to protect and enhance scenic valnes- beatuneb adjoin- ing Pacific Coae-t Highway. The zoning ordinance eenid ehout d include regulations pertaining to: a. architectural re ' ew; b. site plan rev' w; • C. land uses; d. building eights and setbacks; e. compa ble residential densities; • f. bui ding coverage; g. dot area; 69 • • i�---en--and-eff-preM3se-signs; • i---sereening-and-landseaptnej ?---i�isterieai-preser�atien;-end le---ent-and-€iii-,eperatiens- � a. Land uses - govern .hand uses based on the Genenat Ptan and zoning in e jjeet within the scenic eonn.idon, pro hib.it ing uns.ig htZy uses where poss.ibte. • b. Devetopment design - govern .the .ind.ividuat aspects of devetopment design _ (,site _ptanning, aneh.itectune, .hands eap,ing, etc. ) so that these etements are in keeping with the marine env.inon- ment along Pac.iJic Coast Highway. � C. Subdivision ne uta.t.ions - .impose conditions on tentative .tracts wit tin the corridor that canny out the intent os the scenic highway program. These would include 1 . Zim.ited cut and 6 itZ • 2 . tree prey envat ion and ptan.t.ing 3. s ereen.ing 4. neszn.ieted z ign.ing . d. Buitding heights and setbacks - contno.(' bu.itd.ing heights and setbacks so as .to maximize and not o bstnuet important views . Some 6tex.ib.it i.ty would have to be .introduced into existing City • standards .in order achieve this purpose under d.i�b en.ing conditions . e. Signing - govern on- and ab6-premise s4.gns . 1 . On-premise signs - size, height, number and • type attowed zhou.f'd be m.in.ium neeessany bar .identi j ication. 2 . 0J6-premise signs - no o66-pnem.ise signs shoutd be permitted. Bventuat etim.ination o6 existing ztnuctunes shoutd be actively • pursued. 70 - - bQLTVV • .. Screening - .impose sciLeen.ing nequ.inements Jon uncomptimentarcy devetopmen.t that u.titize ptanx.ing , gnad.ing, and/on 6encing. 2. Continue to coordinate with the utility companies to underground overhead utilities where possible. Require underground utilities in new developments wherever possible. 3. Continue to enforce maintenance controls, including but not limited to, the following: a. Uniform Building Code; b. Fire Prevention Code; C. Litter Control; 4D d. Weed Control. 4. Utilize conservation and planning legislation wherever applicable to enhance and protect aesthetic and scenic valnea- nesounceA . An example is the California Land Conservation Act, which makes pro- vision to preserve agricultural, scenic corridor, and open space land. 3. 2. 3 . 2 Local Scenic Routes • Many natural resources are contained within the Huntington Beach Planning Area, which includes the incorporated City of Huntington Beach, the territory between the City limits and the centerline of the. Santa Ana River Channel, and the unincorporated Bolsa Chica and Sunset Beach vicinity. Some of these resources are in areas adjoining roadways • which could be protected and enhanced through a system of scenic highways. Only one roadway within the Planning Area , however - Pacific Coast Highway - qualifies for official status under the established State and County Scenic Highway Programs. A need is therefore recognized for a local system of scenic routes to direct the impact • of the auto-highway combination on the ccmTunity's resources. Based on a set of criteria, two roadways were selected for inclusion in a local scenic route program. These roadways, which are planned but not yet constructed, are: • 71 • 4 1 (1) Bolsa Chica Street - from Pacific Coast Highway to Warner Avenue. (2) Edwards Street - from Pacific Coast Highway to south of Talbert Avenue. (See Figure 3-4,4 9 ) . Totaling 4 . 5 miles in length, these two roadways have been identified as scenic routes because of the scenic areas they adjoin, areas worthy of protection and enhancement. It is important to note that the plan for scenic routes is by no means "fixed. " It is flexible and should be molded in conjunction with future planning efforts to realize the maximum benefit for existing and future resi- dents and visitors. In particular, should the realign- ment of Edwards Street or the extension of Bolsa Chica Street be altered prior to adoption or deleted altogether, , the scenic route program will still function effectively. . The plan would merely be readjusted to incorporate the alignments o6 these zt,%eetz on any other appnopniate Ztkeetz in the Bolsa Chica area, as finally uttimatety adopted. To establish a system of local scenic routes the follow- ing program hays been developed: 1T--Geri€�e�a�ee-a€-P�esee€-P�eg�ax3s -av Landscaping 1. Continue existing program of landscaping all major, primary, and secondary arterial high- ways with street trees, within budgetary constraints. 2. Continue existing program of constructing • landscaped medians along specific streets in the City, within budgetary constraints. The location of landscaped medians is a function of a street' s: a. traffic volume b. arterial highway classification C. relationship to the City Entrance Program. • 72 »a • o� a • • LEGEND • •--� EXTENSION(AS DEPICTED ON THE MASTER PLAN OF ARTERIAL HIGHWAYS) •••••••• POTENTIAL REALIGNMENT • • JULY 1977 Figure 3.9 • SCENIC ROUTES huntington beach planning department 73 • 3. Fs-tabZi.6 h a design theme Got scenic tou.tez . A • common -theme would diztinguish a zcenic toute by itz tandscaping and Avteet 6utn�Ltute Jtom o.thet attetiat highways . Scenic Route Cottidote • 4. Eztabtish boundatiez Got zcenic toute cottidotz when pteci4 e ptanz o 6 street atig nmentz ate adopted. -b, Land Use and Development Controls • -1, Continue to impose strict grading restrictions 5. on development in sensitive areas. -2, Continue to require tree preservation. 6. 3'- Continue to control landscaping in private 7• developments by requiring landscape plans for all commercial , industrial;' 'and large residential developments (i .e. , planned residential developments and residential • units built under the apartment standards) . -.- Continue to require the undergrounding of 8. utilities in all new development. —57 Continue to control the development of civic • 9. facilities and civic districts to promote aesthetic harmony.. -6-%- Continue to insure consistency of architectural 10. design and materials on property to be owned, . . controlled, or dedicated to the City of Huntington Beach. .2,--Zni-tiatiou-of-Neva-Programs Eenseler ale -shies€d-fie-g �en- e-€s€ a€€en-e€-the fellewing-new-gregramss a:--SCEn2C-Rovte=Corrtdbrs ��--�s�a��s�-�essdar�es-€er-seea�e-reate-eerrgeler woes-�ee�se-��aas-e€-street-n�tgssrnents-nre adejiotedv 74 1 �:--�es�-s}gns-denet�ng-tl�e-�eea�-9eer��e-ret�tee- Peg si�ble-lee atiens-ineItide-the-beginning-and end-of-eaeh-scenic-route- e---bandscaping f---Bireet-the-eity's-Bepartment-of-pabiic-Works- te-establish-a-design-theme-far-scenic-routes- A-eemmen-theme-wocid-distingaish-a-scenic • route-by-its-iandscaping-and-street-farnitare from-other-ar ter rak-lrsghways. d---mend-Use-and-Beveiopment-earrtrois -f- Bnferee-a-genera��sed-�ane�-ese-plan-�n-the- • Be�sa-Eh�ea-th�esgh-t�►e-E�ty_s-sen�ng-e��l- . inanee-when-the-}�regert�*-�s-�nee�perated-and- a-comprehensive-plan-is-adepted- -22,7 Impose building height and setback regulations 11 on all development within the scenic route corridor so as not to obstruct important vistas. -3_ Impose sign controls throughout the scenic 12 route corridor which relate to the following considerations : • a. protection of scenic vistas b. compliance with public safety c. r --for-#die-.P on nrkLa_natp ana _CLrAar'jy • � -at- w43,r t�T yrL rel a t i on compattb.CUty o 6 signing Wtth the natunat setting. =4 Implement the program for scenic routes through 13 a zoning ordinance controlling development within the scenic route corridor. The ord- inance could include regulations governing: a. architectural review • b. site plan review C. land uses 75 • VV . d. building heights and setbacks e. compatible residential densities f. building coverage g. lot area h. historical preservation i. on- and off-premise signs j . screening and landscaping k. grading. (Reset .to Section 3 . 2 . 3. 1 Item C Son add.i.t.ionat deta.i.Z on the scope of a zoning ordinance Son scenic roadway cott.idot.a . ) 5- Encourage development that bitnds-harmeniensly 14. is aeztheticatty compa.t.ibte with the natural envirenrnent; setting , to result in an attrac- tive appearance from the roadway. Signing 15. Post signs denoting .the tocat scenic toutez . Pozzibte toca-t.ions include the beginning and end of each scenic noute. � -e-: Turn-Outs --i: Include turnouts in the design of scenic 1.6. routes, to be constructed as development occurs; ta-�ai�tise-tke-�aae�wapsL-see�rie . peteFrtiralr- and tequ.ite .land dedication by devetopeu bon xutnout conAttuction, ass . neceseaty. 3 . 2 . 3. 3 Landscape Corridors Along the western boundary of the City lies the beach-- a unique recreation and resource area. Several local roadways provide regional access to the beach, some of which have been singled out by the California Coastal Zesie- Commission (South Coast Region) as potential view corridors and/or scenic routes for auto- 4 mobiles. The view potential of beach access routes is recognized., but it is not felt that these roads should be proposed as scenic /Iroutes since they do not possess :T.6 i • unique scenic characteristics that would truly qualify • them as "Scenic Routes " . They are important, however, as access routes to the coast. Consequently, a third category of roadway has been established - "Landscape Corridor" - to include these major beach access routes requiring special treatment, but not to the extent pro- posed through the program for scenic routes . • Six roadways were selected for designation as landscape corridors. They are (figure 3- 94- 10 ) : 1 . Beach Boulevard - from Adams Avenue to Pacific Coast Highway 2. Brookhurst Street - from Hamilton Avenue to Pacific Coast Highway 3 . Goldenwest Street - from the northern boundary of Huntington Central Park to Pacific Coast Highway 4 . Lake Street - from Mansion Avenue to Pacific Coast Highway 5. Magnolia Street - from Hamilton Avenue to Pacific Coast Highway 6 . Warner Avenue - from Bolsa Chica Street to Pacific • Coast Highway. A regulatory program for landscape corridors has been prepared in keeping .with the statement of goals and policies discussed previously. The fattowing program des ass bottowz : • �.---C-errt�nr.ranee-of-Present-Prograrms -a.- Landscaping 1. Continue existing program of landscaping all major, primary, and secondary arterial highways according to the Standard Plans, City of Huntington Beach, Department of Public Works, within budgetary constraints. 2. Continue existing program of constructing landscaped medians along designated streets i in the City, within budgetary constraints. 3 . Readjust pri.ortity .Qi,6t.inq o6 median and roadway tand�scaping .to ensure .that Zandacape corridors are tandacaped as Gaon-aa__pnaet'cat. • 77 • uus ,unn • ,un JULY 1977 • f 3-to IRPLANDSCA� CCNtRIDORS 8 huntington beach planning department • • 4. LE.stabtish a design theme AoA Zand.dcape • conn.idona . A common .theme would d.iat.ingu.ieh a eand.6 cape conn.idon by .itz f-and�s eaping and zt.teet 6unn.itune bnom other ante,%iaZ h.ighwauz . ' 5 . Spee.ijy type o6 tand4cape maten.iat6 requited in pn.ivate devetoppmentz Jnont.ing on .the Land-__ beape eohn.idon _�EhnaugWi CU_;6y ape icat.ionz . 6. Enco unag e ,the ub e o 6 %ecta.imed waters Aon itt i- gation o b Zand,5 cape. patkwayz and med.ianz .in • the City. -i�_ Land Use and Development Controls -1_ eetitanue-to-enforee--the-eicisting-land-use-plan through-tlie-city!z--zoning-ordinance-to-assure • compatibility-a€--uses, -a. Continue to impose strict grading restrictions 7. (5n development in sensitive areas . -3. Continue to require tree preservation. 8 .• - -4, Continue to control )Lequi,%ed landscaping in 9. private developments by requiring landscape plans for all commercial, industrial, and large residential. developments. • -Sr Continue to require the undergrounding of 10. utilities in all new developments . -6= Continue to control the development of civic 11 . facilities and civic districts to promote aesthetic harmony. 0 -7: Continue to insure consistency of architect- 12. ural design and materials on property to be owned, controlled or dedicated to the City of Huntington Beach. • -8: Continue to impose building height and set- l3. back regulations through ordinances on all development. -9-. Continue to impose sign controls . T4. • Aft 79 • • �r--�s€f€a�€erg-a€-1�Tew-�neg�amz • Eeas�de�at}es-sl�ee�d-}aa-giuen_to_initiation_of_the €e�lewiug-now-programs_ a---�asdseap}sg - �---8}meet-tie-E}ty=s-Bega�t�est-a€-Psbl€e-We�3�s � te- a---read�t�st-prierity-�istir�g-ef-r�ee3�an-end roadwap-landscaping-te-enanre-ti�at-�and- scnpe-corridor'-are-�andaeaped-as-9een aa-practical- . � �:--�stab3isi�-a-design-ti°�exje-€ems-iaadsea�ae corridors:--�,-cemmon-ti�eme-a�ee�f d-e13s- tingnisi-�-a=landscape-corridor-3�p-it.s 3antlscaping-and-street-tttraitt�r e-�re�t et7h-er-artcriaa-high"ys -2--7SpeF y-tyke€- e- e��zawed in-primate-ele�oe3o tea s-€-re.►*_4a j-oa--t-he--1aad- seape-eorr3d�-t��oe�€i-t-�ie-�epoee6l-�1�erieei- tt�r�i-mod-weds cape-£taedade-aad-£fieea= t ei°►s-wh4e4k-w-i3-.-goveT-R-ea--s-.*_e--1aa6l .Qape evi°►st�et�e�- 3 . 3 Housing Element . The Housing Element of the General Plan attempts to provide housing for all economic segments of the community. In specific terms, the Element inventories the issues which are central to the prep- aration of a Housing Element;-identifies housing needs and problems; establishes goals and policies to guide City officials , in daily decision making; and sets forth an ast}ea imptementation program. 3. 3 . 1 Issues Certain issues must be addressed by the Housing Element for the City of Huntington Beach: a. Providing housing for all economic segments. ef-the-eemmnnity- i b. Supply and demand characteristics of the housing market in Huntington Beach. C. Increasing cost of housing accompanied by decreasing quality. d. Deterioration of existing housing units in the community. 80 1 � i 3. 3. 2 Goals and Policies The following statements represent the goals and policies of the City of Huntington Beach regarding housing and residential development. • 3. 3 . 2 . 1 Housing Goa. To provide a quality living environment for all people that-reside-in Huntington Beach. bp- • Policies 1. -providing Pnov.ide housing opportunity for all eeonom.i segments.ef-the-popn3ationT. • 2. providing Pnov.ide a variety of housinq types in ait areas-of the Cityj. 3. insuring Insune, a distribution of low and moderate income housing throughout the City;. • 4. encouraging Encourage the use of newly proven con- cepts in housing construction- 5. eliminating Etim.inate or preventing-blight detetiok- a,ted housing where such conditions or needs exist,. • 6. improving Imp&ov.e and upgrading upgtade community facilities and services where necessary-. 7. eliminating Etim.inate housing conditions harmful to health, safety and public welfare;. • 8. conserving Conserve and expanding the housing stock especially for persons of low and moderate incomes . 9. insuring In4une fair housing practices throughout the City. 3. 3: 2. 2 Residential Development Goat To encourage and maintain a well=balanced variety of • residential densities and uncrowded living environments. by- 81 • LQCVV -- • Poticy • 1---rational-usle-of-tand-and-otbpr-natnrat Feaet��ees; . 2.- eneenraging Encourage development of neighborhoods 1 . that are available and attractive to diverse economic groups; . • ---srretsrine-adequate-epee-space-in-ail-residential- areas; . 3. 3 . 3 Housing Needs and Problems • Analysis of the supply and demand characteristics of the housing market in Huntington Beach indicates that a number of problems exist. Primarily, the problems stem from the fact that a substantial number of the City' s residents are not able to exercise housing choice and mobility decisions, and are paying more than a reasonable amount for their shelter. Specific problems identified are as follows: 1. A signiiicant numbers ob families in Huntington Beach are 'pending-Mere-than • accepted-Harms-far-their-healing- being botced to pay an ineneazing.E'y Zangen zhane ob thein income bon housing . 2. Housing costs are increasing about twice as fast as incomes and will continue to rise rapidly • unless means are found to reduce costs. 3. The majority of new housing is designed to meet the needs of families with incomes above the median income level. 4 . There is an immediate shortage of appveKlmately 4T&A9 housing units for low income families. 5 . Huntington Beach faces large scale renovation and replacement of housing units in the future unless adequate home maintenance is conducted. 6. New and used housing is not generally being pro- vided for low income families. 82 • I • / • 3. 3. 4 The Housing Plan The program developed to meet community housing needs and problems gs-elibided-into-three-categories Existing Pe�ie3es-and-Pregran+s;-Heev-Peiiciea-and-Eragrams;-and �teeeendatiens-for-Pnrtl�er-Steselp-anc�-Research-�� as • j oZ.2owA s Existing-Pelieles-and-Programs 1. Provide municipal services to all residential areas. as necebeany .to inbune the • pubtie health, zaJety, and wet6ane. ��.--P�e�t�de-ae-aeee�a�e-3e�e�-o€-�a�a�eaaeee-tee-a�� rQsidwutia�-a�cas.,-�ee�s�}ag-trash-ee��eetien; ztraot-cloaniug-a��-street-x�a�atenaaeeT • 3. Maintain tire-existing and .improve the character of 2. Huntington Beach by carefully analyzing land use fiscal costs and benefits, environmental impact, and consistency with adopted goals and policies. 4T eentinae-to Support equal housing opportunity for all • 3. persons residing or wishing to reside in Huntington Beach. S- U-t-it ize Federal Housing 4. Assistance Programs, such as the Section 8 Existing, New and Rehab.it i.ta.t,ion Housing Programs . • 67 Maintain-Meinbersizip-in;-$ctibeip-participate Patt.ici- 5. pate act.ivety in and-support the Orange County Housing Authority. 4. Continue to aiiom-anel-ereeenrage penm.it the Orange 6. County Housing Authority to be the principal admini- strator of low and moderate income housing programs in the City of Huntington Beach. 1= Vtilize existing housing units to provide at leastja Portion of the assisted housing required by low an • moderate income families residing in Huntington Be 9. Encourage the dispersal of housing types within 8. Huntington Beach. (Auch as a.ingte- 6am.ity, --mut-tt- 8amity, etc. ) • 9 . Seek d.ivetzity o4 design and unit .type withinne.ighbonhoods . • 10 . Continue to provide assisted housing units for low • art&-very--I-cw income households. 11,__Co=U"-e-te-s4mp-14-fy- the-app-lication Process_far-residenial-ge3eets� _12 . Eent-intte-to Analyze problem residential development 11 . areas;-stdeh-as-the-Towniot; by identtfpfnq-prnbTnfns and issues; conducting design studies to achieve better utilization of existing substandard parcels and .stimulate ideas for improvement; and instituting appropriate development standards. • -3 . 3 ---Piece—Poiieies- ains - - -- }---Bstabiish-anc�-rmpiement-a-poficp-wherebp-tne-gr6C�ss=- ' }x�g_time_of_zone_changes_and_e��e�-pre�ee�-appreuals is_minimized_especiall�Z-€e�-p�e�ee�s-�I�at-�neiec�e • dew-aa��e�-x�e�e�ate-}neenle-housing-units- -a- Aggressively Seek additional entitlements and dis- 12 . cretionary funds available to and appropriate . for Huntington Beach in an agnezzkve manners, as well as additional housing assistance funding provided for • under the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974. -3- �egiu-Abe-CeAuausi��r-Analysis-P�eg�axa-}�eetif}e�-ia �lae-�isst-�ea�-Cc�uupi�y-9e�elepx�e�a�-i?reg�ax�-tkat weel�-lss�l�a�e-a-sexag�ehees}tee-anai�sis-et-e��aeiiing • s�i�s-a��-seigk�}ae�t�ee�-ee����}eas-�a-e��e�-�e-preuent ar-elsais�a�e-}�ligla�ix�g-ix►�lse�ees� .. 13. Pun.S ue the impZementatio n o b pnogAamz ass neeommended by the Community AnaZyziz Pno1 ect. • 14. Encoutage and azzist in the eonzenvation, maintenance and impnovemen.t o6 aZZ exizting neighbhoodh with p,%iotity given to ptobZem aneae identi jied by .the Community Anaty6is Pnognam. -4.- Assume a leadership role to insure better coordination • 15. between local, regional, state and federal governmental agencies regarding the housing needs of the City' s residents. • 84 0 -5.- Facilitate the construction of new housing units 16. specifically for low and moderate income families by providing staff support necessary to administer rehabilitation programs where necessary, locating sponsors for assisted housing under available Federal Housing Administration programs, and providing assistance to developers and residents in project packaging and management. -f. Assume responsibility for aii-environmental documents 17, required_for_preQcta-ceuaitaieg-dew-aed- tedeae iuceme_bousipg_unita� when necesaany .to encourage .Cow • and moderate income housing units . - ---£neetdrage-and-a3aist-in-the-conservatton;-mafntenant!z ar►d-improvement-of-ait-existing-netghborho�Qa-Wfth iare �-gee- e-pre�iem-areas-identified-by-the �e�u�tt�e}��-Rea��►s�s-Rregram- -8- Encourage rehabilitation of substandard and deter- lg . iorating housing through a systematic housing and building code enforcement program. -97 Utilize Housing and Community Development entitlements • 19 . or other funds to establish the "seed money" for a revo�vrng-Loan-ftrnc}-for home improvement loans for low income households owning substandard or deter- iorating homes who are unable to obtain market rate loans for necessary repairs. • -18 t--Sys-t-c� -t i-o ��� r}a��z e Ord--td}+rs1r-hotxgrrrg-ma7rlrert- GY�ar-a�tser-i-s i�.s t�-e� }r-ac -hatrs-rrxt n}pra-,F-em_t mt 3-3-4-3---Reeemmerfdatiorra-for-FtrrtlTer-ataip-a rd-Resea IT • -1-- Examine the effects of building codes on housing costs. 20 -k- Examine the utility as well as the problems of 21 . establishing low and moderate income dwelling unit quotas in new residential developments . • -3-.- Study the various alternatives for generating local 22 . funds specifically for housing needs. --+- Investigate the marketability, feasibility,_ impacts, 23 . and design considerations of -'bazeb LMS" basic., .Cow amenity housing packages to promote reduced housing • costs. 85 • • -4- Examine the feasibility, advantages, disadvantages, • 24 . and cost benefits of using improvement bonds, special assessments or other devices to provide improvements necessary to .how and moderate income resiCcnt.ia 1 developments. 3. 4 Land Use Element • The Land Use Element provides a generalized picture of anticipated physical development as well as criteria for making land use de- cisions. Reflecting the findings and recommendations of all the other elements of the General Plan, the Land Use Element serves as a philosophical tool to relate land resources and community needs to urban functions. The P44ase-44 Land Use Element, along with • the other General Plan Elements, looks into the future to 1990, not to develop an exact picture of what Huntington Beach will look like, but to make provisions for anticipated development. In specific terms, the Land Use Element: (1) presents determinations of the amount of land required for the basic land • uses existing in and desired for Huntington Beach; (2) identifies general locations for these land uses on a Land Use Diagram; and (3) presents an implementation program. 3. 4 . 1 Issues Genettat Ptan • Several basic issues must be addressed by the Phase-li Land Use Element for the City of Huntington Beach: a. Amount of land to be allocated to each of the various land use categories. b. Desired character of the Huntington Beach community . • c. Need for harmony among the different land uses . d. I ntegteating the patteAn o 6 t anal ups ens, exiz Ling and jututte, with the ove&aZZ cit cuZation zyztem in the City. • d.- Diversity of the economic base and the potential that e. continued commercial and industrial development have for achieving this diversity. Costs and benefits' of the different land use types. • f, Variations in density and the effect on the living g. environment of Huntington Beach. h. Ineotpo4ating an awateneS4 o6 the haza&d6 posed by eattthquake and stood into the .land use planning ptoees,s. • i. Invotvt.ng the citizenA in community planning and development aetiv " . 86 • • T. Integrating all General Plan Elements into a compre- J . hensive picture of the future. 3 . 4 . 2 Goals and Policies Gemmunity-attitudes-en-land-user -as-re€leeted-in-the • Pel}ey-Plan,-haste-been-translated-into-a A summary state- . ment of goals and policies on nand uAe hab been developed, representing the basic guiding principles for the future development of Huntington Beach. 3. 4. 2. 1 Community Appearance • Goat To pnomote she development of an aea.theticatty pteasin—g environment within att aneaz of Huntington Beach. • Potic 1. Preserving Phesenve areas of significant scenic _ beauty such as waterways, bluffs, trees, and histori- ,cal _landmarks;-and . • �---Htiiizing-£dtsen-easement-fer-greenbelts-and-2itp- eMned-tree-far�a- 3. 4. 2: 2 Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Goat • To capitalize on the outdoor and environmental potential of the City. -bp- Policies • 1. Heveiepi.ng p.evetop greenbelts and preserving pneeenve natural areas of vegetation where possible;. 2. Maintaining existing City lakes;. 3. Maintaining natural topography;. • S-s- Removing Remove and restoring ne6tone oil production 4- areas as wells become non-productive;-and. • &.- Establishing sanctuaries and preserves for the pro- 5. tection of wildlife in its natural habitat. 87 • • LULTVV • 6. Utilize i:dizon eazemen.t bon open zpaee. 3. 4. 2 . 4 Shoreline Goat • To develop the shoreline as a unique, irreplaceable regional recreational asset. bp- Poticiee 1. Heisignating De.6ignate areas and standards for the • location of h-lgh-Else mutts-Ztony and commercial complexes;.- 2 . Providing Provide parking for residents and beach users; . 3. Hneenraging Encourage all governmental entities to • improve, coordinate, and maintain the public beaches within the City;. 4 . Preserving Pnezenve natural tidal areas; . 5. Hneearaging Eneoukage citizen invotvement • in shoreline ptanning and development;-and. 6. Preventing development on the public beaches that is not essential nor recreation-oriented. 3. 4. 2 . 5 Housing • Goa. To provide and maintain a quality of living environment so that members of all economic, social, and ethnic groups • may reside in Huntington Beach. bp- Poticiez 1 . Providing Ptov.i.de a variety of housing types in all areas of the City;-and. 2 . Providing Provide an-adequate-level-ef att ateaz o 6 the City wk community services , facilities, improve- ments, and maintenance in-aii-arena-ef-the-eitp. 88 • 3. 4 . 2 . 6 Community Facilities Goad. To insure a full range of community facilities that • provide for the general public' s health, safety, afid welfare by- . Poticiez 1. Providing Ptovide utility systems to meet projected • demands;. 2. Previding Ptovide meeting centers for civic and other groups, . 3. Providing Ptov,i.de efficient, economical refuse • disposal;. 4. Encouraging Encourage the proper- location and planning of facilities such as churches, nursing homes, day care centers, well-baby clinics, etc.;-and- • 5. Encouraging Encourage the location of mun34Daiaa-1, cauutdry_stat�,_federal.,_ax�cL4#, governmental facilities within or near the Civic Center. 3. 4. 2 . 7 Residential Development • Goa. To encourage and maintain a well-balanced variety of residential densities and uncrowded living environments by-. Poticiez 1. Encouraging Encourage rational use of land and other natural resources;. • 2. Encouraging Encourage development of neighborhoods that are available and attractive to diverse economic groups;-and. 3 . Prevent concen.tra.tionz o6 higher den4ity uae4 . • 89 • • LQGVV . , 3-. Insuring Tnzune adequate open space in all residential 4 . areas. • 3. 4 . 2 . 8 Commercial Development and Tourism Goat To insure commercial development that is economically • viable, attractive, well-related to other land uses, and satisfies the needs of the City' s residents;-and. �e-gre�ete-tine-de�*eleg�tent-e€-services-and-€aeilities Poticies necessary-te-snppert-a-tourist-industry-by- • 1. Eneenraging Fncounage planned commercial development that will coincide with residential growth;. 2 . eentinaing Continue to diversify the economic base • of the City and increasing ineneaze the tax base;. 3. Premeting Promote the revitalization of the Downtown . area,. 4.---Premeting betel-end-teurist-oriented-retail- • develepxtent-in-appropriate-ieeatiens;: 5- Eneenraging Eneounage development of commercial com- 4. plexes as centers of activity,, inct uding , but not .united to, hotet and toutizt-oriented ne.tait devetop- • men.t. C, eentineing Continue to promote development of commer- 5. cial centerst-and. 7� Bistribating Diz ttibu-te commercial centers throughout 6 . the City and -re1dt4:hg -integrate them to With neig hbon- • hood service areas. 3 . 4. 2. 9 Industrial Development Goat • To seek out and encourage industrial development that will 6igni:Jicanx,Ey broaden the City' s economic base, that is diversified, that is well related to other land uses, and that provides local job opportunities. by- • 9 0 • I ■ � Poticiez 1. Encenrnging Encourage industrial development in several- dispersed- industrial parksi- distticts thraughout the City . 2. 3�oeating-inelastrial-uses-adjacent-te-eernpntibie -1--ffid-Akeeet . Govern the Zoeation oS indust,%iaZ uses in the City to inzure eompatibit..ity with surrounding Land uses and .the existing character o j .the area. 3. Providing Provide appropriate transportation access to designated industrial areas;. .4- Establishing effective environmental standards that minimize the external effects on other land uses and the environment;-and. 5. Eliminating Etiminate conflicts between 4, existing industrial uses and non-compatible land uses. 3. 4. 2. 10 Annexation Goat •. To annex only those areas with common interests and whilh that can be efficiently and economically served by City facilities. through- Pot icies A 1. Utilizing Utilize planning to assure that annexed areas are compatible with surrounding areas of the City-, . 2. Inenring Insure that annexed areas provide sufficient tax base to assure that the area will not cause tax 4 increases for current residents of the City. 3. 4. 3 The Land Use Plan The Land Use Plan reflects the philosophies established in the Phase I Land Use Element, and the decisions con- s tained in the three Genenat Ptan Land Use Amendments that have been subsequently adopted. It also establishes a new "general."..- approach to land use planning in Hunting- ton Beach. The new general nature of the Land . Use Plan makes the comprehensive General Plan a flexible document allowing numerous implementation alternatives. In this manner, while the ,General Plan offers a definitive policy guide for the future, it can also be responsible to the changing needs of the community. ri 91 i � � A The development patterns included in the Land Use Plan A are characterized by a mixture of low, medium and high density residential areas that are collectively considered as moderate development. The residential districts or neighborhoods are provided the appropriate commercial service and public facilities necessary for a self-con- tained residential unit. The mixture of residential densities provided in varying locations should w-iZZ enhance the suburban residential image of Huntington Beach. It should w.iZt provide a variety of housing choices and types. With proper implementation, it should w.iZZ not price potential residents out of the market. 4� The Land Use Plan indicates that all remaining residen- tially designated properties will be developed at densities consistent with these-deserii�ed-in-the-band-Hse-Element Bae#greund-Report-and-approved-in-preerieas-amendnnents- �t-else-indi.eates-the-standards-and-ertterin-that-will �ineluded-ia-£eetien-3- -3-1-e�-this-regent}-the ztandandz and en.iten.ia outlined .in Section 3 . 4. 3. 1 of this document. The Land Use Plan allows high density development in specified areas, and but only after careful consideration as to environmental impacts, traffic generation, impact on public services, compatibility with surrounding land uses and overall desirability. At ultimate development, higher but not high concentrations of dwelling units and people may be located in areas near the beach. This should reestablish a beach orientation for a substantial number .of Huntington Beach residents. Higher density residential development will also be located in nodes A throughout the remainder of the City. 3 . 4 . 3.1 Standards and Criteria Land use standards and criteria for the Huntington Beach Planning Area have been developed as part of the phase-=i Land Use Element. These standards and criteria are designed to serve as a general guide for the future development of Huntington Reach in terms of location of uses, allowable residential densities, etc.. He fled-en tbeso-standards-aid-e���e��a-,-�t��de��r�es-as-te-tntent asd-}cur}�ese-ears-xe�a-be-elearlp-def=ned-fvr-reffection in-the-Bening-code-and-other-smptementattarr-t6ats- Residential The intent of the Phase-}} Land Use Element is to main- tain the existing character of Huntington Beach while providing a decent home and suitable living environment 92 • • for all persons residing in the City. To satisfy the housing needs of the community, the Land Use Plan provides for all types of housing. The specific residential land use categories established for the General Plan are discussed on the following pages . All of the residential categories are described in terms of dwelling units per • gross acre. Although each category defines the general types of housing units suitable for that category, a variety of housing types single family detached, clustered units, apartments - might be allowed provided the maximum number of dwelling units does not exceed the maximum for that particular category. 1. Estate: This residential category of single-family development is primarily intended to add to housing variety, increase spaciousness, and enhance the open space character of certain portions of the City. Allowable densities are 2' 6r_less -and - 4 or less_ dwelling units per gross acre. General criteria for determining the location of estate residential are: a. areas where public facilities and services are utilized to capacity or above and expansion is • not possible or desirable; b. areas subject to natural hazards such as seismic risk, flood potential , problem soils, or top- ographic limitations; • C. areas that are undeveloped or underdeveloped; d. areas adjacent to natural reserves, parks, and recreational facilities; and/or e. areas held under • common ownership. 2 . Low Density: This residential category includes the areas of Huntington Beach where single-family detached dwelling units now exist or will be con- structed. The allowable density is 1 or less w dwelling units per gross acre. Low density planned unit cluster development is allowable under this land use designation. The primary criteria for the location of low density residential development are : a. that it is within neighborhoods bounded by the • arterial street system; 93 • 1 b. neighborhood facilities such as schools and ' parks are convenient to the area; C. the area is served by convenient commercial development. 3. Medium Density: This type of residential use is , designed to encourage and concentrate the development of housing of a more intense nature than single- family detached dwelling units. Duplexes, triplexes, apartments, condominiums, and townhouse developments will predominate in this category. Single family homes, such as patio homes, may also be suitable. The allowable density is 15 or less dwe'llinc units per gross acre. The criteria for medium- density residential is as follows : a. Locate in close proximity to commercial and other business areas, educational and institutional facilities, cultural, and other public facilities (e.g. transportation routes) . b. i4d Serve as a buffer or transition area between low density or estate residential and more intense land uses, where possible. 4 . High Density: This residential land use designation is designed to accommodate the most intense and concentrated residential development in the City. Although most types of housing units and spatial arrangements would be permitted subject to the density • standards, the most typical housing type will be apartments. Mostly congregated into large garden type complexes, high rise would also be suitable in these areas. Locational requirements are as follows: • a. in or adjacent to intensive land use areas; b. near major transportation routes and highways; C. in proximity to commercial areas and other activity areas; • d. near or highly accessible to work areas; and e. high rise where scenic and view potential exists. and building height i.6 not ne6t)Licted (.6uch ass r within a bcenic highway on route coxtidon) . • 94 • • The density allowabie in high density residential areas is more than 15 units per gross acre. 5. Residential Neighborhood Standards : Huntington Beach utilizes the concept of neighborhoods to serve as a general guide for the development of residential • areas into functional units. Density designations do not necessarily need to be identical and in the interest of housing variety, compatible land use designations should be assigned within neighborhoods. iResidential neighborhoods should meet the following criteria as well: a. average population of 2 , 500 people; b. average area of 160 acres; c. arterial streets should provide boundaries but . should not pass through neighborhoods; d. interior streets should be short and curvilinear where possible and utilize cul-de-sac and/or other design practices to prevent vehicular intrusion into the residential area; e. parks, elementary schools, convenience commercial, and other suitable facilities should be within walking distance; and f. pedestrian and vehicular access to arterial streets should be limited. Commercial Huntingten-Beaek-has-appreximately-1T235-aeees-a€-land- desigaated-fer-eemmereial-use: The commercial land use • categories established for the General Plan are as follows: 1. General Commercial : The majority of the land desig- nated for commercial use falls under this category. The types of uses that are speei€ieallp allowed are : • a. convenience and neighborhood commercial developments; b. community shopping centers; c. regional shopping centers;-and. • d..--highway-related-eemmereial-uses sib 95 • • In addition, hotels, motels, axd office professional, • netait and z envice uses would be permitted. Criteria for commercial uses are presented in Figure 3-14. 1 1 . These_. criteria_ should_ be used to guide zoning decisions relating to commercial uses . • 2. Office Professional : This category of commercial land use includes land for the exclusive development and/or continued use of low intensity .professional and administrative offices. Typical uses found in this category would include insurance, real estate, branch banks, medical offices, attorneys ' offices t' and other personal and private services. These uses should be located, depending upon their functional relationship to other uses, near commercial , general business or government office nodes . Medical or dental offices should be located adjacent to or centered around hospitals. Supporting residential • and commercial uses are also permitted. 3 . Mixed Development: Mixed development (or multiple use commercial) is designated for the property north of the Huntington Shopping Center and in the downtown ar3ays�o �r area near the pier and contiguous with the City Beach. Types of uses allowable are : a. retail and specialty commercial ; b. office-professional; C. hotels and motels; d. residential; e. public facilities; f. light industrial uses; and g. open space and recreational facilities. 96LIndustrial In determining the suitability of tracts of land for industrial development, the following should be considered: 1 . the nature of existing industrial development; 2 . the anticipated future need for industrial land; 3 . present and projected surrounding land uses; FIGURE 3- 11 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH LAND USE ELEMENT CRITERIA FOR COMMERCIAL USES P0p1AJY= AM. MWIIM{M M4MICfid1 tOG71?IaM smw 1w. s css a� 9wwenienrow- soon- %-vr ;Nize- mow tenant- bdarseetion-or • paopla ACID.. &w'-p"np-- lomir ec-ssomd- aesMcet-te, aep artmead- amR nsic�. stsaats. >soetmd. Neighborhood About IMr10 1 mile 10-15 re- Major i primary 10,000 Acores tailers. arterial Inter- People ms jar tenant sections. supermarket c often in- cludes service Statiau. Ocamunity 15,000 10-35 10 to Anchor tenants Major i primary people Acres 15 min. are usually jr. arterial or anae drive dept. or o/ intersections. or mulnet. Regional 100,000 35 up to &plsments down- Major arterial Acres 30 min. tan andor s frsavay • i over drive tenants; one junction. to five major dept. stores. Arterial Varies Varies Varies static , maw primary Related drive-in and highways; restaurants, freaay inter- motels, etc. dmngas. also desirable • to combine with urban arterial oom- marcial uses such as auto- mobile sales, furniture and appliance stares, enter- tainment and • am aemeints, etc. Professional/ Varies Varies Varies Insurance, Major and pri- Adeinistrative real estate, wary arterial bread►tanks, intersections. attoenmys' offices aei- and dental � afka�• other personal and private semvices. tlpdiW/ Vasiss- -Yankee.-Vwkr iledtmd-10 71dj� 1bTer swim- Mdrd29Wd2MM aaepisals. Mixsd varies varies vorlas Planned cow Praarey inter- 0e"14ment mevciffi as- c'-,.- , taslst valwiveb in- asmters. tegraw with various lead Uses. Note: Convenience comnM¢Jieial uete, having the 6ottow:N ekakaett/ietied, sae eontaixed within ecghbon.hoode and eoneequentty au i.Mlwkd in the A"i,dentiat Land uAe de 4nstiim isutead 06 the eonllMf/lci&L Conveaieace 3000 ME-1 k nila MaJua ttnaai Intenseetioa of ;people AaxtA (wd pia up local oa eerond- aetevat eueeu. eo�lMoad. 97 • 4�--e@AF30At�G-E`@12C�tt'tO1TS; • Tate-traZrspt7'=cTf t6n-fa c l-r£i e s; Fa___auailabilit}Z_of_public_£acilit�,es-aed-se���eest-a�c� Z___physical-site-characteristics_ f 1 . General Industry: Most industry that is considered desirable and compatible with the residential char- acter of Huntington Beach is commonly known as "light industry'. " Light industry produces minimum emissions • of smoke, dust, fumes, vibration and noise. Generally, industrial development is limited to spec- ific areas solely for industrial use and/or industrial parks. Proximity to arterial streets and access to the freeway are considered extremely important. Typical uses would include research and development; electronics; office-type industrial; distribution; warehousing; etc. Public Uses The general category of public uses includes publicly owned, quasi-public and institutional facilities that are • necessary to support the community by providing educational, cultural, and functional opportunities. Open space is included as a category and incorporates recreational and conservation resource areas. 1 . Public, Quasi-Public, and Institutional : This • category includes: a. government facilities; b. schools; C. utilities; • d. churches; e. libraries; f. historical sites; and g. fire facilities. Leeatienal-criteria-for_public,._quasi=public._ans3 inatitstier�a�-saes-�a��-��-t�*�e-ash-s}$e-e� - fnei�ities---{bee-���s�e-3-��:} 2. 'Open Space: Open space in Huntington Beach is organ- ized into seven categories: • a. scenic eer-r}deLcateov%idon; 98 i L VV_ FIGURE 3- 11 • CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH LAND USE ELEMENT CRITERIA FOR INSTITUTIONAL USES LIBRARIES FACILITY LOCATION FUNCTION MISCELLAN US Centr Geograph' Central repos' ory 250,000-350 00 volumes Li ary cente of the & administ ive sophisti ed informational, Ci headquar rs of refere e, & bibliography libra system. mat- ials. Substantial tural center depth in general interest areas. * Major At existing Serves as 35,00ZAdequate volumes, Br s Main St. si suppleme al fa- basicion in g eral (T ee) the Nort cilit to cen- inters. S ficient part o town, tr library. resouc ' dren� & T ert basiconal & re- V ley. searcals for adults • &. studequate pro sonnel. Bo9kinobile Mova e Provide conve Travels t eighborhoods f lity ience to li ary schools shopping centers, users es cially & et . young Oildren. Su>-4ranch Near in - Serves . marily 2,500 to 5 00 sq. ft. sive a as a ok_ pickup depenZupon location ar s, on & turn. & poion density. rterial FIRE FACILITIES Fir One fire sta- LocatiZneco Fire Boat: ions tion Xwithinpaniessed 1 fire boat with a ca citymilesupon ba flow of 500 gpm within 5 in./90%builtrequirof time in all ine pro- tionsFire Ftection areas Ci 2,00ss Paramedic t: 1 enthin 2 1 unit w' hin 5 min/80� of mills time a.rr all populated areas ladder co. within 3 of 'lie City. mile99 0 1 � � FIGURE 3- 11 Cont. FACILITY LOCATION FUNCTION MISCELLANE US 4,500 gpm or less 1 engine co. within 1-1/2 miles 1 ladder co. within 2 miles 7,500 gpm orXless1 engine co.mile 1 ladder co. miles Adminis- Civic & Provide a inistration tration Fire Head- & publ' information quarters serv' es & fire p vention. Support where A. Central fire Fire training facility facili- appropr' e training facility. in industrial area. ties B. Central city- wide communication C. Fire apparatus maintenance & supply facility. CIVIC FACILITIES Civic On arterial Administrative & Center street con- legislative center. venient to citizens. Corpor- In an Maintenan & storage Facility would primarily ation area convenient of Cit owned equip- serve public works, & Yard to all parts of men !:;(�rvi cQ city vch i(:1'!r:; city. limi red service would , be provided for police, fire & harbors & beaches. Civic Facilities for com- Facility would hold Auditorium a-r Near munity activities & meetings, conferences, / & tel complex &O)Lconventions. conventions, & theatre Conferenc specialty shop activities. . Center area. 100 i FACILITY LOCATION FUNCTION _V SCELLANEOUS Municipal Beach area & Provide public D . eloped by municipal Parking downtown parking. parking authority. Areas areas. QUASI PUBLIC F LITIES FACILITY LOCATION FU ION MISCELLANEOUS Church, Intersection Z facilities Sites should be of. an • Rest Home, primary & secies that adequate size for f-unc- Private ondary or twoc in nature, tion, provide parking; school, secondary higte in scope. facility should be inte- Clubs, etc. ways. grated & compatible with the area it's located in. POLICE FACILITIES FACILITY LOCATION FUNCTION • Patrol Units One within 1� min of Protection of life & property. emergency call 5 min. Prevention of crime. for non-emer ncy call. Police & Civ' Center Provide administration, Administration training & public information. Facilities Investigation services- communication, detention. Support where necessary Police garage & heliport Facilit' s & appropriate. maintenance of vehicles & helicopters, pistol range. SCHOOZACILITIES FACILITY GRADE DESIGN A SPACE SERVICE ENROLL- MISCELLANEOUS LOCAT REQUIRED RADIUS MENT On cal st. Elementary w' hin neigh- school should be Grades orhood (Qtr. 8-15 acs Al - 3/4 mi 700 accessible from Elementary K-8 sec. ) ;adjacent dwelling unit to neighbor- by foot with- hood park. � out crossing any arterial.- ~. 101 FIGURE 3- 11 Cont. FACILITY GRADE DESIGN AND ST'ACE SERVICE ENROLL- MISCELLANEOUS LOCATION It1_;9UIRED RADIUS MENT Intermed- Should be away • iate Grades from major 14 - 15 840 Ide ly ad- (Junior 7-8 arterials near Acres 1 mile to ' cent or near High) concentration 1200 park facili- of dwelling ties. Pedes- units. trian access important. • On arterial Should be street, conven- located ad- High Grades ient access, 50 2 miles 3000 jacent to a 9-12 proximity to Ac s or more community park • other facili- area. School ties is desir- should be able. screened from noises or objectionable uses. • On arterial 1 mile Provides higher Community Grade St. convenient 50 walk or 5000 - education & College '13 to all areas Acres Bus/auto 15,000 cultural near fwy. & above distance. programs for • the community. • • r 102 �� • b. recreation area; C. resource preserve; d. neighborhood park;. e. water area; • f. resource production; and g. punned open space development. Definitions of these categories are presented in Section 2. 1. 4 of this report. £ iteria-fir-�p�n-apace uss-Lalg_pz�s�D.t��1D�F1ST u rE_3=12_ Planning A few locations within the Huntington Beach Planning Area remain undesignated for the specific types of land uses previously discussed. They remain so due to one or more of the following reasons: a. the problems are detailed and require analysis beyond the scope of the General Plan; b. the long term nature of existing interim uses precludes decision-making until a future date; and/or • C. the generality of a planning unit designation is most appropriate because of unique development goals for the affected areas. Two categories. of Planning Units are: 1. Plannin Reserve: Planning reserve is a broadly defined- interim designation intended for areas where long term comprehensive planning and development is anticipated. Uses may include: a. Land areas in a pre-development phase that are not yet fully planned or ready for immediate development. b. Land in transition to ultimate use that may be designated as a "holding" zone (such as the RA or LU District) . C. Resource production areas including land used for agriculture or oil extraction purposes. (Oil extraction may be combined with land designated as industrial, residential-agriculture, or residential use. ) 103 • • LUC FIGURE 3- 12 CITY OF. HUNTINGT BEACH LAND USE •.I,EMENT CRITERIA F OPEN SPACE USES / PARKS CATEGORY SIZE PO LATION LOCATION FUNCTION TYPICAL SERVED FACILITIES mile Adjacent to el- Primarily Closely e- service ementary school children late o radius; when possible. 5-14 yrs. el entary • NEIGHBORHOOD 2 to avg. pop- Safe & conven- old; also chool; 3'- Acres ulation ient access to X contains 2,500 to neighborhood playground 3,500. residents; away facilities. from arterial streets; on • local street. school fac- ilities. Service Id ly adjacent Serves sev- May provide radius high schools; oral neigh- both in- • 1 mile to close to ath- borhoods; door & out- COMMUNITY 10-40 1� mile; letic field for provides for door facil- . Acres 40Z dual purpose. broader rec. ities. th needs than po neighborhood ion. park does. • Popula- Where naZd ve inter- band and/or tion ser- featuresy,County, water fac- ved varies; ulation nter- il.ityREGIONAL 50 Acres service exist. nty with scenic and radius needs. character; above 30/40 mi. ; regional 1 hour beach fac- drive. ilities. ECIAL FACILITIES In community Multi-pur- multi- parks & other pose func- purpose RECREATION Xet 60,000 appropriate tions: Building. , CENTERS areas. Meetings, Barbecues, Dances Senior- 1 04 Citizen, etc. i 5• - • F1609t 3- 12 Cont. i CATEGORY SIZE POPULATION- LOCATION CTION TYPICAL SERVED FACILITIES • Approx: Areas Southeast Neighborhood Neighborhood 6 miles linked ern par of & community & community EDISON length together the ty. parks; where park facili- POWER LINE by 200 by the it abuts ties. Bike, feet. easement. schools; Morse & hiking natural trails; • areas in natural areas. the remainder. 10ZVaries Where Serve public 18-bole GOLF 14 appropriate. golf needs. course, club COURSE Ac house & pro shop. On Xiand w erways NEIGHBOR- 1/3 Neigh- n locations Swimming HOOD Acre borliood accessible ;& Quiet water BEACHES Oriente to the Sunbathing orientation. public. Appropriate Boat & boat Boat docks, MARINA Vari Varies quiet oriented fuel & stor- Water activities: age. Yacht areas. c:lub,r.estau- rant. • • 105 • • The intent of this category is not to preclude dev- • elopment, but to identify such areas as deserving special attention and planning effort. 2. Planned Community: This designation is intended to provide for the comprehensive, coordinated plan- ning and development of an identifiable area of • Ptimatit y nezidentiat land so as to take advantage of the benefits of large scale community planning. The planned community designation allows for the creation of a quality living environment through implementation of a development plan.en-et-Minimant-fifty-��9}-sere tnereMerrt-ef-a-designated-area. Processing the • development plan will follow exintinq City zoning and subdivision codes. Specifically, through 'Ithe pro- cess of subdivision, site plan and circulation plan reviews, integrated developments will be established which are in conformance with the policies of the General Plan. • Resource Production This designation is for areas which are deemed likely to remain in resource extraction for the life of the plan- ning period and as such constitute a major land use under the Land Us-e Element. At some future time the useful life of the resource will end and further refinement of potential uses for the properties will be necessary. 3 . 4 . 3 . 2 The Land Use Diagram 12 The Land Use Diagram (Figure 3-") designates in general the proposed distribution, location, and extent of land uses. Note that the Land Use Diagram does not delineate land uses as would a zoning map. On the contrary , the Diagram is general in nature and reflects a policy of • greater flexibility. Minor supporting land uses which do not set the character in a planning area are not designated on the Land Use Diagrara. A set of policies guide the development of these minor land uses but.-_.clo-._not_de-s n_ata_.Dr-eci e locations________-. • (See- _Figures 3=14 13_--and -3-.14_ for et mapA_indic_ating the general location of exizting. and pnapozed communi-ty--- - facilities , -nebpectivety) . The broad land use categories established by- the .Land...Use Diagram allow-- the flexibility necessary_ to deal effectively with evnitTi„rr prysi^al development pressures . • 106 Land Use Categories RESIDENTIAL Estate 5 2 un/gac • l , Estate <_4 un/gac Low Density <_7 un/gac \� �\ pEW FMOAT - ® ®Medium Density <_15 un/gac High Density >15 un/gac \ • �, COMMERCIAL ®General • Ot tt >,n office Professional \� ::.. �c ®Mixed Development INDUSTRIAL General • h Quasi public, Institutional PUBLIC USE 0 Public, t., :::::::::::. .> zn 4 P open Space „tu ® P ......:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..::..:.:.:.:.......:.: .: .. . :, ................................ \ , I. PP UNITS Planning Reserve .............. . ......:...... \: ................. Community ::. \ �.. ..................... ..... . w eOTHER USES \ f.; P - ® £ Resource Production �,..r¢ \ .. .:. �.� .' .0 .` ;2, ............. ........... / d' ?f 1/ l „r� 1 u., ;,, V. ........... ........... U ', ...........::::::: .::: Sf Rt 7 ............... y. .........::: V HWAY PACIFWC r... ::: .. ,>...., ::::, :;:: s-l• ::•<. c',,.;.._, w�., . ,�- .. B AST ,. ..;ter �,'� .. ,,...t•.�. �� �, g r� .... �. S c. '. .;>, .�... .cam.4.;7 .c .•. ..'b. —fs+i. ..O- ;T•.:y ,�. f.f,•1=-,f..,�as'/4y.2�C'- •+L 1.' ,J, ,f'dx.,C,• l -} b' r,Y i C? �:���ti l ill. '� •,i!'l'�� �I! I �"✓� .� h •...».. ..1;.3� £ !, u��'•• ales, 1 �.. �..... .,. .Y:' 'A�l ) ?' "li-,ii:: •r ;'S•\'.'tom '��' �`vf", 0CF.AI'1 PACFiC OCFAN ^`r'_-- E qa� ��oY1•a°r'o'c6i:-�;j�o?7��o C a ___i Ash HUNf 1NGTON 1364CH, 04JFORNIA Figure 3-12 GENERAL PLAN PUNNING DEPARTME9 LAND USE DIAGRAM December 1976 M�[M�lll • to b • b �� 4L b b F- ILL - 4L ELEMENTARY SCHOOL HOSPITAL 0 b ❑� ..FIRE ,q. N HIGH SCHOOL b Xl- GOLF COURSE COLLEGE � ....."' C` PARK M ^ AIRPORT wrm. (y©n p , RECREATION CENTER CITY YARD POLIATIC PARK ♦ ��CRY BEACH C n7T PIER F°� STATE BEACH . CIVIC CENTER E COMMI.INITY S%C CTR. LIBRARY _ TREATMENT PLANT 8XSON STEAM PLANT GENERAL LOCATION • OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES EXISTING 107 Figure 3-13 • • • • • • GENERAL LOCATION OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES PRO POSE9--FIGURE 344 08 Numerous implementation alternatives are permitted under the Land Use Diagram due to its general nature. In this way, the General Plan can be responsive to the changing needs of the community without having to carry out time- consuming amendments to the Land Use Element as frequently as have been required in the past. When designating an area for a certain land use, the key i concept to consider is the character of the area. For instance, an area may be primarily residential but include an elementary school and a convenience commercial center. The character of such an area is residential and it is so designated . Although the school and commercial center are not residential uses , they are supportive of the • residential use and are uses considered normal in any residential area. However, as an example, if the commer- cial center was part of a significant commercial district serving more than the surrounding residential development, then a commercial designation would be in order. • Beyond considering the character of an area, there are no hard and fast rules for determining whether a land use should be specifically designated or simply be con- sidered as permissible under another land use category_ . However, size is used as a criterion. Figure 3-15 delineates the size criteria for each land use type . • However, the character of an area is the most important consideration. Consequently, an elementary school might contain more than twenty acres but still be designated a residential area. The service area of the non-residential land uses should also be considered . Commercial uses may serve more than the immediate neighborhood and as such constitute more than a supporting land use for the neighborhood. The Land Use Diagram is intended to be proactive, not reactive. As a result, the Diagram, in general , will • show planned uses rather than reflecting existing uses . However , a_eess}s es -des}gna en- s- easenab�e: a pan.ticutakty tatge and permanent existing use wiU be given a con- 3t-%-a-rr--- • 3 .4 . 3 . 3 Statistical Summary The acreages devoted to each of the various land use categories are outlined in Figure 3-16. Based on tie acreage totals for residential use, an estimated -2-2g;ggg 202, 0 persons are projected to occupy a maximum of approximately • 657666 72, 000 units. A-ee ►p�ete-eli9et�99en-ef-g�eeeted-pow ti�at3ot�-a el-d �3ng-t+nit-teta�a-ia-incinded-fn-the Aft 10 g • • I � i FIGURE 3-15 i SIZE CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING LAND USE DESIGNATIONS • LAND USE CATEGORY CRITERIA* Residential Estate 1 acre or more • Low Density 1 acre or more Medium Density lucre or more High Density 1 acre or more Commercial • General 12 acres or more Office-Professional 10 acres or more Mixed Development 12 acres or more Industrial • General 12 acres or more Public Uses Public , Quasi-Public , 20 acres or more • Institutional Open Space (A) For parks-community parks, Huntington Central Park or 20 acres of more. (L) All others - 20 acres or more Planning Units • Any 6ize Planned Conununity -5g_acrc-so-or_xuaro Planning Reserve Any size Other Uses Resource Production 20 acres or more • *If a land use does not meet the criteria , a designation more ap- propriate to the character of the area will be assigned. The criteria should be applied flexibly since determination of the character of an. 'area is the overriding issue. 1 1 , , FIGURE 3-16 LAND USE ELEMENT STATISTICAL SUMMARY STATUS LAND USE CATEGORY GROSS ACRES 11 , 720 Incorporated Residential • Estate . . ?-8-7 283 Low $1S-2-9 8,9'57 Medium -1-78.2-2 2, 050 High 4-7d 430 1 , 396 Incorporated Commercial 3;4-23 General 3-►-13-1 1 , 105 Office-Professional -02 85 Mixed Development 3A-0 206 1 , 534 • Incorporated Industrial 1.,524 General -i;-5-2-4 1 , 534 2 , 030 Incorporated Public Uses • Public, Quasi-public , Institutional 72-7 703 Open Space 3,�-15 1., 327 521 Incorporated Planning Units -rr33 • Planning Reserve g_4)-0 163 Planned Community 433 3158 226 Incorporated Other Uses 1-1-4 Resource Production -1-4.4 172 • Freeway 54 17, 427 • Subtotal -.-7.71a4 (incorporated) ill • FIGURE 3-16 Cont. . STATUS LAND USE CATEGORY GROSS ACRES Unincorporated , Residential 190 75 • (Sunset Beach) Medium Density 19A 75 eemmereial 15 General 15 • Public Uses 36 46 Open Space 36 46 • Unincorporated Residentiat 50 (Bolsa Chica) Low Den.6ity 50 Public Uses 530 • Open Space 530 Planning Units 11095 Planning Reserve 1, 095 • U.then 10 Reeounce Pnoduc-tion 10 Subtotal 197g 1 , 806 (unincorporated) Total ( Planning Area) 18;95919, 233 • 112 • £ewe �teei-fitjq.a et-Meet-eri-tie-6enera3-Plan-jHnntrncpon �3eae -��ann�ag-��gartt►�e t;-�ngnat;-}936�- 3.4 . 3 . 4 Implementation Program The implementation program for the Land Use Plan is d3-v3ded--iate-th-Fee-sate gef4es-t conzistA of .the boZZowing pnognams : • �,--�acis�ieg-�eiie�es-aad-�regrax�s---ine�esdes-pefieie9 aril-p.regrams-that-a re-mere}p-cant in mat ion a-of-exiati-ngj Eitp-policies-aad-pre��ax�sT �---Pdew-Peiieies-aed-P�eg�a�ts---iseit}des-pe�ic�es-aAd gregrame-that-ahee1d-be-implemented-in-the-wear-Future. 34--Fi3E the F-Invost}gatiea---iseiudes-items-off-concern regnirxng-further-Investigation-ttncl-anaipses- hxisting-�oiieiea-etnd-Programs 1. Continue to Htiiiee-the-Spee}fie•-Pian-te-imp-.-emnt emp.2o y imptementing oxdinancez to catty y out the General Plan, where appropriate. Z.--Continue to conduct special area studies. - - f 3T--Gez}t}r�ee-te-v�e�}�-with-the-gragertp-evdrrer-ta-estab�rsh a-dleveiopment-plan-for-the-geacfrf f-Pfarrrred-Ca=IInstp7 4-T- -t,o-6aerlt-witIt-State-anrl-Cotrrrtproff=csafs-to de er }tee- lie-agproprq_ate-3rar&-ITses-f Orr-the-pfarrnrng r-eser�et-theotrtlr-of-tyre-garrta-Arra-Rrver.. • �deav-fe}ides-and-Pregrar�s .-the-hand-Hse-Bingram=as-the-offie=ai-statement= ef-hand-t�se-planning-for-the-2ttp-ef-Hantingteri 40 Beach-;. 6-- Adegt U.titize the land use criteria (Figures 3-1-& 1 1 ) 3 • }-��and the land use categories (Figure 3-1-74 16 ) in .conjuncttianWith the Land 17de�ayham whe�i- ----- .Yjtann.4 nq community .land used . • �---�►de�-the-teiiew}ag-�esidest}ai-density-staadardr- 'h=-- sueate�2es-i errt-3-a3�--+1aK3+t --4-- • �--j'�� �`'�e'93iZ3��;--�ic?�s-l�iii3R�-��1,t1i.t.6�rr r�c a ��...., d'C7.'e-, 113 • • 1 • � el:--�Ieel3ti -fees �+-Resales ia,l�--maximum-15-units/ guess-ae�e� guess-ae�e� -$- Institute and actively pursue a program to facilitate • 4 . development consistent with the General Plan through streamlining and simplifying necessary processes and eliminating unnecessary ones. -9: Revise Division 9 of the Huntington Beach Municipal 5, Code to eliminate provisions and uses that are not • consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan. -iflr--Ic�exti€y-all-p�oge�ties-eot-g�eser�tlp-�onec�-in-eon= 6 . €ermanee-with-the-General-Plant-and- net tate,-gene changes: DeveZop a Attateg y to s y4tematicaZt y bXing • the zoning o� aZZ pnopextieA into conjonmance with .the Genenat Plan. 7 . Abate non-con6onming uaea on a SyAtema.tic baAiz oven time. � -1 : Establish a &ystkmt tip method of reviewing and up- 8 .•, dating, where appropriate., the Land Use and hema..(Enina Elementb a6 and the General Plan. -IQ: Investigate existing industrially general planned q: and/or zoned parcels within the City and recommend retention or deletion as well as alternative land uses. --13- Investigate the excess commercially zoned property on 10,. Beach Boulevard and recommend retention or deletion as well as alternative land uses . Investigate and recommend alternative land uses for 11 the Bolsa -Chica Planning Reserve. • 14 • • section 4 zoningC1P1C) consist(§ncy • • • • • 4. 0 ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY The General Plan has a long range time frame and details the goals of the community. Zoning, on the other hand, is a single-purpose, short range tool for implementing the General Plan. Just as it is important that the General Plan reflect the desires of the com- munity, it is equally important that zoning is consistent with the intent of the General Plan. This is a matter of law as well as reason. Section 65860 (a) of the Government Code stipulates, "County or City zoning ordinances shall be consistent with the General Plan. . . " • Consistency between zoning and the General Plan is not as simple as determining exactly which one zoning classification should implement a specific General Plan land use designation. Several zoning classifications may be consistent with a particular land use desig- nation depending on whether they meet the intent of the General Plan. This relationship is necessary so that zoning can implement very spe • cifically the land uses which appropriately reflect the intended character of an area as delineated in the General Plan. • 115 • • I ' , A zone is consistent with the General Plan in any specific appli- cation if the zone furthers or possesses a measure or significant degree of compatibility with the General Plan policies and programs. Determination of consistency is to be made by reference to the policies and programs of all of the elements of the General Plan. 4. 1 Zoning Consistency with the Elements of the General Plan • In practice, consistency between a zoning proposal and the General Plan will be determined by considering all of the policies and pro- grams of each element of the General Plan and their relationship to the proposed zoning. The Land Use Element policies can be translated into a form suit- • able for relatively easy analysis of consistency questions. Ref- erence may be made to the Zoning and Land Use Element Matrix (Figure 4-1) to determine which zoning classifications are clearly consistent with which land use designations. If a zone is not shown as clearly consistent with a particular land use designation, reference may be made to the size criteria for determining land use • designations (Figure 3-15 16) . If the size criteria therein do not disallow the possibility of a finding of consistency, then a finding of consistency between the zone and the Land Use Element may be made by reference to the locational criteria contained in the Land Use Element. Unlike the Land Use Element policies, the policies of the other elements of the General Plan are not easily organizable into matrix form. Consequently determination of consistency midst-be-made threugh between a zoning pnopozat and the others elements of .the Genenat Ptan watt nequite a policy by policy analysis of each • element. 4. 2 Find.ing of Consistency A finding of consistency may only be made after analysis of the proposed zoning in terms of all nine. elements of the General Plan. A finding of consistency with only one of the elements , such as the Land Use Element, is not sufficient for a finding of consis- tency with the General Plan. After considering all nine elements, a finding of consistency with the General Plan may be made for the zoning proposal in question if it can be shown to further or possess a measure or significant degree of compatibility with the General Plan policies and programs. 16 Ad1b, TK­ LAND USE �'S' Y.ic-. d}ili4u' t. uf.7 .T CATEGORIES • ; wax ^"uG: mom 104 z, l li ! r ♦ / ♦ All , ♦ ! WI ! 12 • . ►•JM lii►o"o, .AME MOM .lIli�• 13 MEDIUM DENSITY 4 ►•�•I■■\•\•/1•I ■\iJ�■ ■� \•/�Al "WEA . l•/►•i■►�I\iI" ■\•J.■■ \iI MEN l•J �J►i/\•J�lii�• Yen , v v v ! r ! r q !r ♦ I /\ I\ Jl I\ J l I \ Il Jl I \ J\ i 2.20FRCE PROFESSIONAL • •i\•Jlii►•i►iJ�i/lii •ililiJ•i►�i l•/l•J■ �J■■►•I•\iJ\iJ■l•••J .�2 #w 4 { IPMEW 41 PUB,QUASI-PUB,INSTIT MENEM 01, MENEM, MEN / ♦� �/ !� q !r �i' . \ J r !r.. V \I !/ \' r '�/ ♦� ♦ '/ !I \r" 1r !7 Nr...\/ !i �% 'Al ♦r ! ii �i•• • i��-i � i •i' � iiiii� . J\ Il I\ Il. J l Il Il. I 1. Il /l Jl /l Il J. it I► Jl I � I 'AlI► i .r•♦►i♦�•..♦�._\T•.� r•fIi. .lL•♦ ►•.lL•.!I•"-!►•lIa- !/•.♦/•' -.51 PLANNED COMMUNITY 1•" PLANNING ►a.CA"o"iroi ''.V•''�•'•• section 5 amencliong the general plan Ash • 1R � • I • • • 5. 0 AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN • The General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach provides for anticipated development through 1990. As a result, the General Plan must be able to respond to the changing wants and needs of City residents as well as to the changing environment within which the City exists. With this in mind, a General Plan Amendment pro- cedure has been developed to enable the City to respond to the needs of the community and the larger environment. In specific terms, the Amendment procedure establishes a mechanism for periodically incorporating citizen comment into the General Plan, the City' s comprehensive directive for the future. • 5.1 General Plan Amendment Procedure California Government Code (Title 7, Article 6) establishes minimum requirements for the adoption and amendment of the General Plan. In line with the State requirements, a General Plan Amendment pro- cedure for the City of Huntington Beach has been developed. The • procedure is illustrated in Figure 5-1 and described in the para- graphs which follow: 1. Initial Contact - Applicant contacts the Planning Department to indicate desire to have General Plan Amendment or zone change initiated. Planning Staff • arranges pre-application meeting with applicant.- is necessary. 119 • 2. Pre-Application Meeting - Planning Staff and appli- cant i cant discuss applicant' s request. Planning Staff explains procedure for filing General Plan Amendment/ Zone Change petition and informs applicant of necessary forms and filing fees. Planning Staff also explains amendment process to applicant and answers any questions. Planning Staff will advise applicant as to consistency of the proposal with the General Plan. In eases whene the binding o6 eon�siAtency pnovea too eomptex bon Sta66 detenmina.tion atone, the Planning Sta66 may zubmit fizz necommendations on cons�.sxency o6 the pnoposat to the Planning Commizzion bon a 6inaZ 40 determination. Pnrti�er;-ariti�-the-appffeentls-een- et�rrenee-tine-Piar�ning-Staff-xiap-suiamit-its-reeea+menda- . tions-eeneerning-eensistenep-of-ti�e-proposa�-te-ti�e Planning-2emmissien-prier-te-preeessing-tine-app�ieant'-s prepesa�---��e-Planning-2enu�issien-trap-ti�en-determine- the-issue-ef-eensisteney. With the benefit of a con- sistency finding the applicant may then choose to file a zone change request or a General Plan Amendment. 3. Filing of Application - Applicant files petition for General Plan Amendment/Zone Change and preliminary Environmental Description forms. Filing fees for 40 General Plan Amendment requests -and accompanying Environmental Description forms shall be by City Council resolution. Fees for zone change requests and-enviren- mentau-forms shall be as specified in Section 9864 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. Fees bon the accompanying envinonmentaZ 6o&mb shaZt be as eztabti.6hed by City Council. nesotution. 5. 1. 1 General Plan Amendment 4 . General Plan Amendment Study - Planning Staff initiates General Plan Amendment study after receiv- ing all General Plan Amendment petitions . J1+me-study -is-t a-t%-- ++r fsa L week-TmT-wed f0i+0ViMg---tire-pi^esCX ibe -art-vft• ate-fora ri�c� tforr�- 4A. Environmental Assessment - Planning Staff initiates study of environmental impacts of General Plan Amendment/Zone Change requests. 5. Planning Commission Study Session - Planning Commission holds study session at which time Planning Department presents preliminary analysis and recommenda- tions regarding General Plan Amendment requests. 120 Staff-Initiated Zone Change • Initial contact with Planning De- partment by applicant. Applicant Appeal 8 9 10 11 • Planning Department prepares staff Planning Commission holds public City Council public hearing is held. Approval Zone change takes effect 30 days report with recommendations. 0 hearing to consider zone change 0 Negative Declaration and Zone after second reading of ordinance. Legal notices are sent out. request. Approval/Denial. Changes gets Approval/Denial. 2 Z Pre-application meeting with Plan- O • ning Staff (Optional). N E C H A N G E 3 Application requests filed with Planning Staff. • G E N E R A L Applicant Appeal P L A 5 6 7 A General Plan Amendment Study is Planning Commission holds public City Council holds public hearing to N Planning Commission holds study conducted on requested amend- hearing to consider General Plan consider General Plan Amendment ments and zone changes referred session to review General Plan Amendment Study and Environmen- and Environmental Impact Report. A by PlanningCommission. Amendment Study.Gives direction tal Impact Report. Approval/Denial M to Staff• po Approval/Denial • E N D M E N T 4A 5A Staff reviews environmental docu- Zone change Environmental Assessment Environmental Impact Report on ments to determine environmental effects. General Plan Amendment Study Environmental Impact Report General Plan Amendment Study is prepared and posted prior to the Planning Commission's publichearing. Figure 5-1 HUNTINGTON BEACH CALIFORNIA PLANNING DEPARTMENT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT PROCEDURE • 5A. General Plan Amendment Environmental Assessment Impact R_epont. - Planning Staff analyzes environmental impacts of each General Plan Amendment request employing the preliminary Environmental Description form filed by each applicant. Once completed, the Environmental Assessment Impact Repont on the General Plan Amendment requests is forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration during a public hearing. 6. Planning Commission Public Hearing - General Plan Amendment and Environmental Assessment Impact Report goes before the Planning Commission for public hearing. Planning Commission may recommend approval or condi- tional approval, in whole or in part, or denial after receiving public comment at the hearing. Notice of the time and place of the hearing is to be published at least ten calendar days before the hearing in a • newspaper of general circulation published and circu- lated in the City; and noti6ication is to be mailed to appticants and to ai6eeted pnopenty ownen6 within a 300 Soot nadiuA . If a General Plan Amendment request is recommended for denial by the Planning Commission, applicant has ten days to file an appeal with the City Clerk for City Council consideration. Filing fees for appeals on General Plan Amendment requests shall be established by City Council resolution. Fees for appeals on Zone Change requests shall be as specified in Section 9883 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. 7 . City Council Public Hearing - City Council holds a public hearing to receive public comment concerning the General Plan Amendment study and Environmental Assessment Impact Repoht. Notice of the time and place • of the public hearing is to be published according to the same guidelines specified for Planning Commission public hearings.. and noti6ication is to be mailed to appticant4 and to a66eeted pnopenty ownenb within a 300 boot nadius . At the public hearing, the City Council may approve or conditionally approve (by • resolution) , or deny the General Plan Amendment study and Environmental I Assessment Impact Repoht. 5.1. 2 Staff-Initiated Zone Change Once the City Council adopts the General Plan Amendment • study, the Planning Staff initiates a zone change for 121 each amendment request within a reasonable period of time following adoption. The procedure for a staff- initiated zone change is illustrated in Figure 5-1 (Steps 1-3 and 8-11) and described in the paragraphs which follow. 8. Staff Report - Planning Department prepares a staff report analyzing zone change request and setting forth staff recommendations . Notice of a public hearing is published by Staff at least ten days prior to the hearing. 9 . Planning Commission Public Hearing - Planning Commission holds public hearing to receive public comment on Zone Change request. Planning Commission may approve or conditionally approve or deny Zone Change request. Planning Commission also acts on Environmental Assessment at the same time. 10 . City Council Public Hearing - City Council holds public hearing to permit public comment on Zone Change requests. City Council may approve or con- ditionally approve (by ordinance) , or deny Zone Change request. City Council also acts on Environ- mental Assessment at the same time. 11. Effective Date - Zone Change request becomes effective thirty days after the second reading of the ordinance approving the zone change . 5. 2 Timing of General Plan Amendments The General Plan Amendment process will be conducted by Planning Department Staff three times each calendar year. (State law dictates that mandatory elements of the General Plan cannot be amended more frequently than three times during any calendar year. ) The time table is as follows: Request Deadline 6ehedtt�eel-Aelegtten-bp-6ty-Eettne � February 1 May June 1 September � October 1 BeeembeF A General Plan Amendment will require approximately 15 weeks to process. Staff initiated zone changes resulting from City Council approval of a General Plan Amendment may be initiated two weeks after adoption by the City Council of the General Plan Amendment. /ITTAetfMEivT 3 I � I I • GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 77=2. • PART -2 , MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS October 1977 • • • • huntington beach planning department Qcd VV TABLE OF CONTENTS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 77-2 PART 2 • Section 1. 0 Introduction 1 2. 0 Areas of Concern 7 2. 1 South of Adams Avenue and East of Brookhurst Street 7 2. 2 'Nichols Street South of Slater Avenue 13 2. 3 South of Terry Drive and East of Viewpoint Drive 13 s 2. 4 Administrative Items 17 3. 0 Amendment Summary 19 ' 3 . 1 Area by Area Summary 19 3.2 Summary of Proposed General Plan Amendment 77-2 Part 2 20 1 i 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 (Figure 1-1) and as amended in August, 1977 (Figure . 1-2) . 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 Planning Department. In Section 2 . 0, Areas of Concern, each case is discussed and analyzed in terms of existing conditions and impact on surround- ing '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. 1 7 II I Land Use Categories RESIDENTIAL MR Estate 5 2 un/gac ® M Estate <_4 un/gac ® MI Low Density <_7 un/gac Medium Density <_15 un/gac \ N'® � ® , High Density >15 un/gac / COMMERCIAL / f % - ®General .. Office Professional :r \ \ ®Mixed Development INDUSTRIAL 1 Ill MIN General PUBLIC USE :•® P blic 6uasi-p 'cI Institutional x Open Space ................................................................ .. :-J-•.'s ............... ....................................................... .> ..•.'arc .::::: ............ ....... ........................................... ....... ',:.' .;.:...: ..................... PLANNING UNITS .r.... Plan ning v 0 ng Reserve :::: ::::..... ............. \ � PlannedCommunity . ................ P ....:. ' • rf�;�Y,'� OTHER USES h,�a ,cps ............. ,,fir,.yr. ♦Q6 ,, .......... Resource Production R ou l_ �f S r� ,•y a. ter...,/,.. r - s4 �f s lY �Y rX`A3 1 PlA . i _ K .:; .. :. :. :: .:..:.• lit ;: � ?., { H ....... ...... ., sCOASI , .., ,q,:G� :.. (..,,r 4,r. /-.�',.�� � ,�.�_:/..�. .::•' .:: ',� i PAC ma's •P;•- ,3•.� c :,5;:'•. 4-• 'r' c rF .ih -r .ir4N• Q ,✓w M1 1!<= yr �.es '� ,--5,'—.�'- ,q%:�� .¢, "•� ,,nc •i:'L`:: .y,. 'a5' a ;==•F,,' �.r '1 �'•�"f%'e'; d sy, r:, r4:1. 4}u s I ✓U 0C 0 — '� •• 'a:`r�::^:i:l� is�.'j'ijl:Cr�Ir'1ri•1Ii'c:yt:'•'►..- y:�":�;;fza"- _� FACiiC o� '3;;�'r._<rr�` A�••��_��i�q�.�,-.����•������•�.I' � _ — - F'P!•� I �• � i I L HUNnNGTON 1354CH, C JFORNIA GENERAL PLAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT LAND USE DIAGRAM December 1976 I- i • f .� ��9p 1`I •'�i I� ire a mm ` / `1 N po `de qG � 1.�1 - •'• -• 10+ ` •- S `S •i • I.I by �j' •'• �I.I I• `?O •/ 'lam' •i O 3E •' ` f •i G • V4- •i• 6 o .. i 1> -- G S S PALM - ��ta1r11`a .. S � � } • ORANGE N . • �. PACIFIC CO�tt NWY .— Figure 1 -2 m LEGEND HUNINGTON BEACH, OILIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL\ PLANNING DEPARTMENT Low Density 0-7 un/gac � GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 77-1 .Medium Density 8-15 un/gac ® High Density above 15 un/gac • • • 1, �' .�� •i•� Lot 1, � Q • • s, _i S �M , _A S � • � PACIFIC COAST MWr' FIGURE 2-1 HU?WIm PLANNING BlRTM OILIFORNIA Areas of Concern PLANNING DEPARTMEP7 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 77- 2 PART 2 1 • 2 .0 AREAS OF CONCERN This analysis discusses each of the issue areas under consideration in General Plan Amendment No. 77--2 Part 2. The areas of concern are identified in Figure 2-1 . 2.1 South of Adams Avenue and East of Brookhurst Street. 2.1. 1 Background The area of. concern is located 320 feet south of Adams Avenue and 696 feet east of Brookhurst Street. In April, 1977 , Mr. Tallas D. Margrave requested that the Planning Department consider redesignating the subject property from general commercial to low density residential . The 3 . 16 gross acre site is presently vacant and designated for general commercial use . The subject property is a parcel that was the result of the development of a shopping center at the southeast corner of Adams Avenue and Brook- hurst Street. The shopping center bounds the parcel on the north and west.. At the time plans were submitted for the shopping center development now being completed , the subject parcel was represented as the possible site of an office-professional complex. The parking and on-site circulation was therefore designed to allow integration of the office-professional development with the shopping center. Development of the parcel in any use other than an office professional or commercial would not, however, adversely affect the shopping center. 7 i J4 ADAMS AVENUE �` GE WL z - CAI COMMERCIAL Z o � C4 � Z N IAGARA DR � . W E SI Y J Sd E WESLEY CRRi o i v J u tN DR MERED\ m 1 E � OR + 0 pY SON J OOK I • ST ONE 9R N = BIRCHWOOD Y O O lz ° m CRAILET 3� U Q� I WARWIGK DR , I CF E CYNTHIA AREA OF CONCERN 2.1 FIGURE 2-2 8 The subject property is bounded on the east and south by • existing single family residential development that is designated by the General Plan as low density residential and is zoned R-1. The parcel is not directly adjacent to any street and direct access is currently provided through the shopping center parking lot. • 2 .1. 2 Analysis Residential use of the subject property is possible and the low density residential designation as requested is com- patible with the existing- residential uses to the south and east. The primary issue, therefore, is the suitability of ' maintaining the subject parcels commercial land use designation. As reported in Section 2 . 2 . 1 of General Plan Amendment 76-1 Part B, recent information completed by Urban Projects, Inc. indicates_that by 1990 . a demand for 542 acres of general commercial uses will exist in Huntington Beach. At ultimate development, assuming a total population of 223, 000, the demand for general commercial will be 635 acres. Huntington Beach currently has 1131 acres designated as ene-r-al—commercial, or an over a u ance o approximately 00 acres.`Based on figures quoted by the Ur an d , an "ideal community" should have 5 percent of its area in commercial uses (including hotels, motels, office-professional, etc . ) . This amounts to 953 acres still less than the currently planned for Huntington Beach. An additional study conducted by Harvard University indi- cates that only 2. 9 percent of a city' s area is normal for. commercial uses. This would amount to 553 acres in Huntington Beach, also well below our present su. 1y. Due to this apparent over abun3ance, t e removal of the 3 .16 acres under consideration from the supply of land desig- nated general commercial use would not have any signifi- cant Citywide effect. On a more local basis, the removal of the subject parcel from the supply of commercial land should also not produce any significant effect. There currently exists 49 .0 acres of community commercial facilities at the intersection of Adams Avenue and Brookhurst Street. These facilities serve as a major shopping area for the residents of Hunting- ton Beach living east of Beach Boulevard and south of Garfield Avenue. There are also eleven (11) other similar commercial centers within this area totaling approximately 87 acres . The quarter section in which the subject parcel is located has 16 .4 percent of its total area designated and being used for commercial land uses. The majority of this is located adjacent to the subject parcel . On several 11 � o a occassions, residents of the adjacent single family area have opposed additional commercial development at this corner. - -------- ----- — Conversion of this property to low density residential use would be compatible with the adjacent uses, but would result in several impacts. (1) First, a maximum of 22 additional residential units would be added to the City° s housing stock (the applicant has indicated his intention to construct only 15 units would be located in a special ha arm aYP They will also be subject to the oise generated by the refrigeration equipment in the upermarket adj -ent to the area of concern. Investi- ga ion of th noise intensity and appropriate miti- gation measures should be required when evaluating development plans. (2) The area of concern does not have direct access to any street at this time except through the previously described shopping center parking and driveway areas . Any use other than integrated commercial' or office- professional uses will require acquisition and removal of an existing single family residential unit to pro- vide access through the adjacent residential area. This action would establish access to either Lawson Lane or Meredith Drive. The applicant is considering this alternative and has indicated planned access to Lawson Lane via removal of a single family home on a sixty foot wide lot. This new street will function as a local street and should be constructed with a minimum right-of-way of 52 feet and a curb to curb width of 40 feet. Additional right-of-way will also be necessary for the construction of sidewalk returns at the inter- section of the new street and Lawson Lane. This will have to be obtained from the adjacent lots . A stop sign on the new street would be necessary to control traffic movement onto Lawson Lane from the new street. These concerns would also exist if the access was taken from Meredith Drive. Between 154 and 226 automobiles should be generated by the proposed low density resi- dential use. oDn ars would pass two single family homes t, wernstructed with corner lot sideyar tbacks. Inecessary to construct a sound t enuating bloto mitigate noise gener ted by these caadditional traffic gener ted should not, , adversely affect the circul ion of thethe area of concern is developed ow density residential use, approxi- mately 1000 fewer automobile trips will be generated when compared to that generated by 'commercial develop- ment. O O o_ 12 (3) A comparison of the revenue/expenditure ratios for low density residential use and commercial uses on . this site indicate a potential net loss to the City of $6,625 each year if low density residential uses are constructed, (4) The additional 50 to 74 persons that would be generated will not adversely effect either the level of park ' service in the area or overload any school serving this area. 2 . 1.3 Recommendation The area of concern south of Adams Avenue and east of Brookhurst Street should be redesignated to low density residential. 2 . 2 Nichols Street South of later Avenue 2. 2. 1 Background • The area of doncern is located on the south side of Slater Avenue between Nichols Street and the Pacific Electric Railroad right-of-way. In May, 1977 , Family Home Builders , Inc. requested that the General Plan land use designation be changed from industrial to medium deZ1!7 .7 a tial. Th gross acr site is included in the area covered byrecent_- mpleted Industrial Land Use Study and is addressed in the Central Industrial Corridor Plan that is Part 3 of General Plan Amendment No. 77-2 . 2. 2 . 2 Analysis The site is oderately suited, for industrial development with large 10 ze an patibility with industrial areas on the north, east, and west being favorable attributes. The property to the south was recently approved for redesignation to medium density residential by General Plan Amendment 77-1. A medium density aesig-na_'- tion 'of the subject property would be Rsrizs nt with the . residential to the south but would b virtually surrounded by industrial development on the other Because the scope of the proposed land reductions surround- ing the site has been greatly reduced, the area of concern should also remain industrial . 2. 2. 3 Recommendation The Planning Staff recommends that the area of concern at Nichols Street and south of Slater Avenue be retained general industrial. 13 T � I rr r■ 1 ,r 1 mi �■ r rr: INDUSTRIAL 011�IIIIiililllllll ���} ` ����•����� -� ■ f. ' Ilrl..�� ram' {%,}%4.�.{:fC } •'v�. f �1111f �; ?yC�}.f`r."�}....,�1�Ch'iC'v',Ci•}'T S _ ;i 1:._,' :yr�".�f''• . .ter.h � �ICf,7 II � 1t.1,1/111.IIi1t1,I,Alt%lii/�ffillii1�1111i�/1�/i/.111�1.11 �rl.�/�Iiil/�IIIrr1�1111r�1�>.�1��111111111��1�111�1� � � I,IIIIIIIIIIIt1�Il,Illilill III/Illilllllltlilllillil 1111,11111/11111111/•11/ill�ll,l�l�l/1/11/IIIII.�IIII/1 ' IIII.IIIIII�A,,A!1!}I,l�AI�I�A 111�11.1.1111111111.11111111 I,I������LI,���,Il�li�,t��Jtu�iii►�:I�w.�11.�w.�����11���1�1w111�1 1111,�11/1,11111�11.111111111.111�1111.111111111111�1111; ;.-.��. - - kx • 1111.1,1.1111111111.1.1.l111.l1,1.111.1.1,111111.111.1.111.11111.111 - 1111111.111111111,11111111 1.I I I I,I,I I I I.I.I I I I I I I I r 111111 nt111.irlrlllli1r11.r1111r1111.11�11r1111�irl��litlll� .� aF'EA OOF COONCER''J 2 "� NICHOOLS STREET SOOUTN OOF SLATER AVENUE • � o a �� ► I l i l l I I I I I I ��l . I 11 n-�► !!!► ► I I I t I I I I 1 F—�I Q Q ALMAMGRA c� Ca OR �E �L�'c�;GE GE� SAP � t�1Y�11sQ oG2 DOa COMMERCIAL ;I o MED I eT-�� -DUS i TY C2. R3 RES I�KL HIGH DEN S I TY GEM ER '.I AL RESIDENTIAL I C4 Z . R3 0 C4 08 �. ®. C. V. C. ® co-1 R3 _ a � I O C�AG;Za G3 00oS AVE .� AREA OF CONCERN 2.3 0 0 FIGURE 7-4 � O 15 2 . 3 South of Terry Drive and East of View Point Lane 2 . 3. 1 The - site is located at the southeast corner of Terry Drive and Viewpoint Lane. A request to change the present general plan designation of general commercial to medium density residential was received in June, 1977 . The re- quest was submitted by Mr. Robert E. Jarrard and Mr. Thomas A. Bernatz representing the property owner. The ' area of request comprises approximately 2. 7 acres of an existing 3. 3 acre parcel. The applicant is proposing the change in land use designation for the rear portion of an existing lot fronting on Beach Boulevard. Upon approval of the proposed General Plan Amendment, the applicants have indicated their desire to subdivide the , area under consideration into ten (10) residential lots and to construct four unit apartment buildings thereon. The area of concern is currently vacant and used for agricul- tural purposes. The parcel is surrounded by an automobile dealership on the north, the vacant portion of the larger parcel to be left for commercial use on the east, an , existing restaurant and parking area on the south and multiple-family housing development on the west across Viewpoint Lane. 2 . 3. 2 Analysis Residential use of the subject parcel is possible and the medium density residential designation as requested is compatible with the existing residential uses across Viewpoint Lane. The primary issues therefore are (1) once again the suitability .of maintaining the area of concern for commercial use, and (2) the compatibility of , residential development with the adjacent commercial uses. As was previously discussed in Section 2 . 1. 2 , Huntington Beach currently has an excess of commercially planned property. According to the standards and market analysis consulted, the excess is approximately 500 acres. Removal of the 2 .7 acres under consideration from the City' s supply of commercial property would not have any signifi- cant impact on meeting the City residents ' demand for commercial facilities . A major concern regarding commercial development along Beach Boulevard has been the existance of many deep lots that have commercial uses only on the front portions of the lots. The rear portions of these lots are often undeveloped and are essentially unusable for commercial - -Ago:& 16 purposes. The amendment requested for this area of concern would prevent this' undesirable condition from occurring. It would insure that the entire parcel from Beach Boule- vard to Viewpoint Lane is utilized. This larger parcel is, however, suitable for development as a small commercial center similar to those recently constructed on other portions of Beach Boulevard. These centers feature one larger, but not large, anchor tenant generally located adjacent to Beach Boulevard and up to ten smaller stores that are community oriented. One such center was recently constructed on a similar sized lot several parcels to the. south. These types of commercial centers do eliminate some of the problems associated with strip commercial develop- ment and are therefore more compatible with the policies of the General Plan. There is , however, no way of insuring that this type of development will occur at this location. Redesignation of the area of concern to medium density residential use would allow the construction of a maximum of 40 residential units. This would generate approximately 95 persons that would be subjected to noise, generated by the adjacent commercial uses. The situation would be similar to that existing for the multiple-family units across Viewpoint Lane. Based on 1974 noise contour in- formation, these units would also be subject to ground transportation noise levels that currently exceed the normally acceptable range of Ldn60 identified in the General Plan. It should be added that the ground trans- portation noise contours projected for 1990 will place the majority of these units within the normally acceptable range. This decrease would be due to legislation requiring noise emission levels to be reduced. Sound reduction techniques should be incorporated into the dwelling unit design. A comparison of the revenue/expenditure ratios for medium density residential use and commercial uses on this site indicate a potential net loss to the City of $3 , 175 each . year if medium density residential uses are constructed. The additional population generated by the proposed redesignation will not adversely impact the area' s schools nor will it cause any reduction in service levels provided by the park facilities within the area. 2 . 3. 3 Recommendation The Planning Staff recommends that the area of concern at Terry Drive and Viewpoint Lane be redesignated from general commercial to medium density residential. 17 2. 4 Administrative Items In February 1977, the Planning Commission approved the Multi-Story Policy Plan. They also directed staff to include the policies and multi-story locational map in the General Plan. In April, 1977 , the City Council adopted the Multi-Story Policy Plan and concurred with the Commission' s recommendation. Therefore, General Plan Amendment No. 77-2, Part 2 includes the Multi-Story Policy Plan. The Multi-Story Policy Plan consists of written statements and a location map that sets forth the principles that have guided the preparation of the City' s recently adopted multi-story ordinance. , The Multi-Story Policy Plan also contains principles that will guide the preparation of any specific plans containing multi-story structures, and the siting of individual multi-story developments. The goals and development policies contained in the Multi-Story Policy Plan established the basic premise that all multi-story development in the City of Huntington Beach must integrate with , and be a complementory component of the character and context of the City. It is also the intent of the Multi-Story Policy Plan that multi-story development be functionally workable, visually pleasing, and consistent with the policies of the General Plan. 2. 4 . 1 Analysis , The Multi-Story Policy Plan has been successfully utilized as the basis of the City' s Multi-Story Ordinance and has been used in the preparation of the Pacifica Community Plan. Because it does contain policies that directly effect the physical development of the City and is , reflected in the City' s Zoning Ordinances , it should be incorporated into the General Plan. 2 . 4. 2 Recommendation This Amendment to the General Plan proposes that the . Multi-Story Policy Plan be included in the "policies for development" portion of the Huntington Beach General Plan. 18 3 . 0 AMENDMENT SUMMARY 3 .1 Proposed Amendment 77-2, Part 2 Area of Concern Summaries The following sections summarize the recommended changes in General * Plan Land Use Designations for the affected areas . All changes are shown in Figure 3-1. 3. 1. 1 South of Adams Avenue and east of Brookhurst Street . The 3 . 16 acre study area should be redesignated from general commercial to low density residential . Proposed Land Use Acreage Summary Category Gross Acres Low Density Residential 3 .16 19 GVV Projected Population Residential Gross Maximum Total Population Estimated Type Acres Units/gac Units Per Unit Population Low Density 3 . 16 x 7 = 22 x 3 .37 = 75 3 . 1. 2 South of Terry Drive and east of View Point Lane / The 2.7 acre study area should be redesignated from general commercial to medium density residential. Proposed Land Use Acreage Summary Category Gross Acres Medium Density Residential 2 .7 Projected Population . Residential Gross Maximum Total Population Estimated Type Acres Units/gac Units Per Unit Population Medium 2. 7 x 15 = 41 x 2. 35 = 96 Density 3 .2 Summary of Proposed General Plan Amendment 77-2 , Part 2 Proposed Land Use Acreage Summary Existing Proposed Net Land Use Category Gross Acres Gross Acres Gross Acres Residential Low Density 0 3 .16 3 .16 Medium Density 0 2. 70 2. 70 Commercial Retail 5 .86 0 -5. 86 Total land involved in the Amendment: 5. 86 gross acres. 20 I 4% 1o1 as .1 r 1� � • y / ♦ram .•-• '� o • • • ■ � ( MlM Blois*0 A E ■_ i ►ACIfK CgI1ST 11WP . FIGURE 3-1 • ® HUPTINGTON BEACH, GIALIFORNIA LEGEND PLANNING DEPARTM N RESIDENTIAL Low Density 0-7 un/gac GENERAL -PLAN AMENDMENT 77 - 2 = .Medium Density 8-15 un/gac PART 2 - Net Projected Population Residential Net Gross Maximum Total Population Estimated Type Acres Units/gac Units Per Unit Population Residential Low Density . 3. 16 x 7 - 22 x 3 . 45 = 75 Medium 2 . 70 x 15 = 41 x 2. 35 = 96 Density Total: 171 23 �TT�teHME� � • GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 77=2 PART 3 • INDUSTRIAL AREAS October, 1977 • huntington beach planning department TABLE OF CONTENTS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 77-2 , PART 3 Section Page . 1. 0 INTRODUCTION 1 1. 1 Methodology 1 2. 0 GENERAL PLAN AREAS OF CONCERN 3 2. 1 Edison Industrial Area 3 2. 1. 1 North of Hamilton Avenue and West of Newland Street 4 2. 1. 2 South of Hamilton Avenue and West of Newland Street 4 2. 1. 3 South of the OCFCD D1-2 Channel and West of 7 Newland Street 2 . 1. 4 South of Hamilton Avenue and West of Magnolia 9 Street 3. 0 AMENDMENT SUMMARY 13 3. 1 Area by Area Summary 13 3. 2 Summary of General Plan Amendment 77-2 , Part 3 15 4. 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 77-8 17 4. 1 Introduction 17 4 . 2 Environmental Setting 22 4. 3 Environmental Impacts and Mitigating Measures 34 4. 4 Alternatives 56 4. 5 Short-Term and Long-Term Productivity 57 4. 6 Irreversible Impacts 58 4. 7 Growth Inducing Impacts 58 • ADDENDUM i • • • • • • i 1. 0 INTRODUCTION This document constitutes Part 3 of General Plan Amendment 77-2 . It provides a comprehensive plan of land uses for the Edison Industrial Area. The existing General Plan land uses are reflected in the December, 1976 General Plan Land Use Diagram (Figure 1-1) and as amended in August 1977 in Figure 1-2 . 1. 1 Methodology i This amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element is designed to investigate industrial areas where changing conditions require re- consideration of past decisions. The changes considered in the amendment derive from requests from the Planning Department. In Section 2. 0, Planning Issues, each site in the Edison Area is discussed and analyzed in terms of existing conditions and impact on -surrounding areas as well as consistency with i City goals and policies. Section 3.0 summarizes the recommenda- tions 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. • • 1 • Land Use Categories RESIDENTIAL ME.Estate 5 2 un/gac • N , M Estate <_4 un/gac Low Density <_7 un/gac Medium Density <_15 un/gac High Density >15 un/gac 1f COMMERCIAL • General Officekv ,j. axed-••:: ® Development \ M' INDUSTRIAL General ........ �. PUBLIC USE ••® Public Quasi-public, institutional tiona I • Open Space 3• ............. ,t......... :,:::. .:. :. ..t:u::. .............................. \� PLANNING UNITS .................... :...,:... :.a.•> ................................. Planning Reserve :., ......................... Community ............... lr/ ................. Planned J ,R��,�,,: ::::::::::::::•.• OTHER USES „.,. i EE"....... . ,� ,.9?. •:::::::• • Resource Production ;l% -, �� J 7,u.: fL:���tiJ �h u, E /� '' : � nyf..P �3r, �'ss, • .:: 0 ,i 37" ......:::::::.......... ✓. /� ................. tr, 3,wry,. r s• f? ' .....:: �..is is :i': ".:�� '• (I' PACIFIC ST .5 �� lam. f. / ._ ."f:�;•' .v:fi• _ L � /J�� d 'try%c'%' 'r•.�s: „vsr' I - p oU'y. ••S.L✓ $ •••tip• _ ...� - 's�° �•-'tjrS 'c fir• „d >r .,n y i ;s �✓ OCEAN PACIFIC I OCEAN — - qP ����i1�.•�„��a •`f...,.. Pam' I � 3�•b. � HUNfINGTON 1364CH GgL(FORNIA • GENERAL PLAN PWNNING DEPARTII/ g LAND USE DIAGRAM December 1976 • • • • J� 1�1 ♦i�� ICI a e �1`1•'♦i 1` `1`1 �tf 1`I`I` , '• % i. ♦♦ 4,y i S � S PALM -mooe• S � � � ■ ORANGE • / 7 i PACIFIC COAST HWY Figure 1 -2 LEGEND HLWINGTON BS CH, OILIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL\ PLANNING DEPARTMEPT Low Density 0-7 un/gac � GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 77 1 .Medium Density 8-15 un/gac ® High Density above 15 un/gac i e a � tick` o�t Cti -f -- - -- - - - --.. .----- --- �p --`tP - -- -�Q ,- 1o101 �a ,gam ,1 yP 1, �I •~ , S��• �74p 'yty 1�1, • ��,1` to -"or ` � � 40Cw ' Y C , a1 •� S ,•� -•- `, le Ile � PALM _ RANGE 96 ■ <- PACIFIC coAsr Ilwr EDISON INDUSTRIAL AREA Atftk Figure 2-1 PLANNING BECH,MTM OILIFORNIA Areas Of Concern GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 77-2 PART 3 PLANNING DEPARTMENT fF • • 2. 0 GENERAL PLAN AREAS OF CONCERN This section deals with the Edison Industrial Area. It establishes a plan of General Plan land uses to be adopted for four issue areas . within the Edison Industrial District. The study areas are designated in Figure 2-1. 2 . 1 Edison Industrial Area The Edison Industrial Area flanks the north side of the Edison Company generating plant at Hamilton Avenue and Newland Street. Most of the property fronts on Hamilton Avenue from the Orange County Flood Control Channel D1-2 Channel to Magnolia Street. It consists of approximately 104 . 97 acres designated general industry by the General Plan Land Use Element. The Edison Area has the lowest industrial potential in the City. The largest parcels are vacant. Serious drainage and soil problems associated with a former dump site retard development of the largest site at Magnolia Street and Hamilton Avenue. The deletion of the Route 1 and Route 39 Freeways have further reduced the industrial desirability of the entire area. • 3 I • I 2. 1. 1 North of Hamilton Avenue and West of Newland Street 2. 1. 1. 1 Background The subject property encompasses 25. 82 gross acres which_ are classified as having low suitability for industrial development (Figure 2-2) . However, the property is occupied with a quality industrial use, and an oil tank farm. The property is zoned M1-A-O and designated indus- trial in the General Plan. To the west across an Orange County flood control channel is vacant property designated as a planning reserve and a portion as commercial in the General Plan; to the south is vacant property designated , as industrial in the General Plan; to the east across Newland Street are single family homes and to the north are low and medium density residences. 2. 1. 1. 2 Analysis The area of concern has .low site suitability for indus- trial uses. Once the need for the oil tank farm no longer exists, the property will be hard pressed to find and support alternative industrial uses. However, the property will remain in productive oil use for some time to come, consequently there is no need to determine alternative land uses at this time. For purposes of clarity, however, an alternative designa- tion would be helpful to more accurately reflect the status of the property. Since this property could be related to the planning reserve to the west and south in a total planning effort for the area east and north of the inter- section of Pacific Coast Highway and Beach Boulevard a planning reserve designation would serve the purposes of reflecting the need for further planning, allowing the existing uses and relating the area of concern to the larger planning area. a 2. 1. 1. 3 Recommendation The area of concern located north of Hamilton Avenue and west of Newland Street should be redesignated planning reserve. 2 . 1. 2 South of Hamilton Avenue and West of Newland Street 2. 1. 2. 1 Background The area of concern encompasses 16.55 gross acres (Figure 2-3) . The property is vacant and is designated as having 4 1 - G NE L r M E D" 0 I �Lk Mcr :j = QQ ;O: W 2 -COMM a - DEERFIElQ:::: =_____OR- D W _D E N /S I �-1� N • SABL SCONE OR FLLFEAD DR, W DE SIL i o ELO R .____ E SL Al1GUSTREv ---- - 0 �F!y DA Z • L V) �tHtp 1i w = = 2 I J DONC.�STER DR J O W, BUSFiNICK V; ' \ JR.. LN J • JJ s 8 PLA NI 7- 1 a 0SrOOPACE z RESE VE L I GDT ' 0 TI`A,.6L ^ 0 YILNE DR. r _ � • I N D U S T TANK 0 FARM 0 O O .m .. S""°' "OOK -- HAMI N LIGHT INDUSTRIAL • PLANNING DESERVE c F C. D. Di-2 MEDIUM DENSITY "C [M6/� A[/II • �cloq s�, • AREA OF CONCERN 2.1.1 • NORTH OF HAMILTON AVENUE & WEST OF NEWLAND STREET Adft Figure 2-2 mm 5 • kBU C] °Rv�w °A MEDW=vauoDONG45TER DRIVICK ;r u m J 40 EDO AS*KPTUN LN all 1, J Q S 7 ►- Z PLAN I NG L I G H T0 Y,LlE DR 0 RESE VE TANK FARM O O O .l ■• SA100T '0 • HAMILTON 'r LIGliT INDUSTRIAL • 0. C. F D. \ , DI-2 \ P ANN I N G MEDIUM ""°` • EM6 AF/• Cp RESERVE DENSITY LILT IND STRIA. QU PU LIC,;.,, ti • y AREA OF CONCERN 2.1.2 SOUTH OF HAMILTON AVENUE & WEST OF NEWLAND STREET Adft Figure 2-3 1 6 I low site suitability for industrial development. The • property is zoned M1-A-O and designated industrial in the General Plan. To the west across an Orange County flood control channel is vacant property designated as a planning reserve in the General Plan; to the south across the same Orange County flood control channel is a mobile home park; to the east across Newland Street is a mini- warehouse; to the north is an oil tank farm. I 2 . 1. 2. 2 Analysis The area of concern which is vacant is similar to the area of concern 2. 1. 1 to the north. The only substantive difference is the existance of the oil tank farm to the north. Just as in area of concern 2. 1. 1, and for the same reasons, this area of concern should be redesignated a planning reserve. 2 . 1. 2 . 3 Recommendation The area of concern located south of Hamilton Avenue and west of Newland Street should be redesignated planning reserve. 2. 1. 3 South of the O.C.F.C.D. D1-2 Channel and West of Newland Street 2. 1. 3. 1 Background The area of concern encompasses 4 . 82 gross acres (Figure 2-4) . The property is vacant and is designated as having low site suitability for industrial development. The property is zoned M1-A-O and is designated on the northern most portion as industrial in the General Plan with the remainder designated for public, quasi-public, . institution- al use. To the west and south is a mobile home park; to the east across Newland Street is the Edison Company Generating Plant; to the north across an Orange County flood control channel is vacant property designated as industrial in the General Plan. 2. 1. 3. 2 Analysis This area of concern is the last of three related areas of concern located west of Newland Street. All three areas of concern (2 . 1. 1, 2 . 1. 2 and this one 2 . 1. 3) are of low site suitability for industrial development. For the reasons cited in 2. 1. 1 and referred to in 2. 1. 2, this area of concern should be redesignated planning reserve. AdItl 7 • TANK V u `-- u—`—� I —� �I G� TO S„�. � � c ---� FARM O .� ■■ , ,r 4 - `�i N14 S INDUSTRIAL LIGHT 1 N D STRIA • C F C. D. DI-2 0. C. MEDIUMS 'u RFr�IN ` � 0 DENSITY � A GHT ' INDU, RIAL0 1 • O PLANNING RESERVE QU SI J P U B L I , • / a► EDISON Co. II II GENERATING 11 ;. PLANT II 1 II �• 1 1 AREA OF CONCERN 2.1.3 SOUTH OF OCFCD D1-2 CHANNEL & WEST OF NEWLAND STREET Adft Figure 2-4 8 VV 2. 1. 3. 3 Recommendation The area of concern located south of the Orange County Flood Control District D1-2 Channel and west of Newland Street should be redesignated as a planning reserve. 2. 1. 4 South of Hamilton Avenue and West of Magnolia Street 2. 1. 4 . 1 Background The area of concern encompasses 40. 2 gross acres (Figure 2-5) . It contains a former rotary mud dump and scattered oil production facilities. The area is of low site suitability. The existing zone is M1-A-O and the area is designated industrial. 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 gener- ating plant abuts the property on the south and partially on the west across the Orange County Flood Control District D1-2 Channel. Also across the channel are several small industrial businesses. The west side of the property is bounded by a mini-warehouse operation and vacant indus- trial land. 2. 1. 4. 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 develop- ment. 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 area of concern 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 com- patible with adjacent residences. However, the need for ALI, 9 • o ] _ CF F_ R - C Q — E . g J is _ p ." AW YI�I( ORPEN SPACE Q PUBLIC -- -- HATT[AA! DO ywwev woom DO ti• 'ti�'�'v• HAM4.rON REGATTA®LIGHT LIGHT INDU TRIAL 1 ROTARY [; O I BOBBIE CR I I_Z 0 I M U D NIGUEL CR. LW r.f.,f J wuc e I lwwwJC 0 j N� ppa . D U M P sroa 00 'D rANKs K'AD'ELIIA' CR- w •S ,IA limp O � BERMUDA LOIN LICQUAS I KAHULUI CO. _ i; a GENERAT�c I P U B L I C � , „ , II MAHALO • KAPAA q l A OHA . AREA OF CONCERN 2.1.4 SOUTH OF HAMILTON AVENUE & WEST OF MAGNOLIA STREET Figure 2-5 i 10 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. A low density residential designation would be compatible with the park uses to the north and single-family residences • across Magnolia Street. The OCFCD channel serves as a logical boundary 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. 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, includ- ing Huntington Beach. It is uncertain whether the study area would be used for the plant expansion or merely purchased as a buffer zone. Since there is no clear cut preference as to eventual use of the property and that the eventual use of the property will be affected by the outcome of decisions concerning the Edison Company expansion, the property should be redesignated planning reserve in order to reflect the fact that future decisions concerning the property are forthcoming. 2. 1. 4. 3 Recommendation The area of concern located south of Hamilton Avenue and west of Magnolia Street should be redesignated planning reserve. • • • 11 I • • • • • 3. 0 AMENDMENT SUMMARY 3. 1 Area of Concern Summaries • The following sections summarize the recommended changes in General Plan land use designations for the affected areas. All changes are shown in Figure 3-1. 3. 1. 1 North of Hamilton Avenue and West of Newland Street • The 25. 82 acre area of concern should be redesignated from general industrial to planning reserve. Proposed Land Use Acreage Summary Category Gross Acres Planning Reserve 25 . 82 13 • 1 ■ � J� L ATLANTA 11 AVE • i .:::py I a 0 t­.L1 J 0. 41 .:T.4.P.... ............��; ... - xrT o� In% - — LE —IT OR 1 .... .: .......... FRI CREW u ff rim KOFI at �liK�O 01. _ _ u • � rYi �._ 3 � oo.un.. _ - -_ t a � fi 1 .IFn� =FAR CF O0 O O.� .. s S:I,>::H 'H • 0 0 ix HAMLTON Q i W m \ C 2 ROTARY 01-2 e e C0 i D U M P srUia o O 101 MAWti T a <yf , JT ,. O e ' y;, a J S GENERA NT G yp c I PACIFIC OCEAN o�p�l CAI-' F tiwr `" %<' • [� PLANNING RESERVE • SUMMARY GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 77-2, PART 3 • EDISON INDUSTRIAL AREA Figure 3-1 • 14 3. 1. 2 South of Hamilton Avenue and West of Newland Street • The 16. 55 acre study area should be redesignated from general industrial to planning reserve. Proposed Land Use Acreage Summary Category Gross Acres • Planning Reserve 16. 55 3. 1 . 3 South of the Orange County Flood Control District D1-2 Channel and West of Newland Street • The 4 . 82 acre study area should be redesignated from general industrial to planning reserve_ Proposed Land Use Acreage Summary Category Gross Acres Planning Reserve 4. 82 3. 1. 4 South of Hamilton Avenue and West of Magnolia Street The 40. 2 acre area of concern should be redesignated from general industrial to planning reserve. Proposed Land Use Acreage Summary Category Gross Acres Planning Reserve 40. 2 3. 2 Summary of General Plan Amendment 77-2 , Part 3 Land Use Acreage Summary Land Use Existing Proposed Net Category Gross Acreage Gross Acreage Gross Acreage General Industrial 87. 39 0 - 87 . 39 Planning Reserve 0 87 . 39 87 . 39 • Net projected population generated by this amendment is zero. • • 15 1 ■ i • • • • • 1 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 Advance Planning Section of the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department. • • 17 • 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 two study areas: the Central Industrial Corridor and Edison Industrial Area. The Gothard Corridor encompasses • a total of 629.62 acres, and extends along Southern Pacific Railroad Right-of-Way and Gothard Street between Edinger Avenue and Garfield Avenue. The Edison Area covers 104. 97 acres concentrated at Hamilton Avenue and Newland Street. The two study areas are shown in Figure 2-1. Approximately 352 .21 acres of industrial land within the two concern • areas 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 40 changing conditions require reconsideration of past decisions, establishing land use policy accordingly. Specifically, it provides a comprehensive plan of land uses to be adopted for the Central Industrial Corridor and Edison Industrial Area. An implementation plan accompanies the amendment but it is illustrative only and is not to be adopted. The goals and • objectives of the project are outlined in Section 1.1 of the amendment. Figures 2-2 and 2-3 depict the comprehensive plan for the two industrial areas. Figure 4-2 summarizes the proposed actions for 3.0 study areas within the Gothard Corridor and Edison Area. It should be noted that four concern areas have been recently approved under General Plan • Amendment 77-1. Although no change occurs under this amendment, the four concern areas will be considered in cumulative impact where appropriate. FIGURE 4-2 • AREA OF CONCERN RECOMMENDATION Central Industrial Corridor 1. Gothard Street, North Retain industrial on 126. 55 of Warner Avenue acres 2. South of Warner Avenue, Redesignate 18. 03 acres to East of Gothard Street medium density residential 3. South of Warner Avenue, Retain industrial on 13 .16 West of Nichols Street acres; redesignate 6.51 acres • commercial • 18 \ a SAN 40 MI. \ � rrRN SMOG r t' 2 �Y —=Nei--� �•_---- \ -- pD �. O U • 5 = EET.rR SON vtee' r `O Lu � Or 0 A.•PeMr� rr �, y ALTADE M• 2,�7 1 rp �• NCRT» •uRUNM ill . "JR• 101 NOr MOOD_ 3' Q 134 o 30 Mi. CAI A[ASAS GLENDALC• I►ASADEMA ARC A011 w I• // —To Eon Fromiseo i E °A• --------- oc•rcwcA '40 5 n SA S •�: F �/ ` fAAI Ottr►LE CITY ' f O CLAREMONT•• T I SAMIEL RALOrIM LA v O NOL Lr roo00 I O IARR ICON NA `v.(7 �y A —__------ rq E •. [E,twaR[�• f�rowlt a UCL SA NTCL•�R• p01 '�' YI O I✓ rLwOMCST ►DApMA LJ._. �� COVINA f/ V t/ It L03 MULES .a '-'` - - -- rorDN+ et�• INcusrRr rAtNur60 l o CU ER {ANTA MONICA'J Y use + D. MC-10 /_.. ! pwrruGE 20 MI, aA0 : 1 NUN O OS ANGELES CO L COL) INGLEWOOD DOWNEY sAwTA Ff _ -- — B \ QsrRIMGN ORANGE COO UNTY 'CAL STATE COLLEGE i AT'ULLERTON 57 L EL SEGUNDOO ` ------ J i NOR.1. e,IV ` ' rCReA LINDA Cn ` L YAMNATTAM[EACH •' GaROC/M�a ARTESIA` FRINY .- c•+ rotor iVLiERTON i -CRd•^ \ v _` SLVD. _ 91 / C PLACENTIA PI:Ew SIG!' 91 AR: SIA [UEN L SI .T »L RMOSA R[ACNO i y/- S+ 1 9 LAA[MOOD I ^ REDONDO Nu AMI NEIY i f l TO ANCE O Sr 1 . « e ' 'a vats i� I OPARM PALO$VERO[3 .. ..L.,. F 0 Es*ATE CAL STATE LIEGE �•+ ••• Ie, I Z, s 0._LONG ACMr—� : AI 4unti rig tot, ((( LONG C» Z ,\ SAMTA ANA V TNj17 IN � '~�=,� � n`" �\ ;GOLDEN• �,� �'•;•;• WEST R4 55 \\\\�• Ds:E 7 ' I• w•C.IRVINE -\ / 73 11 _— 10 VICINITY MAP � a *r SCALE iM MILES 0 f \ 0. 1 O FJ HUNTINGTON BEACHko r \� LAGC •E• N AREA OF CONCERN RECOMMENDATION • 4. West of Gothard Street, Redesignate 5. 69 acres low East of Betty Dr. density residential 5. West of Gothard St. , Redesignate 14.68 acres to East of Ford Dr. public, quasi-public, and institutional 6. North of Slater Ave. , Retain low density residential West of Gothard St. on 4. 87 acres 7. North of Slater Ave. , Redesignate 19.92 acres to East of Gothard St. low density residential 8. North of Slater Ave. , Retain industrial on 19. 53 West of Nichols St. acres 9. South of Slater Ave. , Redesignate 13. 31 acres to West of Gothard St. public, quasi-public, and institutional 10. South of Slater Ave. , Redesignate 19. 54 acres to East of Gothard St. low density residential 11. Nichols St. , South of Redesignate 18. 89 acres to Slater Ave. medium density residential 12. South of Slater Ave. , Retain industrial on 16. 59 West of Morgan Lane acres 13. North of Talbert Ave. , Redesignate 18. 29 acres to West of Gothard St. resource production. 14. North of Talbert Ave. , Redesignate 19.76 acres to East of Gothard St. low density residential 15. North of Talbert Ave. , Retain medium density West of Beach Blvd. residential on 38.7 acres 16. South of Talbert Ave. , Retain industrial on 9.64 East of Gothard St. acres 17. South of Talbert Ave. , Retain industrial on 19. 35 East of Railroad acres 18. South of Talbert Ave. , Redesignate 20. 01 acres to West of Baron Cr. low density residential ALk 20 • 19. South of Talbert Ave. , Retain low density residential West of Beach Blvd. on 11. 81 acres 20. North of Ellis Ave. , Retain industrial on 30. 42 West of Gothard St. acres • 21. North of Ellis Ave. , Retain industrial on 29 .12 East of Gothard St. acres 22. North of Garfield Ave. , Retain industrial on 31.97 West of Crystal St. acres 23. Gothard St. , South of Redesignate 32. 75 acres to Ellis Ave. estate residential and 46 . 86 acres to low density residen- tial 24. North of Main St. , Redesignate 3.62 acres to • West of Huntington St. medium density residential; retain medium density residen- tial on 7.14 acres ; retain industrial on 12.91 acres . Edison Industrial Area • 1. North of Hamilton Ave. , Redesignate 25. 82 acres to West of Newland St. planning reserve 2 . South of Hamilton Ave. , Redesignate 16. 55 acres to West of Newland St. planning reserve • 3. South of O.C.F.C.D. Redesignate 4. 82 acres to Channel, West of planning reserve Newland St. 4. South of Hamilton Ave. , Retain industrial on 7.68 • East of Newland St. acres 5. South of O.C.F.C.D. , Retain industrial on 2.94 East of Newland St. acres 6. South of Hamilton Ave. , Redesignate 47.16 acres to • West of Magnolia St. planning reserve • • �1 4.2 Environmental Setting 4.2.1 Natural Environmental Setting Huntington Beach is a metropolitan city, and as such its environment - both local and regional - is primarily an urban one. However, significant natural resources and areas do remain within the city. The following sections address those resources that are present within the Central Industrial Corridor and the Edison Industrial Area. 4. 2.1.1 Land Resources The Land resources of the Huntington Beach area are . generally divided into two physiographic zones , (1) a broad alluvial flood plain that grades seaward into tidal marshlands, and (2) a series of structural hills and mesas. The Central Industrial Corridor is located within both of these zones and the Edison Industrial Area is located within the flood plain zone. A major portion of the Central Industrial Corridor from Garfield Avenue to just south of Warner Avenue lies within the hills and mesa zone that is the northwestern part of the Huntington Beach Mesa. The Huntington Beach mesa represents an upper Pleistocene land surface produced by faulting and anticlinal folding within the northwest trending Newport-Inglewood Structural zone. This area contains wide variations in topography that range to as high as 75 feet above the surrounding flood plain. The most common elevations, however, range from 50 to 75 feet. The majority of this area has less than 5 percent topographic slope, but a significant area with slopes up to 30 percent does exist approximately 1/2 mile north of Garfield Avenue. This depression runs from Goldenwest Street to Beach Boule- vard. Just north of Talbert Avenue another depression exists with slopes ranging from 10 to 30 percent. The soils in the mesa area are generally silty and fine sandy loams overlying shallow layers having a factor of 2 percent or more clay content. That portion of the Central Industrial Corridor from Edinger Avenue to Warner Avenue is within the flood plain zone. The elevation of this area ranges from 15 to 25 feet above sea level. No significant variations in topography occur in this area. The soils contain a clay content of 20 to 42 percent which places the expansive soils problems as moderate to high. The Edison Industrial Area is also located in the flood plain that has been built up over geologic time by sedi- ments deposited by the flood waters of the Santa Ana River. 22 i This area has elevations ranging from 0 to 5 feet above sea level. No significant natural variations in topography occur. The soils have variable quantities of expansive soil. The two industrial areas under consideration are subjected to the seismic conditions generally affecting the City of Huntington Beach. The City sits astride the Newport- Inglewood Structural Zone, an elongated zone of faults and hills of contorted sedimentary rock of which Huntington Beach Mesa is but one. The zone extends southeast from the Santa Monica Mountains at least as far south as Laguna Beach. Other of the numerous fault systems of Southern California will of course affect the Huntington Beach area, but their impact would be considerably less. Within the last 50 years no less than thirteen earthquakes of magnitude of 4.0 or greater have occurred within a radius of ten miles of Huntington Beach (Leighton-Yen & • Associates, p.10) . Four of these have epicenters located within the city limits. The region will continue to be at least as seismically active in the future as it has been in the past. The major topographic irregularities on the Huntington Beach Mesa surface are related to faulting within the Newport-Inglewood Structural zone. This fault • zone is topographically expressed within the district by the previously described hills and depressions. The Central Industrial Corridor is crossed by two fault zones. The Bolsa Fairview Fault extends across the southern portion of the project area. Adjacent to and roughly paralleling Ellis Avenue. The minor Yorktown Avenue Fault • traverses the area northwest-southeast from Main Street at Garfield Avenue. The Edison Industrial area is traversed . by the active South Branch Fault, also an active fault. 4.2.1. 2 Water Resources • A crucial factor in the environment of Southern California has always been the availability of water for domestic use, for agriculture, and for recreation. Its scarcity as well as its multiple use potential have made water a prime natural asset, and Huntington Beach has several important water and water-related areas. One of the City's • most significant natural resources is the ocean and shore- line. The ocean, of course, dominates the area' s climate and along with 8h miles of beach provides ,an important wildlife habitat and scenic recreation resource for the • 23 entire region. Three important saltwater estuaries -- Sunset Bay, Bolsa Chica Bay and the mouth of the Santa Ana River -- exist in the City's Sphere of Influence; and several lakes and inland marshes occur, especially in the Central Park area. The Santa Ana River, once the largest in Southern California, bounds the City to the southeast. Today, it is a leveed sand bottom channel. 4.2.1.3 Air Resources Air pollution differs by area depending on human activity and natural features . As a rule, however, the three • major sources are motor vehicles , electrical generating plants, and industry. The major source is the private automobile which accounts for 90 percent. of all emissions. Stationary sources, like the Edison generating plant, and industries such as petroleum, metallurgy and solvents, contribute less to the overall pollution problem and are easier to detect and control. The South Coast Air Basin, which includes Huntington Beach, is a critical air area. Huntington Beach is fortunate, however, in that it dovs not suffer the effects of air pollution to the degree experienced by most other South- land communities. Several factors are responsible - degree of urban activity, local meteorology, and local topography. Daily sea breezes along the coast clear the skies by sweeping pollutants inland thereby intensifying the problem for interior communities. The City 's relatively flat topography offers little resistance to this condition. The Orange County Air Pollution Control District has no monitoring stations within the City so actual air quality ratings are unavailable. In nearby Costa Mesa where recordings are taken, air samples are generally of higher quality than from communities farther inland. Therefore, though the City is not free of aerial contamination, the problem is not severe. 4.2.1.4 Biological Resources Within the project areas there are several recognizable types of biotic habitat, each occupied by relatively distinct assemblages of organisms. Areas of principle interest are those with substantial vegetation, and/or few man-made structures. The major classes of present day, natural habitat in this area are as follows: • • 24 Annual Grasslands Cultivated Fields • Eucalyptus Groves Freshwater Marsh and Pond Parks In addition, Valley Grassland and Riparian habitats existed locally in prehistoric times , but have been eliminated or severely altered by human activity. • The original Valley Grassland community included perennial bunchgrasses as the major vegetation type. These native grasses , being slow to reproduce, were largely replaced as a result of man's grazing of stock animals and his introduction of aggressive exotic species of annual • grasses. Annual herbs and grasses predominate in areas formerly occupied by the native grassland. These areas now comprise what is here termed annual grassland. Such sites are fairly common in Huntington Beach, especially in the vicinity of oil leaseholdings and other fields where plowing is done infrequently. This type of habitat supports a limited variety of small mammals , birds, reptiles and amphibians. Cultivated fields in the region formerly were much more extensive. Currently they are located in scattered areas in the north part of the City. They support only a • very small variety of vertebrate animal life, including such mammals as house mice (Mus) moles (Scapanu�s) , and a few bird species which do some of their feeding in the field, e.g. , Killdeer, Long-billed Curlews, gulls, Brewer' s Blackbirds, Common Crows, Mourning Doves, etc. Parks appear to be very limited at present in Huntington Beach. They probably support mainly introduced bird species such as Rock Doves, Starlings and English Sparrows. Talbert Lake in the partially completed Central Park supports coots and a variety of ducks , most of them domesticated varieties. Eucalyptus groves are man-made habitats that are of interest in that they support a variety of bird and mammal life and because they constitute the only significant form of tree in the area. Most of these eucalyptus are Blue Gum (Eucalygtus Globus) . Birds such as Sparrow Hawks , Redtailed Hawks, Turkey Vultures, Barn Owls, Great Horned Owls and others utilize the groves for nesting or roosting. These groves , originally planted as windbreaks, are of aesthetic and historical interest in addition to their biotic values. As such, they represent a unique feature of the Huntington Beach 25 landscape. Continued indiscriminate removal of the eucalyptus would eventually eliminate the groves since these trees are not being replanted in the same pattern • or at a great rate. Fresh water marsh and streamside habitats have been eliminated for the most part from this area. Flood control measures have redirected local streams such as the Santa Ana River and have confined them to man-made • channels. This practice has killed natural streamside vegetation in the area and only several ponds support fresh water habitats. These ponds, some of them man-made, are typically much altered from the natural state. The predominant plants are usually cattails (Typha latifolia) . Wherever they comprise an extensive area, ponds are • inhabited by a variety of birds. The smaller ponds do not support many species of birds nor many other types of animals. 4.2.1.5 Cultural Resources • The Open Space Element of the General Plan has identified one potential site near the Central Industrial Corridor as having historical landmark significance. This is the .Old Japanese Church. Five archeological sites are located within the Central Industrial Corridor. Several of these sites are partially destroyed but significant site areas • remain to be examined. No historic, archeological, or cultural resources are located in the Edison Industrial Area. 4.2.2 Urban Environmental Setting As indicated in Section 4.2 , the majority of the Huntington Beach area is urban. This section therefore addresses the manmade environmental setting. The main topics covered are : (1) land use, (2) circulation, (3) public services , (4) utilities, (5) population, (6) noise, and (7) socio- economics. 4.2.2.1 Land Use The area within which the General Plan Amendment Areas of Concern is located, is a diverse area that contains a • variety of land uses. The uses range from marginal industrial development such as an automobile dismantling yard to good industrial development to public facilities such as the City's Corporation Yard. Some scattered, older single family houses are also located within the Central . Industrial Corridor. .000) 26 +i • The Edison Industrial area contains uses such as the longer operational Rotary Mud Dump, mini-warehouse operations, a sandblasting service, automobile dismantling yard and a Human Society Kennel. Existing utilization of the 734 acres of land within the two industrial areas consist of the following: Central Industrial Corridor Vacant and/or oil extraction 309 . 4 49:3 Single family residential 8.0 1.3 Mobile home residential 5. 7 0.9 Quality general industrial 150.9 24. 0 Marginal general industrial 94. 6 15.0 Non conforming uses (misc. ) 27. 8 3. 6 Public facilities 33. 3 5 .2 Recreational 4.9 0. 7 • TOTAL 629.6 ac 00% Edison Industrial Area Vacant and/or oil extraction 90.5 86. 3 Quality general industrial 14. 4 13. 7 • TOTAL 104.9 10 0% Current zoning designations for the study areas are Ml and M2. 4.2.2.2 Circulation The primary element of the circulation system for the Central Industrial Corridor is Gothard Street. This street extends from McFadden Avenue near the San Diego Freeway to Garfield Street and traverses the entire length of the corridor in a north south direction. The majority of the parcels included in the Central Industrial Corridor take access from Gothard Street. Gothard Street is currently designated and portions are constructed to secondary arterial highway standards with an ultimate right-of-way width of 80 feet. As of July, 1976 average daily traffic from Gothard Street ranged from 4200 to 8800 automobiles. When completely developed, Gothard Street will have four lanes and will be able to accommodate safely and efficiently up to 20,000 automobiles per day. • • 27 i A number of east-west arterials also provide access into the Central Industrial Corridor and to the individual parcels within. • Warner Avenue is the largest east-west arterial serving the corridor. It is designated as a major arterial on the City's Circulation Plan and is designed with a capacity of up to 45,000 automobiles per day. In July, 1976 , average daily traffic in the vicinity of Gothard Street ranged from 22,700 to 24,200 . This is the most heavily traveled portion of Warner Avenue. The other arterials providing access to the Central Industrial Corridor are Edinger Avenue, Heil Avenue, Slater Avenue, Talbert Avenue, Ellis Avenue and Garfield Avenue. Of the east-west arterials only Warner Avenue and Ellis Avenue have direct freeway access. Access to the Edison Industrial Area is provided by three arterial streets. North-south access is via Newland Street and Magnolia Street. Newland Street is designated as a secondary arterial on the City's Circulation Plan and will have a design capacity of up to 20 ,000 automobiles per day. Although, most of Newland Street is fully developed, the portion within the industrial area from the Orange County Flood Control Channel to Pacific Coast Highway is not fully improved. Magnolia Street is located to the eastern edge of the amendment area and is designated as a primary arterial. Hamilton Avenue is the only east-west street providing access to the Edison Industrial Area. It is designated as a primary arterial with an ultimate right-of-way of 100 feet. It will have a maximum capacity of 30,000 automobiles per day. In July, 1976 the average daily traffic volume • on Hamilton Avenue is 3, 300. Hamilton Avenue currently ends at Newland Street but is planned to extend through to Beach Boulevard at some time in the future. 4.2.2. 3 Public Services r A. Police Service Police protection for the City is provided from one station. This station is located in the south central portion of the City at Main Street and Yorktown Avenue. • The present level of police manning is approximately 1.14 officers per 1,000 persons (June, 1976) . • • 28 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. The Gothard and Murdy Stations are located within the Central Industrial Corridor. The Edison Industrial Area • is serviced by the Magnolia Station which is located at the corner of Hamilton Avenue and Magnolia Street. 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. The Central Industrial Corridor is serviced by Hunting- ton Beach and Ocean View High Schools, and Oakview elementary school. The Edison Industrial Area is • serviced by Edison High School and Kettler School. • 29 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 12 to 2 miles. E. Hospital Service There are two hospitals located within the City. Both Pacifica Hospital (located on Delaware Street north of Garfield Avenue) and Huntington Intercommunit 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, Section 2. 5, and the Open Space Potentials Report, Section 2.0 . 4.2. 2. 4 Utilities A. Natural Gas The Southern California Gas Company supplies natural gas to the City of Huntington Beach. Yearly consump- tion rates are as follows: 30 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. B. Electricity • The Southern California Edison Company provides electricity to the City of Huntington Beach. The following annual consumption rates are assumed: Residential • Single-family 5,700 kwh/d.u. Multiple-family 5,700 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 • 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, current sewer production in the City is estimated at 22. 7 million gallons per day or 8.3 billion gallons per year. • 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 Station • on Gothard Street near Huntington Central Park. The trash is then transferred to larger trucks and hauled to the Coyote Canyon landfill site.' The following generation rates are assumed: 31 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 estimated at 22.7 million gal/day or 8. 3 billion gallons per year. 4.2.2.5 Population The population of Huntington Beach is 157, 800 (January, 1977) . 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. 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 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. 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. 1 32 I 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 highways are responsible for the highest noise exposures in Hun- tington Beach. Sources producing the lower noise levels were typically found in residential areas away from arterials, residential areas near arterials but with barrier walls, and in school acreas. Generally, the single event noise intrusions observed in Huntington Beach fell within the "acceptable" noise criteria levels. 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. For those house- holds reporting incomes in the 1973 Special Census , the • median incomes by family size are as follows: One member $ 8,517 Two members 12,945 Three members 14,399 Four members 14,941 Five members 16,658 Six or more 15 ,614 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. • 33 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 77-2, Part 3 will be to reduce potential intensity of industrial activities , and increase residential uses in the areas of concern. Public facility, commercial, and resource production also show an increase but these changes accommodate existing uses. The following table summarizes the acreage change in land use designations: Existing Proposed General Industrial 352. 21 0 Estate Residential 0 32. 75 Low Density Residential 0 131. 78 Medium Density 0 40. 54 Residential General Commercial 0 6. 51 Public, Quasi-Public, 0 27.99 Institutional Resource Production 0 18 .29 Planning Reserve 0 94.35 A land use analysis is presented in Section 2.0 of this report for each of the 30 study areas within the Gothard Corridor and Edison Industrial Area. The amendment generally establishes dispersed industrial nodes and protects prime vacant areas and most existing industrial development. The industrial districts are interspersed with residential areas of an estate, low, or medium density character. The proposed uses generally improve com- patibility with surrounding land uses over the long-term. Short-term conflicts may occur between residential development and marginal industrial activities as they phase out. Following the suggested implementation strategy outlined in Section 3. 0 would mitigate most of these problems. Planned development, estate and civic district zoning allow for some buffering with industrial uses, and set a design concept that consolidates open space to encourage quality residential development and improve compatibility with Central Park. In the Edison Area, the amendment protects existing industrial uses and preserves industrial buffering with the Edison Generating Plant. Most of the area is redesignated planning reserve to maintain options for a possible Edison plant expansion as well as a master plan 34 for the entire area west of Newland Street to Pacific Coast Highway and Beach Boulevard. Planning reserve in itself generates no environmental effect and with a limite use zone preserves the area in its present form until long-term planning decisions are made. The proposed residential uses in the Gothard Corridor 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 also 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 de- signation is implemented, grading activity will modify the generally flat to rolling topography in order to accommodate development. However, to reduce the pos- sibility of adverse impacts on the topographic landscape • in particular concern areas (Areas 4, 6, 10, 11, 14, 15, 23, and 24 in the Gothard Corridor) , 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 and estate zoning. The change from • industrial to residential is, therefore, essentially a mitigation measure. The City's natural blufflines would be affected by the proposed amendment in the concern areas north of Talbert Avenue and south of Ellis Avenue, but again planned development concepts can preserve them. • 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 (Area 6 in the Edison Area) also have moderate to high expansion potentials. • • 35 ' I • I The study areas having low expansion potential are for the most part located southeasterly of the Huntington Beach Mesa. The soils in this area are predominantly silty fine sands and sandy silts with about 6 to 7 percent 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 recom- mendations for individual structures . The location of peat and organic soils is shown in the Geotechnical Inputs Report, February 1974 Figure 3-7. The report indicates that the industrial area north of Warner Avenue (Area 1) and two residential areas below Warner (Areas 2 and 41 in the Gothard Corridor contain peat and organic soils. The planning reserves in the Edison Area, including the Rotary Mud Dump, also possess peat deposits to unknown depth and thickness. 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 antici- pated. 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. Chemical processes are capable of neutralizing much of the waste material. However, the unknown consistency of substances below the surface may require some waste removal to another Class III solid waste disposal site in Los Angeles County. No such sites are currently available in Orange County. Although the amendment redesignates the Rotary Mud Dump as planning reserve, long-term planning should fully consider the site's problems. Soil engineers should thoroughly investigate the soil composition, conduct sample borings , and make proper design recommendations for individual structures , if any future development is permitted. The County Environmental Management Agency is already taking steps in this direction. It has 1 36 I ■ i recently received a grant from the State to do a compre- hensive study of the waste material. The soil report is expected to be completed by August, 1977 . 4. 3.1. 4 Geologic Considerations 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 southeasterly 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 1976, details these special Study Zones on page 29 and sets forth guiding criteria. No area of concern is directly affected by the Special Study Zone. • Concern areas 20-24 at or south of Ellis Avenue in the Gothard Corridor and the entire Edison Area 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 Development • 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 for sites not covered by the Special Study Zone. These requirements are imposed for all discretionary • acts. Loss of life and structural damage is thereby reduced. 4.3 .2 Water Resources 4.3.2.1 Regional Flood Hazard The industrial area north of Warner Avenue (Area 1) , and the proposed residential areas between Slater Avenue and Talbert Avenue (Areas 10, 11, and 14) in the Central Industrial Corridor, and the entire Edison Area located in the Talbert Gap are subject to flooding in the e 100 - and 200 - year storms. This amendment would increase residential development in the flood plains by 558 dwelling units with a population of 1, 614 persons over the potential development to be generated by the existing land use designations. Industrial acreage exposed to the regional flood hazard would be reduced by 58. 2 acres. ' The amendment will have no appreciable effect within the • 37 the planning reserves of the Edison Area until long-term land use planning decisions occur. A program to minimize danger from flooding was adopted by 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. Certain steps are also being taken to eliminate the flood hazard posed by the Santa Ana River. The United States 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 regulated 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 i of the 25-year. Development of vacant areas and recycling industrial uses 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 , 69 cubic feet per second below that generated by development 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 (Areas 15 , 18 and 19) and along Slater Avenue (Areas 10 and 11) are currently unserviced. The change in designation from industrial to residential will hasten the need for planned drainage facilities in the area. Groundwater level is very important in a coastal city like Huntington Beach (subject to salt water intrusion) which relies on groundwater as a major source of domestic water. The amount of percolation will be increased by development under the Land Use Amendment. More percolation will mean increased fresh groundwater storage and possible reduced , salt water intrusion. 38 LQLTVV • Runoff is characteristically of poor quality and can adversely affect surface water. It is probable that runoff from development will flow into 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. Control of urban runoff and its impact on regional water quality is still in the elementary stages. At present, the only effective mitigation measure is to process such runoff in a sewage treatment facility. • 4.3.3 Biological Resources The Gothard Corridor and Edison Area are generally devoid of significant vegetation or wildlife populations. Most of the vacant sites are primarily characterized by low • growing weeds. Where industrial development has occurred, natural vegetation and landscaping are almost non-existent. This feature tends to minimize compatibility with Central Park. Concern areas 2 , 7, 19 , 23, and 24 in the Gothard Corridor support a number of large eucalyptus trees , which would probably be removed if industrially developed. All of these study areas, however, are recommended for redesignation to either estate, low, or medium density residential. Planned development and estate zoning would preserve many tree stands, while civic district zoning would encourage landscaping consistency with Central Park. Along with strict landscaping requirements, such measures would increase plant species and broaden vegetatio variety, thereby attracting displaced or new wildlife species to the planning area. 4. 3.4 Cultural Resources Four archaeological sites have been identified by Archaeological Research Incorporated as significant sites within the planning area. These are ORA 185, 367, and 372 along Gothard Street between Warner Avenue and Talbert Avenue, and ORA 359 along Slater Avenue east of Gothard Street. Residential development of study areas 2 , 6, and 11 may adversely affect the archaeological sites unless regulatory policies are enforced. Cluster development could preserve the sites where appropriate, or they could be acquired through purchase. • 39 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. Sections of some arterial and local streets adjacent to the properties included under the amendment will need improvements. The improve- ments would occur as vehicular traffic increased or as properties are developed. Under the existing land uses included in this amendment • traffic volumes will generate 29 ,406 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 6 ,551 vehicular trips per day, increasing total vehicular trips generated by the new land use designation to 35,957 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 trips per day. FIGURE 4-2 Existing and Proposed Vehicle Trips Per Day l Existing General Plan Proposed Amendment Trips/Day Trips/Day Estate Residential 0 783 Low Density Residential 0 10,712 Medium Density Residential 0 8,165 General Commercial 0 1,953 General Industrial 0 11,798 Public, Quasi-Public 29 ,406 1,540 • Institutional Resource Production 0 1, 006 TOTAL 29—0 35,957 Includes the four study areas approved under General Plan Amend- ment 77-1. Excludes the areas redesignated planning reserve. 40 • 1 • , The bulk of the increased traffic will occur on arterial streets lying adjacent to the proposed residential redesignations. Peak daily traffic could be expected to increase along Gothard Street between Warner and Talbert Avenues; Gothard Street from Ellis Avenue to Garfield Avenue; and along Slater Avenue, • Talbert Avenue, and Garfield Avenue from Beach Boulevard to Goldenwest Street. Existing and proposed street widening projects along Gothard Street, Slater Avenue and Talbert Avenue, as well as the westerly realignment of Gothard Street south of Ellis and the Ellis Avenue extension, would accommodate the increased traffic, and minimize potential congestion and residential/industrial traffic conflicts over the long-term. While most residential development is expected to be long-term, some vacant areas may develop within several years. As a result, there may be interim increases in congestion and residential/industial traffic conflicts as marginal in- dustries phase out, new residences are constructed, and street improvements are implemented. Public transportation can be expected to absorb a small percentage of the new residential population and reduce vehicular trips . The proposed plan would add approximately . 6,896 persons 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. Much of the proposed residential area along Gothard Street lie 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. Such a program would equally benefit the industrial developments that are interspersed along Gothard Street from Warner Avenue to Garfield Avenue. • 4.3.6 Air Resources In the construction phase there will be a temporary increase in air pollution from the site. Vehicle emissions from construction activity will increase slightly in a • regional context, and may constitute a nuisance to local developments within and near the planning area. Dust from grading activity and asphalt odors from new paving will also represent temporary air emissions in vicinity of the site. These impacts would occur regardless of the existing or proposed land use designations. • • 41 The control of short-term construction activities is provided for by the City of Huntington Beach by local ordinance and on-the-site inspection. Requirements include the following: control of dust by watering, control of smoke and exhaust emissions by up-to-date anti-pollution aguipment, and prohibiting trash burning at the site. Figure 4-3 summarizes air pollutants generated by development under the existing industrial land use designations and development under the proposed com- prehensive plan. Emissions from stationary and mobile sources are provided for ultimate development. For mobile sources, 1990 emission factors are used. The summary • indicates that full development of the Planning Area will yield a net emission gain to the South Coast Air Basin of .44. tons per day. Although development in accordance with this amendment will not substantially affect regional air quality, its effect must be considered as an increment in the cumulative degradation of the South Coast Air Basin. 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 reduce air pollution. 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 . 03 1.18 1. 21 . 07 1. 19 1. 26 Monoxide Hydrocarbons . 02 .11 .13 . 04 .12 . 16 Nitrogen .28 .18 . 46 .63 .18 .81 Oxides Particulate . 01 . 05 . 06 . 01 . 06 . 07 Sulfur Oxides . 01 . 02 . 03 . 01 . 02 . 03 TOTAL . 35 1.54 1. 89 . 76 1. 57 2.33 The Edison Industrial Area lies adjacent to the Southern California 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. 42 s • I A The direct effect upon the subject property will be similar to the other properties within the area. The • effect of the pollutants from the exhaust stacks on the subject property may, however, be minimal, due 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. Since most of the Edison Industrial Area is recommended for change to planning reserve, no significant effect on human health is expected from this amendment. However, future planning of the subject property should consider uses and development concepts that minimize the power plant's local impact. The Rotary Mud Dump site (Area 6 of the Edison Area) is recommended for redesignation to planning reserve by this amendment. Although the property would be held vacant • until planned, any future use of the dump site, whether open space or developed, may produce odors in the atmospher 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 odors may affect residents living in surrounding residential areas for the duration of the development process. Much of the waste material can be neutralized by chemical treatment but those; wastes not conducive to treatment would require removal to a Class III dump site in Los Angeles County. 4.3.7 Noise' • An overall increase in general noise levels near the site may be expected due to the presence of heavy equipment during the construction process. Typical ranges of noise levels at construction sites with a 50 dBA ambient are shown in Figure 4-4. • FIGURE 4-4 Noise Level Associated Wit The Constructing of Stores. Residences, Industrial, Activity Parking, etc. • I II 1 Ground 84 83 Leq dB (A) Cleaning 9 16 Standard Devia- ation I-All pertinent equipment present at site. • II-All pertinent equipment present at site. • 43 Excavation 89 71 Leq dB (A) 6 2 Standard Deviation Foundations 77 77 Leq dB(A) 4 5 Standard Deviation Erection 84 72 Leq dB (A) 9 7 Standard Deviation Finishing 89 74 Leq dB(A) 7 10 Standard Deviation The data above assumes that the loudest piece of equipment is 50 feet away and the second loudest is 200 feet away. The noise impacts to be experienced in the various areas of concern are typical of the sound disturbances experi- enced 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 traveled 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 system and indicates specific areas of noise impact (Noise Element Background Report, pages 64-65) . • At ultimate development, the proposed residential areas would experience noise contour ranges of Ldn 55 to Ldn 65. 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 residen- • tial 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 modifications 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. Portions of the study areas bordering Gothard Street, Talbert Avenue, and Slater Avenue would exceed Ldn 60 but would be less than Ldn 65. • • • 44 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, rerouting 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 "accoustically weak" components; structurally improve weak walls and roofs) . 4. 3. 8 Public Services 4. 3. 8.1 Police Services • The Police Department operates from one police facility located in the south central section of the City near Main Street and Yorktown Avenue. The present level of police manning is approximately 1.14 officers per 1,000 persons . The proposed change in land use would result in a net increased population of 6, 896. Police levels would have to be increased by four officers to provide adequate protection to the new residents and industrial districts at ultimate development. On-site security protection would 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 77-2, 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 • • 45 i 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 the comprehensive plan will generate the following number of additional students within the local school districts: Ocean View Elementary School District 916 Huntington Beach Elementary School District 312 Huntington Beach Union High School District 361 Coast Community College District 410 TOTAL 1,999 • The elementary school districts have indicated that they can accommodate additional students generated by new housing developments within district boundaries. The Huntington Beach Elementary School District stated that no new schools are planned for immediate construction • west of Beach Boulevard. However, most schools east of Beach Boulevard are currently under capacity. New students from the Gothard area would be transferred by bus to these under-utilized schools. The Ocean View School District indicated that enough student deficient schools exist within district boundaries to absorb the • additional enrollment. The district enrollment declined by 400 students last year and the downward trend is expected to continue. No new schools will be required. The Huntington Beach Union High School District has five schools which are 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 in the short-term 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 district also indicated that enrollment growth is expected to peak within two years and then begin a long-term decline. Since most residential development is projected beyond • 46 that time , the new students would replace a portion of the projected student reduction. Under these circum- stances the district stated that new students could be adequately accommodated. 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 34.5 additional acres of park space. However, all concern areas are located in close proximity to community and regional park facilities. Access to such recreational areas minimizes the need for more neighborhood park space. However, a five acre park site is being added to the City's park inventory in Area 16 on the north side of Taylor Drive. The proposed residential uses in the Gothard Corridor will generally improve compatibility with Central Park. Many of the marginal industrial uses adjacent to Central Park will recycle to the proposed residential uses. The low density character around the park would be enhanced by planned development, estate, and civic district zoning. Such practices would consolidate open space and ensure quality development adjacent to Central Park. • 4.3.8. 5 Hospitals Local hospitals will be required to serve an additional 6,896 people under General Plan Amendment 77-2 . 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. • 4. 3.9 Utilities 4. 3.9.1 Energy Utilities The proposed amendment will increase the consumption of • natural gas in the study areas by approximately 194. 6 Asti • A LQGVV million cubic feet per year. This can be attributed toJan 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 conditions. The proposed amendment reduces the annual consumption of electricity by 53. 3 million kilowatt hours , due to a decrease in industrial designated land that supports uses associated with high electricity consumption. • The Southern California Edison Company has indicated that electrical load requirements can be met through the next several years 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 proceed with future construction of new generating facilities continue to be delayed, the ability to serve customer loads could become marginal by 1981. 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 windows are not shaded by exterior architectural projections or mature plants. • • 48 4. 3.9.2 Sewer and Water • The proposed amendment will- decrease total sewage produc- tion and water consumption by approximately 300 ,000 gallons per day below levels generated by uses under the 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 Use 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. The sewer lines within • the Gothard Corridor are sufficient to serve industrial and residential uses. The Beach Boulevard trunkline in vicinity of Slater Avenue and Talbert Avenue will require upgrading but this would be a necessity regardless of whether the Gothard Area develops to industrial or residential uses. The Beach Boulevard sewer improvement is now being planned and is expected to be operational before significant residential development occurs. 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. • 49 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 overdesigned and use more water than necessary. Consumption can be reduced by introducing appropriate modifications to toilets and showers. 4. 3.9.3. Solid Waste Disposal The proposed amendment will increase overall solid waste • generation by 2030 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. • j The change of the Rotary Mud Dump site from industrial to planning reserve would delay removal or treatment of the oil waste materials there until the area is planned. Surrounding residences would continue to be subjected to odors and other nuisance factors during the interim. • The only mitigation measure is to declare the site a public nuisance and require chemical treatment or other measures to minimize environmental effects on surrounding areas. When the site is finally planned, oil related wastes not chemically treated would be removed to a Class III solid waste disposal site. Los Angeles County • possesses the nearest Class III site in the region. 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: • • 50 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 2,412 dwelling units more than development under existing land use designations. Of this total, 1 ,116 units will be single • family and 1,296 units will be multiple family. Develop- ment according to the proposed designations will increase the potential population by 6, 896 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 total about 35 • persons per acre. The following table summarizes the changes by residential category: Existing Proposed DU Population DU Population Low Density 0 0 1 ,116 3 , 850 Medium Density 0 0 1, 296 3,046 Total 0 0 2,412 6, 896 The impacts associated with these changes as well as mitigating measures necessary to deal with the impacts have been detailed throughout Sections 2.0 and 4.0 . 4. 3.10.2 Demolition/Relocation The change from industrial to residential uses in the Central Industrial Corridor would create non-conforming uses in some instances. New residential development may raise land values and, as a result, some relocation of • marginal businesses and old residences could occur as property taxes increased. Such displacement could be hastened if marginal industrial business abatement measures are implemented as suggested in Section 3.0 of this report. Figure 4-5 summarizes the extent of • recycling, expected within the Planning Area: FIGURE 4-5 Existing Uses to Become Non-Conforming and/or Recycled • • 51 i AREA ACREAGE RECYCLED USES ' 2 15. 22 ac. 16 older homes church veterinary office worm farm 3 mini-warehouses , pallet storage yard miscellaneous equipment storage yard 3 auto repair shops boat repair and storage yard 7 17. 86 ac. oil tank lumber yard auto repair shop office worm farm 3 older homes 2 mini-warehouses 10 5.47 ac. 6 older homes auto repair shop planter box manufacture wholesale carpets insulation storage inert material recycle 11 2 .23 ac. 1 older home 14 14.90 ac. wrecking yard • ready mix concrete 15 6. 83 ac. recreation vehicle storage yard 18 2. 50 ac. wrecking yard 19 3. 80 ac. 6 older homes Even with abatement measures applied to marginal industries the majority of uses presented in Figure 4-5 are expected to have long-term existence. If abatement measures are • implemented on non-conforming industrial uses , amortization would be the most equitable method to allow owners suffi- cient time (probably 5 to 20 years) to recoup their investments. It is also a possibility that Housing and Community Development funds could be used to provide assistance to low and moderate income owners of older homes 52 4. 3.10 .3 Aesthetics • The proposed residential redesignations under strictly controlled planned and estate developments will vastly improve visual aesthetics over the long-term. Planned development, estate, and civic district zoning would allow consolidation of open space to maximize compati- bility with Central Park and .incorporate topographic variations. Residential uses would eventually replace many marginal industrial uses, such as wrecking yards and other open storage uses , that currently blight much of the Gothard Corridor and area around Central Park. During the interim of phasing out non-conforming industrial • uses, some residential areas may be subject to unsightly industrial operations. Landscaped buffers, attenuation walls, and on-site structural arrangement and design through planned developments can minimize objectionable visual effects. • 4.3.11 Economic Consideration This section of the Environmental Impact Report details the fiscal costs and benefits of General Plan Amendment 77-2. The economic analysis is based on a special study by Planning Department Staff entitled the 1976 Revenue/ • Expenditure Analysis of Land Uses, August, 976. The report deals only with short-range costs and revenues, and does not consider the long-range implications of the different development types. The cost analysis of the amendment assesses fiscal costs • 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 77-2 are detailed in Figures 4-6 through 4-9 . Land use, as proposed by the amendment, will result in an additional annual net surplus to the City of approximately $55,379. Land use according to General Plan Amendment 77-2 reduces • the annual net surplus to the school districts by $1,665,786. • • 53 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 net surplus difference in future years. The amend- ment also balances the need for housing and open space with the apparent over-supply of industrial space in the City. By reducing industrial acreage, fewer employment oppor- tunities will exist in the City. The existing industrial designation on the entire study area would generate a total of approximately 7, 313 jobs at ultimate development. The industrial areas retained by this amendment would provide a maximum employment for 3,560 workers , or about • 3,753 workers less than the existing General Plan. Overall employment in the Gothard and Edison Areas are projected low because of the mix of park developments and non- structural storage uses. Open storage uses occupy large areas relative to employment which reduces potential employment below that generated by the Lusk and Kaiser • Industrial Parks at the northwest end of the City. Since much of the Edison and Gothard Areas is poorly suited for industrial development, the projected employment would not be realized until the long-term, if then. The higher revenues produced by the proposed residential/industrial mix would also mitigate the impact of fewer job op- portunities. Another consideration is that most industrial workers would reside well beyond the City' s boundaries and would not substantially add sales tax revenues to the City. Benefits would accrue regionally rather than locally. FIGURE 4-6 EXISTING LAND USE ELE14ENT Summary of Annual Revenue and Expenditure Estimates as They Apply to the City of Huntington Beach . Land Use Category Revenue Expenditures General Industrial $1,373,205 $1,237,784 TOTAL 1,373,205 $1,237 ,784 NET SURPLUS $135, 421 54 FIGURE 4-7 EXISTING LAND USE ELEMENT Summary of Annual Revenue and Expenditure Estimates as They Apply to the • School Districts Land Use Category Revenue Expenditures General Industrial $2, 769, 623 0 TOTAL $2, 769 ,623 0 NET SURPLUS $2,769 , 623* *School districts do not actually receive a surplus rather the local share of the cost of educating students is increased. FIGURE 4-8 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 77-2 , PART 3 Summary of Annual Revenue and Expenditure Estimates as They Apply to the City of Huntington Beach Land Use Cetegory Revenue Expenditure Estate Residential $ 60, 307 $ 40, 901 Low Density Residential 545,739 481, 456 Medium Density Residential 373,162 277,453 General Commercial 10, 911 10, 969 General Industrial 585, 593 538, 965 Public, Quasi-Public, 0 36,835 Institutional Planning Reserve 17, 455 42, 363 Resource Production 32,483 5, 908 TOTAL $1, 625, 650 $1, 434, 850 NET SURPLUS $ 190, 800 55 FIGURE 4-9 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 77-2 , PART 3 Summary of Annual Revenue and Expenditures Estimates as They Apply to the School Districts Land Use Category Revenue Expenditure Estate Residential $ 138,397 $ 61,636 Low Density Residential 626 ,947 843,104 Medium Density Residential 437, 083 456 ,432 General Commercial 21,170 0 General Industrial 1,172 ,874 0 • Public, Quasi-Public 0 0 Institutional. Planning Reserve 32 ,928 0 Resource Production 35,610 0 TOTAL $2,465, 009 $1,361,172 • NET SURPLUS $1,103,837* *School districts do not actually receive a surplus rather the local share of the cost of educating students is increased. • 4. 4 Alternatives to the Proposed Action 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 existing 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 indust- rially, designated 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 land over-supply and • housing needs in the future. The perpetuation of industrial land over-supply also means that the City will forego Adak • 56 1 ' • significant revenues because of long-term vacancy or the attraction of marginal industrial uses. 2ursuing 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. However, the nuisances produced by the disposal of waste materials at these sites woule 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. 4. 5 Short-Term and Long-Term Productivity Being a long-term guide for future development, General Plan Amendment 77-2 , Part 3 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 environmental planning programs. General Plan Amendment 77-2 , Part 3 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 residen- tial and open space needs with an industrial land supply that is more in line with the City' s capability to attract viable business activities. • 57 EQGJ1 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. A suggested implementation plan has been included in Section 3.0 of the ' amendment. Although the implementation plan may not be adopted as is since it is not part of the amendment, any implementation strategy would attempt to minimize .the short-term effects caused by the .changes. in land use designations. The short-term effect.s. that will require mitigation are the creation of non-conforming. uses, the reduction or increase in intensity of development permitted. , and the provision of' a•.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, irreversible 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 bean irreversible change. • Although mitigating measures .can be imposed as part of the development process, the naturai. 'topogtaphy will experience some degree of change: Construction materials of mineral origin will be needed for development to occur, and fossil fuels will be committed for long periods to satisfy- local energy demand. 4.7 Growth Inducing Impact The land uses permitted. under General Plan Amendment 77-21 Part 3 will provide the stimulus to encourage residential . development in most of the vacant areas within and adjacent, to the area of concern. The proposed amendment will also have growth inducing effects within the area of concern, An additional population of 6,89.6 persons would be creating -an. increased demand on public services and • utilities and incrementally. affecting air quality, water quality, traffic, and noise .level's. 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, . 58 i I ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 77-8 ON GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 77-2, PART 3 (Includes, distribution list, comments on the draft EIR, responses to the comments, and initial studies . ) • CITY OF HUnTinGT0n BEACH J j DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES • P. O. BOX 190, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648 (714) 536-5271 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Department of Planning and Environmental Resources DATE: August 31, 1977 SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment 77-2 , Parts 1 and 3 Final Environmental Impact Reports STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Transmitted for your review are copies of the Final Environmental Impact Reports (EIR' s 77-8 and 77-10) for Parts 1 and 3 of the General Plan Amendment 77-2 . The Draft EIR' s were distributed to public agencies and other interested parties on July 29, 1977 for a 30-day review period, Notice of the review period was also published in the local newspaper to solicit comments from the general public. On August 30, 1977, the Department held a public hearing for the purpose of receiving any additional comments on the Draft EIR' s. All commentary received by the Department either verbally or in written form during the posting period and public hearing have been addressed in the Final EIR. RECOMMENDATION: The Department of Planning and Environmental Resources recommends that the General Plan Amendment 77-2 , Part 1 and 3 Final Environmental Impact Reports (EIR' s 77-8 and 77-10) be adopted by the Planning Commission as being adequeate and in accordance with the City of Huntington Beach Environ- mental Procedures and California Environmental Quality Act. Respectfully submitted, iG � S es R. Barnes Assistant Planner JRB/s DISTRIBUTION LIST PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 77-2 , PART 3 INDUSTRIAL AREAS EIR 77-8 CITY DEPARTMENTS SCHOOLS Department of Public Works Fountain Valley Elementary School Harbors and Beaches District City Attorney Westminster Elementary School Department of Building and District Community Development Ocean View Elementary School Dis- Fire Department trict Police Department H.B. Elementary School District Recreation and Parks Department H.B. Union High School District City Clerk Coast Community College District Environmental Council Library FEDERAL AGENCIES COUNTY DEPARTMENTS Army Corps of Engineers Orange County Water District Orange County Transit District INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES Orange County Sanitation District Environmental Management Agency SCAG Orange County Health Department UTILITIES STATE DEPARTMENTS Southern California Gas Company Air Resources Board General Telephone Company Secretary for Resources Southern California Edison Division of Mines & Geology Company Public Utilities Commission Regional Water Quality Control Board OTHER CITIES State Coastal Commission Regional Coastal Commission Fountain Valley Planning Depart- State Lands Division ment Director of Aeronautics Newport Beach Planning Department Department of Transportation Seal Beach Planning Department Department of Fish and Game Westminster Planning Department Costa Mesa Planning Department O z;'ej 0 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACHeAT INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION NUNEINGEON BEACH `�Jh ti To H. E. HARTGE From DONALD W. KISER 0eq cy C Subject GENERAL PLAN Date AUGUST 8, 1977 Please be advised I have reviewed the three recently prepared documents regarding the General Plan, and I have the following few comments . 1 . I consider the EIR' s deficient in discussion of the railroad and its potential, if any, of serving industrial uses adjacent thereto. 2. I consider the EIR' s also deficient in pointing out that there are various density housing developments which also become marginal , due to location, occupants , or many other reasons , but deteriorations do occur and become an aesthetic blight to the community image. 3. Specifically and personally, I would disagree with rezoning that parcel designated as 2. 1. 7 , which is directly to the east of the Corp- oration Yard. The only reason official plans have not been submitted or formulated is funding, for I have proposed to you and to Administra- tion before that this would be an ideal site for a Corporation Storage Facility; and as of late developments , it could also be in consideration for the addition of the heliport. Therefore, I would recommend that zoning be of such a classification which would allow such use. 4. There are other parcels that I would also disagree with, but not being a planner nor having a vote , I will decline to comment on them. I trust the above will assist in any input you may have toward these documents . Very truly yours , PLANNING DEPT. r Donald W. Kiser, DWK:ajo Division Engineer P. 0. Cox 190 m ington Beach, CA 92641 r HUNTINGTON BEACH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 1. Response to Comment #1 (Pages 84-85, Section 4 . 3. 1. 1) : The significance of railroad service to industrial development along Gothard Corridor has been evaluated in the Industrial Land Use Study, Parts 1 and 2 . The study concluded that rail access is becoming less important in industrial location decisions. Few businesses presently utilize the railroad along Gothard, and those that do are usually lumber yards or warehousing firms. Approxi- mately 30 percent of potential industrial users in the region are seeking rail frontage. Most manufacturers and industrial devel- opers find freeway and arterial access more desirable. Good rail access cannot compensate for deficient access to freeways in today' s market. The Gothard Area also contains a number of other locational constraints, such as small lot fragmentation, that tend to repel even the few rail users that might otherwise be interested. 2. Response to Comment #2 (Page 103, Section 4 . 3. 10. 3) : It is certainly true that residential development is capable of generating aesthetic blight. However, the land use recommenda- tions in the General Plan Amendment are not intended to exchange residential blight for industrial blight. The Planning Staff incorporated a suggested implementation plan in the report to show how such a problem. might be avoided. Residential development would be strictly regulated in design and layout to minimize ad- verse environmental effects on residents from surrounding industrial uses as they phase out, and to ensure open space and low density compatibility with Central Park. 3. Response to Comment #3 (Pages 84-85, Section 4. 3. 1. 1) : No response necessary. 4 . Response to Comment #4 (Pages 84-85, Section 4 . 3. 1. 1) : No response necessary. Z 11 ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT BE August 16, 1977 'L.A[\1jg1NG DEPT. C:il(a .1: l i9I7 Mr. James R. Barnes Department of Planning and P. 0. Box 190 i Environmental Resources - ►►nt+ngton Beach, CA 926�0 P. 0. Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648 Dear Mr. Barnes: j Staff has reviewed the General Plan Amendment 77-2 Draft EIR's and has the following comments: Section 3. 1 , Circulation Element of the General Plan Amendment 77-2, Part 1 (General Plan Revisions) , includes discussion of nonautomobile transit. The Plan emphasizes the need for increased mobility that is both safe and efficient. The Goals and Policies Section (Sec. 3. 1.2) stresses a balanced transportation system that includes public transit. OCTD service is recognized as an integral part of the existing circulation system of Huntington Beach (Sec. 3. 1. 3). The Circulation Plan (Sec. 3. 1.4) reinforces the balanced transportation system concept by supporting OCTD expansion of fixed-route service, reduced headways, Park-And-Ride service, and intra-community service (Dial-A-Ride, Community Service or feeder service) . It also encourages the development of a permanent Park-And-Ride facility, the feasibility study of a multimodal transportation terminal and the protection of a future mass rapid transit corridor. j In the General Plan 'Revisions, EIR Report 77-10, the revisions noted for the Circulation Plan (Sec. 3.4) will have only negligible impact on public trans- portation as provided by OCTD, as will the General Plan Amendment 77-2, Part 2 (Miscellaneous Items) and Part 3 (Industrial Areas) . i In summary, the OCTD staff supports the overall concept of the City of Huntington Beach General Plan Amendment 77-2, Circulation Plan, providing for an adequate balance between private and public transportation. Especially important is the City's recognition that public transit provides increased opportunities for 1200 NORTH MAIN STREET P.O.BOX 688 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92702 PHONE (714)834-6190 I `t I I I I ' I I Mr. James Barnes. August 10, 1977 Page two I mobility (inter- and intra-community) , particularly for transit-dependent persons. The OCTD interprets the Circulation Plan as encouraging the expansion of OCTD services. Please call if you have any further questions regarding this matter. Very truly yours, C� f Robert C. Hartwig I Manager of Planning i RCH:CSH I i i I . I j i ®Nor" i ' ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT 1. Response to Comment #1 (Page 91, Section 4 .3 .5) : No response necessary. +� STATE OF CALIFORNIA—RESOURCES AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME 350 Golden Shore ; Long Beach, CA 90802 (213) 590-5113 August 25, 1977 Mr. James R. Barnes ! `; City of Huntington Beach Department of Planning and P. O. Do:: 1C0 Environmental Resources CA 926,' ; P.O. Box 190 i Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mr. Barnes: We have reviewed the document describing the General Plan Amendment 77-2 and have the following comments. There are two parcels of open space designated as areas 2 and 3 on page 4.0 of General Plan Amendment 77-2, Part 3, Industrial Areas, which provide habitat for the endangered Belding's savannah sparrow. We strongly recommend that provisions for the protection of this wildlife species be incorporated into the General Plan Amendment. We do not have further comments regarding the other elements of the General Plan Amendment. t If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Jack L. Spruill or Mr. Richard Nitsos of our Environmental Services staff. The telephone number is (213) 590-5137. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this document. Sincerely, Robert D. Montgomery isgional Manager Region 5 I r CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME 1 . Response to Comment #1 (Page 89, Section 4 .3 ,3) : The Department of Fish and Game indicates that concern areas 2 (south of Hamilton Avenue and west of Newland Street) and 3 (south of Orange County Flood Control District Channel and west of Newland Street) provide habitat for the endangered Beldings ' savannah sparrow. The proposed amendment recommends redesig- nating these parcels from industrial to planning reserve. If the area was developed industrial, the habitat would have little probability of preservation. The planning reserve allows greater flexibility in the future planning of the area and generates no immediate impact on the habitat. In considering alternative land uses for the long-term, provisions should be incorporated to protect the wildlife species. These might include leaving the entire area in open space or incorporating open space through planned development. I S z TATE 00 CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS AND TRANSPORTATION AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF AERONAUTICS 1120 'IN" STREET SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 (916) M-3090 August 25, 1977 i()o Mr. James R. Barnes li, CA Assistant Planner City of Huntington Beach P. 0. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mr. Barnes: This is in reply to your letter of July 27, 1977, requesting comments on ."General Plan Amendment 77-2 Draft EIRs. The Division of Aeronautics, California Department of Transportation, has reviewed the two Environmental Impact Reports pertaining to an amendment of the City of Huntington Beach's General Plan Land Use Element (GPA 77-2) . In our' considered judgment, the EIRs adequately address the environmental impacts of this action. There is no Division involvement since it appears that airports or airport operations are not specifically impacted. We support the policies outlined in the noise element of the General Plan and the plan for the reduction of aircraft noise under the Noise Abatement Plan, as indicated on page 50, Part 1: General Plan.Revisions, General Plan Amendment 77-2. Under Policies for Development, we are in accord with Policy 6, page 55, relating to the development of general aviation facilities in Orange County. With respect to the circulation element, we support these policies as expressed on pages 64 and the top of.page 65, as they relate to general aviation. On page 84, Part 3, Industrial Areas, General Plan Amendment 77-2, it appears that the last sentence is not complete. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. �-(GAL 'LL'ER Deputy Chief ■ � I 1 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1. Response to Comment #1 (Page 8 , Section 4. 3 . 1 .1) : Sentence corrected. �,T'`••AY ADUHE55 ALL COMMUNICATIONS +5A TO TIIE COMMISSION vd'D CALIFORNIA STATE BUILDING I.II 1 SAN FHA NCISCO, CALIFORNIA 54IO2 =' 1813 - TELEPHONE: (4151 587- I Publir 11#ili#ir.i Ta tit tit i�;i vit STATE OF CALIFORNIA August 244 1977 FILE No. 1799-2 Mr. James R. Barnes Department of Planning and Environmental Resources r,r n�Ji\i,r"i ' City of Huntington Beach D LEPI . P. 0. Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648 I P. 0. Pr)x 190 i — Dear Mr. Barnes: ;tiny;±On Ceilch, CA 9�r.1': i GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 77-2 DRAFT EIR'S The Commission staff has completed its review of the above draft EIR's. ' Page 81 of the Draft EIR indicates the estimated annual gas usage in the city. The staff report on 10-year forecast of gas requirements and supplies, 1976-1985, concludes that there will be a decline in gas supply to the point whereby Priority 1 service will be curtailed commencing in 1982. Copies of this report were mailed to various agencies and libraries. Recipients in the vicinity of Huntington Beach include (1) Government Documents Dept., University of California Library, Irvine, California 92664, and California State University Library, Government Publications, 6101 East Seventh Street, Long Beach, California 90840. Rule 23 of the filed tariffs covers shortage of gas supply, interruptions to service, and priority of service. A copy of Rule 23 is enclosed. Thank you for referring this matter to us. Very truly yours, D; B. Steger Chief Environmental Engineer Enclosure I Revised CAL.P.U.C.SHEET NO. 14598-G , SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY LOS ANGELES.CALIFORNIA CANCELING__-Rvied_,_CAL. P.U.C.SN[ET NO. i35 -G(Sheet 1) Rule No. 23 SHORTAGE OF GAS SIJ?PLY, INTERRUPTION OF DELPIERY AND PRIORITY OF SERVICE (a) The Utility will exercise reasonable diligence and care to furnish and deliver a continuous and sufficient supply of gas to the customer, and to avoid any shortage or interruption of delivery of same. The Utility shall not be liable in damages or otherwise for any failure to deliver gas to the customer, which failure in any way or manner results from breakage of its facilities, however caused, war, riots, acts of God, strikes, failure of or interruption in gas supply, or other conditions beyond its reasonable control. (b) The Utility, whenever it shall find it necessary for the purpose of making repairs or improvements to its system, will have the right to suspend temporarily the delivery of gas, but, in all such cases, as reasonable notice thereof as circum- stances will permit will be given to the customers, and the making of such repairs or improvements will be prosecuted as rapidly as may be practicable, and, if practicable, at such times as will cause the least inconvenience to the customers. (c) In case of shortage of or an,insufficient supply of gas, the Utility will have the 1. right to give preference for gas service supplied to customers, including wholesale service for resale, according to the following order of priority: (D) I Priority 1 All residential usage regardless of size. Non-residential usage with peak day demands of 100 Mcf per day or less. Priority 2-A* Feedstock usage with no alternate fuel. Non-residential usage .:t: dr- d= t—dz greater than 100 Mcf per d-ty where the conversion to an alternate fuel is not feasible. Electric utility startup and igniter fuel. Priority 2-B** Service to customers on interruptible service schedules as of December 2, 1975 with liquefied petroleum gas or other gaseous fuel standby facilities and where the conversion . to an alternate fuel is not feasible. Commission approved deviations from requirements for standby facilities. Priority 3 All usage not included in another priority. Priority 4 All boiler fuel usage with peak day demand in excess of 750 Mcf per day where capability of utilizing an alternate fuel is present and cement plant kilns. Priority 5 Utility steam electric generating plant usage and utility gas turbines. * Customers with P2-A use who are considered capable of installing adequate standby equipment and using an alternate fuel shall be transferred to an appropriate lower priority class on or before December 2, 1977. Customers unable to install and use standby on or before December 2, 1977 may apply to the California Public Utilities Commission for an extension of time. Customers with P2-B use who are considered capable of installing adequate standby equipment and using an alternate fuel shall be transferred to a lower priority class on or-before December 2, 1976. (continued) ITO BE INSERTED BY UTILITY I ISSUED BY ITO BE INSERTED BY CA}}ffL. P.0 C. ADVICE LETTER NO. 1018 DATE FILED SE 85189 & �6357 JONEL C. HILL DECISION NO. VICE PRESIDENT EFFECTIVE 11I,�-Tom_ 1`'n M1 398.1 REV. 10.74 RESOLUTION NO. Revised CAL.P.U.C.SHEET NO._1= L SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY 13454-G & LOS ANGELES.CALIFORNIA CANCELING.- Revised CAL.P.U.G.SHEET NO. 144o4-G (Sheet 2) Rule No. 23 SHORTAGE OF GAS SUPPLY, INTERRUPTION OF DELIVERY AND PRIORITY OF SERVICE Continued (c) (Continued.) However, at a time when there is a threatened or actual shortage, creating an emergency for a short duration, in the supply of gas to meet the demands of Priority 1 customers, the Utility may, during such emergency period, (T) apportion its available supply of gas among demands of all such customers or a portion of such customers- in the most reasonable and practicable manner possible, and further, in such event the Utility will have the right to shut off, discontinue, re-establish, or continue service for all such customers or some of such customers, irrespective of the priority or preference provisions of schedules, contracts or rules and regulations applicable to Priority 1 service. The Utility may, during any national crisis, give (' preference, as between all customers, to plants directly engaged in the production of food supplies and the production of national government requirements, when the discontinuance of service to such customers would stop, or materially diminish, the output of said plants. (d) Curtailment of Service. 1. Customers will be assigned to appropriate priority classifications for curtailment purposes. Customer denial of the Utility's right of ingress and egress for the purpose of priority assignment (Rule No. 25) will result in customer being assigned to the lowest applicable priority in the judgment of the Utility. Where customers have more than one priority of service, those uses in a lower priority not exceeding 25 Mcf per day on a peak day may be placed in the customer's next higher. priority. Curtailment shall be first made in the lowest priority group. Priority groups may be subdivided for curtailment purposes and, to the extent practical, curtailment shall be equalized among customers in each group by rotating curtailment among the subdivisions of the group. Curtail- ments which exceed the total volume of gas used by all customers in the lowest priority group shall, in the same manner, be affected successively in the higher priority groups. Restoration of curtailed service shall be made in the same manner, but inversely as to priority groups. (continued) ITO BE INSERTED BY UTILITIYQI ISSUED BY (TO BE INSERTED BY CAL.P.0 C. 1018 f, !i.f 1))(--ADVICE LETTER NO.___^._._. DATE FILED_. 8 ����7 JONEL C. HILL (1 1 -- DECISION NO. 5189 & 357 VICE PRESIDENT EFFECTIVE (�L I f 198 1 REV. TO 74 PF.SOLUTION NO. Revised 14600-G . CAL.P.U.C.SHEET NO. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY 144o4-G,144:11-G & LOG ANGELf_S.CALIFORNIA � Revised 14552-G C:ANCELING_.__�_._�..._....—____CAL. P.U.C. S11F.CT NO._._.___.._.__.._.__.._.. (Sheet 3) Rule No. 23 SHORTAGE OF GAS SUPPLY, INTERRUPTION OF DELIVERY AND PRIORI`IY OF SERVICE Continued (d) Curtailment of Service (Continued) (I 1. (Continued) 1.1 Regular Retail Service (I Curtailment classifications (priorities) for regular retail service are based upon end-use priority assignments set forth in Section (c) hereof. In the event a significant change is determined in a customer's requirements or equipment, resulting in a need for reclassification to another priority, such change shall be made in the month following such identification of the on-going change. Customers served by wholesale customers of Southern California Gas (1 Company shall be classified and curtailed in parallel with similar retail customers of Southern California Gas Company on the basis of end-use priority assignments. 01 (I 1.2 Utility Electric Generation Service Utility electric generation service is assigned to Priority 5, except that startup and igniter fuel service to these customers is assigned to Priority 21A. Customers' startup and igniter fuel service volumes, either at retail or indirectly through wholesale service, are set forth in attached Supplement A. ' (I The pro rata allocation of Priority 5 gas available shall be (L) (� updated monthly based upon monthly reports by these customers of their recorded system loads and resources related to requirements imposed on Utility. Gas which is not a part of Utility's gas (; supply shall be excluded in determination of gas requirements imposed on and deliveries by Utility, except for: (� (a) diversions of gas for delivery to an out-of-state generating ? plant owned by a G-58 customer, which gas would normally be i delivered to Utility's system, and/or (L) (7 (I (continued) (TO BE INSERTED BY UTILITY) ISSUED BY (TO BE I1*SIrrE12Bx C .IFCU.C.) ADVICE LETTER NO._ 101" DATE FILED— L JJ /Is�UJ p Qo JONEL C. HILL , -t_�yjU DECISION NO. 85189 & 86357 VICE PRESIDENT EFFECTIVE O' { 398.1 REV. 10.74 RESOLUTION NO. Revised CAL.P.U.C.SHEET NO, 14612-G SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY LOS ANGELES.CALIFORNIA CANCELING+_Revised CAL.P.U.C.SHEET NO. �'lF�ol-G (Sheet 4) Rule No. 23 SHORTAGE OF GAS SUPPLY, _ IiVTERFUrTION OF DELIVERY AND PRIORITY OF SERVICE Continued (d) Curtailment of Service (Continued) 1. (Continued) 1.2 Utility Electric Generation Service (Continued) (b) transfers, substitutions or exchanges of gas from a non- regulated supplier for delivery to out-of-state generating plants, which gas would normally be utilized for electric generation in California by a customer of Utility. These reports of loads and resources shall be furnished to the Commission, to Utility and other affected utility electric generation customers within fifteen (15) days after the end of each calendar month, and Utility shall by advice letter file with the Commission the updated percentages to be shown in attached Supplement A, to be effective commencing on the twenty-second (22) day after the end of each month. Utility shall also make adjusting deliveries (not reflected in the updated percentages shown in attached Supplement A) as promptly as practicable to reflect, and compensate for in subsequent increased or decreased deliveries, any quantitative differences between prior months actual deliveries and deliveries that would have been scheduled based upon customers ' recorded system loads and resources for past periods. Utility shall accommodate, subject to the capability of its exist- ing physical facilities and the requirements of higher priority customers, requests by its retail and wholesale customers for reallocation of deliveries of gas for use in electric generating (' stations deviating from the normal pattern of parallel deliveries by Utility (a) of an emergency nature to avoid actual-electric (' load curtailment, and/or (b) based on requirements to minimize particularly adverse air pollution impacts expected to be of short- ('• term duration. Such deviations in deliveries must be approved by (: Utility and shall be in accordance with agreements between Utility's retail and wholesale customers relating to such reallocations and (D� providing for compensation arrangements between such customers. In no event, however, will Utility's total deliveries for electric generation requirements imposed on Utility exceed in the aggregate the deliveries which would have been scheduled absent the realloca- tion agreements between Utility's customers. Customer(s) request- (' ing Utility to redirect deliveries hereunder shall notify the Commission promptly after each occurrence of the nature and extent of the problem occasioning such request. (continued) ( (TO BE INSERTED BY UTILITY) ISSUED BY (TO BE INSERT �Y U.C. ADVICE LETTER NO. 102O S t� L � JONEL C. HILL DATE FILED DECISION NO. 84512, 86299 & 86394 VICE PRESIDENT EFFECTIVE Oct 1 , 398.1 REV. 10.74 RESOLUTION NO. Revised CAL.P.U.C. SHEET NO. 1i013_G SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY LOS ANGELES.CALIFORNIA Revised . 14602-G CANCELING_____---,CAL. P.U.C. SHEET NO. �..-_ • (Sheet 5) Rule No. 23 SHORTAGE OF GAS SUPPLY, INTERRUPTION OF DELIVERY AND PRIORITY OF SERVICE Continued (d) Curtailment of Service (Continued) 1. (Continued) (D 1.3 Exchange Service As a condition for obtaining gas supplies, portions of certain supplies are received subject to delivery on an exchange basis. Exchange service is basically classified in accordance with end-use priorities and curtailed in parallel with those priorities. 1.4 Effectuation of Curtailment When in the judgment of' the Utility, bas<!d upon expected gas requirements compared with available supplies from such sources as out-of-state suppliers, California sources, peaking sources and underground storage, operating conditions require the curtailment of service, curtailment shall be made in the following order as necessary: (1) First curtail P-5. (2) After full curtailment of the P-5 priority block, then curtail the P-4 priority block or portions thereof. (3) After full curtailment of the P-4 priority block, then curtail the P-3 priority block or portions thereof. (4) After full curtailment of the P-3 priority block, then curtail the P-2B priority block or portions thereof. (5) After full curtailment of the P-2B.priority block, then curtail the P-2A priority block or portions thereof. (6) After full curtailment of the P-2A priority block, then curtail the P-1 priority block or portions thereof. _ (continued) (TO BE INSERTED BY UTILITY) ISSUED BY (TO BE INSERTEOr C40-0•(�.C.) ��F l `1 ADVICE LETTER NO___. 1020 JONEL C. HILL DATE FILED__ •� DECISION NO___84512,86?99 & 86394 VICE PRESIDENT EFFECTIV - "' ` ._.- 398 1 REV. 10-74 PESOLUTION NO. ,-___ %r Revised 14603-G CAL.P.U.C.SHEET NO. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY Revised 141+12-G LOS ANGELES,CALIFORNIA CANCELING .CAL.P.U.C.SHEET NO. (Sheet 6) Rule No. 23 SHORTAGE OF GAS SUPPLY, INTERRUPTION OF DELIVERY APTD PRIORITY OF SERVICE Continued (d) Curtailment of Service (Continued) (I 1. (Continued) 1.4 Effectuation of Curtailment (Continued) When curtailment is to be decreased, the restoration of service will be made starting with the then curtailed highest priority (` block and proceeding on through each next lower level priority through the P-5 priority block as appropriate to the level of (� service which in the judgment of the Utility can be delivered. (` Where curtailment takes place on a partial basis for a given priority block, the Utility will attempt, at the earliest time practical from its operating standpoint, to balance the amount of curtailment for customers in any given curtailment block as closely as feasible. 1.5 Operating Emergency In the event of an operating emergency as declared by a customer, service may be made available out of the normal curtailment pattern, if.in the judgment of the Utility it is possible to do (` so. Out of pattern deliveries will be provided to critical customers whenever they declare an operating emergency. In the event of such a condition, subsequent out of pattern curtailment will be imposed on such customer in order to balance the amount of curtailment with other customers served at the same priority. Curtailments may be effected, in certain areas, due to pipeline capacity restrictions or emergencies. In such cases, curtailments will generally be made based on the size of customers served in such areas. • r (continued) (TO BE INSERTED BY UTILITY) ISSUED BY (TO BE INSERTED BY CAL.P.U.C.) ADVICE LETTER NO. 1018 f� JONELC. HILL DATE FILE Lb _ DECISION NO. 85189 & 86357 VICE PRESIDENT EFFECTIVE 998.1 REV. 10.74 RESOLUTION NO. Original CAL.P.U.C.SHEET NO___146i6-G_. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY LOS ANGELES•CALIFORNIA CANCELING__ --_CAL.A.U.C. SHEET -- (Sheet 9) Rule No. 23 SHORTAGE OF GAS SUPPLY, INTERRUPTION OF DELIVERY AND PRIORITY OF SERVICE Continued SUPPLEMENT C END-USE CURTAILMENT DEFINITIONS Alternate Fuel: Nongaseous fuels; particularly excluding synthetic natural gas (SNG), liquefied natural gas (LNG), and liquid petroleum gas (LPG) . Electricity shall not be considered an alternate energy source. Boiler Fuel: Gas used specifically to fire boilers, regardless of the end-use of the steam produced. Curtailment Year: The period October 1 of each year through September 30 of the next calendar year. Critical Customer: One where danger to human life, health or safety is involved, and includes customers such as hospitals, other state license-d health care facilities, medical research facilities, medical facilities at military installations and detention facilities, municipal water pumping plants and sanitation facilities. Electric Utilities ' Startup and Igniter Fuel: Electric utility natural gas use where no alternate fuel capability exists .for: (1) heating the boiler system adequately during start-up to enable efficient oil burning to meet pollution standards; and (2) insuring continuous ignition and flame stabilization within the boiler Feasible Alternate Fuel: The condition of a customer who currently has no capability of using alternate fuel (as defined above), but where conversion to alternate fuel is technologically possible and economically practicable, within the context of the customer in question. Feedstock Usage: Natural gas used as raw material for its chemical properties; in creating an end product. Industrial Use: Service to customers engaged primarily in a process which creates or changes raw or unfinished materials into another form or product. Peak-Day Demand: A customer's highest billing month's requirement divided by the number of days of operation in that month. Residential Use Service to customers which consists of direct natural gas usage in a residential dwelling for space heating, air conditioning, cooking, water heating, and other residential uses; but excludes central boilers in multi-unit apartment houses using more than 100,000 cubic feet per day. (TO BE INSERTED BY UTILITY) ISSUED BY (TO BE INSERTED BY CAL.P.U.C.) ADVICE LETTER NO. 1018 JONEL C. HILL DATE FILED �� Uq b DECISION NO 85l& ��57 VICE PRESIDENT EFFECTIVE 398•I REV. 10-74 RESOLUTION NO. I SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY LOS ANGELES.CALIFORNIA CANCELING Revised CAL. P.U.C. SHEET NO. 14951-G (Sheet 7) Rule No. 23 SHORTAGE OF GAS SUPPLY, INTERRUPTION OF DELIVERY AND PRIORITY QF SERVICE Continued SUPPLEMENT A PRIORITY CLASSIFICATION UTILITY ELECTRIC GENERATION SERVICE Annual Priority 5 Igniter Apportionment Rate Requirements* on Potential Customer Schedule MCI Requirements %# Southern California Edison Company -- Direct from Company G-53T,G-58 1,968,000 58.90 From Long Beach G-60 - 2•39 Total 1,968,000 61.29 Los Angeles Department of Water and Power G-58 472,80o 18.82 City of Burbank Public Service Department G-58 78,143 1.11 City of Glendale Public I Service Department G-58 35,196 1.37 i City of Pasadena Water & Power Department G-58 85,692 1.21 Imperial Irrigation District G-53T,G-58 20,000 2.06 San Diego Gas & Electric Company G-61 181,o00 14.14 Total 2,840,836 100.00 * Per Decision No. 85767. # Individual customer Priority 5 entitlements are determined in accordance 'with Decision No. 84512. (continued) (TO BE INSERTED BY UTILITY) ISSUED BY ITO BE INSERTED BY CAL. P.U.C.) pp JUL 2 2 1s711 ADVICE LETTER NO lOCXJ OAT[ FILHD JONEL C. HILL -- DECISION NO 86299 VICE PRESIDENT EFFECTIVE J U L 1 2 117 1 1 o , RevI._sed r _ __CAL.P.U.C. SHEET SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY 1] 1 / LOS ANGELES.CALIFORNIA CANCELING Revised_..___..CAL.P.U.0 SHEE'r NO.14I 9 -G ' (Sheet 8) Rule No. 23 SIiORTAGE OF GAS SUPPLY, INTERRUPTION OF DELIVERY AND PRIORITY OF SERVICE (Continued) SUPPLEICNT B DISPATCHING INSTRUCTIONS FOR REALLOCATION OF (D DELIVERIES OF GAS BETWEEN ELECTRIC GENERATION CUSTOMERS (D A. The customer requiring reallocation of deliveries of gas for use in electric (D generating stations to avoid emergency electric load curtailment and/or to minimize particularly adverse short-term air pollution impacts, as contem- plated in Decisions Nos. 84512 and 86299 in Application No. 53797 (Phase II), as promptly as possible in advance of such a projected required reallocation (D will: 1. Contact the Company Gas Control Office to determine from it: a. Volumes of gas available for such reallocation and conditions under which available. b. Sources (cutomers) and volumes) and conditions pursuant to which gas is available by source. c. Operational feasibility of such reallocation. 2. Contact the customer(s) which the Company indicates may be in a position to help from (l.b.) above, to determine sources and volumes of gas which may be relinquished and for what period. 3. Advise the Company Gas Control Office of the arrangements made in 2. above. B. The Company Gas Control Office will, upon being advised as in (A.3. ) above: 1. Confirm such arrangements with the affected customers. 2. Make all required notifications to affected customers regarding tines and volumes of reallocated deliveries. 3. Make whatever operational changes are required to effect the reallocated deliveries for the period involved. C. Such volume transfers will not affect -volumetric entitlements determined in accordance with provisions of Rule 23. Company will bill its customers on the basis of actual deliveries of gas made to each customer and will identify and account for volumes reallocated. c (continued) �••. (TO BE INSERTED BY UTILITY) ISSUED BY (TO BE INSERTED BY SAL. P V.C. ADVICE LETTER NO. 1020 DATE FILED JONEL C. HILL 84512, 86299 & 86394 DECISION NO. VICE PRESIDENT EFFECTIVE,_" 398.1 REV. 10-74 RESOLUTION NO. I PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION 1. Response to Comment #1 (Page 8-81, Section 4 .2 .2 . 4) : No response necessary. Environmental eounicil CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH HUNTINGTUN BEACH Post Office Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648 TO: Edward D. Selich, Planning Director FROM: Environmental Council -General Plan Review Committee DATE: August 26, 1977 The Huntington Beach General Plan (December 1976) and subsequent _ revisions to date represent a first attempt .to plan for the ultimate. growth and developmental mix of this city. We appreciate this opportunity to comment on this very substantial document. It should be pointed out that it would be very useful to have these documents carefully cross indexed along with insertion of stick- out tabs for easy reference to major sections . This will facilitate carrying out subsequent reviews and changes. One of the major concerns of the Council is the apparent ease with which the plan can be changed, thereby subverting its usefulness as a Carefully considered, fully reviewed, and integrated document serving as a bible for planning the future of Huntington Beach. Although such changes are allowed by law, the Committee feels that the worth of the general plan will eventually be measured by the least number of future changes enacted. So far, only 23 amendments have been necessary ,to tune-up the U.S . Constitution in over 200 years of service. The General Plan is a complex document consisting of several basic parts; general changes in one part can have a major impact on another. Therefore, changes should only be incor- porated after considerable time has passed during which a general review can .be made of the entire document. When general amendments are being considered there is no compelling reason for accepting or rejecting them in toto. Each specific proposal should be considered on its own merits , with those having the greatest impact receiving the most attention and longest public hearing prior to adoption. All changes in the general plan should ' reflect citizen input and the broadest views of the entire community; they should not be quick responses to any special interest with the ability to pay the $75 fee for consideration. ` Since this plan will (or may) control future growth and the mix of • development types, there should be a plan for systematically keeping track of future growth. The impact of each increment should be carefully assessed with respect to the ultimate result desired as reflected in this plan. I Edward D. Selich August 26, 1977 Page 2 The following are specific comments representative of the committee ' s views on individual elements: 1. For example , we recommend that the map of archaeological resources be removed from the final Plan as its presence may result in an adverse impact due to pilfering of these fragile sites. The statement that such resources have been mapped and are to be protected should remain, with reference to the city staff for approval of developments to assure that such resources are not impacted. 2 . The discussions regarding Bolsa Chica planning are not consistent with recent Council action and therefore should be changed to reflect such action. 3. There are general difficulties with cross referencing the EIR' s to' the General Plan documents, indicating the piecemeal approach to this planning process. 4. There seem to be bugs in the planned industrial zone , slowly eroding its simplicity into a crazy quiltwork of industry and residential neighborhoods in juxtaposition to one another. Surely this will create problems in the future. (See attached figure) . 5 . Marginal users (herein poorly defined) can be phased out with little opportunity to be upgraded or even to protest seemingly arbitrary changes in zoning of these industrial areas. Respectfully submitted, Irwin Haydock, Chairman Environmental Council IH/s - HUNTINGTON BEACH ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL 1. Response to Comment #4 (Page 11) : The draft environmental impact report states that interim noise, air, and circulation problems will occur. The implementation plan suggests measures to mitigate these various problems, such as attenuation barriers and open space buffers provided by planned unit developments. 2 . Response to Comment #5 (Page 101, Section 4 . 3 . 10 .2) : The proposed amendment attempts to preserve most industrial uses that have substantial economic impact on the City. Some marginal uses are also preserved because a small mix of such industries is necessary to serve the area. Also, marginal uses are preserved if they fall into a logical area with quality industries. Those uses in industrial areas to be phased out provide minimal economic and aesthetic benefit to the community. Many of these uses have been in operation for a number of years and have done little to upgrade the site aesthetically. If marginal uses are phased out, amortization would be the most equitable method in that it allows the owner to recoup his investment over a substantial number of years of continued operation. o UNTY OF U © RAN G E p. o. Ow 1��0 Ch CA 92',; ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY TELEPHONE: 834-4643 ADVANCE PLANNING DIVISION AREA CODE 714 811 NORTH BROADWAY MAILING ADDRESS: SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA P.O. BOx 4108 SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92702 August 25, 1977 H. G. OSBORNE DIRECTOR FILE GSR7N011 RICHARD G. MUNSELL ASSISTANT DIRECTOR ADVANCE PLANNING Mr. James R. Barnes Assistant Planner Department of Planning and Environmental Resources Post Office Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92646 ' Dear Mr. Barnes: This is in response to your standard letter dated July 27, 1977, that trans- mitted the documents listed below and solicited written comments no later than August 28, 1977. General Plan Revisions, Environmental Impact Report 77-10 General Plan Amendment 77-2, Part 1: General Plan Revisions . General Plan Amendment 77-2, Part 2: Miscellaneous Items General Plan Amendment 77-2, Part 3: Industrial Areas The documents have been reviewed and we submit the following comments: The exhibit entitled "General Plan, Land Use Diagram" shown as figure 3-12 in GPA, Part 1; figure 1-1 in GPA, Part 2 and figure 3-13 in GPA, Part 3 does not reflect the recent proposal by the City for a Regional Park Complex consisting of Bolsa Chica Regional Park plus a bluff top Linear Regional Park that would connect Huntington Central Park with Bolsa Chica Regional Park. Also, the General Plan, Land Use Diagram as noted above appears to be inconsistent with the Open Space and Conservation Plan shown as figure 2-2 in GPA. Part 1. Thank you for the opportunity of reviewing and responding to the proposed General Plan Revisions. Very 15ruly yours, Richard G. Munsell, Assistant Director Advance Planning JEB:dlm cq: EMA-Advance Planning (Nunes, Sunderland, Bennett) EMA-Development (Fisher) ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY 1. Response to Comment #1 (Page 3) : There is a City proposal for a Regional Park Complex connecting Central Park to Bolsa Chica. However, a number of alternatives are under study and the plan is not yet finalized. OWL ROCK PRODUQTS, INC , ` G & E READY MIX 7391 Talbert Street Huntington Beach, CA fit August 29, 1977 ''LAN'NING DEVI-. j City of Huntington Beach s'• O. Cox 1�0 Department of Planning and ; "ntington 'each, CA 926,1:, Environmental Resources P.O. Box 190 J Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Gentlemen: We are responding to your letter of July 27 , 1977 , regarding the Environmental Impact Report (EIR 77-8) for General Plan Amendment 77-2, Part 3, Industrial Areas. We are the owners/users of the land on the north side of Talbert, east of Gothard Street, and abutting the railroad right-of-way. See attached map. The land is zoned M1-CD Light Industrial and is used for a ready mix concrete operation. The land has been used for industrial purposes since before the area was annexed to the City, and it is our intent to continue this use for the foreseeable future. We are opposed to the General Plan Amendment as it pertains not only to our property but to the surrounding lands as well . We believe the amendment is infeasible from a standpoint of practical implementation and will only prove to be a hardship on existing businesses in the area. We view the GPA as proposing a radical change in the existing land use and character of the area , i .e. , to replace one dominant land use (light industrial ) with another use (residential ) . These two uses are inherently incompatible. Unless full implementation of the plan is achieved, the result will be a chaotic mixture of incompatible land uses which will benefit no one in the community. We do not believe the Amendment can be fully, or even partially, implemented within a reasonable time period. There is continuing industrial-type development taking place in the area. With each new structure, the GPA becomess less realistic, the potential incompatibilities increase and the transitional period for full implementation becomes longer and longer. Page Two City of Huntington Beach August 29, 1977 While the EIR does identify certain negative impacts associated with the change in dominant land use from Industrial to Residential , it does so only on an "existing" and "proposed" basis. The EIR does not consider the economic loss to property owners and the community as a whole during the transition period. We believe the report is severely lacking in this aspect. It could take ten to twenty years to make an effective transition. i Further, we believe the EIR does not adequately consider the practical range of alternatives available other than "no project". Surely there are other methods of meeting the objectives which are less drastic in nature and more practical to implement. We suggest the following: 1. Business Park/Light Industrial District concept. The area has reasonable intra-city access, utilities and sufficient available land to complete the use transition. Development standards could ensure visual improvements of the area. 2. Implementation of CD (Civic District) Design Review Board provisions which require buffering and screening of unsightly land uses. These measures would be consistent with the City's objective of improving conditions within the vicinity. of Huntington Center Park. In conclusion, we reiterate that we are opposed to the General Plan Amendment. We also believe that the EIR is inadequate in its con- sideration of negative economic impacts during the transitional period. and in not setting forth other positive alternatives to the proposed Amendment. Very truly yours, OWL ROCK PRODUCTS,INC. G&E READY MIX CO. Merne Young MY/cb r i PORS. N PY 114 8 S. W//4, SEC. 26, T 5S, f?. Il tY 400' 36 34 31 — LV� CENT£w 3f'C. 18.3-// Jj srrrri-rc•n ro.> >nr•.•n.vr.. -- — ---==err=N r 7 FACL . co FA(y 02 O 0tn c ��::�� 06 OCy AYE. A4$AG ti � 4"A-' 6 �. ~ f ` , .a. �`�..:,_I"' "-t��..'L•1r $ 'd` _l— srs£tT CUNAW o.,)O 03 AC Ia lrAG M ©3 117AC. 44 .. t:o 0 O 1� r Q 54..63AC rrory pair /G31 AG /I.JB AC /4.q AC 5 r �:i✓7J { l � vl t65-21 law( IJ.7J AG N It cm22 -ki r aTi o ki 16,,-20 W� P..d 57-as ^• 4. v +�1:-• r•� r17AC 4So AC, L: j GOL OEN M'EST � 1 --x— ;g 2 � STR£aYT 1 t6s-08 13 165-03 165-01 MARCH 1951 NOT£ — ASSESSOR'S BLOCK 0 ASSESSOR'S MAP AFARCH 1978 PARCEL NUMBERS VOOKItt PAGE 01 SHOWN IN CIRCLES C-WffrY OF ORANGE OWL ROCK PRODUCTS, INC. 1. Response to Comment #1 (Pages 84-85, Section 4 . 3 . 1. 1) : The proposed comprehensive plan may require ten to twenty years to be fully implemented. It is not intended to immediately displace existing businesses. There will be interim environ- mental problems, as pointed out in the environmental impact report, but these are capable of mitigation through buffering required on residential projects and by allowing businesses sufficient time to recoup their investments and more. Although there is continuing industrial development in the Gothard Corridor, it is primarily occurring in those districts recommended for retention in the industrial inventory. Little or no new activity is occurring in areas recommended for change to other designations. 2 . Response to Comment #2 (Pages 101-102 , Section 4 . 3 . 10. 2) : Displacement of businesses is addressed in this section. The ten to twenty year period would be a realistic time frame for businesses to recoup investments under an amortization program. As property values rise, it is doubtful that any owner would suffer an economic loss over such a period. Section 4 . 3. 11 assesses the economic impact of existing and proposed uses on the community from a revenue/expenditure and employment perspective. 3 . Response to Comment #3 (Pages 106-107 , Section 4 . 4) : No response necessary. �t-`•.�t-+. •:.,i� .��"_-�''"t'�..�C+.rs.._'L i^ it_'WC�ti._1". .. �-..�..+;�„�y tl�•f:�,� „Q.� �,�. ` {y<J�a:�_� t :.�•�"-..--..',,.r •:r' -...— _ _. =:'�+..y:.r. .. ���.�eti.:�-i;.. C_. .!�.'�.'Q'�.�,y�,. .[4"w=ti�`r,.ry�r��•jti/�i!n_�...^�� ��'.7 mil ',3vu �j�� DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY LOS ANGELES DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS P. o. sox 2711 _ 1 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90053 1 SPLED-E 26 August 1977 Mr. James R. Barnes, Assistant Planner Department of Planning and Environmental Resources City of Huntington Beach ;'!..:�j"'11•i�.`i C)�_}'I . P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648 P. 0. Cox 190 Dear Mr. Barnes: This is in response to a letter from your office dated 27 July 1977 which requested review and comments on the draft environmental impact reports pertaining to an amendment of the City of Huntington Beach's General Plan Land Use Element (GPA 77-2) . The proposed plan does not conflict with existing or authorized plans 1 wv: of the Corps of Engineers. We have no comments concerning the environ- mental impacts of the proposed plan. { Any filling in wetlands or waters of the United States and any work in navigable waters will require a permit from the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers as required by Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (FWPCA) and Section 10 of the River and Harbor Act of 1899. Under provisions of Section 404 of F4]PCA, any filling of wetlands must be avoided if possible. We suggest that Mr. Charles M. Holt, Chief, Navigation Branch, be contacted at (213) 688-4933 regarding requirements for filing permit applications. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on these reports. Sincerely yours, '. NORMAN ARNO Chief, Engineering Division rRF� Q`` b 77j6•,9�0 U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 1. Response to Comment #1 (Pages 87-88, Section 4. 3. 2. 1) : No response necessary. a GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 77=2 PART 3 • INDUSTRIAL AREAS hunfington beach planning department- i TABLE OF CONTENTS • GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 77-2 , PART 3 Section Page 1. 0 INTRODUCTION 1 1. 1 Methodology 1 2 . 0 GENERAL PLAN AREAS OF CONCERN 3 2. 1 Edison Industrial Area 3 2. 1. 1 North of Hamilton Avenue and West of Newland Street 4 • 2. 1. 2 South of Hamilton Avenue and West of Newland Street 4 2. 1. 3 South of the OCFCD D1-2 Channel and West of 7 Newland Street 2. 1. 4 South of Hamilton Avenue and West of Magnolia 9 Street • 3. 0 AMENDMENT SUMMARY 13 3. 1 Area by Area Summary 13 3. 2 Summary of General Plan Amendment 77-2 , Part 3 15 4. 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 77-8 17 4. 1 Introduction 17 • 4 . 2 Environmental Setting 22 4. 3 Environmental Impacts and Mitigating Measures 34 4. 4 Alternatives 56 4. 5 Short-Term and Long-Term Productivity 57 4. 6 Irreversible Impacts 58 4. 7 Growth Inducing Impacts 58 • ADDENDUM • • • • • • • • • 1. 0 INTRODUCTION This document constitutes Part 3 of General Plan Amendment 77-2 . It provides a comprehensive plan of land uses for the Edison Industrial Area. The existing General Plan land uses are reflected in the December, 1976 General Plan Land Use Diagram (Figure 1-1) and as amended in August 1977 in Figure 1-2 . 1. 1 Methodology • This amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element is designed to investigate industrial areas where changing conditions require re- consideration of past decisions. The changes considered in the amendment derive from requests from the Planning Department. In Section 2. 0, Planning Issues, each site in the Edison Area 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 recommenda- tions 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. 1 • Land Use Categories RESIDENTIAL NN Estate 5 2 un/gac Estate <_4 un/gac • ' •' Low Density <_7 un/gac r - , Medium Density <_15 un/gac j ® , High Density >15 un/gac \ COMMERCIAL �. ®General Mixed Development\ M NINE \ INDUSTRIAL General PUBLIC USE I Public 6luasi--public, Institutional \ OpenSpace OP ..................................... ;.,:. ...... �_. PLANNING UNITS Plan ning n Reserve . ......::.................................. ...... . 9 se Planned Community OTHER USES �. :A .. ................. ...... ............ .:::::::: ............:::::::::: eProduction : <; <: ;: > s .>, . .:::::::::•.s:::::::::: Resource • "�4 f :::................ ................ .................... �s��5 N lrl,i f r •~�+,�f .t n y. t. Y n t n MIN Y WIN WA ni H Sol IN M -5 •ram+ F n- ice,. 1 Y .> IBMv Y ::�: :: :..':r..-. .a. :c.ems-C �� 7.. . �✓i. .:.t-0.•N<r� :}'U..•offil cud^ „✓. CLAH <r' ur .....:.::.....:....:: r. °:3 "ice .f.. ..�•-�,• L�: q .'7< n^'� Y • fY. r�S-''fermi�,S' < b �� ^""`^ � "yam... .k.+�d,: - qP t�������� /�•��I _ __ ppOC Ash HUNnNGTON 1364CH, rE(LtFORNIA • GENERAL PLAN R PIANNING DEPARTME9 LAND USE DIAGRAM December 1976 • • a way r S♦, �o i • '♦�, ♦•• fia mob* ♦• '�♦ �sdo ♦� s • s ti0 ♦- G� ♦ o • ■ J PALM ' ■I■I•`a i jRANGE N • i PACIFIC COAST NWY Figure 1 -2 m LEGEND HUf11NGTON WCH, CNLIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL\ lop PLANNING DEPARTMEPT Low Density 0-7 un/gac GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 77-1 .Medium Density 8-15 un/gac ® High Density above .15 .un/gac I 101 r � �fi ,,� �o .�� �♦i i♦ 1�1 ?tea i cy j s o PALM J i • <�� PACIFIC COAST MWY � i EDISON INDUSTRIAL AREA Figure 2-1 PL4NNIING DEWTMEPTLIFORNIA Areas Of Concern GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 77-2 PART 3 • • • • 2. 0 GENERAL PLAN AREAS OF CONCERN This section deals with the Edison Industrial Area. It establishes a plan of General Plan land uses to be adopted for four issue areas . . within the Edison Industrial District. The study areas are designated in Figure 2-1. • 2. 1 Edison Industrial Area The Edison Industrial Area flanks the north side of the Edison Company generating plant at Hamilton Avenue and Newland Street. Most of the property fronts on Hamilton Avenue from the Orange County Flood Control Channel D1-2 Channel to Magnolia Street. It consists. of approximately 104. 97 acres designated general industry by the General Plan Land Use Element. The Edison Area has the lowest industrial potential in the City. The largest parcels are vacant. Serious drainage and soil problems associated with a former dump site retard development of the largest site at Magnolia Street and Hamilton Avenue. The deletion of the Route 1 and Route 39 Freeways have further reduced the industrial desirability of the entire area. • 3 • 2. 1. 1 North of Hamilton Avenue and West of Newland Street • 2. 1. 1. 1 Background The subject property encompasses 25. 82 gross acres which_ are classified as having low suitability for industrial development (Figure 2-2) . However,' the property is occupied with a quality industrial use, and an oil tank farm. The property is zoned M1-A-O and designated Indus- trial in the General Plan. To the west across an Orange County flood control channel is vacant property designated as a planning reserve and a portion as commercial in the General Plan; to the south is vacant property designated • as industrial in the General Plan; to the east across Newland Street are single family homes and to the north are low and medium density residences. 2. 1. 1. 2 Analysis The area of concern has .low site suitability for indus- • trial uses. Once the need for the oil tank farm no longer exists, the property will be hard pressed to find and support alternative industrial uses. However, the property will remain in productive oil use for some time to come, consequently there is no need to determine alternative land uses at this time. For purposes of clarity, however, an alternative designa- tion would be helpful to more accurately reflect the status , of the property. Since this property could be related to the planning reserve to the west and south in a total planning effort for the area east and north of the inter- section of Pacific Coast Highway and Beach Boulevard a planning reserve designation would serve the purposes of reflecting the need for further planning, allowing the existing uses and relating the area of concern to the larger planning area. 2. 1. 1. 3 Recommendation The area of concern located north of Hamilton Avenue and west of Newland Street should be redesignated planning reserve. 2 . 1. 2 South of Hamilton Avenue and West of Newland Street 2 . 1. 2. 1 Background The area of concern encompasses 16.55 gross acres (Figure • 2-3) . The property is vacant and is designated as having 4 • U ATTLEaoRo 'YAI�ERS CC�7E G 6 E L M E D. !`'1� LN. j Z. o J J a m w Z CbMM -DEERFIELD•_._ _....___ OR. O I w E N �S Y N • �= Z SABL ptWT-UO�T :pR i `�SCONE DR FLL}EAD OR. wD EI sD _ :_ E SL MlalSTI;n- .fze - D� < w _ w J K' m S t 2 Z o DONCASTER DR O W BUSFMACK �' u m R. art_ ' • ::7 t•-•'-� ATTLEBO LN pJ 7 PLA NI 0 ° • _ RESE VE L I G T ' ° ''`'"' O YiL1E OH. I N D U S T — TANK 0 FARM O O O . ■■ S""°` HOOK i � HAMI N • \ LIGHT INDUSTRIAL PLANNING \� RESERVE F D. DI-2 MEDIUM DENSITY "a (NiM wpwl • CO � , AREA OF CONCERN 2.1-1 • NORTH OF HAMILTON AVENUE & WEST OF NEWLAND STREET Adft Fi9we 2-2 • • 5 �(! Z 0 RYfp1 DR �; M ED M W o J W x = z m V -LLP z DOW-ASTER DR Q W BUSFMVICK u mlK 3J L R. A S J J _ ` O _ > O � O H Z PLAN I NG L I G H T 0 s� n • riLNE DR. RESE VE TANK SANOY HOOKFARM In 0 .2 .■ HAMIL N LIGHT INDUSTRIAL • 0. C. F C D DI_2 P ANNING MEDIUM '#6 AC/i • F co RESERVE DENS I TY LIGT qIs, IND STRI QU PU LIC • AREA OF CONCERN 2.1.2 SOUTH OF HAMILTON AVENUE & WE,ST OF NEWLAND STREET Figure 2-3 6 I low site suitability for industrial development. The • property is zoned M1-A-O and designated industrial in the General Plan. To the west across an Orange County flood control channel is vacant property designated as a planning reserve in the General Plan; to the south across the same Orange County flood control channel is a mobile home park; to the east across Newland Street is a mini- warehouse; to the north is an oil tank farm. 2 . 1. 2. 2 Analysis The area of concern which is vacant is similar to the area of concern 2 . 1. 1 to the north. The only substantive • difference is the existance of the oil tank farm to the north. Just as in area of concern 2. 1. 1, and for the same reasons, this area of concern should be redesignated a . planning reserve. 2. 1. 2 . 3 Recommendation • The area of concern located south of Hamilton Avenue and west of Newland Street should be redesignated planning reserve. 2. 1. 3 South of the O.C.F.C.D. D1-2 Channel and West of Newland Street 2. 1. 3. 1 Background The area of concern encompasses 4 . 82 gross acres (Figure 2-4) . The property is vacant and is designated as having low' site suitability for industrial development. The property is zoned M1-A-O and is designated on the northern most portion as industrial in the General .Plan with the remainder designated for public, quasi-public, . institution- al use. To the west and south is a mobile home park; to the east across Newland Street is the Edison Company Generating Plant; to the north across an Orange County flood control channel is vacant property designated as . industrial in the General Plan. 2. 1. 3. 2 Analysis • This area of concern is the last of three related areas of concern located west of Newland Street. All three areas of concern (2 . 1. 1, 2 . 1. 2 and this one 2 . 1. 3) are of low site suitability for industrial development. For the reasons cited in 2. 1.1 and referred to in 2. 1. 21 • this area. of concern should be' redesignated planning reserve. • 7 • TAN V u FAK WI Go TO S � » r - O . .. «: LL S INDUSTRIAL L I G H T I I D STRIA C F C. D. DI-2 0. C MEDIUM � "`a ' fM6nK Q�F/I/� 0 D E N S I T Y _I GHT INDU. RIAL O PLANNING RESERVE QU SI P U B L I i► EDISON Co. GENERATING ll i. PLANT • AREA OF CONCERN 2.1.3 SOUTH OF OCFCD D1-2 CHANNEL &.WEST OF NEWLAND STREET • Adft Fig%" 2-4 2. 1. 3. 3 Recommendation • The area of concern located south of the Orange County Flood Control District D1-2 Channel and west of Newland Street should be redesignated as a planning reserve. 2 . 1. 4 South of Hamilton Avenue and West of Magnolia Street 2. 1. 4 . 1 Background The area of concern encompasses . 40. 2 gross acres (Figure 2-5) . It contains a former rotary mud dump and scattered oil production facilities. The area is of low site suitability. The existing zone is M1-A-0 and the area is designated industrial. 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 gener- ating plant abuts the property on the south and partially on the west across the Orange County Flood Control District D1-2 Channel. Also across the channel are several small industrial businesses. The west side of the property is • bounded by a mini-warehouse operation and vacant indus- trial land. 2. 1. 4. 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 develop- ment. 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 area of concern and contains rotary muds, brine, and oil wastes to depths of 20 to 40 .feet. The 40 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 com-. patible with adjacent residences. However, the need for • 9 • C-F- R C F-E a t n�111 I E N f.'�'C' : Q s o MAW —+ _ �_ • -+ 0 PEN SPACE Q PUBLIC -- riuc oa. Z MATTFRAS DA -r C F- SAMO• MOOS OR ~ c _ l��N • r------ -- - - . _... IiAM4.rON REGATTA LIGHT I N D U TRIAL ROTARY i;' p i BOBBiE CR • I , 1- 2 0. � C . e - -1 M U D NIGUEL CR. AMQAI /W( Armlw ��_.y_i O i / IN t DUMP Z TANKS E Q " ® ' raNKs ADELIA CR. w • OD ; E .N. S, RHODESIA O OQD BERMUDA • C _ QUASI P LI KAHULUI EpSON CO. �� ;� � ID GE ERATM ;, ,- II P U B L I C 113L.11W �I �• _- ji MAHALO. • KAPAA �•i' A OHA • AREA OF CONCERN 2.1.4 SOUTH OF HAMILTON -AVENUE & WEST OF. MAGNOLIA STREET 4 Figure 2-5 10 01 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. A low density residential designation would be compatible with the park uses to the north and single-family residences • across Magnolia Street. The OCFCD channel serves as a logical boundary 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. 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, includ- ing Huntington Beach. It is uncertain whether the study area would be used for the plant expansion or merely • purchased as a buffer zone. Since there is no clear cut preference as to eventual use of the property and that the eventual use of the property will be affected by the outcome of decisions concerning the Edison Company expansion, the property should be • redesignated planning reserve in order to reflect the fact that future decisions concerning the property are forthcoming. 2. 1. 4. 3 Recommendation • The area of concern located south of Hamilton Avenue and west of Magnolia Street should be redesignated planning reserve . • • 11 i 3. 0 AMENDMENT SUMMARY 3. 1 Area of Concern Summaries The following sections summarize the recommended changes in General Plan land use designations for the affected areas. All changes are shown in Figure 3-1. • 3. 1. 1 North of Hamilton Avenue and West of Newland Street The 25. 82 acre area of concern should be redesignated from general industrial to planning reserve. Proposed Land Use Acreage Summary • Category Gross Acres Planning Reserve 25. 82 • • 13 AFT MIMEM mm ME ' �n�i�INII�!II ■ ■ ■■ ■u� :� � �� IIIIIIIIIIlIIII � � �� C' C: � _ IIIII1Ni�lllll _ n■■■■■nl1 I ------------ ROTARY e • - a • s • • 3. 1. 2 South of Hamilton Avenue and West of Newland Street • The 16. 55 acre study area should be redesignated from general industrial to planning reserve. Proposed Land Use Acreage Summary Category Gross Acres • Planning Reserve 16. 55 3. 1. 3 South of the Orange County Flood Control District D1-2 Channel and West of Newland Street • The 4 . 82 acre study area should be redesignated from general industrial to planning reserve. Proposed Land Use Acreage Summary • Category Gross Acres Planning Reserve 4. 82 3 . 1. 4 South of Hamilton Avenue and West of Magnolia Street • The 40. 2 acre area of concern should be redesignated from general industrial to planning reserve. Proposed Land Use Acreage Summary Category Gross Acres • Planning Reserve 40. 2 3. 2 Summary of General Plan Amendment 77-2 , Part 3 Land Use Acreage Summary Land Use Existing Proposed Net Category Gross Acreage Gross Acreage Gross Acreage General Industrial 87. 39 0 - 87 . 39 Planning Reserve 0 87 . 39 87 . 39 Net population projected ro o p j p p generated by this amendment is zero. • • 15 • I • I • • • • • • • 4.0 ENVIRONPIENTAL 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 Advance Planning Section of the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department. • • 17 • 1 • , 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 two study areas: the Central Industrial Corridor and Edison Industrial Area. The Gothard Corridor encompasses a total of 629.62 acres, and extends along Southern Pacific Railroad Right-of-Way and Gothard Street between Edinger Avenue and Garfield Avenue. The Edison Area covers 104. 97 acres concentrated at Hamilton Avenue and Newland Street. The two study areas are shown in Figure 2-1. Approximately 352 .21 acres of industrial land within the two concern • areas 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 decisions, establishing land use policy accordingly. Specifically, it provides a comprehensive plan of land uses to be adopted for the Central Industrial Corridor and Edison. Industrial Area. An implementation plan accompanies the amendment but it is illustrative only and is not to be adopted. The goals and • objectives of the project are outlined in Section 1.1 of the amendment. Figures 2-2 and 2-3 depict the comprehensive plan for the two industrial areas. Figure 4-2 summarizes the proposed actions for 30 study areas within the Gothard Corridor and Edison Area. It should be noted that four concern areas have been recently approved under General Plan • Amendment 77-1. Although no change occurs under this amendment, the four concern areas will be considered in cumulative impact where appropriate. FIGURE 4-2 • AREA OF CONCERN RECOMMENDATION Central Industrial Corridor 1. Gothard Street, North Retain industrial on 126. 55 of Warner Avenue acres • 2. South of Warner Avenue, Redesignate 18. 03 acres to East of Gothard Street medium density residential 3. South of Warner Avenue, Retain industrial on 13 .16 West of Nichols Street acres; redesignate 6.51 acres • commercial • is �a 40 MI. \ ° SAN ^ a EERNANOO a V 5 - � OFT.1[IL SON U -�•r, r ;Q ALTAOCNA AdNL• wlo J NORTH Nrr000 O �1 HIV tP,• i .1 _-- 30 MI. _ ----- 13400 , [ALASASAS 4/ GLENDALEr ;PASAD[NA ARC OA r•;UI n:..' wN cP. -/ _--_- . i / �T° SOLI fr011Ci{CO '�< / r r saw S -_--__- :�urDNw k,405/ BAR CTErPLE CITV i 0 CLARCrON?•• •%� ; *ASIRIEL SAIDrIN ,_ Q •✓ NOLLl WO000 S 0 PAN IC OYIMA s • r e,• . 1 C G fI' I� G fir° 1 EL MONTE 3 tow NrCC AIR 01 UC SA, RE..'ar.n 0 1 . ✓ C ►DroNA NlAR:OL / / r(T L COVINA 1/ lOS NG[LES 'nAto ~ �.• ---�..__` ^ \I�yl -ORION, •,0?� 60 INCUSTRr YALNUT l _ 1 lJ -ILI _ 0 0 I... CC 1 SANTA YOIIICA C. R R UL( f DIAYOYO SU i R DCOYMENCc 20 MI. BAR 1 IARR� A 1 1 ( •1 - 0 o • - I :=••• L7 LOS ANGELES tP COu— SgYe 1 INGLEWOOD u DOrNE, SANTA FE ^ORANGE 9 i t �•� �• . 0S►RINGa n COUNTY 'CAL STATE COLLEGE AT ULLERTON 57 1 EL SEGUY000 % M ORwALR eh ' �-1^� VCRSA LINDA a `__y; .V •`�1\ e. GANDENA � CORONA MANHATTAN SEACN� 91ARTESIA FRNr FULiER TON S IA 0 BLVD. 0 ` PLAC[rTIA 91 ►E f i .CART 4:.EPs•LE NERrOSA DCACNO ^• ST, - "t!- - 1P Qfl•,•9 1 ,` O '•\ AMA NEIY C. R[DONOO DE ACIi TO ANGE 0 r ....N. L :1i f 1 .... 1 m OPAR �JG Gw Sf V I ! LA PALOS,ERDU .......L.• E (( ll l EsrArc CAAL LUTE" CHI—I N., .,,....Ier ' �( l�n l�n Z,•, y n g IONG ACHr •�i eP •� -� ��� - ---- --L_L.I GGPi tNf. LONG - r;PU•r 22 ~ CN SANTA .NA �QQCH SAN _.._ �: ' :• , PEON(. [ELM '• _,\ _ .- .\•••.' WEST': 55 4Q4L!GE: V �v � '•j�, f'�.... rRN, OSTA C.IRVINE A. io VICINITY MAP- SCALE iN MILES of \ O HUNTINGTON BEACH \� �JL AGUNA B \� DEACN • • I AREA OF CONCERN RECOMMENDATION 4. West of Gothard Street, Redesignate 5.69 acres low East of Betty Dr. density residential 5. West of Gothard St. , Redesignate 14.68 acres to East of Ford Dr. public, quasi-public, and • institutional 6. North of Slater Ave. , Retain low density residentia West of Gothard St. on 4. 87 acres 7. North of Slater Ave. , Redesignate 19.92 acres to a East of Gothard St. low density residential 8. North of Slater Ave. , Retain industrial on 19. 53 West of Nichols St. acres 9. South of Slater Ave. , Redesignate . 13. 31 acres to ! West of Gothard St. public, quasi-public, and institutional 10. South of Slater Ave. , Redesignate 19. 54 acres to East of Gothard St. low density residential • 11. Nichols St. , South of Redesignate 18. 89 acres to Slater Ave. medium density residential 12. South of 'Slater Ave. , Retain industrial on 16.59 West of Morgan Lane acres • 13. North of Talbert Ave.., Redesignate 18.29 acres to West of Gothard St. resource production. 14. North of Talbert Ave. , Redesignate 1.9.76 acres to East of Gothard Sti low density residential • 15. North of Talbert Ave. , Retain medium density West of Beach Blvd. residential on 38.7-acres 16. South of Talbert Ave. , Retain industrial on 9.64 East of Gothard St: acres 17. South of Talbert Ave. , Retain industrial on 19.35 East of Railroad acres 18. South of Talbert Ave. , Redesignate 20. 01 acres to West of Baron Cr. low density residential 20 • 19. South of Talbert Ave. , Retain low density residential West of Beach Blvd. on 11. 81 acres 20. North of Ellis Ave. , Retain industrial on 30. 42 West of Gothard St. acres • 21. North of Ellis Ave. , Retain industrial on 29 .12 East of Gothard St. acres 22. North of ' Garfield Ave. , Retain industrial on 31.97 West of Crystal St. acres • 23. Gothard. St. , South of Redesignate '32. 75 acres to Ellis Ave. estate residential and 46 . 86 acres to low density residen- tial 24. North of Main St. , Redesignate 3.62 acres to • West of Huntington St. medium density residential; retain medium density residen- tial on 7.14 acres; retain industrial on 12.91 acres Edison Industrial Area • 1. North of Hamilton .Ave. , Redesignate 25.82 acres to West of Newland St. planning reserve 2.. South of Hamilton Ave. , Redesignate 16. 55 acres to West of Newland St. planning reserve • 3. South of O.C.F.C.D. Redesignate 4. 82 acres to Channel, West of planning reserve Newland St. 4. South of Hamilton Ave. , Retain industrial on 7.68 • East of Newland St. acres 5. South of O.C.F.C.D. , Retain industrial on 2.94 East of Newland St. acres 6. South of Hamilton Ave. , Redesignate 47.16 acres to • West of Magnolia St. planning reserve • • • I 4.2 Environmental Setting • 4.2.1 Natural Environmental Setting Huntington Beach is a metropolitan city, and as such its environment - both local and regional - is primarily an urban one. However, significant natural resources and areas do remain within the city. The following sections • address those resources that are present within the Central Industrial Corridor and the Edison Industrial Area. 4.2.1.1 Land Resources The Land resources of the .Huntington Beach area are • . generally divided into two physiographic zones, (1) a broad alluvial flood plain that grades seaward into tidal marshlands, and , 2) a series of structural hills and mesas. The Central Industrial Corridor is located within both of these zones and the Edison Industrial Area is located within the flood plain zone. • A major portion of the Central Industrial Corridor from Garfield Avenue to just south of Warner Avenue lies within the hills and mesa zone that is the northwestern part of the Huntington Beach Mesa. The Huntington Beach mesa represents an upper Pleistocene land surface produced by • faulting and anticlinal folding within the northwest trending Newport-Inglewood Structural zone. This area contains wide variations in topography that range to as high as 75 feet above the surrounding flood plain. The most common elevations, however, range from 50 to 75 feet. The majority of this area has less than 5 percent topographic • slope, ' but a significant area with slopes up to 30 percent does exist approximately' l/2 mile north of Garfield Avenue. This depression runs from Goldenwest Street to Beach Boule- . yard. Just north of Talbert Avenue. another depression exists with slopes ranging from 10 to 30 percent. The soils in the mesa area are generally silty and fine sandy loams • overlying shallow layers having a factor of 2 percent or more clay content. That portion_ of the Central Industrial Corridor from Edinger Avenue to Warner Avenue, is within the flood plain zone. The elevation of this area ranges from 15 to 25 feet above sea level. No significant variations in topography occur in this area. The soils • contain a clay content of 20 to 42 percent which places the expansive soils problems as moderate .to high. . The Edison Industrial Area is also located in the flood plain that has been built up over geologic time .by sedi- ments deposited by the flood waters of the Santa Ana River. 22 i This area has elevations ranging from 0 to 5 feet above • sea level. No significant natural variations in topography occur. The soils have variable quantities of expansive soil. The two industrial areas under consideration are subjected to the seismic conditions generally affecting the City of • Huntington Beach. The City sits astride the Newport- Inglewood Structural Zone, an elongated zone of faults and hills of contorted sedimentary rock of which Huntington Beach Mesa is but one. The zone extends southeast from the Santa Monica Mountains at least as far south as Laguna Beach. Other of the numerous fault systems of • Southern California will of course affect the Huntington Beach area, but their impact would be considerably less. Within the last 50 years no less than thirteen earthquakes of magnitude of 4.0 or greater have occurred within a radius of ten miles of Huntington Beach (Leighton-Yen & • Associates, p.10) . Four of these have epicenters located within the city limits. The region will continue to be at least as seismically active in the future as it has been in the past. The major topographic irregularities on the Huntington Beach Mesa surface are related to faulting within the Newport-Inglewood Structural zone. This fault zone is topographically expressed within the district by the previously described hills and depressions. The Central Industrial Corridor is crossed by two fault zones. The Bolsa Fairview Fault extends across the southern portion of the project area. Adjacent to and roughly paralleling Ellis Avenue. The minor Yorktown Avenue Fault • traverses the area northwest-southeast from Main Street at Garfield Avenue. The Edison Industrial area is traversed by the active South Branch Fault, also an active fault. 4.2.1.2 Water Resources • A crucial factor in the environment of Southern California has always been the availability of water for domestic use, for agriculture, and for recreation. Its scarcity as well as its multiple use potential have made water a prime natural asset, and Huntington Beach has several • important water and water-related areas.. One of the City's most significant natural resources is the ocean and shore- line. The ocean, of course, dominates the area' s climate and along with 8h miles of beach provides .an important wildlife habitat and scenic recreation resource for the • 23 entire region. Three important saltwater estuaries -- • Sunset Bay, Bolsa Chica Bay and the mouth of the Santa Ana River -- exist in the City's Sphere of Influence; and several lakes and inland marshes occur, especially in the Central Park area. The Santa Ana River, once the largest in Southern California, bounds the City to the southeast. Today, it is a leveed sand bottom • channel. 4.2.1.3 Air Resources Air pollution differs by area depending on human activity and natural features. As a rule, however, the three • major sources are motor vehicles , electrical generating plants, and industry. The major source is the private automobile which accounts for 90 percent. of all emissions. Stationary sources, like the Edison generating plant, and industries such as petroleum, metallurgy and solvents, contribute less to the overall pollution problem and are • easier to detect and control. The South Coast Air Basin, which includes Huntington Beach, is a critical air area. Huntington Beach is fortunate; however, in that it doer not suffer the effects of air pollution to the degree experienced by. most other south- • land communities. Several factors are responsible - degree of urban activity, local meteorology, and local topography. Daily sea breezes along the coast clear the skies by sweeping pollutants inland thereby intensifying the problem for interior communities. The City's relatively flat topography offers little resistance to • this condition. The Orange County Air Polltition Control District has no monitoring stations within the City so actual air quality ratings are unavailable. In nearby Costa Mesa where recordings are taken, air samples are generally of higher quality than from communities farther inland. Therefore, though the City is not free of aerial contamination, the problem is not severe. 4.2.1.4 Biological Resources Within the project areas there are several recognizable types of biotic habitat, each occupied by relatively distinct assemblages of organisms. Areas of principle interest are those with substantial vegetation, and/or few man-made structures. The major classes of present day, natural habitat in this area are as .follows: • • 24 • Annual Grasslands Cultivated Fields Eucalyptus Groves Freshwater Marsh and Pond Parks In addition, Valley Grassland and Riparian habitats existed locally in prehistoric times , but have been eliminated • or severely altered by human activity. The original Valley Grassland community included perennial bunchgrasses as the major vegetation type. These native grasses , being slow to reproduce, were largely replaced as a result of man's grazing of stock animals and his e introduction of aggressive exotic species of annual grasses. Annual herbs and grasses predominate in areas formerly occupied by the native grassland. These areas now comprise what is here termed annual grassland. Such sites are fairly common in Huntington Beach, especially in the vicinity of oil leaseholdings and other fields where plowing is done infrequently. This type of habitat supports a limited variety of small mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians. Cultivated fields in the region formerly were much more extensive. Currently they are located in scattered • areas in the north part of the City. They support only a very small variety of vertebrate animal life, including such mammals ,as house mice (Mus) moles (Sca anus) , . and a few bird species which do some of their ee ing in the field, e.g. , Killdeer, Long-billed Curlews, gulls, Brewer's Blackbirds, Common Crows, Mourning Doves, etc. • Parks appear to be very limited at present in Huntington Beach. They probably support mainly introduced bird species such as Rock Doves, Starlings and English Sparrows. Talbert Lake in the partially completed Central Park supports coots and a variety of ducks, most of • them domesticated varieties. Eucalyptus groves are man-made habitats that are of interest in that they support a variety of bird and mammal life and because they constitute the only significant form of tree in the area. Most of these • eucalyptus are Blue Gum (EucalyZtus Globus) . Birds such as Sparrow Hawks, Redtailed Hawks, Turkey Vultures, Barn Owls, Great Horned Owls and others utilize the groves for nesting or roosting. These groves , originally planted as windbreaks, are of aesthetic and historical interest in addition to their biotic values. As such, they • represent a unique feature of the Huntington Beach 25 1 • I i landscape. Continued indiscriminate removal of the eucalyptus would eventually eliminate the groves since • these trees are not being replanted in the same pattern or at a great rate. Fresh water marsh and streamside habitats have been eliminated for the most part from this area. Flood control measures have redirected local streams such as the Santa Ana River and have confined them to man-made channels. This practice has killed natural streamside vegetation in the area and only several ponds support fresh water habitats. These ponds, some of them man-made, are typically much altered from the natural state. The predominant plants are usually cattails (Typha latifolia) . , Wherever they comprise an extensive area, ponds are inhabited by a variety of birds. The smaller ponds do not support many species of birds nor many other types of animals. 4.2.1.5 Cultural Resources The Open. Space Element of the .General Plan has identified one potential site near the Central Industrial Corridor as having historical landmark significance. This is the Old Japanese Church. Five archeological sites are located within the Central Industrial Corridor. Several of these sites are partially destroyed but significant site areas remain to be examined. No historic, archeological, or cultural resources are located in the Edison Industrial Area. 4.2.2 Urban Environmental Setting As indicated in Section 4.2 , the majority of the Huntington Beach area is urban. This section therefore addresses the manmade environmental setting. The main topics covered are: (1) land use, (2) circulation, (3) public services, (4) utilities, (5) population, (6) noise, and (7) socio- economics. 4.2.2.1 Land Use The area within which the General Plan Amendment Areas of Concern is located, is a diverse area that contains a . variety of land uses. The uses range from marginal industrial development such as an automobile dismantling yard to good industrial development to. public facilities such as the City's Corporation Yard. Some scattered, older single family houses are also located within the Central Industrial Corridor. 26 • The Edison Industrial area contains uses such as the longer operational Rotary Mud Dump, mini-warehouse operations, a sandblasting service, automobile dismantling yard and a Human Society Kennel. Existing utilization of the 734 acres of land within the • two industrial areas consist of the following: Central Industrial Corridor Vacant and/or oil extraction 309 . 4 49:3 Single family residential 8.0 1.3 ! Mobile home residential 5. 7 0.9 Quality general industrial 150.9 24.0 Marginal general industrial 94.6 15.0 Non conforming uses (misc. ) 27. 8 3.6 Public facilities 33. 3 5 .2 Recreational 4.9 0. 7 • TOTAL 629.E ac 0� 0% Edison Industrial Area Vacant and/or oil extraction 90. 5 86. 3 Quality general industrial 14. 4 13. 7 • TOTAL I-0T.9 100% Current zoning designations for the study areas are M1 and M2. 4.2.2.2 Circulation The primary element of the circulation system for the Central Industrial Corridor is Gothard Street. This street extends from McFadden Avenue near the San Diego Freeway-to Garfield Street and traverses the entire length of the corridor in a north south direction. The majority of the • parcels included in the Central Industrial Corridor take access from Gothard Street. Gothard Street is currently designated and portions are constructed to secondary arterial highway standards with an ultimate right-of-way width of 80 feet. As of July, 1976 average daily traffic from Gothard Street ranged from 4200 to 8800 automobiles. • When completely developed, Gothard Street will have four lanes and will be able to accommodate safely and efficiently up to 20,000 automobiles per day. I 27 A number of east-west arterials also Provide access into the Central Industrial Corridor and to the individual parcels within. • Warner Avenue is the largest east-west arterial serving the corridor. It is designated as a major arterial on the City's Circulation Plan and is designed with a capacity of up to 45,000 automobiles per day. In July, 1976 , average daily traffic in the vicinity . of Gothard Street ranged from 22,700 to 24,200 . This is the most heavily traveled portion of Warner Avenue. The other arterials providing access to the Central Industrial Corridor are Edinger Avenue, Heil Avenue, Slater Avenue, Talbert Avenue, Ellis Avenue and Garfield Avenue. Of the east-west arterials only Warner Avenue and Ellis Avenue have direct freeway access. • Access to the Edison Industrial Area is provided by three arterial streets. North-south access is via Newland Street and Magnolia Street. Newland Street is designated as a secondary arterial on the City's Circulation Plan and will have a design capacity of up to 20 ,000 automobiles • per day. Although, most of Newland Street is fully developed, the portion within the industrial area from the Orange County Flood Control Channel to Pacific Coast Highway is not fully improved. Magnolia Street is located to the eastern edge of the amendment area and is designated as a primary arterial. • Hamilton Avenue is the only east-west street providing access to the Edison Industrial Area. It is designated as a primary arterial with an ultimate right-of-way of 100 feet. It will have a maximum capacity of 30.,000 automobiles per day. In July, 1976 the average daily traffic volume on Hamilton Avenue is 3,300. Hamilton Avenue currently ends at Newland Street but is planned to extend through to Beach -Boulevard at some time in the future. 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 portion of the City at Main Street and Yorktown Avenue. • The present level of police manning is approximately 1.14 officers per 1,000 persons (June, 1976) . At2bk • 28 i w; 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. The Gothard and Murdy Stations are located within the Central Industrial Corridor. The Edison Industrial Area • is serviced by the Magnolia Station which is located at the corner of Hamilton Avenue and Magnolia Street. 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: The .Central Industrial Corridor is serviced by Hunting- ton Beach and Ocean View High Schools, and Oakview elementary school. The Edison Industrial Area. is • serviced by Edison High School and Kettler School. • • 29 • 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 13� to 2 miles. E. Hospital Service There are two hospitals located within the City. • Both Pacifica Hospital (located on Delaware Street north of Garfield Avenue) and Huntington Intercommunit 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 t 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 .0 , the Conservation Potentials Report, Section 2. 5, and the Open Space .Potentials Report, Section 2.0 .. 4.2.2.4 Utilities • A. Natural Gas The Southern California Gas Company supplies natural gas to the City of Huntington Beach. Yearly consump- tion rates are as follows: 30 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. -B. Electricity • The Southern California Edison Company provides electricity to the City of Huntington Beach. The following annual consumption rates are assumed: Residential • Single-family 5,700 kwh/d.u. Multiple-family 5,700 kwh/d.u. Commercial 500,000 kwh/gr.ac. S Industrial 500,000 kwh/gr.ac. Current usage of electricity in the City is estimated at 612 million kwh per year. C. Sewer 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, current sewer production in the City is estimated at 22. 7 -million • gallons per day or 8.3 billion gallons per year. 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 Station on Gothard Street near Huntington Central Park. The trash is then transferred to larger trucks and hauled to the Coyote Canyon landfill site.' The following generation rates are assumed: 31 1 • • 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. estimated at 22.7 million gal/day or 8. 3 billion gallons per year. 4.2.2.5 Population The population of Huntington Beach is 157,800 (January, 1977) 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. The City's median age is 26 years. Recent data indicates S 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 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. 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. AM& 32 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 highways are responsible for the highest noise exposures in Hun- tington Beach. Sources producing the lower noise levels were typically found in residential areas away from arterials, residential areas near arterials but with • barrier walls, and in school acreas. Generally, the single event noise intrusions. observed in Huntington Beach fell within the "acceptable" noise criteria levels. 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. For those house- holds reporting incomes in the 1973 Special Census, the median incomes by family size are as follows: One member $ 8, 517 Two members 12,945 Three members 14,399 Four members 14 ,941 t Five members 16,658 Six or more 15,614 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. • 33 s 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 77-2, Part 3 will be to reduce potential intensity of industrial activities, and increase residential uses in the areas • of concern. Public facility, commercial, and resource production also show an increase but these changes accommodate existing uses. The following table summarizes the acreage change in land use designations: Existing Proposed • General Industrial 352. 21. 0 - Estate Residential 0 32. 75 Low Density Residential 0 131.78 Medium Density 0 40. 54 Residential • General Commercial 0 6. 51 Public, Quasi-Public, 0 27.99 Institutional Resource Production 0 18 .29 Planning Reserve 0 94.35 • A land use analysis is presented in Section 2.0 of this report for each of the 30 study areas within the Gothard Corridor and Edison Industrial Area. The amendment generally establishes dispersed industrial nodes and protects prime vacant areas and most existing industrial development. The industrial districts are interspersed • with residential areas of an estate, low, or medium density character. The proposed uses generally improve com- patibility with surrounding land uses over the long-term. Short-term conflicts may occur between residential development and marginal industrial activities as they phase out. Following the suggested implementation strategy • outlined in Section 3.0 would mitigate most of these problems. Planned development, estate and civic district zoning allow for some buffering with industrial uses , and set a design concept that consolidates open space to encourage quality residential development and improve compatibility with Central Park. • In the Edison Area, the amendment protects existing industrial uses and preserves industrial buffering with the Edison Generating Plant.. Most of the area is redesignated planning .reserve to maintain options for a possible Edison plant expansion as well as a master plan • Alibi 34 • for the entire area west of Newland Street to Pacific Coast Highway and Beach Boulevard. Planning reserve in itself generates no environmental effect and with a limite use zone preserves the area in its present form until long-term planning decisions are made. The proposed residential uses in the Gothard Corridor 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 also 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 de- signation is implemented, grading activity will modify the generally flat to rolling topography in order to accommodate development. However, to reduce the pos- sibility of adverse impacts on the topographic landscape qM in particular concern areas (Areas 4, 6, 10, 11, 14, 15, 23, and 24 in the Gothard Corridor) , 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 and estate zoning. The change from industrial to residential is, therefore, essentially a mitigation measure. The City's natural blufflines would be affected by the proposed amendment in the concern areas north of Talbert Avenue and south of Ellis Avenue, but again planned development concepts can preserve them. • 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 (Area 6 in the Edison Area) also have moderate to high expansion potentials. • 35 The study areas having low expansion potential are for the • most part located southeasterly of the Huntington Beach Mesa. The soils in this area are predominantly silty fine sands and sandy silts with about 6 to 7 percent 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 recom- mendations for individual structures. The location of peat and organic soils is shown in. the Geotechnical Inputs Report, February 1974 Figure 3-7. • The report indicates that the industrial area north of Warner Avenue (Area 1) and two residential areas below Warner (Areas ' 2 and 41 in the Gothard Corridor contain peat and organic soils. The planning reserves in the Edison Area, including the Rotary Mud Dump, also possess peat deposits to unknown depth and thickness. 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 antici- pated. 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. Chemical processes are capable of neutralizing much of the -waste material. However, the unknown consistency of substances below the surface may require some waste removal to another Class III solid waste disposal site in Los Angeles County. No such sites are. currently available in Orange County. Although the amendment redesignates the Rotary Mud Dump as planning reserve, long-term planning should fully consider the site's problems. Soil engineers should thoroughly investigate the soil composition, conduct sample borings , and make proper design recommendations for individual structures, if any future development is permitted. The County Environmental Management Agency is already taking steps in this direction. It has Woo 36 • recently received a grant from the State to do a compre- • hensive study of the waste material. The soil report is expected to be completed by August, 1977 . 4. 3.1. 4 Geologic Considerations 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 southeasterly direction. 0 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 197.6, details these special Study Zones on page 29 and sets forth guiding criteria. No area of concern is directly affected by the Special Study Zone. Concern areas 20-24 at or south of Ellis Avenue in the Gothard Corridor and the entire Edison Area 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 Development • 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 for sites not covered by the Special Study Zone. These requirements are imposed for all discretionary acts. Loss of life and structural damage is thereby • reduced. 4.3 .2 Water Resources 4.3.2.1 Regional Flood Hazard • The industrial area north of Warner Avenue (Area 1) , and the proposed residential areas between Slater Avenue and Talbert Avenue (Areas 10, 11, and. 14) in the Central Industrial Corridor, and the entire Edison Area located in the Talbert Gap are subject to flooding in the • 100 - and 200 - year storms. This amendment would increase residential development in the flood plains by 558 dwelling units with a population of 1, 614 persons over the potential development to be generated by the existing land use designations. Industrial acreage exposed to the regional flood hazard would be reduced by 58. 2 acres. • The amendment will have no appreciable effect within the • .37 • 1 • I the planning reserves of the Edison Area until long-term land use planning decisions occur. • A program to minimize danger from flooding was adopted by 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. Certain steps are also being taken to eliminate the flood hazard posed by the Santa Ana River. The United States 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 regulated 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 and recycling industrial uses 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 69 cubic feet per second below that generated by development 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 (Areas 15, 18 and 19) and along Slater Avenue (Areas 10 and 11) are currently unserviced. The change in designation from industrial to residential will hasten the need for planned drainage facilities in the area. Groundwater level is very important in a coastal city like Huntington Beach (subject to salt water intrusion) which relies on groundwater as a major source of domestic water. The amount of percolation will be increased by development under the Land Use Amendment. More percolation will mean increased fresh groundwater -storage and possible reduced salt water intrusion. 38 • Runoff is characteristically of poor quality and can adversely affect surface water. It is probable that runoff from development will flow into 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. Control of urban runoff and its impact on regional water quality is still in the elementary stages. At present, the only effective mitigation measure is to process such runoff in a sewage treatment facility. 4.3.3 Biological Resources The Gothard Corridor and Edison Area are generally devoid of significant vegetation or wildlife populations. Most of the vacant sites are primarily characterized by low growing weeds. Where industrial development has occurred, natural vegetation and landscaping are almost non-existent. This feature tends to minimize compatibility with Central Park. Concern areas 2, 7, 19 , 23, and 24 in' the Gothard Corridor support a number of large eucalyptus trees , which would probably be removed if industrially developed. All of these study areas, however, are recommended for redesignation to either estate, low, or medium density residential. Planned development and estate zoning would preserve many tree stands, while civic district zoning would encourage landscaping consistency with Central Park. Along with strict landscaping requirements, such measures would increase plant species and broaden vegetatio variety, thereby attracting displaced or new wildlife species to the planning area. 4.3.4 Cultural Resources Four archaeological sites have been identified by Archaeological Research Incorporated as significant sites within the planning area. These are ORA 185, 367, and 372 along Gothard Street between Warner Avenue and Talbert Avenue, and ORA 359 along Slater Avenue east of Gothard • Street. Residential development of study areas 2, 6, and 11 may adversely affect the archaeological sites unless regulatory policies are enforced. Cluster development could preserve the sites where appropriate, or they could be acquired through purchase. • 39 • 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. Sections of some arterial and local streets adjacent to the properties included under the amendment will need improvements. The improve- ments would occur as vehicular traffic increased or as properties are developed. Under the existing land uses included in this amendment traffic volumes will generate 29,406 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 6 ,551 vehicular trips per day, increasing total vehicular trips generated by the new land use designation to 35,957- 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 trips per day. • FIGURE 4-2 Existing and Proposed Vehicle Trips Per Day l Existing General Plan Proposed Amendment Trips/Day Trips/Day • Estate Residential 0 783 Low Density Residential 0 10,712 Medium Density Residential 0 8,165 General Commercial 0 1,953 General Industrial 0 11,798 Public, Quasi-Public 29 ,406 1,540 • Institutional Resource Production 0 1,006 TOTAL 9� 5 i Includes the four study areas approved under General Plan Amend- ment 77-1. Excludes the areas redesignated planning reserve. 40 • The bulk of the increased traffic will occur on arterial streets lying adjacent to the proposed residential redesignations. Peak daily traffic could be expected to increase along Gothard Street between Warner and Talbert Avenues; Gothard Street from Ellis Avenue to Garfield Avenue; and along Slater Avenue, Talbert Avenue, and Garfield Avenue from Beach Boulevard to Goldenwest Street. Existing and proposed street widening projects along Gothard Street, Slater Avenue and Talbert Avenue, as well as the westerly realignment of Gothard Street south of Ellis and the Ellis Avenue extension, would accommodate the increased traffic, and minimize potential congestion and residential/industrial traffic conflicts over the long-term. While most residential development is expected to be long-term, some vacant areas may develop within several years. As a result, there may be interim increases in congestion and residential/industial traffic conflicts as marginal in- dustries phase out, new residences are constructed, and street improvements are implemented. Public transportation can be expected to absorb a small percentage of the new residential population and reduce vehicular trips. The proposed plan would add approximately 6,896 persons 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. Much of the proposed residential area along Gothard Street lie 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. Such a program would equally benefit the industrial developments that are interspersed along Gothard Street from Warner Avenue to Garfield Avenue. • 4.3.6 Air Resources In the construction phase there will be a temporary increase in air pollution from the site. Vehicle emissions from construction activity will increase slightly in a regional context, and may constitute a nuisance to local developments within and near the planning area. Dust from grading activity and asphalt odors from new paving will also represent temporary air emissions in vicinity of the site. These impacts would occur regardless of the existing or proposed land use designations. • • 41 The control of short-term construction activities is provided for by the City of Huntington Beach by local ordinance and on-the-site inspection. Requirements include the following: control of dust by watering, control of smoke and exhaust emissions by up-to-date anti-pollution equipment, and prohibiting trash burning at the site. Figure 4-3 summarizes air pollutants • g p generated by development under the existing industrial land use designations and development under the proposed com- prehensive plan. Emissions from stationary and mobile sources are provided for ultimate development. For mobile sources, 1990 emission factors are used. The summary • indicates that full development of the Planning Area will yield a net emission gain to the South Coast Air Basin of .44. tons per day. Although development in accordance with this amendment will not substantially affect regional air quality, its effect must be considered as an increment in the cumulative degradation of the South Coast Air Basin. 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 reduce air pollution. FIGURE 4-3 Potential Generation of Air Pollutants Existing Land Uses Proposed Land Uses (Tons/Day) (Tons/Day) Pollutant Stationary Mobile Total Stationa:y Mobile Total • Carbon . 03 1.18 1. 21 . 07 1. 19 1. 26 Monoxide Hydrocarbons . 02 .11 .13 . 04 .12 .16 Nitrogen .28 .18 . 46 . 63 .18 . 81 Oxides Particulate . 01 . 05 .06 . 01 . 06 . 07 Sulfur Oxides . 01 . 02 .03 . 01 . 02 . 03 TOTAL . 35 1.54 1. 89 . .76 1. 5 7 2.33 The Edison Industrial Area lies adjacent to the Southern California 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. 42 The direct effect upon the subject property will be similar to the other properties within the area. The • effect of the pollutants from the exhaust stacks on the subject property may, however, be minimal, due 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. Since most of the Edison Industrial Area is recommended for change to planning reserve, no significant effect on human health is expected from this amendment. However, future planning of the subject property should consider uses and • development -concepts that minimize the power plant' s local impact. The Rotary Mud Dump site (Area 6 of the Edison Area) is recommended for redesignation to planning reserve by this amendment'. Although the property would be held vacant until planned, any future use of the dump site, whether open space or developed, may produce odors in the atmospher 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 odors may affect residents living in surrounding residential areas for the duration of the development process. Much of the waste material can be neutralized by chemical treatment but those; wastes not conducive to treatment would require removal to a Class III dump site in Los Angeles County. 4.3.7 Noise' An overall increase in general noise levels near the site may be expected due to the presence of heavy equipment during the construction process. Typical ranges of noise levels at construction sites with a 50 dBA ambient are shown in Figure 4-4. FIGURE 4-4 Noise Level Associated Wit The Constructing of Stores. Residences, Industrial, Activity Parkin, etc. • I II 1 Ground $C- 83 Leq dB(A) Cleaning 9 16 Standard Devia- ation • I-All pertinent equipment present at site. II-All pertinent equipment present at site. • 43 i Excavation 89 71 Leq dB (A) 6 2 Standard Deviation Foundations 77 77 Leq dB(A) 4 5 Standard Deviation 'Erection 84 72 Leq dB (A) 9 7 Standard Deviation Finishing 89 74 Leq dB(A) 7 10 Standard Deviation The data above assumes that the loudest piece of equipment is 50 feet away and the second loudest is 200 feet away. The noise impacts to be experienced in the various areas • of concern are typical. of the sound disturbances experi- enced 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 traveled 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 system and indicates specific areas of noise impact (Noise Element Background Report, pages 64-65) . At ultimate development, the proposed residential areas would experience noise contour ranges of Ldn 55 to Lan 65. 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 residen- tial 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 modifications 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. Portions of the study areas bordering Gothard Street, Talbert Avenue, and Slater Avenue would exceed Ldn 60 but would be less than Ldn 65. • • DIR ? • 44 • • I • 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, rerouting 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 "accoustically weak" components; structurally improve weak walls and roofs) . 4. 3. 8 Public 'Services 4.3. 8.1 Police Services • The Police Department operates from one police facility located in the south central section of the City near Main Street and Yorktown Avenue. The present level of police manning is approximately 1.14 officers per 1,000 persons. The proposed change in land use would result in • a net increased population of 6, 896. Police levels would have to be increased by four officers to provide adequate protection to the new residents and industrial districts at ultimate development. On-site security protection would 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 77-2 , 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 • 45 VV ID e 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 the comprehensive plan will generate the following number of additional students within the local school districts : Ocean View Elementary School District 916 Huntington Beach Elementary School District 312 Huntington Beach Union High School District 361 Coast Community College District 410 TOTAL 1,999 The elementary school districts have indicated that they can accommodate additional students generated by new housing developments within district boundaries. The Huntington Beach Elementary School District stated that no new schools are planned for immediate construction west of Beach Boulevard. However, most schools east of Beach Boulevard are currently under capacity. New students from the Gothard area would be transferred by bus to these under-utilized schools. The Ocean View School District indicated that enough student deficient schools exist within district boundaries : to absorb the • .additional enrollment. The district enrollment declined .by 400 students last year and the downward trend is expected to continue. No new schools will be required. The Huntington Beach Union High School District has five schools which are 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 in the short-term 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 district also indicated that enrollment growth is expected to peak within two years and then begin a long-term decline. Since most residential development is projected beyond • • 46 • LULTVV • that time, the new students would replace a portion of the projected student reduction. Under these circum- stances the district stated that new students could be adequately accommodated. 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 34. 5 additional acres of park space. . However, all concern areas are located in close proximity to community and regional park facilities. Access to such recreational areas minimizes the need for more neighborhood park space. However, a five acre park site is being • added. to the City's park inventory in Area 16 on the north side of Taylor Drive. The proposed residential uses in the Gothard Corridor will generally improve compatibility with Central Park. Many of the marginal industrial uses adjacent to Central • Park will recycle to the proposed residential uses. The low density character around the park would be enhanced by planned development, estate, and civic district zoning. Such practices would consolidate open space and ensure quality development adjacent to Central Park. • 4.3.8.5 Hospitals Local hospitals will be required to serve an additional 6,896 people under General Plan Amendment 77-2. 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. • 4. 3.9 Utilities 4. 3.9.1 Energy Utilities The proposed amendment will increase the consumption of • natural gas in the study areas by approximately 194. 6 • A '7 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 • conditions. The proposed amendment reduces the annual consumption of electricity by 53. 3 million kilowatt hours, due to a decrease in industrial designated land that supports uses associated with high electricity consumption. • The Southern California Edison Company has indicated that electrical load requirements can be met through the next several years 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 proceed with future construction of new generating facilities continue to be delayed, the ability to serve customer loads could become marginal by 1981. 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 windows are not shaded by exterior architectural projections or mature plants. • • 48 • 4. 3.9. 2 Sewer and Water The proposed amendment will decrease total sewage produc- tion and water consumption by approximately 300 ,000 gallons per day below levels generated by uses under the 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 Use 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. The sewer lines within the Gothard Corridor are sufficient to serve industrial and residential uses. The Beach Boulevard trunkline in vicinity of Slater Avenue and Talbert Avenue will require upgrading but this would be a necessity regardless of whether the Gothard Area develops to industrial or • residential uses. The Beach Boulevard sewer improvement is now being planned and is expected to be operational before significant residential development occurs. 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. 49 � I 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 overdesigned and use more water than necessary. Consumption - can be reduced by introducing appropriate modifications to toilets and showers. 4.3.9.3. Solid Waste Disposal The proposed -amendment will increase overall solid waste • generation by 2030 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 of the Rotary Mud Dump site from industrial to planning reserve would delay removal or treatment of the oil waste materials there until the area is planned. Surrounding residences would continue to be subjected to odors and other nuisance factors during the interim. The only mitigation measure is to declare the site a public nuisance and require chemical treatment or other measures to minimize environmental effects on surrounding areas. When the site is finally planned, oil related wastes not chemically treated would be removed to a • Class III solid waste disposal site. Los Angeles County possesses the nearest Class III site in the region. 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: 50 • . 1 • I 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 2,412 dwelling units more than development under existing land use • designations. Of this total, 1,116 units will be single family and 1,296 units will be multiple family. Develop- ment according to the proposed designations will increase the potential population by 6, 896 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 total about 35 persons per acre. The following table summarizes the changes by residential category: Existing Proposed DU Population DU Population Low Density 0 0 1,116 3, 850 Medium Density 0 0 1,296 3,046 Total 0 0 2,412 6, 896 The impacts associated with these changes as well as mitigating measures necessary to deal with the impacts have been detailed throughout Sections 2.O and 4.0 . 4. 3.10.2 Demolition/Relocation The change from industrial to residential uses in the Central Industrial Corridor would create non-conforming uses in some instances. New residential development may raise land values and, as a result, some relocation of marginal businesses and old residences could occur as property taxes increased. Such displacement could be hastened if marginal industrial business abatement measures are implemented as suggested in Section 3.0 of this report. Figure 4-5 summarizes the extent of recycling, expected within the Planning Area: FIGURE 4-5 Existing Uses to Become Non-Conforming and/or Recycled • 51 1 AREA ACREAGE RECYCLED USES 2 15.22 ac. 16 older homes church veterinary office worm farm 3 mini-warehouses pallet storage yard miscellaneous equipment storage yard 3 auto repair shops boat repair and storage yard 7 17..86 ac. oil tank lumber yard auto repair shop office worm farm 3 older homes 2 mini-warehouses 10 5. 47 ac. 6 older homes auto repair shop planter box manufacture wholesale carpets • insulation storage inert material recycle 11 2 .23 ac. 1 older home 14 14.90 ac. wrecking yard • ready mix concrete 15 6. 83 ac. recreation vehicle storage yard 18 2. 50 ac. wrecking yard • 19 3. 80 ac. 6 older homes Even with abatement measures applied to marginal industries the majority of uses presented in Figure 4-5 are expected to have long-term existence. If abatement measures are • implemented on non-conforming industrial uses, amortization would be the most equitable method to allow owners suffi- cient time (probably 5 to 20 years) to recoup their investments. It is also a possibility that Housing and Community Development funds could be used to provide assistance to low and moderate income owners of older homes • • 52 J r I � I • 4. 3.10.3 Aesthetics The proposed residential redesignations under strictly controlled planned and estate developments will vastly improve visual aesthetics over the long-term. Planned development, estate, and civic district zoning would • allow consolidation of open space to maximize compati- bility with Central Park and .incorporate topographic variations. Residential uses would eventually replace many marginal industrial uses , such as wrecking yards and other open storage uses , that currently blight much -of the Gothard Corridor and area around Central Park. • During the interim of phasing out non-conforming industrial uses, some residential areas may be subject to unsightly industrial operations. Landscaped buffers, attenuation walls, and on-site structural arrangement and design through planned developments can minimize objectionable visual effects. 4.3.11 Economic Consideration This section of the Environmental Impact Report details the fiscal costs and benefits of General Plan Amendment 77-2. The economic analysis is based on a special study by Planning Department Staff entitled the 1976 Revenue/ Expenditure Analysis of Land Uses, August, 1976. T e report deals only with short-range costs and revenues, and does not consider the long-range implications of ' the different development types. The cost analysis of the amendment assesses fiscal costs 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 77-2 are detailed in Figures 4-6 through 4-9 . Land use, as proposed by the amendment, will result in an additional annual net surplus to the City of approximately $55,379 . Land use according to General Plan Amendment 77-2 reduces the annual net surplus to the school districts by $1,665,786. • • 53 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 net surplus difference in future years. The amend- ment also balances the need for housing and open space with the apparent over-supply of industrial space in the City. - • By reducing industrial acreage, fewer employment oppor- tunities will exist in the City. The existing industrial designation on the entire study area would generate a total of approximately 7,313 jobs at ultimate development. The industrial areas retained by this amendment would provide a maximum employment for 3,560 workers, or about 3,753 workers less than the existing General Plan. Overall employment in the Gothard . and Edison Areas are projected low because of the mix of park developments and non- structural storage uses. Open storage uses occupy large areas relative to employment which reduces potential • employment below that generated by the Lusk and Kaiser Industrial Parks at the northwest end of the City. Since much of the Edison and Gothard Areas is poorly suited for industrial development, the projected employment would not be realized until the long-term, if then. The higher revenues produced by the proposed residential/industrial • mix would also mitigate the impact of fewer job op- portunities. Another consideration is that most industrial workers would reside well beyond the City's boundaries and would not substantially add sales tax revenues to the City. Benefits would accrue regionally rather than locally. FIGURE 4=6 • EXISTING LAND USE ELEMENT Summary of Annual Revenue and Expenditure Estimates as They Apply to the City of Huntington Beach • Land Use Category Revenue . Expenditures General Industrial $1,373, 205 $1,237,784 TOTAL $1,373,205 1,2 7,7 4 • NET SURPLUS $135,421 • 54 • FIGURE 4-7 EXISTING LAND USE ELEMENT Summary of Annual Revenue and Expenditure Estimates as They Apply to the • School Districts Land Use Category Revenue Expenditures General Industrial $2, 769, 623 0 • TOTAL $2,769, 623 0 NET SURPLUS $2,769, 623* *School districts .do not actually receive a surplus rather the local share of the cost of educating students is increased. • FIGURE 4-8 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 77-2, PART 3 Summary of Annual Revenue and Expenditure Estimates as They Apply to the City of Huntington Beach Land Use Cetegory Revenue Expenditure Estate Residential $ 60,307 $ 40,901 Low Density Residential 545,739 481,456 Medium Density Residential 373,162 277,453 General Commercial 10, 911 10, 969 General Industrial 585,593 538,965 Public, Quasi-Public, 0 36, 835 � • Institutional Planning Reserve 17, 455 42,363 Resource Production 32,483 5, 908 TOTAL $1, 625,650 $1,434, 850 • NET SURPLUS $ 190, 800 55 FIGURE 4-9 • GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 77-2 , PART 3 Summary of Annual Revenue and Expenditures Estimates as They Apply to the School Districts Land Use Category Revenue Expenditure Estate Residential $ 138,397 $ 61,636 Low Density Residential . 626,947 843,104 Medium Density Residential 437,083 456 ,432 General Commercial 21,170 0 General Industrial 1,172 ,874 0 Public, Quasi-Public 0 0 Institutional. Planning Reserve 32 ,928 0 Resource Production 35,610 0 TOTAL $2,465,009 $1,361,172 • NET SURPLUS $1,103,837* *School districts do not actually receive a surplus rather the local share of the cost of educating students is increased. • 4. 4 Alternatives to the Proposed Action 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 existing 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 indust- rially, designated 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 land over-supply and housing needs in the future. The perpetuation of industrial land over-supply also means that the City will forego 56 I� GENERAL PLAN'- AMENDMENT 77-2 r PART 3 INDUSTRIAL AREAS October, 1977 i� AtZbk, i I huntington beach planning department r �Q` i TABLE OF CONTENTS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 77-2 , PART 3 Section Page 1. 0 INTRODUCTION 1 1. 1 Methodology 1 2. 0 GENERAL PLAN AREAS OF CONCERN 3 2. 1 Edison Industrial Area 3 2. 1. 1 North of Hamilton Avenue and West of Newland Street 4 2. 1. 2 South of Hamilton Avenue and West of Newland Street 4 2.. 1. 3 South of the OCFCD D1-2 Channel and West of 7 Newland Street 2. 1. 4 South of Hamilton Avenue and West of Magnolia 9 Street 3:. 0 AMENDMENT SUMMARY 13 3. 1 Area by Area Summary 13 3. 2 Summary of General Plan Amendment 77-2 , Part 3 15 4. 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 77-8 17 4. 1 Introduction 17 4 . 2 Environmental Setting 22 4'. 3 Environmental Impacts and Mitigating Measures 34 4. 4 Alternatives 56 4. 5 Short-Term and Long-Term Productivity 57 4. 6 Irreversible Impacts 58 4. 7 Growth Inducing Impacts 58 r ADDENDUM 1 � • • • • • 1. 0 INTRODUCTION This document constitutes Part 3 of General Plan Amendment 77-2 . It provides a comprehensive plan of land uses for the Edison Industrial Area. The existing General Plan land uses are reflected • in the December, 1976 General Plan Land Use Diagram (Figure 1-1) and as amended in August 1977 in Figure 1-2 . 1. 1 Methodology • This amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element is designed to investigate industrial areas where changing conditions require re- consideration of past decisions. The changes considered in the amendment derive from requests from . the Planning Department. In Section . 2. 0, Planning Issues, each site in the Edison Area 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 recommenda- tions 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. • • 1 • Land Use Categories RESIDENTIAL ME Estate 5 2 un/gac • , M Estate <_4 un/gac •` Low Density <_7 un/gac p , ®Medium Density <_15 un/gac , �High Density >15 un/gac \ COMMERCIAL ®General • C' Office Professional \ Development Mixed o INDUSTRIAL .......................................... General c� w PUBLIC USE ro ....... :::.......::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: -public,Public,6luasi pu 'c, • =.; en c��. O Sae � P P -------------- \: z.. PLANNING UNITS € €'•'` ............................... ;.;; A: ::::i:i: \ ............ ............ Planning v� � � g Reserve Community� \ Planned V;? p ='r. • „`a y ` OTHER USES ................. .::: . ................ ..... ® :,r .......... P r ti .;. Resource Production i® XXX y, 4/.r. /. r. :. 1. x may:^ i. J,m'�y� .dn '''n•• t!'tt 5 .:tylttn s4 r d,l,11 r XXXXV 7,,, Yf f , I: .. :.... .:. .: sxN/,y ..: :.: ::. < f.. y �� �Jz :k i vlJ pf,, f iiriX. '� + ,1 ] �� Pu i <, +� 4 4 U- f :.. pro; ,nl H G/. 1 H vrk a, ,r WAY T S —;1• A»J7- O is C �7 C xr. 5j.Yav a •� d, ! 'ar ,die v F v- .: :. ,� _*,,.c,�; .h•<.,,�<•...:ems' ,. �;.:. .r•. w^^ K Y e;n.' :.tom :;R_ .�..v,,. c..�cu.9�e`- ••1,• A,• ,�✓' r.a-'4�..�� - -,:s.' .:�k-„"�- .�I� r�.:�.ar ••,i!••! k'U 1'r' I :��.-,s'.-y.>.. ..y,�._ •-4, ..>+; •i-" ..� Ltd .,r. S��sF,rf'Xs' x.?Y�a;✓ �`_r,1"�w-:"�„e•r _ r, ,v..,+Y�2::,?�<,a:21•�� r%' OCEAN • FAIt�K i OCEAN .n,, y,; .H•••r�_�i�1:•�".•�t•••�►<<.� '��• _ •.n:>. �•r POD -- • GENERAL PLAN � HUNfINGTON B64CH �EILIFORNIA • PWNNING DEPARTI E.g LAND USE DIAGRAM December 1976 M�RM�]li • • k A Q r } �♦ ♦ •♦i APO 11,014, .`�� ♦'♦ y'�q ■ tp� ` '�♦ p9p ' �� .fJ?S ri7 �♦. ♦ �♦� 'ram G♦ �♦i ■ ( ' PALM , /) ORANGE Y PACIFIC COAST HWY I Figure 1 -2 LEGEND lop NIWITON BM PL4NN�ING DEPARTME(1�IFORNIA RES©NTIAL� AMENDMENT Low Density 0-7 un/gac. GENERAL PLAN - Medium Density 8-15 un/gac ® High Density above 15 un/gac • • �f tOq. COr 1�1�♦i♦� k'sr q 1• ♦� lot �a f,�� QQ`� o��♦r �1�IiD1 •i♦� 1` yv� • yam.y`/�/ `P�a ��� •: ��� . i `' $r . • cy4, ■ a~ ♦i♦ 6 J - ■ S PALM ANGE ■ � PACIFIC COAST NWY � � • i EDISON INDUSTRIAL AREA Adft Figure 2-1 PMNNrIN DEPWMEII�IFORNIA Areas Of Concern GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 77-2 PART 3 • 2. 0 GENERAL PLAN AREAS OF CONCERN • This section deals with the Edison Industrial Area. It establishes a plan of General Plan land uses -to be adopted for four issue areas , within the Edison Industrial District. The study areas are designated in Figure 2-1. 2 . 1 Edison Industrial Area The Edison Industrial Area flanks the north side of the Edison Company generating plant at Hamilton Avenue and Newland Street. Most of the property fronts on Hamilton Avenue from the Orange County Flood Control Channel D1-2 Channel to Magnolia Street. It consists of approximately 104. 97 acres designated general industry by the General Plan Land Use Element. The Edison Area has the lowest industrial potential in the City. The largest parcels are vacant. Serious drainage and soil problems associated with a former dump site retard development of the largest site at Magnolia Street and Hamilton Avenue. The deletion of the Route 1 and Route 39 Freeways have further reduced the industrial desirability of the entire area. 3 • 1 • , 2. 1. 1 North of Hamilton Avenue and West of Newland Street • 2. 1. 1. 1 Background The subject property encompasses 25. 82 gross acres which are classified as having low suitability for industrial development (Figure 2-2) . However, the property is occupied with a quality industrial use, and an oil tank • farm. The property is zoned M1=A-0 and designated Indus- trial in the General Plan. To the west across an Orange County flood control channel is vacant property designated as a planning reserve and a portion as commercial in the General Plan; to the south is vacant property designated • as industrial in the General Plan; to the east across Newland Street are single family homes and to the north are low and medium density residences. 2. 1. 1. 2 Analysis The area of concern has low site suitability for indus- trial uses. Once the need for the oil tank farm no longer exists, the property will be hard pressed to find and support alternative industrial uses. However, the property will remain in productive oil use for some time to come, consequently there is no need to determine alternative • land uses at this time. For purposes of clarity, however, an alternative designa- tion would be helpful to more accurately reflect the status of the property. Since this property could be related to the planning reserve to the west and south in a total planning effort for the area east and north of the inter- section of Pacific Coast Highway and Beach Boulevard a planning reserve designation would serve the purposes of reflecting the need for further planning, allowing the existing uses and relating the area of concern to the larger planning area. • 2. 1. 1. 3 Recommendation The area of concern located north of Hamilton Avenue and west of Newland Street should be redesignated planning reserve. • 2 . 1. 2 South of Hamilton Avenue and West of Newland Street 2. 1. 2. 1 Background The area of concern encompasses 16. 55 gross acres (Figure 2-3) . The property is vacant and is designated as having 4 • 13 RrTLEeoRo M u� G6E L M E D o LN. _ _ :� : --� o 3 0. m J 2 -Comm, - �RflEto_- � •=:____DR G : ; W y E N S I" N • J w. SABL -ivvfr_UOzT SCONE OR NLL-C AD DR. W N D E � S I i D ---- -____ E SL AUWAI STEX Z GFy OR • J W F WLid 2 ' ;bir It Z m U ;bu - c u U o DONSTER DR J W Bt1SWX ;r u m J EOKkIAIL-• i r---•-�- • LN J J PLA NI OZ� n RESE VE L I G T ' o 0 rAAM S O MILfE DR. • INDUST � \ TANK O FARM Q O [.0 . ■. sA"°. "°OK HAMIL ON r LIGHT INDUSTRIAL • PLANNING \� DESERVE ` F C. D DI-2 MEDIUM DENSITY "C / FN6iA AC/I/ � c 0 s • AREA OF CONCERN 2.1.1 • NORTH OF HAMILTON AVENUE & WEST OF NEWLAND STREET Figure 2-2 • 5 • UBLO*OCK i DRY1" DR M ED t a o {� W {� = Z W y _ a uo DONUSTER DR Q J w r- Q R. - NS__ TTLO J J - a � o z z 0 z c PLAN J I NG L I G H T 0 0 s� n • O WILW DR. RESE VE I N D U S ; TANK FARM Q O O .� " ram • HAMILTON r LIGHT INDUSTRIAL • 0. C. F. C. D. Df-2 P ANNING MEDIUM Rfpl '"°` • EM6 C0 RESERVE DENSITY LILT GIs, IND STRIA., QU ti PU LIC • AREA OF CONCERN 2.1.2 SOUTH OF HAMILTON AVENUE & WEST OF NEWLAND STREET • Aft Figure 2-3 m n mom low site suitability for industrial development. The . property is zoned M1-A-O and designated industrial in the General Plan. To the west across an Orange County flood control channel is vacant property designated as a planning reserve in the General Plan; to the south across the same Orange County flood control channel is a mobile home park; to the east across Newland Street is a mini- warehouse; to the north is an oil tank farm. 2. 1. 2 . 2 Analysis The area of concern which is vacant is similar to the area of concern 2. 1. 1 to the north. The only substantive difference is the existance of the oil tank farm to the north. Just as in area of concern 2. 1. 1, and for the same reasons, this area of concern should be redesignated a planning reserve. 2 . 1. 2 . 3 Recommendation The area of concern located south of Hamilton Avenue and west of Newland Street should be redesignated planning reserve. 2. 1. 3 South of the O.C.F.C.D. D1-2 Channel and West of Newland • Street 2. 1. 3. 1 Background The area of concern encompasses 4 . 82 gross acres (Figure 2-4) . The property is vacant and is designated as having • low site suitability for industrial development. The property is zoned M1-A-O and is designated on the northern most portion as industrial in the General Plan with the remainder designated for public, quasi-public, . institution- al use. To the west and south is a mobile home park; to the east across Newland Street is the Edison Company Generating Plant; to the north across an Orange County flood control channel is vacant property designated as industrial in the General Plan. 2. 1. 3. 2 Analysis • This area of concern is the last of three related areas of concern located west of Newland Street. All three areas of concern (2 . 1. 1, 2 . 1. 2 and this one 2 . 1. 3) are of low site suitability for industrial development. For the reasons cited in 2. 1. 1 and referred to in 2. 1. 2, • this area of concern should be redesignated planning reserve. • 7 • TANK V u `— I G� � swror HOOK ac FARM T O .� ■■ , i `�: Q S N INDUSTRIAL LIGHT 1 N D IJ STRIA C F C. D. DI-2 0. SN/I f__i Q MEDIUM #S/wANCRA '� a , FM6/Mf aler./• `�3�� 0 D E N S I T Y • _IGHT ' INDU. RIAL0 . O PLANNING RESERVE QU SI f. �; ''• P U B L I , • EDISON CO. II 11 GENERATING PLANT fit I I I 11 II • • AREA OF CONCERN 2.1.3 SOUTH OF OCFCD DI-2 CHANNEL & WEST OF NEWLAND STREET Adft Figure 2-4 s 2. 1. 3. 3 Recommendation The area of concern located south of the Orange County Flood Control District D1-2 Channel and west of Newland Street should be redesignated as a planning reserve. 2 . 1. 4 South of Hamilton Avenue and West of Magnolia Street 2. 1. 4 . 1 Background The area of concern encompasses 40. 2 gross acres (Figure 2-5) . It contains a former rotary mud dump and scattered oil production facilities. The area is of low site suitability. The existing zone is M1-A-O and the area is designated industrial. 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 gener- ating plant abuts the property on the south and partially on the west across the Orange County Flood Control District D1-2 Channel. Also across the channel are several small industrial businesses. The west side of the property is bounded by a mini-warehouse operation and vacant indus- trial land. 2. 1. 4. 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 develop- ment. 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 area of concern 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 com- patible with adjacent residences. However, the need for ARX 9 • 1 F F- R E C. < CF --L�i 9 w -j 0 ors —Tly .----D PEN SPACE (D PUBLIC MILNE DO HATTERAS OR&X SAMOV HOOK co 7- --- ..... HAW.Q.TON • :00 REGATTA TA LIGHT INDU T IAL 1 ROTARY 8086IE CR •1-2 0o. c� M U D 1 11 NIGUEL CR. SM4 0 0 w U D UMP SrORA06of ADELIA rANKS z D E -N, 0 F CL RHOD E�SSl A 0 EIERMUDA z QUAS IO � -j p L I C ------ KAHULUI EDISON CO GEWRATWG PUBLIC PLANT MAHALO • h KAPAA 0 \ // A OHA • • AREA OF CONCERN 2-1-4 SOUTH OF HAMILTON AVENUE & WEST OF MAGNOLIA STREET Figure 2-5 10 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. A low density residential designation would be compatible with the park uses to the north and single-family residences • across Magnolia Street. The OCFCD channel serves as a logical boundary 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. 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, includ- ing Huntington Beach. It is uncertain whether the study area would be used for the plant expansion or merely • purchased as a buffer zone. Since there is no clear cut preference as to eventual use of the property and that the eventual use of the property will be affected by the outcome of decisions concerning the Edison Company expansion, the property should be • redesignated planning reserve in order to reflect the fact that future decisions concerning the property are forthcoming. 2. 1. 4. 3 Recommendation The area of concern located south of Hamilton Avenue and west of Magnolia Street should be redesignated planning reserve. • • • 11 3. 0 AMENDMENT SUMMARY 3. 1 Area of Concern Summaries • The following sections summarize the recommended changes in General Plan land use designations for the affected areas. All changes are shown in Figure . 3-1. 3. 1. 1 North of Hamilton Avenue and West of Newland Street • The 25. 82 acre area of concern should be redesignated from general industrial to planning reserve. Proposed Land Use Acreage Summary Category Gross Acres Planning Reserve 25 . 82 AM& • 13 • J+ ATLANTA (( AVE r� ___.... I I YMTM E �P � ` CR R � • IDllS u!:T( r.�a.rlmp� I -�__ — - 9 T RFIELD DR J I:'; : OA -IT OR x(rlr P J e. WL,JAM E. •P - FRY � i 17 1 .COY[ P1111tA0 ST-LWELL NDR 'SN�er11 :.:A. R YAIETR[ I P % 1 0 - - - _ _ - Wi .. I 0 O (._ O D rsnRrf .,.., -, 1 .ali P wrrtRu F_ 1 O - IRE STa � EAR O. O.� .. '""'=' � r:aL>::N rr • _ J u HAMLTON uj e ROTARY 12 A °. c ` c D qC -1°'-2 M U D D U M P °1"be, e(' 9ST O O o. ruxs of ; 1 I Jr ---------------------4I N 4n MSON CO PLW � O I e Q • PACIFIC OCEAN 1 Q PLANNING RESERVE • SUMMARY GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 77-2, PART 3 • EDISON INDUSTRIAL AREA FiJ3- • 14 3. 1. 2 South of Hamilton Avenue and West of Newland Street • The 16. 55 acre study area should be redesignated from general industrial to planning reserve. Proposed Land Use Acreage Summary Category Gross Acres • Planning Reserve 16. 55 3.1. 3 South of the Orange County Flood Control District D1-2 Channel and West of Newland Street The 4 . 82 acre study area should be redesignated from general industrial to planning reserve. Proposed Land Use Acreage Summary • Category Gross Acres Planning Reserve 4. 82 3 . 1. 4 South of Hamilton Avenue and West of Magnolia Street The 40. 2 acre area of concern should be redesignated from general industrial to planning reserve. Proposed Land Use Acreage Summary Category Gross Acres • Planning Reserve 40. 2 3. 2 Summary of General Plan Amendment 77-2, Part 3 Land Use Acreage Summary • Land Use Existing Proposed Net Category Gross Acreage Gross Acreage Gross Acreage General Industrial 87. 39 0 - 87 . 39 Planning Reserve 0 87 . 39 87 . 39 • Net population projected ro o p j p p generated by this amendment is zero. • • 15 • • I • • • • • • • 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 Advance Planning Section of the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department. • 17 I ■ i 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 two study areas: the Central Industrial Corridor and Edison Industrial Area. The Gothard Corridor encompasses a total of 629.62 acres, and extends along Southern Pacific Railroad Right-of-Way and Gothard Street between Edinger Avenue and Garfield Avenue. The Edison Area covers 104. 97 acres concentrated at Hamilton Avenue and Newland Street. The two study areas are shown in Figure 2-1. Approximately 352.21 acres of industrial land within the two concern areas 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 decisions, establishing land use policy accordingly. Specifically, it provides a comprehensive plan of land uses to be adopted for the Central Industrial Corridor and Edison Industrial Area. An implementation plan accompanies the amendment but it is illustrative only and is not to be adopted. The goals and objectives of the project are outlined in Section 1. 1 of the amendment. Figures 2-2 and 2-3 depict the comprehensive plan for the two industrial areas. Figure 4-2 summarizes the proposed actions for 30 study areas within the Gothard Corridor and Edison Area. It should be noted that four concern areas have been recently approved under General Plan Amendment 77-1. Although no change occurs under this amendment, the four concern areas will be considered in cumulative impact where appropriate. FIGURE 4-2 AREA OF CONCERN RECOMMENDATION Central Industrial Corridor 1. Gothard Street, North Retain industrial on 126. 55 of Warner Avenue acres 2. South of Warner Avenue, Redesignate 18. 03 acres to East of Gothard Street medium density residential 3. South of Warner Avenue, Retain industrial on 13 .16 West of Nichols Street acres; redesignate 6.51 acres commercial 18 • • • • • • • i • • • : sAN 40 M1. . rrRNANOO Z MT.WILSON V BN, f () r rw cr�� �v •' �Z ALTADEMA Z 7 e`er F-',Q LAM MOTS / 1 rp O , ,a z c WjN O NORTH RURRAMk 1 p1 �. 'J OJ EV..�RA 101 OVWOOD `t 30 Mi. CAIAGASAS GLCMDAI[I tPASADEMA ARCADDIIA —To Son Francisco 3A 3 T SAM OTEMILE CITY SALON,. Y -PJ HOLLT.00DO ; ROIEL PARK IC01,IN1 � n' l Y O, r �71 CJ or p I EL MON?E 3 , M•C-A.,RHw owraB- POI -► UCLA O ✓ I✓wOWEST POMONANI 000VINA MT►BIO`: . I / LOS NALES - - ►s L1 1. - �•-� .-I 10 POMON° p�- INDUSTRr rAE,NUt `/__ ` O �[J O 0 SANTA MONICA CU Y:R UsG v DIAMOND OCOMMERCE 20 MI. BAR HURTIVGTOR Jv r � 0 � o • -t + S `• i O E LOS ANGELES ° COU44, _ e INGiC MOOD DOYNft SANTA F __ nt �\ O (�3rRIMGB ORANGE COUNTY F914 CI �Iy CAL STATE COLLEGE _ i AT F UUERTON 57 WWW NORWALK rj YORBA :INDA .. .. eN•i •j. .�`\\ W .0 GARDENA ,-. c, LL aB B•FVLLERTON i MANHATTAN SEACN� r, ARTESIA FIINY `:r. yF (-I C' Blvo. _ gl _ y `,. PLACE VTiA 911 9 L ABT SIA —.-_ ._ CI�./ �.o III EAS LE T HERMOSA REACHQ + Nr- _ C,9••S'�, .'� LAKEWOOD 1 7Y•. 0 ♦NAHEIM R[OOM00 REACH 70 OANCE Y ; o N V+• `A VILLAPARK O I Y PALOS TEROEs/� _ _ .._L. ESTATE" '.AL STATE LLEGE .. •" •'•'T'T"` E c34Untl na fOn T LONG ACHr-� t i; ea J --- ---L_-L.) GAP1.I H .pw� LONG _CH_ - 22 \ SANTA rn c J AMA 'l TUSTIN .`� DAL PE .0.,1 .��.-'-•--' .,EACH } �. � ;• ;GWEST':.oLS0M:' 55 ••;• of \40 �a Y lV \ \••• •S• / ' o �� /RNr \�\��' •OSTA 1.. ► / C.IRVINE •; \ 73 i _- .0 VICINITY MAP `tEiN MILES O p iC \ 7 O HUNTINGTON BEACH �JL ruNA 8 \� EACH j AREA OF CONCERN RECOMMENDATION • 4. West of Gothard Street, Redesignate 5. 69 acres low East of Betty Dr. density residential 5. West of Gothard St. , Redesignate 14.68 acres to East of Ford Dr. public, quasi-public, and institutional 6. North of Slater Ave. , Retain low density residentia West of Gothard St. on 4 . 87 acres 7. North of Slater Ave. , Redesignate 19.92 acres to East of Gothard St. low density residential 8. North of Slater Ave. , Retain industrial on 19. 53 West of Nichols St. acres 9. South of Slater Ave. , Redesignate 13. 31 acres to West of Gothard St. public, quasi-public, and institutional 10. South of Slater Ave. , Redesignate 19. 54 acres to East of Gothard St. low density residential 11. Nichols St. , South of Redesignate 18. 89 acres to Slater Ave. medium density residential 12. South of Slater Ave. , Retain industrial on 16. 59 West of Morgan Lane acres 13. North of Talbert Ave.., Redesignate 18. 29 acres to West of Gothard St. resource production. 14. North of Talbert Ave. , Redesignate 19.76 acres to East of Gothard St. low density residential 15. North of Talbert Ave. , Retain medium density West of Beach Blvd. residential on 38. 7 acres 16. South of Talbert Ave. , Retain industrial on 9.64 East of Gothard St. acres 17. South of Talbert Ave. , Retain industrial on 19.35 East of Railroad acres 18. South of Talbert Ave. , Redesignate 20. 01 acres to West of Baron Cr. low density residential 20 • 19. South of Talbert Ave. , Retain low density residential West of Beach Blvd. on 11. 81 acres 20. North of Ellis Ave. , Retain industrial on 30. 42 West of Gothard St. acres • 21. North of Ellis Ave. , Retain industrial on 29.12 East of Gothard St. acres 22 . North of Garfield Ave. , Retain industrial on 31.97 West of Crystal St. acres • 23. Gothard St. , South of Redesignate 32. 75 acres to Ellis Ave. estate residential and 46. 86 acres to low density residen- tial 24. North of Main St. , Redesignate 3.62 acres to • West of Huntington St. medium density residential; retain medium density residen- tial on 7.14 acres; retain industrial on 12.91 acres Edison Industrial Area • 1. North of Hamilton Ave. , Redesignate 25. 82 acres to West of Newland St. planning reserve 2 . South of Hamilton Ave. , Redesignate 16. 55 acres to West of Newland St. planning reserve • 3. South of O.C.F.C.D. Redesignate 4. 82 acres to Channel, West of planning reserve Newland St. 4. South of Hamilton Ave. , Retain industrial on 7.68 • East of Newland St. acres 5. South of O.C.F.C.D. , Retain industrial on 2. 94 East of Newland St. acres 6. South of Hamilton Ave. , Redesignate 47.16 acres to • West of Magnolia St. planning reserve • 21 4.2 Environmental Setting 4.2.1 Natural Environmental Setting Huntington Beach is a metropolitan city, and as such its environment - both local and regional - is primarily an urban one. However, significant natural resources and areas do remain within the city. The following sections address those resources that are present within the Central Industrial Corridor and the Edison Industrial Area. 4.2.1.1 Land Resources The Land resources of the Huntington Beach area are . generally divided into two physiographic zones, (1) a broad alluvial flood plain that grades seaward into tidal marshlands , and (2) a series of structural hills and mesas. The Central Industrial Corridor is located within both of these zones and the Edison Industrial Area is located within the flood plain zone. A major portion of the Central Industrial Corridor from Garfield Avenue to just south of Warner Avenue lies within the hills and mesa zone that is the northwestern part of the Huntington Beach Mesa. The Huntington Beach mesa represents an upper Pleistocene land surface produced by faulting and anticlinal folding within the northwest trending Newport-Inglewood Structural zone. This area contains wide variations in topography that range to as high as 75 feet above the surrounding flood plain. The most common elevations, however, range from 50 to 75 feet. The majority of this area has less than 5 percent topographic slope, but a significant area with slopes up to 30 percent does exist approximately 1/2 mile north of Garfield Avenue. This depression runs from Goldenwest Street to Beach Boule- vard. Just north of Talbert Avenue another depression exists with slopes ranging from 10 to 30 percent. The soils in the mesa area are generally silty and fine sandy loams overlying shallow layers having a factor of 2 percent or more clay content. That portion of the Central Industrial Corridor from Edinger Avenue to Warner Avenue is within the flood plain zone. The elevation of this area ranges from 15 to 25 feet above sea level. No significant variations in topography occur in this area. The soils contain a clay content of 20 to 42 percent which places the expansive soils problems as moderate to high. The Edison Industrial Area is also located in the flood plain that has been built up over geologic time by sedi- ments deposited by the flood waters of the Santa Ana River. 22 This area has elevations ranging from 0 to 5 feet above • sea level. No significant natural variations in topography occur. The soils have variable quantities of expansive soil. The two industrial areas under consideration are subjected to the seismic conditions generally affecting the City of • Huntington Beach. The City sits astride the Newport- Inglewood Structural Zone, an elongated zone of faults and hills of contorted sedimentary rock of which Huntington Beach Mesa is but one. The zone extends southeast 'from the Santa Monica Mountains at least as far south as Laguna Beach. Other of the numerous fault systems of • Southern California will of course affect the Huntington Beach area, but their impact would be considerably less. Within the last 50 years no less than thirteen earthquakes of magnitude of 4.0 or greater have occurred within a radius of ten miles of Huntington Beach (Leighton-Yen & • Associates, p.10) . Four of these have epicenters located within the city limits. The region will continue to be at least as seismically active in the future as it has been in the past. The major topographic irregularities on the Huntington Beach Mesa surface are related to faulting within the Newport-Inglewood Structural zone. This fault • zone is topographically expressed within the district by the previously described hills and depressions. The Central Industrial Corridor is crossed by two fault zones. The Bolsa Fairview Fault extends across the southern portion of the project area. Adjacent to and roughly paralleling Ellis Avenue. The minor Yorktown Avenue Fault • traverses the area northwest-southeast from Main Street at Garfield Avenue. The Edison Industrial area is traversed by the active South Branch Fault, also an active fault. 4.2.1. 2 Water Resources • A crucial factor in the environment of Southern California has always been the availability of water for domestic use, for agriculture, and for recreation. Its scarcity as well as its multiple use potential have made water a prime natural asset, and Huntington Beach has several important water and water-related areas. One of the City's • most significant natural resources is the ocean and shore- line. The ocean, of course, dominates the area' s climate and along with 831 miles of beach provides ,an important wildlife habitat and scenic recreation resource for the • 23 entire region. Three important saltwater estuaries -- Sunset Bay, Bolsa Chica Bay and the mouth of the Santa Ana River -- exist in the City's Sphere of Influence; and several lakes and inland marshes occur, especially in the Central Park area. The Santa Ana River, once the largest in Southern California, bounds the City to the southeast. Today, it is a leveed sand bottom channel. 4.2.1.3. Air Resources Air pollution differs by area depending on human activity and natural features . As a rule, however, the three major sources are motor vehicles , electrical generating plants, and industry. The major source is the private automobile which accounts for 90 percent of all emissions. Stationary sources, like the Edison generating plant, and industries such as petroleum, metallurgy and solvents, contribute less to the overall pollution problem and are easier to detect and control. The South Coast Air Basin, which includes Huntington Beach, is a critical air area. Huntington Beach is fortunate, however, in that it doer not suffer the effects of air pollution to the degree experienced by most other South- land communities. Several factors are responsible - degree of urban activity, local meteorology, and local topography. Daily sea breezes along the coast clear the skies by sweeping pollutants inland thereby intensifying the problem for interior communities. The City's relatively flat topography offers little resistance to i this condition. The Orange County Air Pollution Control District has no monitoring stations within the City so actual air quality ratings are unavailable. In nearby Costa Mesa where recordings are taken, air samples are generally of higher quality than from communities farther inland. Therefore, though the City is not free of aerial contamination, the problem is not severe. 4. 2.1. 4 Biological Resources r Within the project areas there are several recognizable types of biotic habitat, each occupied by relatively distinct assemblages of organisms. Areas of principle interest are those with substantial vegetation, and/or few man-made structures. The major classes of present day, natural habitat in this area are as follows: • 24 Annual Grasslands Cultivated Fields • Eucalyptus Groves Freshwater Marsh and Pond Parks In addition, Valley Grassland and Riparian habitats existed locally in prehistoric times , but have been eliminated or severely altered by human activity. • The original Valley Grassland community included perennial bunchgrasses as the major vegetation type. These native grasses , being slow to reproduce, were largely replaced as a result of man's grazing of stock animals and his introduction of aggressive exotic species of annual grasses. Annual herbs and grasses predominate in areas formerly occupied by the native grassland. These areas now comprise what is here termed annual grassland. Such sites are fairly common in Huntington Beach, especially in the vicinity of oil leaseholdings and other fields where plowing is done infrequently. This type of habitat • supports a limited variety of small mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians . Cultivated fields in the region formerly were much more extensive. Currently they are located in scattered areas in the north part of the City. They support only a • very small variety of vertebrate animal life, including such mammals as house mice (Mus) moles (�Sca an�us) , and a few bird species which do some of their feeding in the field, e.g. , Killdeer, Long-billed Curlews, gulls, Brewer's Blackbirds, Common Crows, Mourning Doves, etc. • Parks appear to be very limited at present in Huntington Beach. They probably support mainly introduced bird species such as Rock Doves , Starlings and English Sparrows. Talbert Lake in the partially completed Central Park supports coots and a variety of ducks, most of • them domesticated varieties. Eucalyptus groves are man-made habitats that are of interest in that they support a variety of bird and mammal life and because they constitute the only significant form of tree in the area. Most of these i eucalyptus are Blue Gum (EucalyEtus Globus) . Birds such as Sparrow Hawks, Redtailed Hawks , Turkey Vultures, Barn Owls, Great Horned Owls and others utilize the groves for nesting or roosting. These groves , originally planted as windbreaks, are of aesthetic and historical interest in addition to their biotic values. As such, they • represent a unique feature of the Huntington Beach 2"5 landscape. Continued indiscriminate removal of the eucalyptus would eventually eliminate the groves since these trees are not being replanted in the same pattern • or at a great rate. Fresh water marsh and streamside habitats have been eliminated for the most part from this area. Flood control measures have redirected local streams such as the Santa Ana River and have confined them to man-made • channels. This practice has killed natural streamside vegetation in the area and only several ponds support fresh water habitats. These ponds, some of them man-made, are typically much altered from the natural state. The predominant plants are usually cattails (Typha latifolia) . Wherever they comprise an extensive area, ponds are • inhabited by a variety of birds. The smaller ponds do not support many species of birds nor many other types of animals. 4.2.1.5 Cultural Resources • The Open Space Element of the .General Plan has identified one potential site near the Central Industrial Corridor as having historical landmark significance. This is the Old Japanese Church. Five archeological sites are located within the Central Industrial Corridor. Several of these sites are partially destroyed but significant site areas • remain to be examined. No historic, archeological, or cultural resources are located in the Edison Industrial Area. 4.2.2 Urban Environmental Setting • As indicated in Section 4.2 , the majority of the Huntington Beach area is urban. This section therefore addresses the manmade environmental setting. The main topics covered are : (1) land use, (2) circulation, (3) public services, (4) utilities, (5) population, (6) noise, and (7) socio- economics. 4.2.2.1 Land Use The area within which the General Plan Amendment Areas of • Concern is located, is a diverse area that contains a variety of land uses. The uses range from marginal industrial development such as an automobile dismantling yard to good industrial development to public facilities such as the City's Corporation Yard. Some scattered, older single family houses are also located within the Central Industrial Corridor. • 26 The Edison Industrial area contains uses such as the longer operational Rotary Mud Dump, mini-warehouse operations, a sandblasting service, automobile dismantling yard and a Human Society Kennel. Existing utilization of the 734 acres of land within the two industrial areas consist of the following: Central Industrial Corridor Vacant and/or oil extraction 309 . 4 49:3 Single family residential 8.0 1.3 • Mobile home residential 5. 7 0.9 Quality general industrial 150.9 24. 0 Marginal general industrial 94. 6 15.0 Non conforming uses (misc. ) 27. 8 3.6 Public facilities 33. 3 5 .2 Recreational 4.9 0.7 • TOTAL 629. E ac 0� % Edison Industrial Area Vacant and/or oil extraction 90. 5 86. 3 Quality general industrial 14.4 13. 7 • TOTAL 104.9 10 0% Current zoning designations for the study areas are Ml and M2. 4.2 .2.2 Circulation • The primary element of the circulation system for the Central Industrial Corridor is Gothard Street. This street extends from McFadden Avenue near the San Diego Freeway to Garfield Street and traverses the entire length of the corridor in a north south direction. The majority of the • parcels included in the Central Industrial Corridor take access from Gothard Street. Gothard Street is currently designated and portions are constructed to secondary arterial highway standards with an ultimate right-of-way width of 80 feet. As of July, 1976 average daily traffic from Gothard Street ranged from 4200 to 8800 automobiles. When completely developed, Gothard Street will have four lanes and will be able to accommodate safely and efficiently up to 20,000 automobiles per day. • 27 A number of east-west arterials also provide access into the Central Industrial Corridor and to the individual parcels within. . Warner Avenue is the largest east-west arterial serving the corridor. It is designated as a major arterial on the City's Circulation Plan and is designed with a capacity of up to 45,000 automobiles per day. In July, 1976 , average daily traffic in the vicinity of Gothard Street ranged from 22,700 to 24,200 . This is the most heavily traveled portion of Warner Avenue. The other arterials providing access to the Central Industrial Corridor are Edinger Avenue, Heil Avenue, Slater Avenue, Talbert Avenue, Ellis Avenue and Garfield Avenue. Of the east-west arterials only Warner Avenue and Ellis Avenue have direct freeway access. • Access to the Edison Industrial Area is provided by three arterial streets. North-south access is via Newland Street and Magnolia Street. Newland Street is designated as a secondary arterial on the City's Circulation Plan and will have a design capacity of up to 20 ,000 automobiles per day. Although, most of Newland Street is fully developed, the portion within the industrial area from the Orange County Flood Control Channel to Pacific Coast Highway is not fully improved. Magnolia Street is located to the eastern edge of the amendment area and is designated as a primary arterial. • Hamilton Avenue is the only east-west street providing access to the Edison Industrial Area. It is designated as a primary arterial with an ultimate right-of-way of 100 feet. It will have a maximum capacity of 30 ,000 automobiles per day. In July, 1976 the average daily traffic volume • on Hamilton Avenue is 3,300. Hamilton Avenue currently ends at Newland Street but is planned to extend through to Beach Boulevard at some time in the future. 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 portion of the City at Main Street and Yorktown Avenue. • The present level of police manning is approximately 1.14 officers per 1,000 persons (June, 1976) . • 28 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. The Gothard and Murdy Stations are located within the Central Industrial Corridor. The Edison Industrial Area is serviced by the Magnolia Station which is located at the corner of Hamilton Avenue and Magnolia Street. 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. The Central Industrial Corridor is serviced by Hunting- ton Beach and Ocean View High Schools , and Oakview elementary school. The Edison Industrial Area is • serviced by Edison High School and Kettler School. ARX I 29 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 11, to 2 miles. E. Hospital Service There are two hospitals located within the City. Both Pacifica Hospital (located on Delaware Street north of Garfield Avenue) and Huntington Intercommunit 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, Section 2. 5, and the Open Space Potentials Report, Section 2.0 . 4.2.2. 4 Utilities A. Natural Gas The Southern California Gas Company supplies natural gas to the City of Huntington Beach. Yearly consump- tion rates are as follows: • • 30 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. B. Electricity • The Southern California Edison Company provides electricity to the City of Huntington Beach. The following annual consumption rates are assumed: Residential • Single-family 5,700 kwh/d.u. Multiple-family 5,700 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 • 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, current sewer production in the City is estimated at 22. 7 million gallons per day or 8.3 billion gallons per year. • 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 Station • on Gothard Street near Huntington Central Park. The trash is then transferred to larger trucks and hauled to the Coyote Canyon landfill site.' The following generation rates are assumed: • • 31 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 estimated at 22.7 million gal/day or 8. 3 billion gallons • per year. 4.2.2.5 Population The population of Huntington Beach is 157,800 (January, 1977) . The current growth rate is less than 3 percent and is likelyto 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. 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 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. 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. • • 32 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 highways are responsible for the highest noise exposures in Hun- tington Beach. Sources producing the lower noise levels were typically found in residential areas away from arterials, residential areas near arterials but with barrier walls, and in school acreas. Generally, the single event noise intrusions observed in Huntington Beach fell within the "acceptable" noise criteria levels. 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. For those house- holds reporting incomes in the 1973 Special Census , the median incomes by family size areas follows: One member $ 8, 517 Two members 12,945 Three members 14,399 Four members 14 ,941 Five members 16 ,658 Six or more 15,614 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. • 33 i 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 77-2, Part 3 will be to reduce potential intensity of industrial activities , and increase residential uses in the areas of concern. Public facility, commercial, and resource production also show an increase but these changes accommodate existing uses. The following table summarizes the acreage change in land use designations: Existing Proposed General Industrial 352. 21 0 Estate Residential 0 32. 75 Low Density Residential 0 131. 78 Medium Density 0 40. 54 Residential General Commercial 0 6. 51 Public, Quasi-Public, 0 27.99 Institutional Resource Production 0 18 .29 Planning Reserve 0 94. 35 • A land use analysis is presented in Section 2.0 of this report for each of the 30 study areas within the Gothard Corridor and Edison Industrial Area. The amendment generally establishes dispersed industrial nodes and protects prime vacant areas and most existing industrial development. The industrial districts are interspersed • with residential areas of an estate, low, or medium density character. The proposed uses generally improve com- patibility with surrounding land uses over the long-term. Short-term conflicts may occur between residential development and marginal industrial activities as they phase out. Following the suggested implementation strategy • outlined in Section 3. 0 would mitigate most of these problems. Planned development, estate and civic district zoning allow for some buffering with industrial uses, and set a design concept that consolidates open space to encourage quality residential development and improve compatibility with Central Park. • In the Edison Area, the amendment protects existing industrial uses and preserves industrial buffering with the Edison Generating Plant. Most of the area is redesignated planning reserve to maintain options for a possible Edison plant expansion as well as a master plan • • 34 • for the entire area west of Newland Street to Pacific Coast Highway and Beach Boulevard. Planning reserve in itself generates no environmental effect and with a limite use zone preserves the area in its present form until long-term planning decisions are made. • The proposed residential uses in the Gothard Corridor 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 also 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 de- signation is implemented, grading activity will modify the generally flat to rolling topography in order to accommodate development. However, to reduce the pos- sibility of adverse impacts on the topographic landscape in particular concern areas (Areas 4, 6, 10, 11, 14, 15, 23, and 24 in the Gothard Corridor) , 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 and estate zoning. The change from industrial to residential is, therefore, essentially a mitigation measure. The City's natural blufflines would be affected by the proposed amendment in the concern areas north of Talbert Avenue and south of Ellis Avenue, but again planned development concepts can preserve them. 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 (Area 6 in the Edison Area) also have moderate to high expansion potentials. • 1 • 35 • 1 � i The study areas having low expansion potential are for the most part located southeasterly of the Huntington Beach Mesa. The soils in this area are predominantly silty fine sands and sandy silts with about 6 to 7 percent 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 recom- mendations for individual structures. The location of peat and organic soils is shown in the Geotechnical Inputs Report, February 1974 Figure 3-7. • The report indicates that the industrial area north of Warner Avenue (Area 1) and two residential areas below Warner (Areas 2 and 41 in the Gothard Corridor contain peat and organic soils. The planning reserves in the Edison Area, including the Rotary Mud Dump, also possess peat deposits to unknown depth and thickness. 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 antici- pated. 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. Chemical processes are capable of neutralizing much of the waste material. However, the unknown consistency of substances below the surface may require some waste removal to another Class III solid waste disposal site in Los Angeles County. No such sites are currently available in Orange County. Although the amendment redesignates the Rotary Mud Dump as planning reserve, long-term planning should fully consider the site's problems. Soil engineers should thoroughly investigate the soil composition, conduct sample borings , and make proper design recommendations for individual structures , if any future development is permitted. The County Environmental Management Agency is already taking steps in this direction. It has i 36 • I • I recently received a grant from the State to do a compre- hensive study of the waste material. The soil report is expected to be completed by August, 1977 . 4. 3.1. 4 Geologic Considerations 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 southeasterly 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 1976, details these special Study Zones on page 29 and sets forth guiding criteria. No area of concern is directly affected by the Special Study Zone. • Concern areas 20-24 at or south of Ellis Avenue in the Gothard Corridor and the entire Edison Area 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 Development • 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 for sites not covered by the Special Study Zone. These requirements are imposed for all discretionary acts. Loss of life and structural damage is thereby reduced. 4. 3 .2 Water Resources 4. 3.2 .1 Regional Flood Hazard • The industrial area north of Warner Avenue (Area 1) , and the proposed residential areas between Slater Avenue and Talbert Avenue (Areas 10, 11, and 14) in the Central Industrial Corridor, and the entire Edison Area located in the Talbert Gap are subject to flooding in the • 100 - and 200 - year storms. This amendment would increase residential development in the flood plains by 558 dwelling units with a population of 1, 614 persons over the potential development to be generated by the existing land use designations. Industrial acreage exposed to the regional flood hazard would be reduced by 58. 2 acres. The amendment will have no appreciable effect within the • • 37 the planning reserves of the Edison Area until long-term land use planning decisions occur. • A program to minimize danger from flooding was adopted by 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. Certain steps are also being taken to eliminate the flood hazard posed by the Santa Ana River. The United States 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 regulated 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 and recycling industrial uses 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 69 cubic feet per second below that generated by development 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 (Areas 15 , 18 and 19) and along Slater Avenue (Areas 10 and 11) are currently unserviced. The change in designation from industrial to residential will hasten the need for planned drainage facilities in the area. Groundwater level is very important in a coastal city like Huntington Beach (subject to salt water intrusion) which relies on groundwater as a major source of domestic water. The amount of percolation will be increased by development under the Land Use Amendment. More percolation will mean increased fresh groundwater storage and possible reduced salt water intrusion. 38 • • Runoff is characteristically of poor quality and can adversely affect surface water. It is probable that runoff from development will flow into 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. Control of urban runoff and its impact on regional water quality is still in the elementary stages. At present, the only effective mitigation measure • is to process such runoff in a sewage treatment facility. 4.3.3 Biological Resources The Gothard Corridor and Edison Area are generally devoid of significant vegetation or wildlife populations. Most of the vacant sites are primarily characterized by low growing weeds. Where industrial development has occurred, natural vegetation and landscaping are almost non-existent. This feature tends to minimize compatibility with Central Park. Concern areas 2 , 7, 19 , 23, and 24 in the Gothard Corridor support a number of large eucalyptus trees , which • would probably be removed if industrially developed. All of these study areas, however, are recommended for redesignation to either estate, low, or medium density residential. Planned development and estate zoning would preserve many tree stands, while civic district zoning would encourage landscaping consistency with Central Park. Along with strict landscaping requirements, such measures would increase plant species and broaden vegetatio variety, thereby attracting displaced or new wildlife species to the planning area. 4.3.4 Cultural Resources • Four archaeological sites have been identified by Archaeological Research Incorporated as significant sites within the planning area. These are ORA 185, 367, and 372 along Gothard Street between Warner Avenue and Talbert Avenue, and ORA 359 along Slater Avenue east of Gothard • Street. Residential development of study areas 2 , 6, and 11 may adversely affect the archaeological sites unless regulatory policies are enforced. Cluster development could preserve the sites where appropriate, or they could be acquired through purchase. • • 39 • • I 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. Sections of some arterial and local. streets adjacent to the properties included under the amendment will need improvements. The improve- ments would occur as vehicular traffic increased or as properties are developed. • Under the existing land uses included in this amendment traffic volumes will generate 29 ,406 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 6 ,551 vehicular trips per day, increasing total vehicular trips generated by the new land use • designation to 35,957 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 trips per day. • FIGURE 4-2 Existing and Proposed Vehicle Trips Per Dayl Existing General Plan Proposed Amendment Trips/Day Trips/Day • Estate Residential 0 783 Low Density Residential 0 10 ,712 Medium Density Residential 0 8,165 General Commercial 0 1,953 General Industrial 0 11,798 Public, Quasi-Public 29 ,406 1,540 • Institutional Resource Production 0 1,006 TOTAL 29,406 35,957 Includes the four study areas approved under General Plan Amend- ment 77-1. Excludes the areas redesignated planning reserve. • 40 • LULTVV The bulk of the increased traffic will occur on arterial streets lying adjacent to the proposed residential redesignations. Peak daily traffic could be expected to increase along Gothard Street between Warner and Talbert Avenues; Gothard Street from Ellis Avenue to Garfield Avenue; and along Slater Avenue, • Talbert Avenue, and Garfield Avenue from Beach Boulevard to Goldenwest Street. Existing and proposed street widening projects along Gothard Street, Slater Avenue and Talbert Avenue, as well as the westerly realignment of Gothard Street south of Ellis and the Ellis Avenue extension, would accommodate the increased traffic, and minimize potential congestion and residential/industrial traffic conflicts over the long-term. While most residential development is expected to be long-term, some vacant areas may develop within several years. As a result, there may be interim increases in congestion and residential/industial traffic conflicts as marginal in- dustries phase out, new residences are constructed, and street improvements are implemented. Public transportation can be expected to absorb a small percentage of the new residential population and reduce vehicular trips. The proposed plan would add approximately . 6,896 persons 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. Much of the proposed residential area along Gothard Street lie 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. Such a program would equally benefit the industrial developments that are interspersed along Gothard Street from Warner Avenue to Garfield Avenue. 4.3.6 Air Resources In the construction phase there will be a temporary increase in air pollution from the site. Vehicle emissions from construction activity will increase slightly in a regional context, and may constitute a nuisance to local developments within and near the planning area. Dust from grading activity and asphalt odors from new paving will . also represent temporary air emissions in vicinity of the site. These impacts would occur regardless of the existing or proposed land use designations. • • 41 • I The control of short-term construction activities is provided for by the City of Huntington Beach by local ordinance and on-the-site inspection. Requirements include the following: control of dust by watering, control of smoke and exhaust emissions by up-to-date anti-pollution Equipment, and prohibiting trash burning at the site. Figure 4-3 summarizes air pollutants generated by • development under the existing industrial land use designations and development under the proposed com- prehensive plan. Emissions from stationary and mobile sources are provided for ultimate development. For mobile sources, 1990 emission factors are used. The summary indicates that full development of the Planning Area will yield a net emission gain to the South Coast Air Basin of .44. tons per day. Although development in accordance with this amendment will not substantially affect regional air quality, its effect must be considered as an increment in the cumulative degradation of the South Coast Air Basin. • 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 reduce air pollution. 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 . 03 1.18 1. 21 . 07 1. 19 1. 26 • Monoxide Hydrocarbons . 02 .11 .13 . 04 .12 .16 Nitrogen .28 .18 . 46 . 63 .18 . 81 Oxides Particulate . 01 . 05 . 06 . 01 . 06 . 07 Sulfur Oxides . 01 . 02 . 03 . 01 . 02 . 03 TOTAL . 35 1. 54 1. 89 . . 76 1. 57 2.33 The Edison Industrial Area lies adjacent to the Southern California 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. 42 • The direct effect upon the subject property will be similar to the other properties within the area. The • effect of the pollutants from the exhaust stacks on the subject property may, however, be minimal, due 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. Since most of the Edison Industrial Area is recommended for change to planning reserve, no significant effect on human health is expected from this amendment. However, future planning of the subject property should consider uses and 1 development concepts that minimize the power plant' s local impact. The Rotary Mud Dump site (Area 6 of the Edison Area) is recommended for redesignation to planning reserve by this amendment. Although the property would be held vacant until planned, any future use of the dump site, whether open space or developed, may produce odors in the atmospher 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 odors may affect residents living in surrounding residential areas for the duration of the development process. Much of the waste material can be neutralized by chemical treatment but those, wasters not conducive to treatment would require removal to a Class III dump site in Los Angeles County. 4. 3.7 Noise' An overall increase in general noise levels near the site may be expected due to the presence of heavy equipment during the construction process. Typical ranges of noise levels at construction sites with a 50 dBA ambient are shown in Figure 4-4. FIGURE 4-4 Noise Level Associated Wit The Constructing of Stores. Residences, Industrial, Activity Parking, etc. I II 1 Ground 84 83 Leq dB (A) Cleaning 9 16 Standard Devia- ation I-All pertinent equipment present at site. II-All pertinent equipment present at site. 43 Excavation 89 71 Leq dB (A) 6 2 Standard Deviation Foundations 77 77 Leq dB(A) 4 5 Standard Deviation Erection 84 72 Leq dB (A) 9 7 Standard Deviation Finishing 89 74 Leq dB(A) 7 10 Standard Deviation The data above assumes that the loudest piece of equipment is 50 feet away and the second loudest is 200 feet away. The noise impacts to be experienced in the various areas Of concern are typical of the sound disturbances experi- enced 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 traveled 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 system and indicates specific areas of noise impact (Noise Element Background Report, pages 64-65) . At ultimate development, the proposed residential areas would experience noise contour ranges of Ldn 55 to Ldn 65. 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 residen- • tial 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 modifications 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. Portions of the study areas bordering Gothard Street, Talbert Avenue, and Slater Avenue would exceed Ldn 60 but would be less than Ldn 65. • • 44 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, rerouting 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 "accoustically weak" components; structurally improve weak walls and roofs) . 4. 3. 8 Public Services 4. 3. 8.1 Police Services • The Police Department operates from one police facility located in the south central section of the City near Main Street and Yorktown Avenue. The present level of police manning is approximately 1.14 officers per 1, 000 persons. The proposed change in land use would result in • a net increased population of 6, 896. Police levels would have to be increased by four officers to provide adequate protection to the new residents and industrial districts at ultimate development. On-site security protection would 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 77-2, 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 • • 45 EQG, VV 1 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 the comprehensive plan will generate the following number of additional students within the local school districts : Ocean View Elementary School District 916 Huntington Beach Elementary School District 312 Huntington Beach Union High School District 361 Coast Community College District 410 TOTAL 1,999 The elementary school districts have indicated that they can accommodate additional students generated by new housing developments within district boundaries. The Huntington Beach Elementary School District stated that no new schools are planned for immediate construction • west of Beach Boulevard. However, most schools east of Beach Boulevard are currently under capacity. New students from the Gothard area would be transferred by bus to these under-utilized schools. The Ocean View School District indicated that enough student deficient schools exist within district boundaries - to absorb the additional enrollment. The district enrollment declined by 400 students last year and the downward trend is expected to continue. No new schools will be required. The Huntington Beach Union High School District has five schools which are 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 in the short-term 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 district also indicated that enrollment growth is expected to peak within two years and then begin a long-term decline. Since most residential development is projected beyond • 1%41� AiMbk • 46 I that time, the new students would replace a portion of the projected student reduction. Under these circum- stances the district stated that new students could be adequately accommodated. 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 34.5 additional acres of park space. However, all concern areas are located in close proximity to community and regional park facilities. Access to such recreational areas minimizes the need for more neighborhood park space. However, a five acre park site is being added to the City's park inventory in Area 16 on the north side of Taylor Drive. The proposed residential uses in the Gothard Corridor will generally improve compatibility with Central Park. Many of the marginal industrial uses adjacent to Central • Park will recycle to the proposed residential uses. The low density character around the park would be enhanced by planned development, estate, and civic district zoning. Such practices would consolidate open space and ensure quality development adjacent to Central Park. 4.3.8. 5 Hospitals Local hospitals will be required to serve an additional 6,896 people under General Plan Amendment 77-2. 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. • 4. 3.9 Utilities 4.3.9.1 Energy Utilities The proposed amendment will increase the consumption of • natural gas in the study areas by approximately 194. 6 Al million cubic feet per year. This can be attributed toJanincrease in land designated for residential uses. Gas service is generally provided as a normal extensio 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 • conditions. The proposed amendment reduces the annual consumption of electricity by 53. 3 million kilowatt hours , due to a decrease in industrial designated land that supports uses associated with high electricity consumption. • The Southern California Edison Company has indicated that electrical load requirements can be met through the next several years 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 proceed with future construction of new generating facilities continue to be delayed, the ability to serve customer loads could become marginal by 1981. 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 windows are not shaded by exterior architectural projections or mature plants. • 48 • 4.3.9.2 Sewer and Water The proposed amendment will decrease total sewage produc- tion and water consumption by approximately 300 ,000 gallons per day below levels generated by uses under the 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 Use 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. The sewer lines within the Gothard Corridor are sufficient to serve industrial and residential uses. The Beach Boulevard trunkline in vicinity of Slater Avenue and Talbert Avenue will require upgrading but this would be a necessity regardless of whether the Gothard Area develops to industrial or . residential uses. The Beach Boulevard sewer improvement is now being planned and is expected to be operational before significant residential development occurs. 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. • 49 i 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 overdesigned and use more water than necessary. Consumption - can be reduced by introducing appropriate modifications to toilets and showers. 4.3.9.3. Solid Waste Disposal The proposed amendment will increase overall solid waste generation by 2030 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. • y The change of the Rotary Mud Dump site from industrial to planning reserve would delay removal or treatment of the oil waste materials there until the area is planned. Surrounding residences would continue to be subjected to odors and other nuisance factors during the interim. • The only mitigation measure is to declare the site a public nuisance and require chemical treatment or other measures to minimize environmental effects on surrounding areas. When the site is finally planned, oil related wastes not chemically treated would be removed to a Class III solid waste disposal site. Los Angeles County possesses the nearest Class III site in the region. 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: • • 50 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 2,412 dwelling units more than development under existing land use designations. of this total, 1,116 units will be single • family and 1 ,296 units will be multiple family. Develop- ment according to the proposed designations will increase the potential population by 6, 896 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 total about 35 • persons per acre. The following table summarizes the changes by residential category: Existing Proposed • DU Population DU Population Low Density 0 0 1,116 3, 850 Medium Density 0 0 1,296 3,046 Total 0 0 2,412 6 , 896 The impacts associated with these changes as well as mitigating measures necessary to deal with the impacts have been detailed throughout Sections 2.0 and 4.0 . 4.3.10.2 Demolition/Relocation The change from industrial to residential uses in the Central Industrial Corridor would create non-conforming uses in some instances. New residential development may • raise land values and, as a result, some relocation of marginal businesses and old residences could occur as property taxes increased. Such displacement could be hastened if marginal industrial business abatement measures are implemented as suggested in Section 3.0 of this report. Figure 4-5 summarizes the extent of • recycling, expected within the Planning Area: FIGURE 4-5 Existing Uses to Become Non-Conforming and/or Recycled AlIftli t 51 AREA ACREAGE RECYCLED USES , 2 15.22 ac. 16 older homes church veterinary office worm farm 3 mini-warehouses pallet storage yard miscellaneous equipment storage yard 3 auto repair shops boat repair and storage yard 7 17. 86 ac. oil tank lumber yard auto repair shop office worm farm 3 older homes 2 mini-warehouses 10 5.47 ac. 6 older homes auto repair shop planter box manufacture wholesale carpets insulation storage inert material recycle 11 2.23 ac. 1 older home 14 14.90 ac. wrecking yard ready mix concrete 15 6. 83 ac. recreation vehicle storage yard 18 2. 50 ac. wrecking yard 19 3. 80 ac. 6 older homes Even with abatement measures applied to marginal indJed the majority of uses presented in Figure 4-5 are exp to have long-term existence. If abatement measures implemented on non-conforming industrial uses , amort would be the most equitable method to allow owners scient time (probably 5 to 20 years) to recoup their investments. It is also a possibility that Housing Community Development funds could be used to provide assistance to low and moderate income owners of olde 52 1 4. 3.10 .3 Aesthetics • The proposed residential redesignations under strictly controlled planned and estate developments will vastly improve visual aesthetics over the long-term. Planned development, estate, and civic district zoning would allow consolidation of open space to maximize compati- bility with Central Park and incorporate topographic variations. Residential uses would eventually replace many marginal industrial uses, such as wrecking yards and other open storage uses , that currently blight much of the Gothard Corridor and area around Central Park. During the interim of phasing out non-conforming industrial • uses, some residential areas may be subject to unsightly industrial operations. Landscaped buffers, attenuation walls, and on-site structural arrangement and design through planned developments can minimize objectionable visual effects. 4.3.11 Economic Consideration This section of the Environmental Impact Report details the fiscal costs and benefits of General Plan Amendment 77-2. The economic analysis is based on a special study by Planning Department Staff entitled the 1976 Revenue/ • Expenditure Analysis of Land Uses, August, 976. The report deals only with short-range costs and revenues, and does not consider the long-range implications of the different development types. . The cost analysis of the amendment assesses fiscal costs 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 77-2 are detailed in Figures 4-6 through 4-9 . Land use, as proposed by the amendment, will result in an additional annual net surplus to the City of approximately $55,379. Land use according to General Plan Amendment 77-2 reduces • the annual net surplus to the school districts by $1,665,786. • f 53 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 net surplus difference in future years. The amend- ment also balances the need for housing and open space with the apparent over-supply of industrial space in the City. By reducing industrial acreage, fewer employment oppor- tunities will exist in the City. The existing industrial designation on the entire study area would generate a total of approximately 7, 313 jobs at ultimate development. The industrial areas retained by this amendment would . provide a maximum employment for 3,560 workers , or about 3,753 workers less than the existing General Plan. Overall employment in the Gothard and Edison Areas are projected low because of the mix of park developments and non- structural storage uses. Open storage uses occupy large areas relative to employment which reduces potential • employment below that generated by the Lusk and Kaiser Industrial Parks at the northwest end of the City. Since much of the Edison and Gothard Areas is poorly suited for industrial development, the projected employment would not be realized until the long-term, if then. The higher revenues produced by the proposed residential/industrial mix would also mitigate the impact of fewer job op- portunities. Another consideration is that most industrial workers would reside well beyond the City' s boundaries and would not substantially add sales tax revenues to the City. Benefits would accrue regionally rather than locally. FIGURE 4-6 EXISTING LAND USE ELEMENT Summary of Annual Revenue and Expenditure Estimates as They Apply to the City of Huntington Beach • Land Use Category Revenue Expenditures General Industrial $1, 373, 205 $1,237,784 TOTAL $1,373, 205 ,$11,237 , 784 • NET SURPLUS $135,421 54 FIGURE 4-7 EXISTING LAND USE ELEMENT Summary of Annual Revenue and Expenditure Estimates as They Apply to the School Districts Land Use Category Revenue Expenditures General Industrial $2, 769, 623 0 • TOTAL $2,769 , 623 0 NET SURPLUS $2, 769 , 623* *School districts do not actually receive a surplus rather the local share of the cost of educating students is increased. • FIGURE 4-8 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 77-2 , PART 3 Summary of Annual Revenue and Expenditure Estimates as They Apply to the City of Huntington Beach Land Use Cetegory Revenue Expenditure • Estate Residential $ 60, 307 $ 40, 901 Low Density Residential 545, 739 481, 456 Medium Density Residential 373,162 277,453 General Commercial 10,911 10, 969 General Industrial 585,593 538,965 Public, Quasi-Public, 0 36, 835 • Institutional Planning Reserve 17, 455 42, 363 Resource Production 32,483 5, 908 TOTAL $1, 625, 650 $1, 434, 850 NET SURPLUS $ 190, 800 55 i FIGURE 4-9 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 77-2 , PART 3 Summary of Annual Revenue and Expenditures Estimates as They Apply to the School Districts Land Use Category Revenue Expenditure Estate Residential $ 138,397 $ 61,636 Low Density Residential 626,947 843,104 Medium Density Residential 437,083 456 ,432 General Commercial 21,170 0 • General Industrial 1,172 ,874 0 Public, Quasi-Public 0 0 Institutional. Planning Reserve 32 ,928 0 Resource Production 35,610 0 TOTAL $2,465, 009 $1,361,172 NET SURPLUS $1,103, 837* *School districts do not actually receive a surplus rather the local share of the cost of educating students is increased. 4.4 Alternatives to the Proposed Action 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 existing 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 indust- rially, designated 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 land over-supply and housing needs in the future. The perpetuation of industrial land over-supply also means that the City will forego 56 significant revenues because of long-term vacancy or the attraction of marginal industrial uses. ^ursuing 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. 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. 4. 3 Short-Term and Long-Term Productivity Being a long-term guide for future development, General Plan Amendment 77-2 , Part 3 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 environmental planning programs. General Plan Amendment 77-2 , Part 3 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 residen- tial and open space needs with an industrial land supply that is more in line with the City' s capability to attract viable business activities. 57 VV 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. A suggested ' implementation plan has been included in Section 3.0 of .the amendment. Although the implementation plan may not be adopted as is since it is not part of the amendment, any implementation strategy would attempt to minimize the short-term effects caused by the changes in land use designations. The short-term effects that will require mitigation are the creation of non-conforming uses, the reduction or increase in intensity of development permitted and the provision of a 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 , irreversible 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 development to occur, and fossil fuels will be committed for long periods to satisfy local energy demand. 4.7 Growth Inducing Impact The land uses permitted under General Plan Amendment 77-2, Part 3 will provide the stimulus to encourage residential development in most of the vacant areas within and adjacent to the area of concern. The proposed amendment will also have growth inducing effects within the area of concern. An additional population of 6,896 persons would be 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. 58 ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 77-8 ON GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 77-2, PART 3 (Includes, distribution list, comments on the draft EIR, responses to the comments, and initial studies . ) i • CITY OF HunTmGTon BEACH DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES R P. O. BOX 190, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648 (714) 536-5271 . � C TO: Planning Commission FROM: Department of Planning and Environmental Resources DATE: August 31, 1977 SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment 77-2 , Parts 1 and 3 Final Environmental Impact Reports STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Transmitted for your review are copies of the Final Environmental Impact Reports (EIR' s 77-8 and 77-10) for Parts 1 and 3 of the General Plan Amendment 77-2 . The Draft EIR' s were distributed to public agencies and other interested parties on July 29, 1977 for a 30-day review period, Notice of the review period was also published in the local newspaper to solicit comments from the general public. On August 30, 1977, the Department held a public hearing for the purpose of receiving any additional comments on the Draft EIR' s. All commentary received by the Department either verbally or in written form during the posting period and public hearing have been addressed in the Final EIR. RECOMMENDATION: The Department of Planning and Environmental Resources recommends that the General Plan Amendment 77-2 , Part 1 and 3 Final Environmental Impact Reports (EIR' s 77-8 and 77-10) be adopted by the Planning Commission as being adequeate and in accordance with the City of Huntington Beach Environ- mental Procedures and California Environmental Quality Act. Respectfully submitted, i0es R. Barnes Assistant Planner JRB/s DISTRIBUTION LIST PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 77-2 , PART 3 INDUSTRIAL AREAS EIR 77-8 CITY DEPARTMENTS SCHOOLS Department of Public Works Fountain Valley Elementary School Harbors and Beaches District City Attorney Westminster Elementary School Department of Building and District Community Development Ocean View Elementary School Dis- Fire Department trict Police Department H.B. Elementary School District Recreation and Parks Department H.B. Union High School District City Clerk Coast Community College District Environmental Council Library FEDERAL AGENCIES COUNTY DEPARTMENTS Army Corps of Engineers Orange County Water District Orange County Transit District INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES Orange County Sanitation District Environmental Management Agency SCAG Orange County Health Department UTILITIES STATE DEPARTMENTS Southern California Gas Company Air Resources Board General Telephone Company Secretary for Resources Southern California Edison Division of Mines & Geology Company Public Utilities Commission Regional Water Quality Control Board OTHER CITIES State Coastal Commission Regional Coastal Commission Fountain Valley Planning Depart- State Lands Division ment Director of Aeronautics Newport Beach Planning Department Department of Transportation Seal Beach Planning Department Department of Fish and Game Westminster Planning Department Costa Mesa Planning Department CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH�AT INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNrINCYON BEACH n tiT,lvG To H. E. HARTGE From DONALD W. KISER gcy c Subject GENERAL PLAN Date AUGUST 8, 1977 Please be advised I have reviewed the three recently prepared documents regarding the General Plan, and I have the following few comments . 1 . I consider the EIR' s deficient in discussion of the railroad and its potential, if any, of serving industrial uses adjacent thereto. 2. I consider the EIR' s also deficient in pointing out that there are various density housing developments which also become marginal, due to location, occupants , or many other reasons, but deteriorations do occur and become an aesthetic blight to the community image. 3. Specifically and personally, I would disagree with rezoning that parcel designated as 2. 1. 7 , which is directly to the east of the Corp- oration Yard. The only reason official plans have not been submitted or formulated is funding, for I have proposed to you and to Administra- tion before that this would be an ideal site for a Corporation Storage Facility; and as of late developments , it could also be in consideration for the addition of the heliport. Therefore, I would recommend that zoning be of such a classification which would allow such use. 4. There are other parcels that I would also disagree .with, but not being a planner nor having a vote, I will decline to comment on them. I trust the above will assist in any input you may have toward these documents. Very truly yours , • ' ;Ui'4TIP.Gi Os`J PLANNING DEPT. Donald W. Kiser, DWK:ajo Division Engineer r..U � .1_ � P. O. 80), 190 �I.nrtingtcn Beach, CA 92642 HUNTINGTON BEACH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 1. Response to Comment #1 (Pages 84-85, Section 4 . 3. 1. 1) : The significance of railroad service to industrial development along Gothard Corridor has been evaluated in the Industrial Land Use Study, Parts 1 and 2 . The study concluded that rail access is becoming less important in industrial location decisions. Few businesses presently utilize the railroad along Gothard, and those that do are usually lumber yards or warehousing firms. Approxi- mately 30 percent of potential industrial users in the region are seeking rail frontage. Most manufacturers and industrial devel- opers find freeway and arterial access more desirable. Good rail access cannot compensate for deficient access to freeways in today' s market. The Gothard Area also contains a number of other locational constraints, such as small lot fragmentation, that tend to repel even the few rail users that might otherwise be interested. 2. Response to Comment #2 (Page 103, Section 4. 3. 10. 3) : It is certainly true that residential development is capable of generating aesthetic blight. However, the land use recommenda- tions in the General Plan Amendment are not intended to exchange residential blight for industrial blight. The Planning Staff incorporated a suggested implementation plan in the report to show how such a problem. might be avoided. Residential development would be strictly regulated in design and layout to minimize ad- verse environmental effects on residents from surrounding industrial uses as they phase out, and to ensure open space and low density compatibility with Central Park. 3. Response to Comment #3 (Pages 84-85, Section 4 . 3. 1. 1) : No response necessary. 4 . Response to Comment #4 (Pages 84-85, Section 4. 3. 1. 1) : No response necessary. a� ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT i .i-��`�.�-lip;(;i i.i�J (_i_;'•, • r � August 16, 1977 !DLANNING DEPT... . Mr. James R. Barnes I Department of Planning and F 0 80K 190 Environmental Resources %<<rntington Beach, CA 921,;no I P. 0. Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648 i Dear Mr. Barnes: Staff has reviewed the General Plan Amendment 77-2 Draft EIR's and has the i following comments: Section 3. 1 , Circulation Element of the General Plan Amendment 77-2, Part 1 (General Plan Revisions) , includes discussion of nonautomobile transit. The Plan emphasizes the need for increased mobility that is both safe and efficient. i The Goals and Policies Section (Sec. 3. 1 .2) stresses a balanced transportation system that includes public transit. OCTD service is recognized as an integral part of the existing circulation system of Huntington Beach (Sec. 3. 1. 3). The Circulation Plan (Sec. 3. 1.4) reinforces the balanced transportation system concept by supporting OCTD expansion of fixed-route service, reduced headways, Park-And-Ride service, and intra-community service (Dial-A-Ride, Community Service or feeder service). It also encourages the development of a permanent Park-And-Ride facility, the feasibility study of a multimodal transportation terminal and the protection of a future mass rapid transit corridor. i In the General Plan Revisions, EIR Report 77-10, the revisions noted for the Circulation Plan (Sec. 3. 4) will have only negligible impact on public trans- portation as provided by OCTD, as will the General Plan Amendment 77-2, Part 2 (Miscellaneous Items) and Part 3 (Industrial Areas) . In summary, the OCTD staff supports the overall concept of the City of Huntington Beach General Plan Amendment 77-2, Circulation Plan, providing for an adequate balance between private and public transportation. Especially important is the City's recognition that public transit provides increased opportunities for 1200 NORTH MAIN STREET P.O.BOX 688 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92702 PHONE (714)834-6190 2 y I I i Mr. James Barnes. August 10, 1977 Page two mobility (inter- and intra-community) , particularly for transit-dependent persons. i The OCTD interprets the Circulation Plan as encouraging the expansion of OCTD services. Please call if you have any further questions regarding this matter. Very truly yours, ` Robert C. Hartwig i Manager of Planning . i RCH:CSH s I I i I i i I ®toe.T ' i ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT 1. Response to Comment #1 (Page 91, Section 4 . 3 .5) : No response necessary. STATE OF CALIFORNIA—RESOURCES AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor DEPARTMENT. OF FISH AND GAME 350 Golden Shore ; Long Beach, CA 90802 ' (213) 590--5113 August 25, 1977 Mr. James R. Barnes i City of Huntington Beach Department of Planning and P. 0• Cox 1 0 a Environmental Resources ,` .^,e,^r: C-nc!1, GA, 926 P.O. Box 190 J Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mr. Barnes: We have reviewed the document describing the General Plan Amendment 77-2 and have the following comments. There are two parcels of open space designated as areas 2 and 3 on page 40 of General Plan Amendment 77-2, Part 3, Industrial Areas, which provide habitat for the endangered Belding's savannah sparrow. We strongly recommend that provisions for the protection of this wildlife species be incorporated into the General Plan Amendment. We do not have further comments regarding the other elements of the General Plan Amendment. If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Jack L. Spruill or Mr. Richard Nitsos of our Environmental Services staff. The telephone number is (213) l 590-5137. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this document. Sincerely, i /71- � L 11 Robert D. Montgomery ��gional Manager Region 5 1 i t i CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME 1. Response to Comment #1 (Page 89, Section 4 .3 .3) : The Department of Fish and Game indicates that concern areas 2 (south of Hamilton Avenue and west of Newland Street) and 3 (south of Orange County Flood Control District Channel and west of Newland Street) provide habitat for the endangered Beldings ' savannah sparrow. The proposed amendment recommends redesig- nating these parcels from industrial to planning reserve . If the area was developed industrial, the habitat would have little probability of preservation. The planning reserve allows greater flexibility in the future planning of the area and generates no immediate impact on the habitat. In considering alternative land uses for the long-term, provisions should be incorporated to protect the wildlife species. These might include leaving the entire area in open space or incorporating open space through planned development.- STATE OF CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS AND TRANSPORTATION AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Govtrnor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF AERONAUTICS 1120 "N" STREET SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 (916) 322-3090 August 25, 1977 loo Mr. James R. Barnes CA Assistant Planner City of Huntington Beach P. 0. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mr. Barnes: This is in reply to your letter of July 27, 1977, requesting comments on ."General Plan Amendment 77-2 Draft EIRs. The Division of Aeronautics, California Department of Transportation, has reviewed the two Environmental Impact Reports pertaining to an amendment of the City of Huntington Beach's General Plan Land Use Element (GPA 77-2) . In our' considered judgment, the EIRs adequately address the environmental impacts of this action. There is no Division involvement since it appears that airports or airport operations are not specifically impacted. We support the policies outlined in the noise element of the General Plan and the plan for the reduction of aircraft noise under the Noise Abatement Plan, as indicated on page 50, Part 1: General Plan.Revisions, General Plan Amendment 77-2. Under Policies for Development, we are in accord with Policy 6, page 55, relating to the development of general aviation facilities in Orange County. With respect to the circulation element, we support these policies as expressed on pages 64 and the top of page 65, as they relate to general aviation. On page 84, Part 3, Industrial Areas, General Plan Amendment 77-2, it appears that the last sentence is not complete. 7'hank you for the opportunity to comment. r A ly, 1G.-(AL 'LLER Deputy Chief CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1. Response to Comment #1 (Page 8 , Section 4. 3 . 1 .1) : Sentence corrected. '.�•/'•• �, ADURESS ALL COMMUNICATIONS - • �S"i TO THE COMMISSION vd.D CALIFORNIA STATE DUILDING SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA 94102 + __•�� T[L—...E: 44161 567. 1813 ��tl�tic �#ili#try Luututixi�t�nt STATE OF CALIFORNIA FILE No. 1799-2 August 24, 1977 Mr. James R. Barnes i Department of Planning and 1 Environmental Resources ' City of Huntington Beach " "r.nr,r,�.r.c� o P1'. P. 0, Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648 1 P. G. Pr)X 1!10 i — Dear Mr. Barnes: (;each, CA ���• GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 77-2 DRAFT EIR'S The Commission staff has completed its review of the above draft EIR's. Page 81 of the Draft EIR indicates the estimated annual gas usage in the city. The staff report on 10-year forecast of gas requirements and supplies, 1976-1985, concludes that there will be a decline in gas supply to the point whereby Priority 1 service will be curtailed commencing in 1982. Copies of this report were mailed to various agencies and libraries. Recipients in the vicinity of Huntington Beach include (1) Government Documents Dept., University of California Library, Irvine, California 92664, and California State University Library, Government Publications, 6101 East Seventh Street, Long Beach, California 90840. Rule 23 of the filed tariffs covers shortage of gas supply, interruptions to service, and priority of service. A copy of Rule 23 is enclosed. Thank you for referring this matter to us. Very truly yours, D, B. Steger Chief Environmental Engineer . Enclosure 1 • Revised CAL.P.U.C.SHEET NO. 14598-G' SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY Revised 13451+-G LOS ANGELES.CALIFORNIA CANCELING.______ CAL. P.U.C.SHEET NO. (Sheet 1) Rule No. 23 SHORTAGE OF GAS STJ?PUI, INTERRUPTION OF DELIVERY AND PRIORITY OF Sf.RVICE (a) The Utility will exercise reasonable diligence and care to furnish and deliver a continuous and sufficient supply of gas to the customer, and to avoid any shortage or interruption of delivery of same. The Utility shall not be liable in damages or otherwise for any failure to deliver gas to the customer, which failure in any way or manner results from breakage of its facilities, however caused, war, riots, acts of God, strikes, failure of or interruption in gas supply, or other conditions beyond its reasonable control. (b) The Utility, whenever it shall find it necessary for the purpose of making repairs or improvements to its system, will have the right to suspend temporarily the delivery of gas, but, in all such cases, as reasonable notice thereof as circum- stances will permit will be given to the customers, and the making of such repairs or improvements will be prosecuted as rapidly as may be practicable, and, if practicable, at such times as will cause the least inconvenience to the customers. (c) In case of shortage of or an'insufficient supply of gas, the Utility will have the I right to give preference for gas service supplied to customers, including wholesale service for resale, according to the following order of priority: (D) ' Priority 1 ALI residential usage regardless of size. Non-residential usage . with peak day demands of 100 Mcf per day or less. Priority 2-A* Feedstock usage with no alternate fuel. Non-residential usage t _`_,. d-- _'z.. dz greater tt ,On Mcf p_ , v e the .. �. - � ... - h C. aw ri nor to v. conversion to an alternate fuel is not feasible. Electric utility startup and igniter fuel. Priority 2-B** Service to customers on interruptible service schedules as of December 2, 1975 with liquefied petroleum gas or other gaseous fuel standby facilities and where the conversion to an alternate fuel is not feasible. Commission approved deviations from requirements for standby facilities. Priority 3 All usage not included in another priority. Priority k All boiler fuel usage with peak day demand in excess of 750 Mcf per day where capability of utilizing an alternate fuel is present and cement plant kilns. Priority 5 Utility steam electric generating plant usage and utility gas turbines. * Customers with P2-A use who are considered capable of installing adequate standby equipment and using an alternate fuel shall be transferred to an • appropriate lower priority c l ss on or before December 2, 1977. Customers unable to install and use standby on or before December 2, 1977 may apply to the California Public Utilities Commission for an extension of time. *� Customers with P2-B use who are considered capable of installing adequate standby equipment and using an alternate fuel shall be transferred to a lower priority class on or-before December 2, 1976. (continued) (TO eE INSERTED BY UTILITY)) ISSUED BY (TO SE INSERTED 9Y C�*A►LL. P.0 C. ADVICE LETTER NO . pA Q/to18 JONEL C. HILL U DATE FILED d i fi DECISION NO. "189 & w357 VICE PRESIDENT EFFECTIVE 'II� _ 1J M 398•I REV. 10.74 RESOLUTION NO. Revised CAL.P.U.C.SHEET NO._1A599-G SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY 13454-G & LOS ANGELES,CALIFORNIA CANCELING.__Revised _CAL.P.U.C.SHEET NO. 14404-G (Sheet 2) • Rule No. 23 SHORTAGE OF GAS SUPPLY, INTERRUPTION OF DELIVERY AND PRIORITY OF SERVICE Continued (c) (Continued.) However, at a time when there is a threatened or actual shortage, creating an emergency for a short duration, in the supply of gas to meet the demands of Priority 1 customers, the Utility may, during such emergency period, (T) apportion its available supply of gas among demands of all such customers or a portion of such customers- in the most reasonable and practicable manner (: possible, and further, in such event the Utility will have the right to shut off, discontinue, re-establish, or continue service for all such customers or some of such customers, irrespective of the priority or preference provisions of schedules, contracts or rules and regulations applicable to Priority 1 service. The Utility may, during any national crisis, give (' preference, as between all customers, to plants directly engaged in the .production of food supplies and the production of national government requirements, when the discontinuance of service to such customers would stop, or materially diminish, the output of said plants. (d) Curtailment of Service. 1. Customers will be assigned to appropriate priority classifications for curtailment purposes. Customer denial of the Utility's right of ingress and egress for the purpose of priority assignment (Rule No. 25) will result in customer being assigned to the lowest applicable priority in the judgment of the Utility. Where customers have more than one priority of service, those uses in a lower priority not exceeding 25 Mcf per day on a peak day may be placed in the customer's next higher priority. Curtailment shall be first made in the lowest priority group. Priority groups may be subdivided for curtailment purposes and, to the extent practical, curtailment shall be equalized among customers in each group by rotating curtailment among the subdivisions of the group. Curtail- ments which exceed the total volume of gas used by all customers in the lowest priority group shall, in the same manner, be affected successively in the higher priority groups. Restoration of curtailed service shall be made in the same manner, but inversely as to priority groups. ' (continued) (TO BE INSERTED BY UTILITY) pp) ISSUED BY (TO BE INSERTED BY CAL. P.0 C., ADVICE LETTER NO._._--101y DATE FILED:. ' {' ; ��!1 85189 & JONELC. HILL (( I f-- -- - - DECISION NO. 5 9 _ 357 VICE PRESIDENT EFFECTIVE `)� 39R I RFV. 10 74 RESOLUTION NO._ Revised 14600-G CAL.P.U.G.SHEET NO._ SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY 144o4-G,14411-G & S n LOG ANGELES,CALIFORNIAC:ANCELING_.____.__�._.Revised....___-_CAL. P.U.C.SHEET NO._._.__14552^G (Sr icet 3) Rule No. 23 SHORTAGE Or GAS SUPPLY, INTERRUPTION OF DELIVERY AND PRIORITY Or SERVICE Continued (d) Curtailment of Service (Continued) (I 1. (Continued) 1.1 Regular Retail Service (I Curtailment classifications (priorities) for regular retail service are based upon end-use priority assignments set forth in Section (c) hereof. In the event a significant change is determined in a customer's requirements or equipment, resulting in a need for reclassification to another priority, such change shall be made in the month following such identification of the on-going change. Customers served by wholesale customers of Southern California Gas (z Company shall be classified and curtailed in parallel with similar retail customers of Southern California Gas Company on the basis of end-use priority assignments. (" . (I 1.2 Utility Electric Generation Service Utility electric generation service is assigned to Priority 5, except that startup and igniter fuel service to these customers is assigned to Priority 2A. Customers' startup and igniter fuel service volumes, either at retail or indirectly through wholesale service, are set forth in attached Supplement A. (I The pro rata allocation of Priority 5 gas available shall be (L) (i updated monthly based upon monthly reports by these customers of their recorded system loads and resources related to requirements imposed on Utility. Gas which is not a part of Utility's gas (; supply shall be excluded in determination of gas requirements imposed on and deliveries by Utility, except for: (� (a) diversions of gas for delivery to an out-of-state generating? plant owned by a G-58 customer, which gas would normally be I delivered to Utility's system, and/or (L) (� (I (continued) (TO BE INSERTED BY UTILITY) ISSUED BY (TO BE 7 IIISICPE02B J(99bu.C.) ADVICE LETTER NO._ 1018 DATE FILED L I 85189 & 86357 JONEL C. HILL �L� 1 �- DECISION NO. VICE PRESIDENT EFFECTIVE 398.1 REV. 10.74 RESOLUTION NO. Revised CAL. P.U.C.SHEET NO. 14612-G SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY ���� LOS ANGELES.CALIFORNIA CANCELING_Revised CAL. P.U.C.SHEET NO. 14601-G (Sheet 4) Rule No. 23 SHORTAGE OF GAS SUPPLY, _ INTERRUPTION OF DELIVERY AND PRIORITY OF SERVICE Continued (d) Curtailment of Service (Continued) 1. (Continued) 1.2 Utility Electric Generation Service (Continued) (b) transfers, substitutions or exchanges of gas from a non- regulated supplier for delivery to out-of-state generating plants, which gas would normally be utilized for electric generation in California by a customer of Utility. , These reports of loads and resources shall be furnished to the Commission, to Utility and other affected utility electric generation customers within fifteen (15) days after the end of each calendar month, and Utility shall by advice letter file with the Commission the updated percentages to be shown in attached Supplement A, to be effective commencing on the twenty-second (22) day after the end of each month. Utility shall also make adjusting deliveries (not reflected in the updated percentages shown in attached Supplement A) as promptly as practicable to reflect, and compensate for in subsequent increased or decreased deliveries, any quantitative differences between prior months actual deliveries and deliveries that would have been scheduled based upon customers ' recorded system loads and resources for past periods. Utility shall accommodate, subject to the capability of its exist- ing physical facilities and the requirements of higher priority customers, requests by its retail and wholesale customers for reallocation of deliveries of gas for use in electric generating (' stations deviating from the normal pattern of parallel deliveries by Utility (a) of an emergency nature to avoid actual electric (' load curtailment, and/or (b) based on requirements to minimize particularly adverse air pollution impacts expected to be of short- term duration. Such deviations in deliveries must be approved by . C. Utility and shall be in accordance with agreements between Utility's retail and wholesale customers relating to such reallocations and (D� providing for compensation arrangements between such customers. In no event, however, will Utility's total deliveries for electric generation requirements imposed on Utility exceed in the aggregate the deliveries which would have been scheduled absent the realloca- (' tion agreements between Utility's customers. Customer(s) request- (` ing Utility to redirect deliveries hereunder shall notify the Commission promptly after each occurrence of the nature and extent of the problem occasioning such request. (continued) ( (TO BE INSERTED BY UTILITY) ISSUED BY (TO BE INSERT£( �Y U.C.-i ADVICE LETTER NO. 1020 �� L R A p JONEL C. HILL GATE FILED DECISION NO. 84512, 86299 & 86394 VICE PRESIDENT EFFECTIVE , 76 398.1 REV. 10.74 RESOLUTION NO. Revised CAL.P.U.C. SHEET NO. 14613-G SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY LOS ANGELES,CALIFORNIA Revised 14602-G CANCELING___ —CAL.P.U.C.SHEET NO. __..� (Sheet 5) Rule No. 23 SHORTAGE OF GAS SIJPPLY, INTERRUPTION OF DELIVERY AND PRIORITY OF SERVICE Continued (d) Curtailment of Service (Continued) 1. (Continued) (D 1.3 Exchange Service As a condition for obtaining gas supplies, portions of certain supplies are received subject to deliver,,, on an exchange basis. Exchange service is basically classified in accordance with end-use priorities and curtailed in parallel with those priorities. 1.4 Effectuation of Curtailment When in the ;judgment of the Utility, bas<!d upon expected gas requirements compared with available supplies from such sources as out-of-state suppliers, California sources, peaking sources and underground storage, operating conditions require the curtailment of service, curtailment shall be made in the following order as necessary: (1) First curtail P-5. (2) After full curtailment of the P-5 priority block, then curtail the P-4 priority block or portions thereof. (3) After full curtailment of the P-4 priority block, then curtail the P-3 priority block or portions thereof. (4) After full curtailment of the P-3 priority block, then curtail the P-2B priority block or portions thereof. (5) After full curtailment of the P-2B priority block, then curtail the P-2A priority block or portions thereof. (6) After full curtailment of. the P-2A priority block, then • curtail the P-1 priority block or portions thereof. (continued) (TO BE INSERTED BY UTILITY) ISSUED BY (TO BE INSERTEQ nC*0.,P l�.C.) c�P a ADVICE LETTER NO.—__. 1G20___ JONEL C. HILL DATE FILED__ •'� �7 1_.�._ DECISION NO 84512,86299 & 86394 VICE PRESIDENT EFFECTIV �98 I REV. 10.7d PESOLUTIoN No. —�— Revised CAL.P.U.C.SHEET NO. 10 -G SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY Revised 141+12-C, LOS ANGELES.CALIFORNIA CANCELING ,.CAL. P.U.C. SHEET NO.- ( Sheet 6) Rule No. 23 SHORTAGE OF GAS SUPPLY, INTERRUPTION OF DELIVERY AND PRIORITY OF SERVICE_ Continued" (d) Curtailment of Service (Continued) (I 1. (Continued) 1.4 Effectuation of Curtailment (Continued) When curtailment is to be decreased, the restoration of service will be made starting with the then curtailed highest priority (� block and proceeding on through each next lower level priority through the P-5 priority block as appropriate to the level of service which in the judgment of the Utility can be delivered. (` Where curtailment takes place on a partial basis for a given priority block, the Utility will attempt, at the earliest time (`- practical from its operating standpoint, to balance the amount of curtailment for customers in any given curtailment block as closely as feasible. 1.5 Operating Emergency . In the event of an operating emergency as declared by a customer, service may be made available out of the normal curtailment pattern, if in the judgment of the Utility it is possible to do (` so. Out of pattern deliveries will be provided to critical customers whenever they declare an operating emergency. In the event of such a condition, subsequent out of pattern curtailment will be imposed on such customer in order to balance the amount of curtailment with other customers served at the same priority. ( Curtailments may be effected, in certain areas, due to pipeline capacity restrictions or emergencies. In such cases, curtailments will generally be made based on the size of customers served in such areas. (continued) (TO BE INSERTED BY UTILITY) ISSUED BY (TO BE INSERTED BY CAL. P.U.C.) 1018 I, 1 7 121f, DATE FILE ADVICE LETTER No. JONEL C. HILL D J DECISION NO. 85189 & 86357 VICE PRESIDENT EFFECTIVE v1 098-1 REV. 10-74 RESOLUTION NO. Original CAL.P.U.C.SHEET NO.�_.111C106-G SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY LOS ANGELES.CALIFORNIA CANCELING__- _-CAL.P.U.C. SHEET -- (Sheet U) Rule No. 23 SHORTAGE OF GAS SUPPLY, INTERRUPTION OF DELIVERY AND PRIORITY OF SERVICE Continued SUPPLEP+]ENT C END-USE CURTAILMENT DEFINITIONS Alternate Fuel: Nongaseous fuels; particularly excluding synthetic natural gas (SNG), liquefied natural gas (LNG), and liquid petroleum gas (LPG) . Electricity shall not be considered an alternate energy source. Boiler Fuel: Gas used specifically to fire boilers, regardless of the end-use of the steam produced. Curtailment Year: The period October 1 of each year through September 30 of the next calendar year. Critical Customer: One where danger to human life, health or safety is involved, and includes customers such as hospitals, other state licensed health care facilities, medical research facilities, medical facilities at military installations and detention facilities, municipal water pumping plants and sanitation facilities. Electric Utilities ' Startup and Igniter Fuel: Electric utility natural gas use where no alternate fuel capability exists for: (1) heating the boiler system adequately during start-up to enable efficient oil burning to meet pollution standards; and (2) insuring continuous ignition and flame stabilization within the boiler Feasible Alternate Fuel: The condition of a customer who currently has no capability of using alternate fuel (as defined above), but where conversion to alternate fuel is technologically possible and economically practicable, within the context of the customer in question. Feedstock Usage: Natural gas used as raw material for its chemical properties; in creating an end product. Industrial Use: Service to customers engaged primarily in a process which creates or changes raw or unfinished materials into another form or product. Peak-Day Demand: A customer's highest billing month's requirement divided by the number of days of operation in that month. Residential Use Service to customers which consists of direct natural gas usage in a residential dwelling for space heating, air conditioning, cooking, water heating, and other residential uses, but excludes central boilers in multi-unit apartment houses using more than 100,000 cubic feet per day. (TO BE INSERTED BY UTILITY) ISSUED BY (TO BE INSERTED BY CAL.P.U.C.) ADVICE LETTER NO. 1018 JpNEL C. HILL DATE FILE D `' DECISION NO 8518g &- 86357 VICE PRESIDENT EFFECTIVE 3913-1 REV. 10-74 RESOLUTION NO.- SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY LOS ANGELES.CALIFORNIA CANCELING Revised CAL. P.U-C. SHEET NO. 14951-G (Sheet 7) Rule No. 23 SHORTAGE OF GAS SUPPLY, INTERRUPTIOI7 OF DELIVERY AND PRIORITY QF SERVICE Continued SUPPLEMENT A PRIORITY CLASSIFICATION UTILITY ELECTRIC GENERATION SERVICE Annual. Priority 5 Igniter Apportionment Rate Requirements* on Potential Customer Schedule Mcf Requirements %# Southern California Edison Company -- Direct from Company G-S3T,G-58 1:968,000 58.90 From bong Beach G-60 - 2•39 Total 1)968;Ooo 61.29 Los Angeles Department of Water and Power G-58 472,800 18.82 City of Burbank Public Service Department G-58 78,148 1.11 City of Glendale Public I Service Department G-58 35,196 1.37 City of Pasadena Water & Power Department G-58 85,692 1.21 Imperial Irrigation District G-53T,G-58 20,000 2.o6 San Diego Gas & Electric Company G-61 181,000 14.14 Total 2,840,836 100.00 * Per Decision No. 85767. # Individual customer Priority 5 entitlements are determined in accordance with Decision No. 84512. (continued) { (To BE INSERTED 13Y UTILITY) ISSUED BY (TO BE INSERT50 BY CAL. P.U.C.) ADVICE LETTER NO 1'088 J U L L 2 191 JONEL C. HILL DATE FILED __ 86299 -11 �. DECISION NO VICE PRESIDENT EFFECTIVE v , Revj sed __CAL.P.U.C. SHEET SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY / LOS ANGELES.CALIFORNIA CANCELING Revised_..___..CAL.P.U.0 :i)1EE'�N0..1.41JO -ri (Sheet 8) Rule No. 23 SHORTAGE OF GAS SUPPLY, INTERRUPTION OF DELIVERY AND PRIORITY OF SERVICE (Continued) SUPPLEMENT B DISPATCHING INSTRUCTIONS FOR REALLOCATION OF (D DELIVERIES OF GAS BETWEEN ELECTRIC GENERATION.CUSTOP4ERS (D A. The customer requiring reallocation of deliveries of gas for use in electric (D generating stations to avoid emergency electric load curtailment and/or to minimize particularly adverse short-term air pollution impacts, as contem- plated in Decisions Nos. 84512 and 86299 in Application No. 53797 (Phase II), as promptly as possible in advance of such a projected required reallocation (D will: 1. Contact the Company Gas Control Office to determine from it: a. Volumes of gas available for such reallocation and conditions under which available. b. Sources (cutomers) and volumes, and conditions pursuant to which gas is available by source. c. Operational feasibility of such reallocation. 2. Contact the customer(s) which the Company indicates may be in a position to help from (l.b.) above, to determine sources and volumes of gas which may be relinquished and for what period. 3. Advise the Company Gas Control Office of the arrangements made in 2. above. B. The Company Gas Control Office will, upon being advised as in (A.3. ) above: 1. Confirm such arrangements with the affected customers. 2. Make all required notifications to affected customers regarding tines and volumes of reallocated deliveries. 3. Make whatever operational changes are required to effect the reallocated deliveries for the period involved. C. Such volume transfers will not affect mlumetric entitlements determined in accordance with provisions of Rule 23. Company will bill its customers on the basis of actual deliveries of gas made to each customer and will identify and account for volumes reallocated. (continued) �•. (TO BE INSERTED BY UTILITY) ISSUED BY (TO BE INSERTED 9AL.AP U.C. • ADVICE LETTER No. 1020 DATE FILED �`P „nT 84512� JONEL C. HILL 86299 & 86394 I DECISION NO. VICE PRESIDENT EFFECTIVE_" 398-1 REV. 10.74 RESOLUTION NO.. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION 1 . Response to Comment #1 (Page 8-81, Section 4 .2 .2 .4) : No response necessary. Environmental eouB:`iI CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH HUNTING? NBEACII Post Office Box 190 Huntington Beacli, California 92648 TO: Edward D. Selich, Planning Director FROM: Environmental Council General Plan Review Committee DATE: August 26, 1977 The Huntington Beach General Plan (December 1976) and subsequent revisions to date represent a first attempt .to plan for the ultimate. growth and developmental mix of this city. We appreciate this opportunity to comment on this very substantial document. It should be pointed out that it would be very useful to have these documents carefully cross indexed along with insertion of stick- out tabs for easy reference to major sections. This will facilitate carrying out subsequent reviews and changes. One of the major concerns of the Council is the apparent ease with which the plan can be changed, thereby subverting its usefulness as a carefully considered, fully reviewed, and integrated document serving as a bible for planning the future of Huntington Beach. Although such changes are allowed by law, the Committee feels that the worth of the general plan will eventually be measured by the least number of future changes enacted. So far, only 23 amendments have been necessary "to tune-up the U.S . Constitution in over 200 years of service. The General Plan is a complex document consisting of several basic parts; general changes in one part can have a major impact on another. Therefore, changes should only be incor- porated after considerable time has passed during which a general review can -be made of the entire document. When general amendments are being considered there is no compelling reason for accepting or rejecting them in toto. Each specific proposal should be considered on its own- merits, with those having the greatest impact receiving the most attention and longest public . hearing prior to adoption. All changes in the general plan should reflect citizen input and the broadest views of the entire community; they should not be quick responses to any special interest with the ability to pay the $75 fee for consideration. Since this plan will (or may )y) control future growth and the mix of • development types, there should be a plan for systematically keeping track of future growth. The impact of each increment should be carefully assessed with respect to the ultimate result desired as reflected in this plan. Edward D. Selich August 26, 1977 Page 2 The following are specific comments representative of the committee ' s : views on individual elements : 1. For example , we recommend that the map of archaeological resources be removed from the final Plan as its presence may result in an adverse impact due to pilfering of these fragile sites. The statement that such resources have been mapped and are to be protected should remain , with reference . to the city staff for approval of developments to assure that such resources are not impacted. 2 . The discussions regarding Bolsa Chica planning are not consistent with recent Council action and therefore should be changed to reflect such action. 3. There are general difficulties with cross referencing the EIR' s to, the General Plan documents, indicating the piecemeal approach to this planning process. 4. There seem to be bugs in the planned industrial zone, slowly eroding its simplicity into a crazy quiltwork of industry and residential neighborhoods in juxtaposition to one another. Surely this will create problems in the future. (See attached figure) . 5. Marginal users (herein poorly defined) can be phased out with little opportunity to be upgraded or even to protest seemingly arbitrary changes in zoning of these industrial areas. Respectfully submitted, 'Irwin Haydock, Chairman Environmental Council IH/s HUNTINGTON BEACH ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL 1. Response to Comment #4 (Page 11) : The draft environmental impact report states that interim noise, air, and circulation problems will occur. The implementation plan suggests measures to mitigate these various problems , such as attenuation barriers and open space buffers provided by planned unit developments. 2 . Response .to Comment #5 (Page 101, Section 4 . 3 . 10 . 2) : The proposed amendment attempts to preserve most industrial uses that have substantial economic impact on the City. Some marginal uses are also preserved because a small mix of such industries is necessary to serve the area. Also, marginal uses are preserved if they fall into a logical area with quality industries. Those uses in industrial areas to be phased out provide minimal economic and aesthetic benefit to the community. Many of these uses have been in operation for a number of years and have done little to upgrade the site aesthetically. If marginal uses are phased out, amortization would be the most equitable method in that it allows the owner to recoup his investment over a substantial number of years of continued operation. o , OUNTY OF - ' © RANG E P. o. 0;0x 1<�O a 6. I '!lI!hr;!.Ol1 �InilCjl, girl ✓Zv . . ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY TELEPHONE: 834-4643 ADVANCE PLANNING DIVISION AREA CODE 714 811 NORTH BROADWAY MAILING ADDRESS: SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA P.O. eox 4108 SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92702 August 25, 1977 H. G. OS13ORNE DIRECTOR FILE GSR7NO11 RICHARD G. MUNSELL ASSISTANT DIRECTOR ADVANCE PLANNING Mr. James R. Barnes Assistant Planner Department of Planning and Environmental Resources Post Office Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92646 Dear Mr. Barnes: This is in response to your standard letter dated July 27, 1977, that trans- mitted the documents listed below and solicited written comments no later than August 28, 1977. General Plan Revisions, Environmental Impact Report 77-10 General Plan Amendment 77-2, Part 1: General Plan Revisions . General Plan Amendment 77-2, Part 2: Miscellaneous Items General Plan Amendment 77-2, Part 3: Industrial Areas The documents have been reviewed and we submit the following comments: The exhibit entitled "General Plan, Land Use Diagram" shown as figure 3-12 in GPA, Part 1; figure 1-1 in GPA, Part 2 and figure 3-13 in GPA, Part 3 does not reflect the recent proposal by the City for a Regional Park Complex consisting of Bolsa Chica Regional Park plus a bluff top Linear Regional Park that would connect Huntington Central Park with Bolsa Chica Regional Park. Also, the General Plan, Land Use Diagram as noted above appears to be inconsistent with the Open Space and Conservation Plan shown as figure 2-2 in GPA. Part 1. Thank you for the opportunity of reviewing and responding to the proposed General Plan Revisions. Very-5 ruly yours, v Richard G. Munsell, Assistant Director Advance Planning r JEB:dlm cq: EMA-Advance Planning (Nunes, Sunderland, Bennett) EMA-Development (Fisher) ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY 1. Response to Comment #1 (Page 3) : There is a City proposal for a Regional Park Complex connecting Central Park to Bolsa Chica. However, a number of alternatives are under study and the plan is not yet finalized. F' 7 OWL ROCK PRODUQTS, INC , ` G & E READY MIX 7391 Talbert Street Huntington Beach, CA August 29, 1977 -��' DEPT. t P. . City of Huntington Beach 0. COX 11.o Department of Planning and Beach, CA 926,1:, Environmental Resources P.O. Box 190 I Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Gentlemen: We are responding to your letter of July 27, 1977, regarding the Environmental Impact Report (EIR 77-8) for General Plan Amendment 77-2, Part 3, Industrial Areas. We are the owners/users of the land on the north side of Talbert, i east of Gothard Street, and abutting the railroad right-of-way. See attached map. The land is zoned M1-CD Light Industrial and is used for a ready mix concrete operation. The land has been used for industrial purposes since before the area was annexed to the City, and it is our intent to continue this use for the foreseeable future. We are opposed to the General Plan Amendment as it pertains not only to our property but to the surrounding lands as well . We believe the amendment is infeasible from a standpoint of practical implementation and will only prove to be a hardship on existing businesses in the area. We view the GPA as proposing a radical change in the existing land use and character of the area, i .e. , to replace one dominant land use (light industrial ) with another use (residential ) . These two uses are inherently incompatible. Unless full implementation of the plan is achieved, the result will be a chaotic mixture of incompatible land uses which will benefit no one in the community. We do not believe the Amendment can be fully, or even partially, implemented within a reasonable time period. There is continuing industrial-type development taking place in the area. With each new structure, the GPA becomess less realistic, the potential incompatibilities increase and the transitional period for full implementation becomes longer and longer. Page Two City of Huntington Beach August 29, 1977 1, While the .EIR does identify certain negative impacts associated with the change in dominant land use from Industrial to Residential , it does so only on an "existing" and "proposed" basis. The EIR does not consider the economic loss to property owners and the community as a whole during the transition period. We believe the report is severely lacking in this aspect. It could take ten to twenty years to make an effective transition. . i Further, we believe the EIR does not adequately consider the practical range of alternatives available other than "no project". Surely there are other methods of meeting the objectives which are less drastic in nature and more practical to implement. We suggest the following: 1. Business Park/Light Industrial District concept. The area has reasonable intra-city access, utilities and sufficient available land to complete the use transition. Development standards could ensure visual improvements of the area. 2. Implementation of CD (Civic District) Design Review Board provisions which require buffering and screening of unsightly land uses. These measures would be consistent with the City's objective of improving conditions within the vicinity. of Huntington Center Park. In conclusion, we reiterate that we are opposed to the General Plan Amendment. We also believe that the EIR is inadequate in its con- sideration of negative economic impacts during the transitional period, and in not setting forth other positive alternatives to the proposed Amendment. Very truly yours, OWL ROCK PRODUCTS,INC. G&E READY MIX CO. Merne Young MY/cb 1� OORS. N W/114 0 S. W 114, SEC. 26, T 5 S., R. 1/!✓ •• 400, . 36 34 31. 6£M7£A b`C. Pd•S-//�_ _ - Serar-Sc•ur•ro+, - srrr•_ovr+ — SAW N OALM Z. co N x AVE. 0 2 O LJ.tO.:4 c�� 00 O O O �i 4 l.19 AG 4 l •d9 AG =AC. 6.9v AC. . us 03 Oii.ixtOTs�m• �7 o,ld AC. "AG i M Q N a 0 4 ,ar,ur-,ai,..o.. M O 9.54 AC. -- ( . t $4..65 AC tray C—P ,; lam AG /I.58 AG II.C-OX n5 �iS✓T I l�J (LCfLIJ s C 165-21 c..t RD.IJ AG � w- N N 52 20 AfLLO XU P.4:7•I �+ r t GOLDEN M'EST � � �,c— ;g j i STR£ET . 08 � _13 165-03 165-01 AIARCN 1951 NOT' - ASSESSOR'S BLOOK Q ASSESSOR'S AMP ,MARCH 1978 PARCEL NOWEP,S COOKIII PAGE 01 SHOWN IN CIRCLES C-VN" Of ORANGE F . : • I OWL ROCK PRODUCTS, INC. 1. Response to Comment #1 (Pages 84-85, Section 4 . 3 . 1. 1) : The proposed comprehensive plan may require ten to twenty years . to be fully implemented. It is not intended to immediately displace existing businesses. There will be interim environ- mental problems, as pointed out in the environmental impact report, but these are capable of mitigation through buffering required on residential projects and by allowing businesses - sufficient time to recoup their investments and more. Although there is continuing industrial development in the Gothard Corridor, it is primarily occurring in those districts recommended for retention in the industrial inventory. Little or no new activity is occurring in areas recommended for change to other designations. 2 . Response to Comment #2 (Pages 101-102 , Section 4 . 3. 10. 2) : Displacement of businesses is addressed in this section. The ten to twenty year period would be a realistic time frame for businesses to recoup investments under an amortization program. As property values rise, it is doubtful that any owner would suffer an economic loss over such a period. Section 4 . 3 . 11 assesses- the economic impact of existing and proposed uses on the community from a revenue/expenditure and employment perspective. 3. Response to Comment #3 (Pages 106-107 , Section 4 . 4) : No response necessary. • tK � .'.L �`r 'ice•"I� _ ._ r�`!K+. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY V,iIi �Ni LOS ANGELES DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS P. O. BOX 2711 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90053 SPLED-E 26 August 1977 t•ir. James R. Barnes, Assistant Planner Department of Planning and Environmental Resources �� +'fl •.!°.I!i ill Cl l_f?' City of I"Iuntington Beach ��•. P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648 . P. 0. Pox 11)0 ;'_; ;•",�,�"gin `;�a�ch, \.H >..6� Dear Mr. Barnes: This is in response to a letter from your office dated 27 July 1977 which requested review and comments on the draft environmental impact reports pertaining to an amendment of the City of Huntington Beach's General Plan Land Use Element (GPA 77-2) . The proposed plan does not conflict with existing or authorized plans ,. of the Corps of Engineers. We have no comments concerning the environ- mental impacts of the proposed plan. Any filling in wetlands or waters of the United States and any work in navigable waters will require a permit from the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers as required by Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (FWPCA) and Section 10 of the River . and Harbor Act of 1899. Under provisions of Section 404 of FWPCA, any filling of wetlands must be avoided if possible. We suggest that Mr. Charles M. Holt, Chief, Navigation Branch, be contacted at (213) 688-4933 regarding requirements for filing permit applications. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on these reports. Sincerely yours, '. NORMAN ARNO Chief, Engineering Division ,,.• ti� t��j e�,0���ioN arc, a rn I -CC z �7) R! slb"76.1orb U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 1. Response to Comment #1 (Pages 87-88, Section 4. 3. 2. 1) : No response necessary. 1r977?,9cr1q91V7"- 3 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 77=2 PART -2 MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS At fth huntingfon beach planning department i • • • TABLE OF CONTENTS • GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 77-2 PART 2 • Section • 1. 0 Introduction 1 2. 0 Areas of Concern 7 • 2.1 South of Adams Avenue and East of Brookhurst Street 7 • 2. 2 Nichols Street South of Slater Avenue 13 2. 3 South of Terry Drive and East of Viewpoint Drive 13 • 2. 4 Administrative Items 17 • 3. 0 Amendment Summary 19 • 3.1 Area by Area Summary 19 • 3.2 Summary of Proposed General Plan Amendment 77-2 Part 2 20 • • • • v i • • • • • • • • • 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 (Figure 1-1) and as amended in August, 1977 (Figure . 1-2) . • • 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 Planning Department. In Section 2 . 0, Areas of Concern, each .case is discussed • and analyzed in terms of existing conditions and impact on surround- • ing '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. • • • 1 • 1 • • Land Use Categories RESIDENTIAL BE Estate 5 2 un/gac ••••• :..:..:...:...:...:...:...::...:...:...:...:...:....:....:....::.... ............. ..®......3:\r; 3i'1�i4tra`l.1�r..1y ry�y yrin l,.r✓rf ' i\t ' .® y,7 lr%"aT. rarf.G: 7 d f/4a✓�. teY.r ,y K ,44�fi1r=• : dd i z - ` xrtt t o:1 iirtipi. `V: p M® E s ta t e < 4 u n/g a c Low Density _7 un / gac Medium Density <15 un /g &zo ac � High Density >15un/gac ° COMMERCIAL:< ®General Office Professional Mixed Development ..... , INDUSTRIAL . General PUBLIC USE Public, public, Institutional Open Space . . ii ::::::: v PLANNING UNITS Planning Reserve .................. � PI dCommune y\ rrx OTHER:r . :: ps Resource Production,x x. a : .: •• .. �. i :. � +.- ::.I,,... /.sh<.•.4:,�y;%),�s�"Jy''�r,..:nrJ:r.j•T>rc grt,. .'","�,.Yraj•✓.��e.:F_5,,.c,-?+-.s+ ,`_Z.�'u'E/r�r-^r.f,'.:Y•.._f.ar4. •n:-(.�. .s..',P ,..•:>z.Y.N,.�?.';'i +L•�,�ra,:;....:•,?:••..::•1(:,q3: \•f. f•"•r`).:•� ^�I'L•'�,I 1 ��r�`!�r��•.'•L,r. fb. I � ,v►]I ,..�Yk..: ,t. 11 I S H 1 G H WA OA1 PC1FC . ff PACIRC OCEAN PAWL OCEW HUNI'INGTON 1354CH QLIFORNIA GENERAL P LANPANNING DEPARVT LAND USE DIAGRAM AM ecember1976v VIJ • • • • a� 4. Ide 10,14 y� .1 • : S �w �1 ♦, �y � mra � �` ♦, ,p�S — 4' `I, ♦i S ♦, '♦i♦ 6 • ♦i • : S PALM 1�1�11`• .. S 3 � � • ORANGE • i < 14 • i PACIFIC COAST NWY Figure 1 -2 • LEGEND HUNTINGTON BE CH, OILIFORNIA RESIDENTIALX PLANNING DEPARTMENT Low Density 0-7 un/gac GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 77-1 • Medium Density 8-15 un/gac • ® High Density above 15 un/gac • • • • • • 4ps ��fJi P �ryP 1�1�♦''+i'' I■I 00 s o '`f ♦�♦`♦'•'+I ♦` `♦` r Ie 0011, . '+ • '+� Sys ,� ' �Pd° • G • PALM �► S — _ / ORANGE N • i --- PACIFIC COAST NYMY __ FIGURE 2-1 • PLANNING BECH,ARTIVI OILIFORNIA Areas of Concern lopPLANNING DEPARTMEIJ GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 77 - 2 PART 2 i • • • • • • 2 . 0 AREAS OF CONCERN This analysis discusses each of the issue areas under consideration in General Plan Amendment No. 77--2 Part 2. The areas of concern are identified in Figure 2-1 . • 2. 1 South of Adams Avenue and East of Brookhurst Street. 2. 1.1 Background The area of concern is located 320 feet south of Adams Avenue and 696 feet east of Brookhurst Street. In April, 1977, Mr. Tallas D. Margrave requested that the Planning Department consider redesignating the subject property from general commercial to low density residential . • The 3 . 16 gross acre - site is presently vacant and designated • for general commercial use . The subject property is a parcel that was the result of the development of a shopping center at the southeast corner of Adams Avenue and Brook- hurst Street. The shopping center bounds the parcel on the north and west.. At the time plans were submitted for the shopping center development now being completed , the subject parcel was represented as the possible site of an office-professional complex. The parking and on-site circulation was therefore designed to allow integration of the office-professional development with the shopping center . Development of the parcel in any use other than an office professional or commercial would. not, however , adversely affect the shopping center. • 7 ADAMS AVENUE W; GENERAL cr N, COMMERCIAL W � ♦,� H C4 NIAGARA DR 1 N W E SI ty a S E J WESLEY CR p o • � OVE01 DR a EJ ;A DR �0N 0 pY I ooK • ST 0N�6a I H D N = BIRCHW00D Y O � p • co W o CRAILETJoe 3 a 0 U �Q I WARWIGK OR • CF E • CYNTHIA DR • AREA OF CONCERN 2.1 • • FIGURE 2-2 . 8 • i The subject property is bounded on the east and south by • existing single family residential development that is designated by the General Plan as low density residential • and is zoned R-1. The parcel is not directly adjacent to any street and direct access is currently provided through the shopping center parking lot. 2 . 1. 2 Analysis • Residential use of the subject property is possible and the low density residential designation as requested is com- patible with the existing- residential uses to the south and east. The primary issue, therefore, is the suitability of maintaining the subject parcels commercial land use designation. • As reported in Section 2 . 2 . 1 of General Plan Amendment 76-1 Part B, recent information completed by Urban Projects, Inc. indicates_that by 1990 a demand for 542 acres of general commercial uses will exist in Huntington Beach. At ultimate development, assuming a total population of • 223, 000, the demand for general commercial will be 635 acres. Huntington Beach currently has 1131 acres designated as general commercial, or an over abundance of approximately 500 acres. Based on figures quoted by the Urban Land Institute, an "ideal community" should have 5 percent of its area in commercial uses (including hotels, motels, • office-professional, etc . ) . This amounts to 953 acres still less than the currently planned for Huntington Beach. An additional study conducted by Harvard University indi- cates that only 2. 9 percent of a city' s area is normal for. commercial uses. This would amount to 553 acres in Huntington Beach, also well below our present supply. Due • to this apparent over abundance, the removal of the 3 .16 acres under consideration from the supply of land desig- nated general commercial use would not have any signifi- cant Citywide effect. • On a more local basis, the removal of the subject parcel from the supply of commercial land should also not produce any significant effect. There currently exists 49 .0 acres of community commercial facilities at the intersection of Adams Avenue and Brookhurst Street. These facilities serve as a major shopping area for the residents of Hunting- ton Beach living east of Beach Boulevard and south of • Garfield Avenue. There are also eleven (11) other similar commercial centers within this area totaling approximately 87 acres. The quarter section in which the subject parcel is located has 16 .4 percent of its total area designated • and being used for commercial land uses. The majority of this is located adjacent to the subject parcel . On several • • • 11 occassions, residents of the adjacent single family area have opposed additional commercial development at this corner. Conversion of this property to low density residential , use would be compatible with the adjacent uses, but would result in several impacts. (1) First, a maximum of 22 additional residential units would be added to the City' s housing stock (the applicant has indicated his intention to construct only 15 units) . These units would be located in a special flood hazard area. They will also be subject to the noise generated by the refrigeration equipment in the supermarket adjacent to the area of concern. Investi- gation of the noise intensity and appropriate miti- gation measures should be required when evaluating . development plans. (2) The area of concern does not have direct access to any street at this time except through the previously described shopping center parking and driveway areas . Any use other than integrated commercial or office- professional uses will require acquisition and removal of an existing single family residential unit to pro- vide access through the adjacent residential area. This action would establish access to either Lawson Lane or Meredith Drive. The applicant is considering this alternative and has indicated planned access to Lawson Lane via removal of a single family home on a sixty foot wide lot. This new street will function as a local street and should be constructed with a minimum right-of-way of 52 feet and a curb to curb width of 40 feet. Additional right-of-way will also be necessary for the construction of sidewalk returns at the inter- section of the new street and Lawson Lane. -This will have to be obtained from the adjacent lots . A stop sign on the new street would be necessary to control traffic movement onto Lawson Lane from the new street. These concerns would also exist if the access was taken from Meredith Drive. Between 154 and 226 automobiles should be generated by the proposed low density resi- dential use. Each of these cars would pass two single family homes that were not constructed with corner lot sideyard setbacks. It may be necessary to construct a sound attenuating block wall to mitigate noise generated by these cars . The additional traffic generated should not, however, adversely affect the circulation of the area . If the area of concern is developed as a low density residential use, approxi- mately 1000 fewer automobile trips will be generated when compared to that generated by commercial develop- ment. 12 • (3) A comparison of the revenue/expenditure ratios for low density residential use and commercial uses on • this site indicate a potential net loss to the City of $6 , 625 each year if low density residential uses are constructed, (4) The additional 50 to 74 persons that would be generated will not adversely effect either the level of park service in the area or overload any school serving this _. area. - 2 . 1.3 Recommendation The area of concern south of Adams Avenue and east of Brookhurst Street should be redesignated to low density residential. • 2 . 2 Nichols Street South of Slater Avenue 2. 2. 1 Background a The area of concern is located on the south side of Slater Avenue between Nichols Street and the Pacific • Electric Railroad right-of-way. In May, 1977 , Family Home Builders, Inc . requested that the General Plan land use designation be changed from industrial to medium density residential. The 17 .7 gross acre site is included in the area covered • by the recently completed Industrial Land Use Study and is addressed in the Central Industrial Corridor Plan that is Part 3 of General Plan Amendment No. 77-2 . • 2. 2 . 2 Analysis • The site is moderately suited for industrial development with large lot size and compatibility with industrial areas on the north, east, and west being favorable attributes. The property to the south was recently • approved for redesignation to medium density residential 40 by General Plan Amendment 77-1. A medium density designa- tion 'of the subject property would be consistent with the residential to the south but would be virtually surrounded by industrial development on the other three sides . Because the scope of the proposed land reductions surround- ing the site has been greatly reduced, the area of concern • should also remain industrial . 2. 2. 3 Recommendation The Planning Staff recommends that the area of concern at Nichols Street and south of Slater Avenue be retained • general industrial. 13 • T = w 1f I IIII■IIIIIIIIIII.illl - ����h:.��`�A�r~°��{=�""" ~' ■ f:.._, NY,� :Xx.:ter. .■� _ -:is;.:: i W.. h - �_ _ _� { h i 111,/IIi/I/IIi1�1111il1111��1.11�1!!!/!1!l1l�II<.IIi1!! i,11.111111111111111111111111f11111111111111111111111 1 ' I1111111111111lA1,If11111111111111111111111111111111 U I IIILIillllti11111f�11i111�11t11�1i1f>1.111lltlilifill 1l11.l11111!l�A��lIJ1l�trll�IlA IIIIf11i11111111.1.lIlllill 1 11111 _ 1111,l11/1,11111111111111111.11101111.11111111.111111111 - IIIi1,tlii1111i1111lLIlil',illili,11.11111111111.1111i111 — - 1111!l.111.1111111111111111111111111111111111111/1111 111:11,11111111.1111,11111/.11:11111,1;111111��11,1111�11.1,1,/. I '""' - illllll1111111111111111111111.11111111111111111.1.1.1.111 aF'EA OOF COONCErN 2 NICHOOLS STREET SOUTH OOF SLATER AVENUE • �� I I I i l l l I l l l l ��� 1 D n--�► ► I ► I I 1 I I I I I I I I I=—il • ao qCs AR MA04DRA DR. DANWE OR [[I Ill I i�;)l • ® C4 MACH DOW COMMERCIAL e ' DEALER • MEDIo DUSITY R3 RES lk-NTAL C2 • HIGH DENSITY ER IAL • RESIDENTIAL `' C4 R3 • C4 ®. C. F. G. D co-1 • ;, R3 • 0A30"67@0 �AVa oa D • � ��a�a �ads � AREA OF CONCERN 2.3 SOUTH OF TERRY DROVE AND EAST OF V60wPloomir LANE O pO FIGURE 7_4 • 15 1 2. 3 South of Terry Drive and East of View Point Lane 2. 3. 1 The site is located at the southeast corner of Terry Drive and Viewpoint Lane. A request to change the present general plan designation of general commercial to medium density residential was received in June, 1977 . The re- quest was submitted by Mr. Robert E. Jarrard and Mr. Thomas A. Bernatz representing the property owner. The area of request comprises approximately 2. 7 acres of an existing 3. 3 acre parcel. The applicant is proposing the change in land use designation for the rear portion of an existing lot fronting on Beach Boulevard. Upon approval of the proposed General Plan Amendment, the applicants have indicated their desire to subdivide the area under consideration into ten (10) residential lots and to construct four unit apartment buildings thereon. The area of concern is currently vacant and used for agricul- tural purposes. The parcel is surrounded by an automobile dealership on the north, the vacant portion of the larger parcel to be left for commercial use on the east, an existing restaurant and parking area on the south and . multiple-family housing development on the west across Viewpoint Lane. 2. 3. 2 Analysis • Residential use of the subject parcel is possible and the medium density residential designation as requested is compatible with the existing residential uses across Viewpoint Lane. The primary issues therefore are (1) once again the suitability :of maintaining the area of concern for commercial use, and (2) the compatibility of residential development with the adjacent commercial uses. As was previously discussed in Section 2 . 1. 2 , Huntington Beach currently has an excess of commercially planned property. According to the standards and market analysis consulted, the excess is approximately 500 acres. Removal • of the 2 .7 acres under consideration from the City' s • supply of commercial property would not have any signifi- cant impact on meeting the City residents ' demand for commercial facilities. A major concern regarding commercial development along f Beach Boulevard has been the existance of many deep lots that have commercial uses only on the front portions of the lots. The rear portions of these lots are often undeveloped and are essentially unusable for commercial • 16 • • purposes. The amendment requested for this area of concern would prevent this undesirable condition from occurring. • It would insure that the entire parcel from Beach Boule- vard to Viewpoint Lane is utilized. This larger parcel is, however, suitable for development as a small _ commercial center similar to those recently constructed on other portions of Beach Boulevard. These centers feature one larger, but not large, anchor tenant generally located • adjacent to Beach Boulevard and up to ten smaller stores that are community oriented. One such center was recently constructed on a similar sized lot several parcels to the. ' south. These types of commercial centers do eliminate some of the problems associated with strip commercial develop- ment and are therefore more compatible with the policies of the General Plan. There is , however , no way of insuring • that this type of development will occur at this location. Redesignation of the area of concern to medium density residential use would allow the construction of a maximum of 40 residential units. This would generate approximately r 95 persons that would be subjected to noise, generated by the adjacent commercial uses. The situation would be similar to that existing for the multiple-family units across Viewpoint Lane. Based on 1974 noise contour in- formation, these units would also be subject to ground transportation noise levels that currently exceed the • normally acceptable range of Ldn60 identified in the • General Plan. It should be added that the ground trans- portation noise contours projected for 1990 will place the majority of these units within the normally acceptable range. This decrease would be due to legislation requiring noise emission levels to be reduced. Sound reduction • techniques should be incorporated into the dwelling unit design. A comparison of the revenue/expenditure ratios for medium density residential use and commercial uses on this site indicate a potential net loss to the City of $3 ,175 each year if medium density residential uses are constructed. • The additional population generated by the proposed redesignation will not adversely impact the area' s schools nor will it cause any reduction• in service levels provided by the park facilities within the area. 2 . 3. 3 Recommendation • The Planning Staff recommends that the area of concern at Terry Drive and Viewpoint Lane be redesignated from general commercial to medium density residential. • 17 • 2. 4 Administrative Items In February 1977 , the Planning Commission approved the Multi-Stjand Policy Plan. They also directed staff to include the policies multi-story locational map in the General Plan. In April, 1977City Council adopted the Multi-Story Policy Plan and concurred the Commission' s recommendation. Therefore, General Plan Amendment 1 No. 77-2, Part 2 includes the Multi-Story Policy Plan. The Multi-Story Policy Plan consists of written statements and a location map that sets forth the principles that have guided the preparation of the City' s recently adopted multi-story ordinance. The Multi-Story Policy Plan also contains principles that will guide the preparation of any specific plans containing multi-story structures, and the siting of individual multi-story developments. The goals and development policies contained in the Multi-Story Policy Plan established the basic premise that all multi-story development in the City of Huntington Beach must integrate with and be a complementory component of the character and context of the City. It is also the intent of the Multi-Story Policy Plan that multi-story development be functionally workable, visually pleasing, and consistent with the policies of the General Plan. 2. 4 . 1 Analysis The Multi-Story Policy Plan has been successfully utilized as the basis of the City' s Multi-Story Ordinance and has been used in the preparation of the Pacifica Community Plan. Because it does contain policies that directly effect the physical development of the City and is reflected in the City' s Zoning Ordinances, it should be • incorporated into the General Plan. 2 . 4. 2 Recommendation This Amendment to the General Plan proposes that the • Multi-Story Policy Plan be included in the "policies for • development" portion of the Huntington Beach General Plan. • • • 18 • • • • • • ilk • 3. 0 AMENDMENT SUMMARY 3 .1 Proposed Amendment 77-2, Part 2 Area of Concern Summaries ' The following sections summarize the recommended changes in General Plan Land Use Designations for the affected areas . All changes are shown in Figure 3-1. 3. 1. 1 South of Adams Avenue and east of Brookhurst Street S The 3 . 16 acre study area should be redesignated from general commercial to low density residential . Proposed Land Use Acreage Summary Category Gross Acres Low Density Residential 3 . 16 t 19 i Projected Population Residential Gross Maximum Total Population Estimated Type Acres Units/gac Units Per Unit Population Low Density 3.16 x 7 = 22 x 3.37 = 75 3 . 1. 2 South of Terry Drive and east of View Point Lane 1 The 2.7 acre study area should be redesignated from general commercial to medium density residential . Proposed Land Use Acreage Summary , Category Gross Acres 1 Medium Density Residential 2 .7 Projected Population , Residential Gross Maximum Total Population Estimated Type Acres Units/gac Units Per Unit Population Medium 2. 7 x 15 = 41 x 2. 35 96 Density 3 .2 Summary of Proposed General Plan Amendment 77-2 , Part 2 ' Proposed Land Use Acreage Summary Existing Proposed Net Land Use Category Gross Acres Gross Acres Gross Acres Residential Low Density 0 3 .16 3 .16 Medium Density 0 2 . 70 2 .70 Commercial Retail 5.86 0 -5.86 Total land involved in the Amendment: 5. 86 gross acres. 20 y , O` 4% 1■1 Ile � 8 f, _■ FAIN i S1■1■A`1 fAdfK COAST IIM1T` FIGURE 3-1 i m HUNINGTON B64CH, OILIFORNIA LEGEND PLANNING DEPARTMEIT RESIDENTIAL Low Density 0-7 un/gac GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 77 - 2 • Medium Density 8-15 un/gac PART -2 • Net Projected Population Residential Net Gross Maximum Total Population Estimated Type Acres Units/gac Units Per Unit Population Residential • Low Density 3. 16 x 7 = 22 x 3 .45 = 75 Medium 2 . 70 x 15 = 41 x 2.35 = 96 • Density � Total: 171 • • • • • • • • 23 • Z e7e7e Affidavit of Publication State of California County of Orange ss City of Huntington Beach George Farquhar, being duly sworn on oath, says: That he is a C citizen of the United States, over the age of twenty-one years. That he is the printer and publisher of the Huntington Beach News, a weekly newspaper of general circulation printed and pub- I.-Published Huntington Beach News, oct. lished in Huntington Beach, California and circulated in the said 20, 1977. County of Orange and elsewhere and published for the dissemination NOTICE of PUBLIC HEARING of local and other news of a general character, and has a bona fide GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 77-2, subscription list of paying subscribers, and said paper has been --i . PARTS 2-and 3 . P P established printed and published in the State of California, and NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN tttat a.public hearing wild be held by the City Council County of Orange, for at least one year next before the publication of the Ci•ty.of Huntington Beach, in the of the first insertion of this notice; and the said newspaper is not -Council Chamber of the Civic Center, devoted to the interest of, or published for the entertainment of any j Huntington Beach, at the hour of 7:30 . articular class profession, trade, calling, race or denomination, or I{P.M., or as soon thereafter as possible, P � P �on Monday the 7th day of November, any number thereof. 1977, for the purpose of considering The Huntington Beach New was adjudicated a legal newspaper f Gener•al Plan Amendment 77-2 and re- of general circulation b Judge G. K. Scovel in the Superior Court auired environmental documents, as ini- tiated tiated by. the Planning Commission. Gen, of Orange County, California August 27th, 1937 by order No. A-5931. eras Plan Amendmet No. 77-2 is divided as follows: art 2.That the cTFNFRAL PLAN A*,NDMF.NT ??-2 three areas sofll concern 'andsonedresses dm nistnative change to the General Plan. ,They are: . PARTS 2 AND 3 Areas of Concern: of which the annexed is a printed copy, was published in said news- 1. South of Adams Avenue and,east of, Brockhurst Street 2. IJichols Street south of Slater Av* I one issue SUe paper at least 3. South of Terry Drive and east of I Viewpoint Drive Administrative Item. commencing from the 20th day of October 4. mlulti-Story Policy Items. Negative Declarations 77-94 and 77-95 deal with this portion.of the amendment. 192-Z, and ending on the ?0 th day of October Part 3. Industrial Areas deal with in. dustrial properties in the Edison Indus- trial Area and makes recommendations for land use changes on certain proper- 19 _7 both days inclusive, and as often during said period and ties. Environmental Impact Report 77-8 times of publication as said paper was regularly issued, and in the addresses the impacts. regular and entire issue of said pewspaper proper, and not in a Further information may be obtained supplement, and s All interested said notice was published therein on the following from the City Planning Department. persons are invited to at- dates, to-wit: tend said -hearing and express their opi- nions for or against said general plan Oct. 20 , 1977 amendment. Further information may be obtained from the Office of the City Clerk. DATED: October 4, 1977. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH By: Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk 2000 Main St. Publisher Huntington-Beach, Calif. Phone 536-5226 Subscribed and sworn to before me this 21 e t day of --October 192_ A � .� Notary Public Orange County, California ----i------ -----•------------- ti THOMAS D. WYLLIE ..� Notary Public-California m Orange County i My Commission Expires September 12, 1978 !--------------------------------t City of Huntington Beach County of Orange State of California J ffidavitofPublication of GEORGE FARQUHAR Publisher Huntington Beach News Filed Clerk By Deputy Clerk Publish 10/ /77 POSTAGE PREPAID Pootcards Iwo �sr7 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING •NT 77-2. PARTS 2 and 3 1 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held by the . City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, in the Council Chamber of the Civic Center, Huntington Beach, at the hour of 7._ P.N. , or as soon thereafter as possible, on Monday '7 ti v__NA the �r day of , 19_, for the purpose of considering General Plan Amendment 77-2 and required environmental documents, as initiated by the Planning Commission. General Plan Amendment No. 77-2 is divided as follows: Part 2. Miscellaneous items addresses three areas of concern and one adminis- trative change to the General Plan. They are: Areas of Concern: 1. South of Adams Avenue and east of .Brookhurst Street 2. Nichols Street south of Slater Avenue 3. South of Terry Drive and east of Viewpoint Drive Administrative Item: 4. Multi-Story Policy Items. Negative Declarations 77-94 and 77-95 deal with this portion of the amendment. Part 3. Industrial Areas deal with industrial properties in the Edison Industrial Area and makes recommendations for land use changes on certain properties. Environmental Impact Report 77-8 addresses the impacts. Further information may be obtained from the City Planning Department. All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and express their opinions for or against said � d 4 � amendment Further information may be obtained from the Office of the City Clerk . DATED: October 4, 1977 CITY OF- HUNTINGTON BEACH ^` / BY: Alicia M. Wentworth ��` City Clerk - Affidavit of Publication State of California } -- County of Orange } SS Published Huntington Beach News, Aug.. :25, 1977. City of Huntington Beach I LEGAL NOTICE ') George Farquhar, being duly sworn on oath, says: That he is NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING a j General Plan Amendment No. 77-2 citizen of the United States, over the age of twenty-one years. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a pubs; That he is the printer and publisher of the Huntington Beach lic hearing will be held by the City; News, a weekly newspaper of general circulation printed and pub- Planning Commission of the City Of; lished in Huntington Beach, California and circulated in the said Huntington Beach, California, for ,,thy; purpose of., considering General 'P�ark; County of Orange and elsewhere and published for the dissemination Amendment 77-2 and required environs? of local and other news of a general character, and has a bona fide mental documents. General.Plan Amens-?:j subscription list of paying subscribers, and said paper has been ment ty,o. 77.2 is divided 600 4S established, printed and published in the State of California, and tea ' i+euewa; - County of Orange, for at least one year next before the publication General Plan Revision '?- Iniandate visions to th a State of the first insertion of this notice; and the said newspaper is not en e Ian Elements.l devoted to the interest of, or published for the entertainment of any �; iron act Report--77-10: particular class, profession, trade, calling, race or denomination, or s the impa '. any number thereof. Part 2. Miscellaneous Items addresses three areas of concern and one ad-! The Huntington Beach New was adjudicated a legal newspaper ministrative change to the General; of general circulation by Judge G. K. Scovel in the Superior Court Plan. They are: of Orange County, California August 27th, 1937 by order No.A-5931. Areas of Concern: 1. South of Adams Avenue and east of Brookhurst Street. That the G1,,NERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO 77-2 �2. South of Terry Drive and east of Viewpoint Drive. 3. Nichols Street south of Slater Avenue. A.dministrat;ve item: of which the annexed is a printed copy, was published in said news- 4. Multi-Story Policy Items. Neeativ? Declarations 77.94 and 77-95 deal with this portion of the paper at least one issue amendment. Part 3. Industrial Areas deal with in- dustrial properties in the Av't+rr,M commencing from the -2 day of Au u f3 t e,+d Edison Industrial Areaf and! makes recommendations for land j use changes on certain properties. 19zL and ending on the 2 5 t h day of August Environmental Impact Report 77.8 addresses the impacts. Said hearing will be held at the hour 19 both days inclusive, and as often during said of 7:o0 P.M., on September in '.977, e ' ` -, Y g period and the Council Chambers Building of the times of publication as said paper was regularly issued, and in the Civic Center, .t000 Main Street, .Hunt- regular and entire issue of said pewspaper proper, and not in a ington Beach. California. supplement, and said notice was published therein on the following ' F.11 interested persons are invited to dates, to-wit: attend said hearing and express their opinions for or against the proposed General Plan Amendment No. 77-2. August 25, 1977 l Further information may be obtained, from the City Planning Deoartmenji. - I f Te!ephone No. (714) 536-5271 { DATED this 25th day Aueust. '1977. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION By Edward D. Selich Secretary --•- '� Publisher Subscribed and sworn to before me this 26th day of August 192� Notary Public Orange County, California ----------------------------- ;y THOMAS D. WYLL IE Notary Public-California i T ©_ Orange County i My Commission Expires 4 i t Septembor 12, 1976 -----__.._—___------------------� , NOTICE TO CLERK TO SCHEDULE PUBLIC HEARING ITEM G'Fi✓F.�G P��y AM�il�D�7FNT 77�� pg,QTs qad .� TO: CITY CLERK'S OFFICE DATE: �0-'3_77 FROM: AEAT. J PLEASE SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING USING THE ATTACHED LEGAL NOTICE FOR THE DAY OF 1977 . AP's are attached AP's will follow No AP's Initiated by: Planning Commission V 'S Planning Department � l Other Adoption of Environmental Status # YES NO ND77-9`f ND 77- 79 C o NT•�-T= C'ff�-•2G� c�� 5977 WHITE CITY ATTORNEY % CITY OF HUNTINU JN BEACH No BLUE-CITY CLERK GREEN-CITY ADMINISTRATOR ! C°ANARY-DEPA RrTMENTAL REQUEST for ORDINANCE or RESOLUTION r I P Date Request made by Department I 10/4/7+7 f Monica Florian, _' PlanniAg 7 INSTRUCTIONS. File request in the City Administrator's Office quickly as possible but not later than-noon, one week prior to the Council Meeting at which it is to lie introduced Print or type facts necessary for City Attorney's use in preparation of ordinance.In a separate paragraph oddine briefly reasons for the request of Council Action Attach all papers pertinent to the subject All appropriation requests must be cleared and approved by the Director of Finance before submitting to City Administrator's Office. Preparation of an Ordinance or Resolution is hereby requested Please a resolution per attached sample for General Plan Amendment sa•> -77 2., Parts 2 and 3. - 4 • • 1 Please include An the resolution tdoption of ETR 77-08, Negative Declaration 77-94, and Negative Declaration 77-95. ' 4 • � r r;w s� • l a ' 4 r' r• + i Y x Y• t• i • f � t1 '• -• 1 + s. y ft r • w • R Y 7 Desired effective date• Signed A• ,� Approved as to availability of funds CltY Council Htg of 10/17/77 4d� ,�.,, ,p D_irector of Finance City Attorney—Please prepare and submit.printed copies to this office by Crty Administrator • a ` � � ' .. � 8aj•x�r � AvAM fr: G.P.A. 77-2 df AK5,0 I 5-4-77 Page 1 df 151-271-30 df 151-272-17 df Orange County Sanitation Daniel Zwickler John C. Gerard District 20162 Running Springs Lane 9951 Mammoth Dr. P.O. Box 8127 Huntington Beach, CA 99646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Fountain Valley, CA 92708 df 151-271-31 df 151-272-18 df Orange County Flood Control Gary T. Furuta John A. Turk District CA 92?02 . 20172 Running Springs Lane 9941 Mammoth Dr. Santa Ana, C P.O. Box 10 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 df 151-271-32 df 151-272-19 df. Dept, of Transportation John F. Duggan Mohammed S. Qureshi 120 South Spring Street 20192 Running Springs Lane 9921 Mammoth Dr. Los Angeles, CA 90052 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 151-271-24 df 151-271-33 df 151-276-01 df Gerald A. Whitehead Erwin C. . Bissinger Jr. James Banks 9911 Kings Canyon Dr. 20202 Running Springs Lane 20222 Colonial Circle Huntington Beach, CA 926A6 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 151-271-25 df 151-271-34 df 151-276-02 df Gary Wright Delmer E. Roghair George J. Lundergan 23223 Wade Avenue 20212 Running Springs Lane 20221 Running Springs Lane Tornance, CA 90505 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 1 151-271-26 df 151-271-35 df 151-461-23 df Fric R. Young Oscar E. Campbell 9941 9941 Kings Canyon Dr. p Huntington Beach Holding Kingsuntington Beach, Dr. 92646 20222 Running Springs Lane Corporation Huntington Beach, CA 92646 12500 E. Slauson Ave. Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670 151-271-27 df 151-272-14 df 151-461-24 df Vernon Tirado, et al Henry C. Loo Shell Oil Co. 9951 Kings Canyon Dr. 9922 Kings Canyon Dr. Western Tax Region Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 P.O. Box 3397 Term. Annex Los Angeles, CA 90051 151-271-28 df 151-272-15 df_ 151-461-25 df Gary Manulkin Michael A. Patti Pacific SW Realty Co. 9961 Kings Canyon Dr. 9942 Kings Canyon Dr. Attn: F. J. Klein #130 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 333 S. Ilope St. #H-12-2 Los Angeles, CA 90017 151-271-29 df 151-272-16 df 151-861-26 df Robert R. Munoz Manuel W. Sterkel Brookhurst Ltd. 9971 Kings Canyon Dr. 9952 Kings Canyon Dr. Elden Bainbridge Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 18090 Beach Boulevard Huntington Beach, CA 92648 GPA 77-2 d 5-4-77 Page 155-051-10 df 155-181-05 df 155-162-09 d Broadway Oil Co. Downey Savings & Loan Assn. Kenneth W. Matson Phillips Petroleum Co. P.O.Ox 5158 20101 Lawson Lane 155 bovet Rd Suite 675 Santa Ana, CA 92704 Huntington Beach, CA 9264 San Mateo, CA 94402 1155-051-11 df 155-162-01 df 155-161-01 d ( C K S Development Co. Lorraine G. Loobey Charles F. Drubin Bank of America 20011 Lawson Lane 20012 Lawson Lane Tax Department #3245 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Ituntington Beach, CA 9264 IP.O. Box 37000 ' San Francisco, .CA 94137 155-162-02 df 155-161-02 d ---------------------- William H. Melcher Charles G. Coppedge 20021 Lawson Lane 20022 Lawson Lane i Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 9264 155-051-12 df 155-162-03 df 155-161-03 d ' Robert H. Cowgill, et al James D. Goodin Charles E. King 747 E. Green. 8t. , Ste. 202 20031 Lawson Lane 20032 Lawson Lane ! Pasadena, CA 91101 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 9264 j 155-051-07 df 155-162-04 df 155-161-04 d ; Vona Grocery Co. Rudclph Johncola Jack Impellizzeri P.O. Box 3338 Term. Annex 20051 Lawson Lane 20052 Lawson Ln. ; Los Angeles, CA 90051 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 9264 155-051-05 df 155-162-05 df 155-161-05 d Sav-On-Realty Inc. Brewster B. Gallup Henry M. Richardson ; Sav-On Drugs Stoves 20061 Lawson Lane 20062 Lawson Lane 4818 Lincoln Blvd. Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 9264 Marina Del. Rey, CA 90291 155-181-02 df 155-162-06 df 155-151-06 d Roy K. Sakioka Robert J. Johnson Alvin Ii. Crum 14852 E. Sunflower Ave. 20071 Lawson Lane 20072 Lawson Lane Santa Ana, CA �2000 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 9264 155=181-03 df 155-162-07 df 151 161-07 d James S. Kamboor Russell T. Holloway Dominic Cesare 14611 Valley Vista 20081 Lawson Lane 20082 Lawson Lane Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 9264 J, 155-181-04 df 155-162-08 df 151-161-08 d Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. Cova K. Kelly Gasper Russo Attn: Real Estate Dept. 20091 Lawson Lane 20081 Colgate Circle 1144 East Market St. Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 9264, ! Akron, Ohio 44316 P GPA 77-2 di 5-4-77 Page 3 155-161-09 df. 155-172-04 df 155-172-35 Nick J. Florio Louis E. Barnes d 20071 Colgate Circle 10222 Niagara Drive Julie E. Cline Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 10251 Wesley Circle Huntington Beach, CA 9264 155-161-10 df 155-171-04 df. ' 155-172=36 d Edward H. Kerins Herbert J. Jones John H. Nichols 20061 Colgate Circle 20151 Lawson Lane 10241 Wesley Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington ,Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 9264 155-161-11 df 155-171-05 df 155-172-37 d Phillip B. McElroy John W. Russell Elwood C. Kingsland 20051 Colgate Circle 20161 Lawson Lane 10231 Wesley Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 9264 I i i 155-161-12 df 155-172-01 df 155-172-38 d Donald P. Holtorf Edward P. Steinbeck Joseph R. Carrow 20031 Colgate Circle 20122 Lawson Lane 10221 Wesley Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 9264 i 155-161-13 df 155-172-02 df 155-172-20 d Harold H. Roach Lloyd B.. Britt Gary J. Thomsen 20021 Colgate Circle 20112 Lawson Lane 10261 Meredith Dr. Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntiggton Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 9264 j 155-161-14 df 155-172-03 df 155-172-21 d V. J. Feeney Albert Cominsky George Oliveri I 20011 Colgate Circle 20102 Lawson Lane 10251 Meredith Dr. i Huntington Beach, CA 92626 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntigton Beach, CA 92646 155-171-01 df 155-172-05 df 155-172-22 d Joan Ruch Arleen E. Puthuff Melvin L. Miller 20111 Lawson Lane 10232 Niagara Drive 10241 Meredith Dr. Huntington Beach, CA 99946 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 9264 155-171-02 df 155-172-06 df 155-172-23' d Richard J. Melchor Herbert S. Bell Patrick E. Campbell 20121 Lawson Lane 10242 Niagara Drive 10231 Meredith Dr. Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 9264 155-171-03 df 155-172-07 df 155-172-24 d. j Franklin P. Glenn Verne L. West Eugene O. Frederick 20131 Lawson Lane 10252 Niagara Drive 10221 Meredith Dr. Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Reach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92641 t J - GPA 77 2 df* 5-4-77 Page. 4 155-172-05 df 155-191-09 df 155-191-18 & Mark M. Rona Albert Natale Gerald E. Chrysong 10212 Wesley Ct=cle 20191 Princeton Circle 20192 Tanbark Circla Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92.646 Huntington Beach, CA 9264, 155-172-26 df 155-191-10 df 155-1.91-19 d Bry an M. Stephens Wesley R. Baker Robert G. Caceres 10222 Wesley Circle . 20181 Princeton Circle 10121 Merdith Lan e Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 9264 155-172-27 df 155-191-11 df 155-191-20 d Andrew Manfre James R. Welton 10232 Wesley Circle Frederick W. Woods 10131 Meredith Dr. Huntington Beach, CA 92646 20182 Princeton Circle Huntington Beach, CA 9264 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 155-172-28 df 155-19'1-12 df 155-191-21 d John E. Fall Owen P. McConville 10242 Wesley Circle 2 9 Seincetonge 10141 Meredith Dr. Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Princeton Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 155-172-29 df 155-191-13 df 155-191-22 d Lloyd I. Basil John W. Lynn L. Bicket 10252 Wesley Circle 20202 Princeton Circle 10151 Meredith Dr. Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA. 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 9264 155-172-30 df 155-191-23 d 155-191-14 df Mark A. Madison PrankRonald R. Morello 10262 Wesley Circle 20201 T Pearceanbark Circle 10161 Meredith Dr. Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Tanbark Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 9264 155-174-01 df 155-191-15 df 155-191-24 d G. A. Tays, Jr. Theodore W. Denney John Stoker 20201 Craimer Lane 20191 Tanbark Circle 20181 Lawson Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 9264 155-173-16 df 155-191-16 df 155-191-25 a Melvin L. Miller Larry Leedy Ted A. Jipson 10252 Meredith Dr. 13035 Mindanao Way #3 20171 Lawson Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Marina Del Rey, CA 90291 Huntington Beach, CA 9264 155-191-08 df 155-191-17 df 155-192-01 d Mae Hoepner Dale S. Menke Dale D. conrad 10011 Meredith Dr. 20182 Tanbark Circle 10211 Meredith Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 I "r GPA 77-2 f 5-4-77 Page 5 jington 93-01 155-193-09 df 155-193-17 A. Nay Spiro J. Maris Eugene R. Lewis 0112 Meredith Dr. 10212 Meredith Dr. Beach, CA w646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 9 155-193-01 df 155-193-08 df 155-193-18 William A. Nayl,on Kenneth R. Thompson Robert W. Whitcher 10012 Meredith Dr. 141 West Taft Ave. 10222 Meredith Dr. Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Orange, CA 92665 Huntington Beach, CA 9 155-193-02 df 155-193-10 df 155--193-19 Frank L. Edwards David W. Stolte Dennis R. McCracken 10032 Meredith Dr. 10122 Meredith Dr. 10211 Jon Day Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 9264.6 Huntington Beach, CA 9 155-193-03 df 155-193-11 df 155-193-20 Clement J. De Rocco Edward R. Moriarty Craig K. Ota 10042 Meredith Dr. 10132 Meredith Dr. 10201 Jon Day Drive Iiuntington Beech, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 9 155-193-04 df 155-193-12 df 155-193-21 Richard G. Mueller Charles Ailey, Jr. William R. Ohst 10052 Meredith Dr. 10142 Meredith Dr. 10191 Jon Day Dr. Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92 155-193-05 df 155-193-13 df 155-193-22 George Abbascia Harry L. Lipset Harold Marks 10072 Meredith Dr. 10152 Meredith Dr. 10181 Jon Day Dr. ituntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92 155-193-06 df 155-193-14 df 155-193-23 Richard J. Wheeler David S. Bard Lionel W. Irwin 10082 Meredith Dr. 10162 Meredith Dr. 10171 Jon Day Dr. Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92 155-193-07 df 155-193-15 df 155-193-24 John G. Barry Sidney Spinak Roger N. Baker 10092 Meredith Dr. 10172 Meredith Dr. 10151 Jon Day Dr. Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington beach, CA 9� 1 - -0 d 155-193-16 df 155-193-25 r John S. Powell John Gera, ,Jr. 9 e h r 10202 Meredith Dr. 10141 Jon Day Dr. nt gt Be CA 9 4 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 9, GPA 77-2 df 5-4-77 Page 6 155-193-26 df 155-193-35 df 930-23-08 df James H. White Gary McJilton Sharon S. Villa 10131 Jon Day Dr. 10031 Jon Day Dr. 3616 W. Camille, Apt. B Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach.I CA 92646 Santa Ana, CA 92704 155-193-27 , df 155-193-26. df 930-23-09 df Frederik Staalberg Robert C. Rice Orvilla E. Erpenback 10121 Jon Day Dr. 10011 Jon Day Dr. 10230 Ascot Circle Huntington Beach, .CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 155-193-28 df 930-23-01 df 930-23-10 df David Firooz Amelia F. Laws Myrtle E. Cheshire, et al P.O. Box 1182 10202 Ascot Circle 10228 Ascot Circle Huntington Beach; CA 92647 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington beach, CA 92626 155-193-29 df 930-23-02 df 930-2.3-11 df Frank J. Abbott Ray Barretto 10101' Jon Day Dr. Bessie DeMoss Y 10204 Ascot Circle 22761 Jubilo Place Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 El Toro, CA 92630 155-193-20 df 930-23-03 df 930-23=13 df Thomas Ii. Moore J. Arthur Peterson Alda A. Livermore 10091 Jon Day Dr. 10206 Ascot Circle 10222 Ascot Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 155-193-21 df 930-'23-04 df 930-23-14 df_ Thomas V. Staley Arty Basye Ray E. Bruner, Jr. Huntington n Jon Day Dr. 10208 Ascot Circle 10220 Ascot Circle [Iington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 155-193-312 df 930-23-05 df 930-23-15 df Terry Steinberg Harry Teache Dian Deering 10071 Jon Day Dr. 10210 Ascot Circle 10424 Ascot Circle IIuntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 155-193-22 df 930-23-06 df 930-23-16 df Lon E. Peek Salvatore Marino 10051 Jon Day Dr. Dale F. Spencer 16731 Tunstall Lane #1 16240 Ascot Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 . 155-193-34 df . 930-23-07 df 930-23-18 df Steven Black William J. Fitzgerald, et alMary J- Faltico, et al 10041 Jon Day Dr. 10171 Perigrine Circle 10236 Ascot Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach CA 92646 Fountain Vallgy, CA 92708 9 GPA 77-2 5-4-77 Page 7 of 7 930-23-19 df 930-23-250 df 930-23-59 d , dlenn 1I. Lamphear Mary L. Wilhelm Leonard B. wood 19808 Ramsgate Lane 23481 Los Adornos 19922 Piccadilly Lane •I Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Laguna Hills, CA 92653 Huntington Beach, CA 9264 1 930-23-20 df 932-23-251 df 930-23-60 d Charles A. Grossman Lurlene White Donald E. @onnors � 10142 Beverly Drive 10156 Ascot Circle 10174 Ascot Circle 1Hunitngton Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 9244E i 930-23-243 df 930-23-252 df 930-23-61 d Nick Madrid Roberta T. Jones Dolores Duncan 10142 Ascot Circle 10158 Ascot Circle 10176 Ascot Circle lHunfnngton Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 9264 � 930-23-244 df 930-23-253 df 930-23-62 d Lilian I. Remillard Sara C. Kahn, et al Holland L. Robinson ; 10140 Ascot Circle 10160 Ascot Circle 10178 Ascot Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 9264 930-23-245 df 930-23-254 df Willaim F. Majer Mabel E. Dri 10138 Ascot Circle ggs, et al ou A 3 ;et a] 10162 Ascot Circle Iluntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CAHu"92646 _o urn Drue ��MF2-, E 930-23-246 df 930-23-255 df John E. Batey James B. McBride ' 1689 Samar Drive 10164 Ascot Circle Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 930-23-247 df 930-23-256 df Ifelen L. Earner, et al Adeline C. Doski, et al � 10134 Ascot Circle 10166 Ascot Circle , Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 i930-23-248 df 930-23-257 cif Bernice W. Zeller Bernice M. Sparling 10132 Ascot Circle . P.O. Box 1961 Iluntington Beach, CA 92646 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 930-23-249 df 930-23-258 df Tsabella Mastro John Gargan ' 1724 Madagascar Street 10170 Ascot Circle Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Huntngton Beach, CA 92646 i 132-471-18 James-R Belt . General Plan Amendment 12xlx 590 Grand Haven Circle No.. 77-3 Costa Mesa, Calif (JH) i 92626 1 Ul-471-21 165-242-04 165-261-09 John F Bibler et al Said H Aly Doris E Gale BBS Properties 00. 6018 S Avenue 4422 Twainson Avenue 2920 Juanita Plaos Los Angeles, Calif Arlington, Calif Fullerton, Calif 92635 90056 92503 Ul-471-22 165-241-22 Ocean View School District Willim L Hamm Raymond G Wilson 7972 Warner Avenue 14682 Monroe Street U04 Tulare Drive Huntington Beach, Calif Muiway City, Calif Oosta Mesa, Calif 92649 92655 92626 111-471-23 165-241-23 of trans William L Haum Robert L Stellracht et al Dept. of 120 So. Spring Street 7622 Slater Avenue 16521 Grahm Street Huntington Reach, Calif HunticngtonBeach- Calif Los Angeles, Calif 90052 ' 92647 92649 Attn: Staff Assistant . Design b 111-371-30 165-251-07 Larry H Morita et al Vista Marlin 6t al 7652 Slater Avenue Lillian L ktarar Huntington Beach, Calif 315 S Rose Street 92647 Burbank, "Calif 81505 111-471-32 165-251-10 Loren M Post Theodore Manthei et al P.U. Box 1503 74565 Dillon Road Big Bear City, Calif Desert Hat Springs, Calif 92314 92240 111-481-04 165-261-02 Nathan S Share et al Bart 0 Fulwiler bt al L Eugene Pickett Co Theodore Manthei 2192 Dupont Dr Suite 113 74565 Dillon Road Irvine, Calif 92664 Desert Hot Springs, Calif 165-242-01 165-261-05 Melvin F Wm pier Mu F Barry 16292 Gentry Lane Hay M Keck Huntington Beach, Calif P.O. Box Droawer K 92647 Cotulla, Texas 76014 165-242-03 165-261-06 Richard H Torgerson Theodore Manthei et al 162U Parkside Lane 4128 Mary Manthei Huntington Beach, Calif 74565 Dillon Road 92647 Desert Hot Springs, Calif I 111-010-07 111-065-22 Otis Construction Co. General Plan Amendment 77-3 Eleanore M Richardson et al P.O. Box 1367 A October 4, 1977 (JH) 1254 E 1st Street #7 Saugus, Calif hng Beach, Calif 91350 90802 IU-010-08 Giles E �.�� 11-063-05 111-066-03 502� E Waxnia Street Thaaas Fanner Joseph R Byrd et al Huntington Calif Faye L gtirner 66 Payne Street 92648 N 134 S 19th Street Elmsford, M. Y. Pocatello, Idaho 83201 10523 111-010-25 IU-063-53 111-066-08 C W Poss Inc Harold K Moore et al August Rohlfs P.O. Box 1610 4833 Dunxobin Avenue Clara M Rohlfs Huntington Beach, Calif Lakewood, Calif 2944 30th Street 92647 90713 San Die go, Calif 92104 111-340-01 111-064-09 111- 09 Alpha Beta Co Wolliari R Carson City of ton Beach 777 S Harbor Blvd P.O. Banc 2217 La Habra, Calif Alhambra, Calif '90631 91803 Ul-061-01 -064-20 13 Haywood Lockhart Richard Haster 1614 W2 E 23rd Street 2435 Wlst Street Los Arieles„ Calif 90011 Santa Ana, Calif 92703 111-061-01 111-064-27 Ul-471-14 Anthony J Olivery A E Arnold et al William L Janes 13966 Seal Beach Blvd P.O. Box 370 7660 Liberty Avenue Seal Beach, Calif Cypres, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 9071.40 90630 92647 111-061-05 Ul-065-01 111-471-15 Gerlad A Janes Anthony J Olivery Dickie's Industrial Service Inc 16771 Bayview Drive 13966 Seal Beach Blvd P.O. Box 91 Sunset Beach, Calif Seal Beach, Calif Fort Worth, Texas 90742 90740 96101 111-061-23 111-065-04 1U-471-16 Josephina Soloezano et al Madge Arnolds Robert Ziebarth et al 7412 B Slater Avenue Josie Arellanes 1639 9th Street Santa Huntington Beach, Calif 156 Fenimore Avenue Sant 92747 Azusa, Calif 91702 SaMonica, Calif 3k= 90404 111-063-01 111-065-06 oc Wilbur E Metzler Thomas H Gray Socrates Skiitias U143 S Bztdlong Avenue 190 36th Ave East S Los Angeles, Calif Seattle, Washington Newport Beach' Calif 92660 149-041-29 149-011-04 TO t i s N Palmer General Amenditelnt 77-2 Albert J Ashurst 9041 Rhodesia Drive Part 3 UM -11 WH) 9051 Bexmxia Drive Huntington Beach, Calif August 18, Huntington Beach, Calif 92646 92646 149-041-29 149-041-38 149-OU-05 David A Archibald Richard W 9nyser Wesley H Gray 9031 Rhodesia Drive 9072 Rhodesia Drive 9061 Bermuda Drive lkmtirbgton Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Cali f 92646 92646 92646 149-041-31 149-041-39 149-011-06 John R Knecht James R Olsen 9021 Rhodesia Drive Ar is 9081 Bermtda Drive 1 Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92646 92646 149-041-32 149-041-39 149-011-07 AobP.rt L Scofield Jerome C Gillen 9001 Rhodesia Drive 9091 Beamx]a Drive Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif i82MVix 92646 92646 149-041-33 149-041-39 149-011-08 John M Earley . Elmer W Nortwn 9002 Rhoclekia Drive Nelson G Johnston 9101 Bermuda Drive IAmtingtcn 9082 Rhodesia Drive Beach, Calf Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92646 92646 149-041-34 FredI Grimes 149-041-40 149-011-01 3101 S Fairview Space 86 (brdon Wells Barry K Miller Santa Ana, Calif 9092 Rhodesia Drive 21802 Kiouaa Lane 92704 t Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92646 92646 149-041-35 John Montoya 149-011-01 149-012-02 9032 Rhodesia Drive James F Macha Alva L Battenfield liuntingtro¢n Beach, Calif 9001 Bmaxb Derive 21782 Kiowa Lane 92646 HuuntingGo. Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92646 92646 149-041-36 George P C Hutton--Puts 149-011-02 149-012-03 9042 Rhodesia Drive Karen A Collier Clarence S Folsom Jr 11un Beach, Calif 9021 Bemrla Drive 21772 Kim a Lane 92646 Huntington Beach, Calif .Huntington Beach, Calif 92646 92646 149-041-37 James J Kelly 149-011-03 149-012-04 9062 Rhodesia Drive Bdward B Richardson Joseph A Fritsch et al Huntington Beach, Cali 9031 Bern)da Drive 9062 Bermuda Drive 92646 Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92646 92646 I 149-012-05 General lan Am�nt 77-2 149-014-02 James H Butler Part 3 3-6-11 WH) Gerard W Gartland 9082 Benuj.da Drive August 18, 77 21832 Kiawa Lame Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92646 92646 149-012-06 149-013-01. 149-014-03 Conrad Shoop Donald M Buckland Richard B Loy 9092 Bernwda Drive 21771 Ki,owa Dane 9062 Kahului Drive i Hunti.ngtcan Beach, Cal i MmUngton Bead, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92646 92646 92646 149-012-07 149-OL3� 02 149-014-04 Hassan Z Khatab Hilda F Grantham W;]iard E Zblles 9162 Bennida Drive 21781 Ki Aa Lane 9082 Kahului Drive Huatir� Beach, .Cali Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92646 92646 92646 Platt 0�8 John P 149-013- 149-014-05 John Platt 9112 Ben-ar3a Drive Louis D Kastorff �Y�d P �� Huntingti Beach, Calif 21801 Kiowa Lane 9092 Kahului Drive 92646 Huntit�gtoai Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92646 92646 149-012-23 149-013-04 149-014-06 Peter Parkovich M Englert John D Carson 9111 Kahului Drive 21811 Kiowa Lane 9102 Kahului Drive Huntington Beach, Calif Hun Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92646 9 92646 2646 149-012-24 149-013-05 149-014-07 Lbnald L Schlieter Donald G Holmes Rodney A Wilcox 9101 Kahului kb= Drive 21821 Kia a Lame 9112 Kahului Drive Huntington Beach, Calif HunUngtan Beach, Calif Hun ' 92646 92646 9264n Beach, Calif 149-012-25 149-013-06 149-014-08 Walter R Coyle Milton B Herring John F Kirkorn 9091 Kahului Drive 21831 Kiowa Lane 9122 Kahului Drive Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Hmtington 92646 92646i��1 92646Beach, Calif 149-012-26 149-231-.03 John Kahhului ului Drive 9081 K rive Hun tington Beads Union High huntington Beach, Calif' School District 92646 1902— 17th Street Fhmtington Beach, Calif 9264t 149-012-27 Drive 149-014-01 111-010-6 Neal K Rieffa et al rgyna d L Jenkins Robert L Stellrecht et al 9061 Kalrului rive 21822 Kiowa Lane 16521 Street .Inmtinytan Beach, Calif FD�mtir .Beach, Calif Hun Beach, Calif 92646 92646 92647 J eta lan t 77-2 ` 933-87-052 Pt art 3-6-11 (GN) i Manuel prez August 18, 77 930-54 3 18602 Creek Lane Merlin Hollinger Huntbigt�on Beach. Cal. 92648 8212 field Drive Hun I Beach, Cal. 92646 933-87-061 933--81-053 Richard E. Goetzen Barry Bartels 7648 Rapids Drive j21346 4 18595 Creek Lane Huntington Beach, Cal. 92648 HuntingtAn Beach, Cal. 92648 Crest Cir+Cle Beach, Cal. 92646 933-87-062 i 933-87-054 TjjCj i IEa G. K�eerujon 1 Eric G. Klockenteger 7652 Rapids Drive 930-54-I25 18596 Creek Lane Huntington Beach, Cal. 92648 With AILarrance et al Huntix� Beach, Cal. 92648 G.E. Anc erson P.O. Boot 268 933-87-063 Huntington Beach, Cal. 92648 933-87-055 Fred M. Orab, Jr. Albert J. Hartog, Jr. 7658 Rapids Drive 930-54-126 18592 Creek Lane Huntington Bah, Cal. 92648 Clyde L- Wampler Huntington Beach, Cal. 92648 11622 Wanver Fou ntaitn Vly, Cal. 92708 933-87-056 933-87-036 Donald D. Hain Joseph J. Clemens 7632 Rapids Drive 18601 Edgebrook Ln Huntington Beach, Cal. 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 933-87-057 George A. Isola Geer inner d<neznt 77-2 930-54�127 7636 Rapids Drive Bart 3 5-ll (GM) Norman'J��- ta Morgan Huntington Beach, Cal. 92 648August 18, 1 7 DamVosbuu+gh 28672 Ynez Fbunta�n Vly, Cal. 92708 933-87-058 1 Kathy Gardarian 930-54-121 930-5 128 7638 Rapids Drive L E. �ttey F. Salcido Huntington Beach, Cal. 92648 21462 Pacific Coast Hwy U708 lee Drive Huantingtop Beach, Cal. 92648 El Mm*e, Cal. 91732 93ank, E.-R 930-54-121 930-54�-129 Frank, E.-Rose 7642 Rapids Drive This L. Roland Madalyn B. Harris Huntington Beach, Cal. 92648 8202 Ridgefield Drive 6531 E, Paseo El Greco Huntingto�in Beach, Cal. 92646 Anaheim, Cal. 92807 Jacobson-060 Hazelazel 2 a e t al 930-54-122 930-54-430. 7647 Rapids Drive Jocelyn Anderson Gerard J. Boutin Huntington Beach, Cal. 92648 8206 3e1d Drive 761 3rd- St. Hun Beach, Cal. 92646 Norco, . 91760 ' 933-87-061 i itdl ; General.Plan " t 77-2 Part 3 J74 11 (qU August.3pr1977 933-87-027 933- -036 933-87-044 Rarer Tuchscher Joe B. Stallworth 18557 Edgebrook Lane 7y�gpI I EUMM 1681 hfiitewater Drive Huntington Beacfi, Cal. 92647 ���,�. 9QL�A� Huntington Beach, Cal. 92648 933-87-028 933-87-037 933-87-0lt' = i Charles M. Miller Huntingdon Creek Joseph J. Clemens 18561 FAgebrrvok Lane s Ashy 18601 Edgebrook Lane Huntington•Beach,, W. 92648 P.O. Boot U785 Huontington Beach, Cal. 92648 Santa Ana, Cal. 92711 933-87-029 933-87-038 933-87-045 Ronald R•. Dwam ack' James E. Singer, Jr. James E. weed et al 6552 Bolsa Avenue 77U. Aitevateo: Drive 7671 Whitewater Drive Huntington Beach, Cal. 92647 Huntingdon Beach, Cal. 12648 Huntin+gtm Beach, Cal. 92648 933-87-030 933-87-039 933-87-046 Daniel McCue James A. Cavalier Lavern M. Freeman. 18577 Edgebrook Lane 7707 Whitewater Drive 7667 Whitewater Drive Huntbxjtcn Beach, Cal. 92648 Huntington Beach, Cal. 92647 Huntington Beach, Cal. 92648 i 933•-87-031 933-87-040 933-87-047 I,eota Olson John R. Sumpter Lucille H. Fay 18581 Edgebrook Lane 7701 Whitewater Drive 7661 Whitewater Drive Huntington Beach, Cal. 29648 Huntington Beach, Cal. 92648 Hmtington Beach, Cal. 92648 933-87-032 933-4;�-048 Marcia L. Donnell v6 g Dorothy R. Bowman 18587 Edgebrook Lane, ou00000M Tunis ID Iimtington Beach, Cal. 92648 Department of State Washington, D C 20520 933-87-033 933-87-041 933-87-049 Randall E. Rroha et al Virginia Van Fleet Ralph R. Shelton 18591 Edgebrook Lane 7697 Whitewater Drive 7651 Whitewater Drive Huntington Beach, Cal. 92648 Huntington Beach, Cal. 92648 Humtington Beach, cal- 92648 933-87-034 933-87-042 933-87-050 Victor Ben-Aziz Robert G. Walsh Michael S. Feeney 1914 Sumba Circle 7691 Whitewater Drive 7647 Whitewater Drive Costa Mesa, Cal. 92626 Huntington Beach, Cal. 92648 Huntington Beach, Cal. 92648 933-87-035 933-87-043 933-87-051 Janet M. Gavney Paris J. Woods James Elliottclam 118597 Edgebrook Lane 429 Plaza Estival 7645 Whitiewater Drive 'Huntington Beach, Cal. 92648 San Clemente, Cal. 92672 Huntington Beach, Cal. 92648 i �' i '�^' "' Nf,�inmF. !w:«.z+,s-1 - •<. ;�.w`ta.-'Sn'e ..ks .. r- "''°`r"" i 933-87-001 1 Plan Amexuh �t 77-2 933-87-013 John L. Guimand =Part 13-6-11 (Q�i) James II. Alexander 7678 Ellis Ave. 1 1977 7688 Brookwood Drive Huritington Beach. Ca. 92648 Huntington Beach, Cal. 92648 933-87-002 933-87-010 933-87-019 William R. Smith Robert F. Eaton L.G. Valdes 7682 Ellis Avenue 7732 Ellis Avenue 7682 Brookwood Drive !&nitington Beach, Ca. 92648 Huntington Beach, Cal. 92648 Huntington Beach, Cal. •92648 933-87-003 933-87-001 933-87-020 George C. Rangos, Jr. Alan Sussman Myra S. Unan 7688 Ellis Avenue 7736 Ellis Avenue 7678 Brookwood Drive .luntington Beach, Ca. 92648 Huntington Beach, Cal. 92648 Huntington Beach, Cal. 92648 933-87-004 933-87-012 933-87-021 Robert A. Tofft Jerrold B: Iiutchings Robert T. Russell '7692 Ellis Avenue 7738 Ellis Avenue 18527 Edgd=ook Lane lluitington Beach, Ca. 92648 Huntington Beach, Cal. 92648 Huntington Beach, Cal. 92648 933-87-005 933-87-013 933-87-022 . Aa- ria R. Sugranes Donald G. Keppler Roberta A. Richards et dl 7698 Ellis Avenue 5442 Kenilworth Drive 1-00531 Edgebrook Lane,l1untington luitington Beach, Ca. 92648 Huntington Beach, Cal. 92649 Beach, Calif. 92648 933-87-006 933-87-014 933-87-023 Izussell F. Flynn Robert M. Brown, Jr. Carl .J. Peterson .P.O. Box 319 7708 Brookwood Drive 18537 Edgebrook Lane Cronal Del Mar, Ca. 92825 Huntington Beach, Cal. 92648 Huntington Beach, Cal. 92648 933-87-007 933-87-015 933-87-024 harry C. Parrino Walter Kalthoff John R. Collord 7718 Ellis Avenue 7702 Brookwood Drive 18541 Edgebrook Lane Huntington Beach, Ca. 92648 Huntington Beach, Cal. 92648 Huntington Beach, Cal. 92648 933=87-008 933-87-016 933-87-025 14nrvin R.E. Thomas Ralph Yee Martha Cochran 7722 Ellis Avenue 7698 Brookwood Drive 18547 M- gebrook Lane iuntington Beach, Ca. 92648 Huntington Beach, Cal. 92648 Huntington Beach, Cal. 92648 933-87-009 933-87-017 933-87-026 Lauren S. Tanol-Lackman Joseph C. Aronone et al Helen Newcastle 11063 Tilton Circle 7692 Brookwood Drive 18551 Edgebrook Lane contain Vly, Calif. 92708 Huntington Beach, Cal, 92648 Huntington Beach, Cal. 92648 142-181-05 142-202-25 Aulti Benefit Realty Fund 3rd Ge p� A� P.O. BOX 1665 rrent No. Lucille Rice Joluisto�wn Properties _2 7821 FJanier Avenue,333 Hagenberger Rd #6Ul AP's Jana HuntingWn Deach, Calif 92647 Oak, a , Calif 94621 June 2, 1977 142-181-06 142-191-08 142--202-26 Albert L tiaddux et al Donald P Jones et al Agnes Barclay 3348-A Bahia Blanca East Paul Jones Realty Warner Dental Association Laguna bills, Calif 9265 3 17931 Beach Blvd 16511 Goldenwest St #A Huntington Beach, Calif 9264.7 1untington Beach, Calif 92647 Oragye County Flood Control 142-191-09 142-462-01 P.u. Bc* 1078 Kathleen Borst et al Chrysler Realty Corp Santa Ana, California 202-D Commonwealth Attn: Tax Department Los Angeles, Calif P.O. Box 1919 90004 Detroit, michigan48231 142-191-01 142-191-10 142-462-06 harry E. arock man et al M W Haifley American 11bbors 14aalty Copp. 331 Lixido Avenue %Paul Jones Realty 14250 Plymouth Rd r3aoa, Calif 17931 Beach Blvd Detroit, Michigan 92661 Huntington Bch, calif 92647 48232 142-191-04 142-202-02 107-601-41 1l Libert Christian Scbools John A Murdy Jr et al Harold L Gordon John Frio I�cec. 7661 Nhmer Avenue 334 Via Lido Nord Huntington S. Mansfield Avenue Huntingt Beach, Calif Newport Beach, calif Los Angeles, Calif 90036 92647 91664 142-191-05 142-202-14 107--601-45 Vera i•Saude l;rown et al Warner Dental Associates Lloyds Bank of Calif 21rs. R. F. Reynolds 16511 Goldexnaest St. Suite A TR #6011-85823 Murdy 7772 12th Street Huntington Beach, Calif P.O. Box,389 v"tkdxister, Calif 92683 92647 Santa Ana, Calif 92702 141-191-06 142-202-20 107-691-20 Wnald P Jones et al City of Huntington Beach Art Masao Neriu et al Paul Jones Fealty 7795 Westminster Avenue 17931 mach Blvd 0------------------------ llesUdnster, Calif iiuntiigtcn Beach, Calif 92647 92683 142-191-27 142-202-23 107-691-22 'ilzamas 1I F3ernatz Lucille Rice John G Gustafson 665 Peralta Hills Dr P.O. Box 1665 16800 Beach Blvd iviaheiin, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 928U6 92647 92647 142-191-07 142-202-24 107-100-72 Lima Van Noy J B King Jr Security Pacific Natl bank TR .l'aul Jones Realty 1927 Teresita Lane Tax Division 405-2-00587-0 1.7931 Deacii Blvd Newport Beach,calif P.O. Box 60802 TL=1 Annex i runti gton Mach, Calif 92647 92660 Los Angeles, Calif 9U060 107-100-58 932-10-084 Stella L Welchel General Plan Amendment Marie W Jacobsen et al 16911 A Street No., 77-2 7838 Arbor Circle. 4�t D Huntington Beach, Calif June 2, 1§77 Hunti.ngtaai Beath, Calif 92647 92647 107-100-70 932-10-066 932-10-085 Jake R Stewart Iawrence C Duval harry Oolmn P.O. Box 565 7818 Arbor Circle 7852 Arbor Circle Galt, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 95632 92647 92647 107-100-25 932-10-077 932-10-086 Mildred F Murdy Lucy M Adcock Dept of Vets Affairs of 12372 Pine Street 7822 Arbor Circle State of California Carden Grove, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif David A Shenk 92640 92647 7854 Arbor Circle 1ttIntington Beach, Calif 92647 107-100-28 932-10-078 932-10-087 Merrol B Files Kenneth D Bailey David W Calvanico 16892 A Streit 4319 Saffron Lane 7856 Arbor Circle Huntingtari Beach, Uli:f Frier4swcod, Texas Huntington Beach, Calif 92647 77546 92647 107-100-29 932-10-079 932-10-080 .Leona M Meier Harry R Schmiot Max Margulies 16912 A Street 7826 Arbor Circle .7858 Arbor Circle iiuntiry� Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif y2647 92647 HuntingtonBeach, Calif 92647 ucean View School District 932-10-080 932-10-089 7972 Warner Avenue Charles J Nicosia Bobert H Gibson et al Huntington Beach, Calif 7828 Arbor Circle 7841 Arbor Circle 92647 Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Deach, Calif 92647 92647 932-10-073 932-10-081 932-10-090 Mark Gerscn Jeffrey L Williamson et al Ronald B `t'inkhara 7812 Arbor Circle . 7832 Arbor Circle 7343 Arbor Circle Ituntingten Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92647 92647 92647 ,'932-10-074 932-10-082 932-10-091 Richardo Nogueira Olive L Beadle Otto W Sebolot 7816 Arbor Circle 7834 Arbor Circle 7845 Arbor Circle Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif y2647 92647 92647 932-10-075 932-10-083 932-10-092 UA.jert W. Raymond Jean I Mann William B Reines 7814 Arbor Circle 7836 Arbor Circle 7847 Arbor Circle iiuntingtoal Beach, Calif Huntington Leach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92647 92647 92647 _.7 ^sge..�4'.e'w rs"; .. _. _ _- _ _ s•.'�_:-�: - -', ti 932-10-093 932-10-137 General Plan Amendment Anthony T CalvaruCU No. 7 7-2 1146 E Lexington Avenue June 2, 1977 Glendale, Calif 91208 932-10-093 932-10-129 932-10-138 Arlan D Collins Gerald A Hiodapp Cynthia Radford 16751 Arbor Circle 16681 Viewpoint Lane 16713 Viewpoint Large Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92647 92647 92647 932-10-093 932-10-130 932-10-139 Sally S Campbel1 Earl L Platt Esther J Kehoe 7833 Arbor Circle 6392 Heil Avenue 16715 Viewpoint Lane Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92647 92647 92647 932-10-095 932-10-131 932-10-140 Dale T Shaw Stevie G Prove t#A Bob A Golopaint 7835 Arbor Circle 16685 Viewpoint lane 16717 Viewpoint Lane Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92647 92647 92647 932-10-096 932-10-132 932-10-141 David T Hughes Terry R Thorpe Daniel J Thomas 7837 Arbor Circle 2112. Bataan Rd 16721 Viewpoint Lane Huntington Beach, Calif Redondo Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92647 90278 92647 932-10-097 232-10-133 932-10-142 Maria Pirror*-- Alfred E Beall Juanita L Quezambra 7821 Arbor Circle 16691 Viewpoint Lane 2526 Washington Avenue Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Santa FUnica, Calif 92647 92647 90403 932-10-098 932-10-134 932-10-144 Jennie Weiss James R Chase Anthony T Calvanico 7823 Arbor Circle 16693 Viewpoint Lane Joseph P Kamatz Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 10141 Cutty Sark Drive 92647 92647 Huntbigton Beach, Calif 92640 X'ifik; 932-10-099 932-10-135 932-10-145 Hark S Loden George B Baye Timothy C Palmer et al 7825 Arbor Circle 13802 Willow Lane 16731 Viewpoint Lane Iuntington Beach, Calif Westminster, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92647 92683 92647 932-16-100 932-10-136 932-10-146 Rm ald D Nunan Patricia L Collins Harold L Wright 7827 Arbor Circle 16000 Villa Yorba Lane #721 16733 Viewpoint Lane fiuntbigton Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Hunti.rxgton Beach, Calif 92647 92647 92647 '932-10-147 Thanas G Taylor General Plan Agent 16902-D Limelight Circle No. 77-2 Hunti.rvgtm Beach, Calif June 2, 1977 92647 932-10-148 Nanc G Merril et al 16737 Viewpoint Large Hmtirrgtm Deach, Calif 92647 Dept. of transportation 120 So. Spring Street Los Angeles, Calif 90052 Attn: Staff Assistant Design B lii�-181-19 Edgar C Ott =al P Aa eryAirait77-2 Morris Fier 34 35-5-11 (MI) 2045 Ho�lday Rd August,.;, 1977 Wawport Beach, Calif 92G60 165-18 -20 Ldgar C Scott 7821 Talbert Avenue Huntington Beach, Calif 92648 1G:a-L81-21 liunt#wjtcn Beach C7cangregatim of Jghovahs Witnesses Inc 7851 Talbert Avenue ilun tjton Beach, Calif 92646 DM 13-6-11 148-012-11 148-071-21 148-071-27 Luntington.Beach City Louise A DuWwvich 11arold 11 LWing Sclraol District 8702 Hatteras Drive 8632 Iatteras Drive 770 - 17th Street Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif wntington Beach, Calif 92648 92646 9264E 148-071-17 148-071-22 148-071-28 uiward R Mai.s Sr Paul Kretzsclmr Charles L L.imisay 21392 Ireton Lane 8692 Hatteras Drive 8622 Hatteras Drive IRmtington Beach Calif Huriti.rx3ton Beach, Calif Huntington Bach, Calif 92646 92646 92646 14b-071-16 148-071-23 148-U72-01 Douglas 14 1•iartili et al Lelwid R House Nancy A limfon, 21402 Bretua Lane: 8682 Hatteras Drive 8A2 Itjckfish Circle l,unti.u>gton Ls ach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Fountain Valley, Calif 92b4b 92646 92708 148-071-19 148-071-24 148-073-14 =b;�st H Hill John A Stevens Gary C Smith 8132 iatteras Drive 8662 Hatteras Drive 21402 Yanmuth iw)e iluntjjigton Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntirxlton Beach, Calif 92b46 92646 92646 148-071-20 14d-071-25 148-073-1:i Seabury Develolment Co Francis G Flanigan Carlton H Jalmam P.O. Box 1587 8652 Hatteras Drive 21401 Breton Lane Costa Mesa, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92b26 92648 92646 !I 1486081-01 General Plan Amendment 77-2 148-Udl-17 LAova D Pack Bart 3 DM 13-6-11 Wli) Donald P Russell 8572 Sandy Hook Drive August 17, 1977 21351 Antigua Lax Huntington Beach,Calif Huntington Mach, calif 92646 92646 148-081-02 23 148-081-10 143-U81-18 Oliver G Black Jr ac William G susman 8562 Sandy Book Drive 3U35 Country Club Drive ifuntingtron Beach,Galji f Costa I4esa, Calif 92646 92626 148--081-03 148-081-10 148-081-19 Leslie L Jepsen John F Hill Tull W Taylor 8552 Sandy Hook Drive 21431 Antigua Lane 21331 Antigua Lane ikmtinytai Beach, Calif 92646Hanti on Beach, Huntington Beach, Calif 92646 92646 92646 148-081-04 148-081-11 148-Otl1-20 Peter Farfcuick James M Chewning Pal.ph J Carnevale 8542 Sandy Book Drive 21421 Antigua Lane 21321 Antigua Lane Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Ihmti.ngton Beach, Calif 92646 92646 92646 148-U81-05 148-081-12 148-081-21 'Ibatias M Cowger Bank of America NT& SA harry F Hrenmer 8532.Sandy Hoak Drive ZR 8350-VIW-2001 21311 Antigua Lane Huntington Beach, Calif P.O. Box 328 Huntington Beach; Calif 92646 Santa Ana, Calif 92702 92646 146-081-06 148-081-13 148-081-22 wept of Vets Affairs of Bruoe M Cook Peter A Pestal State of Calif 21391 Antigua Lane 21301 Antigua Lane Carol l:lahr Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 8622 Sandy hook Drive 92646 92646 Hvrti rr4ton teach; C3]?f. 92646 148-U81-U7 148-081-14 148-081-23 Zlerry L TUams Roddy M Donaghy Peter G Zbylua 8512 Sandy Hook Drive 21381 Antigua Lane 21291 Antigua Lane ltunti m ton Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Iiuntirigton Beach, Calif 92646 92646 92646 148-U81-08 148-081-15 148-Jul-24 Lawrence H Ayers 8avid L Bush Virginia Van Ornun 8302 Sandy Book Drive 21371 Antigua Lane 21281 Antigua Lane Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Leach, Calif 92646 92646 92646 148-081-09 148-081-16 143-082-11 Gay Boyce Jam Luther Delmar De Mary 21441 Antigua lane 21361 Antigua Lane 8521 Milne Drive hunti.nyton Beach, Calif Ihulti.ngtcn Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92646 92646 92646 �Z i` 148-082-12 General Plan j-%memhlent 77-2 148-032-30 Donald Ii Patti soap Part 3 DM13-6-11 (JH) Klaus P Ifuk�ricli21361 Sand Dollar Lane 1450 N Gibbs Street August 17, 1977 uuntington Beach, calif Pomona, Calif 92646 91767 148-082-13 148-082-21 148-082-31 George J Sheridan Jr Jerry Webb Cary R I 21282 Antigua Lane 21371 Sand Dollar Marie 21362 Antigua Lane HIu Ungton Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, C:aiif iuntington Beach, Calif 92646 92646 92646 148-082-14 148-082-22 148--082-32 Frederick B Scott Paul J Goodwin Jean IclAhan 21352 Antigua lane 21281 Sand Dollar Lane 8:341 Milne: Drive Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Ituntington Beacli, Calif 92ti46 92646 92646 14;3-082-15 148-082-23 148-082-33 t•dilliam if Lamson Joe Yurka et al Edward F Williams 21342 Antigua Lane 19827 Ramsgate Lane 8531 Milne Drive DluntincjWi Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Cali. 92646 92646 92646 148--082-16 148-682-24 148-044--01 Robert L Lyons nova Bristol William Almeida 21332 Antigua Lane 21301 Sand Dollar Lane 8942 Clipper Drive Uuntington Deach,Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach,Calif 92646 92646 92646 143-082-17 148-032-25 148-044-02 AutJ i I't Futrell Michael J Supple Uaniel.E i xelrod 21322 Antigua Lane 21311 Sand Dollar Lane 8372 Doncaster Drive h uitington beech, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Ihnztington Beac hl- wlif 92646 92646 92646 140-082-18 148-082-26 1487044-03 L-Taful D esat I3anald G Radelet `Ibrry D`D Kaput 21R2 Aiitigua Lane 21321 Sand. Dollar mane 8382 Doncaster drive auntincitan Beach, Calif Humtington Beach, Calif Huntington lieacli, Calif 92646 92646 92646 148-082-19 148-082-27 148-044-04 rimer 14 rllpaugh. Ronald L Reiser 21302 Iuitigua Lane 507 N 8th Street hiziti.nc�n Be-ach, Calif Selinsgrove, Pa 17870 92646 148-082-20 148-082-29 148-044-04 Linda A Scott Arthur A Schunk Jr Guy P Guzzardo et al 21292 Antigua Lane 21351 Sand Dollar Lane 8392 Doncaster Drive Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntirxjton Beach, Calif 92646 92646 92646 148-044-05 General Plait Amend pnt 77-2 148-044-21 tiei� J Loebach Part 3 DM 13-6-11 Rxiald B Wsh 8402 Doncaster Drive August 17, 1977 (JPi) 8447 Comma urive Iuntington Beach,Calif Ituritington I3eacli, Calif 92646 92G46 148-044-OG 148-044-14 148-044-22 Dale M Haman Marjorie Plunkett Ldward C Force 8412 Doncaster Drive 8482 Doncaster Drive 8661 5t Augusti.be Drive ihuitington Beach, Calif PIuntixigton Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92646 92646 92646 148-044-07 148-044-15 148-044-23 Ibbert L Dun=i Spencer Healey K Dean Zitko 8422 Dona ster Drive 8492 Doncaster Drive 16332 Magelian Lane Iuntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif iuntington Beach, Calif. 92646 92646 92647 148-U446U8 148-044-16 148-044-24 ►iarry W Lister Alice Loftis . James J Gardui P.O. Bm 707 8491 Lmnnd Drive 8421 L nand Drive Gamin Grove, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92642 92646 92646 148-U44-0 148-044-17 148-044-2! i-.id)ael L Carter Dept of Vets Affairs Barbara 1.1 Iii&le 8442 lxancaster Drive State of Calif 8411 bamnd Drive iimtington Jeach, Calif Ivan Anderson Huntington iieadi, Calif 92646 8481 L n d Drive 92646 148-044-10 Huntington Beach, Calif 148-044-26 Frederick A Belt 92646 John '1' Hightower 8448 Doncaster Drive --------------------------- 209UZ Brookliurst Street lhmtin ton Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92646 92646 148-U44-11 148-044-18 148-044-27 Leah Franklin James W Barrett Dana. Sirdenis 17512 Norwood Park 8471 Lomond Drive 8391 Lomond Drive Tustiii, Calif HUntincAm Beach, Calif Huntington Bead- Calif 92680 92646 92646 148-044-12 148-044-19 148-044-28 AlLext C Zotti William B Moody ltcbext O Wallis 84G2 Doncaster Drive 8461 Lmoond Drive 8381 Lcmobnd Drive amitington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif :)2646 92646 92646 148-044-13 148-044-20 148-044-29 jdchard L Ambrose Poland D B1odhett et al Ii Paul Jensen J472 Doncaster Drive 12511 Dale Street 8391 Larnond Drive iiuntingtcui Beach, Calif Garden Grove, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif ti2646 92641 92646 148-041-20 Adrienne General Plan Ameixinent 77-2 Marvin Derwin Adrienne R Smith Pant 3 OM 13-6-11 (Jli) 21261 Banff Lane 8361 I awnd Drive August 18, 1977 hLu"iti.ncgton Beach, Calif iiuntirigton Beach, Calif 92646 92646 148-041-04 148-041-12 148-041-2: Akeley P Quirk et al Richard Maruyama Craig W Shrewsbury Gulf Oil Corp.Danestic Tax Dept 8602 Cherry Circle 21262 Char LELa: P.U. ijax 54064 Team Annex Buena Park, Calif Iiu nualgwra reach, calif los Angeles, Calif 90054 90620 92646 148-U41-05 146-041-13 146-041-26 Lindsay ndsay Vurek George P Soti:er George L Ibberts 21321 Loc-dea iane 21312 Banff R*zwim L3tye 9552 Iiaanilton Avenue Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92640 92646 92646 148-641-06 1480041-14 148-041-27 ilept of Vets Affairs Sandra L Kessler James A Schultz xuZeth F Stara 21322 Banff Lane 21292 Cupar LEuu 21311.Lochlea. lane Huntington Beach, Calif Iiwitingtcui Beacii, kalif iiuiit:ington Beach, Calif 92646 92646 92646 146-U41-07 148-041-15 148-041-28 Quail Ikxnes Philip H McNamee 148 ��h�� 10082 Garfield Avenue 16082 Garfield Avenue Ray 213U2 rkCupar Lair rnuitingtoaa beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92646 92646 92646 146--041-W 148-041-16 -041-29 L.iartimtier P Shea William C Orchard 1, Moonier Le Nbnnic:r, Aherne. A 9121,Xapaa Drive 21331 Banff Lane 21312 C 4xar raze hLurtington Leach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Htuitingtun Bca--h, Calif 92646 92649 92646 14d-U41-U9 148-041-17 Sylvan PI Copelof P A Frith 14t3-041-30 21271 Ioclilea Lane 21301 Banff Lane Charles A Walker Jr iILUitington Beach, Calif Hu ntington Beach, Calif 21321 Ct Lane 92646 92646 IIuurtiax3ton on Beach, Calif 92646 148-041-10 148-041-18 32 ulegario it Villa roger Mercier . taii1e F 21272 Banff Lane 21291 Banff Larne 21321.C F Counts Jr 21321,CLupar Lane Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 1ILuitington Beach, Calif 9264e 92646 92646 14d-U41-11 148-041-19 Fritz U Spindler k bent B Sum 141t-041-33 420-A S Placentia Avenue 21271 i3anff Lane H Petal Plackaitia, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 21311 Cup ar large 926 1) 92646 Huntington Beach, Cal; i 92646 �S 148-041-34 General Plan Amendment 77-2 149-031-10 r4idy Peary Part 3 DM 13-6-11 (JII) Cecil L Wallis 21301 Cupar Lana: August 18, 1977 9022 Regatta Drive wntington Beach, Calif Hutt,i.txgton ikmdt , Calif 92646 92646 148-041-35 149-U31-02 149-031-11 Allen L Cudahy Morris D Faiman George P Jolunson 21291 C`upar Lane 9081 Regatta Drive 9032 Regatta Drive Ifuntirgton Beach, Calif IiUntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92C,46 92646 92646 148-041-3t, 149-031-03 149-031-12 Dennis M Stewart Lyle C Gordan Claude Covey 21271 Cupar Lane 9071 Regatta Drive 9042 Regatta Drive kffJntingtcn Beach, Calif litmtington Beach, Calif IIuntirx3ton Beaclt, calif 92646 92646 92646 148-041-37 149-031-04 149-U31-13 Aicholas J Empkin Donald M Petersen Raymond N Nilles 21261 Cupar iCU-je 9061 Regatta Drive 9062 Regatta Drive Iluntingtm Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Iuntington Uk: —►, Calif 92646 92646 92646 148-021-04 149-031-05 149-031-14 Security Fore Corp Arnold Bluuenthal Lklmmd S t•Iom-io Standard Pacific Corp/D.Jones 9041 Regatta Drive 9072 Regatta Drive 1565 W McArthur Blvd Huntington Beach, Calif huntinjton lleacli, Calif Costa Mesa, Calif 92626 92646 92646 jopt of transportation 149-031-06 149-031-15 120 :b. Spring Street Leon W rladwi,ck William Teaguu ias Angeles, Calif 9UO52 9031 Regatta Drive 9082 Regatta Drive Attn: Staff Assistant Huntington Beach, Cal; : lhmtington Beach, Calif Design B 148-021-05 92646 92646 148-011-02 149-031-07 149-031-lG Mills Land & hater Co Robert L Wilson Larry Cancellieri Carol G Wynn 9021 Regatta Drive 9U92 Regatta Drive 417 S Hill St Sta 924 Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Iris Angeles, Calif 90013 92646 92647 114-15U-30 149-031-08 149-031-17 Steverson liras Janes W Reichle Forrest K Murrell Dox 335 9001 Regatta Drive 9091 Bobbie Circle huntington i�each,Calif Iuntington Beach, Calif Iiunt.i.ncgton Beach, Calif 92648 92646 92646 149-U31-01 149-031-09 149-031-18 Jolm G Magnuscn Clarence A Juhl isarl ara J Alter 9091 Regatta Drive 9002 Regatta Drive 1;i956 I4ari-ner urive Hutiti.nghon Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 1-Iwiti%ton Beach, Calif 92646 92646 92647 -•r.,.•.,:*gp.w±4la•sw,aw s ... .. ._ ._ ... ,;rew:. ate .--. .. _ , gr-.. .��.R-._ 149-031-19 149-031-35 Warren R Showell General Plan Amendment 77-2 Raymond L Horton 9071 Bobbie Circle Part 3 DM 13-6-11 (JIi) 9071 Niguel Circle, Huntington Beach, Cali i August 18, 1977 Huntington Beach, Calif 92646 92646 149-031-20 149-031-27 149-031-36 Dean Lrown Vernon S Grant John Courtney 9061 Bobbie Circle 9032 Bobbie Circle 9061 Niguel Circle Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92646 92646 92646 149-031-21 149-031-28 149-031-37 Edward Valezyuez Dacor Estates Robert G Dempsey 9041 Bobbie Circle Douglas Wang 9401 Niguel Circle Ihmtington Beach, Calif 9551 Zion Circle Himitington Beach, Calif 92646 Iiuntirbgton Beach, Calif 92646 92646 149-031-22 149-031-29 149-031-38 William A Weirvcgartner Vern D Brough James R Young 9031 Bobbie Circle 9062 Bobbie Circle 9031 Niguel Circle .Imtington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92646 92646 92646 149-031-23 149-031-30 149-031-39 Lciward G Stautzenbach Jr Albert J Kolischek Phillip G Winkler 9U21 Bobbie Circle 9072 Bobbie Circle 9021 Niguel Circle Huntington Beach, Calif Ikmtington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92646 92646 92646 149-031-24 149-031-31 149-031-40 . Shirley J Griffithe lionrY S Wheatley Jr James L Simpson 9001 Dobbie Circle 9082 Bobbie Circle 9001 Niguel Circle Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92646 92646 92646 149-031-25 149-031-32 149-041-01 Wallace ll ?brkells Dept of Vets Affairs Dennis K Ball 90U2 Bobbie Circle William E Ward 9002 Niguel Circle Huntimjton Beach, Calif 9092 Bobbie Circle humti.ngton Beach, Calif 92646 Huntington Beach, Calif 92646 92646 149-031-26 149-031-33 149-U41-02 Charles Nichx)l Jean R Clarke Robert A Havercroft 8152 Slater Avenue 9091 Niguel Circle 9022 Niguel Circle iuntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Iiuntinc ton Beach, Calif 92647 92646 92646 149-031-34 149-041-03 Lagene M Cmrdngs John W Osc lmun 9081 Niguel Circle 9032 Niguel Circle Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92646 92646 149-041-04 149-041-20 Ilenry Pk,- Cormick General Plan Amendment 77-2 ildward L Ibynagh 9042 Miguel Circle Part 3 U4 13-6-11 (JH) 9042 Adelia Circle Huntington Beach, Calif August 18, 1977 Huntington Beach, Calif 92646 92646 149-041-05 149-041-13 149-041-21 Paul W Lawrion- Merle J Van Wie William F Sheehan 9062 Aguel Circle 9041 Adelia Circle 9062 Adelia Circle Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, CalX ituntington Leach, Calif 92646 92646 92646 149-041-06 149-041-22 R%gWnd If 'Zajac 149-041-14 Patrick E Beachner 'ibubas M Carroll 9072 Niguel Circle Iuntington Beach, Calif 9031 Adelia. Circle 9072 Adela Circle 92646 Inniti.ngbon Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92646 92646 149-041-07 149-041-15 149-041-34 John S Kaufmann 9082 Niguel Circle EN x1c Cappriano Castillo Jr 92646 �i_ux� 9082 Adelia Circle l Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Lif 9264 92646 149-041-08 14-0-041-14 149-041-24 ciatttbew L Brockneyer llmua Churchward Billy E Stevenson 9092 Niguel Circle 9121 Adelia Circle 9092 Adelia Circle Ifutltington Beach, Calif Ihmtington Beach, Calif Iluntilu3ton Beach, calif 92646 92646 92646 149-041-09 149-041-16 149-041-25 Frank C Houston William H LXRi3MOIRacey 9001 Adelia Circle 9091 Rhodesia Drive Huntington Beach, Calif Iiuritington Beach, Calif 92646 92646 149-041-09 149-U41-17 149-041-26 Gerlad h Greax Joseph 11 Johnson Chris P Ogawa 9091 Adelia Circle 9002 Adelia Circle 9081 Rhodesia Drive Huntington Beach, Calif 92646 Huntington Huntington Calif Beach Calif 92646 92646 149-041-11 149-041-18 149-041--27 9U Mare Case9U7 Clyde C Clark r 1ph S Silva un Adelia Beach, 9022 Adelia Circle 9071 Miodesia Drive 9264 inc�t�oti Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Ifuntirxlton Beach, Calif 92646 92646 92646 149-041-12 Uatiwin D Zirbel 149-041-19 149-041-28 9061 Adelia Circle James D Kuns Eleanor Psi bIdisono Huntington Beach, Cali i 9032 Adelia Circle 9061 Rhodesia Drive 92646 Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92646 92646 111-170-21 Argyle C&TUbell et al General Plan 77--2 18062 Morton Part 3 Irv- I Calif June 21, 1977 64 926 148-011-04 114-150-66 Orange County Flood Control George E Cunninghau et al District 2521 Baysbore Drive P.O. Bl-bc 1078 dewport Beach, Calif Santa Ana, Calif 92660 143-011-05 114-150-68 .rills Tarr aim! Water Co Carl R Stevens et al Carol G Wynn 738 W 17th Street 417 S 11ill St Station 924 Costa blesa, Calif Ws Angeles, Calif 99013 92627 114--150-31 H. B. Elementary School County Sanitation District #11 District P.O. BOx :M5 77- 17th Street !0944 Ulis Avenue Huntington Beach, Calif Fountain Valley, Calif 92708 92648 114-150-71 Uoean View School District liyron M Tarnutzer 7972 Warner Avenue 1806 Antigua Way Huntington Beach, Calif oiciiport Beach, Calif 92647 92660 114-150-40 Ek � uzy Development Co P.O. Box 1587 Costa Mesa, Calif 92626 114-150--30 Bbwvd3 on tos 92648 114-150-67 ibbert E,Sharkey 837 iloffman Avenue- Long beach, Calif 90813 114-1�0--05 Pax1rey D Sah't-)son et al 2521 Beyshore Drive :&,wNort Beach, Calif 926GO 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: November 7, 1977 RE : GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 77-2 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY General Plan Amendment 77-2 originally consisted of three parts : Part 1, General Plan Revisions; Part 2 , Miscellaneous Items; and Part 3, Industrial Areas. At the meeting of September 29, the Planning Commission adopted General Plan Amendment 77-2 in modified form. Part 1 and its environmental impact report were continued to General Plan Amendment 77-3 . Parts 2. and 3 as amended were adopted by Resolution 1202 . All environmental documents pertaining to Parts 2 and 3 were also approved. Please refer to the attachment summarizing the precise Planning Commission action and vote. SUMMARY ANALYSIS Part 2 of the General Plan Amendment deals with Miscellaneous Items , including three requests for the redesignation of property by private owners and a Planning Staff initiated administrative item that in- corporates the Multi-Story Policy Plan in the "policies for development" portion of the Huntington Beach General Plan. The Land Use Amendment recommends changes from commercial to low density residential on 3 .16 acres south of Adams Avenue and east of Brookhurst Street, and from commercial to medium density residential on 2. 7 acres south of Terry Drive and east of View Point Lane. A third site covering 17 .7 acres at Nichols Street, south of Slater Avenue is recommended to retain its general industrial designation. Negative Declaration 77-94 covers the Adams/Brookhurst site, while Negative Declaration 77-95 addresses environmental effects at Terry Drive and View Point Lane. The industrial site south of Slater Avenue is analyzed in EIR 77-8 . Part 3 of General Plan Amendment 77-2 provides recommendations to change land use designations in the Edison Industrial Area . Part 3 covers four sites : 1. North of Hamilton Avenue and west of Newland Street (25 .82 acres) 2 . South of Hamilton Avenue and west of Newland Street (16 . 55 acres) 3 . South of the OCFCD DI-2 Channel and west of Newland Street (4 .82 acres) 4 . South of Hamilton Street and west of Magnolia Street (40 .2 acres) Page 2 All four sites are recommended for redesignation from general industrial to planning reserve. The planning reserve maintains options for a possible Edison plant expansion as well as a master plan for the entire area west of Newland Street. Originally Part 3 contained an analysis of the entire Gothard Corridor and recommendations for several land use redesignations. These proposed amendments were generated by the Staff and died with rejection by the Commission. Therefore, they are not being forwarded to the Council for consideration. Environmental Impact Report 77-8 analyzes the overall effects of the recommended land use changes in General Plan Amendment 77-2, Part 3 . Although Part 3 has been reduced in scope to include only the Edison Industrial Area, the original EIR 77-8 covering both industrial areas remains valid since the impacts of the revised amendment are less in magnitude. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL. 1. Adopt Negative Declaration 77-94. 2. Adopt Negative Declaration 77-95. 3. Adopt Environmental Impact Report 77-8. 4. Adopt General Plan Amendment 77-2, Part 2. 5. Adopt General Plan Amendment 77-2, Part 3. Respectfully submitted, &JW- U- Edward D. Selich Secretary ATTI, 'CIILI h14TS 1. Summary of Planning Commission Actions 2 . Resolution 3 . General Plan Amendment 77-2, Part 2 4 . General Plan Amendment 77-2 , Part 3 , and EIR 77-8 attached 5 . Negative Declaration 77-94 6. Negative Declaration 77-95 7 . Letter from Family Home Builders 8 . Letter from Cochran and Cochran SUMMARY OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AT THE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 29 , 1977 1. ON MOTION BY FINLEY AND SECOND BY STERN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 77-10 AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 77-2 , PART 1, WERE CONTINUED TO THE THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN HEARING BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES : Stern, Finley, Newman, Hoffman NOES : Gibson ABSTAIN: Slates ABSENT: Shea 2 . ON MOTION BY NEWMAN AND SECOND BY GIBSON NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 77-94 WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES : Stern, Finley, Gibson, Newman, Hoffman NOES: None ABSTAIN: Slates ABSENT: Shea 3 . ON MOTION BY NEWMAN AND SECOND BY GIBSON NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 77-95 WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Stern, Finley, Gibson, Newman, Hoffman NOES : None ABSTAIN: Slates ABSENT: Shea 4 . ON MOTION BY GIBSON AND SECOND BY FINLEY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 77-08 WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES : Stern, Finley, Gibson, Newman, Hoffman NOES : None ABSTAIN: Slates ABSENT: Shea 5 . ON MOTION BY STERN AND SECOND BY FINLEY RESOLUTION NO. 1202 WAS ADOPTED AS AMENDED TO INCLUDE ONLY PARTS 2 AND 3 OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 77-2 BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES : Stern, Finley, Gibson, Newman, Hoffman NOES: None ABSTAIN: Slates ABSENT: Shea ptf-ar.hmAn�- l . . i . � M SUMMARY OF ACTIONS ON AREAS OF CONCERN GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 77-2 , PART 2 , MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS Concern Area 2 . 2 ON MOTION BY GIBSON AND SECOND BY NEWMAN COMMISSION APPROVED REDESIGNATION OF 3 .16 ACRES LOCATED SOUTH OF ADAMS AVENUE AND EAST OF BROOKHURST STREET FROM COMMERCIAL TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES : Stern, Finley, Gibson, Shea, Newman, Hoffman NOES : None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Slates 2 . 2 ON MOTION BY NEWMAN AND SECOND BY FINLEY THE REQUEST TO REDESIGNATE 17 .7 ACRES LOCATED ON NICHOLS STREET SOUTH OF SLATER AVENUE FROM INDUSTRIAL TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL WAS DISAPPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE : AYES: Stern, Finley, Gibson, Newman, Hoffman NOES: None ABSTAIN: Slates Absent: Shea 2 .3 ON MOTION BY STERN AND SECOND BY NEWMAN COMMISSION APPROVED REDESIGNATION OF 2 .7 ACRES LOCATED SOUTH OF TERRY DRIVE AND EAST OF VIEW POINT LANE FROM COMMERCIAL TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Stern, Finley, Gibson, Newman, Hoffman NOES : None ABSTAIN: Shea ABSENT: Slates ON MOTION BY NEWMAN AND SECOND BY GIBSON ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM - MULTI-STORY POLICY PLAN - WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES : Stern, Finley, Gibson, Shea, Newman, Hoffman NOES : None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Slates Ati-ar,hmPnt 1 : p M1 �1 d At rt ctPi � n (\ m � i � rwcmc cwst „wr ' P�� EXP idtl Areas of Concern GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 77- 2 PART 2 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 77-2, PART 2 SUMMARY Area of Planning Dept. Environmental Planning Comm. City Council Concern Location Acreage Applicant Request Recommendation Status Recommendation Recommendation 2.1 South of Adams Ave. 3.16 Ac. Tallis D. Change Commercial Redesignate Approve Redesignate 3.16 ac. to and east of Brook- Margrave to Low Density 3.16 ac. to Low ND 77-94 low density residential hurst Street Residential (Vote: 6-0) 2.2 Nichols Street, 17.7 ac. Family Change Industrial Retain General Approve . Retain General In- south of Slater Home to Medium Density Industrial EIR 77-8 dustrial Avenue Builders Residential (Vote: 5•-0) (Covered in Inc. Part 3) . 2.3 South of Terry Dr. 2.7 ac. Robert Change Commercial Redesignate 2.7 Approve Redesignate 2.7 ac. to and east of View Jarrard to Medium Density ac. to Medium ND 77-95 Medium Density Resi- Point Lane Residential Density Resi- dential (Vote: 5-0) dential Administrative Item - Multi-Story Policy Plan Approve ND 77-11 Approve (Vote: 6-0) approved 4/4/1977 W n fD F, SUMMARY OF ACTIONS ON AREAS OF CONCERN GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 77-2 , PART 3 , INDUSTRIAL AREAS Concern Area 2 .1. 1 ON MOTION BY NEWMAN AND SECOND BY HOFFMAN COMMISSION APPROVED REDESIGNATION OF 25 .82 ACRES LOCATED NORTH OF HAMILTON AVENUE AND WEST OF NEWLAND STREET FROM INDUSTRIAL TO PLANNING RESERVE BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE : AYES : Stern, Finley, Gibson, Newman, Hoffman, Slates NOES : None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Shea 2 . 1. 2 ON MOTION BY NEWMAN AND SECOND BY HOFFMAN COMMISSION APPROVED REDESIGNATION OF 16 .55 ACRES LOCATED SOUTH OF HAMILTON AVENUE AND WEST OF -NEWLAND STREET FROM INDUSTRIAL TO PLANNING RESERVE BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES : Stern, Finley, Gibson, Newman, Hoffman, Slates NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Shea 2 . 1. 3 ON MOTION BY NEWMAN AND SECOND BY HOFFMAN COMMISSION APPROVED REDESIGNATION OF 4 .82 ACRES LOCATED SOUTH OF THE OCFCD D1-2 CHANNEL AND WEST OF NEWLAND STREET FROM INDUSTRIAL TO PLANNING RESERVE BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Stern, Finley, Gibson, Newman, Hoffman, Slates NOES : None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Shea 2 .1 .4 ON MOTION BY SLATES AND SECOND BY FINLEY COMMISSION APPROVED REDESIGNATION OF 40 .2 ACRES LOCATED SOUTH OF HAMILTON AVENUE AND WEST OF MAGNOLIA STREET FROM INDUSTRIAL TO PLANNING RESERVE BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES : Stern, Finley, Gibson, Newman, Hoffman, Slates NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Shea Attachment 1 J\ t ATLANTA I� AVE JIL 47 J •7.wiq q I � 11• _- -� �r :5 I ..v 1. " �•� � � — r .Iwfplp .. 3 w PER, -4 i TANK - _ \ — FARM 0 O O.� ■. ;i' ,' { rH a; u a m tiI 2.1.2 ROTARY `i�� I: C, M U D �oys DUMP 2. .3 O • 2.1.4 - p --- �� o i' PACIFIC OCEAN \� - i \ o SUMMARY GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 77.2. PART 3 EDISON INDUSTRIAL AREA Attachment 1 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 77-2, PART 3 SUMMARY Environ- Area of mental Planning Dept. Planning Carrm. City Council Concern Location Acreage Applicant Request Status Recommendation Reca mendation RecaYmendation Edison Area 2.1.1 North of Hamilton 25.82 ac. Planning Dept. Change Industrial to EIR 77-8 Redesignate 25.82 ac. Redesignate 25.82 ac. & West of Newland St. Planning Reserve to Planning Reserve to Planning Reserve (Vote: 6-0) 2.1.2 South of Hamilton Ave. 16.55 ac. Planning Dept. Change Industrial to EIR 77-8 Redesignate 16.55 ac. Redesignate 16.55 ac. & West of Newland St. Planning Reserve to Planning Reserve to Planning Reserve (Vote: 6-0) 2.1.3 South of OCFCD D1-2 4.82 ac. Planning Dept. Change Industrial to EIR 77-8 Redesignate 4.82 ac. Redesignate 4.82 ac. Channel,West of Neves Planning Reserve to Planning Reserve to Planning Reserve land St. (Vote: 6-0) 2.1.4 South of Hamilton Ave. 40.2 ac. Planning Dept. Change Industrial to EIR 77-8 Redesignate 40.2 ac. Redesignate 40.2 ac. & West of Magnolia St. Planning Reserve to Planning Reserve to Planning Reserve (Vote: 6-0) rt rt a rr EP NEGATIVE DECLARATION • NOTICE OF DETERMINATION TO: I. H.B. P REF: Negative Declaration No. 77_g4 Appp Date Posted July 28 , 1977 Sand Dollar Development Corp. 2. Clerk of the Board EIR No. P.O. Box 687 Public Hearing Date: Santa Ana, CA 9�702 Application/Permit No. GpA 77-2 Part 2 Notice is hereby given that the City of Huntington Beach Cam,, Council on F] approved the pro- (Discretionary Body) (Date) disapproved ject as herein described and located: Project Description: Proposal to change the General Plan designation from general commercial to low density residential Project Location/Address: 230 feet south of Adams AVPnua anr3 ti46 feet east of Brnokhurst Street. and that the City, as the Lead Agency, finds that the project [] will not will have. a significant •(substantial adverse) effect on the environment. ® An initial study was conducted by the City of Huntington Beach. The study consisted of a review of the application submitted by the project sponsor and is supported by adequate scientific and factual data to support the finding. The application was posted in the Office of the City Clerk for public and private review and comment. An Environmental Impact Report has not been prepared for this project. An Environmental Impact Report has been prepared and adopted for ED this project. The form and content of' that environmental docu- ment was prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (et seq) . NOTE: A copy of all information in support of the application and of all subsequent discretionary proceedings may be reviewed in the Department of Environmental Resources , City of Huntington Beach, P.O. Box 190 , Huntington Beach, California, 92648 . Department of the City filing notice: Department of Environmental Resources Secretary of the Decision-Making Body Date cc: Environmental Council Attachment 5 PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION INITIAL STUDY Fee - $75.00 H.B. PLANNING DEPARTMENT Applicant/Authorized Agent FOR CITY USE ONLY P.O. Box 190, Huntington Beach Mailing Address Project Number ND 77- 536-5271 Dept. of Origin: Telephone Planning i Sand Dollar Development Corporation + Other Application Property Owner i or Permit Numbers 16371 Beach Blvd. Suite 240 , Huntington Beach 92647 i GPA 77-2 Mailing Address/Telephone Part 2 NOTE:. Not all projects require the preparation of an environ- mental impact report (EIR) . To assist the Department of. Environmental Resources in making this determination, the following information must be supplied. Add addi- tional information if pertinent. •,x 1.0 Project Information: (Please attach Plot Plan and submit photographs of subject property) 1.1 Nature of Project: Give a complete description of the proposed project. Proposed General Plan Amendment redesignating property from General Commercial to Low Density Residential a. If the project is commercial or industrial, give a complete description of activities. b. If. the project is residential, indicate number, types, and size of units and associated facilities. Maximum of 22 single-family homes. C. List all types of building materials to be used for all structures in the project. N/A Attachment 5 1.2 What are the objectives of the project? (1) To eliminate over-abundance of commercially designated property in area. . (2) Allow development that is compatible with adjacent develop- ment. 1.3 Location of project: (Address, nearest street intersections) 230 feet south of Adams Avenue and 696 feet east of Brookhurst Street. 1.4 Legal Description: A portion Lot: Block: Tract: Section: 8 Township: 6 Range: 10 Rancho Las Bolsas Assessor's Parcel No. N/A 1.5 Project land area (acres) : 3 . 16 acres 1.6 General relationships of the project to surrounding properties: (Information available in Planning Department on District Maps) Adjoining single-family tract to east and south Shopping center recently completed to north and west USE ZONING LAND USE ELEMENT GENERAL PLAN Present Vacant * ! C-4 General Commerci 1 Proposed Residential N/A Low-Density Resi- dential Surrounding north Vacant, being devel- C-2 C-2 oped commercial R-3 R-3 Surrounding south Residential R-1 R-1 Surrounding east Residential R-1 R-1 Surrounding west Vacant, being devel- oped commercial C-4 C-4 *NOTE: If property is vacant at this time, has said property been used for agriculture in the past five years? No. -2- Attachment 5 1.7 List other public agencies having jurisdiction by law in approval, authoriza- tion, certification or issuance of a permit for this project: ❑ O.C. `sanitation District ❑ Calif. Regional Water ❑ City Council ❑ O.C. Flood Control Dist. Quality Control Bd. X) Planning Commission ❑ O.C. Air Pollution Control ❑ Local Agency Formation ❑ Board of Zoning Adjustments District Commission O Design Review Board ❑ Calif. Coastal Zone Con- ❑ State Division of servation Commission Highways ❑ Other: ❑ Corps of Engineers a 1.8 What will be the maximum occupancy of all structures proposed within this project? 22 units at 3. 45 persons/unit. Results in 75 persons (If commercial or industrial usage, indicate occupancy in terms of employees and customers.) 1.9 Traffic: a. Indicate the present traffic volume on arterials and added trips per day from the project. (None available for Lawson Lane or Men1Ck) Adams Avenue = 22 , 000 Redesignation will generate 154-226 Brookhurst Street = 34, 000 automobiles/day. b. Indicate points of egress and ingress to the project. None at this time - developer indicates acquisition of lot to provide street access to Lawson Lane. c. What is existing speed limit at the project location? . 25 mph on Lawson Lane 45 mph on Adams Avenue 45 mph on Brookhurst Street d. What is the estimated vehicle miles traveled (VMT) generated by the project? 750 VMT e. If there is a source of data used to answer traffic questions above, please indicate. Traffic Engineering Department, City of H.B. 1.10 What is the percent coverage proposed by the project for: a. Building N/A b. Paving C. Existing landscaping d. New landscaping 1.11 Describe the offstreet parking (location, type, and number of spaces) -to be provided for the 'project. N/A ,. -3- Attachment 5 2.0, Existing Environmental Setting of Proposed Project: Describe the following existing environmental conditions: 2.1 Land form (topography and soils) : a. Soil type Expansive Ramona loam b. Topography Generally flat draining northerly 2.2 Relative location matrix: CHARACTERISTIC DISTANCE Nearest fault line excess of one mile Nearest bluff 1/2 mile east Natural flood plain within Flood channel 1/2 mile east Shore line 2 1/2 miles southwest 2.3 Objects of historic, aesthetic, or archaeological significance on subject property: None known to exist 2.4 If the project is commercial, industrial, or residential, what is the roadway distance in miles from project to the nearest: a. Shopping center 0 . 1 b. Freeway exit 2. 0 c. Elementary school 0. 3 d. Public library 1. 5 3.0 Environmental Impact of the Proposed Project: 3.1 Natural resources: a. , Does any wildlife use the project area for a place to feed, nest, or rest during a given season? N/A If so, please list: Attachment 5 b. Will any of this wildlife be displaced or affected by the proposed project? No If so, how? C. Does any portion of the project abut or encroach- on beaches, estuaries, bays, tidelands, or inland water areas? No If so, describer Describe how the project will affect any-body of water. d. Indicate the location and area (in acres or square feet) and type of plant life to be removed as a result of the project. Include number, type, and size of trees to be removed. None e. Biota matrix: TYPE EXTENT Flora Varied Almost none Fauna Varied Almost none 3.2 Land form: a. Is the property presently graded? Yes b. What is the range and direction of slope of subject property as it now exists? 1% to north c. How much grading is proposed? N/A (Gross cubic yards) d. How much land is to be graded? N/A (Acres) e. . What will be the maximum height and grade of cut or fill after grading is completed? N/A f. Is the surrounding area graded? Yes If so, how will it affect subject property? No effect -5- Attachment 5 3.2 Land Form (cont.) g. During construction of the project, what efforts are being taken to min- imize erosion or siltation of the property? Any activities would be required to conform to H.B. grading ordin- ance. 3.3 Drainage and flood control: a. Please describe specifically the volume of drainage and how it will be accommodated: 3 cfs sheet flow to streets b. To what extent will the project be located within a flood hazard area? Please describe. (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Standard Project Flood.) Project entirely located within special flood hazard area identi- fied by HUD dated August 9,• 1974. 3.4 Air Quality: a. If project is industrial, describe and list air pollution sources and quantity and types of pollutants emitted as a result of the project. N/A b. List any Air Pollution Control District equipment required. None C. If project is highway improvements, list existing and estimated traffic projection for 10 years in future. N/A. 3.5 Noise: • a. Describe any adjacent offsite noise sources (i.e. , airports, industry, freeways) . Traffic noise generated by Brookhurst, Adams , and Lawson lane. Refrigeration equipment and other related activities occurring in shopping center. b. what noise will be produced by the project? If available, please give noise levels in decibel measurement and typical time distribution when noise will be produced. Noise will be those typically generated by single-family residential development. c. How will noise produced by project compare with existing noise levels? Since project area is vacant, noise levels will increase when development occurs. -6- Attachment 5 C 3.6 water: a. If project will not require installation or replacement of new water mains, check here and omit sections b through f. b. Attach a map showing the project, size and location of lines. C. If new water mains are to be constructed, indicate length and size (diameter) of new mains: Estimate Length 2 mains, one 250 ' and one 400 ' long. Size 8" d. what is the area in acres and the population to be served by the new. mains? 3. 16 acres - 75 people Indicate the approximate service area on a map. e. If new mains are replacing existing mains, give length and size of ex- isting mains: Length N/A Size f. Please estimate the daily volume in gallons required to serve the project. Maximum 12 , 750 gals/day 3.7 Sewer• public Works indicates no problems exist in line and none are anticipated as a result of development. a. If project will not require installation or replacement of new sewer mains, check here X and omit sections b and c. b. Attach a. map showing the project, size and location of lines. C. Discuss the capacity required for the project and how this relates to existing effluent volumes within the system. Flow measurements will be taken. 3.8 Utility Lines: a. Indicate length and type of new offsite transmission and distribution facilities required to serve project. None b. Do any overhead electrical facilities require relocation? No If so, please describe facilities. C. Do existing lines have to be increased in number or size for project? If so, please describe how. Not available. r -7- / Attachment 5 3.9 Education: For residential projects, note primary and secondary school districts: Primary: Huntington Beach Elementary School District Secondary Huntington Beach Union High School District 3.10 Population Displacement: a. Will any residential occupants be displaced by the project activities? Yes* If not, do not answer question (b) . *Displacement of 1 single-family b. What is the total number of residentsdto]be1Rispwla1ced.pe required. 3.11 Demolition: a. Will any improvements be demolished or removed by the project? Yes* If so, answer questions b through d. b. Describe briefly the type of buildings or improvements to be demolished by the project. *None as direct result of amendment, but one single-family detached dwelling will be demolished to provide access to parcel. C. List approximate volume of exported material. N/A d. Indicate the location and the distance to the site where exported material will be dumped. N/A 4.0 Mitigating Measures: 4.1 Are there measures included in the project which may conserve resources (Electricity, gas, water or wildlife)? Please describe. No 4.2 Describe facilities designed into the project that are proposed to minimize erosion or siltation control on subject property. Will comply with H.B. grading ordinances. 4. 3 Describe types of building materials and/or construction methods for the project that are designed to minimize the effects caused by flooding, if pro- ject is located within flood hazard area. Project will comply with H.B. ordinances. 4.4 Briefly describe what efforts are being proposed to minimize the short-term impacts caused by construction. Will comply with H.B. ordinances. N Q Attachment 5 4.5 Describe measures proposed in the design of the project to reduce noise pollution to persons occupying project. Final project approval will be conditioned to require mitigation of noise sources. Typically, a buffer area and block wall will be required. 4.6 Describe measures proposed in the design of the project to reduce noise pollution to persons outside of the project which is caused by noise gener- ated by the project. N/A 4.7 Describe how the design of the project (architectural treatment and land- scaping) has been coordinated with design of the existing community to minimize visual effect. N/A 4.8 Describe measures or facilities designed into the project to facilitate re- source recovery. N/A 5.0 Are there alternatives to the project which may result in a lesser adverse environmental effect? Yes Please explain all project alternatives. Parcel could be: 1. Retained for commercial use, delaying development to future date. 2. General Plan designation could be one of the Estate Residential designations, resulting in 6 to 12 units and only 20 to 40 addi- tional persons. 3. General Plan designation could be changed to Open Space, which would allow recreation areas, resource preserves; parks, etc. I hereby certify that the information herein is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. July 27 , 1977 Signature Date Filed Bryan Austin, Associate Planner REV: 6/74 -9- �• l Attachment 5 1 J- ADAMS AVENUE w b GENERAL = y - '- COMMERCIAL w z � r` o i O w 2 NIAGARA DR / R S E dell WESLEY CR p I I i o I � ' U U DR z a MEREOITH w co I \ U J EJ J DR 0 P'r ion 2 �- J ..a O o ST N BR r � DR. r • ac - = BIRCHWOOD � Y r O p cr- o / m CRAILETuj U Q WARWILK DR w CF— E. I: .::� �: .........._� C F_R z J CYNTHIA AREA OF CONCERN 2.1 SOUTH OF ADAMS AVENUE AND EAST OF BROOKHURST STREET FIGURE 2-2 . Attachm nt 5 1. �� 4Z, ` NEGATIVE DECLARATION • NOTICE OF DETERMINATION TO: 1. H.B. Planning Dept. REF: Negative Declaration No. 77-95 Applicant Date Posted July 28 , 1977 James Maddux, Lorey Maddux, Albert Maddux 2. Clerk of the Board EIR No. P.O. Box 687 Public Hearing Date: Santa Ana, CA 92702 Application/Permit No. GPA 77-2 Part 2 Notice is hereby given that the City of Huntington Beach City Council on approved the pro- (Discretionary Body) (Date) disapproved ject as herein described and located: Project Description: Proposal to change 2. 7 acre parcel General Plan designation from general commercial to medium density residential Project Location/Address : Southeast corner of Viewpoint Lane and Terry Drive and that the City, as the Lead Agency, finds that the project Fj will not will have a significant •(substantial adverse) effect on the environment. M An initial study was conducted by the City of Huntington Beach. The study consisted of a review of the application submitted by the project sponsor and is supported by adequate scientific and factual data to support the finding. The application was posted in the Office of the City Clerk for public and private review and comment. An Environmental Impact Report has not been prepared for this project. An Environmental Impact Report has been prepared and adopted for this project. The form and content of" that environmental docu- ment was prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (et seq) . NOTE: A copy of all information in support of the application and of all subsequent discretionary proceedings may be reviewed in the Department of Environmental Resources , City of Huntington Beach, P.O. Box 190 , Huntington Beach, California, 92648 . Department of the City filing notice: Department of Environmental Resources Secretary of the Decision-Making Body Date cc: Environmental Council Attachment 6 l• 3 PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION INITIAL STUDY Fee - $75.-00 Huntington Beach PlanningpepartmPnt Applicant/Authorized Agent FOR CITY USE ONLY P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach Mailing Address Project Number i'J 1) 1 714 536-5271 Dept. of Origin: Telephone James Maddux, Lorey Maddux, Albert L. Maddux Other Application Property Owner i or Permit Numbers GPA 77-2 18090 Beach Blvd. Suite 2 Huntington Beach 714 R47-257� Mailing. Ad.dress/Telephone Part 2 NOTE:. Not all projects require the preparation of an environ- mental impact report (EIR) . To assist the Department of Environmental Resources in making this determination, the following information must be supplied. Add addi- tional information if pertinent. 1.0 Project Information: (Please attach Plot Plan and submit photographs of subject property) 1.1 Nature of Project: Give a complete description of the proposed project. Proposed amendment to General Plan changing 2-7 acre parcel from general commercial to medium density residential. a. If the project is commercial or industrial, give a complete description of activities. N/A b. If the project is residential, indicate number, types, and size of units and associated facilities. Maximum number of units is 40. Unit : type will be multi- family housing. C. List all types of building materials to be used for all structures in the project. N/A Attachment 6 1.2 What are the objectives of the project? 1. Eliminate over abundance of property designated for commercial use in Huntington Beach. 2 . Allow development to occur on a deep commercial lot that may not be suitable for commercial development. 3. Allow development compatible with surrounding uses. 1.3 Location of project: (Address, nearest street intersections) Southeast corner of Viewpoint Lane and Terry Drive. 1.4 Legal Description: Portion of Parcel #1 Book 83 Pagtes 8&9 Lot: Block: Tract: Sec ion: Township: Range: Assessor's Parcel No. 142-181-06-02 1.5 Project land area (acres) : 2. 7 Acres 1.6 General relationships of the project to surrounding properties: (Information available in Planning Department on District Maps) USE ZONING LAND USE ELEMENT GENERAL PLAN Present vacant agriculturial * � C-4 General Commercial Proposed residential RA/2 Medium density residential Surrounding north u eral Commercial Surrounding south restaurant & parking area C-4 3eneral Ccn nercial Surrounding east Vacant portion of existing C-4 3eneral Commercial marcel Surrounding west Medium & high ultiple-family housing R-3 4ensity residential *NOTE: If property is vacant at this time, has said property been used for agriculture in the past five years? r -2- Attachment 6 1.7 List other public agencies having jurisdiction by law in approval, authoriza- tion, certification or issuance of a permit for this project: ❑ O.C. Fanitation District ❑ Calif. Regional Water O City Council ❑ O.C. flood Control Dist. Quality Control Bd. D Planning Commission ❑ O.C. Air Pollution Control ❑ Local Agency Formation ❑ Board of Zoning Adjustments District Commission ❑ Design Review Board p Calif. Coastal Zone Con- ❑ State Division of ❑ Other: servation Commission Highways ❑ Corps of Engineers a 1.8 What will be the maximum occupancy of all structures proposed within this project? Max. 40 residential units. with population of 95 (If commercial or industrial usage, indicate occupancy in terms of employees and customers.) 1.9 Traffic: a. Indicate the present traffic volume on arterials and added trips per day from the project. 40 units (x) 9=360 trips added/day. Beach Blvd. - 57, 000 ADT b. Indicate points of egress and ingress to the project. w New street intersecting with View point Lane with probably be constructed to provide access to interior of parcel C. what is existing speed limit at the project location? 25 mph - View point Lane 45 mph - Beach Blvd. d. What is the estimated vehicle miles traveled (VMT) generated by the project? 360 trips x 5 miles = vmt e. If there is a source of data used to answer traffic questions above, please indicate. Huntington Beach Traffic Engineering Dept. 1.10 What is the percent coverage proposed by the project for: a. Building N/A b. Paving N/A C. Existing landscaping N/A d. New landscaping N/A 1.11 Describe the offstreet parking (location, type, and number of spaces) -to be provided for the project. Will conform to Huntington Beach parking ordinance r -3- Attachment 2.0• Existing Environmental Setting of Proposed Project: Describe the following existing environmental conditions: 2.1 Land form (topography and soils) : a. Soil type Sand/loam/mixed clays b. Topography flat 2.2 Relative location matrix: CHARACTERISTIC DISTANCE Nearest fault line 1 3/4 miles to Bolsa Fairview fault/so Nearest bluff mile south Natural flood plain within flood plain Flood channel 00 feet south Shore line miles south 2. 3 Objects of historic, aesthetic, or archaeological significance on subject property: None 2.4 If the project is commercial, industrial, or residential, what is the roadway distance in miles 'from project to the nearest: a. Shopping center 1 mile b. Freeway exit 1 mile c. Elementary school -0 mi]0 d. Public library 1 3/4 mile 3.0 Environmental Impact of the Proposed Project: 3.1 Natural resources: a. Does any wildlife use the project area for a place to feed, nest, or rest during a given season? No If so, please list: _4 Attachment 6 b. Will any of this wildlife be displaced or affected by the proposed project? no If so, how? c. Does any portion of the project abut or encroach- on beaches, estuaries, bays, tidelands, or inland water areas? No If so, describer Describe how the project will affect any body of water. N/A d. Indicate the location and area (in acres •or square feet) and type of plant life to be removed as a result of the project. Include number, type, and size of trees to be removed. None e. Biota matrix: TYPE EXTENT Flora None N/A Fauna None N/A 3.2 Land form: a. Is the property presently graded? Yes b. What is the range and direction of slope of subject property as it now exists? slopes 1-2 feet to the north C. How much grading is proposed? N/A (Gross cubic yards) d. How much land is to be graded? # 2.7 acres (Acres) e. What will be the maximum height and grade of cut or fill after grading is completed? f. Is the surrounding area graded? yes If so, how will it affect subject property? Will conform to Huntington Beach grading ordinances Attachment 6 _ i 3.2 Land Form (cont.) g. During construction of the project, what efforts are being taken to min- imize erosion or siltation of the property? Will conform to Huntington Beach grading ordinance 3.3 Drainage and flood control: a. Please describe specifically the volume of drainage and how it will be accommodated: N/A b. To what extent will the project be located within a flood hazard area? Please describe . (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Standard Project Flood.) Site entirely within special flood hazard area 3.4 Air Quality: a. If project is industrial, describe and list air pollution sources and quantity and types of pollutants emitted as a result of the project. N/A .x b. List any Air Pollution Control District equipment required. N/A C. If project is highway improvements, list existing and.estimated traffic projection for 10 years in future. N/A 3.5 Noise: a. Describe any adjacent offsite noise sources (i.e. , airports, industry, freeways) . Traffic noise generated by Beach Blvd. currently exceeds normally acceptable residential maximum of Ldn 60. Also, noise from adjacent auto dealer. b. What noise will be produced by the project? If available, please give noise levels in decibel measurement and typical time distribution when noise will be produced. 60-85 dba during construction period during week days and daylight hours C. How will noise produced by project compare with existing noise levels? Less than ambient levels caused by traffic on Beach Blvd. -6- Attachment 6 3.6 Water: a. If project will not require installation or replacement of new water mains, check here and omit sections b through f. b. Attach a map showing the project, size and location of lines. attached C. If new water mains are to be constructed, indicate length and size (diameter) of new mains: Length 280' in new sheet Size d. What is the area in acres and the population to be served by the new mains? 2.7 acres Indicate the approximate service area on a map. e. If new mains are replacing existing mains, give length and size of ex- isting mains: Length N/A Size f. Please estimate the daily volume in gallons required to serve the project. 170 gals./person/day X 95 persons = 16150 gals/day 3.7 Sewer: a. If project will not require installation or replacement of new sewer mains, check here and omit sections b and c. b. Attach a map showing the project, size and location of lines. 280' of 8' in street beginning at Viewpoint Lane Main line C. Discuss the capacity required for the project and how this relates to existing effluent volumes within the system. Present level of sewer lines in area will be measured to determine ability of sewers to accept new development. 3.8 Utility Lines: a. Indicate length and type of new offsite transmission and distribution facilities required to serve project. None b. Do any overhead electrical facilities require relocation? No If so, please describe facilities. C. Do existing lines have to be increased .in number or size for project? No If so, please describe how. Attachment 6 3.9 Education: For residential projects, note primary and secondary school districts: Primary: Huntington Beach Elementary District Secondary Huntington Beach H_gh School Dist _ 3.10 Population Displacement: a. Will any residential occupants be displaced by the project activities? I�Q If not, do not answer question (b) . b. What is the total number of residents to be-displaced? None 3.11 Demolition: a. Will any improvements be demolished or removed by the project? No If so, answer questions b through d. b. Describe briefly the type of buildings or_improvements to be demolished by the project. N/A C. List approximate volume of exported material. N/A d. Indicate the location and the distance to the site where exported material will be dumped. N/A 4.0 Mitigating Measures: 4.1 Are there measures included in the project which may conserve resources (Electricity, gas, water or wildlife)? Please describe. Will comply with applicable City ordinances 4.2 Describe facilities designed into the project that are proposed to minimize erosion or siltation control on subject property. Construction will comply with Huntington Beach grading ordinance. 4.3 Describe types of building materials and/or construction methods for the project that are designed to minimize the effects caused by flooding, if pro- ject is located within flood hazard area. Run off will be directed via streets to existing storm drain. 4.4 Briefly describe what efforts are being proposed to minimize the short-term impacts caused by construction. Applicant has indicated he will water down prior to grading activity to. mimimize dust. ' _ J• - _8_ kc 1 Attachment 6 4.5 Describe measures proposed in the design of the project to reduce noise pollution to persons occupying project. 4.6 Describe measures proposed in the design of the-project to reduce noise pollution to persons outside of the project which is caused by noise gener- ated by the project. 4.7 Describe how the design.of the project (architectural treatment and land- scaping) has been coordinated with design of the existing community to minimize visual effect. 4.8 Describe measures or facilities designed into the project to facilitate re- source recovery. 5.0 Are there alternatives to the project which may result in a lesser adverse environmental effect? Please explain all project alternatives. 1. Retention of existing designation will require development for commercial use. Would probably result in increased traffic, and equal amount of construction dislocation. Demand 'on utilities will be slightly less for commercial than residential use depending upon nature of commercial activity. Retention of general commercial designation would probably keep parcel in agricultural use for short term. I hereby certify that the information herein is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. Signature Date Filed REV: 6/74 -9- Attachment 6 ('"`• �L 1 1 1 � 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1�l 11 " I i I I I ► I i I 1 I I .I ► ► I �--� ALHAMBRA w ALHAMBRA DR. LlJ_ AVE • RHIME Z CR J � DANUBE DR v W SEINE OR moo) Y'� z GENE�AC`L ♦j CHRYSLER DR DON ` 0M 1ERC I AL z = UJ m Cr <�o ° ��� DEALER � MED I!0--I NS 1 TY RHM RES I`i�E"IT I-AL . C2 . o R3 y DR HIGH DENSITY ER I AL f CAN RESIDENTIAL '' P 1 C4p�. � w � u a . DAMASK DR. O. C. F. C. D C6-1 R3 Iqmg IC rvASNINGTON AVE u uj z c, (D n z T J WARNER AVE -� r AREA OF CONCERN 2.3 SOUTH OF TERRY DRIVE AND EAST OF VIEWPOINT LANE FiGURE zl-:4 Attachment 6 �� 3 E P, 5 ;'en_r�t� Mi 7(;df F K.1' t�•i P�1_! �t�y ir` : �A si t r View from Beach and Terry •i "i,. '-t. corner looking Southwest . t ' t w d r sJ lg�vl �a•Sf '4R'� ,� .W�~k-ttF t r�i'r.. � q`i•} I s rt tjsty }tta�f{w ��.51 It E r,.;17•)y.�`r�.t�,4.r,•d,s 1 - ? D'ay+sP''ryi -f GZ�'+�j)etX�Rj I r --s y}fW'^a:§t,_ _ 'rP ij; e,•m -t - - � :,.y ^, t J.g rIr�: A? y�`. rj{7,''i�yi9y�'.'G 7. l f n'4 t •'L( 7- *u "•t0�t f - L a �r; t-)"� r>-tg-if ' ! i K A 7 t r� sa. a.ry ; t.i1IV •T It 'JL ".0 f!'6S d S�-lti xt l♦•! 1 i Ld '? - 1 w,�•,�'�1s yr��i ��, a��'`�s•"�',�w+'r�p, it r'+'r'��•'�'t -y ors{ j'• it'd' tN. '4 i a i a' iK iS -ie'v rt x l;.y R i w.'st u e-+C,y F ,{}. • .7;i{T i4{fi IhliRa' ,i 14 i.!'jt }```�{' ;:G- t''L:a•�{n *rL° r..•.-}i:c t.-' -Lt� •rr•:fi.+ ,�'LntP S _._4^r r ! r -, t- f- :, a 7 - - �'vLS t' .i �. y. •� I , ' f y` •' vi t Eat R i$tf ti PA ;Yy ih TN S 4 •fl�>, ° t a� r.•hF a ,z{.s r,tt }i t Z� '�•J�,� �i 4 t,+, + - y s�.',y�` �tr�yi I V(CU�.S I s r _ y_ i, -> ts4f ti 4 1,rig'N , I ?tjrl 4 G. ^-a.� +I_r ) } .�r- - t�• �, T - - ti .fit i� I _ I ."Y�o i i. -ry1- t {- r �a�- `J- R. sr�7�'a�') t ' [,ii't;�yr ,_.n. i I •AI �1 ,l_�'_-`f r '�I I IY(J r� I (i• i1'- it•t• - r ` ;�f t ] i fr ki-4t1+ t ly' p .. •. r► . + '' Z.. p jyy�� ( •� ek , t •;vs.w•i!i`- u. ..s. - L.w£t-wra w R- u •ti - L�' .1�. ��" I�,�' e�[} � _��S^ ry�wll�X�:c � i I �R.�'.7 �� ''� :�,♦ v.i.pea+u sfi.,.1u'Y.1��,�r�� � � } —� 'e_W�, 'K".•3c •°`F ♦A r r f>i�; J�} 341 i - r F.ic �i791%E'dkaJ- .eu��a. xy. d' r.: _'•.._s.f. ,Jf k I°.' _�'a' ✓t..'1Wjtt�i'..a�is,P:[• '" a~ I ; J -iicr.+nM 'rrww...w awnw.t t�nLav1 jj''. �"' 1� I rr..:>� ;t•Is iPF7"FACt:.)NT lt">f'9'+/�C +�. I - Rt.l}'v.:`:Gd'9.':�L.''F.."1-'.L-i 5.:3..a!G-:Rii'wt -;kT_�•`�"i-- `'rxiL�..�+wns��rt,'t�'k�sm'�a.',;.i`3i'"�.>w:��.n6•t.�.w"" � F. 3 ,�''lr. d• j �a t�f�RTM6f�)IS• ^£. �rkiL -�4; Kit y �112 � ,All';-{'•L�K •.. t � (�([Cy:TX1S'.nit y, , tir•s4r) ) r�r ri tyi � ,�'��i 'r rR' 7' �E ).� '^.-st [• I e _ pr'-ti Z'f:L.� + _ _i x_'1;.5.. .t4 -.s,�,L�•f{t.Y j LrT'"'�}tz: .li: �f L�<:J t{. - •e. � .Y:^_ I '•,�.. ''j+i�4 .M- 4,-:.` ,;,,- .+�.i y)• � �i �•t ' � ,�"7�� ..0_iU:i;iy'�^�!3"'j..t�.rF+T.`�:,: ':CEO;i:'u.tic q':-w"�+;i:�; L��.kf'''--,:;,..j� - ..r _ham,. ":�....' - rt`.wt„�t:.;:"•',�.ri yi:.. t • i:i�.;''' 14.;e. ��' iF" ;�..� •.k" G�. s4 RY("°ii'7.� I e ..[`.`h.` '. y -" _L k.-r+e•,tt•y y`•``vv )w Y• t a `'+4 I i :nsr _ :y tj, iy, ?,. s - -x s.+� '9Y n•t�n:�: _ j L l a. to ♦ii Rl ,kya y (t -a`iSti}-r•w'�W�}, .a: +aaz i t< K 5:-- t ,r_ io- F SY.r.'lift. -� _ -[ >~ t+..t-t .,•..+ f'k;1i k. fti ,.. - , J a ... diLifN ai � i4ira c'. ' - i '•.^_xck �1, ( r� -c4 - i„ L sz-ntSe `•M'f:',4_!-2 t'•I r At. r. i r _ t..i.� I ry�. .� _ ^ -� , tar• _ i �,4ti - t •k ts. _ - -b.. ��%• -es -„ -�- i' - � t :';'"•'+' P t c/C-• yy�-�p, r .,.z s y . ti<'4a r,'8. ><' ( � i'f•.X.',�.- .. .-. .-,av'� r•�f F/ ,*:�a: \ l+s.�. �t -• "N tw u iT ..::,. , .. -..� _ rc- t._ _ n_ri r+:f Y"'"; r�}S' ' •M`�-..�Sti,ys��V•t V/, LC'C �r,t -i f)tAL W)t:j•�T \t�,41- Gt ' - I Y''•-•N y�-,': s _ J.ty.. {C ji��?� ,j •1 1y_ '^, tt f�� }ie. ;.T-: ;<.}Y.�,,..,�`:r�'t� a r.S i \!.'... 3•y?`. ,.,• ,•t y - •r r{ ar_�G:r r'`yt �.��--. a "'�s'1., ti..w....Y Y-'•..f �.' I i v"'�,,,• 'i .�:.r� ! a:+r e•c�' � rt.R�• S:i.tL:aC �.- ;.,,t � 'K+?i..: •e�".i:: .�,!/�. 4.��•:•.^• a fi:' ft yr Y. �' r"r`+ L R•j. �:. ati.6c.c..a a r`q I .+r, �.:.. •r:..x-M^'�_'::..M1�_t t +""ti�.: !�i:yrr v.�;),:r.M•' • � ;. ,i'-.:•i*'t,"`� Y� e-*•,�t•i`4'.•. Z,tii:'::�{et aX, � �.:�YT:e^, -r.fc.may •t, ,-.- ;;,N: .. .: y,e,�', 1. � �f.` i ii b' ' 1•t_ J \ •i—`t•+�. G, tei r-, " •t I c-w.,.a. - w pr•.i` !'. %h..f` •�. .L<.•��h���iid" �t�`1�.��,:`�.*Z,�� �'� � �;S:t�.•"`c" ;��s>,".s,.e c �•r� $.1''w-"}��"i r�' .'` ra � .t:�7L°:''��''�`�''!�„�r-��.�rrar-ass.^' ,.s• t...s'r-�1 'iow'�,f : View South towards Beach & Damask. View [,Test from head of ' proposed new streetAll . i.� Attachment' 6 I i F7"dm*i1Vi nc October 5 , 1977 :UNTINGT07N PLANNING DL-PT. P. 0. COX 190 City Council ti tirgton Beach, CA 9261:f City of Huntington Beach - Post Office Box 190 i Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re : General Plan Amendment 77-2, Part 2 industrial to ?Medium Density Residential on 17 . 7 Acres at Nichols Street, South of Slater. Avenue Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council : i I Have been advised that the Planning Commission, at its meeting of September 29 , 1977 , recommended denial of the above referenced General Plan Amendment. Although there is some confusion as to the basis for the recommendation and as to whether the above referenced matter was considered as part of the Central Industrial Corridor deliberation or as a separate item as listed on the agenda, it is clear that the Planning Commission recommendation is contrary to the February, 1977 , Industrial Land Use Study II 1 and the unqualified staff recommendation. In this regard, it should be noted that the subject property is totally unsuitable for quality industrial development because of. the severe on-site topography and peat problems . In contrast, the moderate-priced housing that we have committed to place on the site would be consistent with on-site topography and sound development standards , generate land-use compatibility with Huntington Central Park and the library, and provide an ideal use for an area which should be properly transitioning from low-grade marginal industrial/ commercial uses to moderately priced residential uses . I understand that the matter has been set for hearing before the Council on November 7 , 1977 . I hope I will have an opportunity Attachment 7 16168 Beach Boulevard Suite 150 Huntington Beach, California 92647 (714) 848-0020 10 City Council City of Huntington Beach Page 2 October S , 1977 to discuss this matter with you, and particularly our plans for development of moderate-priced housing, prior to the 7th. With every good wish, I remain, Sincerely, FAMILY HOME BUILDERS , G. Louis Graziad' I President GLG:mb CC: Ronald R. Pattinson, Mayor Ronald Shenkman, Mayor Pro Tem Ted W. Bartlett, Councilman Alvin M. Coen, Councilman Norma B. Gibbs, Councilwoman Richard W. Siebert, Councilman Harriett M. Wieder, Councilwoman Edward Selich, Director of Planning Floyd G. Belsito, City Administrator Attachment 7 I • LAW OFFICES COCHRAN AND COCHRAN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION JOHN D. COCHRAN 2061 BUSINESS CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 112 AREA CODE 71+ J. MICHAEL COCHRAN IRVINE. CALIFORNIA 92715 TELEPHONE 833-9i12 October 20, 1977 Mr. Roger Slates, Chairman Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach P. 0. Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648 RE : James Lumber Company--General Plan Amendment 77-2, Part 3 Dear Mr. Slates: I represent James Lumber Company whose address is 17311 Nichols, Huntington Beach, and at a recent board of directors meeting a discussion was had with reference to possible affect upon my client with reference to certain proposed amendments set forth in the above general plan x amendment. I enclose herewith a copy of a map that is set forth in the proposed general plan amendment which is self-explanatory . My client ' s main concern is with reference to parcel 2 and 7 as set forth on said map. It is our understanding, pursuant to said map that a proposed use change is made changing it from general industrial to low density residential and medium density residential. If in fact this change is made, and parcels 2 and 7 are ultimately utilized with reference to the proposed change, my client and I envision possible numerous complaints against my client 's lawful operation of its business which could possibly lead to the imposition of restrictions, even though my client ' s business is there first and at the time the people would buy the homes, they would be fully aware of that fact, which fact appears to be immaterial at the time that governmental agencies are listening to the complaints of individual residents . A perfect example is all the problems with reference to Orange County Airport concerning the residents surrounding it. For this reason, James Lumber Company opposes any amendment which would ' Attachment 8 i Mr . Roger Slates October 20, 1977 Page 2 permit the changing of parcels 2 and 7 from its present zoning to that indicated on the enclosed map, and in the above proposed amendment to the general plan. Further, this letter will serve as notice to the City of Huntington Beach with reference to my client ' s belief as to what may happen in the future if in fact the above amendment with' reference to parcels 2 and 7 does take place. You very truly, JOHN D. COCHRAN JDC :sp Enclosure Attachment 8 j -7— V Z .4 '.1 I_I!I_'''fIr J.,1I,�)'!!.II •�.-ir_'�J�1•''`r;.pm.i!''-:�i:���:S�I�Y"I��i�::(S Ik�.I_�1I.c.y!r1v Nl�Ir 1K�IiI jy.Il!am.Ii m..._::_.,It�-_:i.Il1It_a:,x.'r`cI!IN,~J'�.j..:r:..l;�.,�.w:wr■..+.t.r.+..:.:.-._:...':..._:..:..:�....ti�...,.;:�:'.;:�.•Ir;�r';'{.;II��l''I,T�'J}y}�-I I'I '(r,(1i!f1'I�Ii�},'l��>�It,'1ll�II;'III 1!;��!I'�II,;IrII,�IIIi!wb i'l t!l■t�t+i��i{4�.1 :■■�r•■•■•�p r■p•■�°r•■■•r';�pr•p,r_;•■■tl�•I1�;•pr:1■•r1,1■�rr■r«:r••'••:p:r•r C1 L . ..... a Somme bosom 10 1r AW_: -x--! is I Pit "Mow 2 0 sma" d 0 a T- HEIL.' IIJ Ij Dv, 74 01mv. -swam 6, CF-E Is + C E C-1 F- X1,a a a 8 mow JJ J 11 CF-R a a a I .j -WAR ER• iS 1!1 Tilr[m 2 CF-E 4 IT, 5 7 I 1 1,f U 1 6 S Ili CF-E 12 go 10 C, X.. . ......... CF-R 4 15 m 3 rT r 76 S as J 16 a a 19 CF-R 17 18 fj mummo a C a Z 1 20 :1.1 1;, mom .,M,N. E 0 General Industrial C)80SO 0 -1 0 00 Public., Quasi Public, Institutional 24 nos *o Resource Production 23 E�v General Commercial- •A,,x. 22 Estate Residential 2 un/pe Estate Residential 4 uti/vac Low Density Residential 7 un/vac Medium Density Residential t5 un/vac ,4!B 1 4 PROPOSED PLAN 'NT L AYORKTqWN. GENERAL LAND USI' ELINL is CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL CORIUDOR F r Fi�ure 2-2 Attachment 8 Published Huntington Beach News, Oct. 3. South of Terry Drive and east of 20, 1977. Viewpoint Drive NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Administrative Item: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 77-2, 4.+Multi-Story Policy Items. PARTS 2 and 3 Negative Declarations 77-94 and 77-95 /� NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public deal with this portion of the amendment. . \ hearing will be held by the City Council Part 3. Industrial Areas deal with in- of the City of Huntington Beach, in the dustriat properties in the Edison Indus- \ I+ Council Chamber of the Civic Center, trial Area and makes recommendations Huntington Beach, at the hour of 7:30 for land use changes on certain proper- Q P.M., or as soon thereafter as possible, ties. Environmental Impact Report 77-8 on Monday the 7th day of November, addresses the impacts. 1977, for the purpose of considering Further information may be obtained General Plan Amendment 77-2 and re- from the City Planning Department. quired environmental documents, as ini- All interested persons are invited to at. tiated by the Planning Commission. Gen- tend said hearing and express their opi- eral Plan Amend,met No. 77-2 is divided nions for or against said general plan as follows: amendment. j Part 2. Miscellaneous items addresses Further information may be obtained three areas of concern and one admi- from the Office of the City Clerk. nisti-ative change to the General Plan. DATED: October 4, 1977. They are: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Areas of Concern: By: Alicia M. Wentworth C 1 1. South of Adams Avenue and east of City Clerk Brookhurst Street 2000 Main St. 2. Nichols Street south of Slater Ave- Huntington Beach, Calif. rrs nue Phone 536-5226