HomeMy WebLinkAboutGeneral Plan Amendment 77-3 Part 2 - GPA 77-3 - Part 2 - Env "i
I
Published Huntington Beach News, Dec. I Published Huntington Beach News, Dec.
1977.
8, 1977. 8,
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
General Plan Amendment No. 77-3-Part 2
APPEAL Portion of GPA No. 77-3 — Part 2 Environmental Reports Nos. 77-8 & 77-13
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a pub- NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a pub-
lic hearing will be held by the City Coun- lic hearing will be held by the City Coun-
cil of the City of Huntington. Beach, In cil of the City of Huntington Beach, in
the Council Chamber of the Civic center, the Council Chamber of the Civic Cen-
Huntington Beach, at the hour of 7:30 ter, Huntington Beach, at the hour of
P.M., or as soon thereafter as possible, 7:30 P.M., or as soon thereafter as possi-
on Monday the 19th day of December, ble, on Monday the 19th day of Decem-
1977, for the purpose of considering an ber, 1977, for the purpose of consider-
appeal to the denial by the Planning Ing General P!an Amendment No. 77-3 —
Commission of the area of concern 2.1 Part 2 and required environmental docu-
(South of Edinger Avenue and West of ments, as initiated by the Planning
Bolsa Chica Street) of the General Plan Commission. General Plan Amendment
Pmendment Nb. 77-3 — Part 2, initiated No. 77-3— Part 2 contains the following
by the Planning Commission, areas of concern:
All interested persons are invited to 2.2. North of Indianapolis Avenue and
attend said hearing and express their east of Beach Boulevard.
opinions for or against said appeal to a 2.5, South of Slater Avenue and east
portion of GPA No. 77-3 — Part 2. of railroad right-of-way.
,rurther information may be obtained 2.6. Ministerial Item —Timing of Gen-
from the Office of the City Clerk. eral Plan Amendments.
DATED: December 7, 1977. Environmental Impact Reports 77-8 and
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 77-13 deal with The environmental im-
By: Alicia M.Wentworth pacts of the amendment.
City.Clerk A legal description is on file in the
Planning Department Office.
All interested persons are invited to
attend said hearing and express their
opinions for or against said General
Plan Amendment No. 77-3 — Part 2 and
Environmental impact Reports No. 77-13.
Further information may be obtained
from the Office of the City Clerk.
DATED: December 7, 1977.
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
By: Alicia M. Wentworth
City Clerk.
Williom C. Clopet Fleetwood B.joiner Planning/Architecture/Engineering
December 19, 1977
iayor Pro-tem Snenkman
and Members or the City Council
City of Hun rA ngton Beach
200G Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92643
Re: General Plan Amendment 77-3, Part 2
The celieral plan guidelines promulgated 'L-.y the Califorri.a Council on Inter-
governmental Relations state that:
"The Planning and Zoning Law (or the State of California) requires each
city and county to establish a .Tanning Agency and a Planning Process to
guide future growith and change it accordance with a framework of officially
adopted goals and policies directed to land rise, ciiculaticn, housing,
env-ironmental quality, wise use and ccnsei-vation of resources, safety, and
other relevant phyS i cal , social and econo.ni c factors. " .
The Guidelines go on further to state: "Citizen participation, public input,
and reaction are ? key part of every phase in the planning process."
A primary responsibility of the Planning Agency is to assist the decision-
riaker in assessing the probable consequences vnd relative advantages cf
alterni.tive courses of action, and to make recomendations regarding them. To
fulfill this duty effectively, the Planning Agency should maintain Complete,
accurate, and up-to-date information and data or, all aspects of the jurisdiction.
Our role here is to assist -in providing and. per0aps underscoge, certain information
which we feel mandates retaining the industrial classification on this pi6ce of
land.
The issue before you ::onigh;, is whether to alter the general plan of the City of
Huntington Beach to allow medium density residential uses on this previously
industrially designated site. With ou;- state law requiring conformance between
zan;n;g and land use plan, this general plan ammendment is tantamount to a zone
change. Conceivably it could be labied a� spot zoning;:which is prohibited by
Star:.:, Lau. We are, however, not really in.tere-sted in arguing the relative werits
of this specific prorosal , but rather the assets of ciaintairing this area as u
much needed industrial base for the econcim i c and social well-being of the City
of Huntington Beach.
714/640-5060
359 San Miguel Rd.
s Newport Center
Newport Beach,Co.
92660
December 19, 1977
Re: General Plan Amendment 77-3, Part 2 Page-2-
The concerns which we would ii�e to focus on include:
1. Diversified Tax Base
A. Need for industrial , commercial as well as residential
land uses.
B. Income Generated by Industrial
-Sales Tax (Lumber Co. 's)
-jobs
-Property Tax
C. Industrial Growth in Huntington Beach
-Decreasing Dependance on Oil
-Increase in Diversified Uses
2. Importance of the Industrial Corridor
A. Extant Road/Rail Facilities
B. Significance of Huntington Beach in Orange County Market
C. Energy/Jobs Considerations
3. Need to Establish Continuity and Credibility
We hope this information and presentation will assist you in your decision making
process, and we further hope you agree with our concerns and objectives.
Thank you for your time.
Respectifully,
ARCHI+TEKTON, INC.
Manuel E. Perez
Planning Program Coordinator
MEP:jr
i5uuaaubu3/aan4oa�!uojV/bu!uucld jauior 0 p(Do/'4&q1j todolo -3 wg1'1!M
5091 McFadden AvenueT'�`°'
• �• Huntington Beach, Ca. 9261}9
December 8, 1.977
Mr, H. E. Hartge
• ^� ? rector of Public Works
City of Huntington Beach
P, 0, Box 190
Huntington Beach, Ca. 92648 DEC 1. ;? 1977
Dear Mr, Hartge : CITY OF HUNiINGTON BEACH
CITY COUNCIL OFFICE
I just received a copy of the cFadden Avenue Traffic
Study - Third- Report"., dated October 26, 1977 from 114r. Ralph
Leyva. I would like to thank you for the cooperation you
have given the McFadden Avenue neighborhood residents now
and in the past.
I have read the third report and in my opinion, there
are some discrepancies that need to be brought to your
attention.
1. The 85th percentile speed of 34 miles per hour
must reflect daylight hours. Speeds are far
in excess of 34 MPH during evening hours and
early morning hours.
2. The study does not reflect vehicles that are
shortcutting the McFadden Avenue traffic light
and Andaman stop sign by using Tasman and Cambay.
}• This would reduce the count of usage by local
residents to which you refer.
3.. The report states volume has increased somewhat.
To me, a 30% increase is more than somewhat. It
is significantt Your first traffic study stated
that 3,300 vehicles/21� hour period was in excess
of what :night be expected on a residential street.
Now we have 4, 400 vehicles/24 hour period,
# 4 I challenge the truck count as 'not. .being represent-
ative of truck traffic using McFadden, Howevor,
let us assume your count is correct. Even if the
truck traffic is only 1% of the total (your second
traffic study showed 100 trucks a day), this is
unacceptable to residents living on the street and
in the surrounding neighborhood when they are
awakened in the middle of the night and early
morning hours.
5. Finally, your recommendation to solve .the problem
is unrealistic and in essence is no reconLmended
action at alll Enforcement nct:ivities by the
1 HBPD will do nothing toward reducing traffic on
McFadden Avenue, And as far as speeding and truck
• traffic enforcement, you would have to put a patrol
unit on the street 211. hours a day. Furthermore,
n .
to request businesses in the industrial tract
I to ask their employees not to use McFadden Avenue
Is useless. People will continue to use the street •
as long as_ it is convenient and a fast route.
As long as there are people living on McFadden Avenue
and the surrounding neighborhood, the unpleasant and time
consuming problem for the City, as well as -the residents,
i will continue. Unless you live on the street, there is. no
way .you can understand the problem created by the noise and
the concern for our children who have to cross McFadden
Avenue, When your health is constantly affected by unending
noise and vibrations, how can .you expect that tho problem
f will just go away.
Sincerely,
Robert B. Adams
cc : Mayor Ron Pattinson
Council members
j
i
• ' City of Huntington Beach
P.O. BOX 180 CALIFORNIA 92648
' ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
" December 23., . 1977 ( (f
DEC 2 3 1977
Mr. Robert B. Adams CITY OF HUNTINGTON B
5091 McFadden Avenue ADMINISTRATIVE E
Huntington Beach,: California 92649 OFFICEC
Dear Mr. Adams.-
Thank you for the comments contained in your letter of December
8, 1977. We have considered the points you have covered and have
made some comments here pertaining to those points.
.On December 19, between 6:30 .p.m. and 7: 30 p.m. , a radar study
of . speeds on McFadden Avenue between Bolsa Chica and Chemical Lane
was conducted. The results of that survey (100 vehicle sample)
shows the 85th percentile . to be 38 mph, with a 10 mile-per-hour pace
• between 28 mph and 37 mph (73% of the sample within that pace.) Al-
though the words are certainly relative, "far in excess" seems too
strong to describe the differences in characteristics between this
sample and the sample taken during daylight hours.
Your contention that vehicles are using -the Tasman/Cambay route
to' gain access to McFadden Avenue may be. valid. The studies to date
have been confined to traffic conditions on McFadden only, and have
not encompassed the surrounding neighborhood. That information could
only be obtained by conducting an extensive study in the area.
I
Since vehicular volumes have steadily increased city-wide, and
since the use of McFadden Avenue is convenient to many persons, it is
reasonable that the volume of traffic would increase. As anticipated
by- the traffic portion of the environmental documents pertaining to
the Industrial Park, the establishment of new businesses has created
added demand on McFadden. The choice of words used to describe the
gradual increase from report to report :is a matter of opinion.
The counts made of traffic volumes and classification were done
manually and the error factor is very small. Volumes do fluctuate,
however, and each day is different than the last or the next. Recent
acquisition of film equipment will allow more detailed study and presen-
tation of real-time conditions. We will present this data to Council
when it is obtained.
• We in the Public Works Department .are� continuing to monitor and
report traffic conditions on McFadden Avenue, and to make such recom-
mendations to the City Council as seems appropriate relative to those
conditions. If you feel that actions other than those we have recom-
mended would be more appropriate, it is certainly your prerogative to
Mr. Robert B. Adams
December 23, 1977
JtublRi.t them. to the City Council for consideration. We appreciate
,.,your continued efforts to improve the situation on McFadden Avenue,
and will continue to do what .is required to accurately report what
those conditions area
Very truly yours,
{ E. .Hartge
Y' Director of Public Works
I
HEH:RRL:BHG:jy
cc: City Administrator
9
1
i
i .
i
I
t
i •
1 •
THE CENTER
J Johr,L.Cnc;�:�^cn
FOR PLANNING Gairy .C. �r�ol'a
C--cry P.Chi
& RESEARCH
December 15, 1977
The Huntington Beach City Council
City Hall
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, California
Dear Council Members:
The attached material is being submitted on behalf of our client,
Family Home Builders, Inc. , so that the City Council will have additional
time to consider one of the most important issues raised by Family Home
Builders' general plan change request. This request is scheduled for
consideration at the Council's next meeting on December 19.
Family Home Builders is asking that the zoning for their property be
changed to permit residential development. If the request is approved,
the company will be able to proceed with plans to construct approximately
200 housing units.
An important part of this project is the developer's decision to set aside
an estimated 30 to 50 of the units for low income families. The production
of these low income units would be of benefit to the City in two respects:
It would help to alleviate a critical City need, and it would also contribute
to the City's goal of supplying 1 , 150 units of additional low income housing
this year.
The accompanying charts are based on information contained in the City's
Third Community Development Block Grant Application, which was pre-
pared and submitted to H. U. D. in early March of this year.
Chart I, Projection of Future Low Income Housing Needs and Goals, indi-
cates that 9,640 housing units are required to satisfy the existing demand
for low income housing in Huntington Beach. The households which need
these units are currently living in units which are physically substandard,
overcrowded, or too costly in relation to household income. To help over-
come this problem the City has formulated two goals in its most recent
Community Development Block Grant Application. The goal for fiscal year
1977-78 is to provide 1 , 150 additional low income housing units. By fiscal
year 1979-80, the goal is to provide 1 ,035 more units, bringing the total
number of new units to be provided in the City during the next three years
to 2, 185.
PLANNING ARCHITECTURE•ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES•URBAN DESIGN• 240 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE,SUITE 215.NEWPORT BEACH,CALIFORNIA 92660,(714)640-4911
r
Huntington Beach Planning Commission
December 15, 1977
Page Two
Charts II and III further explain how low income housing need and the
fiscal year goal for 1977-78 are derived. Chart II, Lower Income
Housing Assistance Needs, shows what portions of the current demand
for 9,640 units come from owner households, renter households and
households outside the City which desire to live in Huntington Beach be-
cause a family member is employed there.
Chart III breaks down the City's 1 , 150 unit goal for 1977-78 by owner and
renter households, and also by whether the households are elderly,
handicapped, large or small.
The single most important point raised by all of these numbers is that
the City is faced with a critical need for additional low income housing
and that Family Home Builders is proposing to help meet this need.
Rarely does such an outstanding opportunity arise for private interests
to profitably direct their energies toward the solution of a pressing pub-
lic problem. It is therefore hoped that the Council will seriously consider
the merits of the low income housing issue along with other factors when
evaluating the plan change request now pending.
Sincerely,
f
NTER FOR P NING A D RESEARCH
, S ��E. Ramella
RER:HGB:sjb
CHART I ,
HUNTINGTON BEACH
PROJECTION OF FUTURE LOW INCOME
HOUSING NEEDS AND GOALS
HOUSING UNITS
9640 =TOTAL NEED
a
y
2185=GOAL FOR 1980
1150 = GOAL FOR 1978
FROM THE THIRD YEAR HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
BLOCK GRANT APPLICATION PREPARED BY THE CITY AND ADOPTED
MARCH 14, 1977
CHART 11
HUNTINGTON
EA H
HOUSING ASSISTANCE NEEDS
LOWER IN.COME HOUSEHOLDS. mx.
ELDERLY OR SMALL LARGE
TOTAL HANDICAPPED FAMILIES FAMILIES
OWNER
HOUSEHOLDS 1011 193 437 381
RENTER
HOUSEHOLDS 6766 896 3941 1929
HOUSEHOLDS
EXPECTED TO 1863 7 1340 516
RESIDE IN CITY
TOTAL (CURRENT NEED) 9640 1096 5718 2826
FROM THE THIRD YEAR HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
APPLICATION PREPARED BY THE CITY AND ADOPTED ON MARCH 14, 1977
CHART III
HUNTINGTON BEACH
LOWER INCOME HOUSING ASSISTANCE
GOALS FOR 19 77-1978 *
ELDERLY OR SMALL LARGE
- TOTAL HANDICAPPED FAMILIES FAMILIES
OWNER
HOUSEHOLDS 200 75 100 25
RENTER
HOUSEHOLDS 950 350 350 250
TOTAL
HOUSEHOLDS 1150 425 450 275
FROM THE THIRD YEAR HOUSING AND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
GRANT APPLICATION PREPARED BY THE
CITY AND ADOPTED MARCH 14,1977
s
' O
December 5, 1977
"IN QUEST OF EXCELLENCE"
Center for Planning and Research
240 Newport Center Drive
Newport Beach, California 92660
Attention: 14s. Holly Boots
Gentlemen:
In accordance with your telephone request, the following details the impact
of any children that can be expected from the development of the property at
Gothard and Slater. If the development, as planned, consists of 50 HUD units
each with four bedrooms and 150 standard units of two and three bedrooms,
then the following can be expected:
1 . The 50 HUD units can be expected to produce a total of 40 children
in grades K-8 with 31 children in K-6 and nine in grades 7-8.
2. The 150 units should produce 20 children in the K-8. population with
15 in grades K-6 and five in grades 7-8.
3. The total impact on the schools in. the vicinity would be 46 children
in grades K-6. The 46 children would attend Oak View School . The
present enrollment at this school is some 507 students. This school
can accommodate some 37 children in grade K and some 40 children in
grades 1-6. Therefore, the expected increase in school population
should not adversely affect Oak View School .
4. In grades 7-8, the expected increase would be 14 children. These
would be accommodated at P1esa View School. This should presently
houses some 704 students but can house an additional 120 students.
In conclusion,- the development of that property in this area as residential
property will not adversely affect student housing in the Ocean View schools
in the area.
Sincerely,
Don Hendricks
Assistant Superintendent
Pro ram Pl anni n avd eye ument
SUPERINTENDENT SO.4RD OF TRUSTEES
V E �i`V Dale Coogan
Charles Osterlund, President
ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENTS
[ j C� C Julio "Jay"Rivera, Clerk
t d O tis.is V✓
James Carvell Marianne R. Blank
Don Hendricks Darrell C. Carter
7972 WARNER AVENUE 1
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92647 James Jones, Jr. 1 Margaret "Maggie"Stark
7141847-2551 Monte McMurray
We an An EQ1 OPPort ;,y E,roIw_
This O:rrr<r D—Nor P. rie O:s—m,rurron On The 8b;r Or St.
Affidavit of Publication
State of California
County of Orange ss Y
City of Huntington Beach )))
George Farquhar, being duly sworn on oath, says: That he is a
citizen of the United States, over the age of twenty-one years. VV
That he is the printer and publisher of the Huntington Beach S 0 J a�
News, a weekly newspaper of general circulation printed and pub- e Np r
lished in Huntington Beach, California and circulated in the said
County of Orange and elsewhere and published for the dissemination
of local and other news of a general character, and has a bona fide
subscription list of paying subscribers, and said paper has been [En�ironmentbl
ublished Huntington Beach News, Dec.
established, printed and published in the State of California, and , 1977.o
County of Orange, for at least one year next before the publication NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
of the first insertion of this notice; and the said newspaper is not eneral Plan AmendmenI No. 77-3-Part 2
i 7-13
devoted to the interest of, or published for the entertainment of any ER.EBY Nos. 7 h & pub-
rticular class profession, trade, calling, race or denomination, or I NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN the
that a pub-
Pa . P lic hearing will be held by the..ity Coun-
any number thereof. cil- of-Ahe City of Huntington Beach; "n
The Huntington Beach New was adjudicated a legal newspaper the council Chamber of the Civic cen-
of general circulation b Jude G. K. Scovel in the Superior Court ter, .M., or a§. Beach',thereafter
a the hour i'
y g � 7:30 P.M., or as soon thereafter as possi-
of Orange County, California August 27th, 1937 by order No. A-5931. ble, on Monday the 19th day of Decem-
ber, 1977, for the purpose of consider-
ingGENERAL PLAN AMEND. #77-3 PART 2 Par General Plaeclu Amendment No. l d —
That the Part 2 and required environmental docu-
ments, as initiated by the `Planning i
Commission. General Plan Amendment:
ENVIRON. REPORTS NOS. 77-8 & 77-13 No. 77-3 — Part 2 conta:ns the following.
of which the annexed is a printed copy, was published in said news- areas of concern:
2:2. North of Indianapolis Avenue and ,
east of Beach Boulevard.
one 18 B ue 2:5. South of Slater Avenue and east
paper 8t least of railroad right-of-way.
2.6. Min•;Sterlal Item — Timing of Gen-
eral Plan Amendments.
commencing from the 8th day of December Env;ronmental:Impact Reports 77-5 ai3d
77-13 deal with-.the environmental im-
pacts of the ameVdment.
19-72., and ending on the 8th day of December A legal description is on file in the
Flann'ng Department Office.
All interes:ed pe-sons are invited to
.7�7 attend said hearing and express their
19—.2_ both days inclusive, and as often during said period and opinic•ns for or against said General'
times of:publication as said paper was regularly issued, and in the Plan Amendment No. 77-3 — Part 2 and
regular and entire issue of said pewspaper proper, and not in a Environmental Impact Reports No. 77-13.
supplement, and said notice was published therein on the following Further information may obtained
dates, to-wit: 1r DATED:ODelcember 7, 1ce of the 97�ity Clerk..
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH -
De C. 8 , 19 77 By: Alicia M. Wentworth
City Clerk.
blisher
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 9 th day of
December 19=
2 ]Votary Public
Orange County, California
------------------ - -
.
r
THOMAS D. WYL'.i
I Notery Public-Cali;ornia ! /7
OPenge County
1 �
f My Commission Expires r �
�w __^ -aplomb-- 12_ --
---
!
' +Y
City of Huntington Beach
County of Orange
State of California
-4f fidavitof Publication
of GEORGE FARQUHAR
Publisher Huntington Beach News
Filed
Clerk
By
Deputy Clerk
D
• D E C 14 1977
J' � CITY OF HUNTiNGT
Huntington Beach Planning Commission ON BEACH
• ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE
C9 P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648
TO: Floyd G. Belsito , City Administrator
FROM: Planning Commission
DATE: December 7, 1977
SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 77-3 , PART 2
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM:
The Planning Commission adopted recommendations for General Plan
Amendment 77-3, Part 2 at a public hearing held on December 6,
1977. GPA 77-3, Part 2 is the complete and final amendment to
the General Plan for 1977 . City Council adoption must occur
prior to January 1, 1978 or the amendment will be continued to
the first amendment in 1978 . An appeal to the Planning Commission
recommendation for Area of Concern 2. 1 of GPA 77-3, Part 2 has
been filed by the applicant.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The Planning Commission adopted Resolution 1206 recommending
adoption of General Plan Amendment 77-3 , Part 2 by the following
vote:
Ayes: Stern, Finley, Gibson, Slates, Shea, Newman, Hoffman
Noes: None
Absent: None
ANALYSIS:
This amendment deals with Miscellaneous Items, including three
requests for the redesignation of property by private owners,
two requests initiated by the Planning Commission and one request
initiated by the City Council. Two of the requests by private
owners are to be continued to GPA 78-1 (Dann and Sassoon-Mayer
Development Company) and will not be heard at the December 19,
1977 public hearing. The remaining privately initiated request
for the 1. 78 gross acre area of concern located south of Edinger
Avenue and west of Bolsa Chica Street is recommended to retain
the commercial designation. Additional information relating
to vehicular access on the site was requested by the Planning
Commission and has been attached hereto. The applicant has
appealed the Planning Commission recommendation on this site.
The Planning Commission initiated requests include a land use
analysis and a scheduling change. The land use analysis was on
an 8 . 24 gross acre site located north of Indianapolis Avenue and
east of Beach Boulevard for which no change is recommended. The
item has been erroneously advertised and will not be heard be!--
cause the Planning Commercial recommended retention of the exist 010
-
ing designation.
SUMMARY OF PLANNING COMMISSION
ACTION AT THE MEETING OF DECEMBER 6 , 1977
Area of Concern 2 . 1
On motion by Newman and second by Shea commercial designation was
retained by following vote :
Ayes : Gibson, Slates , Shea, Newman
Noes : Stern
Abstain: Finley
Absent: Hoffman
Area of Concern 2 . 2
On motion by Slates and second by Shea commercial designation was
retained by following vote:
Ayes: Stern, Finley, Gibson, Slates, Shea, Newman
Noes : None
Absent: Hoffman
Area of Concern 2 . 3
No Action
Area of Concern 2 .4
No Action
Area of Concern 2 . 5
On motion by Shea and second by Newman area was redesignated to
medium density residential by the following vote:
Ayes : Gibson, Slates, Shea, Newman, Hoffman
Noes : Stern, Finley
Absent: None
Area of Concern 2 . 6
On motion by Slates and second by Shea the Commission approved the
scheduling of General Plan amendments at the beginning of the
calendar year by Planning Commission resolution.
Ayes : Gibson, Slates, Shea, Newman, Hoffman, Finley
Noes : Stern
Absent: None
t
General Plan Amendment 77-3, Part 2
December 7 , 1977
Page 2
The other Planning Commission initiated request is a
ministerial item originally contained in Part 1 dealing with
General Plan Amendment scheduling for which a change has been
recommended. The alteration to the amendment procedures would
provide that the Planning Commission establish a schedule of
amendment dates by resolution at the beginning of the calendar
year. The City Council initiated request is in response to a
procedural error, consequently the 18. 89 gross acre site south
of Slater Avenue and east of the railroad right-of-way which
was analyzed in General Plan Amendment 77-2 has been included
in GPA 77-3, Part 2 in its original form. The Planning
Commission' s previous action on GPA 77-2 for this request was
to deny the redesignation. However, the Planning Commission is
now recommending approval of redesignation from industrial to
medium density residential.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS:
The draft EIR for General Plan Amendment 77-3 (EIR 77-13) was
distributed to public agencies and other interested parties for
a 30-day review period ending November 28 , 1977. On November 29 ,
1977, the Department held a public hearing to consider written
and any other comments relative to the draft EIR.
The Environmental Resources Section recommended that a Final
Environmental Impact Report be prepared in accordance with CEQA
requirements. The Planning Commission recommended approval of
EIR 77-13 by the following vote:
Ayes: Stern, Finley, Gibson, Slates, Shea, Newman, Hoffman
Noes : None
Absent: None
Respectfully submitted,
Edward D. Selich
Secretary
EDS: s
Attachments:
1. Summary of Planning Commission actions on each item
2 . Resolution
3. General Plan Amendment 77-3 , Part 2 and EIR 77-13 attached
4. CPA 77-3 , Part 2 summary sheet
5. Additional Information on vehicular access for Area of Concern 2. 1
a
RUTAN & TUCKER
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
A.W.RUTAN 11880-19721
JAMES B.TUCKER, SR.II 886-19sDI THE BANK OF CALIFORNIA BUILDING OF COUNSEL
MILFO RD W.DAHL El
D.SYBESMA,JR. W. K. LINDSAY
H. RODGER HOWELL THOMAS S. SALINGER 401 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE WEST
JAMES B.TUCKER BRUCE R.CO RBETT
GARVIN F.SHALLENBERGER STEPHEN D. NUTT POST OFFICE BOX 1976
JAMES R.MOORE 8ARRY R. LAUBSCHER NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE
HERBERT W.WALKER PAUL C. LOIZEAUX.JR. SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92702 610 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 900
ROBERT L. RISLEY THOMAS P.CLARK,JR. NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660
FRITZ R. STRAOLING DAVID C. LARSEN (714) 835-2200
PAUL FREDERIC MARX JOHN C.TEAL.JR. TELEPHONE (714) 83$-2200
HOMER L. MCCORMICK,JR. DANIEL K.WINTON
HOWARD F.HARRISON CLIFFORD E.FRIEDEN
JAM ES E. ERICKSON JOHN A. GLOGER
WILLIAM R.BIEL ARTHUR G. KIDMAN _ IN REPLY PLEASE REFER TO
RICHARD A. CURNUTT MICHAEL D.RUB IN
L EO NARD A. HAM PEL ELIZABETH A.STRAUSS December 7 1977
JOHN B. HURLB UT. JR. MARC WINTHROP
MICHAEL W. IMMELL IRA G. RIVIN
WILLIAM C. DEANS CHARLES T. HARRINGTON
MILFORD W. DAHL,JR. NED T.ASHBY
TH EODORE I.WALLACE.JR. JEFFREY M.ODERMAN
STUART T.WALORIP ROBERT S. BOWER
C. RICHARD LEMON JAMES E. GLEASON.JR.
RI
CHARD P.SIMS DAVID G.CASNOCHA
JOHN J. MURPHY GLENN D. NELSON
ROBERT C. BRAUN GAIL BOREMAN BIRD
ROGER A.GRABLE V E
8 -1977
Honorable Ron Pattison ,
Mayor, City of Huntington Beach CSTY OF HUNTINISTM! BEACH
2000 Main Street
Post office Box 190 CITY CO!.'N'M OFF!Cr
Huntington Beach, California 92648
RE: General Plan Amendment No. 77-3 , Part II
(Area of Concern 2. 5)
Dear Honorable Mayor:
The Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach
recommended approval of the above-entitled General Plan
Amendment at its meeting of December 6 , 1977. It is our
understanding that .the matter will be set before the Council
for public hearing at its meeting of December 19, 1977. It
is also our understanding that Council policy allows not
more than three (3) minutes per speaker without prior written
request. Accordingly, because of the importance of this issue
to the entire community, we hereby request that this require-
ment be waived and that we be permitted up to one-half (1/2)
hour for presentation. Although we do not anticipate that
it will take longer than fifteen (15) or twenty (20) minutes,
our experience at the Planning Commission is that presenta-
tion evokes a number of important questions.
Thank you in advance for your consideration of this matter.
Very truly yours,
RUTAN & TUCKER
Thomas P. Clark, Jr.
Attorney for Family Home
Builders, Inc. , Applicant _
TP C: s a ,,, `'
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 77-3, PART 2 SUMMARY
�Environ-
•Area of mental Planning Dept. Planning Comm. City Council
Conern Location Acreage Applicant Request Status Recommendation Recommendation Recommendation
2.1 So. of Edinger Ave/ 1.78 gr ac G. P. Building From Commercial EIR 77-13 Redesignate to high Retain Commercial
West of Bolsa Chica Enterprises Inc. to high density density residential designation
Street
2.2 No. of Indianapolis 8.24 gr ac Referred by Analysis of land N/A Retain Commercial Retain Commercial No action
Ave./East of Beach Planning Comm. use potentials designation designation possible
Blvd.
2.3 So. of Atlanta/ 9.89 gr ac Sassoon-Mayer From commercial N/A For information only No Action No action
East of Beach Blvd. Dev. Comp. to high density no action to be taken, Possible possible
residential(8.32 will be continued to
gr.ac.) 1.57 GPA 78-1
gr.ac. is to re-
main commercial
2.4 No. of Pacific 106.9 gr ac DAON From Planning Re N/A For information only No Action No action
Coast Highway/ serve & medium den- no action to be taken, Possible possible
East of Beach Blvd. pity residential to will be continued to
low,medium,high den- GPA 78-1
sity residential,- -com-
mercial & industrial
2.5 So. of Slater Ave/ 18.89gr ac Referred by From industrial EIR 77-8 Redesignate to medium Redesignate to
East"of railroad City Council to medium density densityxresidential medium dcnsity
g _._ -. +
- ri ht-of-wy residential ' residential
/ / Referred b Ad t
2. 6 Ministers�l item N A y Amendment dates Exempt Amendment dates A pn mP,;;r r
II! .t� c?.R 3
timing of General Planning to be scheduled should be set at should be set at
Amendments Commission at beginning of the beginning of the the beginning of the
the calendar year calendar year by calendar year by
Planning Commission Planning Commission Planning Commission
resolution resolution resolution
Liiw CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
LO" INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION
HUNTINGTON BEACH
To File From Tom Moseley
Subject Vehicular Access for Area of Date December 2 , 1977
Concern 2. 1, GPA 77-3 , Part 2
Access for commercial use:
Vehicular access for commercial use of area of concern 2 .1 has been
guaranteed by a reciprocal grant of easements signed by the involved
parties at the time of the approval of Tentative Parcel Map 76-10.
Tentative Parcel Map 76-10 included area of concern 2. 1 as well as
the commercial properties to the east.
Vehicular access would be taken from a 27 ft. common drive at the eastern
boundary of area of concern 2. 1. The common drive includes 13' 6" of
area of concern 2 . 1.
Access for Residential use:
Although the reciprocal grant of easements would remain in force if the
land use designation for area of concern 2. 1 is changed, the staff would
recommend against mutual use of the existing common drive except for
purposes of access to Edinger Avenue. Primary access within the area
of concern would be supplied by a minimum of a twenty-eight foot wide
drive ending in a cul-de-sac with at least a 20 foot radius but more
likely a 30 foot radius.
Although the property is 136 feet wide, 13 feet 6 inches (that portion
of the common drive on the area of concern) would be unusable because
of the probable requirement of a walled separation between the existing
commercial uses and the proposed residential use. Usable space for
structures would be approximately 95 feet after loss of space to the
common drive and necessary access. The developer could take advantage
of the public alleys to the south and west for access which would then
provide the opportunity to incorporate additional layout design possibil-
ities.
TM:gc
R
y' 446 .
ek
publish / 2- ?
Postcards 13
NOTICE 0! PUBLIC HEARING
General Plan Amendment No. 77-3- Part 2
nvironmen a Reports Nos. -8 & 77-13
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held by the
City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, in the Council
Chamber of the Civic Center, Huntington Beach, at the hour of
7:30 P.M. , or as soon thereafter as possible, on Monday
the 19 day of December 19 77 for the purpose. of
considering General Plan Amendment No. 77-3 - Part 2 and required environmental
documents, as initiated by the Planning Commission. General Plan Amendment No. 77-3 -
Part 2 contains the following areas of concern:
.2-.=,]--.--Souuth--of-E&i-nge-r Avenue and_weet-of-Bo3-sa C!hica-Str6e-t.
2.2. North of Indianapolis Avenue and east of Beach Boulevard.
J2.5. South of Slater Avenue and east of railroad right-of-way.
2.6. Ministerial Item - Timing of General Plan Amendments.
Environmental Impact Reports 77-8 and 77-13 deal with the environmental impacts of the
amendment.
A legal description is on file in the Planning Department Office.
All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and
express their opinions for or against said General Plan Amendment No. 77-3rPart 2
and Enviromental Impac-
Further information may be obtained from the Office of the City Reports No.77-8
and 77-13.
Clerk.
9
DATED' December 1d, 1977 CITY Or HUNTINGTON BEACH
By. Alicia i
Wentworth
�
y -D,2�
.a' Publish` S ' : -
l✓A, Postcards_:%0
NOTICE OT MLIC =ARING
General Plan Amendment No. 77-3- Part 2
o11ML lteportg IM's""-8 & 77-13
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held by the .
City Council of the City of Nuntington Beach, in . the Council
Chamber of the Civic Center, Huntington Beach, at the hour of
7:30 P.M. , or as soon thereafter as possible, on Monday
the 19 say of December 19_-, for the purpose of
considering General Plan Amendment No. 77-3 - Part 2 and required environmental
documents, as initiated by the Planning Commission. General Plan Amendment No. 77-3 —
Part 2 contains the following areas of concern:
ue
2.2. North of Indianapolis Avenue and east of Beach Boulevard.
2.-5. South of Slater Avenue and east of railroad right-of-way:
2.6. Ministerial Item - Timing of General Plan Amendments.
Environmental Impact Reports 77-8 and 77-13 deal with the environmental impacts of the
amendment.
A legal description is on file in the Planning Department Office.
All interested persona are invited to attend said hearing and
express their opinions for or against said General Plan Amendment No. 77-3r- Part 2
and Enviromental Iml
Further information May be obtained from the Office of the City Reports N0.77-F
and 77-13.
Clerk. ?
DATED' December 1977 . CITY OF Mt)N'i'INGTON BEACH
BY: Alicia M. .Wentworth
City Clerk
Number of Excerpts Noise
Publish Once
LEGAL NOTICE
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 77-3 - PART 2
NOTICE IS H E Y GBV N that a public hearing will be held
by the City RJ the City of Huntington Beach,
California, for the purpose of considering General Plan Amendment
No. 77-3 - Part 2 and required environmental documents, as initiated
by the Planning Commission. General Plan Amendment No. 77-3 - Part 2
contains the following A4AAs ej e_.oV.cuth
�.�. South of Edinger Avenue and west of Bolsa Chica Street .
:7,2. North of Indianapolis Avenue and east of Beach Boulevard.
,Z.5' South of Slater Avenue and east of Railroad right-of-way
4-v— -S "0.0-4
erial Item - Timing of General Plan Amendments.2.6. Min
J Environmental Impact Reports -BMW 77-8 and 77-13 deal with the
environmental impacts of the amendment.
.��"' 17,
l/4•.4.�r �.I,.I /J`A.l[;i i.�i /�c'.� / (inn _N�' /i-.. 7 'mil j;�i.-•� .:... 4.'��1i� /i (. 1
Said hearing
hearing will be held at the hour of 7 : 00 P .M. , on
December19 1977 , in the Council Chambers Building of the
Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California.
All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and
express their opinions for or against the proposed General Plan
Amendment No. 77-3 - Part 2
Further information may be obtained from the City Planning
Department.
Telephone No. (7 ) 536-5271
DATED this day of 1977
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
By
Edward D. Selich
Secretary
NOTICE? TO CLERK TO SCHEDULE PUBLIC HEARING
ITEM GzAt.Ra /JO. 77-3 - (?Ae)--
TO: CITY CLERK'S OFFICE — DATE: _ � 7
FROM:
PLEASE SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING USING THE ATTACHED LEGAL NOTICE FOR THE
_DAY OF 19 7"l.
CAP' s are attach
AP's will follow
No AP' s
Initiated by:
Planning Commission
Planning Department
Petition
* Appeal
Other
Adoption of .Environmental Status W _
YES NO
Refer to aV M V u� Planning Department - Extension # dj _
for additional information.
* If appeal , please transmit exact wording; to be required in the legal .
95-030-15 178-071-18
i Commanding Officer Area of concern 2.1 George W Psaros
U.S. Weapons Station Nov. 17, 1977 (JH) 18072 Lakepoint Lame
Attn: Public Works Officer Huntington Beach, Calif
Seal Beach, Calif 90740 92647
178-071-01
178-071-10 178-071-19
Shell Oil Co F X Kay H H Eighuy
Western Tax Region 9188 Caladium Avenue 16411 Barnstable Circle
P.O. BOx 3397 Fountain Valley, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
Te m Amex 92708 92649
Los Angeles, Calif 178-071-11 178-071-20
90051 Sanford Vines Sea Gate Investcfts LTD
—"— P.O. Box 221 369 San Miguel Drive Suite 1
Surfside, Calif Newport Beach, Calif
90743 92660
178-071-03 178-071-12 178-071-21
Charles Walters Harald W Floster Jr Jeane S Long
4029 Alladin Drive 16102 Waikiki Lane 16061 Bolsa Chica Street
Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach,. Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
92649 92649 92649
178-071-04 178-071-13 178-071-22
Gary N Van Horne Noonan Litvak et al Huntington Beach Court Club.
4931 Kona Drive Apt C 17121 Northfield Lane 8961 Cotplex Dr Suite C
Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif San Diego, Calif
92649 92647 92123
178-071-06 178-071-14 178-072-01
George W Psaros Marshall J Schaffer Bobbie G Williams
18072 Lakepoint Lane 16072 Waikiki bane 16672 Somerset Lane
Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
92647 92649 92649
178-071-07 178-071-15 178-072-02
Thomas J O'Connell Edward J Hockey Alan F Andereon
15071 Sevilla Circle 18482 Goodwin Lane 4952 Kona Drive
Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
92647 92649 92649
178-071-08 178-071-16 178-072-03
Bruce M Miller Irving Newman Hugh P Gipe
4901 Kona Drive 16312 Mandalay Circle 461 S Ivera Avenue
Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Lang Beach, Calif
92649 92649 90803
178-071-09 178-071-17 178-072-04
Norman G Woodard Mario C Spatola et al Yung H Sun
4891 Kona Drive 6122 Warmer Ave Apt 8 5011 Berkeley Avenue
Huntington Beach, Calif Unti.ngton Beach, Calif Westminster, Calif
92649 92647 92683
1
118-072-06
Junior L Martin Area of concern 2.1
} 9151 Obsidian Drive Nov. 17, 1977 VH)
Westminster, Calif
' 92683
178-072-07 178-072-15
Gary R Price Howard E Stein et al
4882 Kona Drive 4941 Hilo Circle
Huntington Beach, Calif HUhti.ngtrnn Beach, Calif
92649 92649
178-072-08 178-091-01
Robert L Chick Ooean View School District
16852 Harkness Circle 7972 Warner Avenue
Huntingtoni Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
92649 92647
178-072-09 Dept. of transportation
Jerry W.Naylor 120 So. Spring Street
4861 Hilo Circle Los Angeles, Calif 90052
Huntington Beach, Calif Attn: Staff Assistant
92649 Design B
178-072-10
Edward V Styensky
2421-A Alvorrd Lane
Redondo Beach, Calif
•90278
' 1``78�-D72-11
Ke=eth G Mack
4891 Hilo Circle
Huntington Beach, Calif
92649
178-072-12
' Dorian A Verrgilio
4 901 Hilo Circle
Huntington Beach, Calif
92649
178-072-13
Lawrence A Ward
49U Hilo Circle
Huntington Beach, Calif
92649
178-072-14
Charles A Bollinger
4921 Hilo Circle
Huntington Beach, Calif
92649
! GPA 77-3 AREA 2.5
11/22/77 - ja
Dept. of Transportation 111-471-19m 21 111-063-53
120 S. Spring St. John F. Bibler et al Harold K. Moore
Los Angeles, Calif. 90052 BBS Properties Co. 4833 Dunrobin Ave.
2920 Juanita Pl. Lakewood, Cal. 90713
i
Fullerton, Cal. 92635
Ocean View School Dist. Ul-471-22
1 l
7972 Warner William L. Hamm
Huntington Bead, CA 926
47 14682 Monroe St.
Midway City, Cal. 92655
111=481=4 111-471=30 111-064-09
Nathan S. Shore Lamy H. Morita et al William R. Carson
L. Eugene Pickett Co. 7652 Slater Ave. P. O. Box 2217
2192 Dupont Dr. - Suite 113 Huntington Beach, Cal. 92647 Alhambra, Cal. 91803
j Irvin, Cal. 92664
111-481-05 111-471-32 111-064-20
Dave Meredith Loren M. Post Haywood Lockhart
7522 E. Slater Ave. P. O.- Boot 1503 1614 1/2 E. 23rd St.
Huntington Beach, Cal. 92647 Big Bear City, Cal. 92314 Los Angeles, Cal. 90011
Ul-471-14 111-061-01 111-064-27
William L. Jones Anthony J. Oliveri A. E. Arnold et al
7660 Liberty Ave. 13966 Seal Beach Blvd. P. O. -Botx 370
Huntington Beach, Cal. 92647 Seal Beach, Cal. 90740 Cypress, Cal. 90630
111-471-16 111-061-05 111-065-04
Robert Ziebarth Gerald A. Jones Madge Arnold
1639 9th St. 16771 Bayview Dr. Josie Arellanes
Santa Monica, Cal. 90404 Sunset Beach, Cal. 92742 156 Fenimore Ave.
Azusa, Cal. 91702
111-471-16 111-061-23 111-065-96
Dickie's Industrial Service Josephina Solorzano et al Thomas Cray
P. O. Box 91 7412 E. Slater Ave. t90 36th Ave. East
Fort Worth, Texas 76101 Huntington Beach, Cal. 92647 Seattle, Wash. 98112
111-471-17 111-063-1 Ul-065-22
i Socrates Skinas Wilbur E. Metzler Eleanore M. Richardson
301 canal 11143 S. Budlong Ave. 1254 E. lst St. #7
Newport Beach, Cal. 92660 IDS
� Angeles, Cal. 90044 Long Beach, Cal., 90802
111-471-18 111-063-65 111-066-03
James R. Belt Thomas Fader Joseph R. Byrd
I 590 Grand Haven Cir. Faye L. Turner 66 Payne St.
I Costa Mesa, Cal. 92626 134 S. 19th Elmsfozd, N.Y. 10523
Pocatello, Idaho 83201
I
r
_ '
GPA• 77 3 AREA 2.5
11,/22/77 - JA
kill-066-08 165-251-06
August Fktafis Dore Shanewi.se
Clara M. Rohlfs 41 Treasure Island
2944 30th St. Laguna Beach, Cal. 92651
San Diego, Cal. 92104
111-066-13 165-251-07
Richard Haster vista Marlin et al
` 2435 W. 1st St. Li>>;an L. Warner
Santa Ana, Cal. 92703 315 S. Rose St.
Burbank, Cal. 91505
111-010-07 165-251-10
Curtis Construction Co. Theodore Manthei
P. O. Box 1367 74565 Dillon Rd.
Saugus, Cal. 91350 Desert Hot Springs, Cal. 92240
111-010-08 165-261-02
Giles E. Wallace Earl D. Fulwiler
602 California St. Theodore Manthei
Huntington Beach, Cal.' 92648 74565 Dillon Rd.
Desert Hot Springs, Cal. 92240
i 111-01U-25 165--261-05
C. W. Poss, Inc. Wm. F. Barry
V. O. Box 1610 Ray M. Keck
mintirgton Beach, Cal. 92647 P. O. Drawer K
Cotulla, Texas 78014
111-340-Ul 165-261-06
Alpha Beta -Co. Theodore Manthei
777 S. Harbor Blvd. Mary Nanthei
La Habra, Cal. 90631 74565 Dillon M.
Desert Hot Springs, Cal. 92240
165-242-01 165-261-09
Melvin F. Wapler Doris E. Gale
16292 Gentry Lane 4422 Tanlinson Ave.
Huntington Beach, Cal. 92647 Arlington, Cal. 92503
1kimiAmW165-242-03
Richard H. Torgerson
16211 Parkside Lane #128
Hunti Beach, Cal. 92647
165-242-U4
Said H. Aly
6018 S. Shenandoah Ave.
Los Angeles, Cal. 90056
151-
25-152-89 Area of concern 2.2 3nI1
Vargaret B Brawn Now. 17, 1977 (JH) Title tle Ins & Trust Co and/or
811 Memphis Avenue James Y Hoskins
Huntington 20371 Seven Seas I
Beach, �i la
92648 Huntington Beach, Calif 92646
` 25-170=03 151-293-03 151-293-12
Stamm Oil Company Title Ins & Trust Co and/or Title Ins & Trust Co and/or
225 Street Bennie Hale Joel Briggs
Hush et
! San BushFran tre Calif
Seven Seas Lane 20361-Seven Seas Lane
94120 Huntington Beach, Calif 92646 Huntington Beach, Calif 92646
25-170-04 151-293-04 151-293-13
R M Pyles Boys Camp Title Ins & Trust Co and/or Title Ins & Trust Co and/or
i P.O. Box 444 Marian V Brewster Francis J Stilam
Huntington Beach, Calif 20451 Seven Seas bane 20402 Seven Seas Dane
92648 Huntington Beach, Calif 92646 Huntington Beach, Calif 92646
25-171-04 151-293-05 151-293-14
Baskara W Martin et a . Title Ins & Trust Co and/or Title Ins & Trust Co and/or
P.O. Box 2412 John W Norman Joseph G Farley
bLewport Beach, -Cali 20441 Seven Seas Lane 20422 Seven Seas Lane
92663 Huntington Beach, Calif 92646 Huntington Beach, Calif 92646
25-171-06 151-293-06 151-293-15
Dal e S Newman Title Ins & Trust Co and/or Title Ins & Trust Co and/or
4600 Mobarca Drive Jimmy N Conklin Michael G Powys
Tarzana, Calif 20431 Severe Seas Lane 20432 Seven Seas Lane
91356 i - Beach, Calif 92646 Huntington Beach, Calif 92646
25-171-08 151-293-07 151-293-16
Alan Chudaeoff et al Title Ins. & Trust Co and/or Title Ins & Trust Co and/or
Dick N Krupp Hubert R A"mintrvtt Thorvald E Hanson
Rt 5 Bmc 6013 16440 Canon Lane 20442 Seven Seas Lane
Escondido, Calif 92026 Cum, Calif .91710 Huntington Beach, Calif 92646
25-172-06 151-293-08 151-293-17
Joe Irvine Title Ins. & Trust Co. and/or Title Ins & Trust Co and/or
818 Joliet Avenue Noon P K Ching Leonard D Shirley
Huntingtion Beach, Calif 20401 Seven Seas Lane 20452 Seven Seas Lane
92648 Hunti.ngban Beach, Calif 92646 Huntington Beach, Calif 92646
151-281-03 151-293-09 151-293-18
Orange County Flood Control Title Ins & Trust Co and/or Title Ins & Trust Co and/or
District Peter J Michelle Henry G Wilson 3rd
P.O. Box 1078 20391 Seven Seas Lane 20472 Seven Sean Zane
Santa Ana, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92646 Huntington Beach, Calif 92646
151-281-06 151-293-10 151-293-19
Lella I Thomson Title Ins & Trust Oo and/or Orange County Flood Control
2105 VictSoria.Drive Clyde V White District
Santa Ana, Calif 20381 Seven.Seas Lane P.O. Boot 1078
92706 Htautingboru Bed, Calif 92646 Santa Ana, Calif
151-293-20 151-342-08
Title Ins & Trust Oo and/or Area of concern 2.2 Title Ins & Trust Co and/or
Lois J Piper Nov. 18, 1917 (JH) Robert D.Sigmon
20361 Somerville Lwie 8022 Driftwood Drive
Huntingtrn Beach, Calif 92646 HUntington Beach, Calif 92646
151-293-21 151-341-02 151-342-09
Title Ins & Trust Co and/or Title Ins & Trust Co and/or Title Ins & Trust Co and/or .
Maureen L. Fischbach Niall P Elliott George C Haas
105 Columbia St 8011 Driftwood Drive 8012 Driftwood Drive
Newport Beach, Calif 92663 Huntington Beach, Calif 92646 Huntington Beach, Calif 92646
151-293-22 151-341-03 H. B. Elementary School District
Title Ins & Trust Co and/or 770 - 17th Street
Harald R Harris Huntington Beach, Calif
Aft" 8001 Driftwood Drive 92648
Huntirygt�on Beach, Calif 92646
151-293-22 151-342-01 rr
Title. Ins & Truat Co and/or Title Ins & Trust Co and/or
Freda Wallace ' - Nicholas V Cinocoo
20381 Somerville Lane 8051 Driftwood Drive
Huntington Beach, Calif 92646 Huntington Beach, Calif 92646
151-293-23 151-342-02 Dept of transportat un
Title Ins & Trust Co and/or Title Ins & Trust Co and/or 120 So Spring Street
Norman R Lee Alfred L Hernandez Los Angeles, Calif 90052
20391 Sanerville Lane 8071 Driftwood Drive Attn: Staff Assistant
Huntington Beach, Calif 92646 Huntington Beach, Calif 92646 Design B
151-293-24 151-342-04
Title Ins & Trust Co and/or Title Ins. & Trust Co and/or
Norman I Harboldt Dale M Block
20401 Somerville Lane 8072 Driftwood Drive
Huntington Beach, Calif 92646 Huntington Beach, Calif 92646
151-293-38 151-342-05
Franchise Realty Title Ins & Trust Co and/or
Interstate Corp Cathleen West
P.O. Box 66207 8062 Driftwood Drive
Chicago, Ill. 60666 Huntington Beach, Calif 92646
151-293-40 151-342-06
Joe Irvine Title Ins & Trust W and/or
%Joe *Irvine Market James H Worcester
126 Main Street 8042 Driftwood Drive
Huntington Beach, Calif 92646 Hunthigton Beach, dalif 92646
151-341-01 151-342-07
Tithe Ins & Trust Co and/or Title Ins & Trust Co and/or
John W Swain Raleigh L Hammond
8031 Driftwood Drive 8032 Driftwood Drive
Huntington Beach, Calif 92646 Huntington Beach, Calif 92646
t
WHITE-CITY ATTORNEY �, CITY OF HUNTINGTQb BEACH No.
� BLUE-CITY CLERK
GREEN-CITY ADMINISTRATOR
CANARY-DEPARTMENTAL ,w�,�•,w��„� REQUEST for ORDINANCE or'-RESOLUTION
Date Request made by Department
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 be introduced. Print or type facts necessary for City Attorney's.use in preparation of ordinance. In a separate
paragraph outline briefly reasons for the request of Council Action.Attach all papers pertinent to the subject.All appropriation requests must '
he cleared and approved by the Director of Finance before submitting to City Administrator's Office.
Preparation of an Ordinance or�Rsolution s hereby requested:
y
,t
Desired effective date Signed: / Approved as to availability of funds
)k ' '/ f /� Director of Finance
City Attorney—Please prepare and,,submitrprinted copies to this office by: / f'
City Administrator
•t�
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
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-
lished in Huntington Beach, California and circulated in the said
County of Orange and elsewhere and published for the dissemination
of local and other news of a general character, and has a bona fide
subscription list of paying subscribers, and said paper has been
established, printed and published in the State of California, and
County of Orange, for at least one year next before the publication - 1
of the first insertion of this notice; and the said newspaper is not �Publ;shed Huntington Beach News, Dec,
devoted to the interest of, or published for the entertainment of any s 1977.
particular class, profession, trade, calling, race or denomination, or NOTICE OF PUBLIC HE
any number thereof. APPEAL
The Huntington Beach New was adjudicated a legal newspaper ` PflC.t brtibn of GPA BY 77.E — Part 2
jVl)TIGE IS HEREBY GIVEN t#iat a pub-
of general circulation by Judge G. K. Scovel in the Superior Court tic hebl"rig will be held bY.the city Coun-
of Orange County, California August 27th, 1937 by order No. A-5931. C:l of the City of Huntington Beach, in
the Council Chanibed of the Civic OeAt%
Huntington Beadh,.at. the host:of 7:3!)
That the APPEAL P.M., or as soon thereafteot sDecembei, ;
on Monday the 19th day
11977, for the purpose of considering ail
PORTION OF GPA NO- 77-3 PART 2 ;appeal to the denial by the Planning
of which the annexed is a Commission i the area of concern west
2 f I
printed Copy, was published in said news- (South of Edinger Avenue
General Plan
,Bolsa Cl, Street) of Part 2 initiated
F.mendment No. 773
paper at least one issue by the Pian6ing Commission.
All interested persons are .invited to
ss heir
attend said hearing and expreea1. t'
commencing from the 8th day of December opini ns for or against saidPaart 2
portion of GPA No. 77-3"r b obtained''
I rurther information may - e
19-2.7- 8, and ending on the th day of De c e gibe r from the Wfice of the City'Clerk.
DATED: December„7;_'1977.
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
By: AEcia M.Wentworth
19-ZZ_ both days inclusive, and as often during said period and city Clerk_
times of publication as said paper was regularly issued, and in the
regular and entire issue of said pewspaper proper, and not in a
supplement, and said notice was published therein on the following
dates, to-wit:
Dec. 8 , 1977
P usher
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 9 th day of
December is32
Notary Public
Orange County, California
--------,------- ---- -- ---•Y
THOMAS D. WYLUS I
NotaryPublic-Calliornle i
Orange County
My Commission Expires i
September 12. 1978 �
------
___
City of Huntington Beach
County of Orange
State of California
J ffidavit ofPublication
of GEORGE FARQUHAR
Publisher Huntington Beach News
Filed
Clerk
By
Deputy Clerk
7
Publish 12/8/77
Postcards 40
NOTICE OF PUBLIC NEARING
APPEAL
Portion of GPA No. 77-3 - Part 2
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
P.M. , or as soon thereafter as possible, on Monday
the 19th day of December 1977 . for the purpose of
considering an appeal to the denial by the Planning Commission of the area of
concern 2.1 (South of Edinger Avenue and West of Bolsa Chica Street) of the General
Plan Amendment No. 77-3 - Part 2 s, initiated ,
by the Planning Commission.
All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and
express their opinions for or against said appeal to a portion.of GPA No 77-3-Part 2,
s.
Further information may be obtained from the Office of the City
Clerk .
DATED:— 12/7/77 CITY OF-_ HUNPINGTON BEACH
By: Alicia M. Wentworth
City Clerk
I I
I
� I
I '
I I
I I ,
I
I '
6"r6
3Tm 'w-w" 1
OT-3m. am Mt
' saf umop V D TMD
I
I I
' 6►9Z6
3T M 'tp"H uDwk7*nw
' FIM YI
6.�M•�Z6
I ,
TTTVD '4-woH V,�..6., �
a'TWT3 OM TO6f
_ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - r - - - - - - - - - - - -- -�T�LLO�f3tT
I � ,
6►9Z6
TTM 'tr-mm anH
QT=T3 OM T68►
- - - - - - - - - - i - - - - - - - - -- -- - - - - - - - - - L - - - - - - - - - -- - - - a -Cl
I I
' BLZOi6
I ; JTTgJ '��'OB aiptl�lPalT
i OUrI PWATV V--TZ►Z
ASS A
- - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - -- - - - - - - - --- - - -- - - - A- - - - -'-'ZLO-ELT
g ubfm
ZS006 J I I o wlea li an &I=" OM T98►
466J48 &rpft '08 OCT w[AN M I=v
- - - - - - - - � - - - - - - - -�- _ _ _ � - - - - - - - - - - - -- -60�L"LT
L►9Z6 i 6►M
uoq&rpum : ;Tm 140Ise A ,Va wl
WNWW MWW ZL6L DT=IZ IWOU4 q Z989T
IoTx3sTp T=M wfA uouop n 'I
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---- 8o-LLO-8LT
I -
� 6►9Z6 ; 6►9Z6
OTWT, OM T►6► ' SATJa Wit Z88►
TV 30 UT948 a PIMM ; GO'Tsd 1s AXV'J
LO-CLO-rALT
E89Z6
" I TTTrJ ' Is IMP IN
Mr) 446T 'LT 'mN ' &ATia twjp') TST6
III UXKXM so I t2v wpmw -I X*nC
I
I
� ( k
l G�
__ _- - - - - - ell
---- ---- ---
- - --- - - - - -
.95-0 30-15 ' 178-071-18
Cossanding Officer i Area of concern 2. 1 ; Ooerge W Pearos
U.S. Weapons Station ' Nov. 17, 1977 (JU) + 18072 Lakepoint Vine
Attn: Public Works off ices; � � teach. Calif
Seal Beach, Calif 90740 92647
--- - - ---- - - - ------ -- - - -
179-071-01 ; 178-071-10 ; 178-071-19
Shall Oil O° ! Y Kay + H EJ Eigtoy
---am frax Mj ; 9188 caladium Av+a m 16411 Barnstable circle
1 P.O. Boat 3397 , lbistAin l;h l ley 0 Ca I f , Huntin4ton abach, Cm1 if
710100 Aix 1 92708 92649
- -- -------------- -- - - -- - -- - - - - - - - - ---- - - - - -Y-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
los An geJAW, Calif ' 179-071-11 ' 178-071-20
90051 ; Sanfocd Vinas ; Sea Gate Immstm LaV
P.O. boa 2.21 369 San Miyuel Drive Suite 110
8nrfaids, Calif Newport Beach, call
i 90743 i 92660
- - - - - - - -- - - - - - -
170-071-03 178-071-12 , 178-071-21 - - - - - - -
Charlm Walters + Harold W roster Jr Jeane S Lang
4029 Alladin hive 16102 Waikiki Lame ; 16061 Bolsa Chiaa Street
liurttingbon Beach, Calif + Huntington Beach, Calif Hunti r gtcn 9WKb, Calif
92649 ; 92649 92649
178-071-04 178-071-13 178-071-22
Gary N Van Ho m Mr=n Litvak at al ; k ntington i Ouurt Club
49U F"m Derive Apt C 17121 Northfield Lane ' 8961 Cam,lex Or Suits C
Wantingtcn aaach, Calif ; buatingt m Branch, Calif San Diego, Calif
92649 92647 92123
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -
178-071-M 178-071-14 178-072-01
GearW N Psume ; Newhall J Schaffer ; Boki d G.Williams
18072 Lakepoint Lane 16072 Waikiki Lame 16672 Somerset Lane
axttingtan eeacl1, Calif Hu'umt on beach, Calif + khmtington buach, (:alit
92647 92649 92649
- - -- - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -L - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -+ . • . . . -
- - - - - - - -179-071-07 170-071-15 178-072-02
7honaa J O'Oorunll + E&% d J Hockey ; Alan P Ard rson
15071 Sevilla Circle ' 18482 Goodwin L -a 4952 Kona thrive
Hmtingten &MCI,, Calif ftmrtington Bleach, Calif � h ntingt�on beach, Calif
92647 + 92649 92649
- - - -- - - - •- -- - - - - - - - -I - .. .. - - - - - - - - - Y - - - - - - - - -
178-071-08 + 178--071-16 , 178-072-03
BLUM M Killer ; Irving Neran Hugh P Gipe
4901 y"n Drive 16312 Ms xWAy Circle ; 461 S Ivera Avwvm
►lntington 8wcti, calif ; Hurtington Beach, Calif Lcx'g IkuLc h, Calif
92649 92649 90803
- - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
178--071-09
178-071-17 ; i78-072-0� - - - - .
Norman G Woodard + Marto C spatola at al + Yung 1f Sun
4891 Rana Drive ; 6122 warner Ave Apt 8 ' 5011 Harkeley Avusm
1 Amtirxjton Heath, Calif + Untin3tan Beach, Calif Wastminsta r, Cali!
92649 92647 92683
- - - - - - _ _ - - - - - - - - - - -
Licensed - Insured"�Cn(atC
r ffr
PHONE: 846-5775 r y H, 17232 MARINA VIEW PLACE
AREA CODE(714) / �Z n 4 S:JF J HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA.92649
77- � � Z r- 2 ` 1
1<2f�
�� wwt
' Art Craft Business Forms(714)535.7957
USE BALL POINT PEN ONLY —PRESS FIRMLY
® CASH RECEIPT
Ho
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
P.O.BOX 711
HUNTINGTON BEACH,CALIFORNIA 92648
(714)536.5511
CITY TREASURER —WARREN G. HALL
DEPT. ISSUING DATE
RECEIVED FROM
_ ed!!"
ADDRESS
FOR
AMOUNT RECEIVED
CASH CHECK
A.B.A.sM /v\
RECEIVED BY
ACCOUNT AMOUNT
TOTAL
NO. 88595 Customer
G. A Building .Enterprises, lnc.
Licensed - Insured - Bonded
PHONE: 846.5775 17232 MARINA VIEW PLACE
AREA CODE(714) HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA.92649
12/13/1977
The vacant lot this appeal is for currently is zoned
C-2 with R-3 adjacent to the South and to the West. The lot is
136 ft. wide and approx. 550 ft. in depth with alleys on the Ease
South and West sides. The rear one—half is undesirable for a
proper commercial project because of the narrow street frontage
in relationship to great lot depth and any exposure for rear
developement will be off the side alley.This request for zone
change went to planning commission hearing with a 68 page draft
report in which the zone change to R-3 had full staff recommend-
-ation. Of the four parties who opposed this change of zone, two
are now more in favor of the change than against it because after
seeing plot plan lay—outs and considering the fact this amount of
units would produce less people than commercial useage. The other
two opposing parties have not,as of today,answered my letter
regarding plot plan and any further discussion.
I propose -32 studio garden type units each with their
own garages and ground level patios and two large centeral open
green areas plus additional guest parking all to be built
conforming to the City of Huntington Beach Building Dept. and
. Land Use Board requirements.
I respectfully ask the City Council to also consider
the attached draft pages numbered 3,4 and 5
Thank You
Gar Potter
1 ■ i
2. 0' AREAS OF CONCERN
This -'section deals with each issue area designated in Figure 2-1 .
2. 1 South of Edinger Avenue and West of Bolsa Chica Street.
2. 1. 1 Background
The area of concern is located south of Edinger Avenue and
west of Bolsa Chica Street (Figure 2-2) . In October, 1977 ,
G.P. Building Enterprises Inc. requested that the City
consider redesignating the property from commercial to
high density residential.
The 1.78 _gross acre site is presently vacant and designated
commercial. The property to the south and west is designated
medium density residential but is developed to R3 densities
with a small office professional use on the northern most
boundary of the residential development. To the north
across Edinger Avenue is unincorporated federal property and
a commercial center is operative to the east.
3
2 . 1 .2 Analysis
The property is properly located for commercial or high
density residential use. The property meets the following
locational criteria for high density residential use:
The property is 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, and d) near or highly accessible to work areas.
These same criteria are applicable for commercial uses.
The property is in a quartersection identified in the
August, 1977 Parks Analysis as having greater demand for
park supply than is available. However , the close proximity
of the property to an existing park site somewhat mitigates
this deficiency. Schools are also located nearby. Haven-
view School has capacity to support additional elementary
school age children and Marina High School is located a mile to the east.
Commercial development already exists at the intersection of
Bolsa Chica Street and Edinger Avenue. In addition, there
is additional commercial development on Bolsa Chica Street
south to Warner Avenue. A commercial center is located on
Algonquin Street in Huntington Harbour as well. The property
is an awkward configuration for commercial development with
inadequate frontage to serve the entire site. If commercial
development is desired for this location, it should be
limited to the northern half of the property.
2.1. 3 Staff Recommendation
The area of concern should be redesignated high density resi-
dential.
2 .1 .4 Planning Commission Recommendation
5
• .' 1 r
�-J
FLAMINGO CR -
BLUEJAY CR.
_ m -
W W
m3
v) ROBINWOOD DR.
Z W E �
z J S E I g
m
UNINCORPORATED W A Row DR. Z _
Q J
c
70 O IT] 17
SKYLARK DR.
0. C.
C IhL t ' t
3�v
I DR
r) � _RE Y
1 Z —
CF-E J J
CXAYEN 1-MIN LINDA CR <
SCHOOL) KONA I OR. n��
b � T . L `
N
CHERYL DR Z
fl
<n ¢
HILO CR. 0
� i I
rKAUlR. SISSON
�
M iPROPOSED
Tp_
ir MEADOWL
AREA OF CONCERN 2.1
SOUTH OF EDINGER AVENUE
& WEST OF BOLSA CHICA STREET
4Adft Fig. 2-2
95-030-15 178-071-18
Commanding Officer Area of ,concern 2.1 Goerge W Psaros
U.S. Weapons Station Nov. 17, 1977 (JH) 18072 Lakepoint Lane
Attn: Public Works Officer Huntington Beach, Calif g,
Seal Beach, Calif 90740 92647 "
178-071-01 178-071-10: 178-071-19
Shell Oil Co F X Kay H H Eighmy qq0V
Western Tax Region 9188 Caladium Avenue 1 Circle
P.O. BOx 3397 Fountain Valley, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
Tem Annex 92708 92649
Los Angeles, Calif 178-071-11 178-071-20
90051 Sanford Vines Sea Gate Investors LTD
P.O. Box 221 369 San Miguel Drive Suite 11
Surfside, Calif Newport Beach, Calif
90743 92660
178-071-03 178-071-12 178-071-21
Charles Walters Harold W Foster Jr Jeane S Long
4029 Alladin Drive 16102 Waikiki Lane 16061 Bolsa Chica Street
Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
92649 92649 92649
178-071-04 178-071-13 178-071-22
Gary}N Van Horne Norman Litvak et al Huntington Beach Court Club
s
4931 -Kona Drive Apt C 17121 Northfield Lane 8961 Complex Dr Suite C
Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif San Diego, Calif
92649 ' 92647 92123
178-071-06 178-071-14 178-072-01
George'W Psaros Marshall J Schaffer Bobbie G Williams
18072 Lakepoint Lam 16072 Waikiki Lane 16672 Somerset Lane
Huntington'Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
92647 92649 92649
178-071-07 ` 178-071-15 178-072-02
Thanes J O'Connell Edward J Hockey Alan F Anderson
15071 Sevilla Circle 18482 Goodwin Lane 4952 Kara Drive
Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
92647 92649 92649
3
178-071-08 178-071-16 178-072-03
Rtt= M Miller -.' Irving Newman Hugh P Gipe
4901 Kona Drive 16312 Mandalay Circle 461 S Ivera Avenue
Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Lang Beach, Calif
92649 92649 90803
178-071-09 178-071-17 178-072-04
N6=an G Woodard. Mario C Spatola et al Yung Ii Sun
�4891'Kcna Drive 6122 Warner Ave Apt 8 5011 Berkeley Avenue
Huntingtcai Beach, Calif I,Intington Beach, Calif Westminster, Calif
92649' 92647 92683
�t
r
178=072-06
F�
Junior L Martin r Area of concern 2.1
9151 Obsidian Drive Nov. 17, 1977 (JH) '
Westminster, Calif
92683
178-072-07 178-072-15
Gary R Price Howard E Stein et al
4882 Kona Drive 4941 Hilo Circle i
Huntington Beach, Calif;w! • Huntington Beach, Calif
92649 92649
178-072-08 178-091-01
Robert L Chick Ocean View School District
16852 Harkness Circle 7972 Warner Avenue -
Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
92649 92647
178-072-09 Dept. of transportation
Jerry W Naylor 120 So. Spring Street
4861 Hilo Circle Los Angeles, Calif 90052
t Huntington Beach, Calif Attn: Staff Assistant
92649 Design B
1178-072-10
Edwaxd V Shensky
2421-A Alvord Lane
Redondo Beach, Calif
!-178-072-11
Kenneth G Mack
4891 Hilo Circle -
Huntington Beach, Calif
92649
178-072-12
Dorian A Vergilio
4901 Hilo Circle
Huntington Beach, Calif
92649
178-072-13
Lawrence A Ward
4911 Hilo Circle
Huntington Beach, Calif
92649
178-072-14
Charles A Hollinger
4921 Hilo Circle
Huntington Beach, Calif
92649
t
i the undersigned would not be opposed to a zone change from
commercial C-2 to residential R-3 at Edinger and Bolsa Chica
in Huntington Beach.
NAME ADDRESS
Do /�7s 6/Le�j IL001
141
- 4
(22
C/ '9� Ar0000l��
1
�. 3
i
I the undersigned would not be opposed to a zone change from
commercial C-2 to residential R-3 at Edinger and Bolsa Chica
in Huntington Beach.
NAME ADDRESS
v.F/r
i
4
7�L�.
r h
T ( � �P 2 0, AeL /Z
I the undersigned would not be opposed to a zone change from
commercial C-2 to residential R-3 at Edinger and Bolsa Chica
in Huntington Beach.
NAME ADDRESS
17
160
/1 1
(^ /
31
: - 1
I the undersigned would not be opposed to a zone change from
commercial C-2 to residential R-3 at Edinger and Bolsa Chica
in Huntington Beach.
NAME ADDRESS
0'&
4- /�4t
102-2,1
l
a 6C_
�. � Z-1
I the undersigned would not be opposed to a zone change from
commercial C-2 to residential R-3 at Edinger and Bolsa Chica
in Huntington Beach.
NAME ADDRESS
-yy IVA
I the undersigned would not be opposed to a zone change from
commercial C-2 to residential R-3 at Edinger and Bolsa Chica
in Huntington Beach.
NAME ADDRESS
G9 y k71 qM-Qr
7o ��J
71,
X,
1-07
U
v
I the undersigned would not be opposed to a zone change from
commercial C-2 to residential R-3 at Edinger and Bolsa Chica
in Huntington Beach.
NAME ADDRESS
1115; Ice
C c !< �_l
I the undersigned would not be opposed to a zone change from
commercial C-2 to residential R-3 at Edinger and Bolsa Chica
in Huntington Beach.
NAME ADDRESS
QIM, s-d7� ��
William C. Clapet Fleetwof,Joiner Plar g/Architecture/Engineering
December 19, 1977
Mayor Pro-tem Shenkman
and Members of the City Council
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 9264E
Re: General Plan Amendment 77-3, Part 2
The general plan guidelines promulgated by the California Council on Inter-
governmental Relations state that:
"The Planning and Zoning Law (of the State of California) requires each
city and county to establish a Planning Agency and a Planning Process to
guide future growth and change in accordance with a framework of officially
adopted goals and policies directed to land use, circulation, housing,
environmental quality, wise use and conservation of resources, safety, and
other relevant physical , 6ocial and economic factors. "
The Guidelines go on further to state: "Citizen participation, public input,
and reaction are a key part of every phase in the planning process."
A primary responsibility of the Planning Agency is to assist the decision-
maker in assessing the probable consequences and relative advantages of
alternative courses of action, and to make recomendations regarding them. To
fulfill this duty effectively, the Planning Agency should maintain complete,
accurate, and up-to-date information and data on all aspects of the jurisdiction.
Our roie here is to assist in providing and perhaps underscoRe, certain information
which we feel mandates retaining the industrial classification on this piece of
land.
The issue before you tonight is whether to alter the general plan of the City of
Huntington Beach to allow medium density residential uses on this previously
industrially designated site. With our state law requiring conformance between
zoning and land use plan, this general plan ammendment is tantamount to a zone
change. Conceivably it could be labled as spot zoning;.:which is prohibited by
State Law, We are, however, not really interested in arguing the relative merits
of this specific proposal , but rather the assets of maintaining this area as a
much needed industrial base for the economic and social well-being of the City
of Huntington Beach.
714/640-5060
359 San Miguel Rd.
'� 4c Nev,/port Center
- - 4 Ne\Ajpor'r Beach,Co.
92660
~ 0 •
December 19, 1977
Re: General Plan Amendment 77-3, Part 2 Page-2-
The concerns which we would like to focus on include:
1. Diversified Tax Base
A. Need for industrial , commercial as well as residential
land. uses.
B. Income Generated by Industrial
-Sales Tax (Lumber Co. 's)
-jobs
-Property Tax
C. Industrial Growth in Huntington Beach
-Decreasing Dependance on Oil
-Increase in Diversified Uses
2. Importance of the Industrial Corridor
A. Extant Road/Rail Facilities
B. Significance of Huntington Beach in Orange County F9arket
C. Energy/Jobs Considerations
3. Need to Establ sh Continuity and Credibility
We hope this information and presentation will assist you in your decision making
process, and we further hope you agree with our concerns and objectives.
Thank you for your time.
Respectifully,
ARCHI+TEKTON, INC.
Manuel E. Perez
Planning Program Coordinator
MEP:jr
i5uuaauic)u]/@JNoai!uov/buiuuold aouior 9 poonA4aa1j �adop .3 woill!M
WiIliam C. Clapet Flee*B.Joiner Ping/Architecture/Engineering
December 19, 1977
66
Mayor Pro-tern Shenknnan
anu Menbers of the City Counc,l
City of Huntington Reach
2000 Main S_tree-t —
FlanI`'g not not Seach, CA
Re: General Plan Amendment 77-3, Part 2
The general plan gu i del i i�els--pr-oi►�ia1 gated by the Cali ornia Council. on Inter-
governmental Relations state that:
"The Planning and Zcning Law (of the 'State of California) requires each
city and county to establish a Planning Agency and a Pl-nninrg Process to
guide future gr•o:•,:Ch and change in accordance with a fra„zwor,< of officially
adopted goals and p;,l :cies directed to lard use, circulation, housing,
environmental quality, wise use and conse-i-vation of resources, safety, and
other ielevan,t physical , social and economic factors."
The Guidelines go on further to state: "Citizen participation, public input,
and reac�ion are a kay part of every phase• in the planping process. "
A pri!nary responsibility of :.he Planning Agency is Lo assist the decision-
maker in assessing the probapl e cons ee,riences a,id relative advantage.; of
alternative courses of ?ctlion, and to riake recoi-oendati;;ns rcgardinG then,,. To
i of !'ill this duty effect-Ovely, the Planning Agency ;"ou l d maintain comple-te,
acc.a,-ate, and uvtc-cad:^ information and data on all aspects of the jurisdiction.
Our ;ofe here is to assist in Providing and perhaps under'sco�,N, certain in or:,lation
whic`, we feel mandates retaii.ing the industrial classification on this 016ce ozI
land.
The issue before you tonight is whether to altF'r" t!,e general plan of the City of
Huntington Beach to a'l1o^.•r modium density residential uses or this previously
industrially designated site. With our state I�tw requiring confor-r,ance between
zoning and land use plan, this general plan ammendment is tantamount to a zone
change. Conceivably i z could be lab led as sec L zoning- which is pi ohi�lited by
State Law. We are, however, not really interested in arguing the relatA ,- merits
of this specific proposal , but rather the assets of maintaining this area as a
much needed industrial rase for the -r-orio ni c and social well-being of the City
of Huntington Beach.
714/640-5060
359 Scn Miguel Rd.
c ■ F , Newport Center
Newport Beach,Co.
92660
r ,
December 19, 1977
Re: General Plan Amendment 77-3, Part 2 Page-2-
The concerns which we would like to focus on include:
1. Diversified Tax Base
A. Need for industrial , commercial as well as residential
land. uses.
B. Income Generated by Industrial
-Sales Tax (Lumber Co. 's)
-jobs
-Property Tax
C. Industrial Growth in Huntington Beach
-Decreasing Dependance on Oil
-Increase in Diversified Uses
2. Importance of the Industrial Corridor
A. Extant Road/Rail Facilities
B. Significance of Huntington Beach in Orange County Market
C. Energy/lobs Considerations
3. Need to Establibh Continuity and Credibility
We hope this information and presentation will assist you in your decision making
process, and we further hope you agree with our concerns and objectives.
Thank you for your time.
Respectifully,
ARCHI+TEKTON, INC.
"'12
Manuel E. Perez
Planning Program Coordinator
MEP:jr
C)uuaauibu3/an4oai!(4oay/buluucld aauior 0 poo/vqaal j ladc)13 '3 wc)illiM
RESOLUTION NO. 4572
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. 77-3, PART 2 AND ENVIRON-
MENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 77-13 THERETO
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach
desires to update and refine the Land Use Element of the
General Plan and amend the scheduling of General Plan amend-
ments in keeping with changing community needs and objectives ;
and
General Plan Amendment No. 77-3, Part 2 and Environmental
Impact Report No. 77-13 thereto are necessary to meet the com-
munity needs ; and
Public hearing on adoption of said amendment and EIR 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. 77-3, Part 2 and EIR No . 77-13; and
At said hearing before the City Council all persons desiring
to be heard on said amendment and EIR were heard,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Huntington Beach, pursuant to provisions of Title 7,
Chapter 3, Article 6 of the Government Code of the State of
California, commencing with Section 65357, that General Plan
Amendment No. 77-3, Part 2 and Environmental Impact Report
No. 77-13 thereto are hereby approved and adopted, and the Land
Use Element of the General Plan and the scheduling of General
Plan amendments is hereby amended.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
MT:ahb
1.
0
Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 19th
day of December, 1977.
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Clerk ity At or ,-
REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND A ROVED:
QUY7pJ
. City Administrator Planning r c or
2.
Redo. 4572
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
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 19th day
of December , 1977 by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmen:
Bartlett, Coen, Gibbs, Siebert, Shenkman, Pattinson
NOES: Councilmen:
None
ABSENT: Councilmen:
W ieder
City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk
of the City Council of the City
of Huntington Beach, California
Oversize
Document in
File
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 77-3
PART 2. : MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS.
december, �977
OR Q50
3rd Draft
m
huMingfon beach planning department
ti
TABLE OF CONTENTS
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 77-3
SECTION Page
1. 0 INTRODUCTION 1
1. 1 Methodology 1
2 . 0 AREAS OF CONCERN 3
2 . 1 South of Edinger Avenue and West of 3
Bolsa Chica Street
2. 2 North of Indianapolis and East of 6
Beach Boulevard
2 . 3 South of Atlanta Avenue and. East of 8
Beach Boulevard
2 . 4 North of Pacific Coast Highway and 11
East of Beach Boulevard
2 . 5 South of Slater Avenue and East of the Railroad 15
Right-of-Way
2 . 6 Ministerial Item/Timing of General Plan Amendments 18
3. 0 AMENDMENTS SUMMARY 19
3 . 1 Area by Area Summary 19
3 . 2 Summary of General Plan Amendment 21
77-3, Part 2
4 . 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 23
4 . 1 Introduction 23
4 . 2 Environmental Setting 24
4 . 3 Environmental Impacts and Mitigating 32
Measures
4 . 4 Alternatives 46
4 . 5 Short-Term and Long-Term Productivity 46
4 . 6 I.rreversible Impacts 47
4 . 7 Growth Inducing Impacts 48
4 . 8 Environmental Checklist 49
4 , 9 Consultants 70
Footnotes 71
Addendum 73
f 4
IV
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 and the General Plan Amendment
Maps 77-1 and 77-2 .
1 . 1 Methodology
This amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element is designed
to investigate some areas where changing conditions require re-
consideration of past decisions . The changes considered in the
amendment derive from requests from property owners and the Planning
Commission. In Section 2. 0 , Planning Issues , each case is discussed
and analyzed in terms of existing conditions and impact on sur-
rounding areas as well as consistency with City goals and policies .
Section 3 . 0 summarizes the recommendations contained in Section 2 . 0
in the form of a comprehensive text and plan to be adopted. Section
4 . 0 presents an Environmental Impact Report for the amendment as
required by the California Environmental Quality Act.
MR
Land Use Categories
RESIDENTIAL
Estate <_2 un/gac
Estate <_4 un/gac
.f Low Density <_7 un/gac
dam` r a Medium Density <_15 un/gac
5A" High Density >15 un/gac
COMMERCIAL
General
Office Professional
®� ®Mixed Development
- INDUSTRIAL
0
I
n ra G ee
. .............
PUBLIC USE
t
Public Quasi- ublic Institutional
n
P Space
e
-;
br:o
L.. _
r�
PLANNING
ING UNITS
L
an m v n' r e
PI
............................
I 9 Rese
A
0
Planne
d Co
mmunity mmu nit
Y
l
OTHER US
ES
��-
I
................... ...
.................. ......
................. ...... \ /
................ .......
................� " ..Ft�',.�ti1a ���, Resource Production
f.
;MOO'.
Kb"
WV
f.
f
r.l /
i,'9•r
�,1 -- ,!^a., eq;.• .tea'
F� r.<t;
11 -
.d
q�FN:
ia-
r, •r=-�t%f -
)
vA 7
.....................
1'l
.. .t" off""., AQ'pQ�'3'tl - _• - .� --
ul t
O
? t>rx
a
3s
A
h.
W
H
H G.�
a
1C CO AS
T
1F
z -
'Y
�r
j -
/r
�v -
Y,F i
S 1 1
✓'a
rl t' w.S
k5�
-y
- 3 r�
r�
'�T r
- l Asa.. iY
r�'7
- -_:;� �%' 'mow✓L��=4
- -- _ „-v .:�:,• 4�x�<„ _„,. PACE 1
PAC67C - L_�� t,�>y"A _ �iP�,�moe.,+��;ooa.�ot�•'°poP.y' ,I�'�"��'°v j -
OaAN
-
Ash
1
HUNTINGTON Bfi4CH, C9LIFORNIA Figure 3-� 2 ,y GENERAL PLAN
LAND ce
PIANNING DEPARTME9 December DIAGRAM
X-RM"31f
1
i
6 i
Go lop
lot
f°4� any �'♦,' �Ioin�1 i♦�.` mQl.` �♦,y�Pa ���0
9Ti �1` 0+ 1
9 : p ` ♦� P
J �
1i ♦�
A1 FP ♦-♦
G74, '♦i
r ♦i♦ 0P
I i
__ of
■ (( PALM
>)> V
/ ORANGE
PACIFIC COAST HWY
LEGEND
HUNTINGTON BE CH, 01LIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL ADOPTED
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 -
1
i
s
i■#
Ile
6 ® •'e
s, P
- S
a e
f e-e
s
a � �
� PALM
/ A E
PACIFIC COAST W4VY-
I
AdMi
HUNINGTON BrACH, OILIFORNIA LEGEND
KANNING DEPARTMEII RESIDENTIAL ADOPTED
Low Density 0-7 un/gac GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 77 - 2
Medium Density 8-15 un/gac
PLANNING UNITS
® Planning Reserve
2 . 0 AREAS OF CONCERN
This section deals with each issue area designated in Figure 2-1 .
2 . 1 South of Edinger Avenue and West of Bolsa Chica Street.
2. 1. 1 Background
The area of concern is located south of Edinger Avenue and
west of Bolsa Chica Street (Figure 2-2) . In October, 1977 ,
G.P. Building Enterprises Inc . requested that the City
consider redesignating the property from commercial to
high density residential.
The 1. 78 gross acre site is presently vacant and designated
commercial. The property to the south and west is designat
medium density residential but is developed to R3 densities
with a small office professional use on the northern most
boundary of the residential development. To the north
across Edinger Avenue is unincorporated federal property and
a commercial center is operative to the east.
3
It
FLAMINGO CR
BLUEJAY- CR. o�c --
w a -
H m -- H
co ROBINWOOD DR.
- Z 7SI
I I
z J � I
U
UNINCORPORATED Q - W 'ARROW DR. g -
- - 0
_1 pC - t
O 0 ! _ .
SKYLARK DR.
0. C.
DR
AUDREY
Z -
(;;AVER •. 'Ew LINOA CR Q
M E I
Ciit�t�L) KONA DR. — -- + _r S T Z
_ D rT L N
CHE RYL DRcr
Z
W
HILO CR. o ! ! 3
KAUt DR. SISSON
SIT mft
PROPOSED
MEADOWL
AREA OF CONCERN 2.1
SOUTH OF EDINGER AVENUE
& WEST OF BOLSA CHICA STREET
4Adft Fig. 2-2
I •L.
ib
s
• 2.s � \
'y
F `
•
2.2
72-3
2A
i
Fig.2-1
Vt 4Wl �DEPMUMEN AREAS OF CONCERN
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 77-3
PART 2:MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS
2 . 1 . 2 Analysis
The property is properly located for commercial or high
density residential use. The property meets the following
locational criteria for high density residential use:
The property is 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, and d) near or highly accessible to work areas.
These same criteria are applicable for commercial uses.
The property is in a quartersection identified in the
August, 1977 Parks Analysis as having greater demand for
park supply than is available. However , the close proximity
of the property to an existing park site somewhat mitigates
this deficiency . Schools are also located nearby. Haven-
view School has capacity to support additional elementary
school age children and Marina High School is located a mile to the east.
Commercial development already exists at the intersection of
Bolsa Chica Street and Edinger Avenue. In addition, there
is additional commercial development on Bolsa Chica Street
south to Warner Avenue. A commercial center is located on
Algonquin Street in Huntington Harbour as well . The property
is an awkward configuration for commercial development with
inadequate frontage to serve the entire site. If commercial
development is desired for this location, it should be
limited to the northern half of the property.
2 .1. 3 Staff Recommendation
The area of concern should be redesignated high density 'resi-
dential.
2 .1 . 4 Planning Commission Recommendation
The Planning Commission recommends retention of the
commercial designation. The vote was four (4) for, one
(1) against, and one (1) abstention.
J
fy t
0
I • I
2. 2 North of Indianapolis Avenue and East of
Beach Boulevard
2 . 2 . 1 Background
The area of concern is located north of Indianapolis
and east of Beach Boulevard (Figure 2-3) . In early
September the Planning Commission directed staff to
analyze land use potentials for the area of concern
prior to an ultimate determination of Zone Case 77-21
(1. 86 .acres) .
The expanded 8. 24 gross acre site is partially developed
with a nursery and a fast food restaurant. An abandoned
barn is located on a portion of the remaining vacant
acreage. To the east and south are single family homes,
to the, west across Beach Boulevard are some commercial
uses and on the north is .oil extraction activity.
2. 2 . 2 Analysis
The location of the property is such that a multiple
residential use or a commercial use would be feasible.
The area of concern is located half way between vacant
commercial property north of Adams Avenue and vacant.
and developed commercial on Atlanta Avenue, consequently
commercial development in the area of concern is not
necessary for service of the surrounding land uses .
Also, the site is in an area of surplus park availability
and school facilities are nearby. A residential use would
not prove to be too great a burden on these facilities .
Beach Boulevard has regional commercial significance
and the existing commercial uses on the site serve more
than the surrounding residential uses, especially the
fast food restaurant. Both existing commercial uses are
successful; consequently, redesignating the site resi-
dential would have no immediate effect on land uses and
could discourage maintenance of the .quality of the uses .
Therefore, only the southern portion of the site could
reasonably be considered residential use. However, the
site is not of sufficient depth to permit the necessary
setbacks for noise protection and provision of proper
access from either Beach Boulevard or Indianapolis Avenue
and still provide a desirable residential project.
6
AVE. r
Z.C. 77-21
-ME. I UM DENS TY EL
P-FqI AVE. CD �-
I �.. i.
T t
_.. -- ►— `is _� MUNST E R
I
� I i
E. rs='i
o i I
MALLOY Z
wO >
W J, IY ;
L AVE.
\ p
�, DF21FTWpOD
AVE. Fll
E88TIDE CE F7 77 CF E
I
e<7
SAIL.---CR.
AREA OF CONCERN 2.2
NORTH OF INDIANAPOLIS & EAST
OF BEACH BOULEVARD
Alft Fig. 2-3
Am
i r
I • ,
2 . 2 . 3 Staff Recommendation
The area of concern should maintain a designation of
commercial .
2 . 2 . 4 Planning Commission Recommendation
The Planning Commission recommends retention of the
commercial designation. The vote was six (6) for and
none (0) against.
2. 3 South of Atlanta Avenue and East of Beach Boulevard
This item is for information only, no action is to betaken..
2 . 3 . 1 Background
The area of concern is located south of Atlanta Avenue and
east of Beach Boulevard. In September, 1977, Bijan
Sassounian requested that the City consider redesignating
8 . 32 gross acres of the 9 . 89 gross acre site from com-
mercial and planning reserve to high density residential
(Figure 2-4) .
The site is presently vacant and designated commercial and
planning reserve. The property to the South is vacant and
designated planning reserve. A portion of the area to the
west, across Beach Boulevard is designated mixed develop-
ment (commercial) and supports mobile homes at this time.
The remainder is vacant and designated medium density
residential. The property to the north of the area of
concern is a developed commercial center and to the east is
existing residential designated medium density . The
applicant has not been able to finalize negotiations with
the State on a portion of the area of concern, therefore
the request should be continued to GPA 78-1.
2. 3 . 2 Analysis
The area of concern is located adjacent to the planned or
existing intensive land uses, near major transportation
routes and in proximity to commercial and other activity
areas . These characteristics reflect the desirability of
this property for intensive uses such as commercial or
multiple residential.
Much of the area to the northwest along Pacific
Coast Highway up to 5th Street is designated mixed
development commercial. In addition developed commercial
8
Q
SNOWBIRD
ZWZ
PP _1 O
fA Z
IJ, J -------.OR.
MEDIUM DE14S ITY
RESIDENTIAL
p
_ _ o w0«eu� - ------
-----------I---I
u _ A Ld�R7N_�"
�OAS'�'_ _ - ---- -oii
U QTTLFBORC
O fir- LW.
bfi; 4.3'1R:7:}:`•. -OEERFIEU---- — -
�ti 7
MED I U. S I TY
'r
Jy �
Z J
W -----QR.
MIXED w
DEVELOPMENT ••• �•� � m
8U9�NICK ��
(COMMERCIAL) r• -'
tv�deu-_. .
R. '�'•-
___.] ATTLEBOR
�t L N
AREA OF CONCERN 2.3
SOUTH OF ATLANTA AVENUE
& EAST OF BEACH BOULEVARD
Alft Fig. 2-4
9
• I
is located immediately to the north of Atlanta . These
factors plus the greater desireability of a commercial
site on the northeast corner of the intersection of Pacific
Coast Highway and Beach Boulevard minimizes the need for
commercial development in the area of concern.
Park needs in the general area of the site have been met or
exceeded, but the nearest elementary school is across a
primary arterial (Atlanta Avenue) in the quarter section
to the immediate north. However, a multiple residential
development in the area of concern is more likely to
attract adults rather than families with ohildren because
of the probable high housing cost and limited size of
units in this key location.
High density residential development in this area would
help support existing and proposed commercial uses in
the area. This would be important to surrounding com-
mercial uses in the off season when beach use diminishes
sharply.
A problem unique to this area is the existing frontage
road east of Beach Boulevard. The frontage would' have
served a purpose had the freeway once planned for this area
not been abandoned. The applicant has indicated his
desire to consolidate parcels in the area including
the right-of-way (if abandoned by the City) in order to
clean up the area. Ultimately the frontage road in front
of the existing commercial development would be abandoned
in favor of additional parking and additional commercial
development. The northern 1. 57 acres of the area of
concern would be utilized for commercial development in
order to provide an orderly transition from commercial to
residential uses.
This area of concern is closely related to the property to
the south contained in area of concern 2 .4 . Since both
areas of concern 2 . 3 and 2 . 4 are recommended for con-
tinuance to GPA 78-1, future analysis should consider the
relationship of the areas .
2 . 3 . 3 Staff Recommendation
Continue the request to the first General Plan Amendment
for 1978 in conjunction with area of concern 2 .4 .
2 . 3 . 4 Planning Commission Recommendation
This area of concern has been continued to General Plan
Amendment 78-1. No action was taken by the Planning
Commission.
10
FS
(2. 4 North of Pacific Coast Highway and East of Beach Boulevard
This item is for. information only, no action is to be taken
2 .4. 1 Background
The area of concern is located north of Pacific Coast
Highway and east of Beach Boulevard (Figure 2-5 ) . In
late September the City received a request from the Daon
Company to redesignate the area of concern to low, medium
and high density residential as well as providing ad-
ditional commercial. A minimal portion would be redesig-
nated from planning reserve to industrial.
The 106 . 9 gross acre site supports a small boat sales yard
and a substantial mobile home park (447 spaces) . A portion
of the area of concern includes the western most section of
an oil tank farm. The remainder of the property is
vacant. The southern boundary is the Pacific Coast High-
way and to the west is an existing mobile home park desig-
nated mixed development (commercial) . To the north are
vacant and developed commercial properties, developed low
and medium density residential and an oil tank farm. To
the east is the Edison Company Generating Plant.
The area of concern is a key site in the City. The
property is located at the intersection of two of the
most significant arterials in the City and is located
at the terminus of the arterial which provides the only
entrance to Huntington State Beach and a major entrance
to the City Beach. The property is important in its
potential complementary relationship with any redevelop-
ment plan for the downtown area. Hamilton Avenue will
extend through the property and while there are many ad-
ditional considerations to be taken into account in
determining the ultimate alignment and status of Hamilton
Avenue, a plan for the area of concern will influence
greatly the decision on the arterial . The area of concern
is also in the Coastal Zone and will be subject to review
of the Coastal Commission if a plan is processed prior
to the completion of the Local Coastal Plan.
The applicant is preparing an environmental impact report
for the plan which will not be available until January,
1978 at the earliest. Without the necessary environmental
documentation the land use designations can not be amended.
Consequently, the request will have to be continued to the
first General Plan amendment in 1978 . The following
analysis is presented to detail the issues which eventually
must be resolved for the area of concern.
11
L
rM _
L-ju - --- =o ll l i lDOlW-�ASTER' lDR
CK
l i ll
COMME
U m
R RESIDE ALO i`
1 0
��: i sra►.ec�
O rAWS
O
O
> TAN =:. -_------
w FARM:.1 0 . 0 0 .2 no
M
HAMILTO
0. C. F C. D. ti
DI-2
EXISTING MODILEHOME
`i PARK
___.
AREA OF CONCERN 2.4
NORTH OF PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
& EAST OF BEACH BOULEVARD a.
12 Aft Fig. 2-5
2. 4. 2 Analysis
A. Hamilton Avenue Issues:
1. If a marina is developed east of the Santa Ana
River, Hamilton Avenue will increase in im-
portance for east-west travel and may eventually
collect traffic from 19th Street in Costa Mesa.
2 . If Hamilton Avenue is extended to Lake Street its
importance as an east-west arterial will increase.
-3. If Hamilton dead-ends into Beach Boulevard while
curving northward to intersect halfway between
Atlanta Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway, the
importance of Hamilton may be diminished because
of the psychological barrier the northward swerve
would have on west bound traffic heading to the
beach. In such a case Newland Street could pick.
up an increased portion of the traffic.
4. The intensity and type of land uses in the area
of concern will affect the alignment and status of
Hamilton Avenue.
B. Land Use Issues:
1. The area is subject to the review of the Coastal
Commission.
2. The area of concern may be a viable location for
visitor-serving or commercial-recreational facili-
ties.
3. The mobilehome park may provide some low and moderate
cost housing which may not otherwise be available.
4 . In preliminary work by the Coastal Commission staff,
a portion of the area of concern was considered to
be a habitat area suitable for acquisition but at
the request of Caltrans was not ultimately recom-
mended for acquisition because the property was in
litigation. A determination should ultimately be
made as to whether the property is a habitat area.
5. The area of concern is in a flood and tsunami
hazard area. An earthquake fault is located near-
by as well.
13
6 . The Pacific Coast Highway has been identified as a
scenic roadway and if official scenic highway status
is sought the surrounding land uses be subject to
special architectural review, height and setback
review and even land use review among others.
7. The development of new public works facilities
to serve the area of concern will be subject to
the review of the Coastal Commission.
8 . The State Office of Planning and Research has sug-
gested that either the Los Angeles/Long Beach
Harbors or Huntington Beach provide the best
locations for on-shore processing of off-shore
oil extraction. Although the Huntington Beach
oilfield west of Goldenwest Street is first
priority, the area of concern cannot yet be
entirely dismissed for such purposes.
9 . If the Huntington Beach Edison Company Generating
Plant should be one of four possible plants to
expand, then there will be impacts on surrounding
properties including the area of concern.
2 .4. 3 Staff Recommendation
Continue the request to the first General Plan Amendment
for 1978 . in conjunction with area of concern 2 . 3 .
2. 4. 4 Planning Commission Recommendation
This area of concern has been continued to General Plan
Amendment 78-1 . No action was taken by the Planning
Commission.
14
2 . 5 South of Slater Avenue and East of the Railroad Right-of
Way
2 . 5 . 1 Background
This area of concern is located south of Slater Avenue be-
tween the railroad right-of-way and the termination of
Nichols Street (Figure 2-6) . Approximately 18 . 89 acres
comprise the site of which 16 . 66 acres are under General
Plan Amendment request. A request by Family Home Builders
to change the present General Plan designation of general
industrial to medium density residential was received in
May, 1977 . , The request area is currently vacant. The
Planning Staff expanded the study area to include a 2 . 23
acre parcel. at the southeast corner of the railroad right-
of-way and Slater Avenue. This was done to encourage com-
patible development within a logically defined area. The
added parcel is presently occupied by an old single-family
residence.
The area of concern is surrounded by. industrial property.
Vacant M1 lands are located to the west and south. An
industrial park is under construction to the north across
Slater Avenue. The site is bounded on the east by an
existing industrial park and non-structural storage.
The area of concern was analyzed in GPA 77-2 , Part 3 but
the requested amendment was denied by the Planning Com-
mission on September 20 , 1977 . Because of procedural
errors the Council has referred the request back to the
Planning Commission for GPA 77-3 , Part 2 . Environmental
Impact Report 77-8 as approved by the City Council on
November 7, 1977 provides the environmental assessment
for the area of concern.
2 . 5. 2 Analysis
The Industrial Land Use Study, Part II suggested two
alternative land reduction alternatives for the Gothard
Corridor. The proposed comprehensive plan presented in
this Amendment assumes maximum industrial land reduction,
Alternative 2 . Under this alternative , the Industrial
Study suggests removal of the subject concern area from the
industrial inventory primarily on the basis of the projected
land requirement. The site is moderately suites:. for
industrial development with large lot size and compatibility
with industrial parks on the north and south being favorable
attributes. On the negative side, it is far from freewayJd
possesses topographic and, drainage problems; and is locat
in a general area dominated by marginal industrial uses
WARNER AVE
FIR DR.
WINTERSBURG 0
CF-E Tl
'B;-R'
>
CF-R m
L-JLJ YPRESS
HI G"YH� SCHOOL (FARK� PRESS I-LLU
:ED
-1. IlEous -
ND RY
BETTY Dot
MANDRELL
CITY
c -c R DEN IA4- -
YARD) --Z
z
71-
DR.
8
----- ---------
SLA AV
MAMT-
... Y SPEER 'VE
HUNT INGTON ixAVE
CF-R
E§H
X
_ N %X
�:-c AL
ARK
IIIII imillill HIM!
WfHt444
I LAI OR
7
0
z 0
0 z
bA
----------
TALBERT AVE
iaw
0 w
AREA OF CONCERN 2.5 SCALE 10 10
SOUTH OF SLATER AVENUE
& EAST OF THE RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY
FIGURE 2-6
(south of Warner Avenue) and within close proximity to
Central Park. The long-term vacancy of the site as well
as the results of the 1976 Revenue/Expenditure Analysis of
Land Uses suggest that the City and school districts could
realize greater revenue benefits ' from a residential develop-
ment than any probable industrial use of the property .
Either low or medium density residential would be the
logical alternative to the general industrial designation.
Low density residential would be compatible with the pro-
posed low density designation to the west of the railroad
right-of-way (area of concern 2 .1 . 10) . However, it is less
compatible with existing and proposed industrial uses
directly to the north (concern area 2 . 1 . 8) and east (concern
area 2 . 1 . 12) , and is inconsistent with the general medium
density character east of the railroad right-of-way. A
medium density designation would be transitionally com-
patible with the industrial areas to the east and the
proposed low density area to the west . It would also re-
tain the medium density integrity east of the railroad
tracks between Slater and Talbert Avenues .
A medium density residential use within the study area would
require adequate parks, schools, and commercial establish-
ments . An elementary school and high school are located
within one-half mile of the site. Commercial demand would
necessitate the location of a neighborhood shopping center
to supply proposed residences between Slater and Ellis
Avenues. Central Park would supply the recreation require-
ment for the site .
2 . 5. 3 Staff Recommendation
The area of concern at Nichols Street and south of Slater
Avenue should be redesignated medium density residential .
2 . 5 . 4 Planning Commission Recommendation
The Planning Commission recommends redesignation to
medium density residential. The vote was five (5) for and
two (2) against.
17
2 . 6 Ministerial Item - Timing of General Plan Amendments
2 . 6 . 1 Background/Analysis
The Huntington Beach General Plan, adopted December, 1976 ,
established a time table for amending the General Plan .
Because of the changing nature of the community, a time
table adopted on an annual basis that can be individually
suited to the coming year ' s events seems more desirable.
2 . 6. 2 Staff Recommendation
The Planning staff recommends that the time table for
amending the General Plan, as included in the adopted
General Plan document, be deleted . Instead, request dead-
lines for a maximum. of three amendments per year would be
established by Planning Commission resolution at the
beginning of the calendar year.
2 . 6. 3 Planning Commission Recommendation
The Planning Commission recommends that request deadlines
be established by Planning Commission Resolution at the
beginning of the calendar year. The vote was six (6) for
and one (1) against.
18 At&
3 . 0 ' AMENDMENT SUMMARY
5 . 3 . 1 Proposed Amendment 77-3 , Part 2 , Area of Concern Summaries
The following sections summarize the recommended changes in General
. . Plan land use designations for the affected areas . If no change is
recommended, the area is not discussed. All changes are shown in-
Figure 3-1.
19
Is
3. 1. 1 South of Slater Avenue and East of the Railroad
Right-of-Way
' ! The 18 .-89 gross acre area of concern should be redesig-
nated from industrial to medium density residential .
Proposed Land Use Acreage 'Summary
Category Gross Acres
I.
I Medium Density Residential 18 . 89
, , . Residential Gross Maximum Total Population Estimated
Type Acres . Units/gac Units Per Unit Population
Medium Den- 18 . 89 x 15 = 283 x 2 . 35 = 665
' I sity .Resi-
' � dential
3 . 2 Summary of General Plan Amendment ,77-3 , Pa'rt 2 .
Proposed Land Use Acreage Summary
I Existing Proposed Net
' Land Use Category Gross Acres Gross Acres Gross Acres
Residential
Medium Density 0 18 . 89 4- 18 . 89
2 0
s r�Industrial
Existing Proposed Net
se Category Gross Acres Gross Acres Gross Acres
ral 18 . 89 p - 18 .89
Total land involved in the Amendment: 18.89 gross acres
Projected Population
5y
Residential Gross ' Maximum Total Population Estimated
Type Acres Units/gac Units Per Unit Population
Medium 18 . 89 x 15 = 283 x 2 : 35 = 665
Density
3 . 2 . 1 Ministerial Item - Timing of General Plan Amendments
Recommended change is to delete the time table for amend-
ing the General Plan from the General Plan documents .
New approach will be to establish a time table by Planning
Commission resolution at the beginning of each . calendar
year.
r
a
4� F������ •' .ems� ���` � , + �'�
4* .� k\ ell
o• MEDIUM DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL
o ° �
o a
i
E
o,
\,
o�
e
O�iWF ,
Fig.3-1
HLNINGTON BFACH,OILIFORNIA PROPOSE®
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 77-3
PART 2= MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS
A�
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.
4 . 1 . 1 Planning Area
The proposed plan amendment is divided into five areas, two of
which are recommended for change in land use designation. One
of these areas, consisting of 1. 78 gr. acres is located in the
northwestern section of the City of Huntington Beach South of
Edinger Avenue and West of Bolsa Chica Street. The other area,
consisting of 8. 57 gr. acres is located in the Southeastern
section of Huntington Beach South of Atlanta Avenue and East
of Beach Boulevard.
4 . 1. 2 Project Description
The proposed project is an amendment to the Land
Use Element of the General Plan. The amendment
reviews areas where changing conditions require
reconsideration of past decisions, establishing
land use policy accordingly. A description of
the specific concern areas and proposed action
follow.
23
r :
• d
4 . 1. 2 . 1 South of Edinger Avenue .and West of Bolsa Chica Street
The area of concern consists of 1.78 gross acres and is
bordered by Edinger Avenue to the north, commercial uses
and Bolsa Chica to the east, low density residential use
to the south, and limited multiple family uses along with
office professional uses to the west. This amendment pro-
poses redesignation from general commercial to high
density residential.
4 . 1. 2. 2 South of Atlanta Avenue and East of Beach Boulevard
The area of concern consists of 8 . 57 gross acres and is
bordered by commercial uses and Atlanta Avenue to the north,
a flood control channel and multiple family uses
to the east, a vacant residential agricultural district
with oil to the south, and Beach Boulevard to the west.
This amendment proposes redesignation from general com-
mercial and planning reserve to high density resi-
dential.
4 . 1. 3 Project Objectives
General Plan Amendment 77-3 is designed to investigate some
areas where changing conditions require reconsideration of
past decisions. Both areas of the amendment requesting a
change in land use designation involve areas , that in their
majority, are zoned commercial. The area south of Atlanta
and east of Beach also contains 3 . 41 acres designated as
Planning Reserve.
4 . 1. 4 Methodology
To determine changes generated by the amendment, potential
development under the proposed. land uses of multiple family
residential will be compared to potential development under
the existing commercial use designations . Of the four
areas contained in the amendment, only concern areas 4 . 1. 2 . 1
and 4. 1. 2. 2 will be discussed as they are the only areas
where recommended land use changes are proposed.
4 . 2 Environmental Setting
4. 2 . 1 Natural Environmental Setting
Huntington Beach is a metropolitan city and its environment,
both local and regional, is primarily -an urban one. How-
ever , even in this urban area , natural resources remain.
24
As permitted under the Environmental Guidelines the source
materials detailed throughout this . section have been in-
corporated by reference. The following sections reference
the land, water, air, biological, and cultural resouces in
the City.
4 . 2 . 1. 1 Land Resources
A general description of the land resources in the City
is presented in Section 6. 4. 1 of the Land Use Element:
Phase Il and updated in Section 6. 3.2. 1 of the Seismic
Safety Element of the General Plan. Additional informa-
tion is contained in the Conservation Potentials Report,
Sections 2.1 and 3. 0; Open Space Potentials Report,
Sections 2. 0, 3.0, and 4. 0; Geotechnical Inputs,3 and
Flood Hazard Study.6
4 . 2 . 1. 2 Water Resources
A general description of the water recources in the City
is presented in Section 6.4. 2 of the Land Use Element:
Phase I7 (as modified by EIR addendum 10, December 7 ,
1973) and updated in Section 6.3. 2. 2 of the Seismic-
SaSa tety Element8of the General Plan. Additiona-1—inTorma-
tion is cited in the Conservation Potentials Report,9
Sections 2.2 and 3.0; Open Space Potentials lu Sections
2.1.1, 2.4.2, and 4.0; Flood zard Stud , i and Fire
Hazard/Fire Protection Study, Section 3- 3.
4 . 2 . 1 . 3 A general description of the air resources in the City is
presented in Section 6 . 4 . 3 of the Land Use Element :
Phase I and updated in Section 6. 3. 2. 3 of the Seismic-
Safety Element. 4 Additional discussion of air resources
is presente 1 n the Conservation Potentials Re ort,
Section 2 .3.
4. 2 . 1. 4 Biological Resources
A general description of the biological resources in the
City is gresented in Section 6. 4.4 of the Land Use Element
Phase I" and uYlated in Section 6.3. 2. 4 of the Seismic
Safety Element. Additional discussion and species
listings are availab}g in the Conservation Potentials
Report, Section 2. 4.
25
r
� d
4 . 2 . 1. 5 Cultural Resources
A description of the cultural resources in the •City is
presenteg in Section 6. 3. 2.5 of the Seismic-Safety
Element of the General Plan. Additional information is
cited in Conservation P2tentials Report, 20 Section 2. 5 ,
Open Space Potentials, Section 2. 1.5, 2. 1. 6, and 2. 3;
and Scientific 'Resources Survey and Inventory. 22
4 . 2. 2 Urban Environmental Setting
This portion of Section 4 . 0 addresses the urban or man-
made environmental setting in the City of Huntington Beach.
The major topics covered are: (1) land use, (2) circulation,
(3) public services , (4) utilities, (5) population, (6)
noise, and (7) socioeconomics .
4 . 2 . 2 . 1 Land Use
A description of the existing land uses in the individual
study areas is presented in Section 2 . 0. 23
4 . 2 . 2 . 2 Circulation
A general description of existing circulation in the City
is presented in Section 2 . 3 of the Land Use Element :
Phase 124 and updated in the Circulation Element Background
Report,25 and The General Plan for the City of Huntington
Beach .
4. 2 . 2 . 3 Public Services
A. Police Service
Police protection for the City is provided from one
station. This station is located in the south central
section of the City at Main Street and Mansion Avenue.
As. of October, 1977 , the level of police manning is
about 1. 16 officers per 1 , 000 persons .
B: Fire Protection
TIU tington Beach maintains seven fire stations to
provide fire protection to the City. The manning
rate is approximately one fireman per 1, 120 persons .
C . Schools
The following school districts provide educational
services for the City of Huntington Beach.
26 A!WL J
Lr
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.
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 1h 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 Intercommunity
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.
27
r
■ I
/10�
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 ReportSection 5. 0 , the Conservation
Potentials Report, 29 Section 2. 5 , and the Open Space
Potentials Report, 30 Section 2. 0.
4 . 2. 2. 4 Utilities
A. Natural Gas
The Southern California Gas Company supplies natural
gas to the City of Hunting�Tn Beach. Yearly consump=
tion rates are as follows:
Residential
Single-family 122, 000 cu.ft./d.u.
Multiple-family 95 , 000 cu. ft./d.u.
Commercial 250 , 000 cu. ft./gr . acre
Industrial 250 , 000 cu. ft./gr. acre
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: 32
Residential
Single-family 5700 kwh/d.u.
Multiple-family 5700 kwh/d.u.
�b
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,33 current sewage 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 landfil14site. The
following generation rates are assumed:
Residential 5 . 5 lbs/person/day
Commercial 75 lbs/ac/day
Industrial 100 lbs/ac/day
Current solid waste generation in the City is
estimated at 488 tons per day or 178, 000 tons per year.
E. Water
The City of Huntington Beach provides water to .its
residents. A consumption rate of 150 gallons/person/
day is assumed. 35 Current usage in the City is
estimated at 22. 7 million gal/day or 8. 3 billion
gallons per year.
29
} I
LQLijvv
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 36 for further information. )
4. 2. 2 . 6 Noise
Noise sources in Huntington Beach are: highways and free-
ways, railroads , airport and helicopter operations,
residential/institutional sources , and oil pumping opera-
tions. Noise contours showing existing noise levels
for major transportation elements are presented in the
Noise Element Background Report. 37 Major transportation
elements in Huntington Beach are as follows :
(1) freeways and highways
(2) railroad operations
(3) airport operations
Using the noise -contours together with the maximum noise
levels presented in the Noise Element, potentially noise-
sensitive areas in Huntington Beach can be determined.
Random noise sources are tested separately from constant
noise sources like vehicle traffic and railroad and air-
craft operations. A field measurement survey conducted
by Wyle Laboratories found that trucks on arterial high-
ways are responsible for the highest noise exposures in
Huntington Beach. Sources producing the lowest noise
levels were typically found in residential areas away
from arterials, residential areas near arterials but
with barrier walls, and in school areas. Generally, the
single event noise intrusions observed in Huntington
Beach fell within the "acceptable'.' noise criteria levels.
38
4 . 2. 2. 7 Socio-Economic Characteristics
Because Huntington Beach is one of the newer residential
communities in Orange County, it has attracted a mobile,
affluent, and relatively young population. According
to estimates for January, 1976 , the median family income
for. Huntington Beach residents is $16 ,276 . 39 For those
30
,
households 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.
J31
e t
�s
4 . 3 . Environmental Impacts and Mitigating Measures
4 . 3 . 1 Earth
Types of impacts : Exposure of people or property
to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides,
mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards?
Impact 1:
Both areas of concern are located in a seismic risk
area. The residents of the proposed developments
would .be exposed to the geologic hazards of either
the South Branch Fault or the Bolsa-Fairview Fault.
Mitigating Measure 1:
Loss of life and structural damage is reduced by
designing buildings for human occupancy to resist
a seismic force equal to 0. 186 gravity (per the
1976 Uniform Building Code) .
Mitigating Measure II :
A geologist' s report to discover surface traces and
appropriate setbacks if they are discovered.
4. 3 . 2 Air
Type of impact: Substantial air emissions or
deterioration of ambient air quality.
Both areas of concern will experience an increase
in pollutants above that otherwise experienced
under the existing land use designations . Air
pollution levels are dependent on emissions generated
by mobile and stationary sources. The major source
is the private automobile which accounts for 90%
of all emissions.
The South Coast Air Basin , which includes Huntington
Beach is a critical air area. Huntington Beach is
fortunate, however, in that it does not suffer the
effects of air pollution to the degree experienced
by most other southland communities. Many factors
are responsible although the primary ones are local
meterology and local topography. Daily sea breezes
along the coast clear the skies by sweeping pollutants
32
inland. The city' s relatively flat topography
offers little resistance to this condition. The
following tables compare existing land use pollutants
with the proposed uses.
South of Edinger west of Bolsa- Chita
Potential Generation of Air Pollutants
Existing land Use Designations Proposed Land Use Designations
(Tons/Day) (Tons/Day)
Pollutant Stationary Mobile Total Stationary Mobile Total
Carbon
Monoxides Negligible 0.24 0.24 Negligible 0.012 0.012
Hydro-
carbons Negligible 0.02 0.02 Negligible 0.001 0.001
Nitrogen
Cxides 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.34 0.001 0.341
Parti-
culates 0.02 0.003 0.023 0.34 0.000 0.34
Sulfur-
Oxides Negligible 0.001 0.001 Negligible 0.000 0.0
TOTAL 0.04 0.294 0.334 0.68 0.014 0.694
South of Atlanta East of Beach
Potential Generation of Air Pollutants
Existing Land Use Designations Proposed Land Use Designations
(Tons/Day) (Tbns/Day)
Pollutant Stationary Mobile Total Stationary Mobile Total
Carbon
Monoxides Negligible 0.57 0.57 Negligible 0.314 0.314
Hydro-
carbons Negligible 0.05 0.05 Negligible 0.029 0.029
Nitrogen
Oxides 0.120 0.07 0.190 1.60 0.043 1.643
Parti-
culates 0.120 0.007 0.127 1.60 0.003 1.603
Sulfur-
oxides Negligible 0.003 0.003 Negligible 0.001 0.001
TOTAL 0.240 0.7 0.94 3.20 0.39 3.59
AM
33
The estimated tonnage of pollutants may be
reduced as newer model automobiles replace older
models. Also, new advances in engine design
and availability of cleaner fuels . may contribute
to reduced air pollution.
Mitigating Measure 1 :
Both areas of concern are in an air quality
maintenance planning (AQMP) area where considerable
activity is currently underway. The AQMP effort
is required for areas where ambient air quality
standards are expected to be violated up through
1985. This proposal may increase air pollutants.
Consequently, an AQMP effort to decrease air
pollutant should reflect potential activity in
these areas. In addition, decision makers should
consider the tradeoffs in increasing emissions in
one location and thereby creating a need to reduce
emissions in other locations.
4 . 3. 3 Water
Impact 1 :
The area of concern South of Atlanta and East
of Beach Boulevard is located in a flood plain.
The study area is subjected to local surface
drainage problems during heavy rains. The
residents of the, proposed development would also
be subject to the hazards posed by a natural
disaster such as a tidal wave.
Mitigating Measure 1 :
A program to minimize danger from flooding has
been adopted by the City Council as part of the
Seismic Safety Element. Huntignton Beach flood
hazard abatement programs are as follows :
1. In conjunction with other cities in the Santa
Ana Watershed-through the ICC and the League of
Cities--encourage immediate action by the Curps
of Engineers to execute a comprehensive flood
control plan for the Santa Ana River.
34
• I
2. In conjunction with other cities in Orange
County--through the ICC and the League of Cities--
encourage revision of the Flood Disaster Protection
Act to more realistically 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 Storm) when practical through anchorage
to prevent floatation, water tight barriers over
openings, reinforcement 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 efficently
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.
Further, as a participant in the Federal Insurance
Program, Huntington Beach flood hazard areas 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 is implementing
a plan that would make the City (and all of Orange
County) flood safe from the 200-year storm. It will
35J
i . .
be several years before the project can mitigate
potential , however. In the meantime, development
of flood hazard areas will be regulated by the
programs mentioned previously.
Mitigating Measure II :
According to the CAlifornia Division of Mines and
Geology, special caution should be observed in
Huntington Beach during a tsunami alert and that
low coastal areas and public beaches be cleared
if a flood tide and tsunamis are likely to be
coincidental.
4 . 3. 4 Noise
Type of Impact: Increases in existing noise levels
Impact 1
Short-term noise in both concern areas could be
expected from both construction equipment and
related vehicular traffic. Intermittent noise
levels of 75 to 80 Ldn at 100 feet could persist
throughout the normal working hours of the week.
Mitigating Measure 1
Operation of construction equipment and the
noise levels produced therefrom is modified by
adherence to city and county ordinances regulating
such activity.
2 . Type of Impact: Due to increased levels of
traffic, the areas of concern and surrounding land
uses may experience negative impacts from traffic
noise. Generally the sounds from automobile, trucks,
and motorcycles cause the greatest disturbances to
residential land uses. Land uses adjacent to the
heavier travelled arterial streets will experience
a greater amount of noise intrustion. The following
table identifies those areas of concern that are
recommended for change in land use description
and indicates the impacted areas and contoL:r range
for each.
36
Noise Exposure Associated With Recommended
Land Use Chanties
Area of Concern Recommended Land Land Contour Interpretation
Use Changes
South of Edinger High density 60-65 Unacceptable
residential
South of Atlanta
East of Beach High density 60-70 Unacceptable
residential
Mitigating Measure 1:
Certain methods can be employed to keep traffic
at an acceptable level. These methods, as detailed
in the Noise Element Background Report (Huntington
Beach Planning Department, June 1975) include:
- Local reduction of traffic noise through
operational modification (e.g. , revise flow
control methods; reroute traffic) .
- Outside to inside noise reduction for dwellings
through modifications to improve sound insulation.
This would include minimizing "sound leaks"
around doors, windows, and vents, replacing
"Accoustically weak" components, and
improving structurable weak walls and roofs.
The maximum noise level for all residential uses
is Ldn 60 for outdoors and- Ldn 45 for indoors.
Utilizing a maximum noise level of Ldn 60 does
not mean that further residential 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.
4 . 3 . 5 Land Use
Type of Impact: Will the proposal result in a
substantial alteration of the present or planned
land use of an area?
Impact 1
The total effect of both areas of concern will
be to reduce the potential intensity of commercial
activities, and to increase the residential
densities and uses of the land areas involved.
The following table summarizes the acerage change
in land use designations :
South of Edinger West of Bolsa Chica
Existing
Vacant General Commercial 1. 78 gross acres
Proposed
High Density Residential 1 .78 gross acres
South of Atlanta East of Beach Boulevard
Existing
Vacant General Commercial 8 . 32 gross acres
Planning Reserve 3 . 41 gross acres
Proposed
High Density Residential 8 . 32 gross acres
General Commercial 1. 57 gross acres
Mitigating Measures:
The impacts and associated mitigating measures
related to changing the proposed land use from
general commercial to high density residential
are referenced in other areas, of section 4 . 3 . 1
through 4 . 3 . 9 .
38
d
4 . 3. 6 Natural .Resources
1. Type of Impact: Increase in the rate of use
of any natural resources.
Impact 1:
A) The proposed change to residential development
will create an additional demand for natural
gas and a decreased demand for electricty
in the concern area South of Edinger and West
of Bolsa Chica Street.
Gas: Taking the figure of 250,000 cu/ft of
gas used per gross acre by commercial use, use
of gas will total 445, 000 cu. ft. per gross
acre if the project were to be developed under
commercial use. When comparing this with the
figure obtained for development under high
density residential use of 5 ,918 , 500 cu. ft. per
gross acre one "notes an increased usage of
thirteen times.
Electricity:, Taking the figure of 500, 000
kwh/gr. ac used by a commercial use in electrical
consumption use -of electricty will total 890, 000
kwh/d.u. if the project were to be developed
under commercial use. When comparing this with
the figure obtained for development under high
density residential use of 355,110 kwh/d.u. one
notes a decrease in electrical comsumption.
B) The proposed change to residential development
will create an additional demand for natural
gas and a decreased demand for electricity in
the concern area South of Atlanta and East of
Beach Boulevard.
Gas : Taking the figure of 250, 000 cu/ft. of
gas used per .gross acre by commercial use,
and assuming probable commercial development
of the plan. reserve area, use of gas will
total 2, 472, 500 cu/_ ft. per gross acre if the
project area were to be developed under
commercial use. When comparing this with the
figure obtained for development under high
39J
a
1 • ,
density residential use of 27 ,664 , 000 cu. ft.
per gross acre and adding the figure of
392 , 500 cu/ft,per gross acre obtained for
proposed commercial use one gets a total
of 28, 056 , 500 cu/ft. per gross acre and notes
an increased usage of eleven times.
Electricity: Taking the figure of 500, 000
kwh/gr.ac used by a commercial use in electrical
consumption, and assuming probable commercial
development of the plan reserve area, one gets
a total of 4 , 945, 000 kwh/gr.ac. When
comparing this with the figure obtained for
development under high density residential use
of 1, 659 ,840 kwh/d.u. and adding the figure of
1 .57 gr.ac. proposed commercial use multiplied
by 500 , 000 kwh/d.u. one gets a total of
2, 444 , 940 kwh/d.u. and notes a decrease of two
times the amount of electrical consumption as
a result of the proposed change to residential
use.
Mitigating Measure 1 :
The following energy conservation measures are
recommended for new and renovated structures.
1. open gas lighting should not be used in public
or private buildings.
2. Electrical lights should be strategically
placed to maximize 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.
2 . Type of Impact: Development under high
density residential uses will create an additional
demand for supplies of water.
Impact 2:
The City of Huntington Beach provides water to
its residents based on a consumption rate of
150 gallons/person/day. The concern area South
40
of Edinger and West of Bolsa Chica will increase
water demand by 19 , 904 . 85 gallons per day. The
concern area South of Atlanta and East of Beach
Boulevard will increase water demand by 93 , 038 .4
gallons per day.
Mitigating Measure 2 :
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 in acceptable and safe.
3. Land Use planning should be sensitive to the
underground water level and not produce greater
demand on the underground water supply than is
available.
4 . Waterspreading where appropriate should be
encouraged in order to recharge the underground
water supply.
5 . Toilets and showers are commonly over
designed and use more water than necessary.
Consumption can be reduced by introducing
appropriate modifications to toilets and
showers.
4 . 3. 7 Population
Type of Impact: Alterations of the location,
distributions, density, or growth rate of the
human population of an area.
Impact 1 :
The concern area South of Edinger and West of
Bolsa Chica has the potential to increase
population by 133 persons. The concern area
South of Atlanta and East of Beach has the
potential to increase population by 620 persons.
41
• I
Net Projected Population
Area of Net Gross Max Units/ Total Units Population Estimated
Concern Acres gr.ac. per Units
2.1 1,78 35 = 62.3 2.13 132
2.3 8.32 35 = 291.2 2.13 620
Mitigating Measure 1:
The impacts associated with these changes as
well as the mitigating measures necessary to
deal with the impacts have been detailed through-
out sections 2 . 0 and 4 . 0 .
2 . Type of Impact: Parks and Other. Recreational
Facilities
A) The city ' s park standard is 5 acres for
every one thousand people. The concern area
South of Edinger and West of Bolsa Chica
will generate an additional population of
133 people. This creates a park acreage demand
of between . 5 and 1. 0 acres for these residents.
Also the area of concern is located in a park
deficient area.
Mitigating Measure 1:
Currently, Haven View Park consisting of
3 acres exists immediately to the West of
the area of concern mitigating the need for
park space for the area of concern. The
deficiency for the general area is subject to
resolution via the findings of an ongoing
parks analysis by the Planning Department.
B) The concern area South of Atlanta and
East of Beach will generate an additional
population of 620 people. This creates
a park acreage demand of 3 . 1 acres for these
residents .
42
Mitigating Measure 2:
Currently, a city park does not exist in the
quarter section in which the project area is
located. However, Edison Community Park, consisting
of 40 acres, is located in the quarter section
immediately East of the concern area.
By 1980 a 3 acre park, Peterson Community Park,
is planned for the quarter section immediately
to the North. Furthermore,' the beach,, which
closely typifies park like uses for most
residents, is in close proximity to the
project area.
4. 3 . 9 Human Health
Type of Impact: Exposure of people to potential
health hazards.
Impact 1:
The area of concern south of Atlanta and East
of Beach Boulevard is located in a floodplain,
thereby exposing people to the possible effects
of flooding and tidal waves. This concern area
is located above the South Branch earthquake
fault also.
Mitigating Measure 1:
Mitigating measures for the above potential
health hazards are discussed in sections 4 . 3 . 1
and 4. 3. 3 respectively.
Impact 2:
The area oc concern south of Atlanta Avenue may
be subject to fire or explosion danger from the
' oil tank farm to the east.
Mitigating Measure 2 :
Assessment of the potential danger should be
made and appropriate actions taken.
43
4. 3 . 10 Revenue/Expenditure Analysis
This section of the Environmental Impact Report
details the fiscal costs and benefits of General
Plan Amendment 77-3 , Part 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 . The report
deals only with short-range costs and revenues,
and does not consider the long-range implications
of this 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 proposed amendment
will decrease the annual net surplus to the City
by approximately $2 ,255. Total revenues and
expenditures for development as specified by
existing uses and the amendment are detailed in
the following tables.
EXISTING LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
Summary of Annual Revenue and Expenditure
Estimates as They Apply to the
City of Huntington Beach
Land Use Category Revenue Expenditures
Commercial
Retail (6.94 acres) $37 , 337 $28 , 190
Others
Planning Reserve(3.41 acres) $ 576 $ 1 , 330
TOTAL $37 ,913 $29 , 520
NET SURPLUS $ 8 , 393
44
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 77-3 , PART 2
Summary of Annual Revenue and Expenditure
Estimates as They Apply to the
City of Huntington Beach
Land Use Category Revenue Expenditures
Residential
High_ Density (10.35 acres) $50 ,767 $44 ,629
TOTAL $50, 767 $44, 629
NET SURPLUS $ 6 ,138
45
i
4. 4 Alternatives
4. 4. 1 No Project
The first alternative is that of taking no action. The im-
plication of such a decision would be to continue the
policies and land use designations set forth by the General
Plan Land Use Element. The areas of concern now designated
commercial would continue vacant waiting for quality
commercial development, or develop to marginal commercial
uses in the short-term. It appears that pursuing
the no project alternative would result in a less compre-
hensive, more disjointed approach to growth that would pro-
vide neither proper development guidelines nor adequate
environmental regulations.
It is true that the no project alternative would eliminate
some of the adverse effects associated with the amendment
proposals. There would be a lesser impact on natural re-
sources in that consumption of water and natural gas would
be minimized. Effects associated with public services ,
traffic, air quality, and noise would also be reduced.
There would be fewer or no permanent residents impacted
at the concern area south of Atlanta and East of Beach in
terms of serious flood, tidal wave, or seismic hazard
potential. However, in the meantime the need and demand
for a variety of housing in the City will continue to be
acute. Furthermore, the effects mentioned can be mitigated
or pose no threat to existing systems in terms of their
capability to handle them.
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
As a long-term guide for future development, General Plan
Amendment 77-3 establishes a positive relationship between
the local short-term uses of man' s environment and the
46
• d
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 77-3 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 commercial lands, the
long-term effect will be a balancing of the City' s resi-
dential and open space needs with a commercial land supply
that is more in line with'the City' s capability to attract
viable business activities.
One of the steps required to implement the amendment is an
analysis of the zone changes necessary to bring the zoning
into conformance with the General Plan. The zoning changes
that would result would have significant short-term effects ,
such as reducing or increasing intensity of development
permitted and providing stimulus for development. The
long-term effects would be land uses that are reflective
of the plan' s provisions.
4. 6 Irreversible and Irretrievable Environmental Changes
The Amendment will mitigate most adverse effects. However, irrever-
sible 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 minimal origin will be needed for developmen
to occur, and fossil fuels will be committed for long periods to
satisfy local energy demand.
Increased degradation of the South Coast Air Basin resulting from
construction activity and utilization of the potential users may
occur.
Noise impacts resulting from increased vehicular traffic and construc- .
tion activities may occur.
47
Additional fuel requirements and resultant air pollution problems
may be involved in the disposal of potential increased solid wastes.
4 . 7 Growth Inducing Impact
The proposed amendment will have growth inducing effects within the
areas of concern. An additional population of 132 people will be
generated in the concern area south of Edinger and west of Bolsa Chica.
An additional population of 620 people will be generated in the concern
area south of Atlanta and east of Beach Boulevard. An increased
demand on public services and various utilities is noted, and both
projects incrementally affect air quality, water quality, traffic ,
and noise levels.
48
•
►F,pY 460A IMUY
WffN TM MfG UARY Of S T ATR
lfttv"Wi Ai CYO"w"rt Codo �.atialr Yi 1Gn:# D
i
ENVIRONMENTAL_ CHECKLIST
i
8 , 1 BACKGROUND
1 . 'Name of Proponent G. P. Building Enterprises, Inc.
2. Address and Phone Neer o.� n
17232 Marina View Place
Huntin ton Beach, CA 92649
j 1 846-5775 _-___._.................
3 . Date of Checklist SubmittedOctober 17 , 1977
4 . Agency Requiring Checklist City of Huntington Beach
5 . Name of Proposal, if applicable genera P ari`Ame_ndm_ent
j No. 77-3, EIR for concern area south o E anger Avenue _
and east of BeacFi�Boulevarc�.M
8. 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" anBwers are i,equlr;,d
<� on attached sheets. )
YES MA YNI_ .:)_.
Xj �-
1 . Earth . Will the proposal result In :
t a . Unstable earth conditions or An
changes in geologic substructures" �_ x_
Y,
$ b. Disruptions, displacements, com-
paction or overcovering of the soil'? x_
c . Change in topography or ground
surface relief features? V_ x
d. The destruction, covering or
modification of any unique geologic
or physical features? x
e . Any increase in wind or . water
erosion of soils, either on or off
the site? x
f . Changes in deposition or erosion
of beach sands, or changes in
siltation, deposition or erosion
which may modify the channel of
j a river or stream or the bed of
the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? x
49
FLAMINGO CR _
. I
BLUEJAY CR. cr
m --
W W Z —
w - - - I a
J 3
co N
u) ROBINWOOD DR.
I Ti
�z JL SI. E � IIA i t- � m _
U t9
lNPICORPORATED w sl Row DR. Z -
Q J
O i I
� r
O
SKYLARK DR.
i i i I
0. C.
Z C ^^ CI. L z
DR
x AUDREY
j Z
J
--
'rE'C� LINDAOCR QKONA DR. cc
— Z4: - Q
-- EL
- CNE RYL DR Z
i--- w
ir
HILO CR. - o I _ —T Q
i I 3
� , I
KAUI DR. SISSON
z
- iJ SI M S El !
PROPOSED
Y
MEADOWt
AREA OF CONCERN 2.1
SOUTH OF EDINGER AVENUE
& WEST OF BOLSA CHICA STREET
WIN`
iar s.00A
PM RUNG AMMISIMATM RMULATIOMS
WffM THI 55CMAIkY Of $YATK
(9UMV014 to 0awfiffam Coda SOCOOM I I SZOA)
IM.A i B
9. Exposure of people or Propel'"y tO
geologic hazards such as earthquakes,
landslides, mudslides, ground failure,
or similar hazards? X
2 . Air. Will the proposal result in:
a. Substantial air emissions or
deterioration of ambient air quality? V X
b. The creation of objectionable
odors? X
c . Alteration of air movement,
moisture or temperature, or- any
change in climate, either locally
or regionally? X
3 . Water. Will the proposal result in:
a . Changes in currents, or the course
or direction of water, movements, in
either marine or fresh waters'? X
b. Changes in absorption rates,
drainage pattersn, or the rate
39 and amount of surface water runoff*? X
0
Z c . Alterations to the course or
flow of flood waters? X
d. Change in the amount of surface
water in any water body? X_
e . Discharge into surface waters, or
in any alteration of surface water
quality, including but not limited
to termperature, dissolved oxygen or
turbidity? X_
f. Alteration of the direction or
rate of flow of ground waters? X_
C. Change in the quantity of ground
waters, ,either through direct additions
or withdrAwals,, or through interception
of an aquifer by duts or excavations? X ,
51
400A SNART
FOR MUNG ADMIFAM"TIVI RIGU"TNONS
W"M Mit "CUSTARY Of &ITATE
YE'-- MLA Y b
h. Substantial reduction in the
amount of water otherwise available
for public water supplies? X
I . Exposure of people or property
to water related hazards such as
flooding or tidal waves? X
4. Plant Life . Will the proposal result
Tn_:
a. Change in the diversity of species,
or number of any species of plants
(including trees, shrubs, grads , X
crops, microflora and aquatic plants) ?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare or endangered species
of plants? X
C . Introduction of new species of
�, plants into an area, or in a barrier
to the normal replenishment of
existing species? X_
�) d. Reduction in acreage of any .
agricultural crop? X
YI
Animal Life . Will the proposal
Risult- in:
a . Change In the diversity of
species, or numbers of any species
of animals (birds, land animals
including reptiles, fish and
shellfish, benthic or anisms,
insects or microfaunM _X
b. Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare or endangered species
of animals? X
C . Introduction of new species of
animals Into an area, or result in
a barrier to the migration or
movement of animals? X
d. Deterioration to existing fish
or wildlife habitat? X
52
f,
► "IOOA OR yyC�nnND ACpCg1iM/Yp{O�IYdaY�q�A�ia���0/dlp�� MIGk cL Ayq Nd
Wf H 4HI SKMARY of SYM11
(Purwe"t to Ba vorm"af Code Savtr on 130.
Y
6. Noise. Will the proposal i Stl:;t In:
a. Increases in existing noise x
f
levels? ��
{ b. Exposure of people to severe
noise levels? x
7. Li&ht and Glare . Will the proposal
produce new 11gFit or glare? x
8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in
a su6 tial alteration of the
present or planned land use of an
area? x
9. Natural Resources. Will the
proposal resu n:
a . Increase in the rate of use of
any natural resources'? x
a
" b. Substantial depletion of any
nonrenewable natural resource? x
W
10. Risk of Upset. Does the proposal
involve a r s3sl of an explosion or
the release of hazardous substances
(including, but not limited to, oil,
pesticides, chemicals or radiation)
in the event of an accident or
upset conditions? x
11 . Population. Will the proposal alter
the location, distribution, density,
or growth rate of the human popu-
lation of an area? x
12 . Housing . Will the proposal affect
exIsting housing, or create a
demand for additional housing? x
13 . Transportation/Circulation. Will
tie proposal result n:
a. Generation of substantial addi- x
tional vehicular movement?
53
Pares 400A CONTINUMON SHRAT
FOR I<61e NG ADMIHIRTRATIVE RROULATIONS
WrfN THE SECRETARY Of STATA
(N-miset W Qb*vrnlw^#Cod* Suction i 13%0J)
F
b. Effects on existing parking,
facilities, or demand for new
parking? X
C . Substantial impact upon existing;
transportation systems? x
d. Alterations to present patterns
of circulation or movement of
people and/or goods? X
e . Alterations to waterborne, rail
i or air traffic? - X
f. Increase in traffic hazards to
motor vehicles, bicyclists or
pedestrians? X__
14 . Public Services . Will the proposal
! have an a ec upon, or result in
Ul a need for new or altered govern-
mental services in any of the
following areas:
I
a. Fire protection? _ X
;1 b. Police protection? X_
Z) c . Schools? X
d: Parks or other recreational
facilities.? X
e . Maintenance of public facili-
ties, including roads? X
f. Other governmental services? X
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of
fuel or energy? _
b. Substantial increase in demand
upon existing sources of energy,
or require the development of new
sources of energy? X
-34
polt PIUND AMMISr"TIVE 6fb�260LATIONS
VIM VM 56CRITARY Of STATI
(Punwant to Giwarwomal Cod* SacfW-n I I UCO
3.6. Utiiltien Will the
in a neeci Tor new
substantial alteration;)following utilities :
a . Power or natural &3.2 ? x
b. Communications systems? x
c. Water?
d . Sewer or septic tank8?
x
e . Storm water drainage?
f. Solid waste and disposal'? x
17 . Human Health. Will the proposal
result in:
a . Creation of any health or
potential health hazard (exciudlnl,,
mental health) ? x
b. Exposure of people to potential
health hazards? x
18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal i-esuit
0 in the obstruction of any ccenic
Z vista or view open to the pub'Ii.r, , or
will the proposal re.--ult An th�-,,
creation of an aesthetically
offenelve site open to public view',' x
11.). Recreation. Will the proposai result
in an Impact upon the quality or
quantity of existing recreational.
opportunities'? x
20. Archeological/Historical . Will the
proposal result in an alteration
of a significant archeological or,
historical site, structure, object
or building? x
55
FOR HUNG AMMSMATIVI RIGULAnOMS
WffH Tilt SKASTARY OF SIATI
(Purs"em ft 00"rRMA"t Code stcog'. 11340.11
11 . nadatory Findings of
(a) Does the project have 1.1-.o 1
to degrade the quality of ilhc-. i:,!iv
substantially reduce the habita-L of a fA_z; l
or wildlife species , cause a fish or wiidliCH
population to drop below self sus tainin,,
- or
levels , threaten to eliminate a plant
animal community, reduce the number or-
restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California
history or prehistory? X
b. Does the project have the poten-
tial to achieve short-term, to the
disadvantage of long-term, environ-
mental goals? (A short-term impact
on the environment is one which
occurs in a relatively brief,
definitive period of time while
long-term Impacts will endure
well into the future . ) X
C . Does the project have impacts
which are Individually liraited,
but cumulatively considerable?
(A pr6ject may impact on two or Trloe
II separate resources where the impact
on each resource is relatively
small, but where the effect of the
total of those impacts on the
environment is significant. ) X
d. Does the project have environ-
mental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects ,on
human beings, either directly
or indirectly? X
DISCUSSION OF EXVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
6
room a, Go"NUA"014 04"T
FOR RUNG A6R{9m9IMATiVE RMULA11ONS
W VN TIC UCRNTARY OF STATE
(Puew+w to owforoaowerf cod. Sae►ias,.�bbsrv.;;
i
i
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
BACKGROUND
Bi an Sassolinian
1 . Name of Proponent
2 . Address and Phone Number of Proponen
11932 Valley View Street
Mr den Grove CA 92645
894-3511
3 . Date of Checklist Submitted October 17 1977
4. Agency Requiring Checklist city of unting1_E n Beach
5 . Name of Proposal, if applicable eneral�- PTan Amendment _..
77-3. EIR for concern area south of Atlanta Avenue and
east of Beach Boulevard. ^
i ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are rec1t; Lred
on attached sheets. )
YES MAYIii,; idG
s
1 1 . Earth. Will the proposal result in:
W
t
a. Unstable earth conditions or in
o changes in geologic substructures? _ _x
z
8 b. Disruptions, displacements, com-
paction or overcovering of the soil? x
C . Change in topography or ground
surface relief features? x
d. The destruction, covering or
modification of Any unique geologic
or physical features? x._
e . Any increase in wind or water
erosion of soils, either on or off
the site? x
f . Changes in deposition or erosion
of beach sands, or changes in
siltation, deposition or erosion f
which may modify the channel of
a river or stream or the bed of
the ocean or any bay,. inlet or lake? _x_
i 57
g
SNOWBIRD
W
u
so �
r -
r2) Z
J _
DK
MEDIUM DENSITY <
RESIDENTIAL w
U
---� A LBURTON
w
��A_5T.PQR1.....
o ;ATTLEWK
FL O
DEERFIEL
ZD--
L
MEDIUM � E`,S I TY
J
W
FIELD _____QR.
^1I XED _ 0 r
DEVELOPMENT _ _ g
w mBU$FiNICK D ;r
(COMMERCIAL)
LN
IT
AREA OF CONCERN 2.3
SOUTH OF ATLANTA AVENUE
& EAST OF BEACH BOULEVARD
58
•.{ti
R
r
Poo N 400A CO10Mt1M" tl UT
%VM TM, IKMMY OF ITATIK.
(ivftwaN to Oov*ro"M Cod*Uc11on 11320.1)
'r>
YE5 hV Y 1.1
g. Exposure of people or property L.o
geologic hazards such as earthquakes,
landslides, mudslides, ground failure,
or similar hazards? x
2. Air. Will the proposal result in:
a. Substantial air emissions or
deterioration of ambient air quality? X
b. The creation of objectionable
odors? X
f c . Alteration of air movement,
moisture or temperature, or any
change in climate, either locally
or regionally? X
1
3 . Water. Will the proposal result in:
�. a. Changes in currents, or the course
or direction of water movements, in
either marine or fresh waters? X
Z b. Changes in absorption rates,
drainage pattersn., or the rate
and amount of surface water runoff'? X
0
S c . Alterations to the course or
flow of flood waters? X
d. Change in the amount of surface
water in any water body? X
e . Discharge into surface waters, or
in' any alteration of surface water
quality, including but not limited
to termperature, dissolved oxygen or
turbidity? X
f. Alteration of the direction or
rate of flow of ground waters? X
g. Change in the quantity of ground
waters, either through direct additions
or withdrawals, or through interception
of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? X
-5g
1
WMDpNp UdixS_OiLKGV wY1� •.e e; .i 1•..,f
. ,a /iVy.•:i '{y:y�Y011'IIFM:? ti .a J-: ." .. ...
t� Su b Li Lan,tJ.aA. redait
amount or wry j-,er other�'_c—
for public water supplies*:, x
�. . Exposure of peoplt.: or
i
to water related hazards
flooding or tidal waved? x
P].ant LiAfe W111 the E}r`uposia.:
n ._
a . Change in the diversity o '
{ or number of any species of
(including; trees, shrub::,
crops, microflora and acluat. , c: x
b. Reduction of the rr���►b�rz r' .a:�y
I unique, rare or endangc r(:d F,,pocic: o
of plants _._._._ X....
a Introduction of nei4
plants into an area, or to a fjarri�:r
to the norr;ksil replenishment of
x existing species? X....
x
d. Reduction in acreage of 4,ny
agricultural crop?
Anirnkil lA fe , W111 the p vopoull".
reSu�irn:y
a . Change in the diversity of
species, or numbers of any species
1 of animals (birds, land ariirnaly
including reptiles, fish and
shellfish, benthic or ariisms, x
insects .or microfauna�?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare or endangered species
of animals? x
C . Introduction of new species of
animals into an area, or result in
a barrier to the migration or
movement of animals? x
d. Deterioration to existing fish
or wildlife habitat? x
60
I -38-
^'f.
046ii FILING ,Si3MMiSTRATIVi. *91!1: oi0�.
(I,wcumo vr> .,.dm
G. Noise. Will the proper�a2
a . Increases in existing; ?'ic ibe x
levels?
? b. Exposure of people to se v t,>re
noise levels? n. X
7 . Light and GX1ai,e . Will the
produce new1-:�-gfit or glare _ _X__
8. Land Use . Will the p.'op03al result in
a s�u6stiEtial alteration of the
present or planned land use of an
area? X
9. Natural Resources. Will the
proposal^resa-lt in:
a. Increase in the ri,,Ae of ate of
any natural resources'? _ x
b. Substantial depletion o* pi f' ny
nonrenewablO natural resouroe'r X
10. Risk of Upaet. Does the proposal
I: involve a r3�Ts tc of an explosion or
,( the release of hazardous subst.aric(.-;3
g( (including, but not limited Lo, oil,
pesticides, chemicals or radiation)
in the event of an accident or
upset conditions? X_
11. Population. Will the proposal alter
the location, distribution, density,
or growth rate of the human popu-
lation of an area? X
12 . Housing. will the proposal affect
ex �3ng housing, or create a
demand for additional housing? X
I 13 . Transportation/Circulation. Will
Mi proposal result in:
a, Generation of substantial addi-
tional vehicular movement? X
61
w3 �_
rap.;400A A014 iN"TION smell
FOR HUNG ADWHiSTRATIVE i;iiGULATIONS
1A ffN YNI UCRITARY OF STATE
(iunuont to Oowrnimot Code Uctlon 111160,r)
b .. Effects on existing pa:•kin,L
facilities, or demand for new
parking? X
c . Substantial impact upon exisUlng
transportation systems? X
!
d. Alterations to present patterns
of circulation or movement of
people and/or goods? X
e . Alterations to waterborne, rail
or air. traffic? X
i
f. Increase 1n traffic hazards to
motor vehicles, bicyclists or
pedestrians? X
14 . Public Services . Will the proposal
ave an errect upon, or result in
a need for new or altered govern-
mental services in any of the
si following areas:
W a. Fire protection? X
t
b. Police protection? X
$' C . Schools? X
d. Parks or other recreational
facilities.? X
� e Maintenance of public facili-
ties, including roads? X
f. Other governmental services? X
15 . Energy. Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of
fuel or energy? X
b. Substantial increase in demand
upon existing sources of energy,
or require the development of new
sources of energy? x
62
i
i
ffiiit, iiii�i$'tp��►�'�v'
(Ivun,enaf Po�.vvmrtenwrnt d.+aata -►crtu. .`:b ,
...ubstant-.1UiW at.tera1,L`r
1 a , Pow ;r or rug.tur•a1 f;C.:: ' X
t,. Commu,iications
C . Water X
c3 . Sewer or septic
Stoi-m water drainap:e:' x
f. solid waste and di: posa? `:' X
1" Human Health. Will the i po„al
rest-fin
a . Creation of any health OP
<� potential. health hazard
mental health) ? x
w' b. hx po.�ure: of people to pot�i nt .-a X
: health hazards?
3 :1 Aesthetics .. W ill thr: zp'copc:,:;<':t.l
Q, In e o .ruction of an,l
x vista or view open to
$ will the proposal re:-ult to thk.,
creation of' an ac stheti.�,a1 .1`v
offensive site open to publ.ic:
19. Recreation. Will thc., pvopo:.ia l
In an impart upon the quailt;y or
quantity of existing recreatior)a l
opportunities'? X
20. Archeological/Historical . Wili the
proposal result in an a aeration
of a significant archeological or,
historical site, structure, object
or building? X
-41- 63
I
�'9Ylil�dt! ��il�.11tiGYlid°'deb :.°va''d�.�ft.r7 ;?'v ,
's`rAwnM{o i:Dowrrrnor.3 4' 1a SK',• •.:.
CjdatflxV... Jw.zl:i `'sC�fi O ,_'.,_''.`'r ........_.. .._ ._._ -
(a) Uoed th.v project 1'av<2� i.'.' <.;
to degrade the quality o
subs t&n I,- i811y reduce
or wildlife upecies , c,:)uu ,
population t'.o drop be.o-w :;era „ d;. -,: .
levels , to
animal coc;-=uniry, , red"u.cE1
restrict the range of a rare or enditiic,ejed
plant or animal or eliminate, zse=portt:rit
examples of the major periods of (2v l i forn i a
j history or. prehistory? --_ - -X
i
b. Does the project have the poten-
tial to achieve short-term,- tc the
disadvantage of long-term. envivon-
mental goals? (A short-term lmp' c;
Ui
4.
2. on the environment is one which
xr: wf occurs in a relatively brief
rf definitive period of time wYij.le
�( long-term impacts will endure
r' well into the future. ) x
c . Does the project have impacts
z� which are individually l.iniitc �t,
$ but cumulatively considerable"
(A project may impact on two
separate resources where the impact
on each resource is relatively
small, but where the effect; of the
i total of thoae impacts. on the
+ environment is significant. ) �� x
d. Does the project have environ-
mental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly
or indirectly? x
III. DISCUSSION OF EXVIRONWNTAL EVALUATION
64
-42- o. :.:. .
✓F.
CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS OF ALL "NO" ANSWERS
FOR BOTH CONCERN AREAF
1) a-f. The amount and intensity of the proposed uses in both
concern areas is not of sufficient magnitude to have
a significant adverse effect on unstable earth condi-
tions or in changes in geologic substructures; disrup-
tions, displacements, compaction or overcrowding of
the soil; topography or ground surface relief features;
destruction, covering, or modification of any unique
geologic or physical features; any increase in wind or
water erosion of soils, -either on or off the site; or
deposits or erosion of beach sands, or changes in
siltation, deposits or erosion which may modify the
channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean
or any bay, inlet, or lake.
1) g. The amount and intensity of the proposed uses in the
concern area south of Edinger Avenue and west of Bolsa
Chica Street is not of sufficient magnitude to have a
significant adverse effect on exposing people or property
to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides ,
mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards.
2) b-c. The amount and intensity of the proposed uses in both
concern areas is not of sufficient magnitude to have a
significant adverse effect on the creation of objection-
able odors or. alteration of air movement, moisture or
temperature, or a change in climate, either locally or
regionally.
3) a-h. The amount and intensity of the proposed uses in both
concern areas is not of sufficient magnitude to have a
significant adverse effect on changes in currents, or
the course or direction of water movements, in either
marine or fresh waters ; alterations to the course or flow
of flood waters; change in the amount of surface water
in any water body; any discharge into surface waters;
or any alteration of surface water quality, including
but not limited to temperature; or dissolved oxygen or
turbidity; . or absorbtion rates including surfaces water runoff.
Furthermore, there will also 'be no significant adverse
effect on alteration of the direction or rate of flow of
ground waters; changes in the quantity of ground waters,
either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations ; or
substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise
available for public water supplies .
3) i. The amount and intensity of the proposed uses in the
concern area south of Edinger Avenue and west of Bolsa
Chica Street is not of sufficient magnitude to have a
65
significant adverse effect on exposing people or property
to water-related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves.
4) a-d. The amount and intensity of the proposed uses in both
concern areas is not of sufficient magnitude to have a
significant adverse effect on change in the diversity of
species, or number of any species of plants (including
trees, shrubs, grass , crops , microflora and aquatic
plants) ; reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare,
or endangered species of plants; introduction of new
species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the
normal replenishment_ of existing species; or reduction in
acreage of any agricultural crop.
5) a-e. The amount and intensity of the proposed uses in both
concern areas is not of sufficient magnitude to have a
significant adverse effect on change in the diversity of
species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds,
land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish,
benthic organisms , insects or microfauna) ; reduction of
the numbers of any unique, rare, or endantered species
of animals; introduction of new species of animals into
an area, or result in a barrier to the migration of move-
ment of animals; or deterioration to existing fish or
wildlife habitats.
7) a. The amount and intensity of the proposed uses in both
concern areas is not of sufficient magnitude to produce
new light or glare.
9) b. The amount and intensity of the proposed uses in both
concern areas is not of sufficient magnitude to have a .
significant adverse effect on the substantial depletion
of any non-renewable natural resource.
10) a. The amount and intensity of the proposed uses in both
concern areas is not of sufficient magnitude to have a
significant adverse effect on the risk of an explosion or
the release of hazardous substances (including, but not
limited to, oile, pesticides, chemicals , or radiation)
in the event of an accident or upset conditions.
12) a. The amount and intensity of the proposed uses in both
concern areas is not of sufficient magnitude to have a
significant adverse effect on the existing housing, or
create a demand for additional housing.
13) a-f. The amount and intensity of the proposed uses in both
concern areas is not of sufficient magnitude to have a
significant adverse effect on generation of substantial
additional vehicular movement; effects on exisigng park-
ing facilities, or demand for new parking; substantial
impact upon existing transportation systems; or alterations
to present patterns of circulation or movement of people
and/or goods.
66
V'
/i
Furthermore, there will be no adverse effect on altera-
tions to waterborne, rail or air traffic; nor on increase
in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists, or
pedestrians.
14) a. A significant adverse impact will not be noted in both
concern areas in terms of fire protection. The City
manning rate currently is about one, fireman per 1, 120
persons. Since one area will increase population by an
estimated 132 persons and the other area by an estimated
620 persons, a significant adverse impact is not present.
b. A significant adverse impact will not be noted in both
concern areas in terms ..of ,police protection. The present
level in police manning is about 1. 16 officers per 1, 000
persons. Thus, an estimated increase in population of
132 people in one concern area and an estimated popula-
tion increase of 620 people in the other, does not pre-
sent an adverse impact.
14) e-f. The amount and intensity of the proposed uses in both
concern areas is not of sufficient magnitude to have a
significant adverse effect on maintenance of public fac-
ilities, including roads, or other governmental services.
15) a, b. The amount and intensity of the proposed uses in both
concern areas is not of sufficient magnitude to have a
significant adverse effect on use of substantial amounts
of fuel or energy, or substantial increases in demand
upon existing sources of energy, or require the develop-
ment of new sources of energy.
16) a-f. The amount and intensity of the proposed uses in both
concern areas is not of sufficient magnitude to have a
significant adverse effect on power or natural gas , com-
munications systems, water, sewer, storm water drainage,
or solid waste disposal.
The effects on natural gas and water are noted in Section
4. 3. The concern area south of Edinger Avenue and west
of Bolsa Chica will generate 15,923. 88 gallons of sewage
per day. The concern area south of Atlanta Avenue and
east of Bolsa Chica Street will generate 74 ,430 . 72
gallons of sewage production per. day. Both these figures
are derived from a worst case analysis. The City' s
Department of Public Works foresees no problems with
City water production capabilities in providing local
water and sewer service. Minor enlargements and exten-
sions would be required in new developments at the time
of actual development.
The concern area south of Edinger Avenue and west of
Bolsa Chica Street will generate 730 pounds of solid
waste per day. The concern area south of Atlanta Avenue
67
and east of Beach Boulevard will generate 3, 411 pounds
of solid waste per day. The Rainbow Disposal Company
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.
17) a. The amount and intensity of the proposed uses in both
concern areas is not of - sufficient magnitude to have a
significant adverse effect on the creation of any health
hazard or potential health hazard.
b. The amount and intensity of the proposed use in the con-
cern area south of Edinger Avenue and west of Bolsa Chica
Street is not of sufficient magnitude to expose people
to potential health hazards.
18) The amount and intensity of the proposed use in both
concern areas is not of sufficient magnitude to expose
people to the obstruction of any scenic vista or view
open to the public, nor will the proposal result in the
creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to
public view.
19) a. The amount and intensity of the proposed use in both
concern areas is not of sufficient magnitude to expose
people to an impact upon the quality or quantity of exist-
ing recreational opportunities.
20) The amount and intensity of the proposed uses in both
concern areas is not of sufficient magnitude to have a
significant adverse effect on an altheration of a signi-
ficant archaeological or historical site, structure,
object, or building.
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
21) a. The amount and intensity of the proposed uses in both
concern areas is not of sufficient magnitude to have a
significant adverse effect on the quality of the environ-
ment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal commcnity, reduce
the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal , or eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California history or prehistory.
21) b. The amount and intensity of the proposed uses in both
concern areas is not of sufficient magnitude to have a
significant adverse effect on the potential to achieve
short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environ-
mental goals.
bd
21) c. The amount and intensity of the proposed uses in both
concern areas is not of sufficient magnitude to have
a significant adverse effect on impacts which are
individually limited but cumulatively considerable.
21) d. The amount and intensity of the proposed uses in both
concern areas is not of sufficient magnitude to have
a significant adverse effect on environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly.
't.
69
LULTVV
4. 9 Organizations and Persons Consulted
1. Huntington Beach Planning Department:
General Plan, Local Coastal Program
2. Leighton-Yen and Associates:
Geotechnical Inputs
3. Herman Kimmel and Associates, Inc . :
Documentation of Huntington Beach Traffic Study
4. Public Works Department
/U
I • �
FOOTNOTES
1. Land Use Element: Phase I, Huntington Beach Planning
Department, December , 1973 , pp 6 . 8 , 6. 9 .
2 . Seismic-Safety Element, Huntington Beach Planning Department,
August, 1974 , pp 103-105.
3. Conservation Potentials Report, Huntington Beach Planning
Department, March, 1974 , pp 19-47 ; 133-141 .
4 . Open Space Potentials, Huntington Beach Planning Department,
February, 1974 , pp 17-21; 77-91; 93-110.
5. Geotechnical Inputs, Huntington Beach Planning Department,
February, 1974 .
6 . Flood Hazard Study, Huntington Beach Planning Department,
April , 1974 .
7 . Land Use Element: Phase I, p 6. 9.
8 . Seismic-Safety Element, pp 105-106 .
9 . Conservation Potentials Report, pp 47-92 ; 133-141 .
10. Open Space Potentials, pp 17-25; 68-71; 93-110 .
11 . Flood Hazard Study.
12 . Fire Hazard/Fire Protection Study, Huntington Beach Fire
and Planning Departments, July, 1974 , pp 21-24 .
13 . Land Use Element: Phase I, pp 6 . 9, 6. 10.
14 . . Seismic-Safety Element, pp 106-107 .
15. Conservation Potentials Report, pp 92-104 .
16 . Land Use Element : Phase I , p. 6 . 10.
17 . Seismic-Safety Element, p. 107 .
18. Conservation Potentials,, pp 104-124 .
19 . Seismic-Safety Element, pp. 108 , 109 .
20. Conservation Potentials Report, pp. 124-133 .
21. Open Space Potentials, pp. 39-45.
/ 71
22. Scientific Resources Survey and Inventory, Archaeological
Research, Incorporated, January, 1973 .
23 . General Plan Amendment 77-1 (proposed) , Huntington Beach
Planning Department, August, 1976 .
24 . Land Use Element : Phase I , pp- 2 . 12 - 2 . 13, 2 . 15 - 2 . 16 .
25. Circulation Element Backgr•ound- Report, Huntington Beach
Planning Department, August, 1976 , pp 10-15, 42-46, 51-57 ,
and 65-67 .
26 . The General Plan, Huntington Beach Planning Department,
August, 1976 , Section 3 . 1 .
28 . Open Space and Conservation Element Background Report,
pp. 35-68 . -
29 . Conservation Potentials, pp. 125-128 .
30. Open Space Potentials, pp. 50-58 .
31 . Southern California Gas Company, 1974 .
32 . Southern California Edison Company, 1974 .
33. Department of Public Works, City of Huntington Beach,
July, 19.76 .
34 . Rainbow Disposal Company, July, 1976 .
35. Department of Public Works, City of Huntington Beach,
July, 1976 .
36 . Population Growth Element Background Report, Huntington
Beach Planning Department, August, 1976.
37 . Noise Element Background Report, Huntington Beach Planning
Department, August, 1976 .
38 . Noise Element Background Report, Huntington Beach Planning
Department, August, 1976 , pp. iv.
39. Housing Element Background Report, Huntington Beach Planning
Department, August, 1976, Section 3 . 2. 3..
72
i
ADDENDUM TO EIR 77-13
corrections provided by Staff:
1. Page 19 , Section 4 . 1 . 1
Acreage figure of 8 . 57 should read 8 . 32 gross acres.
2 . Page 20 , Section 4 . 1. 2 . 2
Acreage figure of 8 . 57 should read 8 . 32 gross acres.
3 . Page 42 , Section 4 .4 . 1
The second paragraph incorrectly indicates that the no project
alternative would reduce traffic. Actually the no project
alternative would increase traffic because the potential
commercial uses would generate more traffic than the potential
residential uses.
'
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION
HUNTINGTON BEACH
From James R. Barnes
File •
�A; «, : ' F Assistant Planner
bject EIR '•77-13 . Date November 22, 1977
5i.,\!'t'.The Environmental Resources Section of the Planning Department offers the .,
''''t�aX•-•following comments regarding Environmental Impact Report No. 77-13
i,'?.t';. prepared for a proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of the General
Plan which would redesignate two sites from general commercial to high
density residential.
Area 1 8 . 32 acres on the east .side of Beach Boulevard 700+ feet
south of Atlanta Avenue.
A. . -Although an EIR on a general plan amendment need not be as
detailed as an EIR on the specific construction project (s)
that might follow, the limited size of the site in question
i�• .a .;
would allow for a greater degree of specificity in some of the
areas of this report. The EIR could present a more detailed
' description of the environment in the vicinity of the site.
Specifically, projections of existing traffic Toads on adjacent
"•;� : streets and projected amounts of additional traffic generated
from a residential project on the site should be presented.
Likewise, more information should be presented regarding the
capacity of sewer lines which would serve the site along with
projections of increased loads resulting from a residential
project. ,
.��; '' B. A study identifying environmental constraints on property
immediately south of the subject site has been prepared by a
private consultant and submitted to the City. The study indicates
that there are severe geotechnical constraints, a potential for
flooding during the standard project storm (100 year) , and the
existence' of a rare and endangered species (Belding ' s Savannah
Sparrow) property
p ) on theto the south. Since the two sites are
contiguous with no appreciable barriers, it can be reasonably
assumed that the same environmental constraints existing on
•;; :: property to the south may also exist on the subject site. Prior
to consideration and/or approval of a specific project on the
site further environmental assessment should be conducted regarding
the potential environmental constraints mentioned above.
Area 2 1. 78 acres on the south side of Edinger Avenue 300+ feet west
of Bolsa Chica Street.
The limited size of the site would allow for a greater degree of
specificity question
s ecificit in the same areas indicated above. , For the site in
a more detailed description of the environment in the immediate vicinity
of the site may eliminate the need for further environmental assessment
regarding construction projects which are proposed.
® e
Response to comments from the Environmental Resources Section
of the Planning Department:
l.A. Traffic projections for Beach Boulevard (H. Kimmel and
Associates) indicate 23 , 000 average daily trips. Capacity
of Beach Boulevard is 45 , 000 average daily trips. The
discrepancy is necessary because of peak loads occuring
at certain times of the day during the summer due to beach
usage. Under the proposed land use designation an addi-
tional 1 ,835 ADT' s will be generated. This is well below
the excess capacity of Beach Boulevard, but more impor-
tantly the project ADT' s are 2 ,493 ADT' s less than those
projected for the property under the existing land use
designation.
Sewage capacity is a problem in the area. Regardless of
the potential land use the system will have to be up-
graded in order to permit development of the property.
This issue must be delt with in detail in an EIR dealing
with a proposed development.
l.B. Comment is correct.
2 . It is departmental policy that EIR' s dealing with General
Plan amendments are general in nature and that the developer
will be monetarily responsible for more in depth analysis .
ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT
November 28, 1977 HIJNT1NGTON BEACH
PLANNING pEp7-.
DEC
Mr. James R. Barnes
Department of Planning & Environmental Resources p• 01 Box 190
City of Huntington Beach Puntin8tOn®each
.
P.O. Box 190 CA92W
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 i
Dear Mr. Barnes:
Staff has reviewed the General Plan Amendment 77-3 Draft Environ—
mental Impact Report, Part 2 Miscellaneous Items and has the
following comments:
Amendment 77-3 concerns redesignation of land uses for different
parcels in the city. Two parcels would be -rezoned from commercial
to residential, and two would be designated commercial. In both
cases , there will be an increased amount of person and automobile
traffic in the surrounding areas.
i
OCTD currently has several routes that operate in the vicinity of
the parcels under discussion. The routes, their origins and
destinations and number of weekday bus trips are:
Route 1 (Long Beach to San Clemente) 34 bus trips
25 (Fullerton to Huntington Beach) 32 bus trips
29 (La Habra to Huntington Beach) 62 bus trips
37 (La Habra to Huntington Beach) 58 bus trips
76 (Huntington Beach to Tustin) 42 bus trips
i
The increase in total population for the parcels as projected by the
Amendment is 771 persons. We feel the existing OCTD services will
be sufficient to provide transit opportunities for the new and ex—
isting residents both to the City of Huntington Beach and also to
the rest of Orange County. However, as the transit ridership in—
creases in the future, OCTD will make the necessary adjustments in
i bus scheduling, vehicle assignment and/or service changes. The
District will be working closely with the City in monitoring the
actual growth of traffic and transit demands resulting from the
j development of the subject parcels.
i
1200 NORTH MAIN STREET P.O.BOX 688 SANTA AN CALIFORNIA
A, AL FORNIA 92702 PHONE )714)834 6190 j
I
I
Mr. James R. Barnes
November 28, 1977
Page two
1
Please call if you have any further questions regarding this matter.
{
Very truly yours,
Robert C. Hartwig
Manager of Planning
RH:R
i
I
i
I
I
I
I
t,
nk.
Response to comments from the Orange County Transit District.
No response necessary.
f • -
JNTINGTON BEACH
Environmental Council PLANNING DEPT.
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH � V 22 »",
11UNIINGTON RLACM Post Office Box 190 Huntington Be�ich, a Itornia 92648
P. 0• Box 190
Tot Huntington Beach Environmental Review Com
,J&Mj%n Beach,CA 92648.
Environmental Council members read the General Plan Amendment 77-3
Part 2, Miscellaneous Items , prepared by the Huntington Beach Plan-
ning Department November 1977. They discussed this report at the
November 8 Environmental meeting, and, the following comments and
questions were raised.
A. South of Edinger, West of Bolsa Chica.
1. What is the actual density of the existing residential de-
velopment described in the second paragraph? In light of the
existing neighborhood, the Environmental Council agrees that
additional Commercial use is probably not needed there, but
recommends that this property be changed to R-2 Medium Denisity
use, or R-3 with no greater density than the existing adjacent
property.
B . North of Indianapolis , East of Beach.
The Environmental Council concurs that the use of this land
probably should not change at the present time.
C. South of Atlanta, East of Beach.
This project appears to be very close to the South Branch earth-
quake fault. Aren't the s-forces expected on this site higher
than the average 0.186 Building Code standard? What is the
justification for not recommending higher standards?
.What are "construction materials of minimal origin" in Section
4.6, page 43?
D. North of Pacific Coast Highway, East of Beach.
The Environmental Council supports the proposed delay of Action
on the property for the following reasons.
1. Coastal Commission has recommended that a portion of this
area be protected, as there is significant wildlife and
open space potential.
2. The extension of Hamilton and the Land Use change as pro-
posed would foreclose future potentials for that property.
3. The Scenic Highway designation for Pacific Coast Highway
is currently being developed, and is important at that
major intersection in our community; expediting develop-
ment by this land use change should be avoided.
E. . Parks , Section 4.2.2.3
Irithal dist�lsion qn ages 2 apd 2t� sh uld be releva o each
o t e spec is projec�s, as s ina ly one on pages -�,
t
identifying location and safe access to these areas. High
density development requires greater amounts of recreational
and open space than R-1 or R-2 because of the nature of the
intense utilization of the land in R-3. This MUST NOT be overlooked,
or an even greater burden will be placed on the adjacent resi-
dences and the public services for maintaining a safe com-
munity. Might a condition of approval be recommended to require
useable recreational open space for all ages , preschool es-
pecially, within the project?
F. Flood Protection
Section 4.3.3 pages 30-32 is not relevant to these projects,
and could be cross-referenced to City documents as so much else
is in this EIR. Wouldn't it be more relevant and appropriate
to suggest specific measures , as for the Beach-Atlanta project,
that any constructbn be 6-10 feet above existing grade- or sea
level , especially if the constructi on is planned ptior to the
completion of theoanta Ana River flood control protection?
G. Natural Resources
Section 4.3.6 has many incorrect uni" in each paragraph, and
is incoherent as it is written (i.e. "Taking the figure of 250,000
cu ft of gas used per gross acre by commercial use, use of gas
will total 445,000 cu ft per gross acre if the project were to
be developed under commercial use.")
On page 37 , Mitigating Measure #2s Items 5 and 3 are the only
measures relevant to these projects--and #3 would recommend against
approving additional residental use and its water consumption!
H. Alternatives
It appears that a major point of the EIR has been overlookedi
What are the impacts and, importantly, the differences in impacts
between development under the resent land use designation, and
under the proposed designation
The Environmental Council would recommend a matrix of the impacts
of all the alternatives to all four projects.
Section 4.4.1 indicates the many environmental and community
benefits of the No Project Alternatives. How are the proposed
projects "meeting the need and demand for a variety of housing
in Huntington Beach, and how is this determined to be more im-
portant -than the many long-term adverse impacts of the intense
land usages proposed?
The Environmental Council disagrees with Section 4.4.2, and points
to inconsistency in the document. How can the proposed growth,
the increased densities in the projects (over existing designation) ,
and the accompanying adverse impacts as noted in the previous
paragraph be in conformance with the goals and polities of the
cityT
I. Attached is a copy of the Environmental Checklist from the FIR
with some changes recommended by the Environmental Council. Below
are the comments and questions relating to the Explanations on
pages 61-65 of the EIR.
3. With development on presently vacant land, wouldn't the per-
colation of water be greatly reduced, and the surface runoff
greatly increased? The Atlanta and Beach area with low spots
and ditches presently, being at a lower elevation than the
adjacent Flood Control Channel, needs special consideration,
so this issue should be addressed in the EIR. These projects.
would also have an impact of reducing the ground water to
supply the domestic water needs of .the increasing population.
4 and 5. In any development, the number and species of plants and
animals will be reduced drastically or eliminated. New species
of plants and animals should certainly be proposed, with special
attention to plants that will tolerate minimal irrigation, and
that are attractive to birds and other wildlife.
13. Isn't. the impact of additional traffic, and location of curb-
cuts , crossings , etc. important where there are existing bi-
cycle trails along both projects (Atlanta, and Edinger)?
Isn't the impact, on the local traffic, and local traffic on
both projects, important? Bolsa Chica traffic during peak
hours of the industrial traffic, and Beach Blvd. during seasonal
peaks should certainly be addressed. (No project, no impacts . )
14. Comments indicate that the need for "3/4 of an additional
police .officee for the proposed population increase does not
present an adverse impact. How can this be? R-3 residential
development requires the highest police and fire service, so
unless those departments are over-staffed (which •they
perennial deny at budget tim �resently
there is indeed a need of
taxpayers ' monies for additional police and fire protection
of the proposed R-3 units.
15. Why is the cummulative impact of additional construction on
the energy resources continually ignored, and on other utilities
and services?
16. (Error in line 5--should read east of Beach Blvd. )
600A CONTINUATION MUI
OR FIUNG ADMDNwRATiv` RIOUTA HS
WITH THl MU91ARY OIL STAU
Z►w•vaN to�'.+„�•. C,wl. �..11vN 11)t.)11
i ENVIRONMENTAL- C}IECKLIST
8 . 1 BACKGROUND
1 . Name of Proponent G. P. Building Enterprises , Inc .^^ _
2 . Address and Phone Number of Propon -EE:
17232 Marina View Place
I Huntington -Beach, CA 92649
1 846-5775 --y-� ---�---
----_-
3 . Date of Checklist SubmittedOctober 17 , 1977
4. Agency Requiring Checklist City of-Huntington Beach _
S . Name of Proposal, if applicable-�eneral` �an Ame_nclment
No. 77-3 , EIR for concern area south o E inger Avenue
an east o Beac Boulevard.
8 . 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are re(4u1r(-_,c1
on attached sheets. )
&� YES MAYBE NO
s
= 1 . Earth. Will the proposal result in:
t a . Unstable earth conditions or in
changes in geologic substructures? x
8 b. Disruptions, displacements, com-
paction or overcovering of the soil? x
c . Change in topography or ground
surface relief features? x
d. The destruction, covering or
modification_ of Any unique geologic
or physical features? x
e . Any increase in wind or water
erosion of soils, either on or off
the site? x
f . Changes in deposition or erosion
of beach sands, or changes in
siltation, deposition or erosion
which may modify the channel of
a river or stream or the bed of
the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? x
I 45
-36-
FLAMINGO CR
BLUEJAY CR. rx -
w w - Z - -
w - -
m } - N
F-
cn ROBINWOOD DR. _
Q Z Mq �E d I -
�U -� S I. Ed
zcc
U c�
M I'lC0QP0RATED Q w SPA ROW DR.
Z
J
o
J �
U 0 _
SKYLARK OR.
0. C.
C C I
i�::lnR
FAUDREY
iF
CF
LINDA CR <1 DJ'6*'M E I DR. � ;� _� S T` - —�—
z
KONA
r <
D- T�.�L -_ Z
LLITTICHE RYL DR
--
w
cr
cr -
HILO CR. - 71
I
KAUI DR. 515SON
z
I-'q El ISi M S _ I
PROPOSED
MEADOWL
AREA OF CONCERN 2.1
SOUTH OF EDINGER AVENUE
& WEST OF BOLSA CHICA STREET
46
6
r
ppQy*�OOA 6WIiM06tATppF/ 1106®
J ► HUNG AMA0 MTRATM RO ULATIC
VI19TN TNI SICUTARY Of ITATL
C%rivpAt to Oevef eaawN COJd 5"tion I I"WO.1 1
g . Exposure of people or, c)
geologic hazards such as earthq;.ta;/C:e3 ,
landslides, mudslides, ground failur,;!,
I or similar hazards? ✓ X _
2 . Air. Will the proposal resist in:
I a . Substantial air emissions or
deterioration of ambient air, qt;: it.,y` X
i
b. The creation of objectionlittc.
I odors? X
C . Alteration of air movement,'
moisture or temperature, or any
change in climate, either locally
jor regionally? X
i
3 . Water . Will the proposal result, in:
U{ a . Changes in currents, or the cuur-se:
0L1 or direction of water movements, in
either marine or fresh waters? X
x
z b. Changes in absorption rates,
drainage pattersn, or the rate
3 and amount of surface water runoff'? X
0
Z C . Alterations to the course or
flow of flood waters? X
d. Change in the amount of surface
water in any water body? X
e . Discharge into surface waters, or
in any alteration of surface water
quality,, including but not limited
to termperature, dissolved oxygen or
turbidity? x
f. Alteration of the direction or
rate of flow of ground waters? X
E. Change in the quantity of ground
waters, either through direct additions
or . withdrawals, or through interception
of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? X
i
47
g /OMri IOOA tAM4UA1ftQN SHM t
Wf H THE SKRI TTARY of STATE
(hrs"At rd Oevrrommaf Cod.S*Oit- I I)Vd A)
f
YES MA YbE NO
h, Substantial reduction its the
iamount of water otherwise available:
for .public water supplies? X
i
1 , Exposure of people or property
to water related hazards such as
flooding or tidal waves? X
i 4. Plant Life . Will the proposal result
n:
ia . Change in the diversity of species,
I or number of any species of plants
(including trees, shrubs, grass,
crops, microflora and aquatic' plants) ? _ X
b. Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare or, endangered species
of plants? X
c . Introduction of new species of
plants into an area, or in a barrier
to the normal replenishment of
existing species? X
d. Reduction in acreage of any
agricultural crop? X
x 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal
8 result in:
a. Change in the diversity of
species, or numbers of any species
of animals (birds, land animals
including reptiles, fish and
shellfish, benthic or anisms,
insects or microfaunag? X
b. Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare or endangered species
of animals? X
c. Introduction of new species of
animals into an area, or result in
a barrier to the migration or
isovement. of animals? x
d. ' Deterioration to existing fish
or wildlife habitat? X
A 8
-38-
DOOM IOOA CO"TNUATION SHUT
Ak PILING ADP11SM'M AKQULAh.#NS
WffH 1*11 UCRITARY Of SWAT+,:
(/anwrN »Ova+rwr�awr C'od• bc.:on 7 1 JdU.1
fi
6. Noise. Will the proposal rests A in.
i
. a . Increases in existing no it,e _ x _
levels?
b. Exposure of people to severe
noise levels? x
----
7. Light and Glare . Will the proposal
produce new 117g t or glare? x
f
8. Land Use . Will the proposal result in
a su s antial alteration of the
present or planned land use of an
area? x
9. Natural Resources. Will the
proposal result n:
a . Increase in the rate of use of
any natural resources'? x
b. Substantial depletion of any
nonrenewable natural resource? x
10. Risk of Upset. Does the proposal
involve a r sc of an explosion or
the release of hazardous substances
g (including, but not limited to, oil,
pesticides, chemicals or radiation)
in the event of an accident or
upset conditions? x
11 . Population. Will the proposal alter
e location, distribution, density,
or growth rate of the human popu-
lation of an area? x
12. Housing. Will the proposal affect
existing housing, or create a
demand for additional housing? x
13 . TransportationLCirculation. Will
the proposal result n:
a; Generation of substantial addi-
tional vehicular movement? x
49
i
room•ooA CONVINVAM" Nutt
FOR FIUNQ ADMIHISTRATIVE RIGULATIONS
WITH TMi SKRKTARY Of STATIC
t rteRt w aa.ernet.et Code section ,1)t. ,
S r
YES L A YH'1-: NO
b . Effects on existing parking
facilltieo, or demand for new
parking? �Y - x-
Substantial impact upon existing
transportation systems? X
i
d. Alterations to present patterns
of circulation or movement of
people and/or goods? V x
e . Alterations to waterborne, rail
or air traffic? X
1
ff. Increase in traffic hazards to
motor vehicles, bicyclists or
pedestrians? X
14 . Public Services . Will the proposal
have an effect upon, or result in
<� a need for new or altered govern-
mental services in any of the
T' following areas:
a. Fire protection? r/ X
b. Police protection? X
Z
Sc . Schools? X
d: Parks or other recreational
facilities.? X
e . Maintenance of public facili- _ /
ties, including roads? b X
f. Other governmental services? X
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of
fuel or energy?
b. Substantial increase in demand
upon existing sources of energy,
or require the development of new
sources of energy? X
50
• 'OR /ILINO AD W416TKATIVI ik&QULA F' "'A"
WI'6>y TM SAC VARY Of SIATI
(rununwt N Ouverewmat Cad* Soction 113&0.!1
3.6. Utllitle:.— W11.1. tt,::
in a need f oc new sy;••,.I.,r(I:, , r•
substantial alteratlun:J L�)
following uk.ilities :
a , Power or natural ca—:i X
b. Communications systems','. X
e . Water? X
,
d. Sewer or septic tanks? X
je . Storm water drainage? X
f. Solid waste and disposal'? X
17 . Human Health. Will the proposal
result in:
—
a . Creation of any health hazard or
potential health hazard (excAudinp,
mental health) ? _ X
b.. Exposure of people to potential
= health hazards? X
H
18. Aesthetics . Will the propo^al -esuit
o n the ruction of any :scenic
Z vista or view open to the public. , or,
$ will the proposal result In .thi
creation ,.of an aesthetically
offensive site open to public view? X
19. Recreation. Will the proposal result
in an impact upon the quality or
quantity of existing recreational
opportunities? X
20. Archeologica!ZHistorical . Will the
proposal result in an alteration
of a significant archeological or
historical site, structure, object
or building? X
� 1
`�i- 51
CAR HUNG ADMIMSUATIV9 itAGULA 'WS
WITH TM $kUPARY Of STAY!
(Penvem to G*"mnen4 Coda $*COO?% t1340.11
I
21, mndatory t indinga at
(a) Doers the protect have I-Ino . ,otont:.icll
to degrade the quality of t io +�twi.r. 1runrnt
substantially reduce they habitau of a fish
or wildlife species , cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self susta i-nin(j
levels , threaten to eliminate a plant. or -
animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods -of California
history or prehistory? X
(� b. Does the project have the poten-
tial to achieve short-term, to the
disadvantage of long-term, environ-
mental goals? (A short-term impact
on the environment is one which
d occurs in a relatively brier,
definitive period of time while
r; long-term impacts will endure
well into the future . ) _ X
i� c . Does the project have impacts
which are individually limited,
$, but cumulatively considerable?
i (A prbject may impact on two or more
separate resources where the impact
on each resource is relatively
small, but where the effect of the
total of those impacts on the
environment is significant. ) X
d. Does the project have environ-
mental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly
or indirectly? X
III. DISCUSSION OF .ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
w
52 -
ioy10 idOA GCWTUNAMN SHUT
FOR FRJN8 ADWNiSMATIVE RAOUL.._.,ON$
WffN THI UCA'STARY OF STATE
tPvr9wnf i•W+s�a+•et Cod• S.cr1�w 1l�iw.►)
I
i
I
I ' ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
I
BACKGROUND
an Sassolinian
1 . Name of Proponent Bi j
2 . Address and Phone Number o oponenE:
11932 Valley View Street _
ar en Grove CA 92645 �..
894-3511
i 3 . Date of Checklist Submitted October 17 1977
4. Agency Requiring Checklist 1 y o Hun g oB each^
5 . Name of Proposal, if applicable-general—' an menTmen�t__
77-3 . EIR for concern area south of Atlanta Avenue and
east of Beach Boulevard.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required
on attached sheets. )
9s
y YES MAYBE NO
zi
t 1 . Earth. Will the proposal result in:
W
t a. Unstable earth conditions or in
changes in geologic substructures? X
0
g b. Disruptions, displacements, com-
paction or overcovering of the soil? x
c . Change in topography or ground
surface relief features? x
d. The destruction, covering or
modification of Any unique geologic
or physical features? x
e . Any increase in wind or water
erosion of soils, either on or off
the site? _X
f . Changes in deposition or erosion
of beach sands, or changes in
siltation, deposition or erosion
which may modify the channel of
a river or stream or the bed of
the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? x
-- ( 53
-36-
r
Q �..!_.
SNOWBIRD
a
wrr
f
�n yuj
TA AVPNIIP
:J, J
-
MEDIUM DD IS I TY > Q
RES I DENT I AL "".NctoK
'` n r ATT ITCQO
CR
TJVI -----------
< --- J A LBIRTC)Nf,,.
LLJ
V o ATTLE810K
O �y� LM.
t: ......, DEfRFIELD.. --- -p{:-
MED I UM E'IS I TY
0
:U p w
. FIE�.D F � _-_-•QR� -
I'1IXED JLu_�
_
DEVELOPMENT
w BUSM K D t
(COMMERCIAL) f: _
FOKt1AlL-•
R _] _-_-�-� ATTLEBOR
�.. Lk
AREA OF CONCERN 2.3
SOUTH OF ATLANTA AVENUE
& EAST OF BEACH BOULEVARD
54
}
OR l UNG ADIAPAIMAT1Vi 1111GU A S i
• 1WffN IM UMITARY AO >3TAU
(/rnwM h Osr+r n C*j* bwtMon IIM.1)
t `
YI:S Yii
g . Exposure of people or pi-opurty i.o
geologic hazards such as eartnq,aake,-,,
landslides, mudslides, ground ia11are,
or similar hazards? x
2 . Air. Will the proposal resu.: t 1 »:
I a . Substantial air emissions or
deterioration of ambient air quality! X
b. The creation of objectionable
! odors? X
I
c . Alteration of air movement ,
i moisture or temperature, or any
change in climate, either locally
or regionally? X
3 . Water. Will the proposal result in:
a . Changes in currents, or the course .
or direction of water movements, in ,
either marine or fresh waters'? X
r
z b. Changes in absorption rates,
drainage pattersn, or the rate X
and amount of surface water runoff?
0
8 c . Alterations to the course or
flow of flood waters? X
d. Change in the amount of surface
water in any water body? X
e . Discharge into surface waters, or
in any alteration of surface water
quality, including but not limited
to temperature, dissolved oxygen or
turbidity? X
f. Alteration of the direction or
rate, of flow of ground waters? X
g. Change in the quantity of ground
waters, either through direct additions
or withdrawals, or through interception
of: an aquifer by cuts or excavations? X
— 1
I
55 .
P96.4 AOOA
FOR FIUP40 t1,DNA1PdO1' A G 0/9 4'.�fc;►u,,i .,+r a. r
4WtTA& �7At �C�t3.'�.:c i -::%r : ti'•.�:a.
3ubLiLa11�:�aI red,.Ct !o!
i:mount c!' wuise:
for pub" 1 ; wr:ter supplf.e;;:' - x
i , F-cpoa,iice of peoplf
to water related hazards
flooding or tidal waves? _X�
I'iarit Llf O' W.111 the pl'u'): .
I a . Change in the diversity
I or number of any species o2' j� ,�►�t;s
i (including trees, shrubu,
crops, microflora and a(luaL.ic ;,).a;,c ;s) ��VII X
b. Reduction .of the
unique, rare or endan-u.red rip,::cie,u
of plants? X
U c introduction of neiii
plants into an area, or Ln a barrier
to the normal replenishment of
existing species? X-_
z
d . Reduction in acreage of z)i-iy
agricultural crop? X
Animal Life . Will the piopo�i,
a . Change in the diversity of
species, or numbers of any specie;
of animals (birds, land ariimals
Including reptiles, fish and
shellfish, benthic or anisms, X
insects or microfauna�?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare or endangered species
of animals? X
C . Introduction of new species of
animals into an area, or result in
a barrier to the migration or
movement of animals? X
d. Deterioration to existing fish
or wildlife habitat? X
56 j
re, M lGu� CONTIF�UAYIv� a-+eit I • ;
, 'I.14.•., K '.1IM 11.11Y.3 4 .. ... • I r
i
r
i O. Nc, 5L . �A�i11 rClt ;12'JpC;�'ll
In existing, r.c. . X
ieve.i t3
b. Expoat,rc of people to st
noise levels? X
( . _L_i h��t and t.laj-e Wili tI' t
produce newlight or glare? _ _X
8. Land Use. Will the p,.opo:3a=l rl salt. In
a substantial alteration of the
present or planned land use ul' an
area? X
9. Natural Resources . Will the
proposal result n:
r3 . Increase in the r<.ite of apse of
any natural resources'? x
a
b. Substantial depletion of any
nonrenewable natural resource? X
10. Risk of Upset . Does the proposa)
nvo ve a r si`t of an explosion or
the release of hazardous substanoe,.;
(including, but not limited to, oil ,
pesticides, chemicals or radiation)
in the event of an accident or
upset conditions? X
I
11 . Population. Will the proposal alter
e location, distribution, density,
or growth rate of the human popu-
lation of an area? X
12 . Housing. will the proposal affect
ex eti-ng housing, or create a
demand for additional housing? X
ma
13 . Transportation/Circulation. Will
e proposal result in:
a. Generation of substantial addi-
tional vehicular movement? X
_3:�_ 57
F&W&j 400A COMMUAT10" Wilt
FOR. FIUNQ ADWHISUATiVE RIOULATIONS
WITH THE ZSCRAIARY OF STATE
►-A &nT i-a (1*vortsaeat Code Secilan
Y F N, NJ
b Effectb on existing
facilltieu, or demand for nit'�
pa r k Ing 0 X
c . Substantial impact upon
transportation syster.,B? X
d. Alterations to present patterns
?of circulation or movement of
people and/or goods? X
e . Alterations to waterborne, rail
or air traffic? X
f. Increase in traffic hazards to
motor vehicles, bicyclists. or
pedestrians? X
14 . Public ,Services . Will the proposal
have an efTect upon, or result in
a need for new or altered govern-
1 mental services in any of the
U
ti following areas:
z a. Fire protection? X
b. Police protection? X
0
c . Schools? X
d; Parks or other recreational
facilities? X
e , Maintenance of public facili-
ties, including roads? X
f Other governmental services? X
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
a. , Use of substantial amounts of
fuel or energy? X
b. Substantial Increase in demand.
upon existing sources of energy,
or require the de'velopment of new
`J sources of energy? X
58
• P�iE 4�iL36J� ADwdi�1�1iA7�:3'�'1� ��it�t.e;., �Ym1i a., .
(►wrJrhf h Cbv�iMwrf r�.1u "wcflu, `)1
1 `.) . IJtilitif.:,. itiil .l tri, i•1 ,, ,1,1.1:
Ln 3
substant;i;ai
Poll-ow"'I , ut 11t 1 eG
a , rawer or ratural. X
b. Comrnurilc.:ations S;, �tc:r;;c. '. - _ X
C . r1 t: r? X
d , St�Wer or peptic t,an;cs't x
e . Storm water drainage? x
f. Solid waste and di2posal'r x
1'j . Human Health. Will the pvc:lposal
resulEn:
a . Creation of any health 1:azarc1 or
potential health hazaru (e;�cl ,. o in ;
mental health) '?
i
b. Exposure of people to potentiai X
z health hazards?
H
18. Aesthetics . Will thy, propo.>al
o in the obstruction of ally Con.tc
z vista or view open to the plablic , or,
8 will the proposal result in the
creation of an aesthetically
offensive site open to public: view:' X
19. Recreation. Will the proposal result
in an impact upon the quality or
quantity of existing recreational
opportunities? x
20. ArcheologicalZHistorical . Will the
proposal result In an alteration
or a significant .archeological or
historical site, structure, object
or building? X
fl
1
-41-- 5
� 9
WITH THS S KitUARY UP PAU .
'V Jf7 wuM ,7 �OY�fM1/wMl l r,OP SM M14 1..iJ .
21. . pig ndatory,_ i"indulge Ut_;.i�:,
(a) Dutra the Pro,
ect F,iavc1
to degrnde T_l-ge: quality O
ctubs Lail tlally reduce O)o hal.: i
or wildllfb upecies , Cauca Al I_T:•
cpulatiUr,. t "(1rop below !ja:l : A,
..:eve to e 1 i"lima �.
animal cottrtnuniLy , reduces t.hc:
restrict the range of a rare or, end7irigered
plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periodu of California
history or prehistory? x
I
b. Does the project have the poten-
tial to achieve short-term, to the
disadvantage of long-term, eriviron-
�� mental goals? (A short-term Impact
on the environment is one which
occurs in a relatively brief,
definitive period of time while
long-term impacts will endure
well into the future . ) _4 x
r
c . Does the project have impacts
which. are individually limited,
g but cumulatively considerable'?
(A project may impact on two or mort:
separate resources where the impact
on each resource is relatively
small, but where the effect of the
total of those impacts on the
environment is significant. ) x
d. Does the project have environ-
mental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly
or, indirectly? x
III. DISCUSSION OF EXVIRONMNTAL EVALUATION
6pr;E.. s
-42-
a �;
O
Response to comments from the Environmental Review Committee:
A. This comment is not related to EIR 77-13 . For purposes of
information the following is offered; the density of the existing
residential development described in the second paragraph is
slightly more than 17 units per gross acre. Fifteen or more
units per gross acre constitutes high density residential.
B. No comment necessary.
C. The General Plan EIR deals with existing programs and policies in
terms of providing mitigating measures . An EIR on a proposed
project may in fact find that stricter mitigating measures are
necessary .
"Construction materials of minimal origin" should read ,
"Construction materials of mineral origin. "
D. No comment necessary .
E. The initial discussion on pages 23 and 24 provided the setting
for all areas of, concern. Analysis on pages 38 and 39 deals with
specific problem areas .
Provision of open space is based on population. The greater the
population in an area the greater will be the need for open space.
Existing codes require the provision of open space. The exact
configuration of open space is determined during the develop-
mental and review stages of a specific project.
F. Section 4 . 3 . 3 pages 30-32 deals with the site located south of
Atlanta Avenue which will be continued to GPA 78-1. Additional
environmental documentation would be forthcoming at that time.
In any case an EIR for a General Plan Amendment will cite'
existing policies and programs as mitigating measures . 'Additional
mitigating measures may be determined to be necessary in an EIR
dealing with a specific development project.
G. The units used to determine consumption of natural resources
are the best presently available to staff and are the same as
those used in previous General Plan Amendments . The mitigating
measures for water consumption relate to individual structures
and to the overall water system to which the project would be
dependent. The potential uses under the proposed land use
designation would not produce greater demand on the underground
water supply than is available.
Y•+ I
H. Section 4 . 3 and the checklist deals with the differences in
impacts between development under the present land use desig-
nation and the proposed land use designation. The reasoning for
such a procedure is that the impacts of the GPA are best
measured by the differences between the potential uses under the
existing and proposed land uses. If the project was a develop-
ment project then the EIR could deal with a base zero impact
for vacant land as compared to impacts under development. How-
ever, in a General Plan Amendment the EIR never deals with a base
zero, rather with a change from one potential use to another
potential use . This has the effect of dealing only with dif-
ferences and therefore . in cases where there is a potential
significant impact for development under both the existing and
proposed land use designation the issue is not dealt with. This
is simply because the proposed change is not responsible for the
potential impact since that potential impact already existed.
However, the potential impact and appropriate mitigating measures
will be dealt with in-an EIR that deals with a specific develop-
ment project. By utilizing this method of analysis the real
differences between the existing and proposed land use desig-
nations can be focused upon in the clearest and most concise
manner possible. No environmental impacts. will be overlooked
since . an EIR on the actual development will deal with the
whole range of impacts related to the specific project.
The existing format of the EIR is consistent with CEQA guidelines .
The provision of a matrix detailing the impacts of the proposals
would be redundant, however it might facilitate analysis of the
EIR. Presently time constraints would not permit the development
of such a matrix. It is possible the scheduling of future
General Plan Amendments may permit more time to complete docu-
mentation consequently such a matrix may be able to be provided.
Section 4 . 4 . 1 incorrectly notes that no project alternative
would decrease traffic. In fact, it actually would increase
traffic. The remaining benefits of a no project alternative -are
correct (see corrections by staff #3) . These benefits are not
balanced against the need for additional housing. They are
simply catalogued as benefits. The fact that the impacts of
the proposal can be mitigated or pose no threat to existing
systems in terms of their capability to handle them is the
overbearing condition permitting the implementation of City
policy to provide a variety of housing. Since the amount of
high density residential is limited in comparison to other
housing types, efforts in this direction are consistent with
City policy.
e_
I . For comments on 3 , 4 , 5, 13 and 15:
These comments are due to the lack of clarity about the
methodology used for an EIR on General Plan Amendments . The
impacts cited certainly may occur if development takes place.
However, these impacts would occur and are similar for develop-
ment under the existing or proposed land use designations . Since
the GPA EIR deals with differences in impacts the noted issues
are not dealt with. The issues will, however, be dealt with in
an EIR dealing with a specific development project. See the
response to comment H. for additional explanation of the
methodology used in the GPA EIR.
I . 14 . Although the proposed land use designation would produce
the need for additional police staffing this is not a
negative impact because the net revenue generated by the
proposed land use designation is positive and reflects
costs for all City services.
I . 16 . Bolsa Chica Street should read Beach Boulevard on line 5 of
the second paragraph of section 16) a-f on page 63 .
'omments 61oncerning=k-dhecklist :
The suggested changes to the checklist were made because the
methodology used for the EIR was not detailed enough. As an
example, it is suggested that there will be a significant change
in absorption rates, drainage patterns or the rate and amount
of surface water runoff. This is true for the development
project itself, but the EIR for the development projects will
cover this issue. The reason it is checked as not significant
in this EIR is because the checklist was used to focus upon
significant differences between the existing and proposed land
use designations. There is no significant difference in im-
pacts between high density residential and commercial as they
relate to the noted issues. The. same logic applies to all
suggested changes to the checklist. For additional information
relating to the methodology of the EIR, refer to the responses
to comments I (3 , 4 , 5 , 13 and 15) and H.
HUNTINGTON BEACH
PLANNING DEPT.
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH NOV 2 8 191;
INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH P. 0. BOX 190
Huntington Beach, CA 926a
To MR. ED SELICH From CAPTAIN BERT T. EKSTROM
Planning Director Special Operations Commander
Subject GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 77-3 Date NOVEMBER 23, 1977
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
I forwarded your memorandum of October 26, 1977 regarding the
aforementioned draft to Sergeant Robert E. Fickle of our Crime
Analysis Unit for his analyzation. I have attached Sergeant Fickle's
comments to this memorandum.
If we may be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to
contact me.
4
kaTT. KSTROM, Captain
Special Operations Commander
BTE:skd
Attachment
Y
We lor-411L
i'WIMIR
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
77*a;? INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION
HUNTINC.TON BEACH
To CAPTAIN B. EKSTROM From SERGEANT R. FICKLE
Subject GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 77-3 Date NOVEMBER 21, 1977
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
I have briefly reviewed the above draft in the area of police services
and would like to comment on the following.
1. Reporting Districts 155, 443, 463, 473 are involved. The past
ten months calls for service are reflected below.
R.D. BEAT
CALLS POLICE CALLS PERCENT OF
R.D. (10 Months) BEAT (10 Months) TOTAL CALLS
155 569 10 4,285 8.7%
443 368 5 3,906 7.9%
463 665 4 4,967 10 %
473 380 4 4,967 10 %
City total calls for service = 49,341
2. Population increase is projected to 771. Based on the January
1977 population of 157,800 this would represent a .488% increase.
Assuming that police personnel will increase by the same
percentage, .96 sworn personnel or 1.4 total personnel would
be a projected additional manpower.
3. On Page 22 of the draft there is an outdated statement which
indicates we have a level of 1.16 officers per 1,000 persons.
Considering the July 1977 allocation for 198 sworn officers and
the population of 157,800 (January 1977) the level of 1.25
per 1,000 persons would appear to be more accurate.
ROB RT E. F K Serge t
Special Operations Division
REF:skd
B '
Response to comments from Police Department:
1. No comment necessary.
2 . No comment necessary.
3 . Reference to level of police per 1,000 population should
reflect the revised figure of 1. 25 officers per 1, 000 persons.
�1 1
ti
DOCUMENT: General Plan Amendment No. 77-: , Part 2 , Miscellaneous
Items
DATE REVIEWED: November 3 , 1977
REVIE14ER: Dave Eadie
DISCUSSION:
1. Is General Plan Amendment No. 77-2 officially adopted as per the
diagram map?
2. Page 5: Potential access problem should be pointed out if a com-
mercial designation is considered for only the front half of the
property fronting on Edinger.
3 . Page 6 , bottom paragraph: Justification for not designating the
area as residential is too superficial; suggest citing a few more
physical details of the property.
4 . Page 10 (top of Page) : Reference is made to the greater desirabil-
ity of a commercial site on- the northeast corner of Pacific Coast
Highway and Beach Boulevard, minimizing the need for commercial de-
velopment in the mid-property between Atlanta Avenue and Coast
Highway east of Beach Boulevard. Insofar as the analysis on the
Coast Highway/Beach Boulevard property is to be continued and in view
of the LCP issues on that property, perhaps reference to this
regarding Area of Concern 2. 3 is premature.
5. I think at least the Planning Reserve Area should remain in that
category until "the long-term comprehensive planning and development"
of the area east of Beach to Pacific Coast Highway is more refined.
6 . Regarding the EIR:
a. Page 20: Section 4 . 1. 3 indicates that the area south of Atlanta
and east of Beach contains 3. 41 acres of land designated as
Planning Reserve. The staff recommendation regarding Area of
Concern No. 2 . 3 indicates to me that a portion of the General
Plan commercial property is being changed over to residential .
This is not clear, and perhaps somewhere in page 10 of the
staff analysis regarding Section 2. 3 a description of the bound-
aries and designations of the General Plan could be more finite.
b Are all citations in the EIR to other sources accurate? These
reports may have been outdated (maps and/or verbage) . I have
difficulty in finding, for instance, where the actual water
demands and impacts for each specific area are listed; e.g. ,
water on page 25 - a description of various assumptions is out-
lined; however, the actual flow figures have not been cited.
In regard to Section 4 . 4 . 1 on page 42 , first paragraph - "it
appears that pursuing the 'no project' alternative would result
in a less comprehensive, more disjointed approach to growth that
would provide neither proper development guidelines nor adequate
environmental regulations. " In regard to area 2 . 3, I again
reiterate that this portion of the planning reserve is and should
be tied into the Daon property to the south, which is also
planning reserve, in order to coordinate comprehensive planning.
C. Page 43, Section 4 . 6 : "The amendment will mitigate most adverse
effects . " This statement appears to be. extremely subjective
and too superficial even for a General Plan.
i
Response to comments from Dave Eadie:
1. This comment is not related to EIR 77-13 . For purposes of
information the following is offered; the map illustrating
GPA 77-2 is a composite of the several portions of that
amendment.
2 . This is not related to EIR 77-13 . For purposes of
information the following is offered; if commercial develop-
ment occurs on only the front half of the property the
remainder of the property will be landlocked and access will
be limited to potential use of an alley serving commercial
development to the east or to alleys west and south of the
property serving a multiple residential development.
3 . This comment is not related to EIR 77-13 . For purposes of
information the following is offered; access from Beach
Boulevard for a residential development would be dangerous
due to the lack of visibility caused by the steep slope
contiguous with Beach Boulevard. Noise attenuation in the
form of setbacks and buffering would be difficult because of
the narrowness of the property. Access from Indianapolis
Avenue would be poor because of the nearness to the Beach
Boulevard/Indianapolis Avenue intersection.
4 . This comment is not related to EIR 77-13 . For purposes of
information the following is offered; the discussion contained
in this section is preliminary only and subject to change
since the request is to be continued to -GPA 78-1.
5. This comment is not related to EIR 77-13 . For purposes of
information the following is offered; land use designations
will not be amended until the long-term comprehensive
planning is more refined.
6 .A. The General Plan Land Use Diagram is general by design.
However, for purposes of greater detail the Caltrans property_
generally reflects the Planning Reserve Area with the re-
mainder of the site designated as commercial.
6 .B. Citations in the EIR are as accurate as possible . Inclusion
of materials .by reference does make finding certain in-
formation more difficult but no other method is feasible with
the time constraints involved. The ministerial item of GPA
77-3 , Part 2 may be helpful in providing staff more time to
include these materials in greater detail in the future.
The Daon and Sassoon-Mayer properties will be considered
together in GPA 78-1.
• I
6 .C. Adverse environmental impacts which are mitigatable are
detailed in Section 4 . 3 along with mitigation measures.
These comprise most of the potential environmental impacts.
Irreversible or irretrievable environmental changes are delt
with in Section 4 . 6 .