HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Amendment 85-3 - Environmental Impact Report 85-2 - RE CITI UNCiL- ' ACTION
Date Fpbruary !8y 1986
CITY .
Submitted to: Hoi ora_ .l. 1 y Council
Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson, City Administrator e-WT�
Prepared by: James W. Palin, Director, Development Services
fACT
Subject: LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT 85-3/ENVIRONMENTAL
REPORT 85-2/NEGATIVE DECLARATION 86-1/ZONE CHANGE 85-15
Consistent with Council Policy? [ ] Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception
Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions,Attachments:
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
Transmitted for public hearing is Land Use Element Amendment No .
85-3, Environmental Impact Report No. 85-2, Negative Declaration No .
86-1 and Zone Change No. 85-15. The amendment addresses a proposed
change to the Land Use Element as requested by Meadowland Ltd. The
amendment also addresses a request by the City of Huntington Beach
to create a new land use designation. The requests are being
forwarded to the City Council along with the Planning Commission ' s
recommendations as part of Land Use Element Amendment No. 85-3 .
Zone Change 85-15 is also being processed concurrently with Area 2 . 1
of Land Use Element Amendment 85-3.
RECOMMENDATION:
Planning Commission Recommendation:
1 . Approve Environmental Impact Report No. 85-2 .
2 . Approve Negative Declaration No. 86-1 .
3 . Approve the recommendation of the Planning Commission (as
indicated in Attachment 1, Summary of Requests) and adopt by
resolution, Land Use Element Amendment No. 85-3; and adopt by
ordinance Zone Change No . 85-15.
Staff Recommendations:
The Department of Development Services staff ' s recommendations are
the same as the Planning Commission recommendations shown in
Attachment 1 , Summary of Requests .
ON MOTION BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT NO. 85-2 WITH AMENDMENTS WAS APPROVED AS ADEQUATE AND
RECOMMENDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR CERTIFICATION BY THE FOLLOWING
VOTE:
PIO 4/84
AYES: Winchell , Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter,
Mirjahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT: Rowe
ABSTAIN: None
MOTION PASSED
ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER, NEGATIVE
DECLARATION NO. 86-1 WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter ,
Mirjahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
MOTION PASSED
ON MOTION BY PORTER AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR, ITEM 4.1 OF LUE 85-3
WAS APPROVED TO CREATE A NEW SENIOR RESIDENTIAL LAND USE DESIGNATION
BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher , Livengood, Erskine, Porter,
Mirjahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
MOTION PASSED
ON MOTION BY SCHUMACHER AND SECOND BY ERSKINE, AREA 2 .1 OF LUE 85-3
WAS APPROVED FOR A CHANGE OF DESIGNATION TO SENIOR RESIDENTIAL BY
ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION 1349 AND RECOMMENDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL BY
THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher , Livengood, Erskine, Porter ,
Mirjahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
MOTION PASSED
ON MOTION BY SCHUMACHER AND SECOND BY WINCHELL, ZONE CHANGE NO.
85-15 WAS APPROVED FOR RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL BY THE
FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher , Livengood, Erskine, Porter,
Mirjahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
MOTION PASSED
RCA - 2/18/86 -2- (4193d)
ANALYSIS:
The original amendment addressed Area 2. 1 , a request by Meadowland
Ltd. to redesignate 3.09 acres from General Commercial to High
Density Residential and eleven staff initiated areas intended to
establish consistency between the General Plan and zoning. At that
time the applicant for Area 2. 1 was proposing 132 senior units .
After staff had prepared the analysis and EIR and submitted .the EIR
to the State Clearinghouse for 45-day review, the applicant
submitted revised conceptual plans showing 151 units with
underground parking. Staff notified the State Clearinghouse of the
change and revised the draft EIR with an addendum regarding the
increased unit count . The applicant 's revised plan was intended to
address staff 's concerns with building bulk and parking space
dispersal . Staff retained its original recommendation for Medium
High Density and 114 units, however .
At the Planning Commission' s first public hearing on the' amendment,
concerns were raised regarding soils and geology, previous asbestos
use on the site and potential gasoline migration from a nearby
gasoline station. Staff added analyses of these issues to the
Addendum section of the EIR. During this time the applicant
prepared a conceptual plan to show a 114 unit project as staff was
recommending. He also revised his 151 unit conceptual plan into a
148 unit plan with subterranean parking. Staff withdrew the eleven
consistency items from the General Plan Amendment because of some
additional issues identified by staff.
A major issue in the analysis of Area 2 . 1 has been the impact of a
senior project at a higher density as opposed to a regular apartment
project at a lower density. Staff has maintained that senior
projects have smaller units, less population per unit and fewer
vehicle trips per unit than non-senior projects . The result is that
a senior project at a higher density will have equal or fewer
impacts than a lower density non-senior project . The applicant
submitted conceptual plans and comparative analyses of different
types of projects which supported this assumption. Detailed
discussion of these issues can be found in the attached staff
reports .
The Planning Commission eventually reached agreement with staff and
the applicant that a higher density senior project would have less
impact on the surrounding neighborhood than a medium density
non-senior project, however they were concerned that if they
approved a medium high density land use designation as recommended
by staff, the applicant could come back at a later date with a zone
change to remove the SR suffix from the zoning and build a
non-senior project . To provide assurance that this could not occur ,
staff proposed that a new land use designation of Medium High
density Senior Residential be created which would not be consistent
with non-senior projects or zoning without the SR suffix. This
proposal was added to the amendment as Administrative Item 4 .1 and
RCA - 2/18/86 -3- (4193d )
Negative Declaration 86-1 . The Planning Commission approved this
item after deleting the Medium High Density
specification from the title and refering to the designation only as
Senior Residential.
The Planning Commission and staff are in concurrence with the
following recommendation:
Approve EIR 85-2 and Negative Declaration 86-1
Approve Land Use Element Amendment No. 85-3 with the
following changes:
1 . Approve Administrative Item 4. 1 to create a new land
use designation of Senior Residential .
2 . Approve Area 2. 1 for a change of designation from
General Commercial to Senior Residential .
Approve Zone Change No. 85-15B for a change of zone from R5
to (Q)R3-SR with conditions for Design Review Board
approval and a maximum of 114 units after a density bonus .
In addition, staff has added wording to Zone Change Ordinance 85-15B
to require that a Developer Agreement be prepared and signed by the
owner prior to issuance of any development permits for the project .
The City Attorney has advised this course of action due to
uncertainties regarding the exact nature of the project prior to
approval of the Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission.
The agreement will address the total number of units and provisions
for affordability of units after the granting of a density bonus .
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS:
Environmental documentation for Area 2. 1 of Land Use Element
Amendment No. 85-3 and Zone Change No. 85-15 may be found in the
amendment report which also serves as Environmental Impact Report
No. 85-2. EIR 85-2 was posted for a 45-day review period which
ended on December 2, 1985. Public comments and staff responses
constitute the Final EIR and are incorporated in the appendix of the
report. Negative Declaration No. 86-1 for Item 4. 1 of LUE 85-3 was
posted for a 10-day review period which ended on January 21, 1986 .
No comments were received.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
The City Council may adopt the Land Use Element Amendment and Zone
Change as requested by the applicant, they may adopt the changes as
recommended by the Planning Commission and Planning staff, they may
modify them as desired, or they may retain the existing designations .
RCA - 2/18/86 -4- ( 4193d )
ATTACHMENTS:
1 . Summary of Requets
2. Resolution
3 . Zone Change Ordinance 85-15A Applicant 's Request
4. Zone Change Ordinance 85-15B Staff and Planning Commission
Recommendation
5 . Package of previous Planning Commission Staff Reports
6. Planning Commission Minutes
7. Petitions Opposed to LUE 85-3 (Area 2. 1 ) Zone Change 85-15,1
8 . Petitions In Favor of LUE 85-3 (Area 2.1) Zone Change 85-15
9. Land Use Element Amendment No. 85-3/EIR 85-2
JWP :HS:kla
RCA - 2/18/86 -5- ( 4193d)
LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT 85-3/ZONE CHANGE 85-15
SUMMARY OF REQUESTS
Recommendation
Item Applicant Planning Commission Staff
LUE 85-3 Area 2 .1
Request for change of Originally requested Change of Designation Change of designation
designation from High Density but is from General Commercial from General Commercial
General Commercial to now in concurrence to Senior Residential to Senior Residential
High Density Residential with Senior
Residential
LUE 85-3 Item 4 .1
Creation of new N/A Approve Approve
designation of Senior
Residential
ZC 85-15
Request for change of R4-SR with a total (Q)R3-SR with a total (Q)R3-SR with a total
zone from R5 to R4-SR of 148 units after of 114 units after of 114 units after a
with a total of 148 a density bonus . a density bonus and density bonus and with
units after a density ( Ordinance A) with Design Review Design Review Board
bonus Board approval . approval and provision
(Ordinance B) for developer agree-
ment (Ordinance B)
RESOLUTION NO. 5639
j A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ADOPTING LAND
USE ELEMENT NO. 85-3 TO THE GENERAL PLAN
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach ,
desires to' update and refine the General Plan in keeping with
changing community needs and objectives ; and
A public hearing on adoption of Land Use Element Amendment
No. 85-3 to the General Plan was held by the Planning Commission
on January 7 and January 22 , 1986, and the Commission recommended
its adoption to the City Council ; and
Thereafter, the City Council, after giving notice as
prescribed by Government Code, sections 65355 and 65090, held at
least one public hearing to consider Land Use Element Amendment
No. 85-3; and
At said hearing all persons desiring to be hear on such
amendment were heard,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Huntington Beach, that Land Use Element Amendment No. 85-3
consisting of the following changes is hereby approved:
1 . That a new Senior Residential land use designation be
established in the General Plan with the following standards:
Senior Residential: This residential land use category
constitutes recognition by the City of Huntington Beach
that , due to low per unit occupancy and vehicle
generation rates , Senior Residential projects may be
constructed at higher densities and still maintain
compatibility with lower density surrounding uses . The
Senior Residential land use designation is intended to
more clearly define the intended use .of property when
it is determined that a residential project at that
same density but not limited to senior citizens could
have a negative impact on the surrounding area .
Any designation of property to Senior Residential on
the General Plan shall be accompanied by a concurrent
zone change to apply the SR (Senior Residential ) suffix
to the accompanying zoning .
1 .
The Senior Residential land use designation shall only
i be consistent with R2 , R3 and R4 zoning designations
when combined with the SR suffix. The allowable
density of the Senior Residential land use designation
' shall be determined by the underlying zoning and the
size of any density bonus granted. Any request to
remove the SR zoning suffix from property general
planned for Senior Residential shall require a Land Use
Element amendment to a non-Senior Residential land use
designation. Locational criteria for the Senior
Residential land use designation are as follows:
a. proximity to public transportation facilities .
b. proximate or highly accessible to shopping
facilities .
C . proximate or highly accessible to medical
facilities .
2. That 3 . 09 acres located on the west side of Springdale
Street approximately 760 feet south of Edinger Avenue are
redesignated from General Commercial to Senior Residential
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the .18th
day of February 1986.
TEST:
City Clerk Mayor
REVIEWED AND APPROVED: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Administrato �:,Z 12 City AttorneylJ
INITIATED AND APPROVED:
irector of Development
Services
2 .
Res. No. 5639
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss:
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH )
1, 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 18th day
of February 19 86 by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmen:
Kelly, MacAllister, Finley, Mandic, Bailey, Green, Thomas
NOES: Councilmen:
None
ABSENT: Councilmen:
None
City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk
of the City Council of the City
of Huntington Beach, California
0i
` ice } .
�_
AORDINANCE NO. a 1 A
a;
'.AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING
THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ORDINANCE CODE BY AMENDING
SECTION 9061 THEREOF TO PROVIDE FOR CHANGE OF ZONING
FROM OFFICE PROFESSIONAL DISTRICT TO
HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, COMBINED WITH
SENIOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON REAL PROPERTY
GENERALLY LOCATED WEST OF SPRINGDALE STREET,
SOUTH OF EDINGER AVENUE (ZONE CASE NO. 85-15)
WHEREAS, pursuant to the State Planning and Zoning Law, the
Huntington Beach Planning Commission and Huntington Beach City Council
have had separate public hearings relative to Zone Case No. 85-15
wherein both bodies have carefully considered all information
presented at said hearings , and after due consideration of the
findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission and all
evidence presented to said City Council, the City Council finds that
such zone change is proper, and consistent with the general plan,
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington
Beach does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1 . The following described real property, generally
located west of Springdale Street approximately 760 feet south of
Edinger Avenue is hereby changed from R5, "Office Professional
District" to R4-SR, "High Density Residential District combined with
Senior Residential Development" :
The East 4. 00 acres of the South half of the Northeast
quarter of the Northeast quarter of Section 21, Township 5
South, Range 11 West, in the Rancho La Bolsa Chica, the City
of Huntington Beach, County of Orange, State of California,
as per map recorded in Book 51, Page 13 of Miscellaneous
Maps , in the office of the County Recorder of said County.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM the North 150. 00 feet thereof .
SECTION 2 . The Development Services Director is hereby
directed to amend Section 9061 , District Map 24 ( Sectional District
Map 21-5-11) to reflect Zone Case No. 85-15, described in Section 1
hereof .
A copy of said district map, as amended hereby, shall be available for
inspection in the office of the City Clerk .
SECTION 3 . This ordinance shall take effect thirty days
after its adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the day
of 1985.
Mayor
TA KK,
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
r
City Clerk City Attorney
REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED:
City Administrato irec evelopment
Services
a
5
F __3
C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS :
C-1 LAND USE ELEMENT NO. 85-3 (AREA 2. 1 AND ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM
4 . 1 )/ZONE CHANGE NO. 85-15 (CONTINUED FROM DECEMBER 3, 1985
AND JANUARY 7, 1986)
Applicant: Meadowland LTD
This item was continued from the January 7 , 1986 meeting due to tie
votes on the approval of the General Plan designation.
Environmental Impact Report 85-2 was approved, however .
Staff made its presentation . The Planning Commission 's concern at
the January 7 meeting was that if a Medium High Density Residential
land use designation was approved on the site, then the applicant
could apply at a later date to have the SR suffix removed from the
zoning and then build a regular R3 project . The Planning Commission
was looking for some way to guarantee that only a Senior project
would be built on the site .
Staff researched methods of achieving this goal and recommended that
a new General Plan Land Use designation of Medium High Density
Senior Residential be created and then applied to the subject
property. The only zoning which would be consistent with this
designation would be R2 or R3 zoning when combined with the SR
suffix . Any attempt to remove the SR suffix would then require a
concurrent General Plan amendment for a change to a non-Senior
Residential land use designation . Staff feels that this requirement
will provide ample protection from future attempts to build
non-Senior projects and that it will be of value on Area 2 . 1 of this
amendment as well as on future projects in other areas .
In order to implement the new designation staff has added Section
4 . 1 to Land Use Element Amendment 85-3. This new section
administratively creates the new Land Use designation. Creation of
the new designation has been advertised under Negative Declaration
No. 86-1 . To approve this designation the Planning Commission will
need to open the Public Hearing on Area 4 . 1 of the amendment and
approve the Negative declaration.
Since the Land Use Element Amendment and EIR 85-2 have always
addressed the possibility of a Medium High Density land use
designation and R3 zoning, there is no need to re-process the
document before applying the new Medium High Density Senior
Residential designation to the subject property. There is also no
need to re-open the Public Hearing on Area 2. 1 .
Staff has provided new Resolution 1349 (c ) for adoption of the Medium
High Density Senior Residential land use designation and the
application of that designation to Area 2 . 1 . Staff recommends the
approval of Land Use Element Amendment 85-3 with the adoption of
this resolution.
PC Minutes - 1/22/86 -3- ( 4124d )
For concurrent Zone Change 85-15, staff continues to recommend
approval of (Q)R3-SR zoning through the approval of Zone Case
85-15 (B) . The Q would require Design Review Board approval of the
building plans for the site . Staff further recommends that a second
condition be placed on the Q to limit total units on the site to 114
after a density bonus. Findings for approval of the Zone Change are
contained on Page 4 of the December 3, 1985 Staff Report.
THE PUBLIC HEARING (ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM 4. 1) WAS OPENED
There was no one present to speak for or against Administrative Item
4 .1 and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Porter questioned whether there is a necessity for the
designation of a density. Does the State Code govern the
establishment of these districts?
Mr. Sangster, Attorney, stated that the General Plan sets forth
general parameters but it doesn ' t break things down into specific
zoning districts . Our own zoning code, Division 9, establishes the
districts in the different general plan areas . (Example : General
Plan may be residential, our code would break it down to R1, R2, R3
or add the Q, etc. )
Commissioner Porter then asked if there is a designation for Senior
Residential? Does the State require that there be a density
designation? Can Senior Residential be an area designation in the
General Plan irrespective of the density that is going to apply?
Mr . Sangster, Attorney, replied that it has been the normal practice
in general planning to apply some density guidelines to General Plan
areas .
Hal Simmons , Staff, stated that in the residential land use
designations in the General Plan, each designation does specify
density limits . There isn' t anything, however, that prevents one
from establishing a senior residential designation. There are other
designations that are not intensity specific.
Commissioner Porter asked if there was a provision in the State Code
that requires that residential intensity be specified in some form.
"This designation should be broad as opposed to narrow. "
Mr . Sangster replied that the General Plan statute in the Government
Code does_ not require that density be pinpointed, but instead can be
merely a general guideline .
Mr . Livengood explained that the resolution was doing two things .
It is establishing a new Medium-High Density Senior Residential Land
Use Designation and , as a trailer on that , the 3 .09 acres located on
the westside of Springdale Street would be given that designation.
It should be a two-step process. One step would be a resolution to
establish the new designation "Medium High Density - Senior
PC Minutes - 1/22/86 -4- ( 4124d)
Residential" and the second step would be to determine if that is
what we want for that acreage . These are being tied into together
and they are two different decision making processes .
Commissioner Winchell questioned the verbage of any of the land use
designations . Does it state which zones are compatible with that
land use designation? If we show a Senior Residential Land Use
Designation, can we show which zones ( i .e. , R1 , R2, R3 or R4 ) are
compatible with it? Would it be decided which zone we put on a
particular piece of property at the zoning level? . If so, it leaves
it entirely open to the zoning discretion and then at the time that
the project comes for a conditional use permit there would be a
discussion as to whether there would be a density bonus. Do you see
any impact in doing it in this matter?
Jeanine Frank , staff, replied, "We had not considered leaving it
that flexible but it can be done that way. We considered that a
Medium or Medium-High density designation would be compatible with
the Medium-High Senior Residential suffix but we could place just a
Senior Residential District in the General Plan rather than tying it
down to a density if you prefer to have that flexibility.
Commissioner Schumacher wanted to clarify her interpretation which
follows : "If we do a Land Use Amendment , where we take existing
property and change it to R2 or R3 with an SR ( Senior Residential )
suffix on it, in the future if that developer cannot develop that
senior housing project, it goes all the way back to square one.
What will it revert to?
Staff replied: " If the developer wants to remove the SR he has to
come in for a general plan amendment (which would include- a public
hearing and approximately a 4-month process) .
Commissioner Schumacher felt that this would give the protection
that the Commission was looking for .
Commissioner Porter recommended that two separate resolutions be
adopted as opposed to having them both combined on one. Two would
be more appropriate.
MOTION WAS MADE BY PORTER, SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR TO APPROVE
ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM 4 .1 BY ADOPTING RESOLUTION 1349, WHEREAS THE
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENT TO THE LAND
USE AMENDMENT - THAT A NEW SENIOR RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION BE
ESTABLISHED, AND STRIKE THE MEDIUM DENSITY.
Erskine questioned why Mr. Porter wanted Medium Density struck out
prior to the Senior Residential .
Porter replied, "To indicate that Senior Residential is compatible
with all residential zoning. "
PC Minutes - 1/22/86 -5- (4124d)
Commissioner Erskine questioned whether future Planning Commissions
or City Councils would understand what these words meant . He felt
that it should be worded in equivalent land use language so that
someone looking at this in the future would know what it meant.
Commissioner Schumacher feels that two different resolutions were
needed, whereas a Senior Residential land use designation is being
created. An ' explanation should be included in the resolution
describing the Senior Residential land use designation. She would
like to see this resolution made very clear, so that any attempt to
remove the SR would force the developer to start over .
Staff was requested to prepare, for approval , a second resolution
that would address only the creation of the Senior Residential land
use designation and then add that wording to the resolution,
explaining what the new designation does, and then transfer the
wording from the amendment into the resolution.
Chairman Livengood, entered for the record, the resolution prepared
by the concerned residents . Their feelings were that seniors should
be locked into not more than Medium Density because it would allow
more impact to the neighborhood.
MOTION WAS MADE BY PORTER, SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR TO APPROVE
ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM 4 . 1 BY ADOPTING RESOLUTION 1349 WITH SENIOR
DESIGNATION, WITH ADDITIONAL WORDING TO BE TAKEN FROM SECTION 4 . 1 OF
THE LAND USE ELEMENT 85-3 CLARIFYING THE OPERATION OF THE SENIOR
RESIDENTIAL LAND USE DESIGNATION BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES : Rowe, Winchell , Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter ,
Mirjahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
MOTION PASSED
Chairman Livengood suggested that the Commission approach the
following items in this order : First, look at the conceptual plan
for the proposed Meadowland Project for Seniors on Springdale and
determine the number of units to allow for that project and then
back into the other items that need taken care of ( Land Use Element
85-3, Item 2 .1 , and Zone Change 85-15 ) .
Staff reminded Chairman Livengood that the Commission also had to
approve Negative Declaration 86-1 .
PC Minutes - 1/22/86 -6- ( 4124d )
MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD SECOND BY SCHUMACHER TO APPROVE LAND
USE ELEMENT 85-3 WITH NEGATIVE DECLARATION 86-1 BY THE FOLLOWING
VOTE:
AYES: Rowe, Winchell , Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter ,
Mirjahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
MOTION PASSED
Chairman Livengood asked staff for clarification on a Preliminary
Soils Report regarding the water level which was submitted by the
applicant .
Staff explained that the applicant commissioned a report on the site
and that the report indicated that the water level was below the
level proposed for the subterranean garage. Testing went to a depth
of 16 to 17 feet below grade . There was also a lab test to
determine the compressibility of soils between 10 feet and 17 feet
to determine what kind of footings would be required.
Commission Livengood also questioned staff concerning the sewers in
that area and the impact that this project would have on them.
Staff stated that the Sanitation District felt that since this is a
seniors project and the density is lower in a senior project that it
would not be a problem.
A straw vote was then taken to see what size project the Commission
wanted to allow for this site . The applicant is requesting 148
units with subterranean parking. The staff is recommending 114 with
surface parking.
The majority of the Commissioners preferred 114 units with surface
parking . They felt that this would be the best protection for the
residents in that area .
Commissioner Rowe, questioned the estimate of the intensity of use .
It was explained to him that a survey was taken of other senior
projects in the State and other states . It is estimated that only
20% of the units in a project such as this will be occupied by 2
people .
PC Minutes - 1/22/86 -7- (4124d )
A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCHUMACHER, SECOND BY ERSKINE TO APPROVE AREA
2 . 1 , REDESIGNATING THE 3 . 09 ACRES LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF
SPRINGDALE STREET APPROXIMATELY 760 FEET SOUTH OF EDINGER AVENUE
FROM GENERAL COMMERCIAL TO SENIOR RESIDENTIAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE :
AYES : Rowe, Winchell , Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter,
Mirjahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
MOTION PASSED
Chairman Livengood asked staff what the recommendation was on the
zone change.
Staff ' s recommendation was Q-R3-SR. Staff also recommended that
wording be added for conditions on the "Q" to require Design Review
Board approval of the construction drawings for the project, and to
establish a maximum number of units of 114 after a density bonus .
MOTION WAS MADE BY SCHUMACHER SECOND BY WINCH'ELL TO APPROVE ZONE
CHANGE 85-15 WITH ADDED CONDITIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES : Rowe , Winchell , Schumacher , Livengood, Erskine , Porter ,
Mirjahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
MOTION PASSED
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF ZONE CHANGE 85-15 :
1 . The proposed zone change is consistent with the General Plan
Land Use Designation as recommended for amendment by the
Planning Commission.
2 . The proposed zone change will be compatible with adjacent
properties upon approval of a Conditional Use Permit for the
proposed project.
3 . The capacities of the City and County water, sewer, and storm
drain systems are adequate or will be adequate to accommodate
the proposed increase in density as well as all other planned
land uses in the ara .
4 . The proposed increase in density will not have a significant
adverse impact on traffic volumes and road capacities, school
enrollments, and recreational resources .
5. The character of the surrounding area is not adversely impacted
nor the overall intent of the general plan sacrificed.
PC Minutes - 1/22/86 -8- ( 4124d)
Staff recommended the following changes to the Developer Agreement :
Responsibilities of Participant - A. Should read. . .With appropriate
City approval , participant shall be allowed to build a maximum of
one hundred fourteen ( 114) Senior Citizens rental units. . .
Provision of Affordable Units - 1 . Should read. . .With appropriate
City approval, participant shall be allowed to provide a maximum of
thirty-eight (38 ) affordable units in addition to the seventy-six
( 76 ) market rate units . . . . . .
2 . Should read. . . Participant shall establish a means to insure,
with City Council , that said units remain affordable for thirty ( 30 )
years.
MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR TO APPROVE
CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPER AGREEMENT IN CONCEPT, AS AMENDED, AND RECOMMEND
IT TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES : Rowe, Winchell , Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter ,
Mirjahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
MOTION PASSED
C-2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-64
Applicant : Avelma Zeno
Conditional Use Permit No . 85-64 is a request to add a second unit
to an existing single family home generally located on the north
side of Slater Avenue, east of Beach Boulevard . A revised site plan
was submitted by the applicant on January 22 , 1986, removing the
greenhouse and closet in the. den.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS:
Pursuant to the environmental regulations in effect at this time the
subject request is categorically exempt from the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED
Mr . Zeno, the applicant , was present to speak in support of the
project and to answer any questions . He stated that he has lived in
the subject residence since 1963 with his father and mother. His
father recently passed away. He is getting married shortly and is
planning to continue living in the residence . The house is being
remodeled so that the residence can be shared, allowing privacy for
both his mother and for himself and his new bride . He submitted new
plans, for staff 's review, eliminating the greenhouse and closet in
the den, originally included on his plans .
PC Minutes - 1/22/86 -9- ( 4124d )
C. ITEMS FOR PUBLIC HEARING
C-1 LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 85-3/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT NO. 85-2/ZONE CHANGE NO. 85-15
Applicant: Meadowland LTD
At the December 3 , 1985 Planning Commission meeting, Land Use
Element Amendment 85-3/Zone Change 85-15 was continued to January 7 ,
1986 so that renderings of how alternative types of development
would appear could be prepared . The applicant has prepared
renderings for a development of 48 four-plexes , a development of 45
townhomes , and a 100 ,000 square foot office . The applicant has also
prepared a comparative analysis of bulk , population, vehicle trips ,
and construction costs for the alternative development.
Staff has reviewed these comparative analysis and feels that it is
reasonably accurate . The bulk and population analysis indicates
that the higher density senior apartment projects are very similar
to the R2 projects in terms of potential impacts on the surrounding
neighborhood and the office projects would have greater impacts .
The applicant has also revised the site plan for the 114 unit
project as recommended by staff . Though it does still need some
adjustment to meet code we feel that it adequately addresses the
neighborhood concerns regarding privacy and aesthetics . Staff feels
that a 114 unit project is a good proposal for the site and is
continuing to recommend approval .
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS:
Environmental documentation for Area 2 . 1 may be found in the
Amendment document which also serves as Environmental Impact Report
No . 85-2 . The EIR was posted for a 45-day review period ending
December 2 , 1985 . Review agency and public comments , as well as
staff responses, will, constitute the Final EIR when transmitted to
the City Council . These items are incorporated in the addendum and
appendix portions of the report . Zone Change No. 85-15 is also
covered by EIR 85-2.
Staff referred the Commissioners to Resolution 1349B for approval of
Medium-High density. Staff further recommended that Zone Change
85-15 be approved for a change of zone to Qualified Medium High
Density Residential . The "Q" would require Design Review Board
approval of the project . Staff further recommended that the zone
change ordinance be amended to include a maximum unit count of 114
unitrs also under the "Q" .
Staff suggested that action be taken in the following order :
1 . EIR 85-2
2. Land USe Element Amendment 85-3 (Resolution 1349B)
3 . Zone Change 85-15
PC Minutes - 1/7/86 -3- (4051d)
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED
Dan Neveau, principal on the project, spoke in favor of the
project . He addressed problems on traffic, size, privacy, site
problems , and underground parking. Alternative options for
comparison were discussed.
Jeanie Sager , Emerald Cove principal , spoke in favor of a senior
housing project . She pointed out that many seniors were turned away
because of.- lack of space at Emerald Cove and pointed out that our
community needs more senior projects .
Richard Short, homeowner on adjacent property, spoke against the
project . He had a list of 38 homeowners also against the project
and said that they were available to speak if needed. He listed the
problems of the homeowners which included high density, traffic, and
privacy. He feels that a soil survey needs to be completed and a
zoning limit set.
Lance Berry spoke against. the Meadowland project . Said the zoning
should be low density.
Elizabeth Short, homeowner , spoke against the project . She
supported a senior project but felt that this project was not
beneficial to the neighboring residents .
Katherine Berry, resident, said she was in favor of a senior project
but was against the proposed plan at this site.
Mike Rogers , Council on Aging, spoke in favor of the project . Our
community has a real need for housing for seniors with private
financing. This project is affordable and is a good start for
seniors in this area . Its location is near medical facilities , near
shopping and churches , and has a good transportation system nearby .
Todd Olson , resident , questioned whether this projects would really
be affordable to most seniors with rents approximated at $525 to
$700 per month .
Ho-Van-Cao questioned why R5 was being changed. Why is the
Commission allowing this change?
Dan Neveau reiterated that intensity is the issue and that senior
projects are less intense . This is a privately funded project not a
federally funded project .
There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal and
the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Livengood pointed out that what the Commission had to
consider here was an existing R5 zoning which would allow a building
with a 10 foot setback , with approximately 100 ,000 square feet and a
height of 35 feet . The applicant is asking for a 148 unit senior
complex and staff is recommending 114 units . He asked members of
the Commission for their comments.
PC Minutes - 1/7/86 -4- ( 4051d )
Commissioner Winchell stated that she felt the Commission was
dealing with an existing Land Use Designation which allows office
professional . The applicant is requesting high density and the
staff is recommending medium high density. The General Plan is more
binding than just making a zone change and it says nothing about
seniors or number of units . This project is residential versus
office profesional . What best benefits the City? The City needs a
compromise . A project like this needs to be economically feasible
for a developer without lining his pockets . We need a reasonable
project for the adjacent neighbors and one that also satisfies the
needs of the City for more senior housing
Commissioner Schumacher feels that the General Plan needs to be
flexible . The City needs more senior housing. Additional office
space is not needed and that the Commission must look at intensity
not just density with the least amount of impacts .
Commissioner Erskine feels that senior housing is needed and another
office project is not . He asked if the General Plan could be
conditioned so that it would require only senior housing.
Mr . Godfrey, staff, .stated that such mechanisms have never been
incorporated in this City but he has seen it done in other
communities . The zoning could be conditioned .
Commissioner Porter recommended that we designate this project
Medium Density and add the Senior Residential suffix. He felt that
the project could be situated on the parcel to minimize the
intrusion in the adjacent neighborhood.
Commissioner Mirjahangir stated that he would support residential
over commercial . He felt the question to be considered was the
number of units to be allowed.
Commissioner Livengood agrees with a senior residential: project . He
feels that it would be the best for the neighborhood. He is not in
favor of subterranean parking. He is concerned about the soils
condition and the impact of subterranean parking. He would prefer a
compromise of fewer units with surface parking and better
landscaping.
There were no other comments from the Commissioners .
Chairman Livengood asked that they take action first on the EIR.
There were some questions concerning some statements in the EIR:
Page 8 to read: Development of site. for office professional uses
would be consistent with existing R5 zoning. The site could
accommodate a 100 ,000 square foot office building with a maximum of
35 foot height and 3 stories .
The staff report regarding asbestos , which is a concern on this
project , should be incorporated into the EIR.
PC Minutes - 1/7/86 -5- (4051d)
Environmental checklist: Item 1 - Earth . Will the proposal result
in unstable earth conditions or changes in geological structures .
The answer should be listed as maybe .
Explanations Yes and Maybe on the EIR - Item 11 : The proposal will
result in approximately 200 additional people residing in the area .
Is this a correct statement based on the proceedings . Staff was
comfortable with this figure .
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR TO APPROVE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 85-2 WITH AMENDMENTS BY THE
FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Winchell , Schumacher , Livengood, Erskine, Porter ,
Mirjahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT: Rowe
ABSTAIN: None
MOTION PASSED
Chairman Livengood then called for a discussion on the Land Use
Element Amendment and the Zone Change .
Commissioner Porter asked staff if the plan for 114 units had been
reviewed and would it fit on this parcel .
Staff stated that they had done a preliminary plan check and that
there were some minor problems but that the project can be made
workable.
It was recommended that the General Plan be changed to a Medium
Density Residential designation, and that the unit count could be
made higher with a density bonus for senior housing and affordable
housing. A discussion ensued as to whether the General Plan could
be changed . What type of use do we want on this property. Could
there be conditions set on the Land Use Designation?
Mr . Sangster , City Attorney, stated that the Land Use Element could
be conditioned but there were limits as to how many times changes
could be made each year .
Staff feels that Q-R3-SR is workable and that a project could be
built that would include only senior housing, with conditions placed
very carefully in the zone change.
PC Minutes - 1/7/86 -6- (4051d )
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR TO APPROVE
LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 85-3 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF TO
MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Schumacher , Erskine, Mirjahangir
NOES: Winchell , Livengood, Porter
ABSENT: Rowe
ABSTAIN: none
MOTION FAILED
A MOTION WAS MADE BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY PORTER TO APPROVE LAND
USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. . 85-3 WITH LAND USE DESIGNATION CHANGED TO
MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Winchell, Livengood, Porter
NOES: Schumacher , Erskine, Mirjahangir
ABSENT: Rowe
ABSTAIN: None
MOTION FAILS
This item was automatically continued to the next regular meeting or
a date agreed upon by the Commission.
Staff was directed to tape this portion of the meeting so that
Commissioner Rowe could review it before the next meeting.
A MOTION MADE BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR TO CONTINUE THIS
ITEM TO THE JANUARY 22 , 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING BY THE
FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Winchell , Schumacher , Livengood, Porter , Erskine,
Mirjahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT: Rowe
ABSTAIN: None
MOTION PASSED
C-2 SIGN CODE AMENDMENT NO. 84-11
Applicant : City of Huntington Beach
On November 19 , 1985 , the Planning Commission opened the public
hearing on the proposed sign code amendment and continued the item
until January 7 , 1986 . At the study session on December 10 , 1985 ,
it was determined that this item should be continued until March 4 ,
1986 , in order for more time to work on the code amendment.
In order to avoid making any wall signs that -conform to the existing
Sign Code nonconforming due to size, staff is willing to modify the
draft ordinance so that there is no change in the regulations; that
is, the 1 .5 to 1 .0 ratio will remain as is,
PC Minutes - 1/7/86 -7- (4051d )
There being no- further- testimony, the public hearing was closed .
The Commission reviewed the application and concluded continuing the
request for additional information from the attorney's office
regarding the sale of alcohol ,-, and to request a new modified
conceptual site plan be submitted based on the one submitted with
Conditional Use Permit No. 85-14 .
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY PORTER TO .CONTINUE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 84-30 TO THE DECEMBER 17 , 1985 PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Rowe , Winchell , Schumacher , Livengood, Erskine, Porter ,
Mirjahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
MOTION PASSED
C-3 LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 85-3/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT NO. 85-2/ZONE CHANGE NO. 85-15
Applicant : Meadowland LTD
On November 19 , 1985, the Planning Commission opened the public
hearing on Land Use Element 85-3 (Area 2 .1 )/Environmental Impact
Report 85-2/Zone Change 85-15 in order to take public testimony and
continue the hearing to December 3 , -1985 for action pending the
December 2 , 1985, expiration of the 45-day EIR review period. In
the time since the November 19 public hearing, staff has researched
additional aspects of Land Use Element 85-3 (Area 2 . 1 ) and
Environmental Impact Report 85-2 .
In addition to. Area 2 . 1 , staff had indicated that resolutions and
ordinances would be submitted to the Planning Commission on December
3 , 1985 for eleven Administrative Items ( Areas 3 .1-3 .11 ) and zone
changes intended to establish consistency between the General Plan
and zoning . During preparation of the zone changes staff determined
that there are a number of significant issues regarding these areas
which should be further discussed by the Planning Commission prior
to processing of zone changes . For this reason , staff has withdrawn
Administrative Items 3 . 1-3 . 11 from Land Use Element Amendment 85-3 .
It is staff ' s suggestion that these items be brought back to the
Planning Commission in early 1986 as a separate discussion item
prior to actual processing.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS:
Environmental documentation for Area 2 . 1 may be found in the
Amendment document which also serves as Environmental Impact Report
No . 85-2 . The EIR was posted for a 45-day review period ending
December 2 , 1985 . Review agency and public comments , as well as
staff responses , will constitute the Final EIR when transmitted to
the Citv Council . Those items are incorporated in the addendum and
appendix port i can:; of t-he report . ?one Change No. 85-15 is also
P . C . _ December :3 , 11)85 -5- ( 3895d )
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED
Alan Degenhardt, applicant , spoke in support of the project .
Don Hartfelder addressed himself to the Commission as the archetect
for the senior project commenting that if the Commission had any
questions about the design of the building he was available for
questions .
Herman Blair resident of the proposed area spoke in opposition to
the project stating wthis area should remain residential
Dean Albright spoke in opposition to the proposed amendment and zone
change .
Michael Spognoli spoke in opposition to the proposed amendment and
zone change stating the reason he moved into the neighborhood was
because it was zoned R5 .
Suellen Crossno spoke in opposition. to the proposed amendment and
zone change expressing concern about the traffic and high density.
Louise Morton spoke in opposition to the proposed amendment and zone
change commenting that residents with back yards will no longer have
any privacy.
Richard Short spoke in opposition to the proposed amendment and zone
change expressing concern about the abandoned asbestos plant .
Tracy Berry spoke in opposition to the proposed amendment and zone
change commenting that she walks to school and is concerned that the
traffic this project creates will be dangerous as far as walking and
crossing the street .
William Berry spoke in opposition to the proposed amendment and zone
change .
Mr . Ho Van Cao spoke in opposition to the proposed amendment and
zone change.
Tod Ohlson spoke in opposition to the proposed amendment and zone
change .
Cynthia Doe spoke in support of the proposed Senior Citizen
development .
There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed .
The Commission discussed the current zoning and the impact of the
proposed zone change . Commissioner Porter commented that the
.residents in this area had faith that this would remain R5 .
The Commission discussed the density proposed for the senior citizen
project stating that it was to high , adding that lower densities may
be economically viable.
P .C . December 3 , 1985 -6- ( 3895d )
Commissioner Erskine requested a specific development plan .
Commissioner Schumacher suggested an alternate plan with a lower
number of units proposed.
Chairman Livengood requested a continuance for staff to look at
plans for alternatives of R5 , R3 , and R2 .
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY PORTER TO CONTINUE LAND
USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 85-3/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO.
85-2/ZONE CHANGE NO. 85-15 TO JANUARY 7 , 1985 FOR ALTERNATIVES BY
THE FOLLOWING VOTF:
AYES : Rowe , Winchell , Schumacher , Livengood, Erskine, Porter ,
Mirjahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
MOTION PASSED
C-4 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 85-17
Applicant : City of Huntington Beach
The Planning Commission continued this item from the meeting of
November 19 , 1985, in order to allow the ordinance to be clarified
in that it limits the additional site coverage over 50 percent to
dwelling units with a maximum of two-stories .
In addition , the Commission wanted any reference to requiring a deed
restriction deleted from the ordinance . The revised ordinance ,
prepared by the City Attorney 's office , is attached.
3 . 0 ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS:
The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of
the California Environmental Quality Act .
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED
There being no testimony, the public hearing was closed .
A MOTION WAS MADE BY PORTER AND SECOND BY ERSKINE TO APPROVE CODE
AMENDMENT NO. 85-17 AND RECOMMEND ADOPTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL BY
THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES : Rowe , Winchell , Schumacher , Livengood , Erskine, Porter ,
Mirjahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
MOTION PASSED
P.C . December 3 , 1985 -7- (3895d )
C-5 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 85-21
Applicant.-, Citywide
At the November 19 , 1985 meeting, the Planning Commission continued
Code Amendment No. 85-21 and requested a copy of the Vesting
Tentative Map Ordinance, as prepared by the City Attorney's office .
To date , staff has not received an ordinance from the City
Attorney ' s office . Therefore , staff is recommending continuance to
the December 17 , 1985 Planning Commission meeting.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED
There being no testimony, the public hearing was closed .
Florence Webb of staff asked the Commission if they would agree to a
study session to further review this item at 6 : 00 p.m. at the next
regularly scheduled meeting on December 17, 1985 to which the
,Commission agreed .
A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER TO CONTINUE
CODE AMENDMENT NO. 85-21 TO THE DECEMBER 17 , 1985 PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING WITH A STUDY SESSION AT 6: 00 p.m. ON THE SAME
DATE BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES : Rowe , Winchell , Schumacher , Livengood, Erskine, Porter ,
Mirjahangir
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
MOTION PASSED
C-6 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-62
Applicant: Mola Development Corp.
Conditional Use Permit No. 85-62 is a request by the Mola
Development Corp. to permit adult dancing and live entertainment
within Franco ' s Restaurant located at 17041 Beach Boulevard . The
live entertainment will consist of a disc jockey and/or band with a
185 square foot dance floor . Franco ' s Restaurant is located within
Charter Center , a commercial/office complex consisting of three
restaurants , one health spa, and a 14-story office building,
theatre, and parking structure . Franco 's Restaurant is located
between the 14-story building and Chili 's Restaurant fronting on
Beach Boulevard .
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS :
The proposed project is exempt pursuant to Class 1 Section 15301
from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act .
P.C . December 3 , 1985 -8- ( 3895d )
6. The existing fr ,tanding sign shall be re ed .
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1 . A site plan and elevation shall be submitted to the Department
of Development Services for a 60 square foot monument sign .
2. The proposed 60 square foot monument sign shall be subject to
the review and approval of the Director of Development
Services .
3 . All illegal banners and flags shall be removed .
4. The existing freestanding ground sign shall be removed
concurrently with the installation of the monument sign .
C-15 LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 85-3 (AREA 2. 1) /ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT NO. 85-2/ZONE CHANGE NO. 85-15
Applicant : City of Huntington Beach
General Plan Land Use Element Amendment No . 85-3 addresses one
private request (Area 2. 1 ) and eleven City-initiated amendments
intended to establish consistency between the General Plan and
existing zoning and developed densities . EIR 85-3 addresses only
Area 2. 1 and the City-initiated amendments are treated as
Administrative Items .
Since staff is still preparing and has not yet advertised the eleven
zone changes for the Administrative Items , this public hearing is
intended to address only Area 2 . 1 and Zone Change No . 85-15 .
Further , the 45-day public review period for EIR 85-2 will not
expire until December 2, 1985 so the Planning Commission cannot take
action on any portion of the amendment until December 3, 1985 . The '
November 19 , 1985 public hearing is intended only for the Planning
Commission to review and receive comments on Area 2. 1 so that they
will be prepared to make a decision on it on December 3, 1985 .
Staff will also have the additional concurrent zone changes prepared
and. advertised for action on December 3, 1985 .
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED
Dean Albright of the Huntington Beach Environmental Board spoke in
opposition to the proposed amendment and zone change .
Mary Rena commented that she has lived in the area for 25 years and
spoke in opposition of the proposed amendment and zone change .
Allen Degenhardt , applicant proposing senior citizen project , spoke
in support of the proposed amendment and zone change and his
.proposal for an affordable housing project for senior citizens .
Suellen Crossno spoke in opposition to the proposed amendment and
zone change .
a
P. C. November 19, 1985 -19- (3885d )
Richard Short , spoke in opposition to the proposed amendment and
zone change.
There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed .
Commissioner Schumacher asked why the General Plan Amendment was so
project specific
Hal Simmons of staff responded that the SR zoning code requires the
submittal of a conceptual development plan at the time of filing a
zone°- change .
Commissioner Erskine suggested that the applicant work closer with
the neighborhood .
Commissioner Winchell commented that the neighborhood needs to
realize that the General Plan Amendment is general and specific
development problems will be addressed late .
Chairman Livengood suggested a comparison be done with -existing R5
zoning in terms of heights , setbacks etc.
Commissioner Erskine agreed with Chairman Livengood recommending
continuance .
The Commission asked about the EIR. Commissioner Winchell stated
that the EIR should adress soils conditions . Hal Simmons of staff
stated that staff was still receiving comments . =
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERKSINE AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER TO CONTINUE
LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 85-3 (AREA 2 . 1 )/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT NO. 85-2/ZONE CHANGE NO. 85-15 TO THE DECEMBER 3, 1985
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Rowe, Winchell ,- Schumacher , Livengood, Erskine, Porter ,
Mirjahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
MOTION PASSED
C-16 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 85-22/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 85-63
Applicant: City of Huntington Beach
A request to increase the required parking for senior residential
projects developed pursuant . to the -SR suffix .
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED
There being no testimony, the . public hearing was closed.
P .C. November 19 , 1985 -20- (3885d)
i
Publish 2/5/86
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING V ��
LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO 85-3/ENVIRONMTAL IMPACT REPORT 85-2
NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO 86-1 ZONE CHANGE NO 85-15 O
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Huntington Beach City Council will hold a
public hearing in the Council Chamber at the Huntington Beach Civic
Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, on the date and
at the time indicated below to receive and consider the statements of all
persons who wish to be heard relative to the application described below.
DATE: Tuesday, February 18, 1986
TIME: 7:30 P.M.
IDENTIFICATION NUHBER: Land Use Element Amendment No. 85-3,
Environmental Impact Report No. 85-2, Negative
Declaration No. 86-1 and Zone Change No. 85-15.
LOCATION: West side of Springdale Street, 760 feet south of Edinger
Avenue.
PROPOSAL: Land Use Element Amendment No. 85-3 is an amendment to the
General Plan which covers the following items:
Area 2.1- A request by Meadowland Ltd. to change the Land
Use designation on 3.09 acres of property located on the
west side of Springdale Street, 760 feet south of Edinger
Avenue from General Commercial to High Density
Residential. An alternative Land Use designation is Senior
Residential as. established by Administrative Item 4.1 of
Land Use Element Amendment No. 85-3.
Administrative Item 4.1 is a request by the City of
Huntington Beach to create a new General Plan Land Use
designation for Senior Residential. This designation will
only be consistent with Rl, R2, R3 and R4 zoning when those
districts are combined with the SR (Senior Residential)
suffix. Although Land Use Element Amendment 85-3 is
covered by EIR 85-2, Administrative Item 4.1 has been
determined by staff to have no adverse impact on the
environment and is therefore advertised under Negative
Declaration No. 86-1.
Zone Change No. 85-15 is being processed concurrently with
Area 2.1 of Land Use Element Amendment 85-3/EIR 85-2. This
request by Meadowland Ltd. is to change the zoning from R5
(Office Professional) to R4-SR (High Density-Senior
Residential, with density bonus to allow a total of 148
units at 48 units per acre) on 3.09 acres of property
located on the west side of Springdale Street, 760 feet
south of Edinger Avenue. An alternative zone is (Q) R3-SR
(Qualified Medium High Density Senior-Residential, with
density bonus to allow a total of 114 units at 37 units per �f
acre.
O
ENVIRONKENTAL. STATUS: Environmental Impact Report 85-2 assesses the
environmental impact of the proposed Land Use
Element Amendment 85-3/Area 2.1/Zone Change
85-15. Negative Declaration 86-1 covers
Administrative Item 4.1 of Land Use Element
Amendment 85-3.,
ON FILE: Documents and a legal description regarding this proposal
are on file in the Development Services Office.
ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express
opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined
above. All applications, exhibits, and descriptions of this proposal are
on file with the Office of the City Clerk, 2000 Main Street, Huntington
Beach, California, for inspection by the public.
HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL
By: Alicia M. Wentworth
City Clerk
Phone (714) 536-5405
Dated 2/3/86
:.u:;. :rt.J IC f. L1 .:�ti_rl _•-: ,•(� ;i! f.r:,C; i. _!u c pALbG r ��
ncticcs by C�,crco of It.o $v,vrior Court of Or3r.go County, GOU
C31,tornia, rlurnLpr A•62f4. Calcd 29 Sepicmbor, 1961, and t
A-24831,.dalod 11 June, 1963. �V, 1/��1
'" N-
STATE OF.CALIFORNIA yyit�
ministrative Item 4.1 is,
cCounty of Orange P.,nt¢ Not" Ao"etry coveed arequestbytheCitcreatey of Hunt-
ounty ^+: ington Beach to create a,
by by tnn r•Maw" AS 541 rn y POWd new General Plan land Use
.rtth 10 Dru CCA+rT+^wiCtlt designation for Senior Rest-
dential.This designation will
only be consistent with R1,
R2, R3 and R4 zoning when
�} tr.i am a Citizen of-the_United States and a resident of ' those districts are combinedwith the SR(Senior Residen•
the County aforesaid; i am over the age of eight PUBLIC NOTICE Use suffix. Although Land
g _ 9 � • use Element Amendment
NOTICE OF 85-3 is covered by EIR 85-2,
years. and not a party to or interested the below PUBLIC HEARING Administrative Item 4.1
LAND USE ELEMENT has been determined by
entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of the Orange AMENDMENT NO 85-3/ staff.to have no adverse Im-
ENVIRONMENTAL pact on the environment and
Coast DAILY PILOT. with which is combined the -. IMPACT REPORT 85-2 Is therefore advertised
NEGATIVE DECLARATION under Neg6Np Declaration
NEWS-PRESS. a'newspaper of general circulation. NO86-1/ZONE No.864.
CHANGE NO 85-15 Zone Change No.85-15 is
printed and-published in the City o a'f Costa Mesa. NOTICE IS HEREBY being processed concurrent-
GIVEN GIVEN that the Huntington ly with Area 2.1 of Land Use
Count of Orange. State of. California. and that a Beach City Council will hold ' Element Amendment
y g a public hearing in the Coun- 85-3/EIR 85-2.This request
PUBLIC HEARING cif Chamber at the Hunt- by Meadowland Ltd. is to
Notice of ington Beach Civic Center, change the zoning from R5
- 2000 Main Street, Hunt- (Office Professional) to R4-
ington Beach,California,on SR (High Density-Senior
the date and at the time in- Residential, with density
= dicated below to receive and bonus to allow a total of 148
consider th statements of all units at 48 units per acre)on
of which copy attached hereto is a true and complete, persons who wish to be 3.09 acres of property
heard relative to the appli- located on the west side of
copy, was printed and published in the Costa Mesa' ration described below. Springdale Street, 760 feet
DATE: Tuesday, Fevruary south of Edinger Avenue.An
Newport Beach, Huntington Beach, Fountain Valley, 18,1986 alternative zone is(Q)R3-ST
TIME:7:30 P.M. (Qualified Medium High
I D E N T I F I C A T 10 N Density Senior-Residential,
Irvine. the South Coast communities and Laguna NUMBER: Land Use Ele- with density bonus to allow a
9 t i ment Amendment No.85-3, total of 114 units at 37 units
Beach issues of said newspaper for Environmental Imm7epact Re-I per acre.
port No.85-2,Negative Dec- ENVIRONMENTAL
XI9msa=fivgkwfteM to Wit the issue(s) of laration No. 86-1 and Zone STATUS:Environmental Im-
Change No.85-15. pact Report 85-2 assesses
LOCATION: West side of' the environmental impact of
Springdale Street, 760 feet the proposed Land Use Ele-
south of Edinger Avenue. m e n t A m e n d m e n t
PROPOSAL: Land Use 85-3/Area 2.1/Zone Change
ration
February 7 Element Amendment No. I86-15coverstive administrative
� t 98 6 85-3 is an amendment to the I
General Plan which covers Item 4.1 of Land Use Ele-i
the following Items: ment Amendment 85-3.
Area 2.1-A request by ON FILE: Documents and
198 Meadowland Ltd.to change d legal description regarding
the Land Use designation on his proposal are on file in
3.09 acres of property I he Development Dervices
located on the west side of Dffice.
198 I Springdale Street, 760 feet ALL INTERESTED PER-1
I south of Edinger Avenue SONS are invited to attend
from Geterat Commercial to said hearing and express, -
High Density Residential.An opinions or submit evidence'
alternative Land Use desig- for or against the application'
98 nation is Senior Residential as outlined above.All appli-'
!as established by Adminis- cations, exhibits, and de-)
Uative Item 4.1 of Land Use scriptions of this proposal
198 Element Amendment No. are on file with the Office of
185-3. the City Clerk, 2000 Main
Street, Huntington Beach„
California,for inspection by
the public.
HUNTINGTON 13EACHI
declare, under penalty ofperjury, that the CITY COUNCIL, i y:Clerk,
,
P Y •M.,Wentworth, City Clerk, ,
foregoing is true and correct. P Dated hone(2/3/86-saos
Published Orange Coast
Daily-Pilot February 7, 1986
Executed on February 7 t 198 6
at C s a Mesa, California.
nature -
S� e-
IC 21 (93-1 20-� 6���
Aiiiifir�A iYii !€ii� �n,Erasus � ►'.##�#/aa. a _►� s ��•s• - r
$69 iB ilt 2 ► ' l i st Laths s4�1 out Citclar
H4ve-t1y 'Hulte Co. - } ut'lt t'l toi _�* � � ; 1lun t�gkt�t BeaC r"" v
S02112649� f• :
AP 1 Y4 1I2 27 a
- - ' S t46�422-EMI. ; AP . �46-122-►�;6•'`T' Y
Wayne I Mc Hui ien ` IIe�A -i rt�lt►a x tjcd.
S91$ 5962 iteadowlark Dr. $961 Par Cic1e-
H"tingto-n Beach- Ce fantington Reach, Ca G Huntington Btacht C*
:. 92644 -
AP 00. 146-121-01 E4P too. 146-122-02 AP' NO. 146-I22-I `
ktviki C[cuitA - €1liaat �. UiCh t a r s B. Johnson
5961 '"adevlark Far. 595Z 94adowlact Dr 16191.Chipper Lan,&_`
Bantington Heacix, Ca Huntington Beach, C& Huntington Beatchr :sal if
92649 92.649
AP No. I46-121-02 AP No. 146-112-03 AP ft. 146-123-01
k.yna stanbta Richard Reetna Cleidet L. c'rossno,
5951 Meadowlark Dr .:- - a 5942 Meadowlark Dr. 16201 Chipper Laad
Ratntington Reach, Ca: t Huntington Reach, Ca Huntington Beach Ca
,7b44 92644 9264g
AP No. 146-12.1-03 AP No. 146-122-04 AP too. I46-121-02
eao Ho ban r Ronald B. Stowers William L. Berry , ��M^
16272 Chipper Lane ? 10011 Treebark Cir. 16211 Chipper Lane
iuntington Reach., Ca Westminster, Ca Huntington Beach., ca
92644 92663 92649
AP No. 146'-12.1-04 AP No. 146-I22-05; AP No
_- -------------= ------------------=-------+-----'---'----- ---
Steven D. Bromn ' Patricia Powell Timothy G. Murphy
162.52. Chipper Lane ; 423 Laurel Road 16231 Chipper Lan.e_`-
Huntington. Beach., Ca Yeadon PA Huntingtoa Beach...
92647 - ; 19050 i
AP No. I46:-121-05 AP No. 146-122-06 ; AP No.. 146-123-a!
_ _ _ - - - = - ---- -- - -- ---- -- ------------- -- - - - =
Carley R. Short. Joseph Hrovat John R. Roethlisber€1_ t',r
16242 Chipper Pane 16382 Magellan Dane 16241. Chipper Lane_
Huntington Beach, Car Huntington Reach, Ca- Huntington Beach, Ca
92649 92647 92649
AP No. 146-1.21-06 AP No. 146-12'2-07 AP no. 146-123-05
John. K. Radle �. : Richard L . Bottorff Ruth M. Holt
1622.2 Chipper Lane 591.I Par Circle 16251 Chipper Lane
Huntington Beach Ca Huntington Beach, C& Huntington Beach, Ca
92649 , 92649 92649
AP No. 146-I2I-07 AP No. 146-122-I1 g AP go. 146-123-06
Wart Wai Ku Paul E. Br idgman - Mgoc Sy Tran
10381 Magnolia Ave Ml Par Circle 16271 Chipper Lane
Anaheim, Calif Huntington. Beach, Ca Huntington Beach, Ca
91804 92644
AP lio. 146-121-06, r- 4 AP No. - I46-I22-12 AP No. 146-0223-07
Donald M. Hopking _ John. C-. Barony Walter S. Stewart
16152 Chipper Lane - :- 5941 Par Circle 16272 Fairway Lane
Huntington- Beach-, Cs Huntington Beach, Ca Huntington Beach, Ca
;- 42649 F _ _...+ . 9r2649 92649 - -
AP No. 146-121-OS :. AP No. 245-122•-I3 No. 14b-123-OB
,,: -.
U V LiIT b. 11Ri�iiiQii�t a►s c saw c v b. ws a�as fi a.cp4ra v �. avu a saawra
16262 !airway Lane 5991 Snead Or . 16171 Chipper Lane
auntington. Beach. Ca Huntington beach, Ca Huntington Beach, Ca.
92649 92649 92649
AP No. 146-123-09 AP No. 146-263-12 AP No. 146-265-04
aster Rosemary Shaw Jaial MonshLetehai A a Jacobs rx Asaoc. -
16242 Fairway Lane. 16142 Chipper Lane. P. O. Box 655 _
Huntington Beach Ca Huntington Reach, Ca Laguna Beach, Calif
42649 92649 - 92652
AP No. 146-123-10 AP No. 14.6-263-13 AP No. 146-265-05
John G. Reynertson Edward J. aougeau Robert C. Nc Fadgen
16232 Fairway Lane. 16152 Chipper Land 16151 Chipper Lane
Huntington Beach, Ca Huntington Beach, Cs Huntington Beach, Calif
92649 92649 - .
AP No. 146-123-11 AP No. 146-263-14 AP No. 146-265-06
Daniel R. Prohaska Michael J . Spagnoli Roberta S. Stone
5652 Brighton Dr . 16162 Chipper Lan*. 16261 Angler Lane
Huntington Beach, Ca Huntington. Beach, Ca Huntington Beach, Car ;
92649 92649 92647
AP No. 146-123-12 AP No. 146-263-15 AP No. 146-421-01
George W. Randall Rufus Borne James P. Rodney-
16202 Fairway Lane 8385 Sweetwater Cir 16271 Angler Lane
Huntington Beach, Ca Huntington Beach, Ca Huntington Beach, Ca
92649 92646 92647
AP No . 146-123-13- ` AP No. 146-263-16 ; AP . No. 146-421-02
-;.
Dorothy J . Laurie Carl A. Stutsman Jr . George R. 2ayler
16192 Fairway Lane 515 Lambert Road , 1628.1 Angler Lane
Huntington Beach, Ca Brea, Calif Huntington Beach, Ca
92647 92621 92647
AP No. 146-123-14 AP No. 146-263-18 AP No. 1J6-421-01
Pedro C . Herrera Allied Insulation Inc. Robert D. Elliott
6207 Rome Ave. P. A. Bo: 1068 16291 Angler Lane
Bell, Calif Huntington Beach, Ca Huntington Beach, Ca
90201 92647 92647
AP No. 146-263-09 AP No. 146-263-19 AP No. 146-421-04
Dept. veterans Affairs Douglas C. Wheeler Catherine G. Meurer
5871 Snead Dr . 16152 Fairway Lane 16262 Angler Lane
Huntington Beach Ca- Huntington Beach, Ca Huntington Beach, Ca
92649 92649 92647
AP No. 146-263-10. AP eo. 146-265-01 AP No. 146-422-01
Robert V. Findley Erika Saywrard ,Tune La Sykes
5871 Snead Dr . 16162 Fairway Lane 16272 Angler Lane
Huntington Beach, Ca Huntington Beach, Ca Huntington Beach, Ca
92649 92649 92647
A? D14., ] t6-.63-10 AP go. 146-265-02 . AP �. 446-422-02 - -
David K . Hoffman Jesse Jacobs Stanley L. Blenderma
5881 Snead Drive 16172 !airway Lane 6032 Softpind Drive
Huntington Beach, Ca Huntington Beach, Ca Huntington Beach, Ca
92649 92649
AF NO. 146-263-.11__.... .. AP ho.. 144-:465-0i AP Nn,_.144-S4.A-1D1 =
{
1 F/i�6 svu � • va crsyca •s.. +•.. —
16151 Angler Lanz 6001 Softwind Dr.
Huntington Beach, Ca Huntington Beach, Ca
92647 92647
AP No. 146-501-01 AP No. 146-502-01
Gerald R . Finley Robert A. Norton
16161 Angler Lane 6021 Softwind Drive
Huntington Beach Ca Huntington Beach, Ca -
92647 92647
AP No . 146-501-02 AP No. 146-502-02
henry Melton Robert Cheek
16171 Angler Lane 6031 Softwind Drive
Huntington Beach, Ca Huntington Beach, Ca
92647 92647
A? No . 146-501-03 AP No. 146-502-03
John J . Mc Namara Lloyd R. Hill ;
16181 Angler Lane 6031 Montecito Dr .
Huntington Beach, Ca Huntington Beach, Ca
92647 4 92647
AP No . 146-501-04 AP No. 146-503-31
Bert S . Nakayama Raymond Tourgeman
16 201 Angler Lane 6032 Montec ito Dr .
Huntington Beach, Ca Huntington Beach, Ca
92641 92647
AP No . 146-501-05 AP No. 146-504-01
- - - - - - - -- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - -
Donald R . Charroin Mary S. Tracy
16211 Angier Lane 6031 Palisades or .
Euntington Beach, Ca Huntington Beach, Ca
92647 92647
A? N0. 146-501-46 AP No. 146-504-33
Clif�ord A . Gritz Jacqueline Cordary
16221 Angler Lane 16252 Angler Lane
Huntington Beach , Ca Huntington Beach, Ca
92646 92647
AP No . 146-501-07 AP No. 146-505-01
Carlene L . Lancaster Lamplighter Apartments
16231 Angler Lane 5540 8 2nd Street
Huntington Beach Ca Long Beach, California
92647 92803
AP No. 146-501-08 AP No. 146-511-12
Paul K iyasak i
16241 Angler Lane
Huntington Beach, Ca
92647
AP No. 146-501-09 _
Hermann J. Zimmermann
16251 Angler Lane
Huntington Beach, Ca
92647
AP No. 146-501-10 _ _ .
PLANNING ZONING DM 24
SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP 21-5-11 rr -
CrrY OF RR1��fit -amm mm om ma101 ...�...�. .w•.•a•
HT� � a1pR�W r! •w d.•s r,��r.•r•.. ..
NEU=
�••-RRR �dw—�•..t cow.
rfq ►aA M• Q��► ro+►r-► suss
r.t-a .w ,.!-• � T sn[ .v am sue♦
HL► ►_ TINT T ' BEDAL �.Q .... .. �. ,�..�.. ,
s-.-fe fog •-�• �m �—aa.,r"""
ym u
.-sd
� a » �0 RAN GE COUNTY, CALIFORMA. �.0. ."[ --• n.� �,�.
m-' t HMO ak��ay afar swc+
Off.M. !.rf• . %jxv.zw t•[ 0 LfR 1M.12%0&,S& .di r+wl '�,.•as•a N•Acr
So. •M e+r 2-•-r't :sfr � �•ss cross sncr
.♦l..0% sac s&to-f0.w so,sr-I.tr-$a wa it-f.•.1-t°!7.-to w'.1-20"L •-f-• i1![ b•-7 �T ;y a.rA orsa•v
t1.'t-q"s.�L'Y1l�w-..H.Is��.�►f-7!-\•O•.•.ab•is-, .-•-• �.H .[-�-+r W srw•�o:r wr sa�as+sr
t-a+-% zzry zze 3C sus�..z.ms•s :�
nos
— I C2 R1 l RI '12f RI I Rt RI
f
I Rt i RI +_ RI :1 Rt R1 A
rRf!-. t
1 R 1 R t Ci 2
I = li II RII iR! I Jtt R11 R I
f j ICA
>.[� jj Rt
{ ! F li - I RI
• i I
i —',nf°w RI Rt RI IRt
Lf Rti
C E '
;! m,i i t I i f i 1 i ( 1 ' 4W.w 3R i I�
R11 Al iJ Rt q 31 I`I Rt ion RI I` Rt o RI ti R t I R I RIig
_I
if ``C2 MH RI RI .oaf-ar•RI 4 1 x
RI RI RI J� RI RS C
a
.a sf i q I R2 :e !
R1 RI R3 1� RI I
C2 ARV Rz t MH ; 3
i i
I0 � I 1 � I RI '
R1 �, RCS i I
i 1Cc- R i ! RI
��,•� c RI I RI , i RI .�
RI •. RI
R I rR,
�/IH I R1( RCSq}
R2 i 9 �•k i I' R
I ....ri
i
i 4 3 s R
d i P
1 v W
�2 - ROS
a? p.,o �R4 R, -----'
7
WAMER AVE
L?.ND USE ELEMENT P09ENDMENT 8 5-3 . `J
ZONE C112NGE 85-15
4IDao �
Land Use Element Amendment No. 85-3 , Environmental Impact Report
No. 85-2 , Negative Declaration No. 86-1 and Zone Change No. 85-15.
Land Use Element Amendment No. 85-3 is an amendment to the General
Plan which covers the following items:
Area 2 . 1 - A request by Meadowland Ltd. to change the Land Use
designation on 3. 09 acres of property located on the west side of
Springdale Street, 76.0 feet south of Edinger Avenue from General
Commercial to High Density Residential. An alternative Land Use
designation is Senior Residential as established by Administrative
Item ,4. 1 of Land Use Element Amendment No. 85-3 .
Administrative Item 4.1 is a request by the City of Huntington
Beach to create a new General Plan Land Use designation for Senior
" Residential. This designation will only be consistent with Rl, R2 ,
R3 and R4 zoning when those districts are combined with the SR . (Senior
Residential) suffix. Although Land Use Element Amendment 85-3 is
covered by EIR 85-2 , Administrative Item 4. 1 has been determined by
staff to have no adverse impacts on the environment- and -is therefore .
advertised under Negativ&.-Declaration No. 86-1.
Zone Change No. 85-15 is being processed concurrently with Area 2. 1
of Land Use Element Amendment 85-3/EIR 85-2. The request by Meadow-
land Ltd. is to change the zoning from R5 (Office Professional) to
R4-SR (High Density-Senior Residential, with density bonus to allow
a total: of 151 units at 49 units per acre) on 3. 09 acres of property
located on the west side of Springdale Street, 760 feet south of
Edinger Avenue. An alternative zone is (Q) R3.-SR (Quali,fied Medium
High Density Senior-Residential, with density bonus to allow a total
of, 1.14 units at:'37-.:.units per acre.
tEnvironmental Impact Report 85-2 assesses the enviromental impact of
he proposed Land Use Element Amendment 85-3 Area 2.1/Zone change 85-15.
NP�a�iv� 17Pc�arz��.�ti 86- 1 A.01w;b,1Araitie *ewe 4. ► of CoF 3r-3.
SCRIPT FOR LUE 85-3/EIR 85-2/ND 86-1/ZC 85-15
AGENDA ITEM D2A
MAYOR: THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS GENERAL PLAN LAND USE
ELEMENT AMENDMENT No. 85-3/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
N0, 85-2 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION N0, 86-1. ZONE CHANGE
N0. 85-15 IS ALSO BEING PROCESSED CONCURRENTLY WITH THE
LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT
MAY WE HAVE THE STAFF PRESENTATION AT THIS TIME?
STAFF : (STAFF PRESENTATION .- STAFF WILL PRESENT A REVIEW OF THE
LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE REQUEST)
MAYOR : ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS FROM THE COUNCIL AT THIS TIME?
(COUNCIL COMMENTS)
I WILL NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON LAND USE ELEMENT
AMENDMENT No. 85-3/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT N0. 05-2
AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION N0. 86-1.
4.1 THE FIRST ITEM IS ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM 4,1, A REQUEST
BY THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH TO CREATE A NEW
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION OF SENIOR
RESIDENTIAL. THIS ITEM IS COVERED BY NEGATIVE
DECLARATION N0, 86-1. I WILL NOW CALL FOR PUBLIC
TESTIMONY OF ITEM 4.1
(PUBLIC INPUT)
ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL?
(COUNCIL COMMENTS)
A MOTION (STRAW VOTE) IS IN ORDER REGARDING ITEM 4.1.
(COUNCIL MOTION)
2.1 THE SECOND ITEM IS AREA 2.1, A REQUEST BY MEADOWL AND
LTD. TO REDESIGNATE 3. 09 ACRES LOCATED ON THE WEST
SIDE OF SPRINGDALE STREET APPROXIMATELY 760 FEET
SOUTH OF EDINGER AVENUE FROM GENERAL COMMERCIAL TO
HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. ZONE CHANGE N0. 85-15 IS
BEING PROCESSED CONCURRENTLY WITH THE LAND USE ELEMENT
AMENDMENT AND IS A REQUEST TO REZONE THE SAME 3. 09
ACRE AREA FROM R5 (OFFICE PROFESSIONAL) TO R4-SR (HIGH
DENSITY SENIOR RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT) . I WILL NOW CALL
FOR PUBLIC TESTIMONY ON AREA 2 .1 AND OPEN THE PUBLIC
HEARING ON ZONE CHANGE N0. 85-15.
(PUBLIC INPUT)
SEEING NO ONE FURTHER, I HEREBY CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON
LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT N0. 85-3IENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT No, 85-2/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 86-1 AND ZONE
CHANGE N0, 85-15,
ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL?
(COUNCIL COMMENTS)
A MOTION (STRAW VOTE) IS NOW IN ORDER REGARDING AREA 2.1.
(COUNCIL MOTION)
MOTION TO APPROVE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT N0. 85-2,
MOTION TO APPROVE NEGATIVE DECLARATION N0. 86-1.
MOTION TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 5639 ADOPTING LAND USE ELEMENT
AMENDMENT N0. 85-3.
MOTION TO APPROVE FOR INTRODUCTION ORDINANCE N0. 2821
ADOPTING ZONE CHANGE N0. 85-15.
r
Cj) Cu Ai f tl-zr-;rlRI ' C.
Z I�ZrZC�"� ve�r�4 N
t�3 g1G�q
�• 6 �'�rs � �iM'Zr�ve�
aT3GooLiJ
g16�9
, rr E. Ocea r, 2/t j. �Z.d
ATTACHMENT 7
Petitions submitted by Richard Short on November 19 , 1985
and December 3, 1986 in opposition to LUE 85-3 (Area 2. 1)
and Zone Change 85-15.
� 6f Opp y
C c�r� w► r��'S GY,r,c� p rl e,
belfell
c���pdse�
Ve(rome to
THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
g
t.
A portion of the document you are
viewing contains additional
information that has not been
scanned . For information on how
to view the original , please contact
or visit the City Clerk's Office for
assistance .
2000 Main Street
2nd Floor — City Hall
Huntington Beach CA 92648
(714) 536-5227
ATTACHMENT 8
Petitions submitted by Meadowland Ltd. on November 27 , 1985
in favor of Lue 85-3 (Area 2. 1) and Zone Change 85-15
All 0/pOOPO )l
Iles I h q u o r a nct
�1
14"/ S r) 4clu Oil
Ve(rome to
THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
g
t.
A portion of the document you are
viewing contains additional
information that has not been
scanned . For information on how
to view the original , please contact
or visit the City Clerk's Office for
assistance .
2000 Main Street
2nd Floor — City Hall
Huntington Beach CA 92648
(714) 536-5227
ORANGE COUNTY CONCERN
?, �� Inwstry� Schooling - Housing
Once"-,upon a time the city fathers and one lady. decided
( that Fountain .Valley should just be a bedroom. There co`'y`." �
was to be no big chain stores or malls like Lakewood
rinitiated. They ruled that there can only one be family a Y
to each house regardless the size of the dwelling. ?-%A kal<«
1 yvt d N
Now, twenty five years later the whole concept needs _.I.-
re-evaluating. With some property . values inflated to
over 500% our young people have been forced to live as
far out as 50 to 75 miles- out into the heat and smog.
Our grade schools are closing. The high schools and
colleges in .the area are hurting for enrollments.
A former controller of the' city of .Fountain Valley could ,
not afford -to live locally. University of Irvine pro
-=
fessors can not live here cost-wise. Some time ago we
were told our Chamber of Commerce Manager could not
afford to live in Fountain Valley.
The man who lived next door to me owned a plumbing business .
He actually moved to Elsinore to afford a home for his
young family of four.
IMMEDIATE ACTION NEEDED
The majority of Los Angeles is looking at our empty school
buildings with an eye to mass bussing. We need to do
some practical planning immediately.
ONE SOLUTION
Marlowe Earle who has served as president of the school
musicains in the state of California has been advocating
the establishment of a performing arts school at the
middle school level. His survey of like schools in San
Diego and New York reveals that there is a 3 year waiting
list for like magnet schools.
The entertainment business is the third largest industry
in the United States , why not elaYea rate on this idea.
Start with one middle school. Then use one local high
school. Continue with either . Goiden West, Orange Coast Jr.
College and/or Coastline Community College night students
and finalize with University of Irvine.
As you know, the entertainment business is highly compet-
itive. Very few become featured performers.
However, with proper planning everyone should have a major
and a minor. Then those who couldn' t become a Howard Cosell
i� Q.
i
i �G
page 2
Angie Dickinson, Tom Brokaw, Katherine Hepburn, Lawrence Welk,
Guy Lombardo, Clint Eastwood, Connie Chung, Burt Reynolds ,
Johnny Carson, Florence Hendersen, Bob Hope, Fred Astaire,
Giner Rogers, Gene Kelly could have been preparing for other
work in the entertainment industry.
Make-up people make more money than some performers. Writers
are. needed. ... Camera. Men make big money. Sound Engineers
are essentail. Musicians, Journalists, Editors , Artists for
scenery.
At least450 people backup each star or featured performer
in live shows , movies, television, cable, video cassette
needs.
PROGRESS WITH PROPER PLANNING
This type planning would bring thousands of young people
and young families to our area. Once again we could fill
our schools and utilize our marvelous teaching staff to the
maximum. At present we have used many highly professional
teachers like dixie cups. Others have been demoted into
demeaning jobs much below their established poter)tial.
However none of this will happen unless we make more- affordable
housing available to young people and young families.
HOW TO FAKE HOUSING AFFORDABLE
We need the immediate help of our planning department in
Fountain Valley. YmoL
1) Owners should be allowed to divide large houses
into two homes with separate living quarters.
This to stop illegal crowding.
2). Developers should be encouraged to build living
quarters over their one story small business
places. Like Palm Springs , Old World in Huntington
Beach and New York Mom & Pop Stores .
3) The new .way of raising the roof and the whole
house of one story dwellings to .accomodate sep-
arate living quarters underneath.
4) Building of a .one room apartment over any one story
garage. Providing a separate entrance would be
essential.
5) Encourage one or two story "mobile" homes for back
yard use as "granny houses" . Many older people
would be happy to lease their big front home out to
their growing cnilaren or others, thus they could
have closeby attention in emergencies. This would
discourage shunting the older people off into con-
valescent pits" . The Chinese love and respect their
elders.
6) Lets have 1UO% growth of farmlands iii our community.
Make developers build on the hills like the successful
city of Mission Viejo. . Have you heard of .the catas-
trophe of the. over irrigated San Joaquin Valley?
The soil is ecoming saline and could soon just
be another death valley desert. Our food supply
for California and many eastern states is threatened.
It takes 2,000 years to make top soil. Lets give
all local farmers a huge tax break, and encourage
them to continue.
7) One city said they were applying for a new name.
"Slab City" in "Cement County" . Let' s set aside
municipally owned property for young people to
learn farming by using assigned garden plots.
This system is used all the world. Prizes
are given to the young for the best organic food
grown.
8) Let 's start with the stage of a Big Theater in the
northwest corner of Mile Square Park. We could
make a mound to resemble a miniature Hollywood
Bowl. Landscape it with beautiful lawn grass
like Hawaiis outdoor theater, Sun City Arizona
and the City of Concord, California.
The Mayan Indians were smart enough to build out door theaters.
,mottle by little. . .We could build a real large theater like
The Shubert Theater in L.A. on the same land. At present
we have to travel over 100 miles to see featured live shows
and musicals . This would augment the idea of prpmoting
Fountain Valley as the center of the Wests Entertainment
Industry.
BIG BUSINESS VS LITTLE BUSINESS
9) Lets keep in mind that little business will save
this country, on a steady climb. Big business will
always have heartbreaking ups and downs. Lets
start to implement the above suggestions day before
yeaterday and bring young families back to our area.
Allow only 3 story strong foundations for all new
buildings so you can build up later if needed.
THE GOLDEN YEARS
10) It is estimated that there will soon be 65 million
Senior Citizens in the United States. One of the
biggest active clubs is right here in Fountain Valley.
As our school properties are abandoned lets divide
the excess land into very small lots and allow the
seniors to own their own plot of land. Most would love
page 4
to live in a "mobile home" type abode. Also rezone
some large lots into small lots. This would stop
the Simon Legree type of management that prevails
in many mobile home parks . Give control to the
golden years people who have lived long enough to
manage their own affairs. Any area rezoned with
this idea should include their own Hobby and Social
Clubhouse, swimming pool spa combination.
Planning people should make a survey trip to Del
Webbs Sun City Arizona to see one of the greatest
established communities for active retired people.
If .our people in power live right, they may even become active
senior citizens someday themselves. To be active with the
youth in the community will promote happy and family relations
to keep all young at heart.
Charley Baker �`� OK for Public Release
Gym Dance Coach /6 Charley Baker
offices held: President 8531 El Rancho
Dance Masters of Califo nia Fountain Valley, CA. 92708
Dance Masters of America Ch. #1 (714) 847-0594
Founder of Dancers International Tape 848-8904
Life Teaching Credential
State of California
0
o Ai Z . �: sZ rz- ► L I t:rvs 1 i Vv �, 13 R b v rZ S ' [._ A 1�
•�` 3 . �y E. l L t, < <�S o t) '3
, .
5 N 6 1 N<E
SON .
2. OL,
000,
r
Poor
F
r �S C:
RESIDENOrs" CONCLORN'
TO: Planning Commission
7m� Development Services
DATE: January 22, 196- 6
Dear Mr. Chairman
Representation of at least THREE or more Planning Comissioners
has been omitted or neglected.
Hopefully the attached will help.
thank you
SUBJECT: LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 85-3/ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT 85-2/ZONE CHANGE 85-15
1 . 0 SUGGESTED ACTION:
Open the public hearing on Item 4 . 1 of Land Use Element Amendment
85-3 . Approve Land Use Element Amendment 85-3 for recommendation to
City Council by adopting Resolution 1349 (c) creating a new
designation for Medium Density Senior Residential and changing
the designation on the subject property from General Commercial to
Medium Density Senior Residential . Approve Zone Change No.
85-15 ( B) for recommendation .to City Council for a change of zone
from R5 (Office Professional ) to (Q)R2-SR (Qualified Medium
Density Senior Residential ) with the findings outlined in Section
10 .0 of the December 3 , 1985 staff report .
4 . 1 One of the steps required to implement the amendment is an analysis
of the zone changes necessary to bring the zoning into conformance
-i.th the General Plan . The zoning chances that would result would
nave significant short-term effects , such as creating non-confor,:.ing
uses , recucing or increasing intensity of development permitted , and
providing stimulus for development .
At the January 7 , 1986 meeting the Planning Commission made two
separate motions to approve Land Use Element Amendment 85-3 . The
first motion was to approve the staff recommendation for Medium High
Density. The second motion was for Medium Density. Both motions
failed due to tie votes . Because of the tie votes the item was
continued to January 22, 1986 .
R1
P LEA FOR (0) R2mSR MOTION
ESOLUTION NO. 1349 (C-P)
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF HUvTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA,
RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF LAND USE ELEMENT
AMENDMENT TO T.iE GENERAL PLAN NO. 8573
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of
Huntington Beach , California , 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 P_anninc Commission recommends the
following amendments to the Land Use Element:
1 . That a. new Medium 1a Density Senior Residential
land .use designation be established.
2 . That 3 . 09 acres located on the west side of
Springdale Street approximately 760 feet south of
Edinger Avenue be redesignated from General
Commercial to Medium Density Senior
Residential .
WHEREAS, A PUBLIC HEARING ON ADOPTION OF Land Use
Element Amendment to the General Plan No. 85-3 was , held by the City
Planning Commission on January. 7 and January 22 , 1986 , in accordance
with provisions of the State Government Code;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning
Commission of the City of Huntington Beach , California hereby approves
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 ,
California .
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the
City of Huntington Beach, California, on the twenty-second day of
January, 1986 , by the following roll call vote;
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
James W. Palin , Secretary Tom Livengood, Chairman
( 3774d ) (REVISED C-P)
!0 yL-e s F-i oye� i
Land Use Categories
AMENDMENTS
PLANNING COMM. CITY COUNCIL
DATE RESOLUTION DATE RESOLUTION *�, RESIDENTIAL
11-6-76 1187 12-6-76 4368 G,, �•S '
6-7-77 1196 8-1-77 4484 `, �f` ,p'�r Estate <2u1 ygac
9-29-77 1202 11-7-77 4551 a• 3' _
Q-6-77 1206 12-19-77 4572 1
t° w• Estate <3 un/gac
Estate <_4 un/ ac
8-1-78 1232 8-21-78 46so
10-21-78 1236 11-1878 4696 Low Density
g
3-6-78 1242 12-19-78 4728
3-6-79 1242 3-19-79 4728 �;:°°,::". - ��a � "� Y
3-1e-e0 lzsl a-7-eo aes5 c::.;;'- -> / / ^'\ 3Y4, ° NEW iii®Medium Density
IO-21-80 1268 12-16-80 4936
5-19-81 1273 6-15-81 5005 � SAN DIEGO DESIGNATION MediumHighDensity
II-3-81 1278 12-7-81 5053 - - pY•
II-17-81= 1279 12-zF81 5060 oy7 - - - High Density -
8-2-82 5147 F �'� /-- 1 �®H) ens
12-20-82 5206 \ Senior Residential
12-7-82 1299 2-7-83 5223
4-19-83 1303 5-16-83 5265 - , ` -- COMMERCIAL
10-4-83 1314 U-28-83 5327 - .� - _ - ,
12-6-83 1315 1-3-84 5341 /� ®General
4-3-84 1317 5-7-84 5373 _ - - \ /
Visitor-Serving .
- Office Professional
:::::::::::::::::
MIXED USES
...... ......::::: :::: - Development Mixed
®Office/Residential
::::::�::::::::�::;::�:::::�:�::• ::::::�:�::::::::::::�:::::::::. °:. _::." ..". _ .;:. ...::::::. .:� ___-_ ®Commercial/Support Recreation
INDUSTRIAL
s ;;:•
' '" • �•• General
:::; ;: ::•:: :: ::::::_::: :::: :: s:: :s:::::::• 1
� •�:�::_-• :::::::::::::::::::::::_::::::::-:::' �.. _.. ,, ." " -::_ .::::::::�:::::::::;::::::::�:::. '�\ �`•,.,,-�',. Resource Production
1
................................................._ \
:::::: .::-::.•::-:::::::::::-::::::::::::::- :: En Production
-
�, \\ _ OPEN SPACE
/ Industrial
a
S• ...................... ... _ ..
�, ..................... .. .. ,:": Water
................... , ;stir
Conservation
Recreation
at :., ;. - , ..." ::- ;_ � '-.:'~.,:`�,r ,:,,��g:• � ®ER USES
rr ,
�P �•;-��,,�, ;� 1�„ •-'�.::::.;..•-�:�::::�:::::: - Community
Planning Reserve
` a>; 0 Pu
blic,61
-.. -
�.
.:: •::iiiiiE;c:
-- - - - - Coastal Zone Bounds
Y
i.
s -
_ _ -. .. ;• ..:...:..n:':is•::" :.
5"
PACIFK COAST - - --- -1
_— NWY. OCEAN
` - - :•:�L�r - PACIFIC
PACIFIC j OCEAN � '.. _ �.�N wsi���+���.�.�f�iY•�+'i>•_G71���tiy�1
T +/M
ERAL PLAN
HUNTINGTON BEACH C4LIFORNIA LAND NUSE DIAGRAM
PLANNING DIVISION Adopted December1976
Revised MAY 1984
I
ZA
J�2
r
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
2000 MAIN STPEET
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIF. 92648
LAND USE ELEMENT
AMENDMENT 85 .@3
Environmentai impact Report 85 .2
huntington beach pianning division
HUNTINGTON BEACH
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
RESOLUTION NO. 5639
FEB 2 0 1986 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ADOPTING LAND
P.O. BOX 190 USE ELEMENT NO. 85-3 TO THE GENERAL PLAN
luntington Beach, CA 92648
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of -Huntington Beach;
desires to update and refine the General Plan in keeping with
changing community needs and objectives ; and
A public hearing on adoption of Land Use Element Amendment
No. 85-3 to the General Plan was held by the Planning Commission
on January 7 and January 22 , 1986, and the Commission recommended
its adoption to the City Council ; and
Thereafter, the City Council, after giving notice as
prescribed by Government Code, sections 65355 and 65090, held at
least one public hearing to consider Land Use Element Amendment
No. 85-3; and
At said hearing all persons desiring to be hear on such
amendment were heard,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Huntington Beach, that Land Use Element Amendment No. 85-3
consisting of the following changes is ,hereby approved:
1 . That a new Senior Residential land use designation be
established in the General Plan with the following standards:
Senior Residential: This residential land use category
constitutes recognition by the City of Huntington Beach
that , due to low per unit occupancy and vehicle
generation rates , Senior Residential projects may be
constructed at higher densities and still maintain
compatibility with lower density surrounding uses . The
Senior Residential land use designation is intended to
more clearly define the intended use of property when
it is determined that a residential project at that
same density but not limited to senior citizens could
have a negative impact on the surrounding area .
Any designation of property to Senior Residential on
the General Plan shall be accompanied by a concurrent
zone change to apply the SR (Senior Residential ) suffix
to the accompanying zoning.
1 .
t
The Senior Residential land use designation shall only
be consistent. with R2 , R3 and R4 zoning designations
when combined with the SR suffix. The allowable
density of the Senior Residential land use designation
shall be determined by the underlying zoning and the
size of any density bonus granted. Any request to
remove the SR zoning suffix from property general
planned for Senior Residential shall require a Land Use
Element amendment to a non-Senior Residential land use
designation. Locational criteria for the Senior
Residential land use designation are as follows:
a. proximity to public transportation facilities.
b. proximate or highly accessible to shopping
facilities .
C . proximate or highly accessible to 'medical
facilities .
2. That 3 .09 acres located on the west side of Springdale
Street approximately 760 feet south of Edinger Avenue are
redesignated from General Commercial to Senior Residential
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 18th
day of February 1986.
TEST:
City Clerk Mayor
REVIEWED AND APPROVED: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
=r
City Administrato 12 _ �6 City Attorney
i
c ,y /C
INITIATED AND APPROVED:
)Wi�rector of Development
Services
2 .
r.
Res. No. 5639
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COMITY OF ORANGE ) s s:
CITY OF HUNT INGTON 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 18th day
of February 19 86 . , by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmen:
Kelly, MacAllister, Finley, Mandic, Bailey, Green, Thomas
NOES: Councilmen:
None
ABSENT.: Councilmen:
None
City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk
of the City Council of the City
of Huntington Beach, California
� t
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
1 .0 INTRODUCTION 1
1 .1 Methodology 1
2 .0 AREA OF CONCERN 3
2 .1 Springdale-Edinger Area 3
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES 17
3 .1 Short-Term and Long-Term Productivity 17
3 . 2 Irreversible Environmental Changes 18
3 . 3 Growth Inducing Impacts 19
4 .0 ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS 21
4 .1 Medium High Density Senior
Residential Designation 21
APPENDICES
Appendix A Fiscal Impact Land Use Assumptions
Appendix B Initial Study
Appendix C Air Quality Calculations
Appendix D Addendum
Appendix E Comments and Responses
I
Land Use Categories
AMENDMENTS
PLANNING COMM. CITY COUNCIL
DATE RESOLUTION DATE RESOLUTION q'- RESIDENTIAL
11-6-76 1187 12-6-76 4368 q♦
6-7-77 1196 8-1-77 4484 00 ''Cy O`♦a 011, Estate <_2un/gac
9-29-77 1202 11-7-77 4551 `♦'1' �2
12-6-77 1206 12-19-77 4572 `oaf 6O 0 Estate <_3 un/gac
8-1-78 1232 8-21-78 4660 IM Estate <_4 un/gac
10-17-78 1236 11-6-78 4696
II-21-78 1239 12-18-78 4708 / `
3-6-79 1242 3-1979 4728 /' Low Density
3-18-80 1261 4-7-80 4865 /\ / \ �Pa2g, o Medium Density
10-21-80 1268 12-15-80 4936 �.
5-19-81 1273 6-15-81 5005 s SAN DIEGO FREEWAY / /
II-3-81 1278 12-7-81 5053 �. �Pa�'`` >�<`�: 3�Medium High Density
11-17-81 1279 12-21-81 5060 04
- ®High Density
8-2182 5147 �F �` /;4i Fy;,. ��
12-7-82 1299 2-7-83 5223 \ _rc;%3,,f['`;;{•:,_,.• +1<2-2
\ / COMMERCIAL
4-19-83 1303 5-16-83 5265 / •/ `\ :i•`'fi:h;� k'',?:,.,. / -' -
10-4-83 1314 II-28-83 5327 - ®General
12-6-83 1315 I-3-84 5341
4-3-84 1317 5-7-84 5373 /' - - _ \ �,F•S• / `\ MM Visitor-Serving
'IT.
t J
0 l
P \ Office Professional
MIX ED US ES
' ed Development
s
Mlx
\ P�
tt°' Office nti
al Reside
% /
o
I• .isijiii'riiiiiiiiiiiiiieiriiiiiii iiiii'r'•. - .
P
% C0 mmera'sI/SuPP
ort Rec
reation eat'on
IND
USTRIAL
€?€{ ���::•
General
\ ... ................................................................::::::^ ,;a.. -:_.-.�>;;<�:=:_:':��:::::� �€. .. .. • Resource Production
Industrial9 i Energy Production n
Y Prod
SPA
CE
ACE
4-
'9�s, ,, FMWater
Conservation
M Recreation
':r,4,'4',:�iyPUTp:�rcy�cl;°'•yM l.'i
� o° .l i�7�� ,• elf,+;u;,';�'t<'
a �,' •���rr , ;;%,,., OTHER USES
-
� - ti tional
asi Public Ins to,4 . Y •. , a '� Public 61u
M Cob !V J : i%Y-Kin,. �'•I
Planned Community................
„•,1 0 Planning Reserve
r
••••••Coastal Zone Boundary
ri
I u�
5
,,,•gym. aP
I:
�� As
F � dt R4
/
f
v
I _- _s�<:: _ ♦♦ f fly,
. � �s�;Y-F4�S�. yam,-.yndyGY„'-'N.Z•'gf���:` I
PACIFIC COAST
C. y CIFIC
PACIFIC OCEAN
OCEAN NWY �" _ `fo" �tr'a r4♦:'� .:ZCw�`�!oi��PA'A _ PA
I W� ►Mf�� 11• ► ,
v94
PLAN
ERAL
® HUNTINGTON BEACH CALIFORNIA LANDNUSE DIAGRAM
lop PLANNING DIVISION Adopted December1976
Revised MAY 1984 C-RM-315
t
I
_1 -1
1 .0 INTRODUCTION
This report concerns Amendment 85-3 to the Land Use Element of the
Huntington Beach General Plan. The Land Use Element was adopted as
a mandated element of the General Plan in December , 1973 ; this is
the twenty-eighth amendment to the element . Planned land uses
throughout the City are depicted in the attached Land Use Diagram.
1 . 1 METHODOLOGY
. This amendment considers a change in General Plan designation on
only one site (Area 2 .1 ) . The area is a 3 .09 acre site located on
the west side of Springdale Street approximately 760 feet south of
Edinger Avenue. The amendment request on this site will be analyzed
in terms of the existing conditions on the site, anticipated impact
on surrounding areas, major land uses and environmental issues, and
consistency with adopted City goals and policies .
Section 15148 of the State EIR Guidelines states that "The
requirements for an EIR on a local general plan element or amendment
thereof will be satisfied by the general plan or element document
and no separate EIR will be required if: 1 ) the general plan
addresses all the points required to be in an EIR by Article 9 of
the State EIR Guidelines , and 2 ) the document contains a special
section or a cover sheet identifying where the general plan document
addresses each of the points required. " In conformance with State
guidelines , this document will constitute the EIR for Land Use
Element Amendment 85-3 . The environmental setting and significant
impacts associated with the issue areas identified in the initial
study are addressed under area of concern ( Section 2 . 1 ) .
Alternative land use designations and feasible mitigation measures
to minimize significant effects are also discussed in this section .
GPA 85-3 -1- (0259D)
Section 3 .0 addresses overall environmental changes related to the
following considerations : 1 ) short-term and long-term
productivity; 2) irreversible or unavoidable environmental changes;
and 3 ) growth inducing impacts.
Also analyzed in this document is Administrative Item 4 .1 , a request
by the City of Huntington Beach to create a new General Plan land
use designation for Medium High Density Senior Residential . This
item received Negative Declaration No. 86-1 and is , therefore , not
covered by EIR 85-2 .
GPA 85-3 -2- (0259D )
t 1
2 .0 AREA OF CONCERN
2 . 1 SPRINGDALE AND EDINGER
2 . 1 . 1 Background
The area of concern is located on the west side of Springdale Street
approximately 780 feet south of Edinger Avenue . The 3 .01 acre site
is presently owned by A & J Development .
Existing structures on the site include a. single family detached
home and a large 30 ,000 square foot metal warehouse building. The
warehouse building formerly housed a pipe fabrication business .
The applicant has requested that the area of concern be redesignated
from general commercial to high density residential to allow
construction of 131 affordable apartments for senior citizens .
This amendment analyzes four possible land use alternatives for the
site: 1 ) high density residential ( 44 units per acre ) ; 2 ) Medium-High
Density Residential (25 units per acre ) ; 3 ) Medium Density
Residential (15 units per acre ) ; 4 ) Office/Professional (35, 000
square feet ) .
2 . 1 .2 Analysis
1 . , Land Use
The City 's General Plan (Figure 2-1 ) designates the property
directly to the north as General Commercial and property to
the south and west as Low Density Residential , property to
the east , on the opposite side of Springdale is also
GPA 85-3 3 (0259D)
3'
t
s N�r
. • • ill!!. -- -• �'�■!!nI ON m MINI
! �I
- 1
rllll. •- ••• ��rllllr� 1�
' INSTITUTIONAL
�rill� :S :: : ■�ilu/ ��
r
,!, !'a;i •ice ii ii �� ii �..a�� ,1�
'
GENER
ALHIGH DENSITY
CO
� O�Ilnll�nn ' .•� _RESIDENTIAL
�`.v■..i■Ar1 L ��ii-ii�iii■�iiiir•� -
MINIM inglooloo
•=nl��lnllll� SS S :.
I ■i-ASS•- .S=.l�I-,
■n■■■n■■■■■■■■n r!■rlrnu■urt� iin!li��llir�iu! lu!!u
1 1 iii�i'�n1�
1 =iMINI
i
t
a
designated as Low Density Residential . Adjacent land uses
include a restaurant, to the north and single family,
subdivision's immediately to the west , south and across
_ Springdale Street to the east . In the general vicinity
there are two commercial centers on the south side of
. Edinger Avenue to the north and an apartment complex across
Springdale to the northeast . Marina High School is located
on the north side of Edinger Avenue, west of Springdale .
The area of concern is currently zoned R5-Office
Professional (Figure 2-2 ) . Property to the north is zoned
C4 and C2 , Highway Commercial and General Commercial .
Property to the southeast and west is zoned R1 , Low Density
Residential . The property near the southeast corner of
Springdale and Edinger is zoned R-3 , Medium High Density
Residential .
The following impacts are related to the four land use
alternatives analyzed in this report .
High Density Residential (Alternative 1 )
In conjunction with the Land Use Amendment to redesignate
the property to High Density Residential , the applicant has
requested R4-SR (High Density- Senior Residential ) zoning on
the property. The applicant has further requested a 25
percent density bonus in return for the provision of
affordable housing for seniors . The zone change and density
bonus would result in the construction of 131 senior
apartment units at a density of 44 du/acre.
Preliminary site plans submitted by the applicant indicate
that buildings would generally be three stories in height ,
stepping down to two stories at the ends of the buildings .
Because the site is a shallow rectangle (200 feet x 510
feet ) , development at the proposed density may appear quite
massive in size when viewed from Springdale Street .
Architectural techniques such as breaking up of building
forms , varying the setback of units and using a combination
of roofline designs may help reduce the visual impact of
high density development .
The conceptual site plan submitted by the applicant
designates . 72 acres. of the site as open space. Development
under the R4 standards requires a minimum of . 45 acres of
open space . The applicant was able to achieve this surplus
of open space because the parking requirement for senior
housing is significantly less than the parking requirement
for high density development -- 0 .6 spaces per unit versus 2
to 2 . 5 spaces per unit . This reduction in the amount of
ground area required for parking also allows for greater
building setbacks . The applicant proposes 10 foot setbacks
in the front and side yards and a minimum of 30 foot rear
yard setback increasing to a 90 foot setback at one point .
GPA 85-3 5 (0259D)
100-MI-A-15.900 „� uLv�N CJ DOWN oa GI
g36,
RI CF-E RI
RI RI r:>s: :::::c,c:-o:;:.l SLIGO Ca MILTON CR RI RI RI
oR U WELDE CR HOOKER ' DR HUGHES DR
C F-E _ L
pa::;:n� :,::,io:.•..1 RI 'a RI RI
ROYALIST OR LONGFORD CR CLA
CF-R , -
x W RI RI°, RI
J
o _ RI RI RI RI C"N CR LA'
a a i C Z RI = RI
¢ ccJ i xa zo a
V a _ a $RI g C4
0. C. F. C. D. of
§--r EDINGER —
R 1 z R I -- -.."Aa TD -- t o Ioo 3 R I
N RIRi T �9, d BELLINGER DR 1C - o
F{ u 6 R5 RI mD
MTLER. A C 2 - lzB- R 3 RI
3 RI RI R "RI - H
M FLINT 10 'Q'OR
" a 'b z nzz.lo R I Es
1 R I ' e BAox B. R I
LITTLER It D' RCR SOFTWIND ZDRREUSENS DR. i
R1 Y J R IF s t LEI
' R1 CLARK R1 DR R5 MONTECITO LR11 \RI /� RI RIJRI R1 RI JU` lf_Jl
W R 1 SILVERWOOD DRRI
CF E Z — PALISADE DR R I m
RI R1 -
(W—A[iN ViEw S(.I1Giii.) �� OR R I i F
RTLE DR. EC .
x McADD"` RI J R I
Raoo W DA Y CR. z[R]
z: C
RI pAR CR VENTURt DR i R I RI
R I R 1 z R l ORLANDO Da. RI R1 R1 I R I c N DR D
RI I RI
u MARSNALL DR. uu
R I 3 R I z< R I
w O o IN
R
MIDDLECOFF pq, ........-- ...JYt:I j S u z R1
r', �
Rog C CHRISTY DR. b �O
RI RI RI RI V. RI L
R I
LRR R 1 R I GUMM DR R I4Rn3 B"0°" R I GLORIA OR
CF-R = B
,LT00 a FJEANF
OR R I
RI �' J WEBER CR
ROS I1 CF-E j I I`
� N LINE TRACT NO 6136 �! _ RI R
Area of Concern
EXISTING ZONING
huntington beach planning division
Figure 2-2
\ \ f
Single family residential developments located south and
west of the site will be visually impacted by the
development of the site . Second and third story units face
onto the homes located to the south resulting in a loss of
privacy for those homes to the south . Visual impacts on the
homes to the west may be mitigated by minimizing the number
of units which look onto the single family homes , or siting
the carports and parking spaces at the rear of the site, and
by creating setbacks ranging from 30 feet to 90 feet .
In applying the senior citizen development standards , the
Huntington Beach Ordinance Code states that consideration
shall be given to the proximity of the site to public
transportation , shopping areas , medical facilities , and like .
services . Shopping facilities , including grocery stores ,
retail stores , banks and restaurants , are located within 800
feet o.f the site . Nearby medical facilities are located on
Edinger Avenue, east of Springdale Street and Heil Avenue
west of Springdale Street . In addition, paramedics are
based approximately one mile away at the City fire station
.located on Gothard Street south of Edinger . Bus service is
provided .along Springdale and Edinger by OCTD. The
applicant also proposes to operate two shuttle vans for the
convenience of the residents .
Medium High Density Residential (Alternative 2 )
Medium high density development would result in the
construction of 75 dwelling units . The physical mass of the
buildings would be similar to development of the site as
high density senior housing. Fewer but larger units would
result from this alternative because the required floor area
per unit is greater for apartment standards versus senior
development standards .
Due to the higher ratio of required parking, it can be
expected that development under this alternative would
incorporate the minimum setbacks as required per code (10
foot front yard, 5 foot side yard and 10 foot rear yard ) .
Building height would again range from two to three
stories . Due to a combination of both building height and
setbacks , it is anticipated that this alternative would have
the greatest impact on the privacy of the adjacent single
family neighborhood.
Medium Density (Alternative 3 )
Medium density ..development would result in the construction
of 45 dwelling units . Site coverage would be much less than
the Medium High and High Density alternatives . The
development standards for Planned Developments require that
no more than six units be attached side by side. This would
serve to reduce the bulk of the buildings and provide for a
more pleasing street scene along Springdale Street .
However , due to the high land cost , the 25 units which could
GPA 85-3 7 (0259D)
be constructed under this alternative would have to be
priced well above market rates . The location of this site
cannot support luxury priced units .
Office Professional (Alternative 4 )
Development of the site for office/professional uses would
be consistent with the existing R5 zoning. The site may
accommodate a 35 ,000 square foot office building with a
maximum building height of 35 feet or three stories .
As with the high and medium high density alternatives , the
rectangular shape of the site will most likely result in the
design of a building which appears quite massive when viewed
from Springdale Street .
The desirability of this site for office use may be somewhat
limited. The primary land uses found along Springdale
Street include residential , parks , school , churches and
general commercial . Professional offices are concentrated
along Beach Boulevard .
2 . Economic Considerations
The Planning staff utilized its standard fiscal impact
methodology to analyze the alternatives in this amendment .
Appendix A provides the assumptions which were made for each
alternative . The revenues and expenditures associated with
each alternative were predicted for one year for comparison
purposes . The results are summarized in the table below.
Appendix A contains a summary of the fiscal impact
methodology.
Alt . 1 Alt . 2
High Density Medium High
Residential Density Residential
Revenue 39 , 600 29 ,100
Cost 39 ,000 26,200
Revenue Minus Cost 600 2,900
Revenue/Cost 1 ..02 1 .11
Alt . 3 Alt . 4
Medium Density General
Residential Commercial
Revenue 20,700 8 ,900
Cost 20 , 300 10,900 .
Revenue Minus Cost 400 -2 ,000
Revenue/Cost 1 .02 . 82
GPA 8.5-3 8 ( 0259D )
l
As shown above, the fiscal impact of the amendment is
optimized if the Medium High Density Residential alternative
is selected . This scenario may generate a maximum surplus
of $2 ,900 in the year analyzed: The other residential
alternatives could. be expected to generate smaller
surpluses .. The General Commercial alternative is expected
to generate a deficit of approximately $2 ,000 in one year .
The deficit for this alternative is due to the fact that
office/professional was analyzed which does not produce
sales tax revenue . In reviewing the above results , it is
important to view the analysis in comparative terms only,
rather than as a prediction- of exact costs and revenues .
3 . Housing
The applicant has proposed development of 131 senior citizen
apartments . Under the requested high density residential
land use designation and utilizing R4-SR (High Density
Residential-Senior Residential ) zoning, a density bonus of
25 percent would be required to develop at the requested
density of 44. du/acre . A medium high density residential
land use would permit 75 units . Under a medium density
residential land use designation , approximately 45
condominiums or apartments could be accommodated on the site .
The City 's Housing Element of the General Plan includes
policies aimed at increasing housing opportunities for
households with low and moderate incomes . The applicant 's
proposal includes a 25 percent density bonus which would
require him to provide 25 percent of the units to be
affordable to seniors with low and moderate incomes . Bond
financing.,. if made available, to the applicant , would require
an additional 25 percent of the units to be designated for
low and moderate income senior citizens . The applicant 's
proposed senior apartment project would provide the greatest
opportunity for low and moderate housing of any of the
alternatives .
The City 's Housing Flement of the General Plan also includes
a policy to "promote housing which meets the special. needs
of elderly persons . " There are an estimated 10,258 elderly
persons (65 years of age or older ) residing in Huntington
Beach , or about 6 percent of the total City population .
Many elderly households are in the lower income category
and , of these, SLAG estimates approximately 1 ,218 households
are paying more than 30 percent of their incomes for
housing. Escalating housing costs , especially in the rental
market , severly impact the elderly population , many of whom
are on fixed incomes .
In the past, the City -has made a concentrated effort to meet
the special housing needs of the elderly . There are
approximately 1 , 025 senior units either recently approved or
existing within the City . The following developments have
been constructed since 1980 . See Figure 2-3 for locations .
GPA 85-3 9 ( 0259D )
Key Development Units
1 Emerald Cove* 164
2 Windward• Cove* 96
3 Huntington Terrace* 172
4 Huntington West* 53
5 Wycliff Towers* 192
The following two projects have been approved but not
constructed:
6 Palm Court* 192
7 Fi.ve Points Court 156
4 . Public Services and Utilities
a . Sewers
An existing 8 inch sewer line located on Springdale
Street terminates at the northern property line of the
area of concern and would have to be extended to serve
the project . The 8 inch City-owned line runs into a 27
inch county sewer line . Any of the land use ' .
alternatives being considered could be adequately
served by these lines .
b . Water
Existing uses around the area are served by a 12 inch
water line in Springdale Street . Adequate water supply
could be provided for any of the land use alternatives
by connecting into the 12 inch main .
C . Storm Drains
The area of concern_ is located in Drainage District 4 .
The storm drain system in this district , including
Shields Pump Station located on Shields Drive between
Springdale Street and Edwards Street is under capacity
and is in need of up-grading. The Public Works
Department has indicated that although the storm drain
system is problematic, development of the proposed site
would have negligible impact due to the site 's small
size . However , a residential project would generate
less runoff than an office/professional project, thus
having less impact on the system.
Project includes units or low and moderate incomes .
GPA 85-3 10 ( 0259D )
f
Q AREA OF CONCERN
Qxq
f
�44
\ A .ouwuoan
Senior Housing
huntington beach planning division
Figure 2-3
d . Parks
The area of concern is located within the service area
of Marina Community Park , an 11-acre facility at the
intersection of Edinger Avenue and Graham Street . Also
in the vicinity are four neighborhood parks which are
all located within one mile of the area of concern .
The existing parks will provide adequate park
facilities for any of the residential alternatives .
The office/professional alternative would decrease the
demand for park facilities .
e . Police and Fire Protection
Police service for the area of concern is provided by
the City of Huntington Beach which operates from a
central facility located at Main Street and Yorktown
Avenue. Additional staffing anticipated by the Police
Department is minimal for all land use alternatives .
This need, although small , should not be ignored due to
the cumulative effect of many new developments in the
City. The alternative which would require the most
additional staffing is the applicant 's request for 131
senior citizen apartments . It is anticipated that the
major portion of calls would be for medical needs.
Below is a list of anticipated additional staffing
required for each land use alternative:
Additional
Alternative Officer Required
High Density Residential-Seniors
(131 apartments ) .12
Medium High Density Residential
(75 condos/apartments ) . 08
Medium Density Residential
( 45 condos/apartments ) . 05
Office Professional ( 35,000 s .f . ) . 02
Fire response_ to the area of concern is provided by the
City of Huntington Beach from the Heil Station located
southeast of the area of concern . Paramedics would
respond from Murdy Station on Gothard , south of
Edinger . Generally, the Fire Department requires two
entrances to a large project . In this case a single
driveway would be acceptable if it was of adequate
width for two fire response units to enter the site
simultaneously. The site is 214 feet deep and would
. allow the Fire Department to take emergency access off
Springdale Street if necessary. The Fire Department
has indicated that any of the land use alternatives
GPA 85-3 12 (0259D)
. e
could be adequately served provided that all
requirements such as a sprinkler system, an alarm
.system, fire hydrants and minimum fire lanes of 24 feet
are provided in the development .
f . Schools N
The area of concern is located within the Oceanview
School District and is served by Village View School
(R-6 ) , Springview School ( 7,8 ) and Marina High School
(9-12 ) . The number of students generated from a medium
or a medium-high density alternative would be
negligible and could be accommodated by the school
district . Office professional or senior housing would
have no impact on the area 's schools .
Students generated by residential alternatives :
Elementary High
Land Use Alternative School School
Medium Density (45 units ) 5 .4 1 .8
Medium High Density ( 75 units ) 9 3
g. Gas and Electrical Utilities and Telephone
Natural gas service and electrical service are provided
by the Southern California Gas Company and Southern
California Edison, respectively. A four inch gas main
currently runs in Springdale Street with 1-1/4 inch and
3/4 inch connections to the area of concern . No
problems have been indicated with serving the site,
however further review would take- place when gas load
requirements are determined by the developer .
Electrical service is available from existing 12 KV
overhead lines running directly behind the area of
concern and along Springdale Street : The Southern
California Edison Company has indicated that electrical
load requirements can be met provided that electrical
demand does not exceed estimates , and there are no
unexpected outages to major sources of electrical
supply. General Telephone has indicated that adequate
service could be provided for the area of concern under
any of the land use alternatives .
h . Solid Waste Disposal
The Rainbow Disposal Company provides solid waste
collection to the City of Huntington Beach . No local
service constraints are expected under any of the
alternative land use designations . Internal street
circulation within any project would have to be
designed to accommodate the company 's refuse trucks
without requiring any backing-up.
GPA 85-3 13 ( 0259D )
5 . Traffic and Circulation
The area of concern has approximately 500 lineal feet of
frontage along Springdale Street , a primary arterial with an
average daily traffic volume of 26, 500 vehicles . The site
lies 780 feet south of Edinger Avenue, also a primary
arterial , with an average daily traffic volume of 35 , 600
vehicles .
Projected daily traffic volumes generated by the alternative
land use designations are:
Land Use Alternative Traffic Generation
High Density Senior Citizens Apartments 524 trips
Medium-High Density Residential 675 trips
Medium Density Residential 450 trips
office Professional 619 trips
It should be noted that the figure of 524 daily trips
estimated to be generated by 131 senior citizen 's apartment
units is based on a trip generation rate of four trips per
unit per day. This assumes that the developer of the
apartments would provide a convenient shuttle or limosine
service which would be used by the residents . If the site
was to be developed as high density residential apartment
(not geared for senior citizens ) the daily traffic
generation would increase dramatically to 1 ,048 vehicle
trips per day.
Development of the site for Medium Density Residential ( 45
units ) or Senior Citizen Apartments (131 units ) would
contribute the least traffic volume onto Springdale Street .
Access to the site would be from a single entry along
Springdale Street . The Public Works Department indicates
that potential traffic impacts along Springdale Street could
be minimized if the entry to the project was wide and at the
same grade as Springdale Street , thereby providing a smooth
entry into the project . (An entry at a higher elevation
than the adjacent street requires motorists to slow down to
achieve a smooth transition into the site . )
The volume of traffic created by any of the alternatives
would not warrant additional signalization along Springdale
Street . The existing dual-left turn lane can adequately
serve traffic entering and exiting the site .
6 . Environmental Issues
a . Noise
The area of concern is located on the west side of
Springdale Street which is the principal source of
noise in the area . According to projected traffic
GPA 85-3 14 ( 0259D )
' ` f
noise impacts for 1990 by the Wyle Laboratories , the
area would be exposed to noise levels ranging from Ldn
60 db to Ldn 65 db. The highest noise levels occur
along Springdale. Residential development must be
compatible with the Noise Element of the City' s General
Plan. If residential structures are to be located
within a CNEL 65 db contour , then mitigation measures
such as building setbacks , building orientation or
noise barriers such as walls or landscaping should be
implemented.
b. Air Quality
Development of the area of concern under any of the
alternative land use designations would adversely
affect air quality in the South Coast Air Basin,
primarily due to increased automobile traffic generated
by the additional housing units or professional
offices . Projected daily emissions from the area are
indicated in Appendix C.
C. Seismic
The area of concern lies within the Newport-Inglewood
Fault Zone, though it is not traversed by any known
faults.. The Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone is a
potential cause of serious structural damage due
primarily to ground shaking. Actual displacement and
surface rupture has not historically occurred along
this fault system in Huntington Beach and the
probability is relatively low that it will within the
next 100 years, even though one or more moderate-sized
earthquakes may occur .
In compliance with the Alquist-Priolo Geologic Hazards
Zones Act of 1972, a Special Studies. Zone has been
established in Huntington Beach that includes the most .
hazardous earthquake faults . This special .studies zone
does not extend into the study area. Development in
the study area, therefore, need not be subject to the
zone 's requirements. It will be appropriate to address
the mitigation of potential seismic hazards in the
study area when a specific project is proposed for
development.
2 . 1 . 3 Staff Recommendation
Recent State legislation has allowed developers of senior citizen
projects to request a 50 percent density bonus on top of the
underlying zoning. The applicant has requested a 25 percent density
bonus on top of R4-SR zoning. In view of the possibility for a 50
GPA 85-3 15 ( 0259D)
percent density bonus , staff is recommending a General Plan
designation of Medium-High Density (Alternative 2 ) and zoning of
(Q)R3-SR. A 50 percent density bonus on top of the .R3 zoning will
permit a maximum of 112 units or 19 units less than the applicant
has requested. The unit reduction is intended to result in fewer
3-story units adjacent to the single-family tract, thus reducing the
apparent bulk of the project and minimizing impacts on surrounding
properties . The (Q) suffix will require review by the architectural
design board prior to issuance of building permits .
e
GPA 85-3 16 ( 0259D )
3 .0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES
In accordance with California Environmental Quality Act guidelines,
an environmental assessment is required to address short-term and
long-term effects, irreversible environmental changes, and growth
inducing impacts of the total project or plan . This section analyzes
.these concerns in context of the recommended land use change in
Section 2 .0 .
3 . 1 SHORT-TERM AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY
Amendment 85-3 does not in and of itself create long term impacts .
Rather , it makes changes in the general types of land uses that may
be allowed on a particular area at the time of development.
Amendment 85-3 seeks to identify short-range issues within a context
of long-range goals, policies , and environmental planning programs .
The amendment itself acts as a mitigation measure designed to
minimize any adverse effects on long-term productivity resulting from
short-term uses .
One of the steps required to implement the amendment is an analysis
of the zone changes necessary to bring the zoning into conformance
with the General Plan . The zoning changes that would result would
have significant short-term effects , such as creating non-conforming
uses, reducing or increasing intensity of development permitted, and
providing stimulus for development .
GPA 85-3 -17- ( 0259D)
3 . 2 IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES
The Amendment will mitigate most adverse effects . However ,
irreversible environmental change of a secondary nature can be
expected from development under the proposed amendment . Loss of
open space will occur as vacant land is converted to other uses .
Although the option to recycle the land to open space after
development is available, it is probably not economically feasible.
Alteration of topography will be an irreversible change. Although
mitigating measures can be imposed as part of the development
process , the natural topography will experience a negligible degree
of modification . Construction materials of mineral origin will also
be needed for development to occur , and fossil fuels will be
committed for long periods to satisfy local energy demand. However ,
such development would be consistent with existing land use
designations .
3 .3 GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS
The proposed amendment will also have growth inducing effects within
the areas of concern. An additional population of 200 persons could
be generated by uses under Land Use Element Amendment 85-3, thereby
creating an increased demand on. public services and utilities and
incrementally affecting air quality, water quality, traffic, and
noise levels . However , the proposed uses in accord with General
Plan policies and programs should mitigate many of the adverse
effects generated by the expected growth .
The demand for water and energy will likely increase as a result of
the proposed land uses in this amendment . Conservation measures can
be implemented City- and County-wide to reduce these impacts such as:
(1 ) Reduce evaporation from reservoirs by encouraging
underground storage or coating water surfaces with
evaporation hindering films or substances .
( 2 ) Encourage tertiary treatment of and reuse of the return flow
of public water supplies wherever such use is acceptable and
safe.
( 3 ) Waterspread where appropriate t.o recharge the underground
water supply.
( 4 ) Meter water and encourage repair of leaky connections to
stimulate more economical use.
( 5 ) Reduce consumption of toilets and showers by requiring
appropriate modifications to these appliances .
( 6 ) Prohibit the use of open gas lighting in public or private
buildings .
GPA 85-3 -18- ( 0259D)
(7 ) Strategically place electric lights to maximize their
efficiency. Their size and power consumption should be
minimized as much as possible.
( 8 ) Discourage electrical heating in public and private
structures . Encourage solar-assisted heating systems.
(9 ) Encourage the use of reflecting and/or insulating glass in
structures where windows are not shaded by exterior
architectural projections or natural plants .
GPA 85-3 -19- (0259D)
4
4.0 ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS
This section addresses one City-initiated administrative amendment to
the General Plan. The item creates a new General Plan land use
designation of Senior Residential .
General Plan Amendment 83-3 (adopted by the City Council on November
28, 1983) created the concept of Administrative - Items as changes
which in themselves obviously have little or no significant potential
direct impact on either the environment or current development
patterns in the City. Such changes were defined to include the
creation of new land use designations as well as minor word changes
in the document and revisions to the Zoning and Land Use Element
Consistency Matrix. None of these types of changes would have direct
impacts because the act of adoption would not actually apply them to
specific parcels of land . Since these types of changes do not result
in direct impacts , there is no need for an extensive analysis of them
before adoption. As such, Administrative Items 4 .1 in this document
was advertised as Negative Declaration 86-1 .
4 . 1 CREATION OF MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY SENIOR RESIDENTIAL
Administrative Item 4 . 1 is a request by the City of Huntington Beach
to create a new General Plan land use designation of Senior
Residential .
Senior Residential : This residential land use category constitutes
recognition by the City of Huntington Beach that, due to low pet unit
occupancy and vehicle generation rates , Senior Residential
GPA 85-3 -21- ( 0259D)
projects may be constructed at higher densities and still maintain
compatibility with lower density surrounding uses. The Senior
Residential land use designation is intended to more clearly define
the intended use of property when it is determined that a
residential project at that same density, but not limited to senior
residential , could have a negative impact on the surrounding area.
Any designation of property to Senior Residential on the General
Plan shall be accompanied by a concurrent zone change to apply the
SR (Senior Residential ) suffix to the accompanying zoning. The
Senior Residential land use designation shall only be consistent
with R2, R3 and R4 zoning designation when combined with the SR
suffix . The. allowable density of the Senior Residential land use
designation shall be determined by the underlying zoning and the
size of any density bonus granted. Any request to remove the SR
zoning suffix from property general planned for Senior Residential
shall require a Land Use Element amendment to a non-Senior
Residential land use designation. Locational criteria for the
Senior Residential land use designation are as follows :
a. Proximity to transportation facilities .
b . Proximity to shopping facilities.
C. Proximity to medical facilities .
GPA 85-3 -22- (0259D)
APPENDIX A
Fiscal Impact
Land Use Assumptions
rT
APPENDIX A
FISCAL IMPACT
LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS
Four alternative land uses were chosen for this analysis .
Number of
Alternative Type of Unit Units/Square Feet Population
1 Office Professional 35, 000 sq. ft . N/A
2 Medium Density 45 DU's 100
3 Medium-High Density 75 DU ' s 131
4* High Density 132 DU 's 198
* (Proposed Project )
I . REVENUE
Property Tax
The County Tax Assessor collects one percent of the market
valuation of new development in property tax . Of that one
percent , the City of Huntington Beach collects (in tax rate
'area 4-007 ) 19 . 2 percent in property tax revenue .
Property tax revenue per each alternative was based on the
following estimated market valuations:
Alternative 1 = $2 ,935, 151
Assuming $80 per square foot for the office building and
$135,131 , the current as value for the three acres of
land ,(1985-1986 tax rolls )
Alternative 2 = $5,625,000
Assuming a market valuation of $125 ,000 per dwelling unit .
Alternative 3 = $7 ,500 ,000
Assuming a market valuation of $100, 000 per dwelling unit
Alternative 4 ( the project ) _ $8 ,913, 151
Assuming a market valuation of $66 ,500 per dwelling unit
plus the land value of $135, 151
The above estimates were based on market valuations of existing
properties in .Huntington Beach from resources such as Coldwell
Banker and the county tax rolls .
GPA 85-3 ( 0259D)
Sales Tax Revenue
The State of California collects a six percent sales tax on
retail sales . Of that six percent , the City collects one
percent . Sales tax revenue estimates are based on family
income . It is assumed that the average family income is one
third of the market value of each dwelling unit .
Using the Internal Revenue Service table that bases the
estimated sales tax on family income and family size the
following would result:
A dwelling unit value of $125,000 for Alternative 2 would
require an annual family income of $41,666 . Based on an
average family size of two people per dwelling unit , the annual
sales tax collected would be $399 . The City 's portion of that
amount would be $67 . The majority of that revenue, 75 percent ,
is expected to be collected by retail commercial outlets . On
an annual basis that 75 percent has filtered through the
commercial outlets in the City and is then directly credited to
commercial and not to residential . Therefore, the net amount
of revenue directly attributed to that residential unit would
be $16, and an annual amount of $720 for the 45 families of
Alternative No. 2 .
Using the same methodology Alternative 3 resulted in an annual
total sales tax revenue of $1 ,125 and Alternative 4 resulted in
,an annual revenue of $110 . Although Alternative 4 had the
largest number of families the average estimated income per
family was the lowest . Also, because Alternative 4 ( the
proposed project ) is a senior citizen rental project it was
assumed the relationship of income to unit value would be less
income = 25 percent of unit value .
Alternative 1 , professional office, is not assumed to generate
measurable sales tax revenue.
Utility and Franchise
Huntington Beach collects a five percent utility tax on the
annual sales of electricity, natural gas , telephone and cable
T.V. services in the City.
According to the California Energy Commission the average
residential electric and gas bills in Southern California were :
$35. 65 reported by Southern California Edison and $33 .38
reported by Southern California Gas Company.
General Telephone could not provide an average service cost for
residential customers in the City, therefore an average charge
of $40, reported. in the Holly EIR, has been used in this
analysis .
GPA 85-3 (0259D)
The basic rate for cable. television service, in the City, is
$12 .5.0 per month . It is assumed that all new residents in the
City will subscribe to the service.
Franchise Tax is based on two percent of the annual electricity
sales and four percent of the annual natural gas sales in the
City.
Alternative 1
Electric consumption is estimated to be 427 ,000 kwh , annually,
based on 12 .2 kwh per square foot per year . Southern
California Edison has provided a cost for commercial services
of 7 .54 cents per kwh . Total estimated electric fees are
$32 ,196 resulting in an annual utility tax of $1 ,610 .
Natural gas consumption is estimated to be ..42 BTU's per square
foot per year . Southern California Gas Company charges an
average annual rate of $5.53 per million BTU 's (or 55. 3 cents
per therm) for commercial customrs . The result for this
alternative , is $8 ,129 in annual fees and $406 collected by the
City in utility tax .
Based on the above consumption estimates Franchise revenue
would be:
$644 for electricity and $325 for natural gas .
Alternative 2
Total Utility Franchise
Estimated Revenue Tax Fees
Electricity $19,251 $ 963 644
Gas 18 ,025 901 325
Phone 21 ,600 1 ,080
Cable 6, 750 338
Alternative 3
Total Utility Franchise
Estimated Revenue Tax Fees
Electricity $32,085 — 2
Gas 30, 042 1,502 1 ,202
Phone 36,000 1 ,800
Cable 11 , 250 563
Alternative 4
Total Utility Franchise
Estimated Revenue Tax Fees
Electricity $56, 470 $2,,824 $1 ,129
Gas 52 ,874 2,64.4 2 ,115
.Phone 63,360 3 ,168
Cable 19 ,800 990
GPA 85-3 ( 0259D )
Business License Fees
Office professional development, Alternative 1 , is estimated to
require 140 employees based on 1 employee per 250 square feet .
The City 's Business License department stated that an annual
license fee for that number of employees would be $293 .
Addtional Revenue
Additional revenue is applied to new residential development on
a per capita basis . In the Preliminary City Budget , Fiscal
Year 1985-86, four major revenue items are applicable to this
analysis . Based on the January 1985 State Department of
finance population estimate for Huntington Beach of 179 ,925 ,
the revenue sources are applied as follows:
Fines , Forfeitures and Penalties is $2 ,131 ,000 divided by
179 ,925 equals $11 . 84 per capita .
Cigarette Tax is $530, 000 divided by 179 , 925 and equals
$2.95 per capita .
Motor Vehicle In-Lieu Tax is $4 ,442 ,000 divided by 179 ,925
and equals $24 . 69 per capita .
Gas Tax Funds (2107 and 2107 . 5 ) are $3,121 ,000 divided by
179 ,925 , equaling $17 . 35 per capita .
II . COSTS
City expenditures are applied to residential development on a
per capita basis with the exception of Public Works which is
most appropriately assessed on a per acre basis . Costs applied
to office professional development are entirely on a per acre
basis .
The City of Huntington Beach Preliminary Budget, Fiscal Year
1985-1986 , was. used as the primary source for this section of
the analysis . Capital expenditures were excluded from the
budget as they are not applicable to future or proposed
development . Also, further modifications were made to
Community Services and Public Works budgets . There are
programs and/or functions in both departments that are self
supporting. Fees collected , for example , from adult recreation
activities , support the costs for those programs . Therefore,
the costs will not be assessed in this analysis and in balance ,
the recreation fees were not included in the revenue portion .
General/Administration Expenditures
This fund includes : City Council , Non-Departmental ,
Administration , City Treasurer , City Attorney, City Clerk and
Administrative Services . The budget expenditures (minus
capital expenditures ) are $13, 111 ,347 for this fund .
GPA 85-3 (0259D )
Residential development in the City include 78 percent of the
privately developed acreage. The residential portion would,
therefore, equal $10 ,226 , 851 and, based on a population of
179 ,925 , the per capita cost would be $56 .84 .
Commercial development equals 10 percent of the privately
developed acres in the City which equals $1 ,311 135 of General/
Administration expenditures . Divided by the estimated 1 ,223
acres of existing commercial development, the cost per acre
would be $1 ,072 .
The following expenditures , using the same methodology, are:
Fire Department
The budgeted 1985/1986 expenditure is $9 ,585 ,702 . The
residential per capita cost is $41 . 56 . The commercial per acre
cost is $784 .
Police Department
The budgeted 1985/1986 expenditure is $16,988,435 and the
residential cost is $73.65 per capita . The commercial per acre
cost is $1 ,389 .
Community Service
The 1985/1986 budget is $4,530, 343 and the residential cost is
"$19.64- per capita . This portion of the budget is not
applicable to commercial development .
Public Works
The 1985/1986 expenditure is $13, 668, 664 . According to Public
Works staff, service throughout the City is essentially the
same regardless of the type of land use . Therefore, the per
acre cost for all alternatives would be $1 ,118 or a total of
$3 ,365 for the 3 .01 acre site .
GPA 85-3 ( 0259D )
APPENDIX B
Initial Study
APPENDIX S
ENVIRONMENTAL CtEC CLIST FORM
(To Be Completed By Lead Agency)
I. Bachround
I. Name of Proponent City of Huntington Beach
2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent 2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, California 9264536-5271
3. Date of Checklist Submitted _ September 18 , 1985
4. Agency Requiring Checklist City of Huntington Beach
5. Name of Proposal, if applicable General Plan Amendment No. 85-3
II. Environmental Impacts
(Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.)
Yes Maw No
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes
in geologic substructures? X
b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction
or overcovering of the soil? X
c. Change in topography or ground surface
relief features? X
d. The destruction, covering or modification
of any unique geologic or physical features? X
e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of
soils, either on or off the site? X
f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach
sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or
erosion which may modify the channel of a
river or stream or the bed of the ocean or
any bay, inlet or lake? X
115
'�ww
Yese No
g. Exposure of people or property to geolo-
gic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides,
mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards?
-
2. Air. Will the proposal result in:
a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration
of ambient air quality? X
b. The creation of objectionable odors? X
c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or
temperature, or any change in climate,
either locally or regionally? X
3. Water. Will. the proposal result in:
a. Changes in currents, or the course of di-
rection of water movements, in either
marine or fresh waters? X
b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage pat-
terns, or the rate and amount of surface
runoff?
_.X__
c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood
waters? X
d. Change in the amount of surface water in
any water body? X
e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any
alteration of surface water quality, in-
cluding but not limited to temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity? X
f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow
of ground waters?
g. Change in the quantity of ground waters,
either through direct additions or with-
drawals, or through interception of on
aquifer by cuts or excavations? X
h. Substantial reduction in the amount of
water otherwise available for public water
supplies? X
i. Exposure of people or property to water re-
lated hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? X
11"6
WI
Yes Maybe No
4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or
number of any species of plants (including
trees, shrubs, gross, crops, and aquatic
plants)? X
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of plants? X
c. Introduction of new species of plants into
an area, or in a barrier to the normal
replenishment of existing species? —_
d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural X
crop?
S. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or
numbers of any species of animals (birds,
land animals including reptiles,, fish and
shel I f ish, berth is organisms or inset tsr X
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of animals? X
c. Introduction of new species of animals into
an area, or result in a barrier to the
m ig rat ion or movement of animals? ,X
d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife
habitat? X
6. Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels? X
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? X
7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce
new light or glare? X
8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a sub-
stantial alteration of the present or planned
land use of an area? X
• 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural
resources? X
117
Yes Abe Nb
b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable
natural resource? X
10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involva
a. A risk of an explosion or the release
of hazardous substances (including, but not
limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation) in the event of an accident or
upset conditions? X
b. Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or an emergency evacuation
plan? X
II. Population. Will the proposal alter the location,
distribution, density, or growth rate of the
human population of an area? X
12. Flousing. Will the proposal affect existing hous-
ing, or create a demand for additional housing? X
13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal
result in:
a. Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement? X
b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or
demand for new parking? X
c. Substantial- impact upon existing transpor-
tation systems? X
d. Alterations to present patterns of circula-
tion or movement of people and/or goods? _X
e. Alterations to waterborne, roil or air
traffic? X
f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? X
14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an
effect upon, or result in a need for new or
altered governmental services in any of the
following areas: X
a. Fire protection? . X
b. Police protection? X
c. Schools? X
118
Yes
d. Parks or other recreational facilities? X
�. Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads?. X
f. Other governmental services? X
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? X
b. Substantial increase in demand upon exist-
ing sources of energy, or require the
development of new sources of energy? X
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need
for new systems, or substantial alterations to
the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas? X
b. Commun icat ions,systems? X
c. Water? X
d. Sewer or septic tanks? X
e. Storm water drainage? X
f. Solid waste and disposal? X
17. Huinan Health. Will, the proposal result in:
a. Creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard (excluding mental healthy X
b. Exposure of people to potential health
hazards? X
18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the
obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to
the public, or will the proposal result in the
creation of an aesthetically offensive site open
to public view? X
19.' Recreation. Will the proposal result in an
impact upon the quality or quantity of existing
recreational opportunities? X
20. Cultural Resources.
a. Will the proposal result in the alteration
of or the destruction of a prehistoric or
historic archaeological site? X
119
Yes
b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical
or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or
historic building, structure, or object? X
c. Does the proposal have the potential to
cause a physical change which would affect
unique ethnic cultural values? X
d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious
or sacred uses within the potential impact
area? X
21. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
a. Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish
or wildlife species, cause a fish or wild-
life population to drop below self sus-
taining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods X
of California history or prehistory?
b. Does the project have the potential to
achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of
long-term, environmental goals? (A short-
term impact on the environment is one
which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive
period of time while long-term impacts
will endure well into the future.) X
c. Does the project have impacts which are
individually limited, but cumulatively con-
siderable? (A project may impact on two
or more separate resources where the impact
on each resource is relatively small, but
where the effect of the total of those
impacts on the environment is significant.) X
d. Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X
III. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
IV. Determination
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
Izo
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT hove a significant effect
on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect
on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case
because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have _
been odded to, the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL 13E PREPARED.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environ-
ment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. IX J *Focused
EIR
September 18 , 1985
Date SjOnature
For
(Note: This is only a suggested form. Public agencies are free to devise their own
format for initial studies.)
* The EIR is focused on various issues for the project area.
The EIR will be prepared in conjunction with the General
Plan Amendment analysis .
121
EXPLANATION OF "YES" AND "MAYBE" ANSWERS
la . Portions of the site may be composed of soils with high
clay and/or peat and organic content and may therefore
require excavation and replacement of soil .
lb . Construction on the site may require compaction or
displacement of soil .
lc . Subterranean parking may be utilized which would cause
a change in ground surface relief features .
lg. The Newport-Inglewood Earthquake Fault System passes
through the City.
3b . Construction may alter the flow of runoff from the site .
6a . Development of the site will generate human and vehicle
noise .
7 . Development of the site will result in additional
street lights .
8 . The site is presently planned for General Commercial .
The proposal is for High Density Residential .
11 . The proposal will result in approximately 200
additional people residing in the area .
12 . The proposal will create additional housing.
13a. The proposal will generate vehicular traffic.
13c . The proposal will generate increased demand on existing
public and private transportation systems .
13f . Increased vehicular traffic may pose a hazard to
pedestrians and bicyclists in the area.
14a-f . The proposed project may require additional
governmental services .
16a-e . The proposed project may require alterations in some
utility systems .
21c. The cumulative effect of relatively small impacts on
various resources will be examined.
GPA 85-3 (0259D)
APPENDIX C
Air Quality Calculations
APPENDIX C
AIR QUALITY CALCULATIONS
The General Plan Amendments will not have any immediate impact on
existing air quality; however , future development as a result of the
amendments , may create an increase in mobile and stationary source
emissions .
The following table illustrates "worst case" or complete buildout
scenario of each amendment area . The figures used represent 1982
emissions for average vehicles in the South Coast Air Basin as
developed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District . These
emissions are not considered to be significant to the regional air
basin. Additionally, it should be noted that when development
occurs , the actual amount of pollutants may be less due to advanced
exhaust control technology and more stringent air pollution
legislation.
Alternative 1 : Office/Professional ( 35,000 square feet )
Mobile Emissions .0434 tons/day
Stationary Emissions . 0111 tons/day
Total tons/day
Alternative 2: Medium Density ,Residential (45 units )
Mobile Emissions . 0241 tons/day
Stationary Emissions .0006 tons/day
Total . 0247 tons day
Alternative 3: Medium/High Density Residential (75 units )
Mobile Emissions .0241 tons/day
Stationary Emissions .0010 tons/day
Total .0251 tons/day
Alternative 4 : High Density Residential (132 units )
Mobile Emissions .0354 tons/day
Stationary Emissions .0018 tons/day
Total . 0372 tons day
GPA 85-3 ( 0259D)
APPENDIX D
EIR Addendum
ADDENDUM TO EIR 85-2 (AREA 2 .1 )
SOILS AND GEOLOGY
As noted in Section 2 . 1 .2 .6 ( c) Seismic, of the Environmental Impact
Report portion of this document, Area 2 . 1 lies within the Newport-
Inglewood Fault zone and it will be necessary to address mitigation
measures for seismic hazards when a specific project is proposed for
development on the site ..
In addition to seismic hazards, soils conditions on the site also
need to be addressed. The study Geotechnical Inputs dated February
1974 and prepared for the City by Leighton-Yen an ssociates
identifies soil conditions and hazards throughout the City. 'The
study indicates that there are no known peat or• organic soil
deposits present directly on the subject property. The study does
indicate, however , a probable location (area and depth unknown ) over
a broad area to the north and northwest of the study area (Figure
4-1 ) . To the south of the site is a small pocket of peat estimated
to be one-half foot to five feet thick . Due to the proximity of
peat in the area , a thorough geotechnical investigation should be
conducted prior to construction on the subject property.
The Leighton-Yen study also identified the location of expansive .
clay soils throughout the City (Figure 4-2 ) . The study indicated
that virtually the entire portion of the City north of Talbert
Avenue is composed of soil having a moderate to high (20% to 42% )
clay content. This portion of the City includes study area 2 .1 .
The Leighton-Yen study indicates that expansive clay soils can cause
serious damage to lightly loaded structures , pavements, driveways
and sidewalks due to volumetric changes associated with increases or
decreases in moisture content. Reports of cracking slabs and other
problems in the subdivisions surrounding the study area are probably
attributable to the existence of expansive soils and inadequate
engineering and construction methods when the subdivisions were
developed. It is important that a geotechnical study be done to
make proper design recommendations for construction on the subject
property.
The Leighton-Yen study culminated in a Land Use Capability Analysis
and Map ( Figure 4-3 ) which identified the cumulative impacts of
various geotechnical risks and rated the various areas of . the City
accordingly. The study area was rated as a Nominal Risk Area which
displays the least problems from a geotechnical viewpoint and is
most suitable for high intensity development and critical facilities .
Consistent with the Leighton-Yen Study is a soils analysis prepared
by R. T. Franklin and Associates, July 1984 , for California Federal
Savings and Loan for a branch office located at the southwest corner
of Springdale and Edinger . In addition to existing fill (at a depth
of one-half of a foot ) , the natural soil on the site is clay,
ranging from firm to fine sandy clay. Results from 4 test sites ,
all at a depth of 11 to 12 feet, found moist soil at 9-1/2 feet , but
no evidence of water at 11 to 12 feet .
O
� -1 :`,� 1 ♦ era �..
k- -
-
f
j• h
IN
0 PROBABLE LOCATION OF PEAT
"EA&DEPTH UNKNOWN)
)
M 1/2'10 5'THICI< LAYER OF PEAT
® 5'TO 25'THICK LAYER OF PEAT
0 OAR 25'TI-KX LAYER OF PEAT
0 MARSH-1925,1905,OR 19CI
-- INFERRED BOUNDARY
S0URa:0RAW�aaiWY oar-of 6U)M a SAM"-n
HUNTINGTON BEACH C4LIFORNIA PEAT AND ORGmAW SOLS
PLANNING DIVISION
Figure 4-1
'N od dl I k J ., a IIn
4tl I h h f I"
• �/ `� it I t ` � �tkYS µrfr�:
:41 Fldi n lro hk ik 4
6'.n ,rr
lt� M I,IYIr h�I�IGVaf ay rt �r�i�7�l�yyh�tl r'ild��NII�!!P r 0.Y _ N 41 tN F I' ir'�'� .J:d".
cYl IIII , 'rl I V�I III I I YJ tlI ^ a r r aa4
,Wlfi'� }y!uiINJ�'llill�Cyl�III ew�7ilNl3�411t1�11111rFN'IJ,�IWhj�YII�Mi�linlydtylrlI��j'upp��lll7'ItrI�W Ilru il�l{i�ui� nilr���lil I�Ilrll �.:
p'h uq^alhll4y try I%lrl'�rrl' ~�T 'S �I'I G�4�14iula lXh llli!7 grM1 p� �ul�ih i,INl"�Ta�l�1 ��w�� ' hr,ill J�JI!� NI 1a41 'III'
5 Y ,N I II ItI fiJ{i e nrpr.^ ! hr wdi� p4 u' N4 wd.:a X �� a i�INr r r y:!r9`III�YV y u..
A1i,
of ,i' } Ii q�+l•�``I N;v�:na �� I Ig4�)",51'hjY,J" �Z'Y�i�4P �i'LL' 4�.''S` �Wa4 'i^',�Nf4,ah ,y,1�yk`Y� ,,.4n"S�'�3�'y 'J v�" .7 d-I
.I ! L, , III I .q, ¢AIL::��. � � :x u'NI, 1 t� �:,,, III .N,.I tg4F l t,,. h nppl.w., Y�r �,9I u,NL� uIY"��'.. iI,T,:.,•, p l;,4hl �'v.
IiI Ii.:�:. L.IL IIIL,IaI.r:IN .rl- � .a .n � ! ' I. IIII I•Ir rl..,::Itl. IBI .Ih. �, I.L,IIY.I I� :...��..hJ". 5:.h, I .. ....... I l;o:... -...,.ox.! ilhl,
• hry� gL:^ .a„I L!:'hI�J .,urd ,.�� -: � I :u. p'VFIIL. �t:�:�'!`,alpllllr:ar-...II. .�a. a 1 .I 9...r W:,.We..l:.l I,t,::�W'I atv,4'.�.. I ,q �'. .M.J'+.� a,,fllil��.
�'I� � "':iY^ M+I!Ik'�`�' Iw,4,ti 4 � ,.�4Fh �. W � �II I �",:,i ul'l�u�.i'I'�Iiir G4 'i�a I Fill'�i��l:� l �, F�rlp lk ly'�P:d�k M' .I h.F:.r�,¢F�a'' `'''' 4'�+k'J�,t ��:, 'i�4• .:�,...
,t��f r'Aq�ll�,l,�*hll�c+W ���J;N 1•I rn��`•�-� �. '\•y,l ,4'�..':;:r��I �P'''lla:�rr'�` r�rti.Fi�hMjrr�y4�'�,G ���:`r,+' k '.'"-�,�-+� a,.t,t�, +�N !�'L*la, syW�.l.::� ���
' l:F�I�IY' `���;,�,X����w�y�;�'jr r"d��'h4 ,�r Wb:�'.'�r�!�IiMr'v p°�'h, �q yl i >y�',,• J.� rj*:.v,q G4Oan ��^4�e":na f�'`� �,.��. ;s.�. '� .�,+r�:, ,� � -><tr �*.�-. '�t�r.
w�{14,.�•I�„rN tiN�" ��h,,!Icy I I �^.a�rr.. � lIn 'il Iw��;fJ�"an+mw�>'r-ru;h4+vl� �'!S' h'�, '.r J:�tu`t'�l _� �� �,."4.d^r ti
u l��l���I:x, III`IS�1 �n nl ��5::.;, §I. NII �:�IH � r�J' h'tl'��q�`6.::.. 6 b'. '•.a:l.;g r h,w�l�:,pp� . ,..,..�rx 1..1. n:�,4+.,:a rl
L, L LI I�:yll Ilu 1:�,:lll u. ��:. ,Yl,.� ,L I�� I :,,h . ll!: d I IrP,�'T�I h41 �N.V, r, uk, :NI,r�W �,t.,.l•r ,,xp,::, N
�`�. ��� � '•a� �����i r - ,! ,� 'li 'G{� ,� `�t� � �,� a�kF33 �3 �,.,a�,r�,�`i3 Y � I;,
kHITJIB � h IiJN `�,rlt �+ ra } ,:
-
•,/
I ,��IIIINI�I16 I I�III{I:l';sl.tlylr'� ah,Ik ��, IIII II r II IG,�I Ilrl I JI I I ` I,rf f h�°„rl�t r;��WW ' r,
N hl�irl�l�lsth'�NIII to L,I;�1L,I�rq' �" u'I •� Ilr ),:;: u: I II � � J�„ � ��^��y�w71; ':�. I
'p1�llal��,q�I IhN9I�II,yI�II�INw�Iu'IIn�YIIIJIh'IINIIIIhi�. �� � � � �rl� a I '�
I, �s
IM
Jt �''d6 q dyiilD 'k
rPr,a{4,�IIlprlhrllld���4�>»,.,r,+
Al uEtilrh4Nu�Gfrll�'!Il..lhtr l dl W 4�� W �I V
rh I �ihl� �" WIq lPqul
�"�,I�q,l� II h• III "��y ��P
#-"✓r 5TMOVzy �f� W� i��{"N,4� .4„t
•
4,`7gyO LO aL�
`gP
q\�8'��+�x d ^%� v`� ,L •"ems��„Y-,.:, "' zE� �
4'�y ¢Y, j•
�; � � �y.�'b^ ':z� �'siy�i:;°i,°�:':,.+ Wit'^• �
p to_•"�.-�_ +.��� -.`�., - i- ", �.,?''"`•�-� � `3 �J s - _
I
S ,
a
r
® HIGH RISK-EXTENSIVE PROBLEMS
DIFFICULT OR IMPRATICAL TO
OVERCOME
HIGH RISK-MAJOR PROBLEMS
BUT CONTROLLABLE THROUGH
DESIGN AND/OR SETBACK
THE GEOTECHNIC L PROBLEM RATING SCALE Is RELATIVE ONLY.THE IRM PROVISIONAL RISK-MINOR TO
MAP IS ES,TH Ep TO BE A ED ON T E IDEFOLLOWING FOR pG CON G MODERATE PROBLEMS
PURPOSES.THE MAP K BASED ON THE FOLLOWING COfiSmERA-
TIONS:MLXT RUPTURE I=,PEAT DEPOYM UOl3EWDON
POTENTIAL,BEACH EROSION AND TSUNAMI HAZARD,spmm- O NORMAL RISK—MB RJR
ALLY EXCLU
DED FROM CONSIDERATION WERE GROUND
SHAKRTG,EXPANSIVE SOILS"AREAL LAND SUBSW09X
GROUNDi OM PROBLEMS AND FLOOD HAZARDS. PROBLEMS
SOURCE:LEIGHTON-YEN&ASSOC. 9-1-73
HUNTINGTON BEACH C4LIFORNIRa-, GEOTECIIC�1L LAND USE C/�1P�ABILiTY MAP
PLANNING DIVISION
Figure 4-3
GASOLINE MIGRATION
On March 3 , 1981 it was discovered that the Mobile Oil Gas Station
located at 6012 Edinger Avenue (approximately 800 feet northeast of
Area 2 .1 ) had experienced an underground gasoline leak . It was
estimated that 35 ,000 to 50 ,000 gallons had looked out over a period
of four months . The leakage was discovered after it inundated an
Edison Company underground vault at the intersection of Edinger
Avenue and Springdale Street and caused a power outage .
After discovery of the leak all piping and gasoline storage
equipment at the station was replaced. It was subsequently
discovered, however , that vapors were leaking into the City's and
county' s sanitary sewer system causing leaking of fumes into
surrounding buildings upon any disconnection of piping for sinks and
toilets . To eliminate this problem, the Mobile Oil Company
installed a 24-hour explosion-proof fan over a manhole to evacuate
the vapors .
In order to recover the spilled gasoline, Mobile Oil drilled eight
bore holes in the property and are currently vacuuming the holes
once or twice a day. To date,. only approximately. 10 ,000 gallons of
fuel have been recovered . In order to speed up the recovery
process , the State Water Quality Control Board has indicated that a
proposal has been made for an automatic recovery system to be
established on the site. This will allow a 24-hour recovery process
rather than only short periods each day.
The State Water Quality Control Board further indicated that no
testing has been done to determine if gasoline has migrated
laterally downstream. One or two 4 and 6 inch monitoring wells will
need to be set up downstream to determine any lateral movement of
gasoline. Since there is a. possibility that lateral movement of
gasoline has affected Area 2 .1 , it is strongly recommended that
monitoring wells be bored on the site prior to any construction of
subterranean parking and that such construction be contingent upon a
negative finding of gasoline movement or until all of the •gasoline
is recovered.
ASBESTOS
It has been determined that Area 2 . 1 was used in the 1960 ' s as the
site of an air-conditioning duct manufacturing company and that
asbestos products were utilized. Staff has been unable to secure
any: records of asbestos testing done on the site, although the City
Fire Department and OSHA both apparently inspected the site several
times and allegedly found conditions to be adequate. Staff will
continue to seek records of testing from both the Fire Department
and OSHA. Regardless of what such records may ultimately reveal it
is recommended that the site be tested for asbestos residue prior to
any demolition or construction and that adequate mitigation measures
be implemented to ensure asbestos residue. is safely removed and does
not become airborne during on-site activity.
ADDED DWELLING UNITS
Subsequent to preparation of draft EIR 85-2 (Area 2 .1 ) the applicant
increased the unit count of the proposed residential project by 19
units . This increase was indicated by staff to the State
Clearinghouse and reviewing agencies . The increase of 19 dwelling
units is not seen as a significant increase over the 132 units which
were analyzed. The only reportable impact will be an approximately
additional 76 average daily vehicle trips to and from the site (a
total of 604 ADT) . Section 2 . 1 . 2 .5 Traffic and Circulation, of the
Draft EIR should be revised to reflect this figure un er a High
Density alternative.
In conjunction with the increase in average daily trips , it will
also be necessary to prepare a revised total Mobile and Stationary
air emission estimate as follows:
Mobile Emissions .0405
Stationary Emissions .0021
.0426
Appendix C is hereby amended to include the above calculations under
Alternative 4 .
OFFICE ALTERNATIVE
The existing Land Use designation on the subject property is General
Commercial and the zoning is R-5 (Office Professional ) . In
analyzing the existing designation, staff had assumed construction
of a 35 ,000 . square foot office building. In the course of
subsequent work with the applicant and the Planning Commission ,
however , it was determined that land costs would dictate a larger
office building under the existing designation . It was further
determined that a 100 ,000 square foot building was feasible on the
site . For this reason, staff has provided this section to indicate
the additional impacts of a larger office building.
The major impact of a 100 ,000 square foot office building in place
of a 35 ,000 square foot building will be traffic generation.' While
staff had estimated 619 average daily trips for the 35,000 foot
example, the larger 100 ,000 square foot building would generate
approximately 1 ,770 trips . This additional traffic would largely
occur during peak traffic hours and would impose a no table impact
on the surrounding arterials . The additional vehicles would also
require the use of subterranean parking on the site.
Commensurate with the increase in daily vehicle trips would be an
increase in air emissions . The following estimates amend Appendix C
to update the air emissions for a 100 ,00'0 square foot office
building.
Mobile Emissions .1240
Stationary Emissions . 0317
.1557
GPA 85-3 (0259D)
The only other portion of the Environmental Impact Report analysis
which may change substantially due to the larger office building
size is the Fiscal Impact Analysis section . Rather than recalculate
the fiscal analysis formulas it is safe to surmise that property
tax , utility tax and business license revenues will all increase
significantly and that additional costs to the City will be
minimal . As such , the fiscal effect will likely be to change the
office alternative from a fiscal loser (Revenue/Cost .82 ) to a
moderate fiscal winner .
GPA 85-3 (0259D)
APPENDIX E
Comments and Responses
STATE OF CALIFORNIA--OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Govermr
OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH. -
14W TENTH STREET ,.
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814
(916/445-0613)
Hal Simmons December 2, 1985
city of Huntington Beach
P.O.Box 190
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Subject: Land Use Element Amendment 85-3
SCH# 85091814
Dear Mr, Simmons;
The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named environmental document to
selected state agencies for review. The review period is closed and none of
the state agencies have comments. This letter acknowledges that you have
complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft
environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environcaertal Quality
Act.
Please call Glenn Stober at 916/445-0613 if you have any questions regarding.
the environmental review process. When contacting the Clearinghouse in this
matter, please use the eight digit State Clearinghouse number so that we may
respond promptly.
Sincerely,
John B. Ohanian
Chief Deputy Directo
Office of Planning d Research
HUNTINGTON BEACH
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
n 5 1985
P.O. Box 190
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
STATE OF CALIFORNIA—RESOURCES AGENCY GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN,Governor
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
P.O. Box 6598
LOS ANGELES '°fit►'
90055 RECEIVED
UinT -� nnn�tn�l
1985
City of Huntington Beach CITY OF
Post Office Box 190 HUNTINGTON BEACH
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Attention: Hal Simmons
Notice of Preparation of DEIR for General Plan Amendment No 85-3,
SCH 85091814.
The Department of Water Resources' recommendations on the subject document are
attached. The recommendations are related to water conservation and flood
damage prevention.
Consideration should also be given to a comprehensive program to use
reclaimed water for irrigation purposes in order to free fresh water supplies
for beneficial uses requiring high quality water.
For further information, you may wish to contact John Pariewski at
(213) 620-3951.
Sincerely,
Robert Y. D . Chun , Chief
Planning Branch
Southern District
Attachments
cc: Office of Planning and Research
State Clearinghouse
1400 Tenth Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
HUNTINGTON BEACH
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
OCT 16 1985
P.U. BOX
Huntirlgc,jn budCh, CA 92648
Department of Water Resources Recommendations
for Water Conservation and Water Reclamation
To reduce water demand, the following water conservation measures should be
implemented:
Required by law: .
1 . Low-flush toilets (see Section 17921 .3 of the Health and Safety Code).
2. Low-flow showers and faucets (California Administrative Code, Title 24,
Part 6, Article 1 , T20-1406F) .
3. Insulation of hot water lines in water recirculating systems (California
Energy Commission regulations) .
Recommendations to be implemented where applicable:
Interior:
1 . Supply line pressure: recommend water pressure greater than 50 pounds per
square inch (psi) be reduced to 50 psi or less by means of a
pressure-reducing valve.
2. Flush valve operated water closets: recommend 3 gallons per flush.
3. Drinking fountains: recommend equipped with self-closing valves.
4. Pipe insulation: recommend all hot water lines in dwelling be insulated
to provide hot water faster with less water waste and to keep hot pipes
from heating cold water pipes.
5. Hotel rooms: recommend posting conservation reminders in rooms and rest
rooms.* Recommend thermostatically-controlled mixing valve for
.bath/shower.
6. Laundry facilities: recommend use of water-conserving models of washers.
7. Restaurants: recommend use of water-conserving models of dishwashers or
retrofitting spray emitters. Recommend serving drinking water upon request
only.*
Exterior:
1 . Landscape with low water-consuming plants wherever feasible.
2. Minimize use of lawn by limiting it to lawn dependent uses, such as playing
fields.
*The Department of Water Resources or local water district may aid in developing
these materials.
3. Use mulch extensively in all landscaped areas. Mulch applied on top of
soil will improve the water—holding capacity of the soil by reducing
evaporation and soil compaction.
4. Preserve and protect existing trees and shrubs. Established plants are
often adapted to low water conditions and their use saves water needed to
establish replacement vegetation.
5. Install efficient irrigation systems which minimize runoff and evaporation
and maximize the water which will reach the plant roots. . Drip irrigation
soil moisture sensors and automatic irrigation systems are a few methods of
increasing irrigation efficiency.
b. Use pervious paving material whenever feasible to reduce surface water
runoff and aid i.n ground water recharge.
7 . Grading of slopes should minimize surface water runoff.
S. Investigate the. feasibility of utilizing reclaimed waste water, stored
rainwater, or household grey water for irrigation.
9. Encourage cluster development which can reduce the amount of land being
converted to urban use. This will reduce the amount of impervious paving
created and thereby aid in ground water recharge.
10. Preserve existing natural drainage areas and encourage the incorporation of
natural drainage systems in new developments. This would aid in ground
water recharge.
11 . Flood plains and aquifer recharge areas which are the best sites for ground
water recharge should be preserved as open space.
Department of Water Resources Recommendations for Flood Damage Prevention
In flood-prone areas, flood damage prevention measures required to protect a
proposed development should be based on the following guidelines:
1. All building structures should be protected against a 100-year flood.
It is the State's policy to conserve water. Any potential loss to ground
water should be mitigated.
2. In those areas not covered by a Flood Insurance Rate Map or a Flood
Boundary and Floodway Map, issued by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency, the 100-year flood elevation and boundary should be shown on the
Environmental Impact Report.
3. At least one route of ingress and egress to the development should be
available during a 100-year flood.
4. The slope and foundation designs for all structures should be based on
detailed soils and engineering studies, especially for all hillside
developments.
5. Revegetation of the slopes should be done as soon as possible.
6. The potential damage to the proposed development by mudflow should be
assessed and mitigated as required.
7 . Grading should be limited to dry months to minimize problems associated
with sediment transport during construction.
RESPONSE TO DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES COMMENTS
The Department of Water Resources ' comments regarding required and
suggested water conservation measures are noted and shall be
retained where appropriate as conditions of approval for any project
on the subject property.
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS
OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
> P.O. BOX 8127, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92728-8127
Oq,N"C`E COVN'(y 10844 ELLIS, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708-7018
(714) 540-2910 (714) 962-2411
December 30, 1985 HUNTINGTON BEACH
DEVELOPMFiNT SERVICES
City of Huntington Beach
P. 0. Box 1902 1986
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
i-.u.
Attention: Dr. Jeanine Frank E;.1.0 1 raJHuntington Beach, CA 92648
Subject: General Plan Amendment No. 85-3
In accordance with our telephone conversation this date, the Sanitation
Districts offer the following comments on subject General Plan Amendment:
1. Area 2.1. This area was originally master planned by the District
for low density residential development. The 3.09 acres located
on the west side of Springdale Street, south of Edinger Avenue are
of concern to the Districts. The District' s collection facilities
which serve that area, as well as the Slater Avenue Pump Station are
very near capacity and may soon reach the position of being over-
taxed.
2. Area 3.2. This area was originally master planned by t t
for medium density residential developmen Mrs adjacent to
the 55.0 acres of pro
west corner of Atlanta
Avenue and B o have adequate capacity to serve the
evelopment.
3. The Districts' facilities have been sized to accommodate master
planned flows. The Districts operate under a NPDES permit issued
by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board; this permit
has a set discharge limit for biochemical oxygen demand and
suspended solids. At the present time, the biochemical oxygen
demand in the Districts' discharge is close to the limit. The
staff projects that each million gallons per day of additional
flow will add one part per million to the biochemical oxygen
demand after treatment, therefore, significant land use changes .
will impact the Districts' facilities. Consequently we request
that all available flow reduction measures be incorporated into
any project.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond on this pending Environmental Impact
Report.
a7
omasslw_m. Dawes
Director of Engineering
TMD:HJB
RESPONSE TO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS COMMENTS
The County Sanitation Districts' comments regarding sewage capacities
are noted. Further communication with Mr. Thomas M.Dawes of the
County Sanitation Districts has indicated that while the sewer
system in the area is approaching capacity, the Districts ' comments
on EIR 85-2 are not intended to imply that the proposed project
cannot be adequately served. Rather, the letter is intended to
convey the request that all available flow reduction measures be
incorporated into the project. Staff recommends that this request
be made a Condition of Approval on the Conditional Use Permit for
the project.
WIL
u" "RAFT
LAND USE ELEMENT
AMENDMENT 85 .3
Environmental Impact Report 85 .2
huntington beach planning division
w
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
1 .0 INTRODUCTION 1
1 .1 Methodology 1
2.0 AREA OF CONCERN 3
2 .1 Springdale-Edinger Area 3
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES 17
3 .1 Short-Term and Long-Term Productivity 17
3 . 2 Irreversible Environmental Changes 18
3 .3 Growth Inducing Impacts 19
4.0 ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS 21
4 .1 Medium High Density Senior
Residential Designation 21
APPENDICES
Appendix A Fiscal Impact Land Use Assumptions
Appendix B Initial Study
Appendix C Air Quality Calculations
Appendix D Addendum
Appendix E Comments and Responses
1
I '
I
Land Use Categories
AMENDMENTS
CDAITE
ING COMM CITY COUNCIL
ES 1187 OLUTION DATE RESOLUTION c� 9 O � ' RESIDENTIALEst to 2Un/gaC
6 7-77 1196 18-6-77 4484 GO! e`"9C �� �Ol�
9-29 77 1202 11-7-77 4551 '+ <
12-6-77 1206 12-19-77 4572 �,Pf
8-I-78 1232 8-21-78 4660 �° - "_ Estate <3 un�/gac
10-17-78 1236 11-6-78 4696 Estate <_4 urvgac
/ =Low Density
8 8
11-21-78 1239 12-18-78 4708 ¢a
3- 0 261 4-7-80 4865
\ �'\ P"2 ®Medium Density
10-19-81 1273 6-15-81 5005 6 j Pa.1-1 Medium High Density
5-19-81 1273 6-15-81 5005 J SAN DIEGO FREEWAY /
II-3-81 1278 12-7-81 5053 •ryG �• p
11-17-81 1279 12-21-81 5060 O / ®High Density
8-2-82 5147
2-20-82 5206
12-7-82 1299 2-7-83 5223ei '-=a�,!i--'
I Ry;47\
COMMERCIAL
4-4-83 1303 5-16-83 5265 / •/ \�\ / _.. `�` ,�3;�;',cc;��:"S':?."%€;r;: / '''
10-4-83 1314 II-28-83 5327
12-6-83 1315 I-3-84 5341 / - / _ - -- -- �\ BP ,`r°`\ ®General
1 4-3-84 1317 5-7-84 5373 - - - - - C6t
Visitor Serving
M Office Professional
MIXED USES
ED Mixed
Development ent
\
p
€i€€�ii€ ii's'si€ii°''
.... ............. ::::::. :::.. / °P Office/Residential
`\ P
ii� iiii''.::. ......... .. :!ii::.. \ ' :,. .� . '
' r..... a....................... ^ :- • ^::r' .
ME Commercial Support Recreation
STRIAE
General
e era
.............................. ill
................................. _...,::,:_;_:: 'si..........:::::: : \
09.Resource Production
..... ................................................................
--------------------------
:: :::::: ::::::::::::: ss:::.... . \
\ ::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::<:::::::::::: :;::::: :::<::;:;':: Production/ industrial Energy uct' n
:::••::;ta[s as:: a sa::::: / OPEN SPACE
............ :::•.y,,I ............................
................
®Water
9 :.............. €i l���t�ya�. ? iiuiia°':iiii•.•iEiiiii. .. .,... .i . ,� .. i:\ �P
n
Cons¢rvati
...:.:::..
...........
.............
Recreation I w nor ®ER USES
.��� ,�Ur�,�.- �,4���,, .,� •2•P Public,Quasi Public,institutional
41- �,��;, ,,,fir ,,:?� �� ....�..:. ...................... _�_
Planned
, yy -'E�., •::::::::::::::�:::: :. '�"::�. .;
„�;.,��::-1� .:;:;::�:. •�:::::::::::::::: :�::.. �� �Planning Reserve
Community
. ............... .........
......
�F>,��r,,s "`^ � - •••••••••--•• � � :;•;. - Coastal Zone Boundary
li
S
f
„0or.
/
s
/ ':�: •.err'+:......:....:.. .::::,: .
/ � :;�::•:. ..............
z� I
SRI
I
:.:.:.:.:.:.. ...
� .;�'S^r�,�nL_Gl3 -hex, `K,✓�+:�..
PACIFIC COAST 1 OCEAN
IiWY' ,i•, •+1 sob - PACIFIC
PACIFIC j OCEAN �- Kt °i� � �.>�jC •+�•d,��i�`O•�1
•/u
PLAN
ERAL
® HUNTINGTON BE4CH CALIFORNIA I LANDNUSE DIAGRAM
PLANNING DIVISION ; Adopted December1976
Revised MAY 1984 c-R—IS
1
DRAFT
DRAFT
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report concerns Amendment 85-3 to the Land Use Element of the
Huntington Beach General Plan. The Land Use Element was adopted as
a mandated element of the General Plan in December , 1973; this is
the twenty-eighth amendment to the element . Planned land uses
throughout the City are depicted in the attached Land Use Diagram.
1 . 1 METHODOLOGY
. This amendment considers a change in General Plan designation on
only one site .(Area 2 .1 ) . The area is a 3 . 09 acre site located on
the west side of Springdale Street approximately 760 feet south of
Edinger Avenue. The amendment request on this site will be analyzed
in terms of the existing conditions on the site, anticipated impact
on surrounding areas, major land uses and environmental issues , and
consistency with adopted City goals and policies .
Section 15148 of the State EIR Guidelines states that "The
requirements for an EIR on a local general plan element or amendment
thereof will be satisfied by the general plan or element document
and no separate EIR will be required if: 1 ) the general plan
addresses all the points required to be in an EIR by Article 9 of
the State EIR Guidelines, and 2 ) the document contains a special
section or a cover sheet identifying where the general plan document
addresses each of the ,points required. " In conformance, with State
guidelines , this document will constitute the EIR for Land Use
Element Amendment 85-3 . The environmental setting and significant
impacts associated with the issue areas identified in the initial
study are addressed under area of concern (Section 2 .1 ) .
Alternative land use designations and feasible mitigation measures
to minimize significant effects are also discussed in this section .
GPA 85-3 -1- (0259D)
Section 3 .0 addresses overall environmental changes related to the
following considerations: 1 ) short-term and long-term
productivity; 2) irreversible or unavoidable environmental changes;
and 3 ) growth inducing impacts.
Also analyzed in this document is Administrative Item 4 .1 , a request
by the City of Huntington Beach to create a new General Plan land
use designation for Medium High Density Senior Residential . This
item received Negative Declaration No. 86-1 and is , therefore, not
covered by EIR 85-2 .
DRAM
GPA 85-3 -2- (0259D)
DRAFT
2 .0 AREA OF CONCERN
2 .1 SPRINGDALE AND EDINGER
2 . 1 . 1 Background
The area of concern is located on the west side of Springdale Street
approximately 780 feet south of Edinger Avenue . The 3 .01 acre site
is presently owned by A & J Development .
Existing structures on the site include a single family detached
home and a large 30 ,000 square foot metal warehouse building. The
warehouse building formerly housed a pipe fabrication . business .
The applicant has requested that the area of concern be redesignated
from general commercial to .high density residential to allow
construction of 131 affordable apartments for senior citizens .
This amendment analyzes four possible land use alternatives for the
site: 1 ) high density residential ( 44 units per acre ) ; 2 ) Medium-High
Density Residential (25 units per acre ) ; 3 ) Medium Density
Residential (15 units per acre ) ; 4 ) Office/Professional (35, 000
square feet ) .
2 . 1 .2 Analysis
1 . Land Use
The City' s General Plan (Figure 2-1 ) designates the property
directly to the north as General Commercial and .property to
the south and west as Low Density Residential , property to
the east , on the opposite side of Springdale is also
GPA 85-3 3 ( 0259D)
t `'^
. • , �ee■e. �� :: ■MilleOEM ■ �■
r._�__�_�—__ 1■■ee e■'■ �■
IN IN
IN IN oil
•NAL �e■�. .. i■.
r . ;levee. !■
��� • . Lid■■■■■�. .■ .■. ..:i■i CC ■!!!■// ■■
.. .. .. ININ ME
. ..
0 WIN
- —. r■ ■� ��. Imo. WE
a
■■■■■■■■■■■■■e■e■ ■■■■■� ����; i ■!!!eENERAL
u!!!u� •
■ u ! .
•
eeien� i e i
���uu� �`v�■a��� ��ii■liiwii■�iiiii+�
-
,. W6' = :
C e� � ■
NNW
IN
1 .�NI�IRIIIi� •• . . .
■■iiiieueeeeele■ ■eeeee!■■■n —-- �• ••
e■■■■u■■e■■e■■■■■ ■■u■■■■uu■n I;_ni►,, `i�ie!■ie►�I�■��u! !!!■!u
s
designated as Low Density Residential . Adjacent land uses
include a restaurant to the north and single family
subdivision's immediately to the west , south and across
_ Springdale Street to the east . In the general vicinity
there are two commercial centers on the south side of
Edinger Avenue to the north and an apartment complex across
Springdale to the northeast . Marina High School is located
on the north side of Edinger Avenue, west of Springdale .
The area of concern is currently zoned R5-Office
Professional (Figure 2-2 ) . Property to the north is zoned
C4 and C2 , Highway Commercial and Ceneral Commercial .
Property to the southeast and west is zoned R1 , Low Density
Residential . The property near the southeast corner of
Springdale and Edinger is zoned R-3, Medium High Density
Residential .
The following impacts are related to the four land use
alternatives analyzed in this report.
High Density Residential (Alternative 1 )
In conjunction with the Land Use Amendment to redesignate
the property to High Density Residential , the applicant has
requested R4-SR (High Density- Senior Residential ) zoning on
the property. The applicant has further requested a 25
percent density bonus in return for the provision of
affordable housing for seniors . The zone change and density
bonus would result in the construction of 131 senior
apartment units at a density of 44 du/acre.
Preliminary site plans submitted by the applicant indicate
that buildings would generally be three stories in height ,
stepping down to two stories at the ends of the buildings .
Because the site is a shallow rectangle (200 feet x 510
feet ) , development at the proposed density may appear quite
massive in size when viewed from Springdale Street .
Architectural techniques such as breaking up of building
forms , varying the setback of units and using a _combination
of roofline designs may help reduce the visual impact of
high density development .
The conceptual site plan submitted by the applicant
designates .72 acres of the site as open space. Development
under the R4 standards requires a minimum of . 45 acres of
open space . The applicant was able to achieve this surplus
of open space because the parking requirement for senior
housing is significantly less than the parking requirement
for high density development -- 0 . 6 spaces per unit versus 2
to 2 . 5 spaces per unit . This reduction in the amount of
ground area required for parking also allows for greater
building setbacks . The applicant proposes 10 foot .setbacks
in the front and side yards and a minimum of 30 foot rear
yard setback increasing to a 90 foot setback at one point .
U�GPA 85-3 5 (0259D)
' cnit --_ IN rttr
100-MI-A-15,000 CALN CR °°"" DR G'
q3�,
RI xCF—E RI
R3 R I R I a :rs::;ca..lsuco ca ME
MILTON CR
RIRI
RI „°a M. WELOE HOOKER DR 'R� HUGHES DR (LEI'
CF—E _ L
RI a RI RI
ROYALIST DR LONGFORD Cfl CLA
CF-R RI _ U RI
�0 RI
W
J
0
RI RI RI RI uwN Cq
C2 .RI , < RI
xA to a
a RI 8 C4 ;
0. C. F. C. D.
_. EDINGER
RI RI — �79 - o_100 RI _ ,e
" RI W RI > d J BELLINGER DR iC20= O�
R5 R RI
CASTLL
DR. A ( sza'= R 1
C2 R3
RI RI R RI _ y
U FLINT
M R 1 ES
Z � c nzzw
R I m Beox "DR R I
LITTLLR NE p D -9'C4 SOFTWIND ZDRREUBENS DR.RI R IRI RI R5 RI aRI /\RI RILLARK DR. hiONTECITO m J� `F�
°°° RI RI G RI R1 SILVERWOOD U DR RI
CF_E — PALISADE DR R 1
RI
RI pRK DR R I j Y MYRTLE DR.
(A$--.'.iI:F.I'WCIiG S :i:-) L
MEpDa+OR
RI R 1
W DAGNY Cfl i i C
RI a PpR CR i
VENTURI DR < R I J R 1
I R I R I R I aRLANDo Da. R I R I R I R I RI RI c N cR I D
MAgSRALL 3 DR. R I R I W RI
W I
W RI RI W ¢ R
MIDDLECOFF _ R
RI I 3 rr
CHRISTY DR b 0
RI R1 R51 C RI RI k RI C
R 2 K.R
RI g RI d GUMM RIDR R I
IEA y R 1 R 1 GLDRIA DR g
R3 CF_R �5= e
�z>oo W m JEAN DR J R
I::..:.:::::. <I -
RI WEBER OR
�. ' I J CF—E RI
RI
ROS N LINE TRACT ND 6136
Area of Concern .00/
EXISTING ZONINGDRAFT
huntington beach planning division
Figure 2-2
Single family . residentia1 developments located south and
west of the site will be visually impacted by the
development of the site . Second and third story units face
onto the homes located to the south resulting in a loss of
privacy for those homes to the south . Visual impacts on the
homes to the west may be mitigated by minimizing the number
of units which look onto the single family homes , or siting
the carports and parking spaces at the rear of the site, and
by creating setbacks ranging from 30 feet to 90 feet .
In applying the senior citizen development standards , the
Huntington Beach Ordinance Code states that consideration
shall be given to the proximity of the site to public
transportation , shopping areas , medical facilities , and like
services . Shopping facilities , including grocery stores ,
retail stores , banks and restaurants , are located within 800
feet of the site . Nearby medical facilities are located on
Edinger Avenue, east of Springdale Street and Heil Avenue
west of Springdale Street . In addition, paramedics are
based approximately one mile away at the City fire station.
.located on Gothard Street south of Edinger . Bus service is
provided along Springdale and Edinger by OCTD. The
applicant also proposes to operate two shuttle vans for the
convenience of the residents .
Medium High Density Residential (Alternative 2 )
Medium high density development would result in the
construction of 75 dwelling units . The physical mass of the
buildings would be similar to development of the site as
high density senior housing. Fewer but larger units would ,
result from this alternative because the required floor area
per unit is greater for apartment standards versus senior
development standards .
Due to the higher ratio of required parking, it can be
expected that development under this alternative would
incorporate the minimum setbacks as required per code ( 10
foot front yard, 5 foot side yard and 10 foot rear yard ) .
Building height would again range from two to three
stories . Due to a combination of both building height and
setbacks , it is anticipated that this alternative would have
the greatest impact on the privacy of' the adjacent single
family neighborhood .
Medium Density (Alternative 3 )
Medium density ..development would result in the construction
of 45 dwelling units . Site coverage would be much less than
the Medium High and High Density. alternatives . The
development standards for Planned Developments require that
no more than six units be attached side by side. This would
serve to reduce the bulk of the buildings and provide for a
more pleasing street scene along Springdale Street.
However , due to the high land cost , the 25 units which could
GPA 85-3 7DRAI- (0259D)
be constructed under this alternative would have to be
priced well above market rates . The location of this site
cannot support luxury priced units .
Office Professional (Alternative 4 )
Development of the site for office/professional uses would
be consistent with the existing R5 zoning. The site may
accommodate a 35 ,000 square foot office building with a
maximum building height of 35 feet or three stories .
As with the high and medium high density alternatives , the
rectangular shape of the site will most likely result in the
design of a building which appears quite massive when viewed
from Springdale Street .
The desirability of this site for office use may be somewhat
limited. The primary land uses found along Springdale
Street include residential , parks, school , churches and
general commercial . Professional offices are concentrated
along Beach Boulevard .
2 . Economic Considerations
The Planning staff utilized its standard fiscal impact
methodology to analyze the alternatives in this amendment .
Appendix A provides the assumptions which were made for each
alternative . The revenues and expenditures associated with
each alternative were predicted for one year for comparison
purposes . The results are summarized in the table below.
Appendix A contains a summary of the fiscal impact
methodology.
Alt . 1 Alt . 2
High Density Medium High
Residential Density Residential
Revenue 39 , 600 29,100
Cost 39 ,000 26,200
Revenue Minus Cost 600 2,900
Revenue/Cost 1 .02 1 .11
Alt . 3 Alt . 4
Medium Density Genera
Residential Commercial
Revenue 20,700 8,900
Cost 20, 300 10,900
Revenue Minus Cost 400 -2,000
Revenue/Cost 1 .02 .82
DRAI.
GPA 85-3 8 ( 0259D )
As shown above, the fiscal impact of the amendment is .
optimized if the Medium High Density Residential alternative
is selected . This scenario may generate a maximum surplus
of $2 ,900 in the year analyzed . The other residential
alternatives could . be expected to generate smaller
surpluses .. The General Commercial alternative is expected
to generate a deficit of approximately $2 ,000 in one year .
The deficit for this alternative is due to the fact that
office/professional was analyzed which does not produce
sales tax revenue . In reviewing the above results , it is
important to view the analysis in comparative terms only,
rather than as a prediction of exact costs and. revenues .
3 . Housing
The applicant has proposed development of 131 senior citizen
apartments . Under the requested high density residential
land use designation and utilizing R4-SR_ (High Density
Residential-Senior Residential ) zoning, a density bonus of
25 percent would be required to develop at the requested
density of 44 du/acre . A medium high density residential
land use would permit 75 units . Under a medium density
residential land use designation , approximately 45
condominiums or apartments could be accommodated on the site .
The City ' s Housing Element of the General Plan includes
policies aimed at increasing housing opportunities for
households with low and moderate incomes . The applicant 's
proposal includes a 25 percent density bonus which would
require him to provide 25 percent of the units to be
affordable 'to seniors with low and moderate incomes . Bond
financing., if made available to the applicant, would require
an additional 25 percent of the units to be designated for
low and moderate income senior citizens . The applicant 's
proposed senior apartment project would provide the greatest
opportunity for low and moderate housing of any of the
alternatives .
The City 's Housing Flement of the General Plan also includes
a policy to "promote housing which meets the special needs
of elderly persons . " There are an estimated 10,258 elderly
persons (65 years of age or older ) residing in Huntington
Beach , or about 6 percent of the total City population .
Many elderly households are in the lower income category
and, of these, SCAG estimates approximately 1 ,218 households
are paying more than 30 percent of their incomes . for
housing. Escalating housing costs , especially in the rental
market , severly impact the elderly population, many of whom
are on fixed incomes .
In the past, the City has made a concentrated effort to meet
the special housing needs of the elderly . There are
approximately 1 , 025 senior units either recently approved or
existing within the City . The following developments have
been constructed since 1980 . See Figure. 2-3 for locations .
GPA 85-3 9DRAF (0,259D )
Key Development Units
1 Emerald Cove* 164
2 Windward Cove* 96
.3 Huntington Terrace* 172
4 Huntington West* 53
5 Wycliff Towers* 192
The following two projects have been approved but not
constructed:
6 Palm Court* 192
7 Fi.ve Points Court 156
4 . Public Services and Utilities
a . Sewers
An existing 8 inch sewer line located on Springdale
Street terminates at the northern property line of the
area of concern and would have to be extended to serve
the project . _ The 8 inch City-owned line runs into a 27
inch county sewer line . Any of the land use .
alternatives being considered could be adequately
served by these lines .
b . Water
Existing uses around the area are served by a 12 inch
water line in Springdale Street . Adequate water supply
could be provided for any of the land use alternatives
by connecting into the 12 inch main .
C . Storm Drains
The area of concern is located in Drainage District 4 .
The storm drain system in . this district , including
Shields Pump Station located on Shields Drive between
Springdale Street and Edwards Street is under capacity
and is in need of up-grading. The Public Works
Department has indicated that although the storm drain
system is problematic , development of the proposed site
would have negligible impact due to the site 's small
size . However , a residential project would generate
less runoff than an office/professional project, thus
having less impact on the system.
Project includes units or low and moderate incomes .
DRAFI
GPA 85-3 10 ( 0259D )
¢ AREA OF CONCERN
Vil
ml
\q.-
1 2
- j
I
I
Senior Housing
-DRAFT
i J L
huntington beach planning division
Figure 2-3
d . Parks
The area of concern is located within the service area
of Marina Community Park , an 11-acre facility at the
intersection of Edinger Avenue and Graham Street . Also
in the vicinity are four neighborhood parks which are
all located within one mile of the area of concern .
The existing parks will provide adequate park
facilities for any of the residential .alternatives .
The office/professional alternative would decrease the
demand for park facilities .
e . Police and Fire Protection
Police service for the area of concern is provided by
the City of Huntington Beach which operates from a
central facility located at Main Street and Yorktown
Avenue. Additional staffing anticipated by the Police
Department is minimal for all land use alternatives .
This need, although small , should not be ignored due to
the cumulative effect of many new developments in the
City. The alternative which would require the most
additional staffing is the applicant 's request for 131
senior citizen apartments . It is anticipated that the
major portion of calls would be for medical needs.
Below is a list of anticipated additional staffing
required for .each land use alternative:
Additional
Alternative Officer Required
High Density Residential-Seniors
(131 apartments ) .12
Medium High Density Residential
(75 condos/apartments ) .08
Medium Density Residential
(45 condos/apartments ) . 05
Office Professional ( 35,000 s .f . ) . 02
Fire response to the area of concern is provided by the
City of Huntington Beach from the Heil Station located
southeast of the area of concern . Paramedics would
respond from Murdy Station on Gothard , south of
Edinger . Generally, the Fire Department requires two
entrances to a large project . In this case a single
driveway would be acceptable if it was of adequate
width for two fire response units to enter the site
simultaneously. The site is 214 feet deep and would
allow the Fire Department to take emergency access off
Springdale Street if necessary. The Fire Department
has indicated that any of the land use alternatives
GPA 85-3 12 (0259D)
could be adequately served provided that all
requirements such as a sprinkler system, an alarm
system, fire hydrants and minimum fire lanes of 24 feet
are provided in the development .
f . Schools
The area of concern is located within the Oceanview
School District and is served by Village View School
(K-6 ) , Springview School ( 7,8 ) and Marina High Scho.ol
(9-12 ) . The number of students generated from a medium
or a medium-high density alternative would be
negligible and could be accommodated by the school
district . Office professional or senior housing would
have no impact on the area 's schools.
Students generated by residential alternatives :
Elementary High
Land Use Alternative School School
Medium Density (45 units ) 5.4 1 . 8
Medium High Density (75 units ) 9 3
g. Gas and Electrical Utilities and Telephone.
Natural gas service and electrical service are provided
by the Southern California Gas Company and Southern
California Edison, respectively. A four inch gas main
currently runs in Springdale Street with 1-1/4 inch and
3/4 inch connections to the area of concern . No
problems have been indicated with serving the site,
however further review would take place when gas load
requirements are determined by the developer .
Electrical service is available from existing 12 KV
overhead lines running directly behind the area of
concern and along Springdale. Street . The Southern
California Edison Company has indicated that electrical
load requirements can be met provided that electrical
demand does not exceed estimates , and there are no
unexpected outages to major sources of electrical
supply. General Telephone has indicated that adequate
service could be provided for the area of concern under
any of the land use alternatives .
h . Solid Waste Disposal
The Rainbow Disposal Company provides solid waste
collection to the City of Huntington Beach . No local
service constraints are expected under any of the
alternative land .use designations . Internal street
circulation within any project would have to be
designed to accommodate the company's refuse trucks
without requiring any backing-up.
GPA 85-3 13 ( 0259D )
5 . Traffic and Circulation
The area of concern has approximately 500 lineal feet of
frontage along Springdale Street , a primary arterial with an
average daily traffic volume of 26, 500 vehicles . The site
lies 780 feet south of Edinger Avenue, also a primary
arterial , with an average daily traffic volume of 35, 600
vehicles .
Projected daily traffic volumes generated by the alternative
land use designations are:
Land Use Alternative Traffic Generation
High Density Senior Citizens Apartments 524 trips
Medium-High Density Residential 675 trips
Medium Density Residential 450 trips
office Professional 619 trips
It should be noted that the figure of 524 daily trips
estimated to be generated by 131 senior citizen ' s apartment_
units is based on a trip generation rate of four trips per
unit per day. This assumes that the developer of the
apartments would provide a convenient shuttle or limosine.
service which would be used by the residents . If the site
was to be developed as high density residential apartment
(not geared for senior citizens) the daily traffic
generation would increase dramatically to 1 ,048 vehicle
trips per day.
Development of the site for Medium Density Residential ( 45
units ) or Senior Citizen Apartments ( 131 units ) would
contribute the least traffic volume onto Springdale Street .
Access to the site would be from a single entry along
Springdale Street . The Public Works Department indicates
that potential traffic impacts along Springdale Street could
be minimized if the entry to the project was wide and at the
same grade as Springdale Street , thereby providing a smooth
entry into the project . (An entry at a higher elevation
than the adjacent street requires motorists to slow down to
achieve a smooth transition into the site . )
The volume of traffic created by any of the alternatives
would not warrant additional signalization along Springdale
Street . The existing dual-left turn lane can adequately
serve traffic entering and exiting the site.
6 . Environmental Issues
DRA"FT
a . Noise
The area of concern is located on the west side of
Springdale Street which is the principal source of
noise in the area . According to projected traffic
GPA 85-3 14 ( 0259D )
noise impacts for 1990 by the Wyle Laboratories, the
area would be exposed to noise levels ranging from Ldn
60 db to Ldn 65 db. The highest noise levels occur
along Springdale. Residential development must be
compatible with the Noise Element of the City' s General
Plana If residential structures are to be located
within a CNEL 65 db contour , then mitigation measures
such as building setbacks , building orientation or
noise barriers such as walls or landscaping should be
implemented.
b. Air Quality
Development of the area of concern under any of the
alternative land use designations would adversely
affect air quality in the South Coast Air Basin,
primarily due to increased automobile traffic generated
by the additional housing units or professional
offices . Projected daily emissions from the area are
indicated in Appendix C.
C. Seismic
The .area of concern lies within the Newport-Inglewood
Fault Zone, though it is not traversed by any known
faults.. The Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone is a
potential cause of serious structural damage due
primarily to ground shaking. Actual displacement and
surface rupture has not historically occurred along
this fault system in Huntington Beach and the
probability is relatively low that it will within . the
next 100 years, even though one or more moderate-sized
earthquakes may occur .
In compliance with the Alquist-Priolo Geologic Hazards
Zones Act of 1972, a Special Studies. Zone has been
established in Huntington Beach that includes the most
hazardous earthquake faults . This special studies zone
does not extend into the study area . Development in
the study area, therefore, need not. be subject to the
zone ' s requirements. It will be appropriate to address
the mitigation of potential seismic hazards in the
study area when a specific project is proposed for
development.
2 . 1 . 3 Staff Recommendation
Recent State legislation has allowed developers of senior citizen
projects to request a 50 percent density bonus on top of the
underlying zoning. The applicant has requested a 25 percent density
bonus on top of R4-SR zoning. In view of the possibility for a 50
GPA 85-3 15 rd I ( 025.9D)
percent density bonus , staff is recommending a General Plan
designation of Medium-High Density (Alternative 2 ) and zoning of
(Q)R3-SR. A 50 percent density bonus on top of the .R3 zoning will
permit a maximum of 11.2 units or 19 units less than the applicant
has requested. The unit reduction is intended to result in fewer
3-story units adjacent to the single-family tract , thus reducing the
apparent bulk of the project and minimizing impacts on surrounding
properties . The (Q) suffix will require review by the architectural
design board prior to issuance of building permits .
DRAFT
GPA 85-3 16 ( 0259D )
3 .0 ENVIRONMENTAL. CHANGES
In accordance with California Environmental Quality Act guidelines,
an environmental assessment is required to address short-term and
long-term effects, irreversible environmental changes, and growth
inducing impacts - of the total project or plan . This section analyzes
these concerns in context of the recommended land use change in
Section 2 :0 .
3 . 1 SHORT-TERM AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY
Amendment 85-3 does not in and of itself create long term impacts .
Rather , it makes changes in the general types, of land uses that may
be allowed on a particular area at the time of development.
Amendment 85-3 seeks to identify short-range issues within a context
of long-range goals, policies , and environmental planning programs .
The amendment itself acts as a mitigation measure designed to
minimize any adverse effects on long-term productivity resulting from
short-term uses .
One of the steps required to implement the amendment is an analysis
of the zone changes necessary to bring the zoning into conformance
with the General Plan . The zoning changes that would result would
have significant short-term effects , such as creating non-conforming
uses, reducing or increasing intensity of development permitted, and
providing stimulus for development .
DRAF01
GPA 85-3 -17- ( 0259D )
3 .2 IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES
. The Amendment will mitigate most adverse effects . However ,
irreversible environmental change of a secondary nature can be
expected from development under the proposed amendment . Loss of
open space will occur as vacant land is converted to other uses .
Although the option to recycle the land to open space after
development is available , it is probably not economically feasible.
Alteration of topography will be an irreversible change. Although
mitigating measures can be imposed as part of the development
process , the natural topography will experience a negligible degree
of modification . Construction materials of mineral origin will also
be needed for development to occur , and fossil fuels will be
committed for long periods to satisfy local energy demand. However ,
such development would be consistent with existing land use
designations .
3 .3 GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS
The proposed amendment will also have growth inducing effects within
the areas of concern. An additional population of 200 persons could
be generated by uses under Land Use Element Amendment 85-3 , thereby
creating an increased demand on public services and utilities and
incrementally affecting air quality, water quality, traffic, and
noise levels . However , the proposed uses in accord with General
Plan policies and programs should mitigate many of the adverse
effects generated by the expected growth .
The demand for water and energy will likely increase as a result of
the proposed land uses in this amendment . Conservation measures can
be implemented City- and County-wide to reduce these impacts such as:
( 1 ) Reduce evaporation from reservoirs by encouraging
underground storage or coating water surfaces with
evaporation hindering films or substances .
( 2 ) Encourage tertiary treatment of and reuse of the return flow
of public water supplies wherever such use is acceptable and
safe.
( 3 ) Waterspread where appropriate to recharge the underground
water supply.
( 4 ) Meter water and encourage repair of leaky. connectibns to
stimulate more economical use.
(5 ) Reduce consumption of toilets and showers by requiring
appropriate modifications to these appliances.
( 6 ) Prohibit the use of open gas lighting in public or private
buildings .
DRAFT
Lj
GPA 85-3 -18- ( 0259D)
( 7 ) Strategically place electric lights to maximize their.
efficiency. Their size and power consumption should be
minimized as much as possible.
(8 ) Discourage electrical heating in public and private
structures . Encourage solar-assisted heating systems.
(9 ) Encourage the use of reflecting and/or insulating glass in
structures where windows are not shaded by exterior
architectural projections or natural plants .
DRAFT
GPA .85-3 -19- (0259D)
4 . 0 ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS
This section addresses one City-initiated administrative amendment to
the General Plan. The item creates a new General Plan land use
designation of Senior Residential .
General Plan Amendment 83-3 (adopted by the City Council on November
28, 1983) created the concept of Administrative Items as changes
which in themselves obviously have little or no significant potential
direct impact on either the environment or current development
patterns in the City. Such changes were defined to include the
creation of new land use designations as well as minor word changes
in the document and revisions to the Zoning and Land Use Element
Consistency Matrix. None of these types of changes would have direct
impacts because the act of adoption would not actually apply them to
specific parcels of land . Since these types of changes do not result
in direct impacts , there is no need for an extensive analysis of them
before adoption. As such, Administrative Items 4 . 1 in this document
was advertised as Negative Declaration 86-1 .
4 . 1 CREATION OF MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY SENIOR RESIDENTIAL
Administrative Item 4. 1 is a request by the City of Huntington Beach
to create anew General Plan land use designation of Senior
Residential .
Senior Residential : This residential land use category constitutes
recognition by the City of Huntington Beach that, due .to low per unit
occupancy and vehicle generation rates , Senior Residential
DRAFTGPA 85-3 -21- ( 0259D)
projects may be constructed at higher densities and still maintain
compatibility with lower density surrounding uses. The Senior
Residential land use designation is intended to more clearly define
the intended use of property when it is determined that a
residential project at that same density, but not limited to senior
residential , could have a negative impact on the surrounding area.
Any designation of property to Senior Residential on the General
Plan shall be accompanied by a concurrent zone change to apply the
SR (Senior Residential ) suffix to the accompanying zoning. The
Senior Residential land use designation shall only be consistent
with R2, R3 and R4 zoning designation when combined with the SR
suffix . The allowable density of the Senior Residential land use
designation shall be determined by the underlying zoning and the
size of any density bonus granted. Any request to remove the SR
zoning suffix from property general planned for Senior Residential
shall require a Land Use Element amendment to a non-Senior
Residential land use designation. Locational criteria for the
Senior Residential land use designation are as follows:
a. Proximity to transportation facilities .
b. Proximity to shopping facilities.
C. Proximity to medical facilities .
DRAFT
GPA 85-3 -22- (0259D)
APPENDIX A
Fiscal Impact
Land Use. Assumptions
APPENDIX A
FISCAL IMPACT
LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS
Four alternative land uses were chosen for this analysis .
Number of
Alternative Type of Unit Units/Square Feet Population
1 Office Professional 35 ,000 sq. ft . N/A
2 Medium Density 45 DU 's 100
3 Medium-High Density . . 75 DU 's 131
4* High Density 132 DU 's 198
* (Proposed Project )
I . REVENUE
Property Tax
The County Tax Assessor collects one percent of the market
valuation of new development in property tax. Of . that one
percent , the City of Huntington Beach collects (in tax rate
area 4-007 ) 19 . 2 percent in property tax revenue .
Property tax revenue per each alternative was based on the
following estimated market valuations:
Alternative 1 = $2 ,935,151
Assuming $80 per square foot for the office building and
$135,131 , the current assessed value for the three acres of
land ( 1985-1986 tax rolls )
Alternative 2 = $5,625,000
Assuming a market valuation of $125, 000 per dwelling unit .
Alternative , 3 = $7 ,500 ,000
Assuming a market valuation of $100 ,000 per dwelling unit
Alternative 4 (the project ) _ $8 ,913,151
Assuming a market valuation of $66 ,500 per dwelling unit
plus the land value of $135, 151
The above estimates were based on market valuations of . existing
properties in Huntington Beach from resources such as Coldwell
Banker and the county tax rolls .
DRAF1
GPA 85-3 (0259D)
Sales Tax Revenue
The ' State of California collects a six percent sales tax on
retail sales . of that six percent , the City collects one
percent . Sales .tax revenue estimates are based on family
income. It is assumed that the average family income is one
third of the market value of each dwelling unit.
Using the Internal Revenue Service table that bases the
estimated sales tax on family income and family size the
following would result:
A dwelling unit value of $125, 000 for Alternative 2 would
require an annual family income of $41 ,666 . Based on an
average family size of two people per dwelling unit, the annual
sales tax collected would be $399 . The City 's portion of that
amount would be $67 . The majority of that revenue , 75 percent ,
is expected to be collected by retail commercial outlets . on
an annual basis that 75 percent has filtered through the
commercial outlets in the City and is then directly credited to
commercial and not to residential . Therefore, the net amount
of revenue directly attributed to that residential unit would
be $16 , and an annual amount of $720 for the 45 families of
Alternative No. 2 .
Using the same methodology Alternative 3 resulted in an annual
total sales tax revenue of $1 ,125 and Alternative 4 resulted in
an annual revenue of $110 . Although Alternative 4 had the
largest number of families the average estimated income per
family was the lowest . Also, because Alternative 4 ( the
proposed project ) is a senior citizen rental project it was
assumed the relationship of income to unit value would be less
income = . 25 percent of unit value.
Alternative 1 , professional office, is not assumed to generate
measurable sales tax revenue.
Utility and Franchise
Huntington Beach collects a five percent utility tax on the
annual sales of electricity, natural gas , telephone and cable
T.V. services in the City.
According to the California Energy Commission the average
residential electric and gas bills in Southern California were :
$35 . 65 reported by Southern California Edison and $33 .38
reported by Southern California Gas Company.
General Telephone could not provide an average service cost for
residential customers in the City, therefore an average charge
of $40, reported in the Holly EIR, has been used in this
analysis .
DRAF-OT
GPA 85-3 (0259D)
The basic ,rate for cable television service , in the City, is
$12 .5,0 per month . It is assumed that all new residents in the
City will subscribe to the service .
Franchise Tax is based on two percent of the annual electricity
sales and four percent of the annual natural gas sales in the
City.
Alternative 1
Electric consumption is estimated to be 427,000 kwh , annually,
based on 12 .2 kwh per square foot per year . Southern
California Edison has provided a cost for commercial services
of 7 .54 cents per kwh . Total estimated electric fees are
$32 ,196 resulting in an annual utility tax of $1 ,610 .
Natural gas consumption is estimated to be ..42 BTU's per square
foot per year . Southern California Gas Company charges an
average annual rate of $5 .53 per million BTU 's (or" 55. 3 cents
per therm) for commercial customrs . The result for this
alternative, is $8 ,129 in annual fees and $406 collected by the
City in utility tax .
Based on the above consumption estimates Franchise revenue
would be:
$644 for electricity and $325 for natural gas .
Alternative 2
Total Utility Franchise
Estimated Revenue Tax Fees
Electricity $19,251 $ 963 644
Gas 18 ,025 901 325
Phone 21 ,600 1 ,080
Cable 6 ,750 338
Alternative 3
Total Utility Franchise
Estimated Revenue Tax Fees
Electricity $32,085 $1 ,604 $ 642—
Gas 30,042 1, 502 1 ,202
Phone 36,000 1 ,800
Cable 11 , 250 563
Alternative 4
Total Utility Franchise
Estimated Revenue Tax Fees
Electricity $56,470 $2 ,824 $1 ,129
Gas 52 ,874 2,644 2 ,115
Phone 63,360 3,168
Cable 19 ,800 990
GPA 85-3 D R A OF
( 0259D )
Business License Fees
Office professional development, Alternative 1 , is estimated to
require 140 employees based on 1 employee per 250 square feet.
The City 's Business License department stated that an annual
license fee for that number of employees would be $293 .
Addtional Revenue
Additional revenue is applied to new residential development on
a per capita basis . In the Preliminary City Budget , Fiscal
Year 1985-86 , four major revenue items are applicable to this
analysis . Based on the January 1985 State Department of
finance population estimate for Huntington Beach of 179 , 925 ,
the revenue sources are applied as follows:
Fines , Forfeitures and Penalties is $2,131 , 000 divided by
179 ,925 equals $11 . 84 per capita .
Cigarette Tax is $530 ,000 divided by 179 ,925 and equals
2.95 per capita .
Motor Vehicle In-Lieu Tax is $4, 442 ,000 divided by 179 , 925 .
and equals $24 . 69 per capita .
Gas Tax Funds (2107 and 2107 . 5 ) are $3,121 ,000 divided by
179 ,925 , equaling $17 . 35 per capita .
II . COSTS
City expenditures are applied to residential development on a
per capita basis with the exception of Public Works which is
most appropriately assessed on a per acre basis . Costs applied
to office professional development are entirely on a per acre
basis .
The City of Huntington Beach Preliminary Budget, Fiscal Year
1985-1986 , was used as the primary source for this section of
the analysis . Capital expenditures were excluded from the
budget as they are not applicable to future or proposed
development . Also, further modifications were made to
Community Services and Public Works budgets . There are
programs and/or functions 'in both departments that are self
supporting. Fees collected, for example, from adult recreation
activities , support the costs for those programs . Therefore,
the costs will not be assessed in this analysis and in balance ,
the recreation fees were not included in the revenue portion .
General/Administration Expenditures
This fund includes : City Council , Non—Departmental ,
Administration , City Treasurer , City Attorney, City Clerk . and
Administrative Services . The budget expenditures (minus
capital expenditures ) are $13 ,111 ,347 for this fund .
GPA 85-3 DRAF1 (0259D )
Residential development in the City include 78 percent of the
privately developed acreage. The residential portion would,
therefore, equal $10 ,226 , 851 and, based on a population of
179 ,925, the per capita cost would be $56. 84 .
Commercial development equals 10 percent of the privately
developed acres in the City which equals $1 ,311 135 of General/
Administration expenditures . Divided by the estimated 1 ,223
acres of existing commercial development, the cost per acre
would be $1 ,072 .
The following expenditures , using the same methodology, are:
Fire Department
The budgeted 1985/1986 expenditure is $9 , 585 , 702 . The
residential per capita cost is $41 .56 . The commercial per acre
cost is $784 .
Police Department
The budgeted 1985/1986 expenditure is $16,988,435 and the
residential cost is $73 .65 per capita . The commercial per acre
cost is $1 ,389 .
Community Service .
The 1985/1986 budget is $4 , 530, 343 and the residential cost is
$19 .64 per capita . This portion of the budget is not
applicable to commercial development .
Public Works
The 1985/1986 expenditure is $13, 668, 664 . According to Public
Works staff , service throughout the City is essentially the
same regardless of the type of land use . Therefore, the per
acre cost for all alternatives would be $1 ,118 or a total of
$3 ,365 for the 3 .01 acre site .
DRAF
GPA 85-3 (0259D )
APPENDIX B
Initial Study
APPENDIX S
ENVIRONMENTAL C EClKLIST FORM
(To Be Completed By Lead Agency)
I. 8ockground
I. Name of Proponent City of Huntington Beach
2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent 2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, California 9264 -
3. Date of Checklist Submitted September 18 , 1985
4. Agency Requiring Checklist City of Huntington Beach
5. Name of Proposal, if applicable General Plan Amendment No. 85-3
II. Environmental Impacts
(Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.)
Yes Maybe No
I. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes
in geologic substructures? X
b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction
or overcovering of the soil? X
c. Change in topography or ground surface
relief features? X
d. The. destruction, covering or modification
of any unique geologic or physical features? X
e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of
soils, either on or off the site? X
f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach
sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or
erosion which may modify the channel of a.
river or stream or the bed of the ocean or
any bay, inlet or lake? X
113
Yea Mao be No
g. Exposure of people or property to geolo-
gic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides,
mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? X
2. Air. Will the proposal result in:
a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration
of ambient air quality? X
b. The creation of objectionable odors? X
C. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or
temperature, or any change in climate,
either locally or regionally? X
3. Water. Will the proposal result in:
a. Changes in currents, or the course of di-
rection of water movements, in either
marine or fresh waters? X
b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage pat-
terns, or the rate and amount of surface
runoff? X _
c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood
waters? X
d. Change in the amount of surface water in
any water body? X
e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any
alteration of surface water quality, in-
cluding but not limited to temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity? X
f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow
of ground waters?
g. Change in the quantity of ground waters,
either through direct additions or with-
drawals, or through interception of an
aquifer by cuts or excavations? X
h. Substantial reduction in the amount of
water otherwise available for public water
supplies? X
i. Exposure of people or property to water re- X
lated hazards such as flooding or tidal waves?
11"6 DRAFT
Yes M a Pb
4. Plad Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or
number of any species of plants (including
trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic
plants)? X
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of plants? X
c. Introduction of new species of plants into
an area, or in a barrier to the normal
replenishment of existing species? X
d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural X
crop?
5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or
numbers of any species of animals (birds,
land animals including reptiles, fish and
shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)*' X
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of animals? X
c. Introduction of new species of animals into
an area, or result in a barrier to the
migration or movement of animals? X
d. Deterioration to existing fish. or wildlife
habitat? X
6. Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels? X,
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? X
7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce
new light or glare? X
8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a sub-
stantial alteration of the present or planned
land use of on area? X
• 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural
resources? X
117
Yes A4�rbo Pia _
b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable
natural resource? X
10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involves
a. A risk of an explosion or the release
of hazardous substances (including, but not
limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation) in the event of an accident or
upset conditions? X
b. Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or an emergency evacuation
plan? X
II. Population. Will the proposal alter the location,
distribution, density, or growth rate of the
human population of an area? X
12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing hous-
ing, or create a demand for additional housing? X
13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal
result in:
a. Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement? X
b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or
demand for new parking? X
c. Substantial' impact upon existing tronspor-
Cation systems? X
d. Alterations to present patterns of circula-
tion or movement of people and/or goods? X
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air
traff ic? X
f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? X
14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an
effect upon, or result in a need for new or
altered governmental services in any of the-
following areas: X
a. Fire protection? X
b. Police protection? X
c. Schools? X
D R A' T
ll8
Yes W
d. Parks or other recreational facilities? X
e. Maintenance of public facilities, including
rands? X
f. Other governmental services? X
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? X
b. Substantial increase in demand upon exist-
ing sources of energy, or require the
development of new sources of energy? X
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need
for new systems, or substantial alterations to
the following utilities:
o. Power or natural gas? X
b. Communications systems? X
c. Water? X
d. Sewer or septic tanks? X
e. Storm water drainage? X
f. Solid waste and disposal? X
17. Hkxnan Health. Will, the proposal result in:
a. Creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard (excluding mental health) X
b. Exposure of people to potential health
hazards? X
18. Aesthetics. Will-the proposal result in the
obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to
the public, or will the proposal result in the
creation of an aesthetically offensive site open
to public view? X
19.' Recreatiam Will the proposal result in an
impact upon the quality or quantity of existing
recreational opportunities? X
20. Cultvrd Resources.
a. Will the proposal result in the alteration
of or the destruction of a prehistoric or
historic co ct logical site? X
119
a
Yes Maybe No
b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical
or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or
historic building, structure, or abject? X
c. Does the proposal have the potential to
cause a physical change which would affect
unique ethnic cultural values? X
d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious
or sacred uses within the potential impact
area? X
21. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
a. Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish
or wildlife species, cause a fish or wild-
life population to drop below self sus-
taining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods
of California history or prehistory? X
b. Does the project have the potential to
achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of
long-term, environmental goals? (A short-
term impact on the environment is one
which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive
period of time while long-term impacts
will endure well into the future.) X
C. Does the project have impacts which are
individually limited, but cumulatively con-
siderable? (A project may impact on two
or more separate resources where the impact
on each resource is relatively small, but
where the effect of the total of those
impacts on the environment is significant.) X
d. Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X
111. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
IV. Determination
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
IN
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect
on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect
on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case
because the mitigation measures described an an attached sheet have
been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environ-
ment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. X I *Focused
— EIR
September 18 , 1985
Date Sjdnoture
For
(Note: This is only a suggested form. Public agencies are free to devise their own
format for initial studies.)
* The EIR is focused on various issues for the project area .
The EIR will be prepared in conjunction with the General
Plan Amendment analysis .
121 DRAFT
EXPLANATION OF "YES" AND "MAYBE" ANSWERS
la . Portions of the site may be composed of soils with high
clay and/or peat and organic content and may therefore
require excavation and replacement of soil .
lb . Construction on the site may require compaction or
displacement of soil .
lc . Subterranean parking may be utilized which would cause
a change in ground surface relief features .
lg. The Newport-Inglewood Earthquake Fault System passes
through the City.
3b. Construction may alter the flow of runoff from the site .
6a . Development of the site will generate human and vehicle
noise .
7 . Development of the site will result in additional
street lights .
8 . The site is presently planned for General Commercial .
The proposal is for High Density Residential .
11 . The proposal will result in approximately 200
additional people residing in the area .
12 . The proposal will create additional housing.
13a. The proposal will generate vehicular traffic.
13c . The proposal will generate increased demand on existing
public and private transportation systems .
13f . Increased vehicular traffic may pose a hazard to
pedestrians and bicyclists in the area .
14a-f . The proposed project may require additional
governmental services .
16a-e . The proposed project may require alterations in some
utility systems .
21c. The cumulative effect of relatively small impacts on
various resources will be examined.
DRAFT
GPA 85-3 (0259D)
APPENDIX C
Air Quality Calculations
APPENDIX C
AIR QUALITY CALCULATIONS
The General Plan Amendments will not have any immediate impact on
existing air quality; however , future development as a result of the
amendments , may create an increase in mobile and stationary source
emissions .
The following table illustrates "worst case" or complete buildout
scenario of each amendment area . The figures used represent 1982
emissions for average vehicles in the South Coast Air Basin as
developed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District . These
emissions are not considered to be significant to the regional air
basin . Additionally, it should be noted that when development
occurs, the actual amount of pollutants may be less due to advanced
exhaust control technology and more stringent air pollution
legislation .
Alternative 1 : Office/Professional ( 35,000 square feet )
Mobile Emissions .0434 tons/day
Stationary Emissions . 0111 tons/day
Total tons/day
Alternative 2: Medium Density Residential (45 units )
Mobile Emissions . 0241 tons/day
Stationary Emissions . 0006 tons/day
Total .0247 tons day
Alternative 3 : Medium/High Density Residential (75 units )
Mobile Emissions .0241 tons/day
Stationary Emissions .0010 tons/day
Total .0251 tons/day
Alternative 4 : High Density Residential (132 units )
Mobile Emissions .0354 tons/day
Stationary Emissions .0018 tons/day
Total .0372 tons day
DRAFT
GPA 85-3 ( 0259D)
APPENDIX D
EIR Addendum
ADDENDUM TO EIR 85-2 (AREA 2 . 1 )
SOILS AND GEOLOGY
As noted in Section 2 . 1 .2 .6 (c ) Seismic, of the Environmental Impact
Report portion of this document, Area 2 . 1 lies within the Newport-
Inglewood Fault zone and it will be necessary to address mitigation
measures for seismic hazards when a specific project is proposed for
development on the site_..
In addition to seismic hazards, soils conditions on the site also
need to be addressed. The study Geotechnical Inputs dated February
1974 and prepared for the City by Leighton-Yen an ssociates
identifies soil conditions and hazards throughout the City. The
study indicates that there are no known peat or organic soil
deposits present directly on the subject pi,operty. The study does
indicate , however , a probable location (area and depth unknown ) over
a broad area to the north and northwest of the study area (Figure
4-1 ) . To the south of the site is a small pocket of peat estimated
to be one-half foot to five feet thick . Due to the proximity of
peat in the area, a thorough geotechnical investigation should be
conducted prior to construction. on the subject property.
The Leighton-Yen study also identified the location of expansive .
clay soils throughout the City (Figure 4-2 ) . The study indicated
that virtually the entire portion of the City north of Talbert
Avenue is composed of soil having a moderate to high (20% to 42% )
clay content. This portion of the City includes study area 2 .1 .
The Leighton-Yen study indicates that expansive clay soils can cause
serious damage to lightly loaded structures , pavements, driveways
and sidewalks due to volumetric changes associated with increases or
decreases in moisture content. Reports of cracking slabs and other
problems in the subdivisions surrounding the study area are probably
attributable to the existence of expansive soils and inadequate
engineering and construction methods when the subdivisions were
developed. It is important that a geotechnical study be done to
make proper design recommendations for construction on the subject
property.
The Leighton-Yen study culminated in a Land Use Capability Analysis
and Map (Figure 4-3 ) which identified the cumulative impacts of
various geotechnical risks and rated the various areas of the City
accordingly. The study area was rated as a Nominal Risk Area which
displays the least problems from a geotechnical viewpoint and is
most suitable for high intensity development and critical facilities .
Consistent with the Leighton-Yen Study is a soils analysis prepared
by R. T. Franklin and Associates, July 1984 , for California Federal
Savings and Loan for a branch office located at the southwest corner
of Springdale and Edinger . In addition to existing fill (at a depth
of one-half of a foot ) , the natural soil on the site is clay,
ranging from firm to fine sandy clay. Results from 4 test sites ,
all at a depth of 11 to 12 feet, found moist soil at 9-1/2 feet, but
no evidence of water at 11 to 12 feet .
-'hyF• l�='�•'-- is •-=_ 't.
4
0,
�o
/ 'A `
4
_a
-f
l;
C PROBABLE LOCATION OF PEAT
(AREA&DEPTH LN(NOWN)
0 1/2'10 5'THICK LAYER OF PEAT
® 510 25'THICK LAYER OF PEAT
0 OVER 25'TH ICK LAYER OF PEAT
0 MARSH-1925,1905,OR 1901
-- INFERRED BOUNDARY
SOURM ORANGE aotMr am of slm a fAm w-n
HUNTINGTON BEACH C4LIFORNIA PEAT AND ORGANC SOLS
PLANNING DIVISION
Figure 4-1 D R A Flo
�'� 'I Nqr!tlN N I '.4i I l k4 rra li III I 'yI
nn ill�4 I,I�: A4 �, V,r4 4^ JIX I�r i:r Ir)'1�44 III':
rtIlN a,l�lh'yx l�hnah ll$� � "y+Mf. ii'',}'id ri r,l�l�y!��7 i
:::x�` ,GrI III IN,I:�k�l t�l Ir �rl��Iq IuG I'�"4��r kbr N194 IGII'll G�FNr WNIail !Vf��ylh Iq of NN"r�1l�F � s '�,kf i 1,I In���ill pd�d i � F k r s:.
I:I!o ,.,.,li� Y I ,pr;hJl nlu 'nllll,ll:�ll�l ml�I r,,.I�I, dlkl�� '',d�r �I B�,I�,,:r�� I �fh1114�r�ah��I�,II�r,.:,,��4 MIPd��i'..;•I�II�!III r iikll,
P{�I;:. ...-1i nl N.!G:IINI�I Ia",IJ'IYdI d �I,„I ,lil r :I:., I��'::iM a I,M...,.,r.i„II V�:itl ^h�l:� �II✓I I��I u,U.,,ul ,Ii L P�Iutl ur. ulrrhFl •,JISI� I I I<, rt',;,,
IYGw, ;,I �y L.pI,ri,l.l r IG a,t:f,IIIIV ! It�JfI .:I I,Y af, ,.d�dl, l 6N,M !��Wr ga!iX,III,LIII I dJ Ila a„„y aI � gll,ull P I � :INa. I,6:
r 11'l�:.;d���I�t•'IrI,; ,::k r. �,.H,I:.aml II I, II:I'.I.I I� uI.G,:+.. J „„I,,r�'I Is�� M�4�!�:.rM: '"I.{�JwPNu!?�!:, .�41'I�I"X•q;7,�4I 4���I�:?:1!! 'e� :!��r;al� ^I ° w:f":;+
'G� IaIII���v!'.�I�J,�'J�n'��o,�i .,::.(iy "4� ^, '�II�.�,ndl�h,h I I,�� ala'+.,X4 ,dlli!�;��d � ,ni !� iv�XtJI dlv,�n��� qultp:�'•Irp,NWJIIbke�4lra JI.,h yrJy11 y ,�:,,q, }:'..
;'wW k�rhCa 1!N;rll�I���iydl; 1 4�k �t p� �� '!6'N �lr� I��'�Y. �'y,� }I'1�1 s1k f,� b�Jhl��kt*4� �. { �,�f I`�y ry4 r 1P�°n�."'i''1�r a;s t '• k
- d �yW,"'r Jd ri:1^tirm,... "X,�;:�y"h^, h..t��IXt wN�,. �nf^am�r 'q��r y. � a`rY nr�.. �. 1✓I�c�p ys sx`h''v p-�"aa i'�... �
•u G,.��I.I,,Irill; ,I� i�dk,.. n-r d .1� .,-.:I: .I: ��'1�� �"'�' h 'tk':r,�a_s, �M� w4 dl�dntr�y''iJr�i..ar �',�t r, "�.,�wh, ,. Y � '� ...•.,;. s
''ta' 'Il�
phll,a,.1: IJ!4� s,^:^nt, ,: :� :I h,, JII„ G1., •.+ s,:,. l M.4w.; n,, 1 ::
Iry' � �ILI�:XIf I „„.o�ll,� a. r,�,Nkl I,I,_.� I � II I :'' ,,,,: ,,pYG r^h f+. a, �, Its!~~alp:•:,{,i I� k ,t,a ,� �> -:,., J .+�
I. .,��::, �L. S I" rII I. w,� � �rl 'r,.nl4. �..:. �,,�, ..d� :��:n �I -,14:k ! ,4 h',•� � J�"'� ..-�,� I I�,,,p I�I . L .� I:I � :�,� II . _h :: I � I : J:� � Sul �� .,:tg11 � II..iI �.�a t .� �{ : �..•: � �: h� . o.rtl ,..�I I � I N �U:,.:� Ih I I I,m,J lop d r„•, I I I I n: J I I:.,I Ib. G:, I.I d .h, I I,., .a i r,,: II �:,p,.,,, I �": ._r.I.: o .:h IrII��G�, � : I .,::Fa6 IIh R � I�:u•,I, � d I�tl'i! I PII:.I•:.I 4t iG':I:,:.�:, Ih, y _: ..: i I � re:. . + ��•�..it,::.:�L II , i �: I �.����4.,.. .,.i..:. ��pd �:. I 4 �.III :. a:.h}� I�..L.. h �,.I.. ':,.r7•.,.�. �y .... :;,: a ...'„.,rYl �:., � " 4�,::.
,�, I �., d �1.f�, I�II �J!!n I k d��: X� .� , �, � �� a.,,: � I tip!:.. a:,,." :'.�^ � � I u..,,: I� r.d: u._�. �r ,::,. ',� .M E ,.....�1 .•,
I I:hy IVII„I I� 9� ,,at:la I I�X::di. a {u �h 4� I �I :��h Ih ��la q ,r,lurl.. � � ��:u,t I�,. �ihi ,, a . rM ,:kf, ��.�r+1•:.
I uIV���!:I�'Ir lI IJ� ao-ra":p.�� IGt I lu%�.:I u.J,g�,J �' r ��„�:�1��.��J� r q Val pall�i�,y«,r�n(,:r41t��.:,r h!.II II zMSI•,u€."�"� �,u r�Jp �a,"�1.,';.-� a:.._ ' x.. r `..�"�'
Mg.
�'� •0 v� y� y
�.: 'w,',ry
iG r„ra hr 4p`� .• r ,� � � Y ''� '�,a ,r 4 -a Y'4a t�;'`s�' �, a:'��"�. '� .��,x�'��:�# ___ �� ;
y: M,Sa'��'4air�r,h r�°,aey nlyd��M"'N,kSxY �n p�r� ;�r•1r,�.;�,'kt. N"� 't?6ra�x"#y �,Nk"'� I �g".� �ul�:;.�' >� l�`ks3+,� _ u:�'S.;
h�•NI M t:J^. I r y�k'�,.:�h q fw.::rn �It .aMl'fr�" ,�^: :�� �fl a pp1;!,:M i i�,,.;k 1 IG u17, I q..�i.u'�'$ 7 :� �* IG�J;J� .a� i. �, a�W r^:-;
In y.,.. �t��I�h,^:J ��,� •o.d, 19 ,I,.^'^ arl 'ti�`t..,.h'f�'ry h IpI II i. .L.���IN•,r,: GI�u.G � r4,r I:-r, r4uurr hail+arl�" �M1i�rp'v �,Jti,,;Xry r,.
I ,:ryi h,Ill, N I:I�Jr p ,I'yl:�. . IJI�I� :Illq"dlq� +p,.,;h,j III � ,''4 4-^', �•�I I ;a`nr��p��h I $ *w � � �!E
tl, I!I I'Iq!k p,l ,u, . idyl .,IIIp�,�I Iai!II p�2h I fi � n:R w GlloatttA+4 ,VHq 1tJ%tip a,
Iw
a�p I
-
k � I t 1 I I ".t «+ Ian I Jd �'E�3-� ��?. I hF � � i,a r' < '�" �sr r +{r• r .*a*�"*t- �'r
''•IGk�r.�r'�F"�.k,�.µ�,,,�'��ryp�:n�`x � �`' rr Joy '' �.,�„"�`'� � - W� a >� �� `h"' - � �rf _ -
r
I rl�lh,a4il� I�In�I�ipolhMil�MFf Y ��'l"���f �J,: I'�I�I'Ilr�I�1gI`iN�lt�'hJ'�"i`�u?
/ ,Ilul11 r IX tlln'gI �,1 aJ.l. M .I d" h�p!Iq!. II r I.I da':y J�'I}�Ih'PII •I �dir �� I G '�*t �: !a " ld• '+. -
�,/ � III li"til r uW�a I.Willlll 4d :' I C11yly,� hI 4tlI, o h�� N pplri ' � t Y a r f
� I�n�
�I N�y �o• I I.�./ �1''.6s!u,tl l,.�.�I �" C, 'aiy,p� t a
4
•/ -�h'',rih "B I J a)Fv��"��'f�1•i`€.,�^" �I�Ur ur rk 5��t�i' a '�75'�!� -.,�, a� d'���'.p' �'�' �.,�,��i,. 1, r.
+'a ,I.I I •� J+J'' G'�� r b 4�'ea'�t -Yks �t����k r a '� € �,,,'J,��t'�'���.4—Y�t .J. (,� .
i i y ,r N J'rr •�'�'[a w ,�' du !3:rn a ,}^"iu r 1sr+ i, F'h
yI ,X aIa �' '"r'i�l� I fl�:d •� YkF�y, 4 � .� n I f�h,�'�h&�' 13i'ti4'r`,�y4
� rl!II iI�'I Id' N I! :yT!�'tl'r�IX �Y,2„y. I '.°.fi����ry IG r..hlii};' � pIG !,�^,!ij�r��yl s.RJI. n.•�"�pG"`rV§,,:�",.q.III,,I:.l�1i~Po s T , 1 I rid I,',•' h�,oslm
I �ddII rJL6,,,p't'h:I6 ��'l l�l.h:, rl�,,:l 66�Itl: n•IpI III,!:L11,�h.:Nl7. �I�N�pIhh Y�:,,,,aI IM ��'. I!n::,�r 1Ii�„y �u�hm,II 'r hI I�II�+a. 19"�„r ,:.,�,. .n :, I I
/:.d'GU Jh4N:!�IL Ip,,,IIII N,,�,II III.���I ,,�,L:IIGIf I�rl'ry IIIpG ,�'G�!I�:^,ed: r'I' ,,;r.: �4 II'G GI,h'll.G'h I!U',^a itll l9'.,I I lln'Y,. .al� •'r,. I . '•71
•u'llp'd I'XI k,I Gr I I, I q.I:,II I,I I IIl.lui,`If,.:'": pinlye I,�Gy h par:. J.. h �jl M 1H�IhIlllpin Ia,talr,;fl pq Ilgll I�I'IlJllpr�lllit ":�� {ahl Ih�J4°�;' ),h!. ..2•Irt G,lidl.i. 9hny � � � pr :�a�' I '.6 '
J I
�if'�aN, lln ���td"redr l� M J{%al wst� � I 1
��±a,�Iu4�y it*�✓µa��o S C p'^r.�� ��: _ 'ti,q I. i .�:v
nNi! 'p1 ':
ILI
91
"k R^
� • c
•
J, FO ��YR� .�... 'r� ♦I ` Past
I , '�•� v'I �„?pax \
6411
y8 .=.. 15 ...�«4..y.,,J '' �\ ,"aR`,`•`i�,. Z.a, W..6ayra.X.:, - �A
-
► ,,..y;,� `r, .• ,:.� �^yam::`�- °�.� �` si.,��• e
-`�;•'%a 9�� by ..a�a;�:�,,.�';;,��,�;. � • "
�av
t
s�
® HGH RISK-EXTENSIVE PROBLEMS
DIFFICULT OR IMPRATICAL TO
OVERCOME
HIGH RISK-MAJOR PROBLEMS .
BUT CONTROLLABLE THROUGH
DESIGN AND/OR SETBACK
THE GEOTRMICAL PROKEM RATING SCALE IS RELATIVE oNLY.THE M PROVISIONAL RISK-MINOR TO
MAP IS PURPOSES.
THE
TO BE A GENERAL E IDEFO FOR pG NNM
COM MODERATE PROBLEMS
PURPOSES.THE MAP 6 BASH)ON THE fOlL01NIWG OOftSDERA-
TIONS:FAULT RUPTURE F=,PEAT D809M UOIEFACDON
POTENTIAL,WA61 ET OSM AND TSIAiAM1 HAZARD.Spm K- m Q NORMAL RISK—MANOR
ALLY EXCLUDED FROM CONSIDERATION VAK GROUlN
SH"M EXPANSW SOBS,AREAL LAND SUIOSO NM 4, L•y�p�
GROLW WATER PROKEMS AND FLOOD HAZARDS PROBLEMS
SOUKE:LBGHTON-YEN&ASSOC. 9-1-73
HUNTINGTON BEACH C4LIFORNIA.. GEOTECHNICAL LAND USE CAPABILITY MAP
PLANNING DIVISION
DRAFF
Figure 4-3
GASOLINE MIGRATION
On March 3 , 1981 it was discovered that the Mobile Oil Gas Station
located at 6012 Edinger Avenue (approximately 800 feet northeast of
Area 2 .1 ) had experienced an underground gasoline leak . It was
estimated that 35 ,000 to 50 ,000 gallons had looked out over a period
of four months . The leakage was discovered after it inundated an
Edison Company underground vault at the intersection of Edinger
Avenue and Springdale Street and caused a power outage .
After discovery of the leak all piping and gasoline storage
equipment at the station was replaced. It was subsequently
discovered, however , that vapors were leaking into the City's and
County's .sanitary sewer system causing leaking of fumes into
surrounding buildings upon any disconnection of piping for sinks and
toilets . To eliminate this problem, the Mobile Oil Company
installed a 24-hour explosion-proof fan over a manhole to evacuate
the vapors .
In order to recover the spilled gasoline, Mobile Oil drilled eight
bore holes in the property and are currently vacuuming the holes
once or twice a day. To date, only approximately. 10 ,000 gallons of
fuel have been recovered . In order to speed up the recovery
process , the State Water Quality Control Board has indicated that a
proposal has been made for an automatic recovery system to be
established on the site. This will allow a 24-hour recovery process
rather than only short periods each day.
The State Water Quality Control Board further indicated that no
testing has been done to determine if gasoline has migrated
laterally downstream. . One or two 4 and 6 inch monitoring wells will
need to be set up downstream to determine any lateral movement of
gasoline. Since there is a possibility that lateral movement of
gasoline has affected Area 2 .1 , it is strongly recommended that
monitoring wells be bored on the site prior to any construction of
subterranean parking and that such construction be contingent upon a
negative finding of gasoline movement or until all of the .gasoline
is recovered.
ASBESTOS
It has been determined that Area 2 . 1 was used in the 1960 ' s as the
site of an air-conditioning duct manufacturing company and that
asbestos products were utilized. Staff has been unable to secure
any: records of asbestos_ testing done on the site, although the City
Fire Department and OSHA both apparently inspected the site several
times and allegedly found conditions to be adequate . Staff will
continue to seek records of testing from both the Fire Department
and OSHA. Regardless of what such records may ultimately reveal it
is recommended . that the site be tested for asbestos residue prior to
any demolition or construction and that adequate mitigation measures
be implemented to ensure asbestos residue. is safely removed and does
not become airborne during on-site activity.
DRAFT
ADDED DWELLING UNITS
Subsequent to preparation of draft EIR 85-2 ( Area 2 .1 ) the applicant
increased the unit count of the proposed residential project by 19
units . This increase was indicated by staff to the State
Clearinghouse and reviewing agencies . The increase of 19 dwelling
units is not seen as a significant increase over the 132 units which
were analyzed. The only reportable impact will be an approximately
additional 76 average daily vehicle trips to and from the site (a
total of 604 ADT) . Section 2 . 1 . 2 .5 Traffic and Circulation, of the
Draft EIR should be revised to reflect this figure un-2-elr—lFe High
Density alternative.
In conjunction with the increase in average daily trips , it will,
also be necessary to prepare a revised total Mobile and Stationary
air emission estimate as follows:
Mobile Emissions .0405
Stationary Emissions .0021
6
Appendix C is hereby amended to include the above calculations under
Alternative 4 .
OFFICE ALTERNATIVE
The existing Land Use designation on the subject property is General
Commercial and the zoning is R-5 (Office Professional ) . In
analyzing the existing designation, staff had assumed construction
of a 35 ,OOO square foot office building. In the course of
subsequent work with the applicant and the Planning Commission ,
however , it was determined that land costs would dictate a larger
office building under the existing designation . It was further
determined that a 100,000 square foot building was feasible on the
site . For this reason, staff has provided this section to indicate
the additional impacts of a larger office building.
The major impact of_ a 100 ,000 square foot office building in place
of a 35,000 square foot building will be traffic generation.' While
staff had estimated 619 average daily trips for the 35,000 foot
example, the larger 100 ,000 square foot building would generate
approximately 1 ,770 trips . This additional traffic would largely
occur during peak traffic hours and would impose a notable impact
on the surrounding arterials . The additional vehicles would also
require the use of subterranean parking on the site.
Commensurate with the increase in daily vehicle trips would be an
increase in air emissions . The following estimates amend Appendix C
to update the air emissions for a 100 ,000 square foot office
building .
Mobile Emissions .1240
Stationary Emissions . 0317
.1557 DRAF1
GPA 85-3 (0259D)
The only other portion of the Environmental Impact Report analysis
which may change substantially due to the larger office building
size is the Fiscal Impact Analysis section . Rather than recalculate
the fiscal analysis formulas it is safe to surmise that property
tax , utility tax and business license revenues will all increase
significantly and that additional costs to the City will be
minimal . As such , the fiscal effect will likely be to change the
office alternative from a fiscal loser (Revenue/Cost .82 ) to a
moderate fiscal winner .
DRAF1
GPA 85-3 (0259D)
APPENDIX E
Comments and Responses
DRAFT
STATE OF CALIFORNIA—OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor
OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH -
1/00 TENTH STREET d
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814.
(916/445-0613)
Hal Simmons December 2, 1985
City of Huntington Beach
P.O.Box 190
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Subject: Land Use Element Amendment 85-3
SCH# 85091814
Dear Mr, Simmons;
The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named environmental document to
selected state agencies for review. The review period is closed and none of
the state agencies have comments. This letter acknowledges that you have
complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft
environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Qaality
Act.
Please call Glenn Stober at 916/445-0613 if you have any questions regarding
the environmental review process. When contacting the Clearinghouse in this
matter, please use the eight digit State Clearinghouse number so that we r .Y
respond promptly.
Sincerely,
John B. Ohanian
C,',-"'ef Deputy Direetc
Office of Planning d Research
HUNTINGTON BEACH
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
198S
P.O. Box 190
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
STATE OF CALIFORNIA—RESOURCES AGENCY GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN,Governor
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES h
P.O. Box 6598
LOSANGELES
90055 $ q
RECEI Y ED
Uin,-� � nlvi�Innl
1985
City of Huntington Beach CITY Or
Post Office Box 190 HUNTINGTON BEACH
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Attention: Hal Simmons
Notice of Preparation of DEIR for General Plan Amendment No 85-3,
SCH 85091814.
The Department of Water Resources' recommendations on the subject document are
attached. The recommendations are related to water conservation and flood
damage prevention.
Consideration should also be given to a comprehensive program to use
reclaimed water for irrigation purposes in order to free fresh water supplies
for beneficial uses requiring high quality water.
For further information, you may wish to contact John Pariewski at
(213) 620-3951.
Sincerely,
Robert Y. D . Chun , Chief
Planning Branch
Southern District
Attachments
cc: Office of Planning and Research
State Clearinghouse
1400 Tenth Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
HUNTINGTON BEACH
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
OCT 16 198S
DRAOFT P.O. Box 1
Huntinb�jn btedCh, CA 92648
Department of Water Resources Recommendations
for Water Conservation and Water Reclamation
To reduce water demand, the following water conservation measures should be
implemented:
Required by law: .
1 . Low-flush toilets (see Section 17921.3 of the Health and Safety Code).
2. Low-flow showers and faucets (California Administrative Code, Title 24,
Part 6, Article 1 , T20-1406F) .
3. Insulation of hot water lines in water recirculating systems (California
Energy Commission regulations) .
Recommendations to be implemented where applicable:
Interior:
1 . Supply line pressure: recommend water pressure greater than 50 pounds per
square inch (psi) be reduced to 50 psi or less by means of a
pressure-reducing valve.
2. Flush valve operated water closets: recommend 3 gallons per flush. *
3. Drinking fountains: recommend equipped with self-closing valves.
4. Pipe insulation: recommend all hot water lines in dwelling be insulated
to provide hot water faster with less water waste and to keep hot pipes
from heating cold water pipes.
5. Hotel rooms: recommend posting conservation reminders in rooms and rest
rooms.* Recommend thermostatically-controlled mixing valve for
bath/shower.
6. Laundry facilities: recommend use of water-conserving models of washers.
7. Restaurants: recommend use of water-conserving models of dishwashers or
retrofitting spray emitters. Recommend serving drinking water upon request
only.*
Exterior:
1 . Landscape with low water-consuming plants wherever feasible.
2. Minimize use of lawn by limiting it to lawn dependent uses, such as playing
fields.
*The Department of Water Resources or local water district may aid in developing
these materials.
DRAFT . ,
3. Use mulch extensively in all landscaped areas. Mulch applied on top of
soil will improve the water-holding capacity of the soil by reducing
evaporation and soil compaction.
4. Preserve and protect existing trees and shrubs. Established plants are
often adapted to low water conditions and their use saves water needed to
establish replacement vegetation.
5. Install efficient irrigation systems which minimize runoff and evaporation
and maximize the water which will reach the plant roots. Drip irrigation
soil moisture sensors .and automatic irrigation systems are a few methods of
increasing irrigation efficiency.
b. Use pervious paving material whenever feasible to reduce surface water
runoff and aid in ground water recharge.
7 . Grading of slopes should minimize surface water runoff.
8. Investigate the feasibility of utilizing reclaimed waste water, stored
rainwater, or household grey water for irrigation.
9. Encourage cluster development which can reduce the amount of land being
converted to urban use. This will reduce the amount of impervious paving
created and thereby aid in ground water recharge.
10. Preserve existing natural drainage areas and encourage the incorporation of
natural drainage systems in new developments. This would aid in ground
water recharge.
11 . . Flood plains and aquifer recharge areas which are the best sites for ground
water recharge should be preserved as open space.
DRAFT
Department of Water Resources Recommendations for Flood Damage Prevention
In flood-prone areas, flood damage prevention measures required to protect a
proposed development should be based on the following guidelines:
1 . All building structures should be protected against a 100-year flood.
It is the State's policy to conserve water. Any potential loss to ground
water should be mitigated.
2. In those areas not covered by a Flood Insurance Rate Map or a Flood
Boundary and Floodway Map, issued by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency, the 100-year flood elevation and boundary should be shown on the
Environmental Impact Report.
3. At least one route of ingress and egress to the development should be
available during a 100-year flood.
4. The slope and foundation designs for all structures should be based on
detailed soils and engineering studies, especially for all hillside
developments.
5. Revegetation of the slopes should be done as soon as possible.
6. The potential damage to the proposed development by mudflow should be
assessed and mitigated as required.
7. Grading should be limited to dry months to minimize problems associated
with sediment transport during construction.
RESPONSE TO DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES COMMENTS
The Department of Water Resources ' comments regarding required and
suggested. water conservation measures are noted and shall be
retained where appropriate as conditions of approval for any project
on the subject property.
R-
DRArlpow
IT
i°",e Ap COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS
J F a
V Iff' OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
dEEdet P.O. BOX 8127, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92728-8127
0p1 '�5l 10844 ELLIS, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708-7018 .
(714) 540-2910 (714) 962-2411
December 30, 1985 HUNTINGTON BEACH
DEVEL())P diF!\iT SERVICES
City of Huntington Beach
P. 0. Box 190
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Attention: . Dr. Jeanine Frank Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Subject: General Plan Amendment No. 85-3
In accordance with our telephone conversation this date, the Sanitation
Districts offer the following comments on subject General Plan Amendment:
1. Area 2.1. This area was originally master planned by the District
for low density residential development. The 3.09 acres located
on the west side of Springdale Street, south of Edinger Avenue are
of concern to the Districts. The District's collection facilities
which serve that area, as well as the Slater Avenue Pump Station are
very near capacity and may soon reach the position of being over-
taxed.
2. Area 3.2. This area was originally master planned by t t
for medium density residential developmen rs adjacent to
the 55.0 acres of propert west corner of Atlanta
Avenue and B o have adequate capacity to serve the
evelopment.
3. The Districts' facilities have been sized to accommodate master
planned flows. The Districts operate under a NPDES permit issued
by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board; this permit
has a set discharge limit for biochemical oxygen demand and
suspended solids. At the present time, the biochemical oxygen
demand in the Districts' discharge is close to the limit. The
staff projects that each million gallons per day of additional
flow will add one part per million to the biochemical oxygen
demand after treatment, therefore, significant land use changes
will impact the Districts' facilities. Consequently we request
that all available flow reduction measures be incorporated into
any project.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond on this pending Environmental Impact
Report.
�� D R A 1`4 T
omas M. Dawes
Director of Engineering
TMD:HJB ,
RESPONSE TO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS COMMENTS
The County Sanitation Districts' comments regarding sewage capacities
are noted. Further communication with Mr. Thomas M.Dawes of the
County Sanitation Districts has indicated that while the sewer
system in the area is approaching capacity, the Districts ' comments
on EIR 85-2 are not intended to imply that the proposed project
cannot be adequately served. Rather, the letter is intended to
convey the request that all available flow reduction measures be
incorporated into the project. Staff recommends that this request
be made a Condition of Approval on the Conditional Use Permit for
the project.
DRM-