Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutGeneral Plan Amendments 79-1A & 79-1B - GPA 79-1A - GPA 79-1 t >. File 6 G Al CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH •� INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH To Floyd G. Belsito From Norm Worthy, Secretary City Administrator Recreation and Parks Commission Subject ELLIS STREET ALIGNMENT GENERAL Date March 15, 1979 PLAN AMENDMENT 79-1B At their regular meeting of March 14, 1979 the Recreation and Parks Commission studied the proposed Planning Commission alternatives for amendments to the Circulation Element of the General Plan as proposed in General Plan Amendment 79-113 relating to Ellis Avenue between Golden West Street and Edwards Street and the following recommendation made: MOTION: Ms. Nancy Nemoede moved the Recreation and Parks Commission recommend the City Council adopt the alignment of Ellis Avenue as depicted in figure 2-11 , Herman Kimmel Traffic Study (attached) between Ellis Avenue and Edwards Street. Motion seconded by Dr. Marilyn Jensen. MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted by, Norm Worthy, Secretary Recreation and Parks Commission NW:cgs Enclosure V G Figure 2-11 HER"lAN KIIIMEL TRAFFIC STUDY 2-C TALBERT DELETION ALTERNATIVE ADT TRAFFIC VOLUMES d o o SLATER IL 0 15 , 000 18 , 000 20 , 000 24 , 009 � o � o y o o OC Q o' i 40 o c Ae �3 o `° TA L .8C Q T AL B E RT " 0 0 0 ��► lt� u.a 6 , 000 ' 000 0 0 o � o O O. Ian OOO `` M ELLIS 19 , 080 24 , 009 AW-mrlo#I- o L��ll�lsslo • ,tErG� ev��Tl�! � AW Hr'ej CITY OF INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION % B HUNTINGTON BEACH To City Clerk From Councilman Robert Mandic Subject APPEAL - PORTION OF GENERAL Date March 7, 1979 PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 79-1B I hereby appeal the Planning Commission's action on March 6 , 1979, in the deletion of Area of Concern 2. 3 (realignment of Ellis Avenue between Goldenwest and Edwards Streets), from General Plan Amendment No. 79-1B. I also request that this Area of Concern be scheduled for hearing by the City Council at the earliest possible date for possible reinstatement into the General Plan Amendment. Councilman Robert Ma dic .sc,rn. r{ AfW N Y f � 9 Publish ' Pos tt ards NOTICE OF PUBLIC NEARING. APPEAL TO DELETION OF AREA OF CONCERN 2.3 FROM' :'. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 79-lB 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 t:he hour of 7:30 P.M. , or as. soon thereafter as possible, on Monday the 2nd day of. Apri 1 g9799 for the purpose of considering an appeal .to the Planning Commission's deletion of Area of Concern 2.3 from General Plan Amendment 79-1B. Area of Concern 2.3 is a request to. realign the portion of Ellis Avenue between Edwards Street and Goldenwest Street to intersect with Talbert Avenue at Edwards Street. A legal description is on file in the .Planning Department. All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and express their opinions for or against said appeal. to deletion of Area of Concern. 2:3 rom. enera an Amendment 79-1B Further information spay be obtained from the Office. of the.-City C lark . DATED: March 19, 1979 CITY OF. HUNTINGTON .BEACH BY:- Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk ,4 Number of Excerpts Publish Once LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ,L v�Nc. NOTIC IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held by the City of the City of Huntingtoij Be ch, California,' for the purpose of considering aVA ADM( 1 lr .n t n GmYAtssi Dv�e, MeR;r-m Aw& c na.4-ri 1 5 - zm &'WG� . q l A-vf I rC CovtWo 2. S G� 40 rea 1!9 n _t1Ae.- p or-hoo & EI1/5 eve., bR_*410 _n ��dWA-fds armor{- C�AA Cjt)lae s� w rho Ta(ke e alwcAs r1171Jni /S pn� - � /^J f4 /jg,b%A00e. Sai hearing will be held at the hour of ( ' P.M. , on &Vtdaq. 2L I 7 , 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 ' q/A Further information may be obtained from the City Planning Department. Telephone No. (714) _536-5271 DATED this day of 16970) . CITY PLANNING COMMISSION By ,..* NOTICE TO CLERK TO SCHEDULE PUBLIC HEARING ITEM ( if- (w 'rw%- Owl TO: CITY CLERK'S OFFICE DATE: FROM: !C� D�IMC�iy111�l CQ.�. PLEASE SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING USING THE ATTACHED LEGAL NOTICE FOR THE 2 KA DAY OF r , 19l. AP's are attached AP's will follow No AP's Initiated by: Planning Commission Planning Department Petition * Appeal _ Other Adoption of Environmental Status (x) YES NO Refer to Planning Department - Extension for additional information. If appeal, please transmit exact wording to be required in the legal. �HA CITY OF HUNTINGT®N NE/I►CH / INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNI HUNTINGTON BEACH ��o�r, 71) o / To Floyd G. Belsito Fro D James W. Palin City Administrator Acting Planning Director Subject LEGAL ADVERTISING FOR Date January 10, 1979 UP-COMING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 79-1 General Plan Amendment 79-1 will address twenty-two proposed amendments to the Land Use and Circulation Elements of the General Plan and eleven administrative changes to the Land Use Diagram. These requests encompass a total of approximately 310 acres of land throughout the City. According to normal legal notification procedures, all property owners within 300 feet of the affected property must be notified of a public hearing; . this is done by mailing a postcard to each property owner in addition to publication in a local newspaper. Because of the number of areas addressed in the General Plan Amendment 79-1, the City will have to notify over 2,900 property owners; once for the Planning Commission public hearing - and once for the City Council public hearing. Approximate costs of such a large-scale notification effort are as follows: Collection of list of owners - 8 hours @ 7 . 18/hour = $57 . Typing of address stickers - 25 hours @ $6/hour = $125. Legal advertisement in newspaper - 2 hearings @ $25/hearing = $50. Printing of individual notices - $10 x 2 hearings = $20. Postage - 2, 900 letters @ $0.15/letter x 2 hearings = $870. Preparation of letters and envelopes - 12 hours @ $6/hour x 2 = $144 . TOTAL. . . . . . $1,266 . Pursuant to Article 987 of Division 9 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, the notifications may be -mailed in lieu of a requirement to post public notices on and around affected properties. However, this additional notification procedure is not mandatory unless a change of a district boundary is involved. In the case of an amendment to the General Plan, the newspaper publication is sufficient. Because of the number of areas and property involved, the Planning Department is recommending that a quarter-page advertisement be run at least once in the Huntington Beach Independent. This advertisement GPA 79-1 Legal Advert ement January 10, 1979 Page 2 would be four columns wide (6 inches) and 10 3/4 inches long, and would cost the City the following rates for one time: $216 . 09 - if run Thursday or Saturday in the legal advertisement section. $246. 86 - if run Thursday as a display (on page 2,4 , or 5) . $192 . 64 - if run Saturday as a display (on page 2,4, or 5) . The City stands , to save approximately $1000 if the latter approach is taken. JTiP/BH/dc • CITY OF KunTInGT 9EA( H DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ENVIRON TAL,.RESOURCES :.1 c' • P. O. BOX 190, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648 (71141 68-53271 * CITY On CC J, OF TO: Floyd G. Belsito, City Administrator FROM: James W. Palin, Acting Planning Director DATE: March 14, 1979 SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 79-1B - SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION When the Planning Commission originally reviewed the revisions to the Circulation Element contained in General Plan Amendment No. 79-1B, the Commission by straw vote recommended the realignment of Ellis Avenue to a new location. Subsequently at their next regular meeting when they formally voted to adopt the changes to the Circulation Element for recommendation to the City Council, the Commission deleted this realignment of Ellis Avenue from the general plan amendment. During the week of March 5 and subsequent to the Planning Commission' s action on the night of March 6 to reverse themselves from their earlier vote on this matter, Councilman Mandic inquired into his ability to appeal this deletion of Ellis Avenue up to the City Council for its con- sideration. (For your benefit, Councilman Mandic has since filed this .appeal, which will be set for public hearing before the Council at its April 2 meeting. ) However, as the legal notices under our new contractual arrangement are required to be delivered to the publisher on the Tuesday prior to the Commission' s action, the staff in concert with the Clerk' s office had prepared a legal notice which had included- the Ellis Avenue realignment. The documentation submitted for the legal notice and the public hearing set thereon for Council' s March 19 meeting include Ellis Avenue as if the Planning Commission is recommending that it be realigned; however, as 'previously stated, the Commission did delete that portion from the general plan amendment. :Therefore the City Council in order to evaluate a possible realignment of Ellis must continue the General Plan Amendment 79-1B over to be heard concurrently with the appeal or make a determination on the remain- ing portions of GPA 79-1B and concur with the Planning Commission that they would prefer to delay action on Ellis Avenue realignment to another time. Another alternative course of action the Council might take at its March 19 meeting' would be to split the amendment into two separate amendments; however, this could have some detrimental effect on our planning efforts for the rest of the year, as it would essentially use two of our three amendments allowed per year per element. Should the Council have questions on what has transpired on this item, the staff will be prepared to discuss in detail at the March 19 meeting. G.J James W. Palin Acting Planning Director JWP:df / Authorized to Publish Advertisements of all kinds,including This space is for the County Clerk's Filing public notices by Decree of the Superior Court of Orange Stamp California. Number A-6214, dated 29 September, IMI, and A-24631,dated 11 June,1963. J � STATE OF CALIFORNIA ��� LO ZS, County of Orange Public Notice Advertisinq cov- ered by this affidavit is set In 6 Point With 10 pica column Width I am a Citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the below entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of the Orange proof of Publication of Coast DAILY PILOT, with which is combined the i NEWS-PRESS, a newspaper of general circulation, 4 4`•., printed and published in the City of Costa Mesa, I w �,e��•• ,� �� County of Orange, State of California, and that a ' .`'•. �:••• Notice of Public Hearing Amendment 79-1 A&i �• 3. 35 •,• 3.9 •i ? ••� y. of which copy attached hereto is a true and complete 2.3 3.3 36 . copy, was printed and published in the Costa Mesa, L e r { 3.2 / 24 310 ••� .c Newport Reach, Huntington Beach. Fountain Valley, Irvine. Saddleback Valley, Laguna Beach and the 2 !� South Coast communities issues of said newspaper 2.2 for one v%r11so%t34ve*weeks*to wit the k 38 issue(s) of 3.1 2.5 __ Mar 8 1197 9 PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLIC.NOTICE , 197 LEGAL NOTICE - NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 79-1 A &B 197 NOTICE 4S. 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•19th day of March, 1979, for the purpose of considering .GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 79-1 A & B, proposed amendments to the Land Use Element and the-, , 197 Circulation Element of the General Plan for those areas shown on the above map and summarized below: LAND USE ELEMENT-PART A AREA 'ACREAGE REQUEST 2.1 Q 4.78 Redesignate from Medium'Density Residential to GeneraLCommercial , 197 2.2 2.83 Redesignate from Low Density Residential to General Commercial 2.3 38.85 Redesignate from Medium Density,Residential to Industrial 2.4 8.02 Redesignate from General Commercial to Medium Density Residential I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the 2.5 5.44 Redesignate from Planning Reserve to Mixed Development, ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS foregoing is true and correct. 3.1 10.00 Redesignate from Medium Density Residential to General Commercial 3.2 1.47 Redesignate from Low Density Residential to General Commercial 3.3 1.79 Redesignate from Low Density.Residential to General Commercial Executed on Mar 8 197 9 3.4 -3.09 Redesignate from Low Density Residential to General Commercial . at Costa Mesa, California. 3.5 2.08 '` Redesignate from Low Density Residential to General Commercial 3.6 2.45 Redesignate from Open Space to General Commercial ti 3.7 71.95 Redesignate from Open',Space to Estate Residential • 3.8 2.00,. Redesignate from Medium Density Residential to General Commercial • y,,� / � � 19 4.09 _, .,.Redesignate from Low Density Residential to General Com mercial 3.10 4.34 Redesignate from Low Density Residential to General Commercial 3.11 3.31 Redesignate from Low Density Residential to General Commercial Signature CIRCULATION ELEMENT-PARTS AREA SEGMENT REQUEST ' PROOF OF p` A Lake Street,between Garfield Delete primary arterial designation and Yorktown Avenues B Talbert Avenue,ibetween Goldenwest Designate as'a secondary arterial- and Gothard Streets C Ellis Avenue,between Edwards Realign Ellisto intersect with Talbert and Golden West Streets Avenue at Edwards Street ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS The City Council will also be considering.the following environmental documents: . PART A PART B Negative Declaration #t78-110 (Area 2.1)- Negative Declaration #79-3 (Area-A) Negative Declaration #79-2 (Area 2.2) Negative Declaration #79-12 (Area B) Negative Declaration #78-21 (Area 2.34 Negative Declaration #79-13 (Area C) Negative Declaration #79-5 .(Area 2.4) Negative Declaration #79-4 (Area 2.5) All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and express their opinions for or.against Said General Plan Amendment 79-1 A&B and related environmental documents. A legal description is on file in the Planning Department Office. Further information may be obtained from the Office of the City Clerk,2000 Main Street,Huntington Beach,- California 92648- (714)536-5226 Alicia M.Wentworth d' City Clerk`s Published Orange Coast Daily Pilot March 8,1979 847-79 Authon ed.to Publish Advertisements of all kinds.including ' pu6li,cn6tices by Decree of the Superior,Court of orange ;: :;:. This space is for the County Clerks Filing`';,y;}.y County. California, Number A-6214, dated 29 September, ' Stamp;,,,':'zz•. 196t::and A-24831,dated 11 June,1963. STATE OF CALIFORNIA' y. L County of Orange Public Notice.Adv@rtisinq cov- _ erect by this aNidavlt is set In 6 - '��""`•' Point with 10 pica column width S . I am°a'Citizen of the United States and a resident of " the:County aforesaid; I am over the 'age of eighteen `, r years; and not a party to or interested in the below entitled matter. I am a principal clerk'=of the Orange proof of Publication of Coast DAILY PILOT, with which is combined the - N_EWS-PRESS, a newspaper of general circulation, . _ .. . p- 'a d published y Costa Mesa, i•inted; n shed in the -City of County':of'. Orange. State of California, and that a Not►ceof Pubbic Hearing J5 Amendment 79-1 A&B d = 3.4 of which copy attached hereto is a true and complete' , 2 3 36. •� copv;,,was,,printed and published in fth'e Costa Mesa,'.";`. .. ,-, ,, ,3.'3 2+ 310 N'ewport!Beach, Huntington Beach. ,Fountain Valley, "`r 3.2 lr%-ine;•.Saddleback Valley, Laguna Beach and the %� �. 2. 3.7 11 South` 2.2 Coast communities issues of said newspaper " :' one 6013"i144vli(✓ealviiito wit the k: 4.e iss'ue�(s)of' 2.5 3.1 Ma.r: 8 197 9 y PUBLIC NOTICE . PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLIC NOTICE 197 LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 79-1 A &B 197 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 -19th day of'March, 1979, for the purpose of considering GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 79-1 A &- B, proposed amendments to the Land Use Element and the Circulation Element of the General Plan for those areas shown on the above map and summarized below: LAND USE ELEMENT-PART A AREA ACREAGE - , REQUEST 2.1 4.78 Redesignate from Medium-Density Residential to General Commercial 197 2.2 2.83 Redesignate from Low Density Residential to General Commercial 2.3 38.85 Redesignate from Medium Density Residential to Industrial 2.4 8:02 Redesignate from General Commercial to Medium Density Residential 1'�i lace, under penalty of perjury, that the: ::. . :; 2s 5.44 Redesignate from Planning Reserve to Mixed Development ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS foregoing is true and correct. . ,'':_ ;` 3.1 10.00 Redesignate from Medium Density Residential to General Commercial 3.2 -1.47 Redesignate from Low Density:Residential to General Commercial Mar 8 - 9 fir, a;- 3.3 1.79 'Redesignate from Low Density Residential to General Commercial Executed-on , 197 ,.. 3.4 3.09 Redesignate from Low Density Residential to General Commercial 3.5 2.08 Redesignate from Low Density Residential to General Commercial atCosta-Mesa;California. :•. 3.6 - 2.45 Redesignate from Open Space to General Commercial 3.7 71.95 Redesignate from Open Space to Estate Residential 3.8 2.00 Redesignate from Medium Density Residential to General Commercial 3.9 4.09 Redesignate from Low Density Residential to General Commercial 3.10 4.34 Redesignate'from Low Density Residential to General Commercial 3.11 3.31 Redesignate from Low-Density Residential to General Commercial Signature' CIRCULATION ELEMENT-PARTS AREA SEGMENT REQUEST \\ PROOF QF` A' Lake Street,between Garfield Delete primary.arterial designation ..,, and Yorktown Avenues B Talbert Avenue,between Goldenwest Designate at'a secondary arterial '� and Gothard Streets ' C Ellis Avenue,between Edwards Realign Ellis to intersect with Talbert and Golden West Streets Avenue at Edwards Street i ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS The City Council will also be considering the following environmental'documents: PART A PART B Negative Declaration #78-110 (Area 2.1) Negative Declaration #79-3 (Area A) Negative Declaration #79-2 (Area 2.2) Negative Declaration tt79-12 (Area B) Negative Declaration #78-21 (Area 2.3) Negative Declaration #79-13 (Area C)• Negative Declaration #79-5 (Area 2.4). Negative.Declaration #79-4 (Area 2.5) , All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and express their opinions for or against said General.Plan Amendment 79-1 A&B and related environmental documents. 'A legal description is on file in the Planning Department Office. Further information may be obtained from the Office of the City Clerk,2000 Main Street,Huntington Beach,California 92648- (714)536-5226 ' Alicia:M.Wentworth City Clerk Published Orange Coast Daily pilot March 8,1979 q 847-79 -UhNhUq- I L YLAN [MNUYIENT /J-1 SuruYuu<Y- PLANNING CITY AREA OF ENVIRONMENTAL STAFF COMMISSION COUNCIL CONCERN LOCATION ACREAGE APPLICANT REQUEST INFORMATION RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDATION ACTION Part A Land Use — - --- 2.1 South of Heil Ave. 4.78 C: Hermansen Redesignate from N.D.78-110 Redesignate from Redesignate from West of Balsa F. Woolsey Medium Density Medium Density Medium Density Chica Street Residential to Residential to Residential to General Comm-: General Comm- General Comer ercial ercial ercial 2.2 South of Warner Ave. 2.83 Planning Redesignate from N.D.79-2 Redesignate from . Redesignate from East of Balsa Chica Commission Low Density Resid- Low Density Res-' Low Density Res- Street ential to Medium idential to Med- .: idential to Density Residential _ ium Density Medium Density Residential Residential 2.3 North of Talbert Ave.,1 38.85 City Council Redesignate from N.D.78-21 Redesignate 34.55 Redesignate from West of Beach Blvd. Medium Density acres to Indus- Medium Density. Residential to trial Residential to Industrial Industrial 2.4 South of Garfield Avenue East of Beach Blvd. 8.02 O.G. Berg,Jr. Redesignate from N.D..79-5 Redesignate from Redesignate from General Commercial General Cormier- . ..General.Commercial to Medium Density cial to Medium to Medium Density Residential Density Residen- Residential tial 2.5 North of Orange 5.44 City Redesignate: from N.D.79-4 Redesignate from Redesignate from Avenue Council Planning Reserve Planning Reserve Planning Reserve West of Fifth to Mixed Develop- to Mixed Develop- to Mixed Develop- Street ment ment ment . 3.1-3.11 Various Locations 106.57 Develop-_ Adopt by resol- Exempt Adopt by resol- Adopt by resol total ment ution existing ution existing ution existing Services designations designations designations. Part B Circulation 2.1 Lake Street, 5/8 mile City Council Delete from N.D.79-12 Retain on the Delete from between Garfield from Circulation on the Circu- Circulation Avenue and York- Plan lation Plan Plan town Avenue 2.2 Talbert Avenue, 3/8 mile City Council Designate as a N.D.79-3 Designate as a Designate as a between Golden- secondary arterial secondary secondary West Street and arterial arterial IN THE Superior Court OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA In and for the County of Orange City of Huntington Beach -- ........ ............................................................................ ............ City C I e r k PROOF OF PUBLICATION .................................................................................................. General Plan Amendment 79-IA ...................................................................................................... State of California County of Orange SS. Mary R. Fosnight 3,5 ...................................................................................................... 34 That I am and at all times herein mentioned was a citizen of the United States,over the age of twenty-one years,and that I am not a party to,nor interested in the above entitled matter;that I am the principal clerk of the printer of the 3.6 a,. Huntington Beach Independent Review 32 :Pt ................................................................. a newspaper of general circulation,published in the City of 2. 3.7 H u n.t i n 9A.Q n..B.e.a-c-h............................ County of Orange and which newspaper is published for the dis i. 7 semination of local news and intelligence of a general character, and which newspaper at all times herein mentioned had and still 3.1 has a bona fide subscription list of paying subscribers,and which newspaper has been established,printed and published at regular 1, intervals in the said County of Orange for a period exceeding one year; that the notice,of which the annexed is a printed copy,has F,1 9 u r P 2 HUNPNGTON IMACH WFORNIA been published in the regular and entire issue of said newspaper, PLANNING DEPARTIAN and not in any supplement thereof,on the following dates,to wit: AREAS OF CONCERN. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 79-1A r LEGAL NOTICE Mar.-h...6.1...1.9.7.9 ................................. NOTICE OF.PUBLIC REARING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 79.1 A&B NOTICE IS-HEREBY GIVEN that a publicbearing will be held by the City Council of the y e Cit'of Huntington Beach',in the Council ................................................................. Chamber of the Civic Center,Huntington Betich,at the hour of."2:30 V.M.,or as soon thereafter as possible.on Monday,the 19th day of March,1979,for.the purpose of considering GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT.79-1 A&B.proposed amendments to the Land Use Element.and the Circulation Element 61 the General Plan for those areas shown on the above map and summarized below: .................................................................. LAND USE ELEMENT-PART A AREA ACREAGE REQUEST I certify(or declare)under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is 2.1 4.78 Redki gmite from Medium Density Residential to Genera/Commercial true and correct. 2.2 2.X1 Redesignate from Law Density Residential to General Commercial Dated at ........ V e 2.3 Redesignate.from Medium Density Residential to Industrial .......................... 2.4 &02 Redesignate from General Commercial to Medium Density Residential 2.5 5.44 Redesignate fmm,Planning Reser.ye to Mixed Development mia this.91h....day of M%1 r.0...ig.7 9.Califo , .... AD14NISTkATIVE:ITEMS 3.1 10.00 Redesignate from Medium Density.Residential W General Commercial ...... Redesignpte from Low Density Residential to General Commercial 3.2 13., L79 Redesignate from Low Density Residential to General Commercial Signature 1 3.09 Redesignate- from Low Density Residential I to.General Coimerclal 3.5 14108 Redesi I�nate'ftom Gaw 6en'siiy Reisidean tial to General Commercial 2.4.5.3.6, Redesignate,trim Open Space'to General Commercial 3.7," 71.95 Redesignate from,Open Space to Estate Residential '3.8 2.00 Redesignate from Medium Density Residential to General Commercial :3.9 4-09 Redesignate from Low Density Residential11 General Commercial .3.10 4.34 RedesignateRedesignatefrom LowLowDensity Residential-1o)General Commercial :3.11 3.311 Redesignate from Low Density,Res-idential'to General Commercial CIRCULATION ELEMENT=PART B AREA SEGMENT REQUEST A Lake Street,between Garfield Delete primary arterial designation and Yorktown Avenues B Talbert Avenue,between Golderowe st. Designate as a secondary,arterii] and Gothard Streets C Ellis Avenue,between Fdw'aids Realign Ellis to intersect with Talbert Avenue at Edwards Street and GQldenwe-L Streets ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS The City Council will-alm)he considering nsidering the following environmental-di)cuments: PART A' PART B r Negative Declaration 978110(Area 2-1) - Negativel)eclaration'lli9-3 (Area A) Negative Declaration 47i)-2' iArea Negative Declaration:179-12(Area R)a -(Area 6.3) 1 e Negative Declaration 1178-21 Negative Declaration (Area Cli Negative Declaration$179-5 '(Area 2.41' • Negative Declaration n79-4 (Area 2.51 All interested persons,are.invited to attend said hearing and'express their opinions for or agaia", said.,Genera I I Plan Amendmeilt 9-1 A&B and related environmental documents. ac 10. A legal description is on file in the Planning Depart mc ni Office. • Further information may be obtained I rout the Of fice of the Citv.Clerk,2000 Main Street,Huntington,Beach,Califiirnia 92648' 1714) Dated this fifth day of March,1979. ALICIA M.WENTWORTH Pub!Mar.8,1979, 4 Ci.ty Clerk Hunt-Beach Ind.R ev.tt10fil33 IN THE Superior Court OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA In and for the County of Orange I1. ............... ................. ......................................................... .......................-----­­------­-­--------------- PROOF OF PUBLICATION (3 .................... Yn + ...................................................................................................... ..... ..... State of California County of Orange SS. . ry �-`. Fosniht 3.5 �01 ..................................................................................................... 34 That I am and at all times herein mentioned was a citizen of the 9 United States,over the age of twenty-one years,and that I am not a party to,nor interested in the above entitled matter;that I am the principal clerk of the printer of the 36 3.3 t 2 ..•.................L U r,-t t i rjq r Ip T D V C_rl ,�, 12 ......................................... .... a newspaper of general circulation,published in the City of 2� 3 7 OA u.t;:t-i n il r.,..._�!e.� �c h............................ County of Orange and which newspaper is published for the dis- semination of local news and intelligence of a general character, and which newspaper at all times herein mentioned had and still has a bona fide subscription list of paying subscribers,and which 31 newspaper has been established,printed and published at regular intervals in the said County of Orange for a period exceeding one year; that the notice,of which the annexed is a printed copy,has 2- been published in the regular and entire issue of said newspaper, AMk and not in any supplement thereof,on the following dates,to wit: NGTON .FUNNINGUWNING DE VACH PMTMEN WFORNIA AREAS OF,CONCERN., GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 79-1A, .......................... ...... 4........ LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 79-1 A&B ................................................................. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held by the City Council ofthe Citv of Huntington Beach,in the Council Chamber of the Civic Center,Huntington Beach,at the hour of 7:30 P.M.,'r as soon thereafter as possible,on Monday,the 19th day of 0 Match,1979,for the purpose of considering GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 79-1 A&B.Proposed amendments tor the Land Use Element and the Circulation Element of the General Plan forthose ateas shown on the above map mid.surnmarized below: ................................................................. LAND USE ELEMENT-PART A I certify(or declare)under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is AREA ACREAGE REQUEST true and correct. 2.r 4.78 Redesignate from Medium Density Residential to General Commercial 9.9 9.83 Redesignate from Low Density Reidentialto General Commercial r c n Dated at ....... ............................................ 2.3 38.85 Redesignate from Medium Density Residential to Industrial 8.0� Rede signate esignate from General Commercial to Medium Density Residential 2.5. S.44 Redesign'ate-friom Planning Reserve to Mixed Development California,this.'�,--. ....day of r j,- 19 79...... ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS 3.1 10.00 Redesignate from Medium Density Residential to General Commercial ....................�7. 12 1.47 Redesignate'from Low Density Residential to General Commercial Signature 3.3 1.79 Redesignatifrom Low Density Residential to GerieralCommercial 3.-4 3.09 Redesignate from Low Density Residential to General Commercial Redesig�ait�from Low Density Resicie*iial to General Commercial 3.5 2.08 2.45 Redesignate from Open Space to General Commercial :3.7 71.95 Redesignate from Open Space to Estate Residential :19, 2.00 Redesignate from M4uin Density Residential to General Commercial :1.9 4.09- Redesignate from Low Density Residential to General'Commercial 3.10 4.34-, Redcsignate from Low Density Residential to General Commercial 111 3.31 Redesignate from Low Density Residential to General Commercial CIRCULATION ELEMENT' PART AREA SEGMENT REQUEST A LaVe Street,between Garfield Delete primary arterial designation and Yorktown Avenues B Talbert Avenue,between Goldenwest Desigqate'as a'secondary arterial and Gotbard Streets, C Ellis Avenue between Edwards Realign Ellis't(,intersect with Talbert Avenue at Edwards Street and Goldenwest Streets ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS The City Council will also be considering the following environmental documents. n PART A PART B Negative Declaration?78-1 10(Area 2.1) Negative Declaration n79-3 (Area A) -Negative Declaration Wea2.2) Negative Declaration 079 1-121Area B) Negative Declaration$178-21 (Area2.3) Negative Declaration 979- 3 tAreaC) -Negative Declaration#79-5 (Areii'2.4) Negative Declaration 9 Area 2.5) All interested persons are invited im attend said hearing and express their opinions'for ot'against said General,Plan Amendment. 79-1 A&,B and'related environmental documents. - A legal description is owfile in the Planni6g Department Office. .Further information may be obtained frorn the Office of theCity Cleik,,2000 Main'Street,Huntington Beach,California 92648 (714)536�5226. Dated this fifth day ofMarch,1979. ALICIAM;WENTWORTH i CityClerk Pub.Mat.8,ITN. Hunt.Beach Ind.Rev.tt10633 drr REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Submitted by James W. Palin Department Development Services Date Prepared March 6 , 1979 , 19_ Backup Material Attached a Yes No Subject GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 79-1 City Administrator's Comments Ate-5. I'd/? T Approve as recommended. Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions: STATEMENT OF ISSUE: General Plan Amendment 79-1 represents the first amendment to the General Plan in 1979 . This amendment is divided into two parts : Part A addresses five requests to amend the Land Use Element and eleven administrative changes to the Land Use Diagram; Part B addresses three proposed amendments to the Circulation Element. A public hearing on General Plan Amendment 79-1, Parts A and B, was held before the Planning Commission on February 21, 1979 , at which time the Planning Commission adopted recommendations for the various areas of concern and administrative items . The Planning Commission' s recommendations are summarized in Attachment #6 . PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 1242 recommending adoption of General Plan Amendment 79-1A by the following vote: AYES: Higgins, Russell, Stern, Finley, Cohen, Bazil, Paone NOES: None ABSENT: None The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 1243 recommending adoption of General Plan Amendment 79-1B by the following vote: AYES: Higgins, Russell, Stern, Finley, Cohen, Bazil, Paone NOES: None ABSENT: None � rio ane RCA-GPA 79-1 March 6, 1979 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION: The Staff recommends that the City Council approve the recommendations of the Planning Commission, and adopt by resolution General Plan Amendment 79-1, Parts A & B. ANALYSIS: The amendment requests and administrative items addressed in General Plan Amendment 79-1A are summarized in Attachment #1. The first five areas of concern derive from requests from the City Council , Planning Commission, Development Services, and private property owners . The eleven administrative items involve graphic changes that were made to the Land Use Diagram that was originally adopted in August 1976 as part of the Land Use Element Background Report. The changes appeared within the context of an entire General Plan document in December 1976 : Several small commercial areas were added to the Diagram and the northern boundary of the Estate Residential area was corrected without the benefit of the general plan amendment process. These amendments should be adopted by resolution ex post facto. The three proposed amendments to the Circulation Element addressed in General Plan Amendment 79-1B are also summarized in Attachment #1 . These have been analyzed at the request of the City Council ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Environmental documents for the amendment requests have been included in the appendices of the attached reports . Negative Declarations 78-110, 79-2, 79-5, and 79-4 were posted in the office of the City Clerk for a ten-day public review period ending February 5, 1979; no comments were received. Negative Declaration 78-21 (Area of Concern 2 . 3) was posted for a ten-day review period ending March 6, 1978; no comments were received. The administrative items are proposed to reflect already existing conditions and have been determined to have no significant environmental impacts. Negative Declaration 79-12 was posted for a ten-day review period ending February 20, 1979; no comments were received. Negative Delcaration 79-3 was posted for a ten-day review period ending February 5, 1979; no comments were received. Negative Declaration No. 79-13 was posted for a ten-day review period ending February 26 , 1979 ; no comments were received. FUNDING SOURCE: None required. RCA-GPA 70-1 March 6, 1979 Page 3 ALTERNATIVES: The City Council may adopt the requested changes as recommended or as it wishes to modify them, or may retain the existing designations on the Land Use and Circulation Elements. Respectfully submitted, c7 J mePalin . Acting Director ATTACHMENTS: 1. Summary of Individual Requests 2. General Plan Amendment 79-1A 3. General Plan Amendment 79-1B 4 . Resolution # 5. Resolution # 6. Summary of Planning Commission Actions on General Plan Amendment 79-1, Parts A & B. SUMMARY OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 79-1 , PARTS A & B February 21 and March 6 , 1979 PART A LAND USE ELEMENT AREA .OF CONCERN 2. 1 A motion by Russell and second by Cohen, Area of Concern 211 was recommended for redesignation from .Medium Density Residential to General Commercial by the following vote: AYES : Higgins, Russell, Stern, Finley, Cohen, Bazil , Paone NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None AREA OF CONCERN 2 . 2 On motion by Bazil and second by Higgins , Area of Concern 2 . 2 was recommended for redesignation from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential by the following vote; AYES: Higgins , Russell, Stern Finley, Cohen, Bazil NOES: Paone ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None AREA OF CONCERN 2 . 3 On motion by Stern and second by Bazil , Area of Concern 2 . 3 was recommended for redesignation from Tedium Density Residential to Industrial by the following vote: AYES: Higgins , Russell, Stern, Finley, Cohen, Bazil, Paone NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None AREA OF CONCERN 2 . 4 On motion by Russell and second by Bazil , Area of Concern 2 . 4 was recommended for redesigation from General Commercial to Medium Density Residential by the following vote: AYES: Higgins, Russell, Finley, Cohen, Bazil , Paone NOES: Stern ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None AREA OF CONCERN 2 . 5 On motion by Cohen and second by Bazil, Area of Concern 2 . 5 was recommended for redesignation from Planning Reserve to "4ixed Development by the following vote: AYES: Higgins, Russell , Stern, Finley, Cohen, Bazil , Paone NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS On motion by Cohen and second by Bazil , Areas of Concern 3 . 1 through 3 . 11 were recommended for adoption by resolution by the following vote: AYES: Higgins, Russell, Stern, Finley, Cohen, Bazil, Paone NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS On motion by Cohen and second by Bazil, Negative Declarations 78-110 , 79-2 , 78-21 , 79-5 , and 79-4 were recommended for adoption by the following vote: AYES: Higgins , Russell, Stern, Finley, Cohen, Bazil , Paone NOES : None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None On motion by Higgins and second by Finley, the Planning Commission affirmed the prior straw votes on the areas of concern and administrative items contained in General Plan Amendment 79-1A and recommended said actions to the City Council by the following vote: AYES: Higgins, Russell, Stern, Finley, Cohen, Bazil, Paone NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None PART B CIRCULATION ELEMENT AREA OF CONCERN 2 .1 A motion was made by Stern and seconded by Cohen that the Commission adopt Alternative No. 2 , and that when the precise planning of Lake Street is implemented, "fain Street shall be included in the General Plan by amendment as a secondary or primary arterial highway. Motion failed by the following vote: AYES : Stern, Cohen NOES : Higgins, Russell , Finley, Bazil, Paone ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None A motion was made by Bazil and seconded by Paone that the Commission adopt Alternative 3 , incorporating into the motion a requirement that the flow of traffic be curtailed at 17th street to be channeled down 17th or east of Utica to Lake Street. John O'Connor informed the Commission that the motion could be acted on in this fashion but the traffic requirement could not be included in the General Plan. He suggested separate motions to handle the proposed street treatment. Commissioners Bazil and Paone withdrew the motion. \ A motion was made by Bazil and seconded by Paone that the Commisison adopt Alternative 3 , for the deletion of the Lake Street extension from the General Plan. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Higgins , Russell , Finley, Bazil, Paone NOES : Stern, Cohen ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Commissioner Bazil requested that the following reasons for the selection of Alternative 3 be entered into the record: 1 . Lake Street extension would create three north/south arterial streets within a one-half mile section. 2 . Northbound traffic on Lake Street can be dispersed at Yorktown to any or all of the following streets: Goldenwest, Main, Gothard, Delaware, or Beach Boulevard. Inbound traffic could use the same routes . 3 . Inbound traffic from Gothard and Main Streets could be diverted down Lake or 17th Street at the 17th intersection with "lain. These streets are designed to carry a heavier traffic load, and the downtown Main Street is not. 4. Existing commercial at Main and Yorktown would be best served by Alternate 3 . A motion was made by Bazil and seconded by Higgins to recommend that transmittal sent to Council with the Commission' s action on Alterna- tive 3 include a recommendation for a traffic deterrent similar to Figure 2. 4 in the General Plan Amendment which will channel traffic either down 17th Street or over to Lake via Utica Avenue, and further that the Commission considers that Main Street as it presently exists,' would not take care of the added flow of traffic to be generated. Commissioner Paone requested that the motion be expanded to direct staff to devise a program to direct traffic away from residential streets and get beach traffic traveling on the under-used Goldenwest Street. Commissioners Higgins and Bazil agreed to expand the motion to direct staff to study other crucial intersections to try to channelize the traffic flow. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Higgins, Russell, Finley, Bazil, Paone NOES: Stern, Cohen ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None AREA OF CONCERN 2 . 2 On motion by Bazil and second by Russell , the portion of Talbert Avenue between Goldenwest Street and Gothard Street was recommended for designation as a secondary arterial with an 80 foot right-of-way by the following vote: AYES: Higgins, Russell , Stern, Finley, Cohen, Bazil , Paone NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None AREA OF CONCERN 2 . 3 On motion by Bazil and second by Paone, the realignment of Ellis Avenue between Edwards Street and Goldenwest Street to intersect with Talbert Avenue at Edwards Street was recommended for adoption by the following vote: AYES: Higgins , Russell-, Stern, Finley, Cohen, Bazil, Paone NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Acting Secretary Palin informed the Commission that one of the environ- mental documents for the above circulation projects is incomplete at the present time, and suggested that formal action be delayed until each of the negative declarations can be adopted simultaneously with the amendment. Such a procedure will still permit the General Plan Amendment No. 79-1 to be sent to Council for its March 19 , 1979, meeting. On motion by Paone and second by Bazil, General Plan Amendment No. 79-1B was continued to the regular meeting of March 6 , 1979 , by the following vote: AYES: Higgins , Russell, Finley, Cohen, Bazil, Paone NOES: Stern ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None 1. Motion by Stern and second by Cohen to reject ND 79-12 on Lake Street deletion as being inadequate and calling for an EIR. MOTION FAILED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Stern, Cohen NOES: Higgins , Russell, Finley, Bazil, Paone 2 .. MOTION BY RUSSELL AND SECOND BY FINLEY TO ACCEPT ND 79-12; MOTION CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Russell, Finley, Bazil, Paone NOES: Stern, Cohen 3. MOTION BY COHEN AND SECOND BY RUSSELL TO ADOPT ND 79-3 CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Russell, Stern, Finley, Cohen, Bazil, Paone NOES: None 4. MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY RUSSELL TO ADOPT ND 78-13 CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Russell, Stern, Finley- Cohen, Bazil, Paone NOES: None 5. ON MOTION BY BAZIL AND SECOND BY .HIGGINS THE REALIGNMENT OF ELLIS AVENUE WAS DELETED FROM THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 79-1B, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Russell, Bazil, Paone NOES: Stern, Finley, Cohen 6 . MOTION BY STERN AND SECOND BY COHEN TO DELETE LAKE STREET FROM THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 79-1B (LEAVING THE EXTENSION ON THE CIRCU- LATION PLAN OF ARTERIAL STREETS AND HIGHWAYS) WAS DEFEATED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Stern, Cohen NOES: Higgins, Russell, Finley, Bazil, Paone ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None 7 . ON MOTION BY BAZIL AND SECOND BY RUSSELL MOTION TO RATIFY VOTES ON GPA 79-1B INCLUDING DELETION OF ELLIS AVENUE CARRIED BY FOLLOWING VOTE (INCLUDED ADOPTION OF AMENDED RESOLUTION NO. 1243) : AYES: Higgins, Russell, Stern, Finley, Cohen, Bazil, Paone , NOES: None 8 . ON MOTION BY RUSSELL AND SECOND BY HIGGINS AMENDED RESOLUTION NO. 1242 WAS ADOPTED FOR GPA 79-1A (as approved at the last meeting) BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Russell, Stern, Finely, Cohen, Bazil, Paone NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None 'Ic: C,ity Council,., Planr' ng Department:. From: Leonard Wright 3-10-79 City of Huntington ach 6o( 15th St, H .B. , Cal. Subject: Delete primary arterial designation for Lake Street, between Garfield and Yorktown Avenues : Area A of General Plan Amendment 79-1B, Circulation Element. References : 1 . General Plan Amendment 79-1B, Miscellaneous Amendments. to the Circulation Element, February, 19?9, HB Planning Dept. 2 . Minutes, HB Planning Commission, Meeting of 2-21-79. Support for leaving Lake Street as it is This letter supports the Planning Commission recommendation (5-2 vote) to delete the Lake Street extension from the General Plan (that is, to adopt Alternative 3. See Figure 1) . We appreciate the amount of thought and comments in support of this by the Planning Staff, Panning Commission and Public Works . This action is in complete agreement with local residents who showed up 1n force two years ago --- and felt that the PC 's action at that time permanently resolved this issue. In all fairness , these people should know now that they won't have to be concerned anymore about Lake Street being changed Advantages of Alternative 3 (delete Lake Street extension 1. It's what local residents want: Keep traffic out of residential areas. • Beverly and Bernard Rogers : citing overwhelming protest in 1976, they said that the extension would serve outside traffic at the expense of neighborhood residents . They discussed traffic volume, safety, and cost factors . (2, p.2) . • Lance Jacot: Beachgoers should not be encouraged through a local area., p. 2) • Planning commissioners Russell, Higgins, Finley, and Paone spoke favorably of diverting traffic away from residential areas (2, pp 3,4) . Since about 83% of the beachgoer.s are from outside the city, local residents should be minimally impacted by such traffic (people who generally spend little or no money here) . 2 . Another major circulation street is not needed in the area. • Frank Mola: "Another major circulation street is not needed in the area and would further impact the local streets. 1.1 (2, p.2) . . Commissioner Bazil said that the Lake Street extension would create three north/south arterial streets within a one-half mile section. (2, P-5)/ 3. Traffic can be adequately handled by installinE traffic .restraints. .a. Richard Harlow: Alternative 3 is the most realistic approach to solving traffic problems in the study area. (2, p.2) . b. Commissioner Bazil: Traffic could be adequately handled by installing traffic restraints at 17th and Main and widening Utica Avenue to provide access to Lake . (2, P.3) . See Fig. 2. Two lanes of traffic would be funnelled down 17th, one lane down Main and one lane down Lake . c. Commissioner Higgins : . Discussed the need for traffic controls . . . and the need for a Main/17th Street corridor to carry Beach traffic. (2, p.3) . D �W .. � a Figure 1. ALTERNATIVE III Source : Rel . 1. Figure 2-7 CIRCULATION PATTERN WTTII PROJECTED AVERAGE DAILY TRAVEL VOLUMES ELLIS 24 , 000 18 11 000 PICD 0CD �n C, o M O G O CD GAR FIELD 27 , 000 29 , 000 , 000 30 , 000 CD o0 o iF 0 o n O , CD Cn CD CD M r O O Q O YORKTOWN 14 , 000 22 , p0() 20 , 000 23 , 000 o� O 0 co O M O O C O Q (D 0o W � o vC) cc o Q .o ^' LU (� M o°o ADAMS 1, j 6 , 000 1.1 . 000 13 , 000 L. Wright to CC , PD. Lake Street. -3- 3-10-79 UTICA �- � U-TICA ST . i I I � B Z Figure 2 . Source : Ref. 1, Figure 2-4 ^ AIN STREET ALIGN14ENT AT 17th STREET L. OE1611L, UU lilt, r1J. Lunc UNo a. Commissioner Pak The best way would be t '.ivert all traffic away from residential areas, which could best, be accomplished by the Main/17th corridor as suggested .by Commissioner Higgins. (2 , p.4) . e . Mike Zamboryz Public Works : There are many types of traffic control which can be utilized to disperse the projected traffic volume in the event that Lake Street is not extended . . . signing, signaling, traffic constraints at 17th and Main, possible widening of Utica, the closure of Park and Pine Streets at Utica by cul-de-sacs. He concluded that the traffic could be handled without the extension of Lake Street. (2, p. . . Other arterials can carry their share of beach traffic. a. Commissioner Bazil detailed how traffic could be adequately handled (2, p.5 . Northbound traffic on Lake Street can be dispersed at Yorktown to any or all of the following streets : Goldenwest, Main, Gothard, Delaware, or Beach Blvd. Inbound traffic could use the same routes . . Inbound 'z-affic from Gothard and Main Streets could be diverted down Lake or 17th Street at the 17th intersection with Main. These streets are designed. to carry a heavier traffic load, and the downtown plain Street is not. b. When you go down Lake Street or Main Street, there is only one relatively small parking lot which is quickly filled. When you go down Beach Blvd, you can go into the City or State parking lot. There may, eventually be another entry to the Sate lot at magnolia.- Going down 17th Street, you have the option of going right to then State lot, or left. 5. This alternative has the most beneficial impact on the Seacllff shopping center and the office complex across the street. Richard Harlow and Commissioners Bazil and Russell expressed these sentiments . 2, pp 2-3) . 6. This alternative will have the most beneficial impact on the Downtown Main Street commercial area. Since 83% of the people who use the beach are from outside the city, and don't spend money here, it's important to keep them from congesting the business area,' thus making it difficult for local residents to, get to the shopping areas . Alternative 3 would help to minimize this congestion from outsiders by providing one lane of traffic down ruin and one lane down Lake . Local residents can use these streets and Atlanta and Orange to get to . downtown shopping. (comments by-;Commissioner Bazil) 7 . The Gothard Street alignment will provide a needed north/south artery and will correct the problems of a_ 5 street intersection at Main Garfield Gothard. 1, p.l . 8. It provides a safe access in and out of the downtown commercial. 9. Main Street would continue to be the traditional doorway to the old central city. 1, p.l 10. Downtown residents would continue to have direct access to the Main Street Beach Blvd area. L, 'Wright to CC , PD. Lake bt. - - -J_V • Disadvantages of Alteri. ,ive_2 (delete Lake Street tension . 1. The intensity of future development for the downtown area-has not been determined, a new transportation model is in preparation and the Council Is in the process of selecting a consultant for preparation of a fiscal Impact model for the city. 2, p.3 . Counter-comments : The present city philosophy and overwhelming public opinion are in the direction of low intensity downtown. Opinion has been markedly against a destination resort concept. I believe that the traffic projections were based on the old plan of destination resort. Staff admits that traffic projections are high. Opinion is not likely to change from a relatively low residential Intensity since Prop. 13 creates tax penalties for living units. . It 's impractical to have an intense commercial devebpmen.t downtown since too much commercial results in most being close to failure (we don't want a gas station on every corner) . 4!e want our commercial to be strong and healthy and an asset to the city. 2 . The deletion of the Lake Street option might cut off future planning options . Counter-comments : • See Advantage 3 (Traffic can be adequately handled by installing traffic restraints) and 4(Other arterials can carry their share of beach traffic) . • Commissioner Finley : It's gbod to leave Lake Street like it is so that we can come .up with plans for circulation that will not change the character of downtown. As long as there is a possibility for Lake Street extension, we will not be looking hard enough for alternative solutions . Finley Richard Harlow and Commissioner felt that the other alterna- tives overemphasize the significance of the intensity of future downtown development. 3. Residential land uses within the study area may be adversely impacted thru less than 'adecluate design of arterial streets to handle projected traffic volumes . 1, P. 17) . • See counter-comments under Disadvantage 2 above . • See Advantages 1, 2, 4 and 7 . 4. Alternative 3 provides a circulation pattern that funnels the bulk of projected traffic along only one street Main Street which is in part below design criteria to meet the projected traffic volumes . 1, P. 17) . Counter-comments : • See advantages 2, 4, and 7 . • Alternatives 1 and 2 have similar disadvantages (to the extent this is a disadvantage) . S. Alternative 3 will result in increased traffic congestion and delay along Main Street and increase the number of accidents within the residential area within the study area. Counter-comments : See advantages 3, 4, 8 and Figurc 2. Publish 3/8/79 a, LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 79-1 A & B 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 19th day of March, 1979, for the purpose of considering GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 79-1 A &B, proposed amendments to the Land Use Element and the Circulation Element of the General Plan for those areas shown. on the above map and summarized below: LAND USE ELEMENT - PART A AREA ACREAGE REQUEST 2.1 4.78 Redesignate from-Medium Density Residential to General Commercial 2.2 2.83 Pedesignate fror. Loge Density Pesidential to General Cor",ercial 2.3 38.85 Redesignate from Medium Density Residential to Industrial 2.4 8.02 Redesignate from'General Commercial to Medium Density Residential 2.5 5.44 Redesignate from Planning Reserve to Mixed Development ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS 3.1 10.00 Redesignate from Medium Density Residential to General Commercial 3.2 1.47 Redesignate from Low Density Residential to General Commercial 3.3 1.79 Redesignate from Low Density Residential to General Commercial 3.4 3.09 Redesignate from Low Density Residential To General Commercial 3.5 2.08 Redesignate from Low Density Residential to General Commercial 3.6 2.45 Redesignate from Open Space to General Commercial 3.7 71.95 Redesignate from Open Space to Estate Residential 3.8 2.00 Redesignate from Medium Density Residential to General Commercial 3.9 4.09 Redesignate from Low Density Residential to General Commercial 3.10 4.34 Redesignate from Low Density Residential to General Commercial 3.11 3.31 Redesignate from Low Density Residential to General Commercial CIRCULATION ELEMENT - PART B AREA SEGMENT " RE UEST A Lake Street, between Garfield Delete primary arterial designation and Yorktown Avenues B Talbert Avenue, between Goldenwest Designate as a secondary arterial and Gothard Streets C Ellis Avenue, between Edwards Realign Ellis to intersect with Talbert Avenue and Goldenwest Streets at Edwards Street ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS The City Council will also be considering the following environmental documents: PART A PART B Negative Declaration #78-110 (Area 2.1) Negative Declaration #79-3 (Area A) Negative Declaration #79-2 (Area 2.2) Negative Declaration IM-12(Area B) Negative Declaration #78-21 (Area 2.3) Negative Declaration #79-13(Area C) Negative Declaration #79-5 (Area 2.4) Negative Declaration #79-4 (Area 2.5) All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and express their opinions for or against said General Plan Amendment 79-1 A & B and related environmental documents. A legal description is on file in the Planning Department Office. Further information may be obtained from the Office of the City Clerk, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92648 - (714) 536-5226. Dated: 3/5/79 (over) ` 0 lot 15 3.4 G 3.9 e. h 2.3 i i ♦ 10 3.3 3.6 24 3.2 3.10 i c 2. 3.7 -: [ ` 2.2Ik 11 i . 3.8 G dr A --- lj 3.1 - = 2.5 : mcvK cwsr Hwr Figure DEAMEPT 2 PBMRTLIFORNIA PLi4NNN AREAS OF CONCERN GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 79-1 A City of Huntington Beach P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK March 6, 1979 SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 79-1 A & B Dear Property Owner: The Huntington Beach City Council will hold a public hearing on Monday, March 19, 1979 to consider a proposed amendment to the General Plan which could affect your property (please refer to the attached map) . The public hearing will be held at the hour of 7:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers, located at 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California. Please be advised that all interested persons are invited to attend this hear- ing and express their opinions for or against the proposed General Plan Amend- ment. Please feel free to contact Bill Holman, City Planning Department, at .(714) 536-5277 if you have any questions pertaining to the proposed General Plan Amendment 79-1 A & B. Sincerely, Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk Aft es Publish 3/8/79 LEGAL_NOTICE _N OTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 79-1 A &;B 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 19th day . i. of March, 1979, for the purpose of considering GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 79-1 A &B, ,proposed amendments to the Land Use Element and the Circulation Element of the General Plan for those areas shown on the above map and summarized below: LAND USE ELEMENT - PART-,+A _AREA ACREAGE REQUEST UEST < 2.T _ 4.t78� Redesignate_:from Medium Density Residential to- General Commercial -2:2J 2.83-i Lpedesicgnate-frog-L'oe, Density-Residentia-l-to-Genera]-Commercia-l-' 2.3 38.85 Redesignate from Medium Density Residential to Industrial 2.4 8.02 Redesignate from General Commercial to Medium Density Residential 2.5 5.44 Redesignate from Planning Reserve to Mixed Development ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS 3.1 10.00 Redesignate from Medium Density Residential to General Commercial 3.2 1.47 Redesignate from Low Density Residential to General Commercial 3.3 1.79 Redesignate from Low Density Residential to General Commercial 3.4 3.09 Redesignate from Low Density Residential To General Commercial 3.5 2.08 Redesignate from Low Density Residential to General Commercial 3.6 2.45 Redesignate from Open Space to General Commercial 3.7 71.95 Redesignate from Open Space to Estate Residential 3.8 2.00 Redesignate from Medium Density Residential to General Commercial 3.9 4.09 Redesignate from Low Density Residential to General Commercial 3.10 4.34 Redesignate from Low Density Residential to General Commercial 3.11 3.31 Redesignate from Low Density Residential to General Commercial CIRCULATION ELEMENT - PART B AREA SEGMENT REQUEST A Lake Street, between Garfield Delete primary arterial designation and Yorktown Avenues B Talbert Avenue, between Goldenwest Designate as a secondary arterial and Gothard Streets C Ellis Avenue, between Edwards Realign Ellis to intersect with Talbert Avenue and Goldenwest Streets at Edwards Street ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS The City Council will also be considering the following environmental documents: PART A PART B Negative Declaration #78-1 O (Area 2.1) Negative Declaration #79-3 (Area A) Negative Declaration #79-2- (Area 2.2) Negative Declaration #79-12(Area B) Negative Declaration #78-21 (Area 2.3) Negative Declaration #79-13(Area C) Negative Declaration #79-5 (Area 2.4) Negative Declaration #79-4 (Area 2.5) All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and express their opinions for or against said General Plan Amendment 79-1 A & B and related environmental documents. `'..-A legal description is- on file in the Planning Department Office. Further information may be obtained from the Office of ,the City.Clerk, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92648 - (714) 536-5226. - Dated: 3/5/79 ��� a+�• Ao Publish 3/8/79 LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 7971 Af 8 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 19th day of March, 1979, for the purpose of considering GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 79-1 A &B, proposed amendments to the Land Use Element and the Circulation Element of the General Plan for those areas shown on the above map and summarized below: LAND USE ELEMENT -. PART A AREA ACREAGE REQUEST . 2.1 41.78 Redesignate from-Medium Density Residential to General Commercial 2.2 2.03 Redesignate fror.. Loh Density Residential to General Commercial 2. 3 38.85 Redesignate from Medium Density Residential to Industrial 2.4 8.02 Redesignate from General Commercial to Medium Density Residential 2.5 5.44 Redesignate from Planning Reserve to Mixed Development ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS 3.1 10.00 Redesignate from Medium Density Residential to General Commercial 3.2 1.47 Redesignate from Low Density Residential to General Commercial 3. 3 1.79 Redesignate from Low Density Residential to General Commercial 3.4 3.05 Redesignate from Low .Density Residential To General Commercial 3.5 2.08 Redesignate from Low Density Residential to General Commercial 3.6 2.45 Redesignate from Open'Space to General Commercial 3. 7 71.95 Redesignate from Open Space to Estate Residential 3.8 2.00 Redesignate from Medium Density Residential to General Commercial 3.9 4.09 Redesignate from Low Density Residential to General Commercial 3.10 4.34 Redesignate from Low Density Residential to General Commercial 3.11 3. 31 Redesignate from Low Density Residential to General Commercial CIRCULATION ELEMENT - PARS B AREA SEGMENT REQUEST A Lake Street, between Garfield Delete primary arterial designation and Yorktown Avenues B Talbert Avenue, between Goldenwest Designate as a secondary arterial and Gothard Streets C Ellis .Avenue, between Edwards Realign Ellis to intersect with Talbert Avenue and Goldenwest Streets at Edwards Street ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS The City Council will also be considering the following environmental documents: PART A PART B Negative Declaration #78-110 (Area 2.1) Negative Declaration #79-3 (Area A) Negative Declaration #79-2 (Area 2.2) Negative Declaration #�79-12(Area B) , Negative Declaration #78-21 (Area 2.3) Negative Declaration #79-13(Area C) Negative Declaration #79-5 (Area 2.4) Negative Declaration #79-4 (Area 2.5) All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and express their opinions for or against said General Plan Amendment 79-1 A & B and related environmental documents. Further information may be obtained from the Office of the City Clerk, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92648 - (714) 536-5226 legal description is on file in the .Planning Department Office. Dated: 3/5/79 � 7- A4A Publish 3/8/79 LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 79-1 09#-F3 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 19th day of March, . 1979; for the purpose of considering GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 79-1 A &B, proposed amendments to the Land Use Element and the Circulation Element of the General Plar for those areas shown on the above map and summarized below: LAND USE ELEMENT - PART, A AREA ACREAGE REQUEST 2.1 4.78 Redesignate from-Medium Den sity .Residential to General Commercial 2.2 2.83 Redesignate fror, Low Density Residential to General Cori-ercial 2.3 38.85 Redesignate from Medium Density Residential to Industrial 2.4 8.02 Redesignate from General Commercial to Medium Density Residential 2.5 5.44 Redesignate from Planning Reserve to Mixed Development r ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS 3.1 10.00 Redesignate from Medium Density Residential to General Commercial 3.2 1.47 Redesignate from Low Density Residential to General Commercial 3. 3 1.79 Redesignate from Low Density Residential to General Commercial 3.4 3.09 Redesignate from Low Density Residential To General Commercial 3.5 2.08 Redesignate from Low Density Residential to General Commercial 3.6 2.45 Redesignate from Open Space to General Commercial 3. 7 71.95 Redesignate from Open Space to Estate Residential 3.8 2,00 Redesignate from Medium Density Residential to General Commercial 3.9. 4.09 Redesignate from Low Density Residential to General Commercial 3.10 4.34 Redesignate from Low. Density Residential to General Commercial 3.11 3. 31 Redesignate from.Low Density Residential 'to General Commercial CIRCULATION ELEMENT PART B AREA SEGMENT REQUEST A Lake Street, between Garfield Delete primary arterial designation and Yorktown Avenues B Talbert Avenue, between Goldenwest Designate as a secondary arterial and Gothard Streets C Ellis Avenue, between Edwards Realign Ellis to intersect with Talbert Avenue and Goldenwest Streets at Edwards Street ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS The City Council will also be considering the following environmental documents: PART A. PART B Negative Declaration #78-I/0 (Area 2.1) Negative Declaration #79-3 (Area A) Negative Declaration #79-2 (Area 2.2) Negative Declaration 09-12(Area B) Negative Declaration #78-21 (Area 2. 3) Negative Declaration #79-i3(Area C) Negative Declaration #79-5 (Area 2.4) Negative Declaration #79-4 (Area 2.5) All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and express their opinions for or _against said General Plan Amendment 79-1 A & B and related environmental documents. Further.information may be obtained from the Office of the City Clerk, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92648 - (714) 536-5226 legal description is on file in the Planning Department Office. Dated: 3/5/79 Ci LAURA NILES LEGAL ADVERTISING ORANGE COAST DAILY PILOT - - Costa Mesa, Newport Beach. Huntington Beach, $ Fountain Valley,IrAne, Laguna Beach,Capistrano and San Clemente 330 WEST BAY STREET I' ! COSTA MESA, CA 92627 (714) 642-4321 I '� 6 r aG _ 15 t 34 79 ^ - + 23 3.3 p„ ]2 24 310 2. 3.7 2.2 a• ° i• � 1� 7.8 _ 4 I4 - • 3.1 ., .. �.1 - 2.5 - ' f LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING j GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 79-1 A &B 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 has soon thereafter as possible, on Monday, the 19th day of March, 1979, for the purpose of considering GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 79-1 A & B, proposed amendments to the Land Use Element and the. -Circulation Element of the General Plan for those areas shown on the above map and summarized below: j LAND USE ELEMENT- PART A AREA ACREAGE REQUEST 2.1 4.78 Redesignate from Medium Density Residential to General Commercial 12.2 2.83 " Redesignate from Low Density Residential to General Commercial,,, - i' I2.3 38.85 Redesignate from Medium Density Residential to Industrial . �2.4 8.02 Redesignate from General Commercial to Medium Density Residential 2.5 . 5.44 Redesignate from Planning Reserve to Mixed Development 1 ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS 13.1 10.00 Redesignate from Medium Density Residential to General Commercial 13.2 1.47 Redesignate from Low Density Residential to General Commercial I3.3 1.79 Redesignate from Low Density Residential to General Commercial i ;3.4 3.09 Redesignate from Low Density Residential to General Commercial i 3.5 2.08 Redesignate from Low Density Residential to General Commercial 3.6. 2.45 Redesignate from Open Space to General Commercial 33 7.1.95 Redesignate from Open Space to Estate Residential 13.8 2.00 Redesignate from Medium Density Residential to General Commercial .3.9 4.09 Redesignate from Low Density Residential to General Commercial ;3.10 4.34 Redesignate from Low Density Residential to General Commercial 3.11 3.31 Redesignate from Low Density Residential to General Commercial' I CIRCULATION ELEMENT- PART B 1AREA SEGMENT REQUES A Lake Street, between-Garfield.. elete=primary arterial designation?' and Yorktown Avenues 8 Talbert Avenue,between Goldenwest Designate as.a-secondary.ar-ter,ial- _ and Gothard'Streets - tC Ellis Avenue,between Edwards ' Realign Ellis to intersects ma-with Talbert: L �.. and Golden West Streets _ _ Avenue at Edwards Street; ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS' _•�i The City Council will also be considering the following environmental documents: PART A PART B ,Negative Declaration #78-110 (Area 271)I Negative Declaration #79-3�(Area A) ,Negative Declaration #79-2 (Area 2.2); Negative Declaration #79-12 (Area B) Negative Declaration #78-21 (Area 2.3). ,Negative Declaration #79-13 (Area C).' INegative Declaration #79-5 (Area 2.4) - ,Negative Declaration #79-4 (Area 2.5) All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and express their opinions for or against said General Plan Amendment 79-1 A & B and related environmental documents. A legal description is on file in the Planning Department Office. . Further information may be obtained from the Office of the City Clerk, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California,92648- (714) 536-5226 Alicia M._Wentworth City Clerk Published Orange Coast Daily Pilot March 8, 1979 RA7-70 f6 � ¢O �`P � � �1 �• E fJJ yr �1yO�� • 0� - wc Off• A' 4�PC •• 3.5 '01 ■ 3. a` • s 3.9 a +, • 3.3 3.6 �. B 2.4 1P ® 3.10 o� 3.2 = c O. - 2.2. i •. o 3:8 • e' • u ®_ S PALM - a 3.1 a T 2.5 s alvl�ll� RANGE PpCIfIC COAST NWT Figure PLANNING ARTM CALIFORNIA AREAS ®F CONCERN PLANNING DEPARTMENT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 79-1 NOTICE TO CLERK TO SCHEDULE � PUBLIC HEARING "']p� ITEM 6f�kQ -�i�•t'"C�-- ti i.A� J TV'4�D ��E� !-1 PAP T!5 A > TO: CITY CLERK'S OFFICE DATE: �.Z1ll" FROM: PLEASE SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING USING THE ATTACHED LEGAL NOTICE FOR THE DAY OF 1971. (fAP'7sare:at:tach AP's will follow No AP's l 'I Y Xe J Gi��%�.lcmG Initiated by: C Planning Commission Planning Department Petition * Appeal Other Adoption of Environmental Status (x) YES NO Refer to a� � Planning Department - Extension # 52` -1 for additional information. If appeal, please transmit exact wording to be required in the legal . 71 — Z ,n, 71— 7a1�P-4 7�- 2 March 6, 1979 SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN .AMENDMENT 79=1 A & B Dear Property Owner: The Huntington Beach City Council will hold a' public hearing on Monday, March 19, 1979 to consider a proposed amendment to the General Plan which could affect your property . (please refer to the. attached map) . The public hearing will be held at the .hour of 7:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers, located at 2000 Main. Street, Huntington Beach, California. Please be advised that all interested persons are invited to attend this hear- ing.and express their opinions for or against the proposed General Plan Amend- ment. Please feel free to contact Bill Holman, City Planning Department, at (714) 536-5277 if you have any questions pertaining to the proposed General Plan Amendment 79-1 A & B. Sincerely, Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk AMW:es • CITY OF HUnTInGTOn BEACH DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES P. O. BOX 190, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648 (714) 536-5271 42 Februarr--S--, 1979 SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 79-1A Dear Property Owner: r .-ram Za The Huntington Beach��P will N3� a on ;yF / 1979 to � a proposed amendment to the General Plan which could affect your property (please refer to the attached map) £ 4n r;-f i- •m mPnt Th-i-Bl u�i.� ear..a. e-� n� will be held at the hour of 7 :50 P.M. in t e Council Chambers, located at 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA. Please be advised thatit" OL_ �D +L sus s i off, howe�r�r- ; �r-�wc�l �� ar,e�„�z�te��sst••en,�•b:]�.isc�-hear�ir�ga= '�'�n�sche�u�=ed��or� Fe ,ua-ry, 1977s9, tro be;. e�l.d, at 7.:rOQ P,.,M—. th�e 'C uo nail Chamb rs at ,whichi» meyo�x�°aeirrittoc©mme-ntont�heproposedame�ridmt. C'�f 11AA"V1, Genf j .Please feel free to contact Bill Holman at (714) 536-5277 if you have any questions pertaining to the proposed General Plan Amendment 79-1A. Sincerely, tuna n-�anni,ngDxect� �M Rf Gc GENERAL PLAN AMEN MU 79-1A AREAS OF CON:T'.RN NRKA ACWAGE wxr.wN i:PPL1CAN1' RE(JUEST 2.1 4.78 S. Heil Charles HenTansen From Medium Density W. Bolsa Chica Frank Woolsey to Commercial 2.2 2.83 S. Warner Planning Commission From Low Densit� E. Bolsa Chica to Commercial 2.3 38.85 N. Talbert City Council From Medium Density W. Beach Blvd. to Industrial 2.4 8.02 S. Garfield O.C. Berge Jr. Fran Carmercial to E. Beach Blvd., Medium Density 2.5 5.44 N. Orange Planning Dept. From Planning Reserve W. Fifth to Mixed Development 2.6 1.25 N. P.C.H. Planning Dept. From Medium Density W. Anderson to Commercial 2..7 5.00 N. P.C.H. Planning Dept. From Medium Density W. Anderson to High Density 2.8 .31 N. Warner Planning Dept. Friaq/Medium Density E. Algonquin to�High Density 2.9 6.91 S. Edinger Planning Dept. From Medium Density 11. Bolsa Chica to High Density 2.10 1.81 N. Warner Planning Dept From Medium Density E. Springdale to Commercial 2.11 10.40 . Warner Planning Dept. From Medium Density E. Springdale to High Density 2.12 1.78 S. II it Plai ing Dept. Fran Low Density W. CD1 eCommercialest to Commercial 2.13 40.00 S. Heil Planning Dept. From Medium Density E. Goldenwest to High Density 2.14 8.66 S. Heil Planning Dept. From Medium Density W. Gothard to High Density 2.15 15.01 S. Edinger Planning Dept. From Medium Density W. Sher Lane to High Density 2.16 9.64 S ,��'Hei1 Planning Dept. Fran Medium Density W. Viewpoint Ln. to Hiqh Densitv 2.17 19.72 S. Edinger Ply u`iinq Dept. From Medium Density E. Beach to Hiqh Density 2.18 0.9,3 N. Warner Plannino Dept. From Medium Density �+ W. Newland to Commercial 2.19 2.10 S. Main St. Planninq De t. Ear. Office Professional E. Iluntington to Medium Density 2.20 4.44 S. Adams at P1anninq Dept. From Medium Density & Beach Blvd. Resource Production to Commercial 2.21 10.46 S. Atlanta Planning Dept. From Medium Density to w. Newland Nigh Density 2.22 1.82 N. Brookhurst Planning Dept. Frbi.Inw Density to E. Bushard Commercial kmve., bu4& Ai -(<d, I • 4�X2Il'TQ' "T1'. 'Y ADMINISTRATIVE .1TEnS AREA _ ACREAGE LOCATION APPLICANT RESlJHS1' 3. 1 10.00 N. Warner Planning Dept. From Medium Density to NE P.C.H. Commercial 1.47 S. Edinger Planning Dept. Isom Low Density to E. Bolsa Chica Commercial 3.3 1.79 N. Heil Planning Dept. From Low Density to W. Springdale Commercial 3A 3.09 N. Edinger Planning Dept. From Low Density to 11. Goldemvest Commercial 3.S 2.08 S. Warner Planning Dept. From Low Density to 1V. Newland to CouTiercial 3.6 2AS S. Slater Planning Dept. From Open Space to E. Goldenwest Commercial 3.7 71.95 S. Ellis Planning Dept. From Open Sapce to between Edwards Estate Residential and Gothard 3.H 2.00 S. Adams Planning Iept. from Medium Density to IV. HwItington Commercial : .9 4.09 N. Yorktown Plaruiing Dept. From Low Density to W. Brookhurst Commercial. 3.1() 4.34 Atlanta and Planning Dept. From Low Density to Brookhurst Commercial. 3.11 3.31 S. Hamilton Plarming Dept. From Low Density to E. Bushard Commercial CM or CIT 2.17 111 i " i .16 3.5 sr i i ■ P ' 6 .13 e � 3.9 •,� ,] 5 i a 13 3.2 .11 2.4 4 3. •s:. <r 2.9 2.1 2�19 � 2.8 2.2/ 2.20 l .� i 0 PAEM el .i2.7 3.1 2.5 S 3 s F / ANGE i PACIFIC COAST NWY Figure 2- HWIPL9NN fg rIN DEP RTGTON MEII�ORNIA AREAS OF C®NCER� GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 79-I A Number of Excerpts Publish Once LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held by the City Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach, California, for the purpose of considering 65WE0 Q_ dQ AMFO qF-t-E -1 ?m?o -j'5 -¢v jbLe- 1"d Ow� 'avd 6 rzv tcvh� JE�1ewa4A+s 4 PAW A 05F- F-L-F--KatZT cDP( 'CfbMfnFer) P E C IQCJULATICt-� A �L Said hearing will be held at the hour of P.M. , on 6A in the Council Chambers Building of the Civic enter, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California. All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and express their opinions for or against the proposed Further information may be obtained from the City Planning Department. Telephone No. (714) 536-5271 DATED this day of CITY PLANNING COMMISSION By Page #10 - Council Mutes - 1/15/79 REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS AUTHORIZED - REAL ESTATE CONSULTANT FOR CITY LEASES The City Administrator brought Council 's attention to a communication from the City Purchasing Officer dated January 5, 1979 outlining a request for proposals for a real estate lease consultant. On motion by MacAllister, second Pattinson, Council approved the "Request for Proposals for Professional Services - Real Estate 'Negotiation and Lease Consultant," dated January 5, 1979, with the date for submission of proposals extended to February 23, 1979. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: MacAllister, Mandic, Pattinson NOES: Siebert, Bailey ABSENT: Thomas BOLSA CHICA ANNEXATION - JOINT MEETING WITH PC SCHEDULED 1/29/79 The City Administrator referred to a communication from the Acting Planning Director dated December 6, 1978 regarding the annexation of The Bolsa Chica and the need for Council to meet jointly with the Planning Commission to study pre-zoning alternatives for The Bolsa Chica. The Council determined that a joint meeting between the Council and Planning Com- mission would be held Janu 1979. ENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 79-1 - LEGAL ADVERTISING The City Administrator brought Council 's attention to a communication from the Acting Planning Director dated January 10, 1979, regarding legal advertising for upcoming General Plan Amendment No. 79-1 and recommending that notification of said amendment be made by one full page advertisement in the Huntington Beach Independent. Discussion was held by Council . In response to a question by Council , the Acting Planning Director stated that owners of the property within the General Plan would still be notified by mail . On motion by MacAllister, second Bailey, Council concurred with the recommendation of the Acting Planning Director that notification of owners of property adjacent to property involved in General Plan Amendment No. 79-1 be accomplished by advertis- ing quarter sections in at least four different publications in the City. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: MacAllister, Mandic, Bailey, Pattinson NOES: Siebert ABSENT: Thomas CODE AMENDMENT RE: HOUSEHOLD PETS TO BE PREPARED The City Administrator referred to a communication from Walter Lipps Chief Land Use Technician suggesting an amendment to Section 7.12.120 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code to differentiate between an agricultural enterprise and the keeping of pets by making an exception relative to the keeping of chickens, geese, ducks, turkeys, pheasants, doves, pigeons or similar fowl or rabbits and hamsters. Councilman Mandic suggested that the wording of the proposed code amendment be changed to clarify a total of three such animals so as to not misinterpret that three of each animals is allowed. Pere-r;%I..r.I•a bprldment• �b...79-1........... % a, y �r•. �rs •, Z citizen of the hat I am not a that I arr the a ! 3.9 , 7 L� V.teYsr... '.: City of t ).A .'► r y d for the dis- al character, 2 t ro , had and still a s,and which . n 2.2 ed at regular Keeeding one t ,ed copy,has f ° newspaper, ates,to wit: ° LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING O(( r •.,,,,,,•,•, NOTICE 14 HEREBY GIVEN that apubbr hearing will be held bbyy the Cittyy p� ��f he City nt Huntinggtton Beech. f altfornia,for the purpose of bwWderi GENRRAL PLAN AMENDMENT 79 l ved emendttmntt b the Lend t er.t3emeat and the Circulatiea Element of the Genera)Plea for those areas shown on the above map summaimed below4 LAND USE ELEMENT . AREA ACREAGE REQUEST 2.1 4.78 Redesignate from Medium Density rtesroetvOw to Gnnenu COmmer,yu 2.2 21 Redesignate from Low Density Residential to Genriel Commercial 211 :1 85 Redesignate from Medium Density Residential to Industrial a4 8.02 Redesignate from General Commercial to Medium Density RaWmtiat foregoing is 2h 5.44 . Redesignate from Planning Reserve to Mixed Development ?6" 49wr Sri a9lR9-• . ............ Radwipate 9eR -bn9f- ' le loom Rmidential 1 h4Yt 4'.44- tOg9 9rW arm . aA4_ i698 .......... 2A4 11rAF al . 414*_ 9:64- ' 2"- t A--N-- 4.44- i' 3.1 10.00 Redesignate from Medium Uensfty FesidentialTo Goomeral,Commertial Redesignate from Low Density Residential to Gem Commercial:i: a:s�'; 3.3 I°79 Redesignate from Low Density Residential to Gewe d Commercial' 3.4 3.09 Redesigttete from Low Density Residential to GewW Commercial 3.5 2.08 Redesignate from Low Density Residential to General C mmercial' 26 2.45 Redesignate from Open Space to Getters!Commer W 3.7 71.9.5 Redesignate from Open Space to Fatate Residential 3.8 2A0 Redesignate fmm,Medium Density Residential to General Commatcud 3.9 4.09 Redesignate from Low Density Residential to General Commercial -, 3.10 4.34 Redesignate from Lair Density RE ldential 1.Ge0rsi Commerelg i 3.t 1 3.31 Redeewsaft from Liar Demlty Residential to General Commensal < CIRCULATION ELEMENT AREA Lake Street,between Garfield DeletMVff e designation and Yorktown avenlnes B Talbert Avenue between Goldenwest... Dedign oo ate as a saadary arteriil r and Gothatd Streets C Cliff Avenues between Edaatds, Reatigir$Gies to fntehet't vritb-'falsest Avenue at Edwards Street' and Goldewwesf.Streets � Said he'will!be hakt'at tee boor 4rIeA6iLM:,orr'lihedsmady(wem ,IZi79,is the Comxil Chambers Building of the Civic !. Center.2000 Mom Stoat,H' Beech,CaUftia. r. + All to erseted penoos to attend acid boar*and express their opinions for or against the proeoeed GENERAL PLAN AMENDk[WT 79-L .. ` FartherinformefttWIWebWncd'[[�tAetlty L°�e-'A's' ce Tek�no�e Na(714)53RVts-. S x7t 6 ;'t,7;a �. ., � oil DATED ,X . , ,CITY 1� 7 fir, jtil(AN �• 1 Pub:feb1lt?'I999 :." .•:i: :;r�-. A?1tGtma.•�:•rvr�Zd��� � �t�..{'.HuiNiinAteuBeachtpd;^Rey,,�10y75 � GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT - 79 -1A MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT March 1979 AMX Inp hunfington beach planning department �+ RESOLUTION NO. 1242 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH RECOMMENDING THAT THE ti LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN BE AMENDED BY THE ADOPTION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 79-1A. WHEREAS , the Planning Commission of the City of Hunt- ington Beach desires to update and refine the General Plan in keeping with changing community needs and objectives , and WHEREAS, amendments to the Land Use Element are necessary to accomplish refinement of the General Plan, and WHEREAS , the Planning Commission recommends the follow- ing amendments to the Land Use Element: , That 4 . 78 gross acres located south of Heil Avenue and west of Bolsa Chica Street, as indicated in Figure 2-2 , be redesignated from Medium Density Residential to General Commercial , and That 2 . 83 gross acres located south of Warner Avenue and east of Bolsa Chica Street., as indicated in Figure 2-4 , be redesignated from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential, and rThat 38 . 85 gross acres located north of Talbert Avenue and west of Beach Boulevard, as indicated in Figure 2-7, be redesignated from Medium Density Residential to Industrial, and That 8 . 02 gross acres located south of Garfield Avenue and east of Beach Boulevard, as indicated in Figure 2-9 , be redesignated from General Commercial to Medium Density Residential , and That 5. 44 gross acres located north of Orange Avenue and west of Fifth Street, as indicated in Figure 2-10, be redesignated from Planning Reserve to Mixed Development, and WHEREAS , the Planning Commission also recommends the following amendments to the Land Use Element: That 10 . 00 gross acres located north of Warner Avenue and north- east of Pacific Coast Highway be redesignated from Medium Density Residential to General Commercial, and That. 1. . 47 clr.oss acres located south of Edinger Avenue and east of 1101.sa chi c:a be redesignated from Low Density Residential to G� n��ral Commercial , and '.That 1 . 79 gross acres located north of Heil Avenue and west of Springdale Street be redesignated from Low Density Residential to General Commercial , and i f• t A, 'T'hat 3 . 09 q.r.oss acres located north of Edinger Avenue and west ' of Goldenwest Street be redesignated from Low Density Residential to General Commercial, and That 2 . 08 gross acres located south of Warner Avenue and west of Newland Street be redesignated from Low Density Residential to General Commercial, and That 2 . 45 gross acres located south of Slater Avenue and east of Goldenwest Street be redesignated from Open Space to General Commercial, and That 71. 95 gross acres located south of Ellis Avenue between Edwards Street and Gothard Street be redesignated from Open Space to Estate Residential, and That 2 . 00 gross acres located south of Adams Avenue and west of Huntington Street be redesignated from Medium Density Residential to General Commercial, and That 4 . 09 gross acres located north of Yorktown Avenue and west of Brookhurst Street be redesignated from Low Density Residential to General Commercial, and That 4 . 34 gross acres located at Atlanta Avenue and Brookhurst Street be redesignated from Low Density Residential to General Commercial, and That 3 . 31 gross acres located south of Hamilton Avenue and east of Bushard Street be redesignated from Low Density Residential to General Commercial, and WHEREAS , a public hearing on adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 79-1A was held by the City Planning Commission on February 21, 1979 in accordance with provisions of the State Government Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach hereby adopts said amendment to the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that said amendment to the General Plan of the Citv of Huntington Beach is recommended for adoption by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach. I PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach, California on the 6th day of March, 1979 by the following roll call vote: t� AyE�; Iliggins , Russell. , Stern , Finley, Cohen , Bazil, I'aorie NC)Llt, : Nonc . All.';l?NT: None Ali:-;TA I.N: Nona ATTEST: a _ James W. Palin Ruth Finley Acting Secretary Chairman TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 1. 0 INTRODUCTION 1 1 .1 Mehtodology 1 2. 0 AREAS OF CONCERN 3 2. 1 South of Heil Avenue and West of Bolsa Chica Street 3 2 . 2 South of Warner Avenue and East of Bolsa Chica Street 8 2 . 3 North of Talbert Avenue and West of Beach Boulevard 18 2 .4 South of Garfield Avenue and East of Beach Boulevard 24 2 . 5 North of Orange Avenue and West of Fifth Street 27 3 . 0 ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS 31 3 .1 Summary of Proposed Administrative Changes 32 4. 0 AMENDMENT SUMMARY 33 4 . 1 Summary of Proposed General Plan Amendment 79-1A 34 5. 0 APPENDICES 35 Environmental Documentation Market Analysis 1. 0 INTRODUCTION This document represents an amendment to the Land Use Element of the Huntington Beach General Plan, and is part of the first amendment to the .General Plan for 1979. General Plan Amendment 79-1B addresses proposed amendments to the Circulation Element. All previous amend- ments to the Land Use Element are reflected in the December 1976 Land Use Diagram as amended in 1977 and 1978 (Figures 1-1, 1-2, and 1-3) . 1. 1 Methodology General Plan Amendment 79-1A addresses five requests to amend the , Land Use Element. The proposed changes analyzed in Section 2. 0 derive from requests from the City Council, Planning Commission, and property owners. Also included in this amendment are eleven admistrative changes to the Land Use Diagram, which are discussed in Section 3. 0. Section 4 . 0 summarizes the recommended changes 1 in the form of a comprehensive text and plan to be adopted. The environmental documentation which accompanies the various amendment requests may be found in the appendix which follows the report. IM Land Use Categories RESIDENTIAL M Estate :5 2 un/gac M Estate :5 4 un/gac Low Density :5 7 un/gac DIEGO Medium Density :515 un/gac SA High Density >15 un/gac COMMERCIAL '✓ `� /"� / ®General j /; �" ® ®/' a\ 0 Office Professional Mixed Development INDUSTRIAL General .......... PUBLIC USE uasi-public, Institutional Public,Q Open Space ........... .................... PLANNING UNITS ........... T Planning Reserve .............. ................ Planned Community U111 OTHER USES Resource Production 8" V., HIGHWAYPACIFIC Co- 0 OCEAN g!n PACIFIC HUNI-INGTON BEACH, C31LIFORNIA GENERAL PLAN PiANNING DEPARTME9 LAND USE DIAGRAM Adopted December 1976 Revised AUGUST 1978 i a � a I I P sA 940� (o���FJr .SP co'y190 .e��•'����' . �'' .`♦. `.�� ICI ��' v�'�a qyc 00 ��� ILIA` ♦�.`�. `., ` .�� �p \�`a LEGEND "�F `��•' �'� �P UM Commercial a sy cy'c ■ o��� ens `.`�. ' �S y : �P. y94O .`� { ♦�• POP �i ♦ � `10 i ♦� P,I�P z 9 I 4% F • G,y • II i e � PALM i 1�1�1■1�11P zi } ■ T ■ -�-- / ORANGE ■ � ys i iPACIFIC COAST HWY Figure 1-2 lopHUgINGTON BIACH, 04LIFORNIA PLANNING DEPARTMENT ADOPTED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 700 -2 r I � n o ro I I I �94O.r colO�y�s °°ry `1`�♦'�i � .♦` � 1�1 � o- '`�• SP "*° �• '� �� �`• ��` �� P2`` � Medium Density Residential e�sy94 ���•,• ♦�♦ cP�s S O ,� ♦� P 110 �. ♦ P 14, i ��` ♦ P21P o •P ♦� �°2 qio a ♦. � oy f 0 Gay ��♦ 22`2G I ♦� O i ` ♦ ( PALM _ _ > V y ■ �1�1■1�`a .- 7 /- ORANGE t ■ \ PACIFIC COAST HWY Figure 1-3 HUgINGTON WCH, (IILIFORNIA PLANNING DEPARTMEIJ ADOPTED GENERAL PLAN, AMENDMENT - 78-3 2. 0 AREAS OF CONCERN The areas of concern and administrative items to be considered in General Plan Amendment 79-1 are shown in Figure 2-l. Of the five amendment requests analyzed in this section, two come from property owners, one from the Planning Commission, and two from the City Council. 2. 1 South of Heil Avenue and West of Bolsa Chica Street 2. 1. 1 This area of concern encompasses 4 .78 gross acres of vacant land located at the southwest corner of Heil Avenue and Bolsa Chica Street (Figure 2-2) . The property owner has requested that the land use designation on the property be . redesignated from Medium Density Residential to General Commercial. The vacant parcel is surrounded by existing neighborhood commercial uses to the north and east, and MM oL-H. LOW DR. DENSITY 0 ---- 6GKNOLM WAY c � I c . a CAL IE i W H 3 COMMERCIAL AVE HEIL m MEDIUM DENSITY mY MEDIUM DENSITY — Q - Z W "'"-�-• RUDDER - � --a I U � � i H IL VISTA DR. Cr STALLION T CR f NE R. a L) C F-R a i Z u LOW I`"'"`SiTE) 14 m — Q _DENSITY U a — U ~ CFLDNG N J LAI ST. Area of Concern 2.1 0 Figure 2-2 " O huntington beach planning department i x 2 6 a 4Or °Fy co lot �1♦i do �♦ ♦ 1. at pqF i � 1` VP ` ,1�1`I♦�♦i 1` �I ♦i ��° � s q qy 1` ♦ lPo qy ,1� •. a o 1` � ��o 3.5 1011 ■ 3.4 1` q Cy�rq ■ lP`op b�yg40 1`I`I` ♦'♦'♦ POP�,S 3.9 ' i ♦ .1 2.3 S gCtiO `I -♦- ��S ♦' `I ♦, O`p'' 3.3 3.6 . 2.4 ♦'♦ 3.10 - o 3.2 Z � ♦,♦� �\�,�o .: •.. 2. 3.11 2.2 .♦ 1> PALM ■ 3.1 S a 2.5 :� j' ORANGE - PACIFIC COAST HWY ® Figure 2-1 HUIIINRA , O1lIFORNIA AREAS OF CONCERN PLANNINGNG DEPARTMEIJ GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 7 -1 vacant medium density property to the west. The area of concern and the property to the west has been zoned R2 (Medium Density Residential) since its incorp- oration into the City of Huntington Beach in 1966 and for many years supported a commercial dairy. In May; 1976 the Board of Zoning Adjustments approved Use Permit 76-14 to permit the construction of a 240-unit apartment complex on the site. The approved apartments were never constructed however, and the property has remained vacant. 2. 1. 2 Analysis The area of concern is located at the intersection of a major arterial (Bolsa Chica Street) and a secondary arterial (Heil Avenue) , and is a suitable location for a small neighborhood commercial center. At the present time, 12 . 89 acres of land at the other three corners of this inter- section are commercially zoned and support some 92, 000 square feet of neighborhood commercial uses. An additional 44. 25 acres of commercially zoned land are located within a one-mile radius of the area of concern (See Figure 2-3) . As mentioned above, the area of concern' s location at the intersection of two arterials is suitable for the general commercial designation. A commercial center on the corner would also buffer any future residential uses to the west from traffic noise impacts along Bolsa Chica Street. The site has supported commercial uses in the past, albeit nonconforming. The major concern in analyzing the applicant's request involves determining the market support for additional commercial acreage and uses within a given market area surrounding the area of concern. Because two of the areas of concern addressed in this amendment involve requests to redesignate residential property to commercial along Bolsa Chica Street, the Staff has performed a market analysis for northwest Huntington Beach, including Huntington Harbour and Sunset Beach (See Figure 2-3) . This analysis , which has been included as Appendix B, utilizes land use, population, and retail sales data to estimate the area 's demand for neighborhood commercial uses. The demand can be compared to the existing supply of commercial facilities to . determine if additional commercial acreage is warranted. 5 f : ,7 .CF-E F-E �. a. o: _ �1 � NAT� t 4r t' C � '� iN i:.�'.���;•._/ ,.: t� �{;cr*I M �I,.tt.::.:,......�i. Ii1C[7i —�---.-„�.e-.=-::� Cf-E 9�r,�'` �pi�?1i;4', y,. .:�ii.� / � X i �j t.,, :.I., ll:.t _,li,i ';1J �'•, I � ( \) iU, ;��f''t_.;�,�a/i� /J rl:� ' I L..I Lj'��lil �',i � �`� illil _ •�,I \,f 4•r\� �I ,�'f A/-- �' .. . :'i�u. ! iliul �.11!1l� k-' '.5 -^-._ •°• ` _ r�C:�'.,fit, :'`�. i� .1,... ... ���. �;��� ... 'l.! 'q, �., L �:•; -I'.�_.� 1. -I -�:, wa Itl..nit;' CF'R00 Developed Commercial Areas ® Approved Commercial Development - - Market Area Boundary , Figure 2-3 O huntington beach planning department moo"") The market area outlined in Figure ,2-3 currently supports an estimated 27 ,220 persons with ari anticipated ultimate population of approximately 37 , 200.. Using city-wide average per capita sale figures reported by the State Board of Equalization, this population could be expected to support approximately 380, 700 square feet of neighbor- hood commercial uses at the present time. The existing supply of these types of uses is about 330, 000 , which is slightly below the projected current dema}id. Ultimate residential build-out of the market area according to the General Plan will create a demand for approcimately 520, 000 square feet of neighborhood commercial space, which is 190, 000 square feet over the existing inventory (between two and three additional typical neighborhood centers) . To accomodate this anticipated growth, the General Plan designates ten acres of land at the end of Edinger Avenue west of Trinidad Island for commercial development. This site could support approximately 130, 000 square feet of commercial development, but its location favors specialty uses rather than neighborhood uses . In July 1978, the Board of Zoning Adjustments approved Use Permit 78-45 to permit the construction of a proposed 85 ,900 square foot office professional and tourist commercial center with a park on this property. Development of this site will reduce the available supply of land for new neighborhood facilities in the market area to a few vacant parcels along Pacific Coast Highway opposite Sunset Beach. However, these are poorly suited for neighborhood activity and a neighborhood center at an arterial corner locating such as that offered by the area of concern would be preferable to strip com- mercial development on Pacific Coast Highway. In summary, the market analysis reveals that existing support for neighborhood commercial uses in the area studied is slightly greater than the existing supply, although the difference is not significant. Continuing residential development in this area of Huntington Beach will create additional new support for neighborhood uses . The existing supply of undeveloped commercial and is sufficient to satisfy the projected ultimate demand for neighborhood uses, however, the remaining vacant properties are not well located for neighborhood activity and would better support specialty uses. The development of two approved speciality and toursit shopping centers will deplete the area ' s supply of vacant commercial property, hence the applicant' s request to redesignate the area of concern to commercial is justified in . order to provide a variety of neighborhood uses to the residents of .this area of Huntington Beach. 7 The area of concern is well located to support a small neighborhood center. The quarter section in which this area is located currently supports the highest population density in the City with over 26. 5 persons per gross acre . The adjacent vacant property is designated Medium Density and upon development will add between 200 to 400 new residents. Redesignation of the area of concern to commercial would provide additional services to this heavily populated area while decelerating the continued increase in residential density. On a net city-wide basis, amendments to the General Plan over the past two years have redesignated approximately 24 acres of commercial land, primarily to residential use, including 1.78 acres located at Bolsa ,Chica Street and Edinger Avenue. Redesignation of the area of concern to commercial would complement the trend somewhat ana balance the mix of land uses in this area of the City.' 2. 1. 3 Recommendation Staff recommends that the area of concern be redes- ignated from medium density residential to general commercial. 2 ; 2 South of Warner Avenue and East of Bolsa Chica Street 2 . 2. 1 Background Area of concern 2. 2 contains 2 . 83 gross acres of land located south of Warner Avenue and east of Bolsa Chica Street (Figure 2-4) . The area currently supports eight single family homes and a portion of a mushroom farm. The property is surrounded by existing commercial and office professional uses to the north along Warner Avenue and to the east across Bolsa Chica Street. The property imme- diately east and south of the area of concern is a mixture of single family homes and vacant land which is designated medium density residential. The area of concern is part of a larger area that has been addressed in several previous amendments , most recently in General Plan Amendment 78-3 . In December 1978 , the City Council redesignated the property to .the east and south from low density to medium density residential. The area of concern was retained as low density residential at the request of the Planninq Commission in order to analyze the possibility of placing a commercial designation on the property. Redesignation of the area of concern to commer- cial would create a three-acre site on the southeeast corner of Bolsa Chica Street and Warner Avenue suitable for a small neighborhood center. 0 MEDIUM DENSITY HE CR z LOW DENSITY p I = COMMERCIAL +-�-,WARNER T-�ITTT HIGH 11T� rn 3� iDENSITY :..>; DU\SAR OR i CR KING CR. DENSITY w� m MEDIUM DENSITY VINE CR v -- r MEDIUM cuR DENSITY'R SEAPINE CR. Z a �� HIGH O DENSITYUN !NGTON c� avE . �Vm Area of Concern 2. 2 0 Figure 2-4 O huntington beach planning department 9 } 2. 2. 2 Analysis As with the previous area of concern, this amendment request involves a redesignation of residential land to commercial to support a neighborhood commercial center . Because of the similarity of the two requests and the proximity of the two sites involved, the analysis prepared for the area of concern 2 . 1 will apply to this request. This market analysis indicated that at the present time, the trade area outlined in Figure 2-3 can accomodate approximately 50, 000 additional square feet of neighborhood commercial uses, which is the equivalent of one typical neighborhood center. At ultimate buildout according to the General Plan Land Use Element, this area is expected to support a total of approximately 520 , 000 square feet of neighborhood uses, approximately 190, 000 square feet over the present supply of such uses. Although a sufficient amount of undeveloped commercial land exists within the market area to accommodate the anticipated level of neigh- borhood uses of ultimate development, the remaining vacant sites are better located to support tourist and speciality uses. One such specialty center, Peter' s Landing, is currently under construction and an additional tourist commercial facility has been approved for the ten-acre site west of Trinidad Island (UP 78-45) . The analysis concluded that additional acreage to support neighborhood centers was warranted, and that the most desirable location for such activities was at the intersection of two arterials and adjacent to concentrations of population. As a result, the 4 . 78-acre area southwest of Heil Avenue and Bolsa Chica Street was recommended for redesignation from Medium Density Residential to General Commercial. In analyzing the Planning Commission' s request to establish a commercial area of the southeast corner of Warner Avenue and Bolsa Chica Street, the issue of supply and demand for neighborhood commercial uses is again important, yet there a number of additional issues that affect the suitability of the area of concern for commercial use. These other issues include the timing of future residential development, the ultimate status of Bolsa Chica Street and the unincorp- orated area to the south, traffic circulation on Dunbar Street, and consolidation of properties within the area of concern. The market analysis indicated that significant additional commercial space would be supportable based on ultimate development according to the General Plan. Although the market area is about 80% developed at this time, the timing of development of the remaining vacant properties is unknown The most important of these is the Meadowlark Airport site, which is designated Low Density Residential but is one of a few small airports for private planes remaining in Orange County. Over the past several years, neighboring residents have requested that the facility be closed, citing concerns over noise impacts and potential safety hazards . Despite pressures to cease operations, the airport has remained in operation -.and will most likely continue until suitable alternative facilities are developed. Another large undeveloped area exists west of Graham Street and north of the Orange County Flood Control Districts Channel C5, also designated low density residential . This property is owned by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California and has been considered as a site for a preposed seawater desalinization plant. These two areas account for nearly 600 housing units and 2000 persons at ultimate development. If these and other vacant areas are slow to develop as designated in the General Plan, the demand for neighborhood commercial space will not be as high as projected. The major factor that affects the amendment request is the future status of Bolsa Chica Street and the undeveloped, unincorporated land area south of Los Patos Avenue . Bolsa Chica Street is designated as a major arterial with a 120- foot right-of-way on the Circulation Plan of Arterial Streets and Highways, and is proposed to traverse the Bolsa Chica area and connect with 38th Street at ultimate development. However, at the present time Bolsa Chica Street terminates at Los Patos Avenue and is fully dedicated only for the southernmost 330 feet. The City is currently attempting to annex the unincorporated Bolsa Chica area and is in the process of formulating a master land use plan for the 1600-acre area. A' number of alternative uses are proposed for the bluff-top area south of Los Patos Avenue, including both residential and permanent open space uses . The ultimate mix of land uses adopted for the area will determine the role that Bolsa Chica Street will eventually assume in the circulation network. If a plan featuring primarily open space is adopted, the need for a major arterial is questionable. On the other hand, if more intense land uses are chosen, Bolsa Chica Street will become a very important part of the overall circulation pattern. Residential development to the south would extend the market area and greatly increase the flow of traffic by the area of concern. Under these circumstances , the area of concern would be a very desirable location for a neighborhood or convenience center. However, the small volume of traffic on Bolsa Chica Street south of Warner Avenue (2000 vehicles per day) is not sufficient to support 11 a neighborhood center. This problem is compounded by the fact that the area of concern has no frontage on, and therefore, poor visual access from Warner Avenue. Even if the existing commercial uses on the corner parcel were somehow incorporated into the project, the primary street frontage would still be on Bolsa Chica Street. The existing configuration of lots within the area of concern pose additional problems when considering a commercial designation for the area. There are nine sep- arate property owners for the ten parcels that comprise the area of concern, and only five lots face Bolsa Chica Street. There is a possibility that given a commercial designation, property owners with frontage on Bolsa Chica will develop their property, making the parcels behind them useless for commercial development. The Planning Commission ' s request to expand the commercial area on the southeast corner of Warner Avenue and B;lsa Chica Street would also encompass the existing commercial buildings on three separate parcels in addition to the area of concern. Cooperation between all property owners will be necessary to successfully implement the proposed amendment, including two property owners that have expressed a desire to continue to reside in existing homes within the area of concern. Redesignation of the area of concern to commercial has the possibility of creating a situation identical to that of nonconforming residential uses in commercial zones along Beach Boulevard. To avoid this, the Qualified Classification, or Q-Zone, could be placed on the properties to require consolidation before development could occur. While implementation of the Q-Zone would prevent piecemeal commercial development, the consolidation requirement may also discourage deve- lopment altogether if all of the property owners do not cooperate. Approval of the amendment request for the area under con- sideration will create a separation between land uses that will necessitate the closure of Dunbar Street several hundred feet east of Bolsa Chica Street (see Figure 2-5) . This configuration of land uses would restrict the access of approximately 200 potential units in the medium density area east of the area of concern to one local street, Leslie Lane. Without access to both Warner Avenue and Bolsa Chica Street via Dunbar Street, the inner circulation of the medium density area is severely limited. Additionally, sewer and drainage flow from properties on Dunbar Street flow westward to Bolsa Chica Street via lines in Dunbar . Approval of the amendment request would require this flow to be rerouted or would necessitate establishing an easement across the commercial property, which could affect subsequent development. 12 zs ze WARNER u vo:, � +o e. su so so : •e ear 6 :•:'t:: m O 77 21 � :; :::;::<>: }.:.:::: . V::•::i:•:::::•:•: ;:;i : : : ::: TRACT > :: IQ �• •'''':•.:: ;:•: 26 a 25 a� 2a 23 22 2i 0 O O y ..:...::... X. W _ J w e alAWAR 46 o c V h ci<<✓iiitt :r 38 '39, i4v; O eO _ ,a_ ••za zz zi- m as 12 t� I,, J a7 14 �z t 0y e i n ad[ OfT 16 yes�' NO 9235 rs 313' Area of Concern 2.2 Alternative A Figure 2-5 O huntington beach planning department 13 A more desirable configuration of the proposed commercial area at the southeast corner of Warner Avenue and Bolsa Chica Street would feature primary frontage on Warner Avenue, and would extend south only to Dunbar Street (See Figure 2-6) . This configuration is preferable for several reasons - with major frontage on Warner Avenue, the status of Bolsa Chica Street is not as crucial and visual access is considerably improved. This configuraion would also allow Dunbar Street to remain open, providing better access, circulation, and separation of land uses. The problem of consolidation of separate parcels would still remain, however, and much of the frontage on Warner Avenue is already utilized by existing uses . These uses are fairly new, potentially hampering efforts to consolidate and develop a new center. Redesignation of the area of concern to commercial and future construction of a shopping area would eliminate a number of residences from the light path of planes taking off from Meadowlark Airport. As a result, fewer residents would be impacted by noise and the possible hazard of planes failing during takeoff. The commercial designation would also have a beneficial impact on the demand for schools and open space in the surrounding neighborhood. on the other hand, commercial areas generally require greater sewer capacity and create more traffic than medium density uses. Sewer deficiencies in the Warner Avenue trunk have been noted in previous reports dealing with this area of the City. Active earthquake faults within the City of Huntington Beach, known specifically as the North Branch, Bolsa-Fair- view, and South Branch Faults, are all contained within the Newport-Inglewood Structural Zone. This fault zone enters the City in the Huntington Harbour area and extends in a south-easterly direction. Under the Alquist-Priolo Geologic Hazard Zones Act, Special Study Zones have been established within Huntington Beach. The General Plan for the City of Huntington Beach, December, 1976 , details these special Study Zones on Page 29 and sets forth guiding criteria. The area of concern is located within this special study zone. In addition, the City' s Department of Building and Community Development requires either an engineering geologist' s analysis of construction sites or that buildings for human occupancy be designed to resist a seismic force equal to . 186 gravity. These requirements are imposed for all discretionary acts . Loss of life and structural damage is thereby reduced. MM 14 Fr (D WARNER:a:: . . ....so I .; ; . ....::�:: i::•3;. "�.%•:::: 7 8 9 I O i i q l : .�'" : .... ::>::> :::::: .:.::::::::::•:::• :COO O C O y C c :2' ..so' Q Y a O :<:. ........ .:.:.:.:... .:...:..:i: i:'''' '::' 3 (� ...... ....................... ......... ... III raacr 2 O v 8 Q t" 6 O $f i!9 24 2i c4 b 20 c I '' kF`yy ��•i�'. J F. 7 O J y /n• se s• .... w 'DRIVE v U WF�iJ 3S o ,c q4 41 �` 3 0 34 e nr so• _ 9 22 c /7 a I S ,rP w n /sc 16 16 • 7 rrrr NO 9235 I 3/3 e Area of Concern 2. 2 Alternative B 0 Figure 2-6 O huntington beach planning department 15 A portion of the area of concern, roughly south of Dunbar Street, has been identified by Archaeological Research, Incorporated as an archaeologically significant site. This is a small portion of the "Cogged Stone" site that extends down into the Bolsa Chica area. It 'has been identified as probably the most unique and important archaeological site remaining in the area. Over 200 cogged stones have been found to date on the entire site . Two important questions may be answered by this site. It has been proposed that the cogged stone is a time marker (i .e. , a distinct artifact type found only at a specific point in time) . Definition of the absolute dates represented would be an important contribution. A second consideration would be determiniation, of the function of this artifact, if this was accomplished. The apparent random appearance of the artifact type; in other sites may provide information concerning cultural relationships .and interaction for the time period. In order to answer either one or both of these questions, a reasonable number of these artifacts must be found in context (i.e. , in the gound) and their association with many other types of archaeological mat- erials must be determined. To date all of the cogged stones found at Ora-83 have been out of context and these: are incapable of providing the type of information required. Development of this area appears to adversely affect this site. A qualified archaeologist should sufficiently clear construction areas of archaeological data prior to any grading for development. An archaeologist should also be present during all phases of grubbing and grading . If significant data are discovered during grading the mach- inery should be diverted until adequate salvage is per- formed. In conclusion, although the market analysis indicates that there will be support of commercial uses located in and adjacent to the area of concern at ultimate development, there is no immediate demand for the area to be redesig- nated especially if the request to redesignate the south- west corner of Heil Avenue and Bolsa Chica Street to commercial is approved (area of concern 2 . 1) . The future status of large land areas that are currently vacant or support transitional uses is a key in planning and locating additional commercial facilities for the northwest portion of the City. The most important of these areas, the unincorporated Bolsa Chica, presents a number of options for the future which will affect the demand for commercial uses and the ultimate status of Bolsa Chica Street. Two alternative configurations for the proposed commercial area have been suggested, one with primary frontage on Bolsa Chica Street, the other with primary frontage on Warner Avenue. The second alternative is preferable in terms of visual access, traffic circulation, drainage, and separation of land uses . Both alternatives would require property consolidation to effectively implement Planning Commission 's request, but consolidation efforts are hampered by existing uses with arterial frontage, and use of the Q-Zone would be necessary in either case to prevent further piecemeal development of separate commer- cial lots. There is no guarantee that all of the affected property owners will cooperate in consolidating properties to allow for development of an integrated commercial center . A decision should be made at this time, however, to est- ablish the ultimate mix of land uses that are desired for this corner. The area of concern should not be retained as low density residential in light of the recent redesig- nation of the property immediately south and east to medium density residential in December 1978 . Redesignation to medium density would be appropriate, although such action would most likely result in immediate development, foreclosing options for the area of concern should commercial development become desireable in the future . Given the uncertainty regarding future land uses in the Bolsa Chica and the ultimate status of Bolsa -Chica Street, the area of concern may be redesignated commercial at this time to preserve a potentially desirable location for future use. The various problems mentioned above may retard development until there is sufficient interest in the site to trigger development. If non-intensive, open space land uses are planned for the Bolsa Chica, and should interest for consolidation and a commercial center fail to develop, the area could then be redesignated medium. density. 2 . 2. 3 Recommendation Due to the uncertainty regarding the future status of the unincorporated Bolsa Chica and Bolsa Chica Street as well as the problems associated with property consolidation, the Staff recommends that the area be redesignated medium density residential . If however, the commercial designation is preferred, Staff recommends adoption of the configuration shown in Figure 2-6. 17 2 . 3 North of Talbert Avenue and West of' Beach Boulevard 2. 3 . 1 Background The area of concern encompasses 38. 85 acres located north of Talbert Avenue and west of Beach Boulevard. The site is requested for change from the existing medium resi- dential designation to general industrial. M1 zoning exists on the entire site, which presently supports a 5-acre recreational vehicle storage area and a 12-acre camper manufacturing facility. The remainder of the site is vacant. The area of concern is surrounded by industrial and resid- ential uses and vacant industrial land. Medium density single family homes and apartments abut the area of concern to the north and ;east. To the south across Talbert Avenue lies a 10-acre industrial park, another small industrial park, and a vacant low density small lot area . A ready- mix concrete business and an auto wrecking yard exist to the west across the railroad right-of-way, while vacant industrial land and a small industrial park exist immedia- tely north of the area of concern. This area has been the subject of continuing controversy over the past five years , having been considered in five previous general plan amendments. The applicant has in the past requested an alternative residential designation for all or a part of the site, which has been difficult to develop industrially because of the fragmented owner- ship pattern of the small 25 ' X 50 ' lots which comprise the area of concern. In 1976-77 , the Planning Department conducted an Industrial Land Use Study for all industrial property in Huntington Beach. This study examined the current conditions of and the potential for future industrial uses in the City. Among the conclusions of the study was the finding that there was a surplus of industrially zoned land in Hunt- ington Beach, a large percentage of which was vacant or supported marginal industrial activity. Also included in the sutdy was a proposed program of industrial land reduction that recommended feasible alternative uses for a number of industrially-designated parcels in the Gothard Corridor. Several factors led to the area of concern receiving a low suitability rating for industrial use. Among the factors mentioned were the existence of unconsolidated small lots , proximity to Central Park and the Library, 18 I I j -{J1} S P E E R m r. 1 : INDUSTRIAL LIBERTY ..... N E W M A N <i�i�i�i�i�i'•i�ii »isi>`�i�iir:2�:�i�iiSi<:a�:ii>i' :� :�i� I i i I j ;.,.# 1 � D I U I I T DENS I Y L A RON LD I i I I O — �� � U � H v U .................... ................... .................................... ............... r. i: : :: ::: :::: :::: .. .................... ............ 0 z ............. ........................ . ........... s I Q m i T A E B E R T ........... »: COMMERCIAL LOW DENSITY INDUSTRIAL a - LiNOBORG Qt T Area of Concern 2.3 0 riq_ure 2-7 O huntington beach planning department 19 lack of dedication and road and drainage improvements along Talbert Avenue, and only fair freeway access . Many of the surrounding industrial parcels were also recommended for deletion from the Gothard Corridor. On the basis of this analysis, and the proposal ' for an area-wide reduction of industrial acreage, the area of concern was redesignated medium density residential in General Plan Amendment 77-1 in August 1977 . Following the general plan amendment, the applicant pursued a zone change to allow medium density development on the site. After considerable public testimony and Council discussion, the City Council denied the zone change and directed staff to include the area of concern in a general plan amendment to be redesignated industrial. The Council also indicated its desire to retain the industrial chara- cter of the Gothard Corridor in its rejection of citywide industrial land reductions as proposed by General Plan Amendment 77-2 in the Fall of 1977 . A subsequent request to rezone the east half of the area of concern R2 to allow medium density residential development was also denied by the City Council in February 1978 . 2 . 3. 2 Analysis The area of concern is surrounded on three sides by, industrial uses or vacant industrial land, hence, the industrial designation is clearly more compatible with the surrounding uses than the existing medium density residential designation. The only conflict exists with the medium denisty development to the north and east where industrial activities and the noise and traffic they often generate may impact the residents. Under present Ml zoning which exists on the site, a minimum 45-foot setback is required where industrial uses abut residential property. Additional buffering, height limitations, and/or use restrictions may be imposed if necessary to minimize impacts to abutting residents. On the other hand, residential zoning on the area of concern would render the existing industrial uses to the north nonconforming, as they were developed not subject to the 45-foot setback requirement. 20 The lack of street and drainage improvements along Talbert Avenue was a major factor ih the site ' s receiving a low suitability rating for industrial use and redesign- ation to medium density residential in GPA 77-1 . The City now has allocated funds to improve Talbert Avenue through an AHFP project in the amount of $426, 000 on a 50/50 part- icpation by the City. The plans for this project are now being prepared and construction is expected to begin in Spring 1979 . Drainage from the area of concern flows both north and south away from the property. The 1977-78 capital improvements budget allocates $160, 000 to design and con- struct a storm drain from Speer Avenue to Gothard Street to handle drainage from the property; additionally the City Council has approved a drainage study for Talbert Avenue. These projects are in compliance with the policy adopted by the City Council on May 3, 1976 for the City to assist commercial and industrial developers with off- site improvements to strengthen the tax base of the City. The small lot configuration of the 40-acre site was another significant factor which, it was stated, would retard industrial development. However, this factor would remain regardless of what type of development were proposed upon the property, whether it be industrial or residen- tial. Development of a conventional residential sub- division would require a myriad of streets to provide access to the fragmented lots not under the control of the major property owner. Also, development as a Planned Development would impair the property rights of those small lot owners, as a 25 ' by 50 ' lot cannot be developed under that zoning designation. The report also stated that there were sufficent sewer facilities in the area to accommodate either type of development, but it should be pointed out that the subject property will not be allowed to sewer south to Talbert and the developer and/or property owner would be required to pursue easements over and across properties to the north to accommodate the effluent from any development on this property. Should the residential designation remain on the property and subsequent zoning to implement such designation take place, the flexibility for inner circulation within this quarter section will be greatly reduced and the emergency response time of the Police and Fire. Departments could be affected, as certainly the City would not approve local collector streets to traverse both residential and indus- trial properties for the necessary interconnection between Slater and Talbert Avenues . 21 Industrial use of the area of concern could be expected to produce either higher or lower daily traffic volumes along Talbert Avenue than residential use, depending on the type of industrial development that occurs. Development of medium density multi-family apartments would generate an estimated 3,670 trip ends per day, whereas light industrial development on the entire site area would produce a total of 2 , 140 trip ends. However, much Of the City ' s recent industrial development has been of mixed commercial- industrial character; this type of development generates considerably more vehicular traffic than light industrial uses. An estimated 7 , 770 daily trip ends could be expected from mixed commerical-industrial use of the entire area of concern. Present traffic volume along Talbert Avenue is estimated to be 4, 500 vehicles per day. The possible 50 to 75% increase in traffic produced by any ensuing mixed. commerical- industrial development in the area of concern may have short term impacts, but should be able to be handled by the primary arterial at ultimate dedication. Although undesirable, additional access to the site is available via Newman Avenue and Ronald Drive. Redesignation of the area of concern to industrial would ease the projected burden that medium density residential development would place on local educational, recreational, and open space facilities and resources, as well as police and fire services. Locational criteria used for evaluation of industrial siting should consider many factors . However, there are non-measurable intangibles existing which have a definite effect upon site selection, such as climate, driving distances for the owners or corporate officers of a business to their industrial plants from a desirable residential site (e.g. , Huntington Harbour) , availability of educational facilities, and recreational facilities within the community. When the Planning Department was evaluating the properties within the Gothard Corridor those are a few of the factors that were not considered or evaluated for industrial desirability for that area. Despite the decre- asing importance of the railroad in servicing the City' s industrial uses, the Southern Pacific line is still in . operation and does service industrial operations south of the area of concern on a regular basis. Access to the railroad may or may not be a factor in attracting prospec- tive industrial developers, but retaining an industrial designation on the site preserves this option. 22 Z - Q 0 SPEER M1 o R3_ 1 CD it 1 T. LIBERTY AVE j' RI3 i 1 M1 R - T - NEWMAN AVE RONALD D P U � TITTT I U z Q I J J m TA�BE RT Area of Concern 2.3 Alternative B 0 Figure 2-8 O huntington beach planning department 23 As the cost to cure or to prepare property for construction has a very dominant bearing in site selection and the area of concern was identified as the fourth most valuable industrial site within the corridor;` with very little topographical variation and no soils problems, the rating for the property with the above-mentioned features should still remain a highly desirable site for an industrial park. Given the rapid depletion of other prime industrial properties in Huntington Beach, the value of retaining the 40-acre site for future industrial expansion of the Gothard Corridor should be considered. By redesignating the area of concern industrial, the City maintains flex- ibility in locating new industrial uses and planning for the orderly development of this area. Figure 2-8 presents an alternative configuration of land uses for the area of concern. In this alternative, the northeast 4 . 30 acres of the property would be retained as medium density residential. This configuration would provide access to landlocked property at the western end of Newman Avenue and. Ronald Drive, and would provide a better pattern of circulation through the medium density area by creating a loop from two current dead end streets . This alternative would allow about 50 units to be developed in the area of concern, and these parcels could be designed to more effectively buffer the residential uses from the industrial area than the existing residential development. This configuration would not seriously affect the desir- ability of the remaining 34 . 55 acres for industrial develop- ment. 2 . 3. 3 Recommendation The Staff recommends that the area of concern be redesig- nated from medium density residential to industrial. The alternative depicted in Figure 2-8 would also be a desirable configuration of land uses for the area of concern. 2. 4 South of Garfield Avenue and East of Beach Boulevard 2 . 4 . 1 Background The area of concern contains 8 . 02 gross acres of land located south of Garfield Avenue and east of Beach Boulevard (Figure 2-9) . The property is zoned Ml (light industrial) and Ml-0 (combined with oil production) and is used as a maintenance yard and storage facility for the Southern . California Edison Company. The area of concern is surro- unded by low density single family homes to the east and south, a landscape suppy and pool service company to the south 24 p I 1I'■■ I I- � • I "-,■ '. ! � r ■ �� �- � Jam ■ ' • I�► mm ■ I lies i 1■■1 r �■��� Imo►/ i ■ : � • AMA ; vacant commercial property, a fast food restaurant, as well as two single family homes on Garfield to the west, and a new commerical center, medium density fourplexes, and single family homes on R3 lots to the north across Garfield Avenue. The site was recently sold by Edison, and the new property owner has requested that the area of concern be redesignated from general commercial to medium density residential to allow a planned development. 2. 4 . 2 Analysis The industrial zoning designation is incompatible with the surrounding residential land uses and is inconsistent with the commercial General Plan Land Use Designation. The major issue to be resolved in this analysis is whether there is. a need to retain this large parcel as a commercial site. There is an abundance of vacant and/or under- utilized commercial property along Beach Boulevard in this area of the City. Original zoning efforts in this area designated property as much as 600 feet back from Beach Boulevard on both sides of the highway for commercial uses . Large parcels to the north are utilized for automobile lots and uses requiring a great deal of floor space . However, increasing distance from the San Diego Freeway and the deletion of the proposed Route 1 Freeway reduce the desir- ability of large commercial lots in the southern portion of Huntington Beach, resulting in the large number of vacant parcels. The desirability of the area of concern for commercial use is limited by a nubmer of factors . The property has no frontage on Beach Boulevard, and although Garfield Avenue is a primary arterial, the lack of frontage on Beach Boulevard seriously limits the potential attraction of the site for commercial users. Two major shopping centers have recently been developed at two other corners of the same intersection. Without the valuable frontage on Beach Boulevard, the area of concern would have diff- iculty competing with these other two centers for business . To gain access to Beach Boulevard, consolidation of additional frontage property would be necessary. However, such consolidation, "if successful, would create too large a parcel for a feasible commercial project. In similar instances north of the area of concern, where deep commercial zoning has resulted in an overabundance of oversized parcels, the frontage has been retained for commercial use while the rear portion has been rezoned to allow medium or high density residential uses. When 26 such rezoning takes place, the commercial area retained must be of sufficient depth of allow quality development, while the residential area created must have proper access and allow adequate circulation. In past cases , 170 feet of commercial area and 320 feet of "residential area have been sufficient to allow development to occur. The area of concern, if redesignated medium density residential , would provide a parcel 520 feet by 610 feet. Such a parcel would allow adequate inner-circulation for resid- ential uses, and could take access directly from Garfield Avenue at two points . The remaining commercial frontage on Beach Boulevard would still have a depth of 250 feet, which is adequate to allow quality development at the corner of the intersection. Traffic generated' by medium density development would be considerably less, than that produced by a commerical development (1, 030 vs 6, 400 trips/day) . A medium density development on the site would result in a maximum of 120 dwelling units, which could be expected to produce 38 elementary, 14 high school, and 12 junior college students , all of which could be accommodated at existing schools in the area. Open space facilities within the quarter section are adequate to handle additional residents . Full street improvements and utilities already exist on the site. The Department of Public Works has indicated that existing sewer and drainage facilities in the area are adequate to accommodate new medium density development in the area of concern. Drainage from the project will actually be less than existing volumes, as the entire site is now paved and creates excessive runoff. Develop- ment of the area of concern under medium density standards should enhance the environmental quality of the site through increased landscaping and open space areas . 2. 4 . 3 Recommendation Staff recommends that the area of concern be redesignated from general commercial to medium density residential . 2 . 5 North of Orange Avenue and West of Fifth Street 2. 5. 1 Background The area of concern consists of two city blocks which encompass a total of 5 .44 gross acres (see Figure 2-10) . This area was once the location of the Huntington Beach Civic Center and main library, but now houses a Community Clinic, library annex, memorial hall, and an assortment, of community service offices and trailers . The site also 27 INDIANAP0LIS -- \ \ ` \ �`/� =- '�- �•,l. -- ' 1 ill I I --- � \ HARTFORD C l GENEVA \ 1 I LOW I IIIII --- DENSITY FRANKFORT \ 'Qq LOW 1 I DENSITY 1 I ELMIRA MEDIUM -- DENSITY I I I DETROIT Eli ♦ � ♦ 1 1 -- � `:. io MIXED •DEVELOPMENT',` -- < ` J 1 I 1 BALTIMORE Area of Concern 2. 5 Figure 2-10 O 28 huntington beach planning department includes much vacant area and a portion of the Pecan Avenue right-of-way, which is currently used for on-site parking. Zoning on the site is CF-C (Community-Facilities- Civic Center Uses) , but this zoning will revert to R3 and C3 upon discontinuance of the Civic Center use. The General Plan designation on the site is Planning Reserve, surrounded by low density residential to the west, mixed development to the north, east, and south, and high density residential abuts a portion of the southern boundary of the area of concern. The City Council has requested that the land use designation on the area of concern be amended to mixed development to allow implementation of a senior citizen housing and recreation facility project. 2. 5. 2 Analysis The area of concern has always supported some form of community facilities . When the Civic Center was -relocated in 1973-74, a community clinic was established and other community-oriented uses located in the existing buildings The City has maintained the policy to retain the site for community serice or recreational uses , and in General Plan Amendment 76-1A; the area of concern was designated a planning reserve until finalized plans were developed for the site. On September 18, 1978, the City Council endorsed the use of the site for a new senior citizen housing and recreation complex to replace the existing senior citizen center located at Orange Avenue and Seven- teenth Street. The Planning Staff was also authorized to request proposals from developers for construction of the project under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Housing and Community Development Program. The current General Plan designation of Planning Reserve will not legally permit the implementation of the senior citizens housing and recreation center on the Old Civic Center Site. The Mixed Development is recommended because the project encompasses housing, recreation facilities, the branch library, and may (as recommended by the Redeve- lopment Commission) incorporate limited on-site service commercial. Processing the required general plan amendment will permit adoption of the amendment by the City Council at approx- imately the same time that the Council will be requested to select a developer for the project. Upon such selection, the Staff and developer may proceed immediately with the specific plan amendment to the zoning ordiance that will also be necessary to permit this development. A general plan amendment at this time will not only provide the 29 t a ry he legally required land use designation change to occur . in an orderly manner, but will also expedite the imple- mentation of the senior housing and recreation center projects. 2 . 5 . 3 Recommendation Staff recommends that the area of concern be redesignated from Planning Reserve to Mixed Development. 3. 0 ADMfNISTRATIVE ITEr4S This section addresses eleven areas on the Land Use Diagram where graphic corrections have been made without proper recordation. In all but one of these cases, commercial areas were added to the Land Use Diagram that was adopted within the context of a complete 7eneral Plan Document in December 1976 (refer to Figure 1-1) . Figure 3-1 shows the Land Use Diagram that was contained in the Land Use Element Background Report, which was adopted in August 1976 , and does not designate these commercial areas. The remaining administrative item involves the correction of a graphics error in identifying the northern boundary of the Estate Residential area. This boundary should coincide with Ellis Avenue , but was mistakenly drawn slightly south of Ellis on the August 1976 Land Use Diagram. The eleven areas identified as 3-1 through 3-11 in Figure 2-1 should now be amended by ordinance to correspond with the current Land Use Diagram and to insure that the proper procedure has been followed in amending the General Plan. now 31 3. 1 Summary of Proposed Administrative Changes Area Acreage Location Recommended Action 3 . 1 10 . 00 North of Warner Avenue and Redesignate from Northeast of Pacific Coast Medium Density Resi- Highway dential to General Commercial 3 . 2 1. 47 South of Edinger Avenue and Redesignate from Lora East of Bolsa Chica Street Density Residential to General Commercial 3. 3 1. 79 North of Heil Avenue and West Redesignate from Low of Springdale Street Density Residential to General Commercial 3 . 4 3 . 09 North of Edinger Avenue and Redesignate from Low West of Goldenwest Street Density Residential to General Commercial 3. 5 2. 08 South of Warner Avenue and Redesignate from Low West of Newland Street Density Residential to General Commercial 3. 6 2 . 45 South of Slater Avenue and Redesignate from Open East of Goldenwest Street Space to General Commercial 3 . 7 71 . 95 South of Ellis Avenue between Redesignate from Open Edwards and Gothard Streets Space to Estate Residential 3 . 8 2 . 00 South of Adams Avenue and Redesignate from West of Huntington Street "tedium Density Resi- dential to General Commercial 3 . 9 4 . 09 North of Yorktown Avenue and Redesignate from Low West of Brookhurst Street Density Residential to General Commercial 3. 10 4 . 34 Intersection of Atlanta .Avenue Redesignate from Low and Brookhurst Street Density Residential to General Commercial 3. 11 3 . 31 South of Hamilton Avenue and Redesignate from Low East of Bushard Street Density Residential - to General Commercial r 6 u tl i Land Use Categories RESIDENTIAL Estate O-2 un/gac US Estate O-4 un/gac � •` Low Density O-7 un/gac SAN DEGO Medium Density 7 -15 un)bm ^ ® ,� IM High Density 15 -35un/gac COMMERCIAL `✓ `� ® :.`'`_ ®General Office Professional ;; a / ®Mixed Development \ INDUSTRY I n Ge ra l e k PUBLIC USE ........... - Public Quasi-public, Institutional 5'yC4 c Open Space P P a �f. PLANNINGUNITS NITS i n Pla Wing Reserve O Community Planned CERTIFICATIONS a ti OTHER USES OM .fir' PLANNING COMMI SSION M ON Resource Production I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS LAND USE ELEMENT " +-~' %'�. .. j•° PHASEII WAS ADOPTED BY RESOLUTION N0. OF THE :(;.,--✓• v,� ,� ., �1���r'' � CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ON THIS DAY OF 'rf,�J'';�F', "(����• _�Jam..-?.,u';q:� ,gL� ATTEST: ,CHAIRMANi?,•��i"�;�;;'- ?�li/r_ - -�° �• �" ,SECRETARY G`#"°/`. �?'',, „• '8%: . CITY COUNCIL HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS LAND USE ELEMENT PHASE II WAS ADOPTED� �'�' �'� { . ♦�, BY RESOLUTION NO. OF THE CITY COUNCIL ON THIS R � e, DAY OF .MAYOR rjr ir' j ATTEST: H 1 GH 1 yii - 1 p5T CIT Y CLERK F PAS 1 l� `1 - s €...� ••fv•4 V C• € a 3 h r. OCEAS r ' sr�.. t V S, PACFK OCEANL=" „''w`'�' _ - ;'>..er" �i�.a`'r:".r,'a'='"'•'„ a„ -�' P�� I I i HUNI-INGTON BE CH, (EILIFORNIA GENERAL PLAN PWNNING DEPARTMW LAND USE DIAGRAM i I i 4. 0 AMENDMENT SUMMARY The following table summarizes the proposed land use amendments addressed in Section 2 .0 as recommended by the Staff. The administrative items addressed in Section 3. 0 are not reflected in the following table as the recommended designations already exist on the areas of concern. 33 4 . 1 Summary of Proposed General Plan Amendment 79-lA PROPOSED LAND USE ACREAGE SUMMARY Land Use Existing Proposed Net Category Gross Acres Gross Acres Gross Acres RESIDENTIAL Low Density 2. 83 a - 2 . 83 Medium Density 43. 63 10 . 85 -32 . 78 COMMERCIAL General 8. 02 4 . 78 - 3 . 24 Mixed Development a 5 . 44 + 5. 44 INDUSTRIAL General 0- 38 . 85 +38 . 85 PLANNING UNITS Planning Reserve 5. 44 - 5. 44 Total land area involved in this amendment: 59 . 92 gross acres NET PROJECTED POPULATION CHANGE Max. Units Residential Net Gross per Total Population Estimated Type Acres Gross -Acres Units Per Unit Population Low Density - 2.83 x 7 = 19 x 3.25 - 62 ^tedium Density -32.78 x 15 = 491 x 2.30 -1129 -1191 , T 5. 0 APPENDICES The following supplementary materials have been included to assist in evaluating the various amendment requests addressed in General Plan Amendment 79-1A. Negative Declaration 78-110 Area of Concern 2 . 1 Negative Declaration 79-2 Area of Concern 2 . 2 Negative Declaration 78-21 Area of Concern 2 . 3 Negative Declaration 79-5 Area of Concern 2 . 4 Negative Declaration 79-4 Area of Concern 2 . 5 Staff Memo Administrative Items Market Analysis Areas of Concern 2 . 1 and 2 .2 AILAMILA 35 ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM Fee - $75.00 FOR CITY USE ONLY Date FRANK WOOLSEY AND CHARLES HERMANSEN Received: Applicant Authorized Agent Project Number: 24D 'lea- llll 15052 Springdale Avenue Huntington Beach, 92649 Department of Origin Mailing Address 1714) 891-3561 Other Application Telephone or Permit Numbers: cr F tA -I Property Owner A CC COY) ✓1 Z Mailing Address/Telephone NOTE: To assist the Department of Planning and Environmental Resources in' making a determination as to whether a significant environ- mental effect may result from the proposed project, the following information must be supplied. Maps referred to below may be viewed at the City of Huntington Beach Department of Planning and Environmental Resources. 1.0 Project Information (Please attach Plot Plan and submit photo- graphs of subject property) 1.1 Nature of Project: Give complPa.,_ description of the proposed project. 3.41 AC Gen. Commercial Development a. If the project is commercial or industrial give a complete description of activities and other pertinent information including but not limited to whether it is neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square footage of sales areas (if any) , estimated employment per shift, any potentially hazardous materials which may be used, etc. Proposed development is a neighborhood commercial center —1— b. If the project is residential, indicate number, types and 4ize of units and associated facilities. -NA- C. If the project is institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employment per shift and community benefits to be derived from the project. NA d. List all types of building materials to be used for all structures in the project. (Submit detailed elevations if available) -NA- 1. 2 Location of project: (Address, nearest street intersections) Bolsa Chica and Heil Avenue 1. 3 Legal Description (Lot, Block, Tract) See attached legal description 1. 4 Project land area (acres) Number of parking spaces _NA= 1. 5 Square feet of building area -NA- Number of floors -NA- 1.6 What is the percent and coverage proposed by the project for : a. Building -NA- b. Paving . -NA- C. Existing landscaping -NA- d. New landscaping -NA- -2- 1:7 General relationships of the project to surrounding properties: (Information available in Planning Department on. District Maps) LAND USE ELEMENT USE ZONING GENERAL PLAN Present Vacant Proposed C-4 R2 Medium Density Residential Surrounding north Comm. C-4 Commercial Surrounding south Apt. R2 Med. Density Res. Surrounding east Comm. C-2 Commercial urrounding west Vacant R2 Med. Density Res. 1. 8 What will be the maximum occupancy of all structures proposed within the project? -NA- 1. 9 List other public agencies having jurisdiction by law in approval, authorization, certification or issuance of a permit for this project: ❑ O.C. Flood Control District ® State Division of Highways ❑ O.C. Sanitation District ❑ Corps of Engineers O.C. Air Pollution Control ® City Council District ® Planning Commission ❑ California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission ❑ Board of Zoning Adjustments California Regional Water ❑ Design Review Board Quality Control Board ❑ Other: ❑ Local Agency Formation Commission 1.10 If the project is commercial, industrial, or residential what is the roadway distance in miles from the project to the nearest: a. Shopping Center 100' b. Freeway exit 3.5 mi c. BleIDentary School (refer to Recreation Areas Map) .5 mi d. Public park (refer to Recreation Areas Map) .5 mi e. Scenic Highway (refer to Recreation Paths, Corridors , and Areas Map) 1 mi (Coast Hwy) 2. 0 Existing Environmental Setting of Proposed Project: 2.1 Seismic: a. What is the distance from the project to the nearest fault line (refer to Fault Map) ? 1 mi (Bolsa Chica-Fairview Fault) b. Is the project site within a designated earthquake hazard area (refer to Earthquake Hazard Special Study Zone Map) ? No 2.2 Drainage and Flood Control: a. Please describe specifically the volume of drainage and how it will be accommodated: Approximately 15 cfs to be handled by surface drainage b. Is the project within a flood hazard area? no Or natural flood plain?yP� (refer to Flood Plains an- Flood Hazard Area Maps) c. What is the distance from the project to the nearest .flood channel? (refer to Flood Control Channels Map) 100' Sunset Cannel d. What is the distance from the project to the nearest shoreline? 3/4 mi 2. 3 Topography: a. Does the project site exhibit excessive slope? (refer to Topography:Slope Map) No b. What is the distance from the project to the nearest bluff? (refer to Principal Vistas and Features Map) 1 mi C. What is the range and slope of the property as it now exists? Flat 2. 4 Land Form: a. Is the property presently graded? No b. Indicate the gross cubic yards of grading proposed -NA- , the acres of land to be graded , the amount of earth to be transported on the site None , and the amount of earth to be transported off the s to -0- c. What will be the maximum height and grade of cut or fill after grading is completed? Flat d. Is the surrounding area graded? Yes If so, how will it affect subject property? � No effect 2 .5 Soils: . a. Type of soil on the project site? Romona Loam and Chino Silty Clay b. Are there any Peat and/or Organic Soils on the site? Probable (refer to Peat and Organic Soils Map) Location of Peat c. Does the site exhibit moderate to high expansive soils? Yes (refer to Expansive Soil Distribution Map) 2. 6 Geologic: a. Is the site within a high risk geologic problem area? No (refer to Geotechnical Land Use Capability Map) . b. Is the site within an area which has experienced a variable and complex pattern of land subsidence? No (refer to Land Subsidence Map) 2. 7 Historic/Archaeological: a. Could there possibly be any objects of historic, aesthetic or archaeological significance on the site? If so, please describe. (refer to Archaeological Sites, Historic Landmark Sites and Principal Vistas an Features Maps) No -5- 2. 8 Wildlife/Vegetation: a. Does any wildlife use the site for a place to feed, nest or rest? If so, please list: No b. Will any of this wildlife be displaced by the proposed project? No If so, how? c. Indicate the extent, size and species of plant life per- ° sently existing on the site. None d. Indicate the location and area (in acres or square feet) and type of plant life to be removed as a result of the project. Include number type and size of trees to be re- moved. None 2. 9 Water Quality: a. Does any portion of the project abut or encroach on beaches , estuaries , bays , tidelands, or inland water areas? No b. Describe how the project will effect any body of water. None 2.10 Air Quality: a. If the project is industrial, describe and list air pol- lution sources and quantity and types of pollutants emitted as a result of the project. NA P b. List any Air Pollution Control District equipment required. NA -6- 2.11 Noise: a. Describe any adjacent off-site noise sources (i.e. , airports , industry, freeways) . Heil Avenue and- Bolsa thica b. What noise will be produced by the project? If available, please give noise levels in decibel measurement and typical time distribution when noise will be produced. Very slight c. How will noise produced by the project compare with existing noise levels? Lower 2.12 Traffic: a. Indicate the present traffic volume on arterials and added trips per day from the project. Bolsa Chica 18,500 T/D Heil Street 5,500 T/D b. What is the existing speed limit at the project location? Heil Street - 40 mph Bolsa Chica - 45 mph c. Indicate points of egress and ingress to the project. Bolsa Chica and Heil Street and Rudder Drive 3.0 Public Services and Facilities: 3.1 Water: a. Will the project -require installation or replacement of new water mains? yes b. Attach 'a map showing the service area, size and lo- cation of new lines. To be planned C. Please estimate the daily volume in gallons required to serve the project. To be planned 3. 2 Sewer: a. Will the project require installation or replacement of new sewer mains? yes b. Attach a map showing the service area, size and location of new lines. To be planned c. Discuss the capacity required for the project and how this relates to existing effluent volumes within the system. Existing system adequate to hdndle minimal loads generated by project. �J 3. 3 Utility Lines: To be planned a. Indicate length and type of new offsite transmission and distribution facilities required to serve project. b. Do any overhead electrical facilities require relocation? • • If so, please describe facilities. C. Do existing lines have to be increased in number or size for project? If so, please describe how. 3. 4 Solid Waste: To be planned a. Describe the type and amount (pounds/day) of solid waste generated by the project. Type: Pounds/Day 3. 5 Education: a. For residential projects, note primary and secondary school districts: Primary: Ocean View School District Secondary: Huntington Beach Secondary School District -8- 3.6 Population Displacement: a. Will any residential occupants be displaced by the project activities? No If not, do not answer question (b) . b. What is the total number of residents to be displaced? -0- 3. 7 Demolition: a. Will any improvements be demolished or removed by the project? No If so, answer questions b through d. b. Describe briefly the type of buildings or improvements to be demolished by the project. ,None c. List approximate volume of exported material. None d. Indicate the location and the distance to the site where exported material will be dumped. None 4.0 Mitigating Measures: 4.1 Are there measures included in the project which may conserve resources (electricity, gas, water or wildlife) ? Please describe. Yes - conform to state energy building requirements 4.2 Are there measures proposed in the design of the project to re- duce noise pollution to persons occupying project? If so, please describe. To be planned 4. 3 Are there measures proposed in the design of the project to reduce noise pollution to persons outside of the project which is caused by noise generated by the project? If so, please describe. To be planned -9- 4. 4 Are there measures in the design of the project (architectural treatment and landscaping) which have been coordinated with design of the existing community to minimize visual effect? Yes If so, please describe. We are developing 12.2 property to the west. Architectural theme will carry through to residences. Site plan will reflect landscape buffer between residential and commercial . 4. 5 Are there. measures or facilities designed into the project to facilitate .resources recovery (e.g. solar heating/special insulation etc. ) ? No 5.0 Alternatives: Are there. alternatives to the project which may result in a lesser adverse environmental effect? Yes Please explain all project alternatives. No development or lesser density, but is economically unfeasible or develop as R-2 as currently zoned. 6.0 Additional Information: (regarding questions above) . If necessary attach. .addiEional sheets. I hereby certify that the information herein is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. Sign ture Date Filed CRAIG CO ASSOCIA -10- E14VIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM Fee - $75.00 FOR CITY USE ONLY City of Huntington Beach Date Received: L. Applicant Authorized Agent Project P.O. Box 190, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Number : ,�j 1p y Department of Origin Mailing Address (714) 536-5271 Ila/ls ;e <- Other Applic tion Telephone or Permit Numbers: See attached list of 9 owners C�,y 7,9 _ Property Owner Mailing Address Telephone NOTE:. To assist the Department of Planning and Environmental Resources in making a determination as to whether a significant environ- mental effect may result from the proposed project, the following information must be supplied. Maps referred to below may be viewed at the City of Huntington Beach Department of Planning and Environmental Resources. 1.0 Project Information (Please attach Plot Plan and submit photo- graphs of subject property) 1. 1 Nature of Project: Give complete description of the proposed project. General Plan Amendment 79-1 Area 2.2 Proposed redesignation from Medium Density Residential to General Commercial on 2.83 acres. a. If the project is commercial or industrial give a complete description of activities and other pertinent information including but not limited to whether it is neighborhood, city or regionally. oriented, square footage of sales areas (if any) , estimated employment per shift, any potentially hazardous materials which may be used, etc. -1- b. If the project is residential, indicate number, types and size of units and associated facilities. NA C. If the project is institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employment per shift and community benefits to be derived from the project. NA d. List all types of building materials to be used for all structures in the project. (Submit detailed elevations if available) NA 1. 2 Location of project: (Address, nearest street intersections) South of Warner Avenue, east of Bolsa Chica Street 1. 3 Legal Description (Lot, Block, Tract) The southern 431 feet of the northern 663 feet of the western 286 feet of the N4V4 of the NW, of the NW!-4 of Section 28 Township 6 Range 10 1. 4 Project land area (acres) 2.83 Number of parking spaces NA 1. 5 Square feet of building area NA Number of floors NA 1.6 What is the percent and coverage proposed by the project for : a. Building NA b. Paving NA C. Existing landscaping NA d. New landscaping NA -2- 1t7 General relatio-._.hips of the project to sui--,unding properties : (Information available in Planning Department on District Maps) LAND USE ELEMENT USE ZONING GENERAL PLAN Present residential R1 Law Density Residential Proposed canrtnercial Surrounding ccnr►ercial C4 General Commercial north Surrounding vacant & resi- R1 Medium Density Resi- south dential dential Surrounding Single family Rl Medium Density Resi- e a s t dential Surrounding Conmercial & C4 General Commercial west Offices 1. 8 What will be the maximum occupancy of all structures proposed within the project? NA 1. 9 List other public agencies having jurisdiction by law in approval , authorization, certification or issuance of a permit for this project: ❑ O.C. Flood Control District ❑ State Division of Highways ❑ O.C . Sanitation District ❑ Corps of Engineers ❑ O.C. Air Pollution Control ® City Council District ® Planning Commission ❑ California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission ❑ Board of Zoning Adjustments ❑ California Regional Water ❑ Design Review Board Quality Control Board ❑ Other: ❑ Local Agency Formation Commission -3- 1.10 If the project is commercial, industrial, or residential what is the roadway distance in miles from the project to the nearest: a. Shopping Center z mile b. Freeway exit 4 miles C. Elementary School (refer to Recreation Areas Map) 3/4 mile d. Public park (refer to Recreation Areas Map) 3-, mile e. Scenic Highway (refer to Recreation Paths, Corridors , and Areas Map) 1 mi 1 P 2. 0 Existing Environmental Setting of Proposed Project: 2.1 Seismic: a. What is the distance from the pproject to the pearest fault line (refer to Fault Map) ? 600 ft. Bolsa Fairview b. Is the project site within a designated earthquake hazard area (refer to Earthquake Hazard Special Study Zone Map) ? Yes 2. 2 Drainage and Flood Control: a. Please describe specifically the volume of drainage and how it will be accommodated: Volume unknown. Drainage to Bolsa Chica Street, north to Warner Avenue, then east b. Is the project within a flood hazard area? No Or natural flood plain? No (refer to Flood Plains and Flood Hazard Area Maps) C. What is the distance from the project to the nearest flood channel? (refer to Flood Control Channels Map) 2 mile d. What is the distance from the project to the nearest shoreline? 1 mile 2. 3 Topography: a.. Does the project site exhibit excessive slope? (refer to Topography:Slope Map) No b. What is the distance from the .project to the nearest bluff? (refer to Principal Vistas and Features Map) 600 feet C. What is the range and slope of the property as it now exists? slopes to the west.6% V 2. 4 Land Form: a. Is the property presently graded? Yes, in places b. Indicate the gross cubic yards of grading proposed_-Ek. , the acres of land to be graded NA , the amount of earth to be transported on the site , and the amount of earth to be transported owe site c. What will be the maximum height and grade of cut or fill after grading is completed? NA d. Is the surrounding area graded? YES If so, how will it affect subject property? Property to east presently drains thru subject property. Approval of request will require this drainage to be diverted elsewhere or require an easement upon development. 2 . 5 Soils: a. . Type of soil on the project site? Ramna Loam b. Are there any Peat and/or .Organic Soils on the site? NO (refer to Peat and Organic Soils Map) C. Does the site exhibit moderate to high expansive soils? Low !�70 (refer to Expansive Soil Distribution Map) 2. 6 Geologic: a. Is the site within a high risk geologic problem area? No (refer to Geotechnical Land Use Capability Map) . b. Is the site within an area which has experienced a variable and complex pattern of land subsidence? No (refer to Land Subsidence Map) 2. 7 Historic/Archaeological: a. Could there possibly be any objects of historic, aesthetic or archaeological significance on the site? If so, please describe. (refer to Archaeological Sites, Historic Landmark Sites and Principal Vistas Features Mapsj- ORA 83 -5- 2. 8 Wildlife/Vegetation: a. Does any wildlife use the site for a place to feed, nest or rest? If so, please list: No b. Will any of this wildlife be displaced by the proposed project? No If so, how? C. Indicate the extent, size and species of plant life per- sently existing on the site. Weeds and trees Around existing homes. d. Indicate the location and area (in acres or square feet) and type of plant life to be removed as a result of the project. Include number type and size of trees to be re- moved. None 2. 9 Water Quality: a. Does any portion of the project abut or encroach on beaches , estuaries , bays , tidelands, or inland water areas? No b. Describe how the project will effect any body of water. No effect 2.10 Air Quality: a. If the project is industrial, describe and list air pol- lution sources and quantity and types of pollutants emitted as a result of the project. NA b.. List any Air Pollution Control District equipment required. NA -6- 2. 11 Noise: a. Describe any adjacent off-site noise sources (i.e. , airports, industry, freeways) . Meadowlark Airport Warner Avenue Bolsa Chica Street b. What noise will be produced by the project? If available, please give noise levels in decibel measurement and typical time distribution when noise will be produced. NA C. How will noise produced by the project compare with existing noise levels? NA 2 . 12 Traffic: a. Indicate the present traffic volume on arterials and added trips per day from the project. Warner Avenue 17,600 per day increase of 2060 TE/day Bolsa Chica Street 2,000 per day 2264 TE/day vs 204 TE/day b. What is the existing speed limit at the project location? 30 mph on Bolsa Chica 45 r�ph on Warner C. Indicate points of egress and ingress to the project. direct access from Bolsa Chica Street 3. 0 Public Services and Facilities: 3. 1 !Water: a. Will the project require installation or replacement of new water mains? No -b. Attach a map showing the service area, size and lo- cation of new lines. NA C. Please estimate the daily volume in gallons required to serve the project. approximately 7075 gpd-7- 3. 2 Sewer: a. Will the project require installation or replacement of new sewer mains? No b. Attach a map showing the service area, size and location of new lines. NA C. Discuss the capacity required for the project and how this relates to existing effluent volumes within the system. Expected flow of 7075 gallons/day into Bolsa Chica & Wanrer Avenue Trunk,both of which are at or near capacity 3. 3. Utility Lines: a. Indicate length and type of new offsite transmission and distribution facilities required to serve project. NA b. Do any overhead electrical facilities require relocation? No If so, please describe facilities. C. Do existing lines have to be increased in number or size for project? No If so, please describe how. 3. 4 Solid Waste: a. Describe the type and amount (pounds/day) of solid waste generated by the project. Type: NA Pounds/Day t 3. 5 Education: a. For residential projects, note primary and secondary school districts: Primary: Ocean View School District NA ) - Secondary• Huntington Beach Union High School District -8- 3. 6 Population Displacement: a. Will any residential occupants be displaced by the project activities? If not, do not answer question (b) . Not inunediately b. What is the total number of residents to be displaced? If the property is subsequently developed as commercial, approximately 25 residents will be displaced. 3. 7 Demolition: a. Will any improvements be demolished or removed by the project? No If so, answer questions b through d. b. Describe briefly the type of buildings or improvements to be demolished by the project. NA C. List approximate volume of exported material. NA d. Indicate the location and the distance to the site where exported material will be dumped. NA 4. 0 Mitigating Measures: 4. 1 Are there measures included in the project which may conserve resources (electricity, gas , water or wildlife) ? Please describe. NA 4.2 Are there measures proposed in the design of the project to re- duce noise pollution to persons occupying project? NA If so, please describe. 4. 3 Are there measures proposed in the design of the project to reduce noise pollution to persons outside of the project which is caused by noise generated by the project? NA If so, please describe. -9- 4. 4 Are there measures in the design of the project (architectural treatment and landscaping) which have been coordinated with design of the existing community to minimize visual effect? NA If so, please describe. 4. 5 Are there measures or facilities designed into the project to facilitate resources recovery (e.g. solar heating/special insulation etc. ) ? NA 5. 0 Alternatives: Are there alternatives to the project which may result in a lesser adverse environmental effect? Yes Please explain all project alternatives. Maintain Low Density Residential Redesignate Medium Density Residential 6. 0 Additional Information: (regarding questions above) . If necessary attach ad itional sheets . T Hereby certify that the information herein is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. January 12, 1979 Signature Date Filed -10- ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM Fee - $75.00 FOR CITY USE ONLY Date City- of Huntington Beach Received: Appl cant Authorized Agent Project Number : _Np P.O. Box 190, Huntington Beach, California 92648 Department of Origin Mailing Address (714) 536-5277 Other Application Telephone or Permit Numbers : Theodore Manthei (Frank Buccella) Property Owner 74565 Dillon Road Desert Hot Springs, California Mailing Address/Telephone NOTE: To assist the Department of Planning and Environmental Resources in making a determination as to whether a significant environ- mental effect may result from the proposed project, the -following .information must be supplied. Maps referred to below may be viewed at the City of Huntington Beach Department cf Planning and Environmental Resources. 1.0 Project Information (Please attach Plot Plan and submit photo- graphs of subject property) 1. 1 Mature of Project: Give complete description of the proposed project. Proposed General Plan Amendment from Medium Density Residential to industrial as part of GPA 78-1. a . If the project is commercial or industrial gi%,-e a complete description of activities and other pertinent information including but not limited to whether it is neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square footage o.f sales areas (if any) , estimated employment per shift , any potentially hazardous materials which may be used, etc . r Not available at this time. -1- '1 b . If the project is residential, indicate number, .types and size of units and associated facilities . C. If the project is institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employment per shift and community benefits to be derived from the project. d. List all types of building materials to be used for all structures in the project. (Submit detailed elevations if available) Not applicable. 1. 2 Location of project: (Address, nearest street intersections) North of Talbert/east of Pacific. Electric Railroad right-of-way. 1. 3 Legal Description (Lot, Block, Tract) Assessor's parcels 165-251-01 through 26 165-261-01-11, 13, 15-17, 20-34 1. 4 Project land area (acres) 35.85 Number of parking spaces N/A 1. 5 Square feet of building area N/A Number of floors N/A 1. 6 What is the percent and coverage proposed by the project for: a. Building N/A b. Paving N/A C. Existing landscaping N/A d. New landscaping N/A -2- General relations. _ps of the project to surr zding properties : (information available in Planning Department on District Maps) LAND USE ELEMENT USE ZONING GENERAL PLAN 4 Vacant with a' resent portion used for k' 3 Medium Density an W storage Proposed lot Ml Industrial uses Industrial Vacant land, Surrounding manufacturing & Ml & R3 Industrial & Medium north storage buildingr Density Residential Surrounding Vacant industria Ml-A Industrial south Property & 10 ac industrial park Surrounding Apartments & east single family R2 Medium Density residential Residential urroundingkAutcmbbile wreck west ng yard & Ready Ml-CD Industrial Concrete Bus. 8 What will be the maximum occupancy of all structures Proposed within the project? Not available 9 List . other public agencies having jurisdiction by law in approval, authorization, certification or issuance of a permit for this project: ❑` O.C . Flood Control District El State Division of Highways ❑ O. C . Sanitation District ❑ Corps of Engineers ❑ O.C. Air Pollution Control ❑ City Council District ® Planning Commission ❑ California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission 0 Board of Zoning Adjustments • ❑ California Regional Water ❑ Design Review Board Quality Control Board . ❑ Other: ❑ Local Agency Formation / Commission -3- r L, 10 If the project commercial, industrial , residential what is the roadway distance in miles from the project to the nearest: a. Shopping Center 1300 ft. b. Freeway exit 2± miles C. Elementary School (refer to Recreation Areas Map) 1 mile d. Public park (refer to Recreation Areas Map) 800 ft. e. Scenic Highway (refer to Recreation Paths, Corridors , and Areas Map) 2. 0 Existing Environmental Setting of Proposed Project: 2. 1 Seismic: a. What is the distance from the project to the nearest fault line (refer to Fault Map) ? 2300 ft. b. Is the project site within a designated earthquake hazard area (refer to Earthquake Hazard Special Study Zone Map) ? no 2. 2 Drainage and Flood Control: a. Please describe specifically the volume of drainage and how ^ it will be accommodated: Not available b. Is the project within a flood hazard area? no Or natural flood plain? no (refer to Flood Plains and Flood Hazard Area Maps) C. What is the distance from the project to the nearest flood channel? (refer to Flood Control Channels Map) 1 mile d. What is the distance from the project to the nearest shoreline? 3 c.Liles t 2. 3 Topographer a. Does the project site exhibit excessive slope? (refer to Topography:Slope Map) Portion of site leas slope of 5 to 1J'_ b. What is the distance from the project to the nearest bluff? (refer to Principal Vistas and Features Map) Adjacent to site on west. n C. What is the range and slope of the property as it now exists? -4- 2 . 4 Land Form: a. Is the property presently graded? partially b. Indicate the gross cubic yards of grading proposed_ N/A , the acres of land to be graded , the amount of earth to be transported on the site , and the amount of earth to be transported off the site C. What will be the maximum height and grade of cut or fill after grading is completed? N/A d. Is the surrounding area graded? If so, how will it affect subject property? 2 . 5 Soils : a,.. Type of soil on the project site? F cnma Loam b. Are there any Peat and/or Organic Soils on the site? no (refer to Peat and Organic Soils Map) C. Does the site exhibit moderate to high expansive soils? no (refer to Expansive Soil Distribution Map) 2. 6 Geologic: a. Is the site within a high risk geologic problem area? no (refer to Geotechnical Land Use Capability Map) b. Is the site within an area which has experienced a variable and complex pattern of land subsidence? no (refer to Land Subsidence Map) 2. 7 . Iistoric/Archaeological: a.. Could there possibly be any objects of historic, aesthetic or archaeological significance on the site? If so, please describe. (refer to Archaeological Sites , historic Landmark Sites and Principal Vistas and Features Maps) no " -5- Wildlife/Vegetation: a. Does any wildlife use the site for a place to feed, nest or rest? If so, please list: `- No b. Will any of this wildlife be displaced by the proposed project? no If so, how? C. Indicate the extent, size and species of plant life per- sently existing on the site. Grass and no trees d. Indicate the location and area (in acres or square feet) and type of plant life to be removed as a result of the project. Include number type and !-ize of trees to be re- moved. None 2. 9 Water Quality: a. Does any portion of the project abut or encroach on beaches , estuaries , bays , tidelands, or inland water areas? No b. Describe how the project will effect any body of water. No 2.. 10 Air Quality : a. . If the project is industrial, describe and list air pol- lution sources and quantity and types of pollutants emitted as a result of the project. Not available b. List any Air Pollution Control District equipment required. No -6- Z. 11 Noise: a. Describe any adjacent off-site noise sources (i.e. , airports , industry, freeways) . Auto traffic on Talbert Avenue. b. What noise will be produced by the project? If available , please give noise levels in decibel measurement and typical time distribution when noise will be produced. Dependent upon ultimate use. C. How will noise produced by the project compare, with existing noise levels? No signifcant change. 2. 12 Traffic: ^ a. Indicate the present traffic volume on arterials and added trips per day from the project. 4000 vehicles per day. Added trips not available. b. What is the existing speed limit at the project location? 4 0 mph C. Indicate points of egress and ingress to the project. Not available 3. 0 Public Services and Facilities: 3. 1 Water: a. Will the project require installation or replacement of new water mains? No b. Attach a map showing the service area, size and lo- cation of new lines. c. Please estimate the daily volume in gallons required to serve the project. f . 1 ' Sewer: a: Will the project require installation or replacement of new sewer mains? no b. Attach a map showing the service area, size and location of new lines. C. Discuss the capacity required for the project and how this relates to existing effluent volumes within the system. Utility Lines: a. Indicate length and type of new offsite transmission and distribution facilities required to serve prcject. None .b. Do any overhead electrical facilities require relocation? no If so, please describe facilities. C. Do existing lines have to be increased in number or size for project? no If so, please describe how. 4 Solid Waste: a. Describe the type and amount (pounds/day) of solid waste generated by the project. Type: Pounds/Day ' 5 Education: a. For residential projects , note primary and secondary school r"1 districts : Primary: Secondary: 3. 6 Population Displacement: a. Will any residential occupants be displaced by the project activities? no If not, do not, answer question (b) . b. What is . the total number of residents to be displaced? 3. 7 . Demolition: a. Will any improvements be demolished or removed by the project? yes If so, answer questions b through d. b. Describe briefly the type of buildings or improvements to be demolished by the project. Fencing c. List approximate volume of exported material . Not available d. Indicate the location and the distance to the site where /, exported material will be dumped. Orange County Sanitation District Transfer Station. 600 ft. 4. 0 Mitigating .Measures : 4 . 1 Are there measures included in the project which may conserve resources (electricity, gas , water or wildlife) ? Please describe. Not applicable 4. 2 Are there measures proposed in the design of: the project to re- duce noise pollution to persons occupying project? not applicable If so, please describe. 4. 3 Are there measures proposed in the design of the project to reduce noise pollution to persons outside of the project which is caused by noise generated by the project?not applicablelf so, please describe. -9- �wr . 4 Are there measures in the design of the project (architectural ►� treatment and landscaping) which have been coordinated with design of the existing community to minimize visual effect? If so, please describe. not applicable . S Are there measures or facilities designed into the project to facilitate resources recovery (e.g. solar heating/special insulation etc. ) ? • -not applicable ). 0 Alternatives: Are there alternatives to the project which may result in a lesser adverse environmental effect? no Please explain all project alternatives. The residential uses allowed by and project alternative have similar impacts on land resource. This request represents return to industrial designation existing prior to GPA 77-1. Additional Information: (regarding questions above) . If necessary attach additional sheets. none I hereby certify that the information herein is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. ,W-�gnature Date Filed -10- / HUNTIi4G I ON BEACH f LANNIN(', DEP-1. E14VIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM ��'� � 1 1979 Fee - $75. 00 P. O. Box 190 HuntinSton Beach, CA S2'648 FOR CITY USE ONLY Date O. G. Berge Jr. Received: - IS-� Applicant Authorized Agent Project - Number: 16800 Main Street Suite 280 •Huntington Beach, CA Department of Origin Mailing Address (714) 842-0556 Other Application Telephone or Permit Numbers: Pri sco N.V. A Coropration �"L� A �(�('�� - t Property Owner IN" 4- (C*ICQXV\ 610 Newport Center Dr. #590 Newport Beach, CA 92660 (714) 842-0556 Mai ing Address Telephone - NOTE: To assist the Department of Planning and Environmental Resources in making a determination as to whether a significant environ- mental effect may result from the proposed project, the following information must be supplied. Maps referred to below may be viewed at the City of Huntington Beach Department of Planning and Environmental Resources. 1.0 Project Information (Please attach Plot Plan and submit photo- graphs of subject property) 1. 1 Nature of Project: Give complete description of the proposed project. Proposal to amend the General Plan by redesignating 8.02 gross acre parcel from general carmercial to medium density residential. Subject property is located on the south side of Garfield Avenue approximately 230+-feet east of Beach Boulevard a. If the project is commercial or industrial give a complete description of activities and other pertinent information including but not limited to whether it is neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square footage of sales areas (if any) , estimated employment per shift, any potentially hazardous materials which may be used, etc. N/A -1- b. If the project is residential, indicate number, types and size of units and associated facilities. The proposed land use designation permits a maximum density of 120 residential units. C. If the project is institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employment per shift and community benefits to be derived from the project. N/A d. List all types of building materials to be used for all structures in the project. (Submit detailed elevations if available) N/A for this propsoal 1.2 Location of project: (Address, nearest street intersections) 8120 Garfield Avenue South side of Garfield Avenue 230+- east of Beach Blvd 1. 3 Legal Description (Lot, Block, Tract) See attached AP 153-041-01 , 02 , 03, 11 - 153- U42-Ol 8.02 gross acre N/A 1. 4 Project land area (acres) 7.56 net Number of parking spaces 1. 5 Square feet of building area N/A Number of floors N/A 1.6 What is the percent and coverage proposed by the project for: a. Building b. Paving NIA- for this proposal C. Existing landscaping d. New landscaping -2- L . 7 General relatio: .ips of the project to sui_,unding properties : (Information available in Planning. Department on District Maps) LAND USE ELEMENT USE ZONING GENERAL PLAN Present. shops, warehouse M1, 1-n-0 General Ccaimercial garages, open Proposed parking medium density Medium Density residential R2 Residential Surrounding Garfield Ave C4 , R2 , R3 General Commercial north Apartments & Medium Density Res. Ccnanercial Surrounding Single family Rl C4 General Commercial south homes and Low Density Res. vacant land Surrounding Single family east homes Rl Low Density Res. Surrounding Vacant & west Commercial C4 General Commercial .. 8 What will be the maximum occupancy of all structures proposed within the project? 120 units x 2. 5 persons/unit = 300 persons .. 9 List other public agencies having jurisdiction by law in approval, authorization, certification or issuance of a permit for this project: ❑ O.C. Flood Control District ❑ State Division of Highways ❑ O.C. Sanitation District ❑ Corps of Engineers ❑ O.C. Air Pollution Control ® City Council District ❑ California Coastal Zone Planning Commission Conservation Commission ❑ Board of Zoning Adjustments ❑ California Regional Water ❑ Design Review Board Quality Control Board ❑ Other: ❑ Local Ageocy Formation Commission -3- 1.10 If the project is commercial, industrial, or residential what is the roadway distance in miles from the project to the nearest: a. Shopping Center 400 '+- across Beach Boulevard b. Freeway exit 3 miles 1/4 mile C. Elementary School (refer to Recreation Areas Map) Perry School Cl. Public park (refer to Recreation Areas Map) Perry Park 1/4 mile e. Scenic Highway (refer to Recreation Paths, Corridors, and Areas Map) 2 3/4 miles 2. 0 Existing Environmental Setting of Proposed Project: 2.1 Seismic: a. What is the distance from the project to the nearest fault line (refer to Fault Map) ? 330 ' to Yorktown Fault b. Is the project site within a designated earthquake hazard area (refer to Earthquake Hazard Special Study Zone Map) ? NO 2.2 Drainage and Flood Control: a. Please describe specifically the volume of drainage and how it will be accommodated: This site is presently improved with industrial type buildings and paved parking. Drainage is presently to the north toward Garfield Ave. The proposed use will have less impact than the existing use. b. Is the project within a flood hazard area? No Or natural flood plain? No (refer to Flood Plains and Flood Hazard Area Maps) C. What is the distance from the project to the nearest flood channel? (refer to Flood Control Channels Map) Z mile Newland Storm Drain d. What is the distance from the project to the nearest shoreline? 2 3/4 mile 2. 3 Topography: a. Does the project site exhibit excessive slope? (refer to Topography:Slope Map) No b. What is the distance from the project to the nearest bluff? (refer to Principal Vistas and Features Map) mile east of subject parcel C. What is the range and slope of the property as it now exists? flat parcel - slbpes slightly to north 2 . 4 Land Form: a. Is the property presently graded? yes b. indicate the gross cubic yards degrading proposed ' N/A ► .the acres of land to be graded , the amount o earth to be transported on the s1te N A and the amount of earth to be transported off the s to N/A C. What will be the maximum height and grade of cut or fill after grading is completed? N/A d. Is the surrounding area graded? s* If so, how will it affect subject property? *Developed property to the east and south is graded.Vacant commercial land to the south and west is not graded but judging from thE! natural grade which is relatively flat, there will be minimal impact. 2 .5 Soils: a. . Type of soil on the project site? Ramona Fine Sandy Loam b. Are there any Peat and/or Organic Soils on the site? No (refer to Peat and Organic Soils Map) C. Does the site exhibit moderate to high expansive soils? No (refer to Expansive Soil Distribution Map) 2. 6 Geologic: a. Is the site within a high risk geologic problem area? No (refer to Geotechnical Land Use Capability Map) . b. Is the site within an area which has experienced a variable and complex pattern of land subsidence? No (refer to Land Subsidence Map) , 2. 7 Historic/Archaeological: a. Could there possibly be any objects of historic, aesthetic or archaeological significance on the site? If so, please describe. (refer to Archaeolo ical Sites, Historic Landmark Sites and Principal Vistas and Features Map�- No -5- 2_8 Wildlife/Vegetation: a. Does any wildlife use the site for a place to feed, nest or rest? If so, please list: No b. Will any of this wildlife be displaced by the proposed _ project? no If so, how? C. Indicate the extent, size and species of plant life per- sently existing on the site. There is presently a strip of landscaping along the frontage of this parcel d. Indicate the location and area (in acres or square feet) and type of plant life to be removed as a result of the project. Include number type and size of trees to be re- moved. - N/A 2. 9 Water Quality: a. Does any portion of the project abut or encroach on beaches , estuaries , bays , tidelands, or inland water areas? no b. Describe how the project will effect any body of water. N/A 2.10 Air Quality: a. If the project is industrial, describe and list air pol- lution sources and quantity and types of pollutants emitted as a result of the project. N/A b. List any Air Pollution Control District equipment required. N/A -6- • i 11 Noise: a. Describe any adjacent off-site noise sources (i.e. , airports , industry, freeways) . I i Street traffic on Garfield Avenue and possibly some noise from adjacent commercial b. What noise will be produced by- the project? If available, please give noise levels in decibel measurement and typical time distribution when noise will be produced. Normal residential level I I C. How will noise produced by the project compare with existing noise levels? no change I L2 Traffic: j a. Indicate the present traffic volume on arterials and added I trips per day from the project. i ADT Garfield Ave (east & west) 8900 trips/day Added trips using 8 .6 TE/unit x 120 units = 1030 trips/day I b. What is the existing speed limit at the project location? 40 mph C. Indicate points of egress and ingress to the project. N/A (to be determined when a specific project is requested) ) . Public Services and Facilities: l Water: a. Will the project require installation or replacement of new water mains? no A 12" main presently exists of Garfield b. Attach a map showing the service area, size and lo- cation of new lines. N/A i C. Please estimate -the daily volume in gallons required to serve the project. N/A Max for project 157 gallons/unit/day x 120 = 18 ,840 ,i -7- 3. 2 Sewer: a. Will the project require installation or replacement of new sewer mains? no There is presently a 12" line on Garfield Ave b. Attach a map showing the service area, size and location of new lines. N/A c. Discuss the capacity required for the project and how this relates to existing effluent volumes within the :5yqtem. Dept -of Public Works estimates 100 gallons//uni-c/day 100 gallons/day x 120 units = 12 ,000 gallons/day 3. j Utility Lines: a. Indicate length and type of new offsite transmission and distribution facilities required to serve project. N/A b. Do any overhead electrical facilities require relocation? If so, please describe facilities. N/A C. Do existing lines have to be increased in number or size for project? If so, please describe how. N/A 3. 4 Solid Waste: a. Describe the type and amount (pounds/day) of solid waste generated by the project. N/A Type: Pounds/Day 3. 5 Education: a. For residential projects, note primary and secondary school districts: Primary: Huntington Beach Elementary District Secondary Huntington Beach Union High School District -8- 3.6 Population Displacement: a. Will any residential occupants be displaced by the project activities? no If not, do not answer question (b) . b. What is the total number of residents to be displaced? none 3. 7 Demolition: a. Will an im rovements be demolished or removed by the project? N/Aor this request If so, answer questions b through d. b. Describe briefly the type of buildings or improvements to be demolished by the project. C. List approximate volume of exported material. d. Indicate the location and the distance to the site where exported material will be dumped. 4. 0 Mitigating Measures: 4. 1 Are there measures included in the project which may conserve resources (electricity, gas, water or wildlife) ? Please describe. N/A 4.2 Are there measures proposed in the design of the pro��t to re- duce noise pollution to persons occupying project? If so, please describe.- 4. 3 Are there measures proposed in the design of the project to reduce noise pollution to persons outside of the project which is caused by noise generated by the project? N/A If so, please describe. -9- 4. 4 Are there measures in the design of the project (architectural treatment and landscaping) which have been coordinated with design of the existing community to minimize visual effect? If so, please describe. N/A 4. 5 Are there measures or facilities designed into the project to facilitate resources recovery (e.g. solar heating/special insulation etc. ) ? N/A 5. 0 Alternatives: Are there alternatives to the project which may result in a lesser adverse environmental effect? Please explain all project alternatives. The proposed medium density residential will have a lesser impact than the existing zoning and general plan use. Lower denisty will reduce the impact further. 6. 0 Additional Information: (regarding questions above) . If necessary attach additional sheets. see attached I hereby certify that the information herein is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. Signature '00 Da e Filed -10- ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM Fee - $75.00 FOR CITY USE ONLY Date City of Huntington Beach Received Applicant Authorized Agent Project Number: 1 P. O. Box 190, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Department of Origin Mailing Address (714) 536-5271 l li Other Application Telephone or Permit Lumbers: City .of Hufttington Beach Property Owner 4 same as above Mailing Address Telephone NOTE: To assist the Department of Planning and Environmental Resources in making a determination as to whether a significant environ- mental effect may result from the proposed project, the following information must be supplied. Maps referred to below may be viewed at the City of Huntington Beach Department of Planning and Environmental Resources. 1.0 Project Information (Please attach Plot Plan and submit photo- graphs of subject property) 1. 1 Nature of Project: Give complete description of the proposed project. general Plan Amendment 79-1 Area 2:5 Proposed redesignation from Planning Reserve to Mixed Developnent on 5.44 acres a. If the project is commercial or industrial give a complete description of activities and other pertinent information including but not limited to whether it is neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square footage of sales areas (if any) , estimated employment per shift, any potentially hazardous materials which may be used, etc. NA -1- 1 . 7 General relatic,�hips of the project to sur ounding properties : (In.f_ormation available in Planning Department on District Maps) —.r.ANn USE ELFP'II';NT USE ZONING GENERAL PLAN I.AbTnry Annex 'resent Comm. clinic CP-C Planning Reserve Comm. services Proposed Library Annex Senior citizen housing Surrounding north commercial and C3 Mixed Development residential �urrounding south residential R4, C3 'Medium Density Mixed Development Surrounding east conviercial C3 Mixed Development Surrounding s t residential Townlot Specific Low Density Plan A 1. 8 What will be the maximum occupancy of all structures proposed within the project? 150-200 units between 200 and 400 persons .1 . 9 List other public agencies having jurisdiction by law in approval , authorization, certification or issuance of a permit for this project : ❑ O.C. Flood Control District ❑ State Division of Highways ❑ O .C . Sanitation District El Corps of Engineers ❑ O.C. Air Pollution Control Ia City Council District Planning Commission n California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission ❑ Board of Zoning Adjustments California Regional Water ❑ Design Review Board Quality Control Board pp�� ❑ Other: �I Local Agency Formation Commission -3- 1. 10 If the project is commercial, industrial , or residential what is the roadway distance in miles from the project to the nearest: a. Shopping Center 3/4 mile b. Freeway exit 4 3/4 miles C. Elementary School (refer to Recreation Areas Map) 1/3 mile d. Public park (refer to Recreation Areas Map) 1/4 mile e. Scenic Highway (refer to Recreation Paths, Corridors , and Areas Map) 1/4 mile 2. 0 Existing Environmental Setting of Proposed Project: 2.1 Seismic: a. What is the distance from the project to the nearest fault line (refer to Fault Map) ? 1/8 mile b. Is the project site within a designated earthquake hazard area (refer to Earthquake Hazard Special Study Zone Map) ? No 2. 2 Drainage and Flood Control: a. Please describe specifically the volume of drainage and how it will be accommodated: Volume unknown b. Is the project within a flood hazard area? No Or natural flood plain? No (refer to Flood Plains and Flood Hazard Area Maps) C. What is the distance from the project to the nearest flood channel? (refer to Flood Control Channels Map) ? mile HB Channel d. What is the distance from the project to the nearest shoreline? 4 mile 2. 3 Topography: a. Does the project site exhibit excessive slope? (refer to Topography:Slope Map) No b. What is the distance from the project to the nearest bluff? (refer to Principal Vistas and Features Map) 4 mile C. What is the range and slope of the property as it now exists? Site is flat. _e_ 2. 4 Land Form: a. Is the property presently graded? Yes b. Indicate the gross cubic yards of grading proposed NA , the acres of land to be graded NA , the amount of earth to be transported on the site NA , and the amount of earth to be transported off the site NA C. What will be the maximum height and grade of cut or fill after grading is completed? NA d. Is the surrounding area graded? Yes If so, how will it affect subject property? No effect 2 . 5 Soils: a. Type of soil on the project site? Ramona Sandy Loam b. Are there any Peat and/or Organic Soils on the site? No (refer to Peat and Organic Soils Map) C. Does the site exhibit moderate to high expansive soils? No (refer to Expansive Soil Distribution Map) T I to Moderate 2. 6. Geologic: a. Is the site within a high risk geologic problem area? No (refer to Geotechnical Land Use Capability Map) . b. Is the site within an area which has experienced a variable and complex pattern of land subsidence? No (refer to Land Subsidence Map) . 2. 7 Historic/Archaeological: a. Could there possibly be any objects of historic, aesthetic or archaeological significance on the site? If so, please describe. (refer to Archaeological Sites, Historic Landmark Sites and Principal Vistas Features Maps) Old City Hall, Council Chambers, Jailhouse, and Fire Station (Some of which have been demolished) -5- 2. 8 Wildlife/Vegetation: a. Does any wildlife use the site for a place to feed, nest or rest? If so, please list: Seagulls and samil,:animals in landscaped areas b. Will any of this wildlife be displaced by the proposed project? No If so, how? C. Indicate the extent, size and species of plant life per- sently existing on the site. d. Indicate the location and area (in acres or square feet) and type of plant life to be removed as a result of the project. Include number type and size of trees to be re- moved. NA 2. 9 Water Quality_ a. Does any portion of the project abut or encroach on beaches , estuaries , bays, tidelands, or inland water areas? No b. Describe how the project will effect any body of water. No effect 2.10 Air Quality: a. If the project is industrial, describe and list air pol- lution sources and quantity and types of pollutants emitted as a result of the project. NA b. List any Air Pollution Control District equipment required. NA -6- 2. 11 Noise: a. Describe any adjacent off-site noise sources (i.e. , airports , industry, freeways) . Arterial traffic, IIB pier loudspeaker, auto service areas across 5th Street b. What noise will be produced by the project? If available, please give noise levels in decibel measurement and typical time distribution when noise will be produced. NA C. How will noise produced by the project compare with existing noise levels? No difference 2 . 12 Traffic: a. Indicate the present traffic volume on arterials and added trips per day from the project. 2,800 on Orange 400-600 trips/day added upon development 12,100 on Main b. What is the existing speed limit at the project location? 30 mph on Orange Avenue 25 mph on !Main Street C. Indicate points of egress and ingress to the project. Not known 3. 0 Public Services and Facilities: 3. 1 Water: a. Will the project require installation or replacement of new water mains? UN b. Attach a map showing the service area, size and lo- cation of new lines. NA C. Please estimate the daily volume in gallons required to serve the project. 19500-26000 gpd -7- 3. 2 Sewer: a. - Will the project require installation or replacement of new sewer mains? No b. Attach a map showing the service area, size and location of new lines. NA C. Discuss the capacity required for the project and how this relates to existing effluent volumes within the system. Not ]mown 3. 3. Utility Lines: a. Indicate length and type of new offsite transmission and distribution facilities required to serve project. None b. Do any overhead electrical facilities require relocation? No If so, please describe facilities. C. Do existing lines have to be increased in number or size for project? No If so, please describe how. 3. 4 Solid Waste: a. .Describe the type and amount (pounds/day) of solid waste generated by the project. Type: NA Pounds/Day 3. 5 Education: a. For residential projects , note primary and secondary school districts: Primary: Huntington Beach Elementary School District Secondary: Huntington Beach Union High School District -8- 3. 6 Population Displacement: a. Will any residential occupants be displaced by the project activities? No If not, do not answer question (b) . b. What is the total number of residents to be displaced? 3. 7 Demolition: a. Will any improvements be demolished or removed by the project? .Yes, upon construction If so, answer questions b through d. b. Describe briefly the type of buildings or improvements to be demolished by the project. Not yet known C. List approximate volume of exported material. NA d. Indicate the location and the distance to the site where exported material will be dumped. NA 4. 0 Mitigating Measures: 4. 1 Are there measures included in the project which may conserve resources (electricity, gas , water or wildlife) ? Please describe. NA 4.2 Are there measures proposed in the design of the project to re- duce noise pollution to persons occupying project? If so, please describe. NA 4. 3 Are there measures proposed in the design of the project to reduce noise pollution to persons. outside of the project which is caused by noise generated by the project? If so, please describe. NA -9- 4. 4 Are there measures in the design of the project (architectural treatment and landscaping) which have been coordinated with design of the existing community to minimize visual effect? If so, please describe. NA 4. 5 Are there measures or facilities designed into the project to facilitate resources recovery (e.g. solar heating/special insulation etc. ) ? NA 5. 0 Alternatives: Are there alternatives to the project which may result in a lesser adverse environmental effect? Please explain all project alternatives. Redesignation to a lower density or no change at all would create less environmental impacts than the proposed designation. 6. 0 Additional Information: (regarding questions above) . If necessary attach ad itional sheets. I hereby certify that the information herein is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. January 12, 1979 Signature Date Filed -10- 4 l CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH J7Qfi) INTER DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH To Bill Holman From Jim Barnes )fig Subject CPA 79-1 AREAS 2 . 6-2 .22 & Date December 22 , 1978 ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS These requests involve changing the land use designation on several developed parcels to conform with the present zoning. This will not result in any immediate physical changes in the environment . Changes that do occur will result from recycling which may take place over a number of years . Individual development requests will be subject to environmental review, as they are proposed. The potential impacts from these proposals are too speculative for evaluation at this time . JB : ja ANALYSIS OF DEMAND FOR NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL FACILITIES IN NORTHWEST HUNTINGTON BEACH INTRODUCTION General Plan Amendment 79-1A addresses two requests to redesignate residential land to commercial at two locations on Bolsa Chica Street: 4 . 78 gross acres on the south side of Heil Avenue and 2 . 83 gross acres on the south side of Warner Avenue. These locations are suitable for the development of neighborhood shopping centers; however, a substan- tial amount of neighborhood uses already exists in this general vicinity of Huntington Beach. When planning the size and location of commercial areas to serve the resident population, care must be taken to avoid creating an overabundance of commercial land for which demand fails to materialize. Additionally, a proper balance of land uses should be maintained so that newer, more attractive and efficient facilities do not threaten existing establishments. This analysis attempts to measure the present and. ultimate demand for neighborhood commercial uses in the northwest Huntington Beach market area to det- ermine whether additional commercial acreage is warranted. Neighborhood commercial centers generally serve a circular market area liavinq a raditis of approximately one mile and a population of between 10, 000 and 15, 000 persons. The market area addressed in this analysis is unique in that there are natural and physical boundaries which distort the usually circular shape of .the area. The Pacific Ocean, Seal Beach Naval Weapons Depot, Huntington Beach Industrial Park, and ♦ Y S the undeveloped Bolsa Chica area all form boundaries for the market area; only to the east do competing centers and their surrounding service areas abut the market area being studied. This analysis will attempt to determine the market support for neigh- borhood retail facilities in a give trade area. Market support is primarily a function of the buying power of the trade area residents and an assessment of existing commercial facilities. Buying power is based on the area' s. population size and median family income. This buying power can be translated into supportable square footage of retail facilities. A comparison of supportable square footage to . existing facilities will indicate whether there is unused potential support for additional commercial uses in the trade area. A combination of housing, population, income, and retail sales data was utilized to determine the total amount of supportable square footage for various types oaf neighborhood uses for the market area. In the absence of natural boundaries , the primary market area is defined by taking half the distance to the nearest competing neighbor- hood center. Because the two amendment requests are located half a mile apart, the area being studied is larger in size. Figure 2-3 on. .page 6 of this report outlines the market area as being bounded by the ..Seal Beach Naval Weapons Depot and Huntington Beach Industrial , Park .on the north, Graham Street on the east, the unincorporated t6is' a Chica area on the south, and the Pacific Ocean on the west. Two population figures were utilized to estimate the market demand re.f,lecting both existing development and ultimate development accord- ing to the General Plan. These population figures were multiplied by the 1978 estimated citywide per capita taxable sales figure of $3, 400 to calculate anticipated sales potential for the market area. . Data regarding the typical types, sizes, and sales per square foot of uses found in neighborhood centers was taken from ULI ' s 1978 Dollars and Cents of Shopping Centers. This data made it possible to trans- late the sales potential of the area into supportable square footage '. .for the various categories of neighborhood uses to see how much of the current and future demand is being met by existing uses in the area. The difference between demand and supply can be used to determine if , there is a need for additional neighborhood commercial uses and, if , . so I .what types. of uses would be most viable for the market area. The following table summarizes the data: . j f 1 TABLE I NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER POTENTIAL Existing Ultimate Households a 9 , 960 13, 285 Population a 27 , 220 . 37 , 200 1978 Total Taxable b Sales per Capita $3, 400 $ 3, 400 Total Taxable Sales Potential $ 92, 548 , 000 $ 126 , 480 , 000 SALES POTENTIAL BY CATEGORY Food $ 25, 180 , 500 $ 34 , 412 , 700 Eating/Drinking 8 , 607 , 000 11, 762 , 600 Liquor 2 , 128 , 600 2 , 909 , 000 Drugs 3, 334 , 700 4 , 571, 000 Services 1, 388 , 200 1, 897 , 200 Other 4, 534 , 900 6 , 197 , 500 SUPPORTABLE SQUARE FEET Food 97 , 350 sq. ft. 133, 050 sq. ft. Eating/Drinking 89, 050 121 , 700 Liquor 16, 300 22, 250 Drugs 23, 450 32 , 150 Services 83, 950 114, 700 Other 70, 600 96 , 500 Total : 380, 700 sq. ft. 520 , 350 sq. ft. . C NOTES TO TABLE I : a Household and population figures based on Planning Department estimates. b Data extrapolated from "Trade Outlets and Taxable Retail Sales , " State Board of Equalization, per capita sales figure adjusted according to median family income data taken from State Department of Finance, Special Census for the City of Huntington Beach, November, 1973. c Sales of convenience goods in, the categories listed account for just over one-fourth of the total retail sales in Huntington Beach as shown in the following diagram (source: "Trade Outlets and Taxable Retail Sales, " State Board of Equalization) . Food 7 . 6% Other Eating/Drinking 9 . 3% 71 . 8% Liquor 2 . 3% Drug 2 . 6% Services 1 . 5% Other 4 . 9% Dollar figures for the Food and Drug categories were .adjusted by factors of 3. 58 and 1 . 39 respectively to account for additional sales of non-taxable items based on total estimated California food and drug sales from various services. d Median sales per square foot values for typical neighborhood center are as follows : Food $ 258. 69 per square foot Eating/Drinking 96. 67 per square foot Liquor 130 . 64 per square foot Drug 142 . 14 per square foot Services 16 . 54 per square foot Other 64 . 22 per square foot (Source: The Urban Land Institute Dollars and Cents of Shopping Centers, 1978. ) TABLE II EXISTING COMMERCIAL SPACE IN MARKET AREA Total Location Square Footage Southwest Edinger and Bolsa Chica 8, 800 Southeast Edinger and Bolsa Chica 32 , 800 Northwest Heil and Bolsa Chica 20 , 300 Northeast Heil and Bolsa Chica 23, 400 Southeast Heil and Bolsa Chica 48 , 400 Northwest Warner and Bolsa Chica 28 , 100 Northeast Warner and Bolsa Chica 27, 500 Southwest Warner and Bolsa Chica 8, 400 Southeast Warner and Bolsa Chica 73 , 600 Boardwalk (Algonquin and Davenport) 20 , 800 Northeast Warner and Pacific Coast Highway 38 , 900 Sunset Beach Unavailable TOTAL: 331 , 000 sq. ft. RESULTS On the basis of total square footage, the present supply of commercial uses is below the projected demand by approximately 50 ,000 square feet. This difference is not significant and may be partially attri- buted to commercial activity in Sunset Beach, for which square footage figures were not readily available. The projected ultimate demand figure of 520 , 350 square feet indicates that there will be demand for additional commercial space if the development patterns defined in the General Plan Land Use Element are implemented. Sufficient commercially designated vacant land now exists to accommodate the projected growth without having to redesig- nate additional acreage as proposed by the two amendment requests. However, the remaining vacant parcels are poor locations for neighbor- . hood activity and already have specialty commercial projects approved by. the City for development. On the basis of this analysis and considering their key locations, the areas of concern addressed in Sections 2. 1 and 2 . 2 can feasibly be redesignated to allow commercial development, barring other important land use issues that involve more than a measure of supply and demand. While the area of concern south of Warner Avenue and east of Bolsa Chica Street contains a number of problems that affect the feasibility of the amendment request, the area of concern south of ' Heil Avenue and west of Bolsa Chica Street is relatively problem- free and can feasibly be redesignated for commercial use. i RESOLUTION NO. 4729 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN BY ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 79-1B WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach desires to update the General Plan in keeping with changing community needs and objectives ; and Amendment of the Circulation Element is necessary to accomplish the objectives of the General Plan; and Public hearing on General Plan Amendment No. 79-1B was duly conducted before the Planning Commission on February 21, 1979, and a recommendation for adoption was approved by a majority of the 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 said General Plan Amendment; and At said hearing before the City Council all persons de- siring to be heard on said amendment were heard, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, pursuant to provisions of Title 7, Chapter 3, Article 6 of the Government Code of the ' State of California, commencing with Section 65357, that the General Plan Amendment No. 79-lB, consisting of the following changes to the Circulation Element, is hereby approved: That the portion of Lake Street between Garfield Avenue and Yorktown Avenue, which is currently desig- nated as a primary arterial, be deleted from the Cir- culation Plan of Arterial Streets and Highways ; and That the portion of Talbert Avenue between Goldenwest Street and Gothard Street be designated as a secondary ' arterial on the Circulation Plan of Arterial Streets and Highways . PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of JOC :ps 3/13/79 1. Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 19th day of March , 1979. f. Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk Pi City Attorney REVIEWED AND APPROVED: CTIATED AND APPROVED: Ci�y� dministrator /A4cing Planning Director 2. Res. No. 4729 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: 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 March 19 79 by the following vote: AYES: Councilmen: Yoder, Thomas, MacAllister, Bailey, Mandic, Pattinson NOES: Councilmen: None ABSENT: Councilmen: None City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 79- 1 B MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS TO THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT MARCH 1979 It w ler K s �� P R� hunfing4on beach planning department RESOLUTION NO. 1243 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH RECOMMENDING THAT THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN BE AMENDED BY ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT No. 79-1B. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach desires to update and refine the General Plan in keeping with changing community needs and objectives , and WHEREAS , amendments to the Circulation Element are necessary to accomplish refinement of the General Plan, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommends the follow- ing amendments to the Circulation Element: That the portion of Lake Street between Garfield Avenue and Yorktown Avenue, which is currently designated as a primary arter- ial , be deleted from the Circulation Plan of Arterial Streets and Highways , and That the portion of Talbert Avenue between Goldenwest Street and Gothard Street be designated as a secondary arterial on the Circulation Plan of Arterial Streets and Highways , and iWHEREAS, a public hearing on adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 79-1B was held by the City Planning Commission on February 21, 1979 in accordance with provisions of the State Government Code. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commis- sion of the City of Huntington Beach hereby adopts said amendment to the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that said amendment to the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach is recommended for adoption by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach, California, on the 6th day of March, 1979 , by the following roll call vote: AYES: Higgins , Russell, Stern, Finley, Cohen, Bazil, Paone NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ATTEST: /10�_' ames W. Palin Ruth Finley, Chairman Acting Secretary r TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1. 0 Introduction 1 2. 1 Lake Street Extension 3 2 . 1. 1 Issue Identification 3 2 . 1 . 3 Existing Condition 4 2. 1. 4 . 1 Alternative I 8 2.1. 4 . 2 Alternative II 11 2. 1.4 . 3 Alternative III 14 2 . 2 Talbert Avenue , between Goldenwest and Gothard 17 2 . 2. 1 Issue Identification 17 2. 2. 2 Existing Conditions 17 2 . 2 . 3 Alternative I 18 2. 2. 4 Alternative II 18 2. 2. 5 Recommendation 21 2. 3 Ellis Avenue, between Goldenwest and Gothard 21 2. 3 . 1 Issue Identification 21 2 . 3. 2 Existing Conditions 21 2 . 3. 3 Alternative I 23 2 . 4. Recommendation 26 Appendix A Revised R.G.B. ADT Volumes Appendix B Herman Kimmel Land Use Assumptions from 1973 Traffic Study Appendix C Environmental Information 'Forms r r 1. 0 INTRODUCTION General Plan Amendment No. 79-lb is the first amendment of the Circu- lation Element for the year _1979. GPA 79-lb presents analysis . and recommendations for three arterial street links. Figure 1-1 is the currently adopted Circulation, Plan of Arterial Streets and Highways and highlights the three areas of concern that are considered in GPA 79-lb. These areas consist of , first, Area of Concern 2. 1 which addresses the Lake Street extension between Yorktown Avenue and Garfield Avenue with the intent of determining whether the deletion of this segment, of Lake Street from the Circulation Plan of Arterial Streets and Highways will have an ,adverse . impact upon the safe move- ment of vehicular traffic and land uses within the . area bounded by Ellis Avenue to the north, Goldenwest Street to the west, Pacific Coast Highway to the south, and Beach Boulevard to .the east. The second area , .Area of Concern 2. 2 addresses Talbert Avenue, between Gothard Street and Goldenwest Street with the intent of determining whether this segment of Talbert Avenue should be included on the Circulation Plan as a secondary arterial street. The last area, Area of Concern 2. 3, discusses Ellis Avenue, between Goldenwest Street and Edwards Street with the intent of determining whether the Circulation Plan should be amended to realign Ellis Avenue to ,connect with Talbert Avenue at the existing .intersection of Talbert Avenue and Edwards Street. 1 AMENDMENTS CITY CIRCULATION PLAN OF ARTERIAL coareaox Comm � •,� b, n � STREETS AND HIGHWAYS � \' RESOLUTION NO 4368 PTED BY CITY COUNCIL —DEC 1976 LEGEND: _= FREEWAY STREET CAPACITY MAJOR. _45,000 PRIMARY_ .. __3Q000 1 SECONDARY _20,000 l � NOTE -- SOLID LINES INDICATE EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY NOT NECESSARILY ULTIMATE RIGHT-OF WAY DASHED LINES INDICATE AREAS WHERE NO RIGHT OF WAY EXISTS s J \ 2.3 .- y 2.1 71 1, I ' •';'y`;•:•`.4 is •'^.• ti i I .tit�• / / ® O- ----- CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH I ORANGE COUNTY CALIFORNIA 2. :•n•ao.. rMl wr,nxmo.u•c»nnv�a xn.rlun rw-n Figure 1-1 2. 1 Lake Street Extension 2. 1. 1 Issue Identification The transportation issue surrounding the proposed Lake Street extension between Yorktown Avenue and Garfield Avenue deals specifically with the question, "How is the Arterial Street System bounded by Ellis Avenue to the north, Goldenwest Street to the west, Beach Boulevard to the east and the Pacific Coast Highway to the south, going to be arranged and designed to provide for the safe movement of projected average daily travel (ADT) volumes that can be expected to enter the study area? When asking this question, emphasis is placed on safe movement and projected average daily travel volumes for two primary reasons . First, it is the responsibility of the City' s decision-making bodies to insure that local residents living within the study area, and visitors either from other areas within the City or visitors from outside the City are provided with a street system that insures the highest possible degree of safety for the motorist, bicyclis and pedestrians using the streets within the study area. Secondly, the decision-makers have the responsibility to insure that City Arterial Street System within the study area are designed and built to adequately provide for projected average daily travel volumes and not for expected peak use., A corollary to the transportation issue of safe movement of vehicular traffic and adequate street design that must be kept in mind while deliberating over the transportation needs within the study area, is that the arterial street system must reflect a layout and design to accommodate an average traffic movement at Ultimate Development and not what currently exists. Therefore, great care needs to be taken not to let short term, immediate needs overshadow and cloud the long term arterial street needs in the study area. 2. 1. 2 Lake Street Data Base The analysis for each of the three Lake Street alternatives draws upon a Traffic Study prepared for the City by R.G.B. Engineering Inc. entitled, "Traffic Impact Analysis, Civic Center/Old Town Area. " The R.G.B. Study made use of two previous transportation studies that the City had previously had prepared. These studies were (1) the Herman Kimmel Traffic Study (January 1973) and the JHK Traffic Study (1976) .' The average daily travel (ADT) volumes from the R.G.B. Study have been revised to reflect the three alternatives that are being presented as part of this 3 General Plan Amendment. The projected ADT' s depicted on each of the three alternatives are significant in that they indicate where large volumes of vehicular movement can be expected to flow. Such numbers assist City staff in arriving at reasonably planned arterial alignments and street designs . Other data that has been used during the staff ' s analysis of the three recommendations has been the Annual Traffic Flow Maps from 1970 through 1979. These traffic flow maps provide staff with a historical perspective regarding the actual average traffic flow along the City' s Arterial Street Network within the Study Area. Also, staff has made use of the Traffic Division' s Annual Traffic Accidents Maps for the period from 1970 through 1978. The traffic accident map depicts the location, number and type of accidents that occur for each year. Also, the planning staff reviewed land uses within the study area for the period between 1970 and 1978. 2. 1 . 3. Existing Condition The 1978 average daily travel volumes along the arterial street system within the study area are shown in igure 2-1. The existing ADT volumes are characteristic of the travel patterns within the study area since 1970. Main Street carries the bulk of all vehicular traffic traveling into the study area while the other arterial streets within the study area have experienced increased vehicular move- ments. Figure 2-2 represents the ADT volumes that the study area was experiencing in August 1971. This is presented so that a comparison can be drawn between 1971 volumes and 1978 volumes. The increase in traffic volumes within the study area are attributed to a number of reasons. The City Beach, the Downtown, the City Pier and the development of higher density living units have all contributed to the increase of traffic within the study area. Also the design of the Ellis/Main/Beach intersection has traditionally made Main Street the "doorway" to the older beach oriented community, thus encouraging its use for entrance into the study area. When reviewing the three Lake Street Alternatives presented in this General Plan Amendment, the following criteria applies to the projected average daily travel volumes: 4 Existing Circulation Pattern Showing 1978 average Daily Travel Volumes 0 c� Figure 2-1 ..� E L 1200 llbb 00 _ � Q O 0 r � , 0 C o p0 a O 0 � 2 �r Ily �^ GARFIELD 2600 4300 7000 C� Ln o Apo . o � N � d' ~ r-I O O O o Apo M [4RKIO 000 4000 $� o � o ti Z ►n ppo W ' W 3 _ 0 o J 0 W W Ln cr1 M ADAMS � bt5UU 6 0 0 6860 � ��,o N U1 5 1971 Circulation Pattern With Average Daily Travel o Volumes o O Figure 2-2 TL E L '300 800 8 ,000 Op 0 p, ti 3 � O O N O ppp M y GARFIELD o 2600 3200 4000 Ln ch N Op O p o W Ln N ,y 4 0 Q O p � O N LYORKTD 5000 28 Op o (Op ZLn pOp W W 3 _x a z eJ Ln v �p C01 ..� W W N r 1�0 r ADAMS 0 300.0' S000 5000 0 O Ln Ln 00 N Street Right of Acceptable Cost Classification Way ADT Capacity Per Mile Secondary 80, 20, 000 ADT Arterial Primary : 100 , 30, 000 ADT Arterial Major 120 ' 45 , 000 ADT Arterial 2. 1. 4 Alternatives General Plan Amendment 79-lb presents three alternative recommendations to resolve the circulation issue that was presented under Section 2.1.1 (transportation issue) of this report. Each alternative is analyzed from the perspective of (1) providing safe movement of vehicular traffic within the study area, (2) land use compatibility with traffic and (3) design criteria for arterial streets within the study area. 2. 1. 4. 1 Alternative I Alternative I shown in Figure 2-3, represents the Arterial ' Street Network as it is presented on the currently adopted Circulation Plan of Arterial Streets and Highways . The primary thrust of this alternative is to direct traffic entering or leaving the study area, along an arterial street network that skirts the residential community that is located south of Utica Avenue. The alternative will pro- vide motorists, both local and visitors, safer and easier access to residential, commercial, and beach oriented land uses lying within the study area than is presently provided. The alternative will in effect distribute the traffic volumes between the Main/Lake Alignment and the Gothard/ Main/17th Street Alignment, The traffic flow maps and traffic accidents maps from 1970 suggest that if adequate arterial streets are provided , motorists will continue on the arterial street and will not spill over onto local residential streets to gain access to their destinations. Alternative I suggests that Main Street would stay open to through traffic south of Utica but the intersection of Main Street and 17th Street would be redesigned to dis- courage through traffic along Main Street south of Utica Avenue. Figure 2-4 presents a possible design for the Utica/Main/17th Street intersection. AM& 7 ALTERNATIVE I Figure 2-3 CIRCULATION PATTERN WITH PROJECTED AVERAGE DAILY TRAVEL VOLUMES I-ELLIS 24 , 000 18 - 000 0 00 0 o� ti 0 0 0 M C M C � O p GARFIELD 27 ,000 29 ,000 9 ,000 30 , 000 0 0 p o a c Ln M rn N O o a- C LAY 0 0 0 0 0 3 000 0 d' N � Z 0uli 0 � o 0 0 M O M N YORKT 13 ,000 9 16 ;000 19 ,000 O ' 00 a O qc c = rl o LU V+ 6 000 be o O Q O p Id o dC a = O O 0 J N W uJ to AD�1MS � 4 ,000 91000 11,000 9 i • , y h ' • t 1 � UTI CA U IT CA ST I i • I Figure 2-4 -MAIN STREET ALIGN14ENT AT 17th STREET Based upon the projected average daily travel volumes that are shown on Figure 2-3, the arterial street classifications would. remain as they are currently shown on the adopted Circulation Plan 'of Arterial Streets and Highways. Alternative- I deemphasizes the use of Main Street south of Garfield Avenue by .requiring the vacation of Main Street between Garfield Avenue and Clay Street.- A new local . street pattern would need to be designed to provide ade- quate access to the land uses currently fronting on the east• and west sides of Main Street. Under Alternative I Main Street continues to be the "doorway" to "Old Central City". at Beach Boulevard. However, once past the Ellis/ Main/Beach intersection, the motorist will have a number of alternate choices available to gain access to ,land uses within the study area. Making such—choices available to the motorist tends to spread traffic along the arterial street network within the study area instead' of funneling everything down one street. Alternative I - Advantages 1. Plans an arterial street network that will provide__ safe access into and out of residential land uses within the study area. 2. Provides safe access to and from the downtown commercial land uses and the City and State beach facilities while minimizing the impacts upon nearby residential area. 3. Deletes from the circulation plan an- inefficient time delaying five legged intersection by modifying the Garfield/Main/Gothard .int6rsection by realigning ' Gothard Street southwest of its present alignment to align with Crystal Street. 4. Provides alternative circulation patterns to motorists within the study area, thus relieving projected traffic volume impacts on Main Street. Alternative I - Disadvantages 1. While Main Street would be continued as an entrance to . the "Old Central City" at the Ellis/Main/Beach inter- section, beyond that point motorists access directly into the downtown would be interrupted and alternate. routes as presented under Alternative I would be used. Atft i A i 2. Alternative I would continue to aggravate residents currently living on the west side of Lake Street between Yorktown Avenue and Walnut Street. 2. 1. 4. 2 Alternative II Alternative II shown in Figure 2-5 includes alignment modifi cations to the existing Circulation Plan of Arterial Streets and Highways and includes projected average daily travel volumes that could be expected along the arterial streets . The primary thrust of this alternative is to provide recognition to the Main Street tradition as the "doorway" to Old Central City. Under Alternative II Main Street would continue as a primary access point through the study area. However, the motorist traveling along Main Street would be provided with a number of north-south arterial street options as he moves south from the Ellis/Main/Beach inter- section. The motorist will have available Delaware Street (secondary arterial) , Lake Street (primary arterial) , 17th Street (primary arterial) or continuation along Main Street to reach the most southerly end of the study area, Pacific Coast Highway. Also Gothard Street south of Ellis Avenue is extended southwesterly of its current alignment to align with Crystal Street and proceeds south across Garfield Avenue to approximately existing Clay Street where it will intersect into Main Street. This alignment will have the effect of taking projected traffic volumes (Figure 2-5) along Main Street and more evenly distributing them between Gothard Street Alignment and Main Street. Alternative II provides for the Lake Street extension be- tween Garfield Avenue and Yorktown Avenue. While such extension would continue the five legged intersection at Main/Garfield/Lake, it provides an effective alternative route for motorists moving south along Main Street wishing to gain access to Pacific Coast Highway, City Beach facilities and the downtown. A possible design at this intersection with turning movements that would improve the current intersection is shown in Figure 2-6. An intersection design such as that proposed in Figure 2. 6 would require northbound traffic along Lake Street to use Garfield Avenue, thus relieving traffic congestion at the Five Points intersection of Ellis/Main/Beach. As traffic volumes continue to build on Main Street south of Yorktown the intersection design suggested under Alternative I (Figure 2-4) could be built to reduce even further the disruption to the residential community south of Utica Avenue. i 11 ALTERNATIVE II CIRCULATION PATTERN WITH PROJECTED AVERAGE DAILY TRAVEL VOLUMES LE.LL13 ---j 24 , 000 18, 00 O mill o 00 0 o O o o `r GARFIELD 7 , 0-00. 29 , 0 0 34 , 000 3 , 0n,.l 00 O lc')i o c a c o M :y o O O CD 0 W OO O O O CD kO% •rl YORKTOWN 14 , 000 20 ,000 23 , 000 OOO o0 19 0 M Z S O W / ii�.O Q O Uj INC tj 0 Q LU o o 0 o. .0 , ADAMS M 8 ,000 11 . 000 13 ,00') 12 Figure 2-5 0., , ---- - -- , ate.-- - - - - cm-cD Figure 2-6 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OF . GARFIELD/LAKE/NIAIN INTERSECTION ., _ a2 az• a 1zi �rz Alternative II - Advantages (1) As does Alternative I , Alternative II provides an arterial Street Network that will provide safe access into and out of residential land uses within the Study Area. (2) Provides safe access into and out of the do,,,mtown commercial land uses and the City and State beach . ,facilities while minimizing the impacts upon nearby residential areas. (3) r Will lessen the traffic congestion of north bound traffic .along Main Street that is currently projected ' . to occur. under existing conditions at ultimate : develop- ment or as shown under Alternative I . (4) Will lessen the traffic congestion at the intersection of Ellis/Main/Beach. (5) Will reduce the delay time being currently experienced at the intersection of Garfield/Gothard/.Plain. (6) Provide alternative circulation patterns. to motorists within the study area, thus relieving projected traffic volume impacts on .Main Street. (7) Main . Street would continue to he the traditional "door way" to the "old Central City, " extending from Ellis/ Main/Beach intersection to Pacific Coast Highway. (8) Provides a circulation pattern than promotes the safe movement of traffic within the study area to insure that current undeveloped lands within .the study area are provided with .adequate ingress and egress . Alternative II - Disadvantages (1) Alternative II would continue to .aggravate residents currently living on the we.st' side of Lake Street between Yorktown Avenue and Walnut Street. (2) Alternative . II, while improving_ upon the' current delays at Garfield/Gothard/*4ain intersection, continues to provide for a five-legged intersection. 2 .1. 4 . 3 Alternative III Alternative III shown in Figure 2-7, closely corresponds to the alignments and design of the Arterial Street Network as it currently is used by today' s motorist. Three differ- ALTERNATIVE III Figure 2-7 CIRCULATION PATTERN WITH PROJECTED AVERAGE DAILY TRAVEL VOLUMES ELL13 - JL 00 1 11 .000 Op . O c� 0 0 0 M o G o GARFIELD -2-7 ,000 29 ,000 30 ,000 i r c� p0 � O �O. 0 0 0 M r-I O O O O YORfCTDVYN � _ 14;006 22 `0- 00 20 000 23 ,000 0 00 0 o 00 0 M O O C � O O O W �• o0 Q W o ti ti LU . O m M op° ADAMS ti J 6 000 11 , 000 -� 15 ences between Alternative III and the existing Circulation Plan are (1) Alternative III assumes full development of the Arterial Street Network to accommodate projected Average Daily Travel Volumes, (2) Alternative III assumes Gothard Street is realigned south of Ellis Avenue in a southwesterly direction to align with Crystal Street and extend south of Garfield Avenue to intersect Main Street at approximately the existing Clay Street intersection, and (3) Alternative III , Figure 2-7 , shows the projected average daily travel (ADT) volumes that can be expected to move along the arterial street network within the study area. When reviewing the Alternative III ADT volumes, the significant movement of projected traffic along "lain Street stands out. Such large concentration of ADT volumes along *lain Street between the Ellis/'lain/Beach intersection and Pacific Coast Highway raises the question of congestion, delay, and traffic safety. Under Alternative III , increased congestion, delay, and traffic accidents can be expected at the Ellis/Main/Beach intersection based upon the historical trends of traffic flows and traffic accidents. Also, the Main Street segment between Garfield Avenue and Utica Avenue is projected to experience high ADT volumes that will require widening Main Street to six lanes between Garfield and Yorktown Avenues . The most significantly impacted land use within the study area is the residential community lying south of Utica Avenue . As the ADT volumes increase along Main Street and congestion and delays intensify, motorists will have a tendency to spill over onto adjacent residential street with the intention of bypassing the congestion and delay in order to reach their destination. Reviewing the projected ADT volumes for Alternative III and placing these projected volumes along side what has occurred with traffic flow, traffic accidents and land uses since 1970, it can be postulated that the trends of the past 8 years will continue and intensify under Alternative III resulting in increased congestion, delay, and traffic accidents along Main Street and the local residential streets in the study area. Alternative III - Advantages (1) The Main/Garfield/Gothard five-legged intersection is corrected. (2) Alternative III provides that "lain Street continue to be the traditional "doorway" to the "Old Central City" between Beach Boulevard to Pacific Coast Highway . (3) Alternative III significantly lessens traffic along Lake Street thus providing a positive response to the residents who oppose the Lake Street extension between. Yorktown Avenue and Garfield Avenue. .Alternative III - Disadvantages (1) Residential land uses within the study area are adversely . impacted through less than adequate design of arterial streets to handle projected traffic volumes. (2) Alternative III will continue increased traffic con- gestion at the Ellis/Main/Beach intersection. (3) Alternative III provides a circulation pattern that funnels the bulk of projected traffic along only one street, Main Street, which is in part below design criteria to meet the projected traffic. volumes. (4) Alternative III will result in increased traffic con- gestion and delay along Main Street and will most likely increase the .number of traffic accidents within the residential .area within the study area. 2. 1.4 . 4 Recommendation The City .Staff has reviewed the three alternatives included in General Plan Amendment 79-lb and recommends to the Planning. Commission to adopt a preference for either Alter- native I .or II which continues the Lake Street extension as a primary arterial between Yorktown Avenue and Garfield Avenue 2.2 Talbert, between Goldenwest Street and. Gothard Street. 2. 2. 1 Issue Identification The-. trasnportation issue involves providing adequate access to Huntington Beach 'Central Library northeast of Golden- west Street and Talbert Avenue and to a portinn' of Hunting- ton Central' Park southeast of Goldenwest Street and Talbert : Avenue. This portion of Huntington Central Park is currently being master planned for active land uses .such as multi-purpose -atheletic fields. Prior to planning and development interior parking circulation and parking lots to.. support ,th'e .active park land uses there is a need to know what the planned alignment and design will ' be for Talbert 'Avenue between Goldenwest Street and Gothard Street. 2 .2 .2 Existing Conditions The issue of the Talbert Avenue alignment and its relation to Central Park has been an issue for several years. Prior . 17 to 1971, the .Master Plan of Arterial Streets and Highways designed Talbert Avenue as a primary arterial street, extending west to Springdale Street, then arriving south- ward into the unincorporated Bolsa Chica area. Precise Plan Amendment 70-7 proposed a number of alternative alignments for Talbert Avenue, including one that curved . the arterial a quarter-mile ..southward between Edwards Street and Gothard Street. Master Plan Amendment 71-4 adopted this alignment in November 1971 . The August 1976 Circulation Element Background Report recommended deletion of Talbert Avenue between Edwards and Gothard Streets to avoid bisecting Central Park and because the low projected traffic volumes along Talbert did not warrant a primary arterial street designation. The Circulation Plan of Arterial Streets and Highways adopted as part of the City' s General Plan in December 1976 deleted this portion of Talbert Avenue. The segment of Talbert Avenue between Goldenwest ,Street and Gothard Street has remained open as a local street with an average daily travel volume of approximately 3 ,700 vehicles. This street serves Central Park and provides the only access to the .Library. 2 . 2. 3 Alternative I Alternative I , Figure 2-8 , suggests including Talbert Avenue between Goldenwest Street and 'Gothard Street as a secondary arterial Street on the City's Circulation Plan of Arterial Streets and Highways. The land to the immediate south of the intersection of Goldenwest ..Street and Talbert Avenue was once. a land fill site. The proposed secondary arterial street would be located very near the present alignment of Talbert Avenue as it physically exists on the ground today and would avoid crossing onto the land fill site',. Alternative I would greatly improve the vehicular and bus access to the Huntington Beach Library and to the land uses proposed for development south of the alignment. 2. 2.4 Alternative II Alternative II, Figure 2-9 , ,would provide for a continua- tion of the present alignment and design for a two lane undivided local street section along Talbert Avenue between Goldenwest. Street and Gothard Street. Continuation of a 'local ' street will result in congestion and delay. as' parking facilities are expanded for Huntington Beach Library and the land uses to the south are developed. Also,. the Orange County roaster Plan of Arterial Streets_ and Highways shows this section of Talbert Avenue as a primary. If the City ' continues to down grade Talbert Avenue as a local street, the City may not be eligible for the arterial highway financing program which is a 50/50 split between city and. county. ALTERNATIVE I ARTERIAL STREET CLASSIFICATION FOR TALBERT AVENUE BETWEEN GOTHARD AND GOLDENTgEST STREETS Figure 2-8 LZLIBRRRY 1A 80' TA1 BF—R'T AVE SECONDARY ART ER 1 AL cn r: cn cn L 3 W v a Q . 0 cs E LU S Mir . 19 ALTERNATIVE II TALBERT AVENUE AS A LOCAL STREET CLNSSIFICATION Figure 2-9 ILLI �RRRY T R L.BU. V F . LOCAL. STRE.ET F; cn cdD � 3 ® 0 0 C5 V. LLI S RVE . 20 2. 2. 5 Recommendation The Planning Staff recommends adoption of Alternative I, adding Talbert Avenue between Goldenwest Street and Gothard Street to the Circulation Plan of Arterial Streets and Highways as a secondary arterial. 2 . 3 Ellis Avenue - Goldenwest Street to Edwards Street 2 .3.1 Issue Identification The transportation issue involved in the realignment of Ellis Avenue between Goldenwest and Edwards Streets is one of providing improved east-west vehicular access, between the western portion of the City and the San Diego Freeway. Emer- gency vehicle access for fire, paramedic units, and Police also needs to be improved so that response times can be provided to residential land uses west of Edwards .Street. Also, it is possible that the segment of Ellis Avenue where it currently bends north in the City of Fountain Valley to become Euclid Street may be proposed to extend across the San Diego Freeway and Santa Ana River to connect with Sunflower Avenue in the City of Costa Mesa, thus taking on a more significant role on a countywide basis . The realignment of Ellis Avenue to intersect at the ,present Talbert/Edwards .intersection would replace the Talbert Avenue alignment that was proposed to. cut through Huntington Central Park. Another issue that involves the realignment of Ellis Avenue but is not directly related to transporta- tion is the establishment of the .southern boundary. Huntington Central Park in order .that .the park can be 'adequately master planned. 2. 3 . 2 Existing Condition . Ellis Avenue between Goldenwest and Edwards Streets is presently a two lane undivided roadway with a primary arterial street classification shown in Figure 2-10,, the currently ,adopted Circulation Plan of Arterial .Streets and Highways. The present average daily travel (ADT) volumes along this segment of Ellis Avenue are 430 vehicles. The portion of Ellis Avenue west of Edwards Street is shown on the Circulation .Plan as extending down the bluffs to connect with the proposed Bolsa Chica Street Extention. Presently there is poor emergency access from the Gothard Street fire station which provides fire and paramedic service to the residential area west of Edwards Street. The Fire Department has indicated that a realignment of Ellis Avenue to intersect at existing Talbert Avenue and AMENDMENTSPLAWNG CITY \ CIRCULATION PLAN OF ARTERIAL wrrssaH ca.ciL p - STREETS AND HIGHWAYS ` �-- ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION N0.4368—DEC.12,1976 LEGEND: -- FREEWAY STREET CAPACITY MAJOR _45,000 PRIMARY 30;000 -- �' — --- SECONDARY 20,000 ,\, J d NOTE: SOLID LINES INDICATE EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY NOT NECESSARILY ULTIMATL RIGHT OF WAY DASHED LINES INDICATE RIGHT OF WAY EXISTS, AREAS WHERE NO \\\\\ MOMMANft _ i Y i k s--- ' 1 © O� ———— CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ORANGE COUNTY CALIFORNIA rr n ELLIS AVENUE/TALBERT AVENUE STUDY AREA Figure 2-10 r Edward Street would improve their ability to respond to calls. The Harbor, Beaches, Parks and Recreation Department is currently developing a Master Plan for Huntington Central Park and there is a need to have the south boundary of the park established. Currently the City Council has established a policy that the boundary would be 660 feet north of the present Ellis Avenue Alignment. There is some incon- sistency in the current City Council policy since, the city presently owns property that is contiguous with park land south of the 660 feet boundary. In order for the Master Plan to proceed, it is necessary to set the boundary. The Herman Kimmel Traffic Study prepared in January 1973 provided projected average daily travel volumes (ADT) for arterial streets within the current study area. Figure 2-11 reflects these projected traffic volumes. The Kimmel Study assumed that the Bolsa Chica "Gap" would be developed with a density of eight units per acre. Also, the Signal Bolsa Corp. Master Plan and tentative tract which was a combination of residential and commercial development was assumed under the Kimmel Study. It is difficult at best to reach any firm conclusion using the available Kimmel ADT volumes because of the uncertainty of development plans within the Bolsa Chica Gap and the uncertainty of the Bolsa Chica Street extention south of Los Patos. If Bolsa Chica Street is not extended and land uses in the Bolsa Chica Gap are not developed or are less intense, the ADT volume along Talbert Avenue and Ellis Avenue could be expected to be less than shown in Figure 2-11. However, without firmer traffic data, such conclusions are based upon simple conjecture and are not founded upon hard data. While there areimportant decisions that can be made at this time concerning emergency access and Huntington Central Park boundary location, decisions relating to reducing the arterial street classification should be withheld until the citywide transportation demand model is completed and design criteria concerning carrying capacity can be better documented. Once the transportation data from the demand model is available , the City Staff can pursue developing a precise plan of street alignment. 2. 3. 3 Alternative I Alternative I shown in Figure 2-12 shows the realigmmnet of Ellis Avenue to the north of the present alignment approximately 1, 000 feet west of Goldenwest Street and connects with the existing Talbert Avenue alignment at Edwards Street. Atlernative I continues the primary arterial AICML 23 N Figure 2-11 HER"1AN KIMMEL TRAFFIC STUDY 2-C TALBERT DELETION ALTERNATIVE ADT TRAFFIC VOLUMES o o �' o SLATER 00 115, 000 '18 ,000 20 , 000 24 ,000 O_ 0 o w o —j oc a r--I Q N CD Cd TAL8r - A TALBERT N �9 6 p00 C,4 4T W W 6 , 000 3 oo z o 0 o J o o, Oo by � f n O , V r-, 1 N ELLIS 19 , 080 24 , 000 0 0 0 0 r,. Figure 2-12 ALTERNATIVE I ELLIS AVENUE REALIGNMENT 17ITH EXISTING TALBERT AVENUE AS PRIMARY ARTERIAL SL ATER J CL TALUs gF A y 3 Z W ELL I s PR!MATY ARTERIAL N - S c f street classification along the realigned portion of Ellis Avenue. The proposed alignment would require less grading than the alignment that is currently shown, on the adopted Circulation Plan of Arterial Streets and Highways. Also, the proposed alignment would avoid passing .,through an area that' has been identified as having possible archaeological significance. There have been a number of archaeological . sites identified along the top of the bluffs overlooking the Bolsa Chica Gap. ORA Sites 82 and 88 would be avoided if the proposed alignment would be adopted. Also, as stated earlier in this report, the proposed Alternative I alignment would improve emergency access for fire, paramedic, and police, thus improving response time to areas west of Edwards Street. Also, the alignment would allow the master planning of Hunting.ton. Central .Park to proceed. 2. 3.4 Recommendation The Planning, Staff recommends that Ellis Avenue be realigned on the Circulation Plan of Arterial Streets and Highways as `depicted in Figure 2'-12 of this report. It is .also recommended that City Staff .hold off on a' Precise Plan of Street. Alignment until after the Transportation Demand Model is completed in July 1979. APPENDIX A HERMAN KI_MMEL'S 1973 TRAFFIC STUDY LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS Referring to Figure 3-2 the following was generally assumed for the purposes . of this study: 1.. Bolsa Chica State Beach - Developed to the intensively .used regional recreation facility. 2 . Bolsa -Chica Wildlife Preserve -. Assumed that 230 acres in addition to. the present 300 will go to the state for a . combination wildlife preserve and public marina. 3. Bolsa Chica "Gap" - Low density residential marina develop ment not to exceed 8 units/acre. 4 . Bolsa Chica Master Plan. - Submitted Signal -Bolsa Corp. Master Plan and tentative tract which .is a combination of residential and commercial development. 5. Central Park Expansion - It was assumed. that twenty additional acres would go to the park and the. remaining- 40 to Ellis would be low density open space concept housing -(large lots or .P.D. . not to exceed, 4 units/acre) . 6 . Open Space Concept Residential - Assumed to be open space concept residential development (low -density not to exceed 4 units/acre) , either large lots or P. D. -development. 7. Seacliff Planned Community - All Seacliff development west of Goldenwest .Street was- Assumed to the current Master .Plan as revised .this year. 8 . 'Huntington Pacific Corp. Beach - Assumed to be a, state beach recreation facility. 9. Signal Lease,. - Was assumed to remain in oil production for the purposes of this . study. 29 10 . Town Lot Area - Assumed to be a combination of low , medium, and medium high density residential uses and commercial development . 11 . Top of Pier - The Top of Pier Plan was used except that the parking authority expansion was assumed to be general commercial west of Lake and part of a convention center east of Lake. 12 . Civic Center Area - The area around the Civic Center was assumed to be an intensive use area consisting of commercial , office and . residential development. 13. Beach Blvd. Strip Commercial - The strip commercial -on''.Beach Boulevard south of Ellis was assumed to be reduced 50%. 14. Old Huntington Beach - Remainder of original town area assumed to be a combination of low and medium density residential development. 15 . Southwest Ellis and Beach - Combination of residential and commercial development. 16.. Pacifica Hospital Area - Assumed to be concentration medical offices and related facilities . 17 . Lower Central Industrial - Assumed to be light industrial development except for southwest corner of Goldenwest and Garfield which was assumed to be in oil production. 18 . Taylor and Beach Special. Study Area Assumed to be light industrial , park and commercial uses.. A more detailed map at the scale of 1" = 1000" was prepared for the study. It depicts land use assumptions in greater detail and acreages of each. �4.- LIT r - CITY OF I I I 1 HUNTINGTON BEACH ORANGE COUNTY CALIFORNIA I I L 9-1-73 STUDY AREA `____� C I STUDY AREA _ I B �-- - = = - --� 4 I I L1 I 1 1 I 18 1 2 3 5 A - - - 15: 6 17 I � 7 1 12 �-13 8 1 14 STUDY AREA ; q 10 A I / 11 I 1 / �% i FIGURE 3- 2 CIRCULATION AND TRANSPORTATION STUDY LAND USE ISSUES 31 -o 700 ILA a I I � 13 � 18 20 30 .4 32. !428 4 23 0 E UER AVE 43 )9 34 24 Sy 21 70 8 ) 1 )S 14 )9 19 I HEIL AVE !$ 44 17 29 25- 47 19 G1 1 4 8 1 4 9 g 44 ss 5 2 41 WARNER AVE ,o '��i,�� •38 4 B 37 13 26 at y4 1 g 65' s If 20 21 1 20 SLATER AVE 5 37 11 y1 20 SO 20 7 2` TALBERI AVE 4 � 42 r 6 21 y9 )� 13 i9 1 3 2y )g , ELLIS AVE �o 12• 33 �� 3 40 R y 31 .33 2'� 2 3 a WELD AVE rl CLAY St ylol 22 11 yo 3 zo 10 i9 VORI(TOWNAVE 7 9 to I G 1 e 37 ADAMSAVE i9 o S 13 P 33 2 �� �1 ���'• ���'� z t 1 g , ll' WA AVE ��'� ��, ���► �,`��•3 11 7 2 3 - C TALBERT DELETION APPENDIX B E� W) 3 x z a� a w c z ca a H 0 Q ELLIS 24 ,000 1810 17 ,000 ELLIS o n a (Z0 o O� v) � o O 0 o p c o p c� o M � ryQ o 0 M 'V' Lfl GARFIELD 27 , 000 29 , 000 29 000 3 GARFIELD 0 0 0 0 0 0 %D M M N O CLAY 3 ,000 00 o o 0 O r- O N O O ' O O �-1 N M 13 ,000 19 ,000 16 ,000 19 ,000 YORKTOTIN YORKTOWN 0 O O O o O � o o ^~ '_q 6Ln , 0 0 0 N O O UTICA 0 O o 0 O o c\ Q , ti 4 ,000 9 ,000 11, 000 ADAMS yv ^C' ALTERNATIVE I a CIRCULATION PATTERN WITH PROJECTED W ADT VOLUMES .r Q W , a A E-4 x 3 x o o a 24 18 17 ELLIS NOTE: Numbers indicate 35 1 5 average daily 49 traffic in C thousands of �' S vehicles. 27 29 34 35 3ARFIELD 11 40 38 7 11 5 14 b 19 5 11 YORKTOWN 20 23 30 35 1 17 37 18 10 0� 8 11 13. ADArQS 41 y�y 18 ,yo 2I? 3 4 8 33 �i 2 � Cb 7INDIANAPOLIS �,�• 2S 4 28 11 8 ti b ti 2 22 23 ATLANTA g'�'• 2 ���`A� 3 ALTERNATIVE II CIRCULATION PATTERN WITH PROJECTED AVERAGE DAILY TRAVEL VOLUMES z a w � w (a E-H x a OU) 0 3 U C^ V �C a w w o� 24 18 17 ELLIS NOTE: Numbers indicate average daily 35 10 /29 44 traffic in 5 thousands of 27 30 vehicles. C;ARFIELD 47 11 h 40 38 11 h 14 22 20 23 YORKTOWN 38 1 9 10 37 h 2 4 ,A�L�l ti 6 11 13 0 1 ADAM-13 G 8 `lam 0) 9 8 33 3 j Cobb '2g h 7 NDIANAPOLIS 2 Ow. AO S 28 b 22 'y 22 23 ATLANTA CO hw� ��yfi SS 23 ALTERNATIVE III Qj CIRCULATION PATTERN WITH PROJECTED AVERAGE DAILY TRAVEL VOLUMES `aC'i. '3 APPENDIX C ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM Fee - $75.00 FOR CITY USE ONLY Date City of Huntin Beach Planning De t Received:2-8-79 Applicant Authorized Agent Project 79-12 Number: ND 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA Department of Origin Mailing Address . . .714-536-5271 Planning Other Application Telephone or Permit Numbers: GPA 79-1 N/A Property Owner N/A Mailing Address/Telephone NOTE: To assist the Department of Planning and Environmental Resources in making a determination as to whether a significant environ- mental effect may result from the proposed project,. the following information must be supplied. Maps referred to below may viewed at the City of Huntington Beach Department of Planning and Environmental Resources. 1.0 Project Information (Please attach Plot Plan and submit photo- graphs o • subject property) N/A 1. 1 Nature of Project: . Give complete description of the proposed project. To determine if the deletion of Lake Street between Garfield Avenue and Yorktown Avenue from the Circulation Plan of Arterial Streets and Highways will have an adverse impact upon the safe rmvement of vehicular traffic within an area generally bounded by Ellis Avenue to the north, Golden- west Street to the west, Pacific Coast Highway to the south, and Beach Boule yard to the east. a. If the project is commercial or industrial . give a complete description of activities and other pertinent information including, but not limited to whether it is neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square footage of sales areas (if ,any) , estimated employment per shift, any potentially hazardous materials which may be used, etc. . N/A . -1- b. If the project is residential, indicate number, types and size of units and associated facilities. N/A C. If the project is institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employment per shift and community benefits to be derived from the project. N/A E d. . List all types of. building materials to be used for all structures in the project. (Submit detailed elevations if available) No building material will be used for the project as defined under Section 1.1 (Nature of Project) . 1.2 Location of project: (Address, nearest street intersections) The study area is bounded by Ellis Avenue to the north, Goldenwest Street "to the west, Pacific Coast Highway to the South, and Beach Boulevard to the east. 1.3 LegalDescription (Lot, Block, Tract) N/A 1.4 Project land area (acres) Number of parking spaces N/A 1.5 Square feet of building area N/A Number of floors. ' 1.6 What is the- percent and coverage proposed by the project for: a. Building N/A. b. Paving N/A C. Existing landscaping N/A d. New landscaping N/A . -2- 1.7 General relationships of the project to surrounding properties: (Information available in Planning Department on District Maps) LAND USE ELEMENT USE ZONING GENERAL PLAN Present VACANT ARTERIAL R2 MEDIUM DENSITY Proposed STREETS Surrounding nort$ GARFIELD AVENUE R2 & Ml MEDILM DESNTIY Surrounding south YORKTOWN AVENUE R2'-- LD MEDIUM DENSITY Surrounding east VAT R2-0-PD-ID MEDILM DENSITY Surrounding west 1. 8 What will be the maximum occupancy of all structures proposed within the project? N/A 1. 9 List other public agencies having jurisdiction by law in approval, authorization, certification or issuance of a permit for this project: ❑ O.C. Flood Control District ❑ State Division of Highways ❑ O.C. Sanitation District ❑ Corps of Engineers ❑ O.C. Air Pollution Control ❑ City Council District ❑ Planning Commission ❑ California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission ❑ Board of Zoning Adjustments ❑ California Regional Water ❑ Design Review Board Quality Control Board ® Other: Environmental Review Coa u"ttee QLocal Agency Formation Commission -3- 1.10 If the project is commercial, industrial , or residential what is the roadway distance in miles from the project to the nearest: a. Shopping Center N/A b. Freeway exit N/A c. Blementary School (refer to Recreation Areas Map) N/A d. Public park (refer to Recreation Areas Map) N/A e. Scenic Highway (refer to Recreation Paths, Corridors , and Areas Map) N/A 2. 0 Existing Environmental Setting of Proposed Project: 2.1 Seismic: a. What is the distance from the project to the nearest fault line (refer to Fault Map) ? within a 1/4 mile b. Is the project site within a designated earthquake hazard area (refer to Earthquake Hazard Special Study Zone Map) ? NO 2. 2 Drainage and Flood Control: a. Please describe specifically the volume of drainage and how it will be accommodated: N/A b. Is the project within a flood hazard area? YeS Or natural flood plain? Yes (refer to Flood Plains and Flood Hazard Area Maps) C. What is the distance from the project to the nearest flood channel? (refer to Flood Control Channels Map) 1 mile d. What is the distance from the project to the nearest shoreline? Approximately two miles at furthest point 2. 3 Topography_ a. Does the project site exhibit excessive slope? (refer to Topography:Slope Map) No b. What is the distance from the project to the nearest bluff? (refer to Principal Vistas and Features Map) Approximately 1 mile C. What is the range and slope of the property as it now exists? -4- 2.4 Land Form: a. Is the property presently graded? b. Indicate the gross cubic yards of grading proposed , . the acres of land to be graded , the amount o earth to be transported on the site , and the amount of earth to be transported oTf-tTie— s-te C. What will be .the maximum height and grade of cut or fill after grading is completed? d. Is the surrounding area graded? If so, how will it affect subject property? The property immediately surrounding the Lake Street extension is not graded at this time, however, if the proposed Ranch Residential Project is approved the area adjacent to the project would be graded 2 .5 Soi1s: a. Type of soil on the project site? Ramna Ioam b. Are there any Peat and/or Organic Soils on the site? No (refer .to Peat and Organic Soils Map) c. Does the site exhibit moderate to high expansive soils? No (refer to Expansive' Soil Distribution Map) 2. 6 Geologic: a. Is the site, within a high risk geologic problem area? No (refer to Geotechnical Land Use Capability Map) . b. Is the site within an area which has experienced a variable . and complex pattern of land subsidence? No (refer to Land Subsidence Map) . 2.7 Historic/Archaeological: a. Could there possibly be any objects of historic, aesthetic or archaeological significance, on the site? If so, please describe. (refer to Archaeolo ical Sites, Historic Landmark Sites and Principal Vi is as an Features Map�� The Northern House lies within the Study Area and is immediately to the west of where Lake Street would be exgended. This may have some significance to the City.' There is no reason to believe that the area .. north of Yorktown Avenue between Main Street and Delaware Street has any archaeological significance -5- 2. 8. Wildlife/Vegetation: a. Does any wildlife use. the site for a place to feed, nest or rest? If so., please list: No b. Will any of this wildlife be displaced by the proposed project? No If so, how? c. Indicate the extent, size and species of plant life per- sently existing on the site. Weeds - Shrubs d. Indicate the location and area (in acres or square feet) and-. type of plant life . to be removed as a result of the project. Include number type and size of trees to be re- moved. None. 2.9 Water Quality: a. . Does any .portion of the project abut or encroach on beaches , estuaries, bays, tidelands, or inland water areas? N/A b: Describe how the project will effect any body of water.. N/A 2.10 Air Quality: a. If the. project is industrial, describe and list air pol- lution sources and quantity and types of pollutants emitted as a result of the project. b. List any Air Pollution Control District equipment required. Camnent: Extending Lake Street should improve the Air Quality within the Study Area since the amount of congestion will be less due to an improved circulation pattern. -6- 2.11 Noise: a. Describe any adjacent off-site noise sources (i .e. , airports , industry, freeways) . None b. What noise will be produced by the project? If available, please give noise levels in decibel measurement and typical time distribution when noise will be produced. Extending Lake Street will improve access to City and State beach facilities, the Downtown and Residential Land Uses and reduce traffic congestion and noise on Main Street and on local residential streets. There will be an increase in current noise levels along Lake Street that would be normal for a primary arterial street at a speed of between 35-40 miles per hour. C. How will noise produced by the project compare with existing noise levels? Noise levels will increase along Lake Street. However, noise levels will be consistent with an arterial street (primary) with a speed of between 35-40 miles per hour 2.12 Traffic: a. Indicate the present traffic volume on arterials and added trips per day from the project. Please refer to the attached average daily travel volumes. Please read the attached General Plan Amendment 79-lb to get a full understanding of the traffic impacts within the study area. b. What is the existing speed limit at the project location? 35-40 MPH along Lake Street - 25 MPH in residential areas C. Indicate points of egress and ingress to the project. N/A 3.0 Public Services and Facilities: 3.1 Water: a. Will the project require installation or replacement of new water mains? no b. Attach a map showing the service area, size and lo- cation of new lines . N/A c. Please estimate the daily volume in gallons required to serve the project. N/a -7- 3. 2 Sewer: a. Will the project require installation or replacement of new sewer mains? No b. Attach a map showing the service area, size and location of new lines. N/A c. Discuss the capacity required for the project and how this relates to existing effluent volumes within the system. N/A 3. 3 Utility Lines: a. Indicate length and type of new offsite transmission and distribution facilities required to serve project. N/A b. Do any overhead electrical facilities require relocation? No If so, please describe facilities. C. Do existing lines have to be increased in number or size for project? N/A If so, please describe how. 3. 4 Solid Waste: a. Describe the type and amount (pounds/day) of solid waste generated by the project. Type: N/A Pounds/Day 3. 5 Education: a. For residential projects, note primary and secondary school districts: Primary: N/A Secondary: N/A -8- 3.6 Population Displacement: a. Will any residential occupants be displaced by the project activities? No If not, do not answer question (b) . b. What is the total number of residents to be displaced? 3.7 Demolition: a. Will any improvements be demolished or removed by the project? No If so, answer questions b through d. b. Describe briefly the type of buildings or improvements to be demolished by the project. N/A c. List approximate volume of exported material. N/A d. Indicate the location and the distance to the site where exported material will be dumped. N/A 4. 0 Mitigating Measures: 40' 1 . Are there measures included in the project which may conserve resources (electricity, gas , water or wildlife) ? Please . describe. The continuation of Lake Street would have the positive impact of reducing congestion and delay time and would tend to result in less gasoline consumption. 4.2 Are there measures proposed in . the design of. the project to re duce noise pollution to persons occupying project? N/A If so, please describe. 4.3 Are there measures proposed in the design of the project to reduce noise pollution to persons outside of the project which is caused by noise generated by the project? No If so, please describe. 4. 4 Are there measures in the design of the project (architectural treatment and landscaping) which have been coordinated with design of the existing community to minimize visual effect? N/A If so, please describe. 4. 5 Are there measures or facilities designed into the project to facilitate resources recovery (e.g. solar heating/special insulation -etc.) ? N/A 5.0 Alternatives: Are there alternatives to the project which may result in a lesser adverse environmental effect? yes Please explain all project alternatives,: General Plan Amepdtent 79-lb presents three alternatives concering circulation, within the Study Area. GPA 79-1b has been submitted as part of this Environmental Information form so that traffic impacts can be better understood 6. 0 Additional Information: (regarding questions. above) . If necessary attach a tional sheets. N/A Attachments: 1) GPA 79-lb Docuttent -2) Existing Traffic Flows 3) ADT Traffic Volume Projection for each Alternative ts, 4) General Plan Land Use Diagram,and District Zoning Maps for each Stuck- Area. I hereby certify that the information herein is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge 7 Z/Ozz, Signatu e — UaateTF�ile -10 ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM Fee - $75.00 FOR CITY USE ONLY Date Cit of Huntincfton Beach Received: , i '7 Applicant Authorized Agent Project Number: ti AD 7y - 3 P.O. Box 190, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Department of Origin Mailing Address (714) 536-5271 Other Applic#tior n Telephone or Permit Numbers: City of Huntington Beach Property Owner same as above Mailing Address/Telephone NOTE: To assist the Department of Planning and Environmental Resources in making a determination as to whether a significant environ- mental effect may result from the proposed project, the following information must be supplied. Maps referred to below may be viewed at the City of Huntington Beach Department of Planning and Environmental Resources. 1.0 Project Information (Please attach Plot Plan and submit photo- graphs of subject property) 1. 1 Nature of Project: Give complete description of the proposed project. General Plan Amendmenr 79-1 Area 2.4 Proposal to designate Talbert Avenue between Goldenwest and Gothard Streets as a secondary arterial (80' row) on the Circulation Plan of Arterial Streets and Highways a. If the project is commercial or industrial give a complete description of activities and other pertinent information including but not limited to whether it is neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square footage of sales areas (if any) , estimated employment per shift, any potentially hazardous materials which may be used, etc. NA -1- b. If the project is residential, indicate number, types and size of units and associated facilities. NA C. If the project is institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employment per shift and community benefits to be derived from the project. NA d. List all types of building materials to be used for all structures in the project. (Submit detailed elevations if available) NA 1.2 Location of project: (Address, nearest street intersections) 3/8 mile segment of Talbert Avenue between Goldenwest and Gothard Streets 1. 3 Legal Description (Lot, Block, Tract) NA 1.4 Project land area (-scrvs-) 3/8 mile Number of parking spaces 1 1. 5 Square feet of building area NA Number of floors NA 1.6 What is the percent and coverage proposed by the project for: a. Building NA b. Paving NA C. Existing landscaping NA d. New landscaping NA -2- 1.7 General .relatio._ .lips of the project to sur,unding properties: (Information available in Planning Department on District Maps) LAND USE ELEMENT USE ZONING GENERAL PLAN resent local street NA not designated on Circulation Plan roposed secondary arteri i rage M14. Industrial Surrounding Facilt n o r t'h Centra ark/ CF-R Open Space. Library urrounding Central Park CF-R Open Space south Adventure Play- ground Surrounding Industrial Ml-CD Industrial east 'Surrounding Central Park CF-R Open. Space west 1. 8 What will be the maximum occupancy of all structures proposed within the project? 1. NA 1.9 'List other _public agencies having . jurisdiction- by ;law in approval, authorization, certification or issuance of a permit for this project: ❑ O.C. Flood Control District ❑ State Division '.of Highways ❑ O.C. Sanitation District ❑ Corps of Engineers ❑ O.C. Air Pollution Control ® City Council District , aplanning Commission. ❑ California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission ❑ Board of Zoning Adjustments ❑ California Regional Water . Design Review Board Quality Control Board ❑ Other: Q Local Agehcy Formation Commission 1.10 If the project is commercial, industrial, or residential what is the roadway distance in miles from the project to the nearest: a. Shopping Center NA b. Freeway exit NA c. Me ntary School (refer to Recreation Areas Flap) NA d. Public park (refer to Recreation Areas Map) NA t e. Scenic Highway (refer to Recreation Paths, Corridors, and Areas Map) 2.,0 . Existing ,Environmental Setting of Proposed Project: 2.1 Seismic: a. What is the distance from the project to thg nearest fault line (refer to Fault Map) ? mile solsa-Fairview b. Is the project site within a designated earthquake hazard . area (refer to Earthquake Hazard Special Study Zone Map) ? No 2.-2 Drainage and Flood Control: a. Please describe specifically the volume of drainage and how it will be accommodated: NA NO b. Is the project within a flood hazard area? Or natural flood plain? NO (refer to Flood Plains and Flood Hazard Area Maps) c. What is the distance from the project to the neafeNtle flood channel? (refer to Flood Control. Channels Map) d. What is the distance from the project to the nearest . shoreline? 23K miles 2. 3 Topography a. Does the project site exhibit excessive slope? (refer to Topography:Slope Map) Yes' b. What is the distance from the project to the nearest bluff? (refer to Principal Vistas and Features Map) bluffline crosses Talbert Avenue 500' east of Goldenwest C. What is the range and slope of the property as it now exists? variable from 0 to 30% -d_ s • 2. 4 'Land Form: a. Is the property presently graded? YES b. Indicate the gross cubic yards of grading proposed NA , the acres of land to be graded NA , the amount of`�— earth to be transported on the site NA , and the amount of earth to be transported owe site N C. What will be the maximum height and grade of cut or fill after grading is completed?. NA d. Is the surrounding area graded?in places . If so, how will it affect subject property?. No effect on project 2.5 Soils: a. Type of soil on the project site? Muck & Peat Ramona Loam Antioch Clay Adobe b. Are there any Peat and/or Organic Soils on the site? NO (refer to Peat and Organic Soils Map) c. Does the site exhibit moderate to high expansive soils? on a part (refer to Expansive Soil Distribution Map) 2. 6 Geologic: a. Is the site within a high risk geologic problem area? NO (refer to Geotechnical Land Use Capability Map) . b. Is the site within an area which has experienced a variable and complex pattern of land subsidence? NO (refer to Land Subsidence Map) . 2. 7 Historic/Archaeological: a. Could there possibly be any objects of historic, aesthetic or archaeological significance on the site? If so, please describe. (refer to Archaeological Sites, Historic Landmark Sites and Principal Vi is as and Features Mapes— NO -5- 2. 8 Wildlife/Vegetation: a. Does any wildlife use the site for a place to feed, ' nest or rest? If so, please list: NO b. Will any of this wildlife be displaced by the proposed project? NO If so, how? C. Indicate the extent, size and species of plant life per- sently existing on the site. None d. Indicate the location and area (in acres or square feet) and type of plant life to be removed as a result of the project. Include number type and size of trees to be re- moved. None 2. 9 Water Quality: a. Does any portion of the project abut or encroach on beaches , estuaries, bays, tidelands, or inland water areas? Alignment abuts Sully-Miller pit to the south and Talbert Lake to the north. b. Describe how the project will effect any body of water. No effect 2.10 Air Quality: a. If the project is industrial, describe and list air pol- lution sources and quantity and types of pollutants emitted as a result of the project. NA b. List any Air Pollution Control District equipment required. NA -6- 2.11 Noise: 'a. Describe any adjacent off-site noise sources (i.e. , airports, industry, freeways) . HB Police heliport & pistol range, traffic on Goldenwest, Talbert & Gothard, industrial oil storage facility to north b. What noise Iwill be produced by the project? If available, please give .noise levels in decibel measurement and typical time distribution when noise will be produced. None c. How will noise produced by the .project compare with existing noise levels? May increase due to increased traffic 2.12 Traffic: a. Indicate the present traffic volume on arterials and .added trips per day from the project. Talbert Avenue 3700 vehicles/day secondary maxia n of 20,000/day Goldenwest 17,000 - 21,000 vehicles/day Gothard 4800 - 5300 vehicles/day b. What is the existing speed limit at the project location? 40 nph c. Indicate points of egress and ingress to the project. NA . 3.0 Public Services and Faci'lities: ' ' 3.1 Water: a. , Will .the project .require instal.lation: or replacement of , new water mains? NA b. Attach a map, showing the service area, .size and lo- cation .of new lines. NA . c.. Please estimate the daily volume in gallons required to serve the project. NA7- 3.2 Sewer: a. Will the project require installation or replacement of new sewer mains? NA b. Attach a map showing the service area, size and location of new lines. NA ce Discuss the capacity required for the project and how this relates to existing effluent volumes within the system. NA 3. 3 Utility Lines: a. Indicate length and type of new offsite transmission and distribution facilities required to serve project. NA b. Do any overhead electrical facilities require relocation? No If so, -please describe facilities. c. Do•existing lines have to be increased in number or size for project? No If so,. please describe how. 3. 4 Solid Waste: a. Describe the type and amount (pounds/day) of solid waste generated by the project. Type: NA Pounds/Day 3.5 Education: a. For residential projects, note primary and .secondary school districts: Primary: NA Secondary: Na -8- A. 3.6 Population Displacement: a. Will any residential occupants be displaced by the project activities? No If not, do not answer question (b) . b. What is the total number of residents to be displaced? 3. 7 Demolition: a. Will any improvements be demolished or removed by the project? NA If so, answer questions b through d. b. Describe briefly the type of buildings or improvements to be demolished by the project. C. List approximate volume of exported material. d. Indicate the location and the distance to the site where exported material will be dumped. 4.0 Mitigating Measures: 4.1 Are there measures included in the project which may conserve resources (electricity, gas, water or wildlife) ? Please describe. No 4.2 Are there measures proposed in the design of the project to re- duce noise pollution to persons occupying project? NA If so, please describe. 4. 3 Are there measures proposed in the design of the project to reduce noise pollution to persons outside of the project which is caused by noise generated by the project? No If so, please describe. -9- 4. 4 Are there measures in the design of the project (architectural treatment and landscaping) which have been coordinated with design of the existing community to minimize visual effect? NA If so, please describe. 4. 5 Are there measures or facilities designed into the project to facilitate resources recovery (e.g. solar heating/special insulation etc.) ? No 5. 0 Alternatives: Are there alternatives to the project which may result in a lesser adverse environmental effect? No Please explain all project alternatives. 6. 0 Additional Information: (regarding questions above) . If necessary attach a tional sheets . I hereby certify that the information herein is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. Signature Date -Filed -10- PLANNING ° SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP 26 - 5 - 11 INI,.. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA USE OF PROPERTY MAP nt, wa, WARNER AVE ME J FIR CAN ' AVE r CF—E IwINTERSBURR WHIN SCHOOL) C1 J J CF-R m G (f`AHKI fXTTY - '-'— C'F_E 'R (OAKK W:w SCHP•3L) CF-C (CI'.Y YARD) o +� DR d 8 SL AV . Oi.EIERAL TELEPHONE MAINTENANCE:YARD I— a . ova CF-R KINTINOTON CENTRAL PARK) , if ILH V. W N m _; .. ........... ff77711 I I I I Z n U W M 2 C J $ f O " s .,.. TALBER AVE i PLANNING ZONING DM 30 . SE'C-TIONAL- DISTRICT MAP 25-5-II 'SCALE - - - .1f, IM V NOTE CITY OF ADOPTED AUGUST 18,1960 ALL DIN(M]NNtl.1[IM i[[T CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 785 AN ACNE.DJCININ4 ANY MONT OF F.Y 181NTfYD[D/0lRTt ND TA THE C[NT[R AMENDED ORD.NO. AMENDED ORD.Np °F w-.RICNr or N.r LEGEND 3-27-61 829 12-19-66 1275 rC-F-El COMMUNITY FACILITIES CEDXAT060DISTRICT 12-4-81 877 I-3-87 1280 HUNTINGTON BEACH -18-61 908 4-18-68 1309 a6 OFFN:[ PROFESSIONAL warR¢r 5-T-62 900 9-18-67 1349 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT B-IB-62 80B 3.1 .8 ,1388 RI SDgI[FAMILYRESIDENCE DgiRICT 4-1-63 957 6.17.60 1417 ® SPECIAL ZONE'CEMETERY) 5-20-63 988 12-16-68 1459 ORANGE COUNTY CALIFORNIA 6-3- 3 961 °-'-69 Xa :, noCom DISTRICT 2- -85 IOPB 2-18-6° 1632 © �COMN[RCYL 0ormc T� 'AMENDED BY ZONE CASE: 1-6-84 1029 12-20-71 1690 ® LEMT[O MULTIPLE FANCY A[SIOENC[DOTRNT I-20-64 1031 2-7-72 1731 165,211,218,237.251,290,319,2M,330,377,390,409 399,483 3-IB-64 I04 3-20-72 1615 486,66-82,PP 66-2,67-3,67-4,67-22,67-31,2 68-41,67-32,69.19,PPTO-0,PP71-4, 6-4-84 1052 4-s-72 1739 SUFFIX LEGEND: 71-39,70-11,72-3,72-4,72-10,72-48.75-26I.77-9, "8-19-64 1079 4-17-72 1741 1-4-65 1111 5-1-72 1744 —,_ � LIMEEACM L- Be-T-13 1832. i'' � W7 PRCCOF PLULTIMATE Y,OF STREET ALMNM[NT tt t1 J U WARNER 1 AVE 14 3 RI .RI CITY , , OF FOUNTAIN VALLEY AMSTERDAM DRI j . -1 I RI 5C i w M y RZ SF b c I I RI LR c 0 L Z r RI RI RI ' g RI RI RI MAR9EILLE RI, POLDER CR 4 j I 4 L�4777 > - RI RI ' U VALENCIA 1 I 1 ff' R I R 1 &. .. 1 I j RI "A RI 4 R3 f R' �F—E F �-- HOLLANO 4 I 1 (LAKE VIEW SCHOOL) Rl �RI• PD I u NI I F�9 � = RI RI RI I I I 1 I I R5 I 1 IM91I [N DI LA i - OR" R2 a R2 R2 I I SoM N.LINE 0/ TRACT I2 Ras""w li C4 ' R3 -R2 RI DRIVE RI $ N. J _ i �. I I ' LLA. RR2. I �. 1 I gW RIC. RS wo E R2 1 I I 1 R5 SP-1 � � W S I r � N.I= E1/2 E1/1 nIN SEC.25-E-11 . I I I R2-PD7(12) a Q ' . S P-1 RI m I - I I RI ' I I 1 to so Tr t/t. TALBERT AVE ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM Fee - $75 .00 FOR CITY USE ONLY Date Received: , Applicant Authorized Agent Project Number: ` SQ aX nu (A 921,4b Department of Origin Ma lin//�g Address ���11��AA'�� _A4 Other�Application Telephone or Permit Numbers : ' C rr( c � . Property Owner MailinAddress/Telephone NOTE: To assist the Department of Planning and Environmental Resources in making a determination as to whether a significant environ- mental effect may result from the proposed project, the following information must be supplied. Maps referred to below may be viewed at the City of Huntington Beach Department of Planning and Environmental Resources. 1.0• Project Information (Please attach Plot Plan and submit photo- graphs of subject property) 1. 1 Nature of Project: Give complete description of the proposed project. neAer4 Ram AptWw wd- 79-1 E) , Alm 2#31 a �� l oMe� 6�_ AlvZoe-1 -fo t' i�rt'h Tal��I�:hue. af' `f fie- �crsfiir�Z' a. If the project is commercial or industrial give a complete description of activities and other pertinent information including but not limited to whether it is neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square footage of sales areas (if any) , estimated employment per shift, any potentially hazardous materials which may be used, etc. -1- b. If the project is residential, indicate number, types and size of units and associated facilities. NA C. If the project is institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employment per shift and community benefits to be derived from the project. d. List all types of building materials to be used for all structures in the project. (Submit detailed elevations if available) NA 1.2 Location of project: (Address, nearest street intersections) F,Ms- Awyvr , bowea^ 6v)A 6coUumwesf 1.3 Legal Description (Lot, Block, Tract) 1. 4 Project land area 4acx-ee4 2 " '* Number of parking spaces 1. 5 Square feet of building area Iyk Number of floors 1.6 What is the percent and coverage proposed by the project for: a. Building b. Paving C. Existing landscaping d. New landscaping Nk -2- 1.7 General relationships of the project to surrounding properties: (Information available in Planning Department on District Maps) LAND USE ELEMENT USE ZONING GENERAL PLAN resent roposed /�V Surrounding north R.G• F. �A �O^CD b�� SP� 1� Surrounding wad"Jr, a -cA south -0<D �0ENTJ Surrounding V� j 0,L- p r east Surrounding N�V �iD 'Zo► p kw west 1. 8 What will be the maximum occupancy of all structures proposed withiin' the project? V� 1.9 List .other public agencies having jurisdiction by law in -approval, -authorization., certification or issuance of a permit for this project: ❑ O.C. Flood Control District ❑ State Division of Highways ❑ O.C. Sanitation District ❑VC, rps of Engineers . ❑ O.C. Air Pollution Control Y Council District Planning Commission ❑ California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission 2/BAl-rd a of Zoning Adjustments ❑ California Regional Water Design Review Board Quality Control Board E,// Other: �t ❑ Local Agency Formation Commission ' -3- 1.10 If the project is commercial, industrial, or residential what is the roadway distance in miles from the project -to the . . nearest: a. . Shopping Center b. Freeway exit NA c. filamentary School (refer to Recreation Areas Map) d. Public park (refer to Recreation Areas Map) e. Scenic Highwa refer to Recreation Paths, Corridors, and Areas Map) -2. 0 Existing Environmental Setting of Proposed Project: 2.1 Seismic: a'. What is the distance from the,project, to the nearest fault line (refer to Fault Map) ? % _W 4,z9a b. Is the project site within a designated earthquake hazard area (refer to Earthquake Hazard Special Study Zone Map) ? 2.2 Drainage and-Flood Control: a. Please describe specifically the volume of drainage and how it will be accommodated: N AC b. Is the projeqt within a flood hazard area?n Or natural flood plain? (refer to Flood Plains and Flood Hazard ,Area Maps). c. What is the distance 'from the project to the nearest flood channel? (refer to Flood Control Channels Map) 3114 miLci d. What is the distance from the project to the nearest shoreline? 2 mLe5 2.3 Topography: a. Does . the project site exhibit excessive slope? (refer to Topography:S lope Map) 10 042 oyS f LAaGr-,,6 b. What 'is the distance from the project to the nearest bluff? (refer to Principal Vistas and' Features Map) 6P5 05V TW tC&I c. What is the range and slope of the property as it now exists? 30 to -4- 2. 4 Land Form: a. Is the property presently graded? 10 b. Indicate the gross cubic yards of grading proposed " , the acres of land to be graded , the amount a — earth to be transported on the site , d the amount of earth to be transported off the site C. What will be the maximum height grade of cut or fill after grading is completed? d. Is the surrounding area graded? If so, how will it affect subject property? Cot Ir'Ro J AcCoRDt mc-c 'Tb FRcRte " AUEt(-- Me+T ' ww � � ckrc Flu, 2. 5 Soils: a. Type- of soil on the project site? b. Are there any Peat and/or Organic Soils on the site? �. (refer to Peat and Organic Soils Map) C. Doe jthe site exhibit moderate to high expansive soils? (refer to Expansive Soil Distribution Map) 2. 6 Geologic a. Is the site within a high risk geologic problem area? O (refer to Geotechnical Land Use Capability Map) . b. Is the site within an area which has experie ed a variable and complex pattern of land subsidence? _ (refer to Land Subsidence Map) . 2. 7 Historic/Archaeological: a. Could there possibly be any objects of historic, aesthetic or archaeological significance on the site? If so, please describe. (refer to Archaeological Sites, Historic Landmark Sites and Principal Vistas and Features Map-s7— — �A 02 Af— Zt Zw — 61sR ire -5- 2. 8 Wildlife/Vegetation: a. Does any wildlife use the site for a place to feed, nest or rest? If so, please list: v �� �tJss MAY IN &� b. Will any of this wildlife be displaced by the proposed project? If so, how? PCT_ t NtM E5-P(AIFL>1 I W (5 �ft-A- tX- c. Indicate the extent, size and species of plant life per- sently existing on the site. G E5t-4Nte-,r,6 UA124OUS vet -tom d. Indicate the location and area (in acres or square feet) and type of plant life to be removed as a result of the project. Include number type and size of trees to be re-. moved. 2. 9 Water Quality: a. Does any portion of the project abut or encroach on beaches , estuaries , bays , tidelands, or inland water areas? b. Describe how the project will effect any body of water. 2.10 Air Quality: a. If the project is industrial, describe and list air pol- lution sources and quantity and types of pollutants emitted as a result of the project. b. List any Air Pollution Control District equipment required. -6- 2.11 Noise: a. Describe any adjacent off-site noise sources (i.e. , airports, industry, freeways) NO 1 b. 'What noise will be produced. by the project? If available, please give noise levels in decibel measurement and typical, time distribution when noise will be produced. ' i c. How will noise produced by the project compare with existing noise levels? 2.12 Traffic: a: Indicate ' the present traffic, volume on arterials and added .trips per day from the project. b. What is the existing speed limit . at the project location? 4-6 �P c. Indicate points of, egress and ingress to the project. 3. 0 Public Services and Facilities: 3.1 Water: a. Will the project require installation or replacement of new water mains? b. -Attach a map showing the service area, size and lo- cation of new lines. c. Please estimate the daily volume in gallons required to serve the project:. 3. 2 Sewer: a. Will' the project require installation or replacement of new sewer mains? b. Attach a map showingithe service area, size and .location of new lines. C. Discuss the capacity required for the project and how this relates to existing effluent volumes within the system. pprr i 303 Utility Lines: a. Indicate length and type .of new offsite transmission and distribution facilities required to serve project. 9otsilp - b. Do any overhead electrical facilities require relocation? If so, .please describe facilities. c. Do existing lines have to be increased in number or size for project?� If so, please describe how. 3. 4 Solid Waste: a. Describe the type and amount '(pounds/day) of solid waste generated by the project. Type: Pounds/Day NVM-- 3. 5 Education a. For residential projects, note primary and. secondary school` districts: Primary: —41 Secondary: 3.6 Population, Displacement: a. Will any resi tial occupants be displaced by the project activities? r If not, do not answer question (b) . b. What is the total number of residents to be displaced? 3. 1 Demolition: a. Will any, improvements be demolished or removed by the project? � M If so, answer questions b through d. b. Describe briefly the type of buildings or improvements to be demolished by the project. c. List approximate volume of exported material. _ rVr v d. Indicate the location and the distance to the site where exported material will be dumped. IVA 4. 0 Mitigating .Measures: 4: 1 Are there measures included in the project which may conserve resources (electricity, gas, water or wildlife) ? Please describe. NN". I wil� .,/„ Ilis 4.2 Are there measures proposed in the design of the p;gject to re- duce noise pollution to persons occupying project? If so, please describe. 4. 3 Are there measures proposed in the design of the project to reduce noise pollution to persons outside of t e project which is caused by noise generated by the project? If so, please describe. -9- r t ' • 4. 4 Are there measures in the design of the project (architectural treatment and landscaping) which have been coordinated with design of the existing community to minimize visual effect? If so, please describe. 4. 5 Are there measures or facilities designed into the project to facilitate resources recovery (e.g. solar heating/special insulation etc. ) ? t vv i 5. 0 Alternatives: Are there alternatives to the project which may result in a lesser adverse environmental effect? YEs Please explain all project alternatives. wig AND OUCH 9� E- 44;�-�CAtL5 6. 0 Additional Information: (regarding questions above) . If AWM necessary attach ad ional sheets. 6OK9r (k1RC 1 I hereby certify that the information herein is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. i 1 �) S gnature Date F e -10-