Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Element Amendment 80-1 - Resolution 4865 - Environm RESOLUTION NO . 4865 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH,A-WPTING LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT NOS%80-1 TO THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN WHEREAS , the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach desires to update and refine the General Plan in keeping with with changing community needs and objectives; and A public hearing on adoption of Land Use Element Amendment No. 80-1 to the General Plan was held by the Planning Commission on March 18 , 1980 and approved for recommendation to the City Council; and Thereafter, the City Council, after giving notice as pre- scribed by Government Code Section 65355 , held at least one public hearing to consider said Land Use Element Amendment No. 80-1 ; and At said hea ring before the City Council all persons desiring to be heard on said amendment were heard, NO�, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, pursuant to provisions of Title 7 , Chapter 3, Article 6 of California Government Code, commencing with Section 65357 , that Land Use Element Amendment No. 80-1 to the General Plan, consisting of the following changes is hereby adopted: 1 . That 11 .81 acres located south of Talbert Avenue and approximately 430 feet .west of Beach Boulevard , as indicated in Figure 2-7, be redesignated from low density residential to medium density residential .. 2. That 50 .37 acres located north of Talbert Avenue and east of Beach Boulevard, as indicated in Figure 2-8 , be redesig- nated from open space to public , quasi public, institutional. 3 . That the Zoning and Land Use Element Consistency Matrix, as depicted in Figure 4-1 of the General Plan, be changed to J /ahb 3/21/80 l . show an SP-1 district consistent with public, quasi public , insti- tutional rather than open space . 4 . That Section 3 .4 .2.3, "Natural Resources ," page 75 of the - Land Use Element, be revised to incorporate the following policies: (a) Promote design in development that will accommodate energy conservation features ; and (b). Promote a pattern of development within the city which would facilitate the establishment of mass transit systems . PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 7th day of April , 1980• Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City 'Clerk City Attorney . REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED: Citif Administrator Director of Development Services 2. I tlM_IlM_ 1 C _ 1i ---��_ AVE MIL A -- DR ROSArNA M 1 f I PEER •v'- i W i.(.:1 i 1 ' I ` DR l tIREPTY AVE .;,._�. .. — `. 1 Il }4 I i � apNALD L� a DDTD�ID j TALBERTHE CF—E MADYS J Wr JiLU STIR ING 6 wVE. N ` J d GaCTH y � •.71.ITCTLFT 'NI A IQ% AV .,•4, w�<a A ILLONTARIO OP OR N':L"J S port^ � � tj DR Fri AVE. ._......_`, BEACH-TALBERT AREA A t ~ -DR� 1. n DR. E 4A sl j I i —'_ I _ � HOL ANO CF—E !{� it � a � ' � � Il.4KE'J!EW::•-!iL.f'-I y ...t�--. _-'� 2 a T•I �l iI g Vr�i -I -----__.__ -% _ - [.aMN wE AV SLATER AVE \Jd. DP4L CA — t J UL 'L 11 ' _ - - . NJ IN 3 a1 • - 4 1 _ F gg NOSIE cR ARROYp 09 j[E AaRoly w[ , I NEW 1w A .A� rn N jj •wlEr .:I.1. 71�'•�'. � ¢ i rrw�inYlq. d 1 't 77 1 ,�.n •II. t ijj Irk! 1'_ 1 $ m co • ... �, ... - TALBERT . . t .•i � C F E " t. �• � I 4ve r IN R ARu IGNER AV y .=i tAT LOR OR. IE c—E Da. . e7. o l J r _ r to `• ._..___' •_ EDEG 0f1 HEU I G 1� TrD + ... I ERTA pR hW w•.N DR i— AYE • - IIFs 1. BEACH=TALBERT AREA B Res. No. 4865 STATE: OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE a CITY OF HuNTINGTON BEACH ) I, ALICIA M. WENTWORTH, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is 'seven; that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted'by the affirmative vote of more than. a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 7th day of April , 1980 , by the following vote: AYES: Councilmen: Pattinson, Mandic, MacAllister, Bailey, Yoder, Finley NOES: Councilmen: Thomas ABSENT: Councilmen: NaDA City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT 80 = 1 January, 1980 Environmental Impact Report 79-5 CITY of HUNTINGTON BEACH office of the City Clerk p. 0. Box 190 Huntington Beach, Calif. 92648 � huntington beach department of development services 6 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Methodology 1 2.0 AREAS OF CONCERN 3 2.1 Garfield - Goldenwest Area 3 2.2 Beach - Talbert Area A 24 2.3 Beach - Talbert Area B 32 2.4 Environmental Changes 37 3.0 ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS 41 4.0 AMENDMENT SUMMARY 43 4.1 Summary of Proposed Land Use Element 43 Amendment 80-1 APPENDICES r 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report concerns Amendment 80-1 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 fourteenth amendment to the Element. Planned land uses throughout the City are depicted on the Land Use Diagram shown in Figure I-I. 1.1 Methodology This amendment to the Land Use Element considers requests by private property owners to change the land use designations in two areas of the City: A site located south of Garfield Avenue and east of Goldenwest Street, and one located south of Talbert Avenue and west of Beach Boulevard. The Department of Development Services also requests to change the land use designation of an area located north of Talbert Avenue and east of Beach Boulevard. The amendment requests will be analyzed in terms of the existing conditions on the sites, anticipated impact on surrounding areas; land use, environmental, and other issues; and consistency with adopted City goals and policies. Also included in this amendment is a request by the Planning Division to add energy conservation policies to the Land Use Element (Section 3.0). Section 4.0 summarizes the recommended changes in the form of a comprehensive text and plan to be adopted. 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 80-I. The environmental setting and significant impacts associated with the issue areas identified in the initial study are addressed under each area of concern (Sections 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3). Alternative land use designations and feasible mitigation measures to minimize significant effects are also discussed in these sections. Section 2.4 addresses overall environmental changes as related to the following considerations: 1) the relationship between local short-term uses of man's environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity; 2) irreversible or unavoidable environmental changes; and 3) growth inducing impacts. 2 I i I I� I I AMENDMENTS PLANNING COMM. CITY COUNCIL Land Use Categories DATE RESOLUTION DATE RESOLUTION II-6-76 I187 12-6-76 4368 RESIDENTIAL 6-7-77 1196 B-1-77 4484 9-2977 1202 11-7-77 4551 IM Estate <_2 un/gac 12-6-77 1206 12-19-77 4572 Estate <_4 un/gaC 8-1-78 1232 B-21-78 4660 10-1778 1236 11-6-78 4696 .F Low Density <_7 un/gac II-6-79 1242 12-18-78 4728ILMedium Density 15 un/gac 3 6-79 1242 3-19 79 4728 �A///� .F' '� DIEGO ` Fit&VWY � � SAN ' ® � High Density >15 un/gac ✓,\ _ COMMERCIAL General Office Professional I r ®Mixed Development 1 " INDUSTRIAL General B USE ♦ PUBLIC ti - uasi-public, Ins titu ona Public,Quasi-........................ 0 ................ -�� en Space `i O ...................................................................... ., .. ............... 1J P P ...................... ♦\ PLANNING UNITS I f•.,; nn' v .............................................................. ............. \ � ,iiiliilm � Planning Reserve Planned Community - P OTHERUSES ��;:'•� � Resource Production ' �4 7?ii(��; _r7:F'i7y y;.,v/`':�-�,I,((;,,•'^iiiiiiCiiCi. fi.� .. "x7iy�0_'S��:f.�lu /:/J,Y%.=+el,;� l(.tX::•• A'h���°'�".b' .. - Y H 1 G %;ice.' r• - H T S �. 1 A A 1 z} P =k. r%' 1 �.. � s '. .<= _ � u��-... .N .;,_.:>.-'`r^,� r f^ - -- - - •'yr i7. u._ - kr d� ',��,��',-- ��rr�3.��-..cvr, ,.?�� ��j+'••'.�'�rrr �'� � ',1�1 I ,'i'Jii!'.pi'g,,. -- - - - '.',`yt,-^ ��,;yr',�`'n ,ram.:-r,_�_-nn ,.ir?�.•.•3�� .. I .�.�yvsae- �r'�'��%'''^` ��r=-5.?�:'c:�':. 1�.� sc3�'��a -�.a:,�,, uu;. Yr .y,`u�s�7rt S1•, oCEW P "•.�;�_ - _ -,;n"" __ ��,•.:'i.n�.+-edfac4�,'�oCV�"�m!':pfa•�*r.v�"p' �'v - '3�<^. PACIt� ACM OCEAN = � a.woe - I I ® HUNrINGTON BR4CH, QLIFORNIA GENERAL PLAN PIANNING DEPARTME9 LAND USE DIAGRAM Adopted December 1976 Revised MAY 1979 I I. I i i � i 2.0. AREA OF CONCERN This section addresses each request area designated in Figure 2-I. 2.1 Garfield - Goldenwest Area In June, 1977; the Department of Development Services received an application for a General Plan amendment from several property owners within a 97 acre area located south of Garfield Avenue and east of Goldenwest Street. The group of nine owners requested a land use redesignation from medium density residential to industrial. The Planning Commission considered the amendment request on July 17, 1979. Staff recommended that the item be postponed until completion of the Fiscal Impact Model and the Housing Element. The Commission directed staff to further analyze the request and return with land use alternatives for additional review, at the July 24, 1979 study session. At this meeting, the Planning Commission discussed a range of land use alternatives, including industrial, residential and a mix of the two. The Commission decided to continue the request to the next General Plan Amendment. 2.1.1 Background The area of concern encompases approximately 97.4 acres bounded by Garfield Avenue on the north, Huntington Street on the east, Clay Avenue on the south and Goldenwest Street on the west. Three north-south streets (Stewart, Crystal, and Holly) and the Pacific Electric right-of-way divide the study area into five 19.5 acre blocks. Main Street traverses the two blocks between Crystal Street and the railroad right-of-way. Existing land uses within the area are shown in Figure 2-2. While oil extraction activity and related services are dominant, the area also supports a diverse mixture of indyjAfij61, equestrian, commercial and residential uses. 3 L 55 1 a x r � i 2.2 f 2 2.1 w ;I r Figure 2-1 3 „ ' Areas Of Concern huntington beach planning division IGARFIELD -GOLDENWEST AREA GARFIELD A"ROVED AVEAr El I ► _ '_ - iV Wb Alf 2 1 fir /r' X ,r IAL X DER IAX C TRIKTION W X .............. O 3J ,r < c < .. ►- a J ;:;:::'.:;i:;::�i:;:?i:';:;:;}:�4:• J QL ':ti�»:a:�;:yi:;:ii};;{:::::: is::i::v::i: :v:;:::::: f y� z Ar r V ?i r O O N is X _X �r ,r ?< X �' ,r Ar CLAY AVE. OIL WELL ® COMMERCIAL o► OFFICE / r Q INDUSTRIAL HORSE STABLE or RECREATION Figure 2-2 Q INDUSTRIAL-OIL RELATED APARTMENTS 0 PUBLIC USE Oil wells connected to localized tanks cover much of the area; there are 50 active wells and 89 oil storage tanks occupying 30 acres. Oil production is concentrated primarily on the three blocks west of Holly Street. A number of industrial businesses are located throughout the Garfield-Goldenwest area, occupying approximately 15 acres. The businesses are typically located along Stewart and Crystal Streets and include small oil field equipment supply outlets and maintenance and storage services. Other uses include a recreation vehicle storage facility, a welding shop, and several auto repair shops. The most substantial industry in the area is the Cambro plant which covers almost six acres at Huntington Street and Clay Avenue, and employs 250 persons. A City water reservoir and warehouse, a quasi-industrial use, occupies eight acres at the northerly end of this block. Commercial uses are relatively insignificant in the area (occupying about three acres of land); and consist of a real estate office, restaurant, and several equestrian stables. Two high density apartment developments with a total of 62 units are located at Holly Street and Garfield Avenue. Although these uses cover only three acres, a 158 unit condominium project on I I acres is now under construction east of Holly Street and south of Main. Excluding this large parcel, most of the remaining vacant land (28 acres) is dispersed in small fragments throughout the amendment area. i The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the entire Garfield-Goldenwest area as medium density residential. The study area is essentially transitional between designated industrial/resource production uses to the north and west, and commercial/residential uses to the south and east. Existing General Plan land use designations for the site .and the surrounding area are depicted in Figure 2-3. Zoning within the area of concern is shown in Figure 2-4 and summarized be ow: ZONING DISTRICT ACRES R2 Two Family Residential District 44.6 RA-0 Residential Agricultural District 32.1 combined with oil production . RA-0-CD Residential Agricultural District 10.1 combined with oil production and civic district M I Light Industrial District 9.7 CI Neighborhood Commercial District .9 The foregoing indicates that a significant portion of the property has not yet been brought into consistency with the medium density residential General Plan designation. The transitional and mixed use nature of the study area makes the establishment of a uniform land use category difficult. 6 Asa 0 a 0.0 © — J )AUUODUGOOGOG OOOOOGOOOOOGO00 UOUOOOUOOOOOU OGOO p ®• ®. 0 t7 0 j00000U000U00 0000000GO �).0 O D U O O O U 0 0 0 0 0 71) 000GUGGOOOU �OOGO00000 ©©®®®©aC©a®o® �'. /lUCi00ri000OU00 O0 000 G o00 ® p ® to � r)UUr• C)UUUOOGG n000000GG J G O G O O G C,'O U O J G 0 0 0 •••••••::•••••••••••••••••••••••••• •••• 000- 00 a C ® ® m ® ON. .....t. p 0 ® p ® © a ® ® t7 a ® Y.• G G G - o ® eeaoa ® o ® ,:{?:r.'r�_�• U O O a ® a G ® ® a ® ® © ® p :::SE:' .`......•:...: O ® 0 p ® ® ® ® O ® O ® t7 p O ® ® ® ® ® ® ;%�• :"�'�`:`'•`�`•• © ® sa 0 ® ® ® 0 ® 0 p p 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 a a 0 •.• •• ••••.� ••.� .••��.•••• O °O O° O O ° ° © a t3 ® ® ® B 0 p o 0 0 0 p a ® 0 ® :•'`• •L\:i•'/:!:}i' 'i�i:�}:i:�:�:%. O �... . ....., O c O ° O ° as®©®a©El 0 a®©®a®a a®Cocoa©(a a®a®o® - • �:{1:!':�}.�••:r}"�:� �'•'�� ��'� o p a © a a a a 0 a o a ® ® a o an ........ •t ;. •.��.} :��:`�: : O° U U O O ° 0 a a © 0 a ® 0 © a as 0 a 0 ® S. s ,• \ O O O O 0 a a 13 a s a 0 0 0 ® a ® ••�:••":"p la •••• •• ® ® ® ® p C o 0 o C ® ® C o .;.a:} :{:2'}:i:{:2: :•.i�7ts:::ei......::o............... ® p�C a a ® •.; .• o. AIRFIELD a®p®pa®®®® r��� �i��0 : // •Y //i %i 'i ! :s•:•i:=if.is=siiiiilssi' ii�s iii2i:.: :::::si:.:s.:::::i:i:2.;•s;6=:;:: :i:iieE?c�s .= :E=�.:::i -j /� .// .2.: ::::: ..S..I.2: .;..��:s::::i:::::::::::::::::...:.=s:si•:•a s:::::::.:..:s:.:.::::s.:is:�:E:��I ...... ................. . ............ ii -MMMUMMUNUM: :mmummanni..... i / / i / is=iiEii• i f09 i eU / /. /. i / �• / i / :''s:iciE::E8cE�3z:ii:i�ie's'se9E:i8iei:e�ieeE�, ....::::::::::::::::::::..:..... ........................................ 6i�eE. ...................... ............................. .......................................... • fi' .. . . •r .,. . l Ei .i?ieeecEisee'seEei3iie'eei3'si��eici�i3iieciec' i .. �. RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL PUBUC, USE ESTATE S Z un/pc. GENERAL PUBLIC.QUASI-PUBLIC•IASTITLWIR ESTATE < 4•un/gay OFFICE PROFESSIONAL OPEN SPACE F. LOW DENSITY iS7un�ac INDUSTRIAL OTHER USES MEDIUM DENSITY © ® GENERALED RESOURCE PRODUCTION Figure 2-3 GENERA. PLAN ARFoEL® • L®ENWE5T AREA V M:1 hunti� �®n �oc� �6mnin division 7 to ;S COMMODORE LR M2-0 R3 cao 4_ _ _-I ''O rc Leo RA-0 M I-0 of ,H r jr Leo --- RA D C MI-0 0 APR ERNEST AVE n R5 330 H � MI-0-CD a s .300 MI-0 _Mz-019o1. 6000 _ . MI-A-CD- - - A R5 �� MI-o •g R5 ,. R2 w i JDO__ R2JI R J."RA-0 �TR 5 R5,a R2 rR2 oI GARFIELD' ' y RA-0 CI F R2 T e� Mi ,� ,8 [PLA m I �P R 2 R2 tr°R2, 0 0 RA-0 � R2 TR Q RA-0 R2 X a R2 _�- - MI r R2 MI L v C2-0 ». 1'IF'tifHVnik) ! Clew S• ` R3 R2-0-PD R20 PD o 0 0 �' 2D R2 C2-0-CD I I I Z/NO `w0 C2-0 •. cc = t...'e9't a o•avee.r R2-d ao. R_0-rD_ge,—W la: -LP 1•li' R2-O-M-CDC2-0-CDR5-OCD R2-0 ��iCD .Li YORXTO" . J Figure 2-4 GARFIELD/GOLDENWEST AREA Zoning huntington beach planning division Much of the area being considered has at one time or another been designated for ,industrial use. Four factors influenced the industrial designation: 1) alignment of the proposed Route I and 39 freeways in proximity to the area; 2) proximity and relationship to the Central Industrial Corridor; 3) existing industrial and oil-related uses and; 4) availability of vacant land suitable for industrial development. In 1972 and 1974, the State deleted the Route I and 39 freeways respectively from its Master Plan, considerably lessening the area's desirability as a location for new industrial development. Since then, the concept of a north-south freeway between the San Diego Freeway and the coast has been indicated on the 1978 Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Streets and Highways, although the precise alignment has not been resolved. The area was addressed in the first Amendment to the Phase I Land Use Element in March, 1975. At that time, the site was placed in planning reserve in order to allow for more comprehensive planning. When apartment projects were approved on several parcels at Crystal and Garfield, adjacent to oil operations, the Planning Department requested an amendment to change the planning reserve designation. In October, 1976, General Plan Amendment 76-2 redesignated the entire area to medium density residential. This redesignation was based on the findings presented in the Industrial Land Use Study in June, 1976. The study concluded that the southern corridor contained an excess of vacant industrial property which was either unsuitable for industrial park development or attractive only to marginal uses. The study further concluded that the City could not maximize fiscal benefits from such uses. Staff recommended :a program of industrial land reduction unless the City was willing to commit public expenditures toward improvements attractive to industry. Since 1976, the Planning Commission has considered various approaches to implementing the General Plan's residential designation. The zoning is now fragmented among RA-0, R2, Cl and MI designations. Uniform residential zoning would create non-conforming industrial uses, while industrial zoning could not guarantee an orderly residential transition. As a result, the Planning Commission directed staff to undertake a comprehensive study of the area in 1978, and recommend specific zoning and development policies for the Commission's consideration. Since completion of the Garfield-Goldenwest Study, the Commission has debated the issues and tabled action pending further study. In the meantime, various owners within the area of concern have made the present request for a General Plan amendment to change the residential designation to industrial. The nine individuals requesting the General Plan amendment own industrial or oil property covering approximately 19 acres, or 20 percent, of the total 97 acre study area. The Huntington Beach Company is the largest single owner within the area, with 30 percent of the total property. The Mola Development Company owns another I I percent. The City of Huntington Beach and the Cambro Company are third and fourth with eight percent and six percent, respectively. The remainder is divided among 44 small owners. 9 2.1.2 Analysis The group of property owners have requested that the entire 97 acre study area be redesignated industrial. The analysis addresses three land use alternatives. The first option is retention of the medium density residential designation. The second alternative is a change to industrial. The third alternative provides for a mix of medium density residential and industrial categories in order to minimize the creation of non-conforming uses. The . three alternatives are depicted in Figure 2-5. I. Land Use The area of concern occupies a key location in the City at the Main Street entrance to the Civic Center area and the Downtown business district. Goldenwest Street abuts the study area and connects the beaches with Central Park and the City's interior. Although now general planned medium density residential, the area. is essentially transitional between the Central Industrial Corridor to the north and designated residential areas to the south. This is manifested in the diversity of uses occupying the site. Oil extraction, industrial services and manufacture, and apartment developments characterize the area. The establishment of the southern boundary of the Central Industrial Corridor has been an issue for several years. Both Garfield Avenue and Clay Avenue have served this purpose, and numerous arguments exist to support either alternative. If the existing Garfield boundary is maintained (Alternative 1), a residential designation of the subject property is justified by the following considerations: a. The Southern Pacific Railroad terminates at Garfield Avenue; the area to the south derives no direct benefits from the railroad operations. While the importance of rail access has declined with the advent of a comprehensive network of freeways and arterial highways, the railroad still constitutes a desirable feature for locating industrial uses. The abandonment of the railroad through the study area reinforces the logic of maintaining Garfield as the southern terminus of the industrial corridor. b. The attractiveness of industrial property diminishes with increasing distance from freeway and highway systems. The deletion of the Route I and 39 freeways from the State Master Plan has significantly reduced the desirability of potential industrial sites in the southern reaches of the Central Industrial Corridor. The future realignment of Gothard Street to connect with Crystal Street will improve truck access to the distant San Diego Freeway; but until this project is constructed (estimated at two to five years by the Department of Public Works), highway and freeway access will ACED 10 GARFIELD Alternative 1 -T• 1 _._L rn •1 �tiS}. z •S• 'r W CL 4Y J -//// ////�� I� � i�-1 I I � (ur.:5FHV0:R1 t'f GARFIELD Alternative 2 JII 1 1 1 I i■-• ••■• • i • • • • • : • • X •::: :• -iaiai'- is ■ • • • 0a • ■ ■ ■• : • : • •� :�::: NW[It-_ 11 ... r..a a .:::•::::: W L Y C 71 GARFIELD Alternative 3 J1L IIIL- ■ •: •:■a:: ■ •^ • :•: :• ■ :a.,. . ::■: •• •■ • •• ■ • • a • •.■• • • •■ -8 --:a —---- sense, mass 8, 9 owes OWN 5 me 6 ... . .. . ... .■■. ... . . . . . G ` Y .— J � T U961'NV.IN) LEGEND I I�� 1.I I. . Medium Density Residential Industrial Figure 2-5 Garfield/Goldenwest Area MM Land Use Alternatives huntington beach planning division LQ A VV remain poor. Property in the study area will likely be attractive only to miscellaneous service industries or warehousing until more desirable sites are depleted elsewhere in the City and County. C. Main Street traverses a portion of the study area diagonally, creating small irregular shaped parcels which are more conducive to residential development. Main Street south of Garfield also serves as the "gateway" to the Civic Center and Downtown areas. Unless zoned restrictively through MI-A and CD designations, industrial uses and the traffic they create would detract significantly, from this function. However, more restrictive zoning on the lots fronting Main Street would increase the difficulty of compliance with development code requirements. d. The parcels fronting Garfield Avenue between Goldenwest Street and the railroad right-of-way are smaller than the minimum standard required for industrial development, and ownerships are fragmented. Some consolidation will be necessary if buildable sites are to be created. The existence of many small lots along Garfield also implies numerous curb cuts and hazardous arterial access. To reduce the number of access points off Garfield Avenue would require changing the City easements paralleling the south side of the lots to 15 foot alleyways. With numerous small developments, however, even a 15 foot alley would be inadequate to mitigate truck congestion. Although not presently existing, the lots fronting Garfield would be more conducive to residential development with rear alley access. e. Approximately one half of the area south of Garfield Avenue is zoned for medium density residential uses and a large number of residential units have already been developed or is under construction (Figure 2-4). If the southern boundary of the Central Industrial Corridor is extended to Clay Avenue (Alternative 2), an industrial designation is supported by the following factors: a. Approximately 450 acres, or 21 percent of the City's vacant land, is designated industrial by the General Plan. As of January, 1979, 925 acres have developed as industrial uses at an annual rate of 12 approximately 40 acres. If this trend continues, all remaining vacant industrial land would develop by 1990. The addition of the study site increases the industrial area available for development by approxiamte ly 58 acres, or 13 percent of the current vacant industrial land. The remaining 39 acres are now encumbered by residential, industrial, commercial and public uses. b._ Much of the vacant land within the area of concern is now devoted to oil production, while the leading developed use is industrial. As long as these uses continue to operate, industrial development would be more compatible than residential development. Adverse impacts would include noise, motor emissions, and odors generated by oil recompletion equipment and industrial trucking; congestion caused by the mix of residential traffic and industrial trucking; and general safety hazards from oil pumps and machinery. If the area develops piecemeal, street improvements would be constructed incrementally. The interim use of residential streets by trucking and heavy equipment would adversely impact the new improvements and result in costly maintenance. C. Residential uses south of Garfield Avenue would isolate one of the City's most substantial industries, the Cambro Manufacturing Company, from the Central Industrial Corridor and would compound the compatibility problems that presently exist. Likewise, the resource production area south of Garfield Avenue and west of Goldenwest Street, would also be isolated from the industrial corridor. d. The proposed alignment of Gothard Street with Crystal Street will provide access to the area which does not presently exist for truck traffic. This improvement as well as the depletion of prime industrial 'sites elsewhere will increase the attractiveness of the study area to quality light manufacturing and mixed commercial/industrial uses over the long-term. The two foregoing sceneries assume that the entire area of concern either retains the medium density residential land use designation or is changed to industrial. Alternative 3 divides the area among residential and industrial uses . primarily along the lines of existing development. a. Almost 60 percent of the area is still vacant or in oil production which is expected to phase out over the next 10 to 15 years. Industrial and residential uses occupy most of the remaining area. These divisions . imply that the study area need not be entirely committed to any single use. Residential and industrial developments are reasonably concentrated, which minimizes non-conforming uses. The City Council recently adopted an 13 ordinance to allow the establishment of non-conforming industrial uses . in RA districts which do not have permanent zoning. However, such use must result from displacement through governmental acquisition of the parcel upon which the use was originally located. Related to Alternative 3, most existing industrial and/or oil uses occur west from the lots fronting Crystal Street to Goldenwest Street and east of the railroad right-of-way, while residential development is concentrated in the middle of the site and along Main Street. This provides for continuity of the westerly industrial area with the Central Industrial. Corridor to the north while retaining . compatibility with resource production west of Goldenwest Street. The inclusion of industrial on the lots fronting Crystal Street on the east side would accommodate existing uses and minimize adverse traffic impacts, but would result in close proximity of residential and industrial uses. The block east of the railroad right-of-way is dominated by industrial uses; namely, the Cambro factory and City water facility. An industrial land use designation on the property would accommodate these uses but the area would be physically isolated from the Central Industrial Corridor. 2. Economic Considerations The Planning staff in cooperation with Ultrasystems, Inc. conducted a fiscal impact analysis of the three land use alternatives using the computerized methodology developed for the City. For the purposes of analysis, the revenues and expenditures of each alternative were projected over a 10 year period, 1980-1990. The results are detailed in Appendix A. 3. Hou si ng The City recently adopted a state mandated revision to the Housing Element of the General Plan, which includes policy aimed at increasing housing opportunities for households with low and moderate incomes. The revised element includes provisions for consideration of an inclusionary zoning ordinance that could require a certain percentage of new residential developments to be affordable to lower income households. Areas designated medium and high density offer the best opportunities to provide such housing, especially if density bonuses are to be utilized. However, most areas designated .medium or high density in the City are developed. Developable land within the area of concern represents 58 acres or approximately 16 percent of the total (356 acres) remaining vacant medium density land in the City. 14 The proposed amendment of the Garfield - Goldenwest Area to industrial would further limit the City's options in the provision of affordable housing by reducing the already small amount of medium density area remaining in the City. If the medium density residential designation is retained on the subject property, approximately 900 dwelling units could be added to the City's housing stock at ultimate development. Adoption of an iriclusionary zoning ordinance ; could potentially require that between 90 and 225 units be available for these households. However, fragmented land ownership and the phase-out of oil operations will likely generate piecemeal development (even with PD zoning) and reduce the potential for inclusionary lower cost housing. Alternative 3 provides for mixed residential and industrial use designations. Lower income housing potential would be extremely limited under this scenario because most of the residential area between Crystal and the railroad right-of-way is developed or under construction, and the remaining vacant land is highly fragmented in ownership. 4. Public Services and Utilities a. Sewers The study area is presently serviced by a 24-inch County sewer trunkline that extends south in Crystal Street above Garfield and then east in Garfield Avenue. A 12-inch interceptor ties into the trunkline along Garfield Avenue west of Crystal Street. Eight-inch sewer lines in Crystal Street and Holly Street north of Main Street direct flows from existing developments to the County trunkline. An eight-inch sewer in the alley between. Crystal and Holly serves developments fronting Garfield Avenue. Sewer facilities are depicted in Appendix B. Additional sewers will be required to service the study area at ultimate residential or industrial development. The eight-inch alley sewer will be extended west to Crystal Street as each lot develops. The remainder of the parcels along Garfield west of Crystal Street will lateral directly to the . 12-inch interceptor. Additional eight-inch lines are planned in Stewart and Goldenwest Streets to tie into the 12-inch interceptor at Garfield Avenue. A final eight-inch sewer will conduct future flows along Clay Avenue to Main Street and then into the existing Holly Street line. The Department of Public Works has reviewed the impacts associated with the three proposed alternatives in relation to the findings of the final Sewer Master Plan prepared by Lowry and Associates. The study indicates that there are no deficiencies expected within the general area. The existing and proposed sewer system can accommodate flows generated by either medium density residential or industrial developments. 15 b. Water Water is available to the area via a 42-inch trunkline which extends along Goldenwest Street and then east along Clay Avenue. Six- and eight-inch lines in all local streets and Main Street tie into the trunkline at Clay. The Department of Public Works indicates that the area west of Crystal Street is located within Water Pressure Zone No. 2. Normal line water pressures in the zone are presently inadequate to provide a suitable level of service, and must be increased by means of a booster station. The existing booster station is incapable of serving the subject area whether developed medium density residential or industrial. In addition, the existing six-inch lines are undersized and will require upgrading to eight-inch lines to serve most types of industrial users or residential developments. A change from medium density residential to industrial would also require increased flow to supply water and meet fire flow standards. To meet these demands, a 12-inch looped water main system in Garfield Avenue would be required for industrial uses versus an.eight- or ten-inch system for medium density residential developments. Water facilities are shown in Appendix C. C. Storm Drains With the exception of the apartments at Garfield and Holly, and several industrial businesses along Crystal Street, local streets and arterials lack curbs and gutters. There also are no drainage lines presently serving the area. This results in intermittent ponding during periods of heavy rainfall. Most runoff is directed by gravity flow to the intersections of Garfield and the local streets where it ponds. Ponding also occurs at Holly and Main. The study area is located within the benefit area of the Old Town drainage project which the City has so far constructed at a cost of approximately $2,251,000 (Appendix D). Approximately $1,000,000 for the project has been funded with Housing and Community Development monies. The main Delaware trunkline from Adams to Garfield is complete. One branch of the project is proposed to extend west from Delaware Street into the area of concern: a 36-inch line will extend to the intersection of Garfield and Main; a 33-inch line will then continue westward along Garfield Avenue for about 400 feet while a 24-inch line branches south along Main Street for a similar distance. The segments of the Old Town project within the study area will not be phased in until development pressures increase. The Department of Public Works has indicated that a change in land use designation from medium density residential to industrial would increase storm runoff approximately five percent. 16 This increase would not have a significant effect on the capability of the drainage facility proposed to serve the area. d. Parks The area of concern is located approximately one-half mile from the planned Huntington Community Park and three-fourths of a mile from Huntington Central Park. No neighborhood parks are currently planned for the immediate area, but `these two facilities could be considered adequate to serve recreation and park needs generated by residential development within the area of concern. However, there is presently no adopted City policy which credits regional and community parks as serving neighborhood park needs. Until such a change in City policy officially occurs, the study area would be deficient in neighborhood park facilities by approximately II acres under the medium density residential and by five acres under the mixed industrial-residential alternatives.I e. Police and Fire Protection The Police Department operates from one police facility located at Main Street and Yorktown Avenue. The present authorized level of police manning is approximately 1.17 officers per 1,000 persons. In order to maintain the current level of service; police levels would have to be increased by three officers for the medium density residential alternative, and by one officer for the industrial proposal. Due to the close proximity of the site to the police station, a constant patrol of the area results from police units leaving and returning to the facility, thereby reducing the need for additional patrols. This is an important consideration since no new officers are expected to be hired because of Proposition 13 - related cutbacks. On-site security protection could minimize the increased demand on the Police Department. Of prime importance to the adequacy of fire protection coverage is response time, which is basically a function of the distance from the fire station to the incident location and the average speed of travel by fire engines. Fire stations should be located to provide an average response time of five minutes or less in 90 percent of the incidents. The study area is located entirely within this response limit and can be adequately serviced. A comparison of land use alternatives indicates no difference in response time is expected. As the area of concern develops, higher levels of manning will be necessary if the Fire Department is to maintain the level of service requi red. I Huntington Beach Planning Department, Parks Analysis, 1977, pp. 6-9. 17 f. Schools The study area is served by Smith Elementary, Dwyer Intermediate, and Huntington Beach High School. Smith and Dwyer schools have remaining capacities of approximately 275 and 125 students, respectively. However, the additional students generated by already approved or pending developments (such as Seacliff IV and the "Ranch" townhouse development) will overburden these schools. If the area of concern is developed at' the projected intensities, an increase of 199 elementary and 66 middle school students would result under the medium density residential alternative. The mixed industrial-residential alternative would increase elementary school enrollment by 56 students and intermediate school enrollment by 19 students. Expansion of existing school facilities or redistricting may be necessary. In general, the Huntington Beach Elementary School District is experiencing reduced enrollment and does have excess capacity in many of its schools. It should therefore be able to accommodate the projected enrollment generated by this and other projects in the area. The additional high school students generated, approximately 69 under the medium density residential alternative and 19 under the mixed industrial residential option, will further impact the already overcrowded conditions at Huntington Beach High School. The declining enrollment in the elementary and intermediate schools should result in a long-term decline in high school requirements. However, already approved or pending developments will further adversely impact existing conditions in the near term. g. Gas and Electrical Utilities Natural gas service and electrical service are provided by the Southern California Gas Company and the Edison Company, respectively. A 12 inch gas supply line runs along Goldenwest Street. A four inch service line exists in Garfield Avenue east of Stewart Street with two inch lines serving apartment complexes on Holly Street and industrial uses on Crystal Street. Overhead 66 KV and 12 KV electrical lines run along Garfield Avenue while 12 KV lines are located along the loca 1 streets. Gas service is generally provided as a normal extension of existing facilities. However, the availability of natural gas service is based upon present conditions of gas supply and regulatory policies. As a public utility, the Southern California Gas Company is under the jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission. Federal 1 Ei LULTVV regulatory agencies can also affect gas supply. Should these agencies take any action which affects gas supply or the conditions under which service is available, gas service will be provided according to the revised conditions. The Southern California Edison Company has indicated that electrical load requirements can be met through 1979 provided that electrical demand does not exceed estimates and there are no unexpected outages to major sources of electrical supply. The total electrical system demand is expected to continue to increase annually; and, if plans to proceed with future construction of new generating facilities are delayed, Edison's capability to serve all customer loads during peak demand periods could become marginal by 1984. h. So lid Waste D isposal The Rainbow Disposal Company provides solid waste collection to the City of Huntington Beach. No local service constraints are expected under the industrial and medium density residential land use designations. Orange County Refuse Disposal indicates that the refuse transfer station in Huntington Beach will operate indefinitely. The Coyote Canyon landfill site is projected to reach capacity during 1981, but several replacement sites will begin operation at that time in accordance with the Orange County Solid Waste Management Plan. 5. Traffic Circulation The Garfield-Goldenwest Area is served by a number of arterials and local streets. Goldenwest Street, Garfield Avenue, and Main Street provide primary access to the study area. Goldenwest Street (a designated major arterial) has a daily traffic volume of 14,200 vehicles, while Garfield Avenue (a designated primary arterial) carries a volume of 2,600 vehicles per day. Main Street has a daily traffic volume of 15,000 vehicles. Clay Avenue and Huntington Street provide perimeter access on the south and east, respectively. Local streets and alleys serve the area's interior: Stewart, Crystal, and Holly Streets function as local streets, while an east-west easement funtions as an alley. The local streets are unimproved for the most part, and are used mainly as access roads to the oil field and various industrial businesses. The alley provides access to the lots fronting Garfield Avenue. It is estimated that the traffic generated by the potential land uses for the area will range between 7,080 and I2,450 vehicle trips per day. The medium density residential designation would result in an average 11,080 19 daily vehicle trips. The industrial alternative would produce 9,070 trips per day, while the mixed industrial and residential option generates approximately 9,740 daily trips. When the projected traffic volumes are compared with street capacities, all of the streets will have volumes considerably less than their design capacity. The study area has been a focus of many unresolved traffic issues. A Circulation Plan of Arterial Streets and Highways adopted in 1976 was designed to accommodate projected traffic volume, improve circulation to residential and industrial developments in the immediate area with minimum traffic mix, and improve access to the Downtown and beach areas of the City. The major changes adopted in the Plan were: 1) the extension of Lake Street as a primary arterial north from Yorktown Avenue to Garfield Avenue along the railroad right-of-way (Lake Street to join Main Street at Garfield); 2) the vacation of Main from Garfield Avenue to Holly Street, and from Clay Avenue to the proposed Gothard-Crystal Street alignment (Main Street to be reduced to a 60-foot local street between Clay Avenue and Holly Street), and 3) the realignment of Gothard Street to connect with Crystal Street. The Gothard-Crystal alignment south of Garfield was designated as a primary arterial, having a width of 100 feet. As a result of Planning Commission and City Council deliberation on the circulation issues within the general area, certain modifications have been or are now being made to the original plan. In March, 1979, the City Council deleted Lake Street between Yorktown and Garfield from the Circulation Plan. This decision necessitates that Main Street be redesignated as a primary arterial along its present alignment. The Main Street designation is proposed for addition to the Plan in Circulation Element Amendment 80-I. The Gothard-Crystal realignment is to be retained as a primary arterial, and will improve industrial access to regional highway and freeway systems. It will also reduce potential conflicts between industrial and residential traffic in the local area. 6. Environmental Issues This section identifies the significant environmental impacts associated with the land uses evaluated. a. Geotechnical The study area lies immediately north of the North Branch Fault within the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone. The fault is reflected on the surface by a series of hills and depressions. Reservoir Hill directly south of Clay Avenue is the most prominent feature in the 20 belt with the topography generally sloping north and east through the area of concern. The portion of the study area is within the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone, but is not within a designated earthquake hazard areal. Any development, however, whether industrial or residential, may be subject to seismic activity by virtue of its location within the Newport-Inglewood Zone. Appropriate structural requirements would be imposed by the City on all such projects. In addition, an engineering geologist analysis may also be required. b. No ise Regardless of the land use designation implemented, a mix' of industrial and residential uses will characterize the area of concern in the future. Mixed industrial truck and residential traffic will create high noise levels in some areas. Any new residential development adjacent to Goldenwest Street will be subjected to noise levels in excess of the normally acceptable levels for residential areas. Typical exterior treatments such as walls and berms may not be feasible .to reduce the Ldn 70 level to the City standard of Ldn 60 for exterior and Ldn 45 for interior noise levels. In this case, special mitigation measures such as unit modifications, building placement, and barrier construction, would be required to reduce the noise to acceptable levels. Areas adjacent to Garfield Avenue, Crystal Street and Main Street would also be subject to noise levels that are in excess of City standards. Residential developments will also be subject to noise levels in excess of Ldn 60 from oil pumps and engines as production phases out in the study area. These impacts can be mitigated through barriers, oil equipment mufflers, and building placement. P. Air Quality Development under industrial and medium density land uses will effect air quality within the South Coast region. An industrial land use designation would generate less pollutants than medium density residential use - approximately 2.05 tons of emissions per day and 2.31 tons per day respectively. The primary air emissions generated include carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, particulates, and sulfur oxides from stationary and mobile sources. Automobile and truck traffic produce most of the pollutants with a small portion attributable to local heating and oil activities. 1 Based upon the provisions of the Alquist-Priolo Geologic hazard Zone Act and criteria of the State Mining and Geology Board. 21 Figure 2-6 summarizes the air emissions generated by the three land use alternatves. The estimated tonnage of pollutants may be reduced as newer motor vehicles replace older models, new advances in engine design are implemented, or public transportation is expanded. 2.1.3 Staff Recommendation Ultimate development of the area as medium density residential will preserve compatibility with the Seacliff Planned Community to the west, and other medium density areas to the east and south. The subject property also occupies a key location in the City, between Central Park and the Civic Center/Downtown areas. A medium density designation enhances the "gateway" function of Main Street (and possibly Goldenwest Street) which serves these areas. Another consideration is that a large number of residential units have been developed or are under construction. While non-conforming uses would occur under either industrial or residential designations the environmental effects (air, traffic, and noise) associated with industrial development could be expected to be more severe in impact on surrounding uses than those associated with residential development. An argument could be made to support an industrial designation on at least the block east of the railroad right-of-way since it is dominated by the Cambro plant and City water facility. An. industrial land use designation on the property would accommodate these uses but the area would be physically isolated from the Central Industrial Corridor to the north. A final consideration is that a medium density residential land use designation would enhance the City's options in the provision of affordable housing to low and moderate income households. The medium density would offer an opportunity to provide such housing under an inclusionary zoning ordinance with the utilization of density bonuses. Staff, therefore, recommends that the Garfield-Goldenwest area retain the existing medium density residential land use designation on the entire site. In order to guide new development and encourage compatibility with oil operations and industrial uses as they phase out, the Planning Commission should consider implementation of the policy recommendations on pages 17-21 in the Garfield-Goldenwest Study. 2.1.4 Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission recommends that the Garfield-Goldenwest area be continued to Land Use Element Amendment 80-2. The Commission directed staff to investigate the feasibility and legal ramifications of placing a resource production overlay on the existing medium density residential designation to protect oil uses from premature residential development. 22 FIGURE 2-6 PROJECTED DAILY EMISSIONS I MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ALTERNATIVE I Emission Source Tons of Emissions/Day Mobile 1.70 Stationary .61 TOTAL 2.31 INDUSTRIAL ALTERNATIVE 2 Emission Source Tons of Emissions/Day Mobile 1.86 Stationary .19 TOTAL 2.05 MIXED INDUSTRIAL AND RESIDENTIAL ALTERNATIVE 3 Emission Source Tons of Emissions/Day Mobile 1.85 Stationary .30 TOTAL 2.15 1 Developed from EPA AP-42 for the average vehicle and stationary source in the South Coast Air Basin. AMI 23 2.2 Beach-Talbert Area A General Plan Amendment 80-1 addresses a second area of concern located south of Talbert Avenue and west of Beach Boulevard (Figure 2-A. The Amendment request being considered was filed by the Woodtree Development Company in September, 1979. 2.2.1 Background The applicant's original amendment request was for a change from low density residential to medium density residential and concerned only 4.1 acres. The area of concern has been expanded by the Planning staff to include the adjacent 7.71 acres of encyclopedia lots to encourage development of compatible land uses within the general area. This study area was the subject of a similar effort in 1977 when the entire 11.81 acres of land were redesignated from general industrial and general commercial to the present low density residential status. The petitioned area at that time encompassed 4.5 acres. The only alternative land uses under consideration in this amendment are low and medium density residential. A commercial land use alternative is not practical because of the lack of exposure to Beach Boulevard, and industrial consideration is precluded by existing residential development to the north and south of the study area. The present expanded area of concern involves a total of 11.81 acres located on the south side of Talbert Avenue approximately 430 feet west of Beach Boulevard. In addition to the 4.1 acres owned by the amendment petitioner, five acres to the west and 1.06 acres to the east are held by two other property owners. The remaining 1.65 acres of encyclopedia lots are owned by 20 separate owners. The existing General Plan designation is low density and the existing zoning is RI-PD. Though the majority of the study area is vacant, the few existing uses include nine older single family dwelling units and several industrial sheds. Adjacent residential uses include three medium density developments containing 148 apartment units on 12.5 acres directly across Talbert to the north, and a 62 unit single family planned development now under construction on 9.5 acres directly to the south. To the east on Beach Boulevard is a 5.7 acre neighborhood shopping center with an automobile dealer to the south of it. Industrially zoned land immediately adjacent to the west is currently vacant; nearby industrial uses along Redondo Lane, approximately 650 feet west of the area of concern, include an auto wrecker, various light manufacturing and wholesale operations, and a lumber yard. 24 - '^� fir• . • ■ ■ ■ • ■ ■ . ■ . ■ ..ii:i ..:.........;:=i.: ii• r r • • • ■ ■ • • • • ■ • i s i:::i i ■ • ■ ■ o ■ • ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ e ■ �t �+"� �V�may, ■ • • ■ • ■ • • ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ • • • � �t�ut tt�� ■ ■ • ■ • • r ■ i AM TALBERT • ■ ■ ; -� y ■.■.■. . . . ... 4 �.�..r ..... . , ,...r ` ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■o■r ... r ■ ■ ■ . . ■ ■ ,, ... .. • • • • ■ ■ • ■ • ■ • ■ • • .... •■■••■■■■•••■■• .. t'��r • • ■ ■mammas .. .. .. -r_ �= •••••■■■•■■•■■ •'s:'::'•i::i 0 0 0 0 0 • ■ •i• • ■ • 0 00 0 0 0 • • . ■ ■ • sis::•:i .......... 00000 �i:i:::......:.:. 000000 • ■ ■ • • ■ • _ .iii C�nOppO°Op ■ • • • ■ ■ •': •ii S •. .... O O O ■ ■ ■ • ■ • • =•i•:I• iSI:SSJSi• .,L•i i ::o 0 0 . • • . ■ • i.it RESIDENTIAL C 0 MkI R CIAL PUBLIC USE ESTATE " Z uD/gac ® GENERAL OPEN SPACE LOW DENSITY t ur/yac OFFICE PROFESSIONAL ® MEDIUM DENSITY Tunlpc I NDU M IA L HIGH DENSITYyISbn &ENERAL Figure 2-7 GENERAL PLAN TALBERT - BEACH BLVD. AREA A huntington beach planning division 25 2.2.2 Analysis I. Land Use The existing low density residential designation allows a maximum of seven units per acre, or 82 units total, and will generate an estimated 282 people. The applicant's request for a redesignation to medium density would result in a maximum of 15 units per acre, or 177 units over the expanded area of concern, and would generate an estimated population of 416 persons. An important issue in this amendment involves fragmented ownership. In order to meet open space and parking requirements in a planned development of this size, some consolidation of ownerships would most likely be. required. Redesignation of the area of concern to medium density could induce consolidation of some parcels and improve the feasibility of a planned development. Medium density residential development is located directly north of Talbert Avenue. A redesignation of the study area to medium density would be compatible with these uses. Abutting the area to the south is another area of low density residential. Although not connected by any local streets, a walkway to Terry Park on the west will join the southerly development and the area of concern. The remaining commercial uses to the east and industrial uses to the west of the study area would probably have few compatibility problems with either type of density designation provided that PD zoning is retained to ensure adequate buffering. 2. Hou si ng As noted in Section 2.1.2, the City's recently adopted revision to the Housing Element calls for a feasibility study of inclusionary zoning mechanisms. Although the City's ordinance code does not allow for density bonuses or inclusionary zoning at this time, it is possible that such mechanisms could be adopted and applied to the study area during the implementation phase of the Housing Element. Areas designated medium and high density residential offer the best opportunities to provide affordable housing, especially if density bonuses are to be utilized. However, most areas designated medium or high density in the City are developed. Only 356 acres of the City's remaining vacant land is designated medium density residential. Redesignation of the subject property to medium density residential would thus enhance the City's options in the provision of affordable housing. A medium density designation would result in a maximum of 177 units as opposed to 82 units under low density residential. Adoption of an inclusionary zoning ordinance could potentially require that between 17 and 44 units be available for these households under a medium density designation. 26 3. Public'Services and Facilities a. Sewers The eight-inch sewer line which serves the area of concern lis presently operating at capacity. A 10-inch relief system is planned which will accommodate ultimate development at existing allowable densities in the area. The Department of Public Works has indicated that while a medium density designation of the study area would cause the relief .sewer to operate at capacity, it would not significantly overburden the local system or the area downstream. b. Wa ter Water service is available to the area of concern via an eight inch line. The Department of Public Works indicated that this facility will adequately service the area regardless of the eventual density of development. However, developers in the area would be required to design and install a fire hydrant and water main distribution system for the area. C. Drainage The area of concern presently drains north toward Talbert Avenue and then west to Redondo .Lane in the form of surface flow. Final plans have been drawn and construction scheduled to begin on a 30- and 48-inch drainage pipe for this area (Appendix E). From Redondo there is an undeveloped section in the drainage system which runs north and then west into Huntington Central Park. Before any development is permitted in the study area, regardless of density, this section will have to be completed. The Department of Public Works indicates that the planned drainage system from the study area to Redondo Lane will be adequate to accommodate medium density development. Both it and the recently constructed laterals and catch basins across Talbert Avenue to the north were designed with the intent of servicing low or medium density development in the study area. 27 d. Par ks The area of concern has a sufficient amount of park space available to accommodate a redesignation to medium density. Terry Park, a recently developed five acre neighborhood park, is located to the south fronting on Taylor Street. A walkway from the area of concern to the park via the adjoining development has already been approved. Also, Huntington Central Park is located approximately one-half mile from the study area with access provided along Talbert Avenue. e. Police and Fire Protection The police department operates from one police facility located at Main Street and Yorktown Avenue. The present authorized level of police manning is approximately 1.17 officers per 1,000 persons. Development under either low density or medium density would require no more than one additional officer. Of prime importance to the adequacy of fire protection coverage is response time, which is basically a function of the distance from the fire station to the incident location and the average speed of travel by fire engine. Fire stations should be located to provide an average response time of five minutes or less in 90 percent of the incidents. The study area is located entirely within this response limit and can be adequately serviced. When comparing the land use alternatives, no difference in response time is expected. As the area of concern develops, higher levels of manning will be necessary if the Fire Department is to maintain the level of service required. f. Schools The area of concern lies within the Ocean View Elementary School District. A low density land use would generate an estimated 60 elementary school aged children. A change in land use to medium density would generate an estimated 57 elementary school aged children. This differance is a result of smaller household size. The Ocean View School District has indicated that these children would under present circumstances attend Crestview Elementary School, which is located on Talbert Avenue east of Beach Boulevard. The capacity at Crestview is 780 students and the current enrollment is 599. The estimated number of students generated by the existing low density designation would not over tax the capacity of the school, but the fewer students generated by medium density development would have a more favorable impact on the school. 28 �o The study area is also served by the Huntington Beach High School District. A low or medium density residential land use would generate an estimated 19 and 14 students, respectively. These students would attend Oceanview High School which is located approximately I'/i miles from the area of concern. While any additional students would contribute to the already overcrowded conditions within the school district, declining. enrollment in the elementary school system should result in a long-term decline in high school requirements. g. Gas and Electrical Utilities Natural gas service and electrical service are provided by the Southern California Gas Company and the Edison Company respectively. . A four inch steel main gas supply line is located in Talbert Avenue, running east and west. An overhead 12KV electrical line runs along the south side of Talbert and serves the subject property. Gas service is generally provided as a normal extension of existing facilities. However, the availability of. natural gas service is based upon present conditions of gas supply and regulatory policies. As a public utility, the Southern California Gas company is under the jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission. Federal regulatory agencies can also affect gas supply. Should these agencies take any action which affects gas supply or the conditions. under which service is available, gas service will be provided according to the revised conditions. The Southern California Edison Company has indicated that electrical load requirements can be met through 1979 provided that electrical demand does not exceed estimates and there are no unexpected outages to major sources of electrical supply. The total electrical system demand is expected to continue to increase annually. If plans to proceed with future construction of new generating facilities are delayed, Edison's capability to serve all customer loads during peak demand periods could become marginal by 1984. 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 the low or medium density residential land use . designations. 29 4. Traffic Circulation Access to the study area is taken via Talbert Avenue which is designated a primary arterial. The nearest major intersections on Talbert are Beach Boulevard, a designated major arterial to the east, and Gothard Street to the west, which is a secondary arterial. Present traffic volumes for these arterials in vicinity of the study area are 4,300 daily trips on Talbert Avenue, 45,000 daily trips on Beach Boulevard, and 5,300 trips per day on Gothard Street. The design capacities for these streets are 30,000, 45,000 and 20,000 vehicle trips per day, respectively. It is estimated that the existing designation of low density residential will result in 820 vehicle trips per day, with 1,700 trips predicted for a redesi gnat i on to medium density. These volumes, when added to the existing traffic on Talbert and Gothard fall far short of exceeding their design capacities. The planned widening of Talbert Avenue will also significantly reduce the impacts of increased traffic generation on that street. The only street in the area which exceeds design capacity is Beach Boulevard. The Department of Public Works has indicated that a redesignation of the study area to medium density would not have a significant negative effect on traffic of any of the surrounding local streets. Taylor Drive is not an issue in this amendment because there will be no streets constructed which directly connect it to the study area. The adjacent low density development fronting on Taylor is designed with its own private streets which do not join to the study area. 5. Environmental Issues a. Noise The portion of the study area adjacent to Talbert Avenue will be subjected to noise levels in excess of City standards for residential areas. Mitigation to reduce the Ldn 65 level to an acceptable level of 60 Ldn exterior and 45 Ldn interior will be necessary. b. Air Quality Both low and medium density residential developments would adversely effect air quality within the South Coast region. A low density residential use would generate less pollutants than the proposed medium density designation - approximately .20 tons of emissions per day and .37 tons per day, respectively. The primary air emissions generated include carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, 30 nitrogen oxides, particulates, and sulfur oxides from stationary and mobile sources. Automobile and truck traffic produce most of the pollutants with a small portion attributable to local heating. The following table summarizes the air emissions generated by the two land use alternatives: PROJECTED DAILY EMISSIONS Low Density Residential Emission Source Tons of Emissions/Day. Mobile .14 Stationary .06 Toto I Medium Density Residential Mobile .28 Stationary .09 Total The estimated tonnage of pollutants may be reduced as newer motor vehicles replace older models, new advances in engine design are implemented, or public transportation is expanded. 2.2.3 Staff Recommendation The amendment request is to change the area of concern from low to medium density residential. Although PD zoning exists on the property, the low density residential land use designation has apparently offered little encouragement to consolidate land for adequate building sites. A medium density designation could provide an incentive to consolidate some of the existing fragmented parcels and improve the feasibility of a comprehensive planned development. Medium density would also enhance the City's options in the provision of affordable housing to low and moderate income households. It offers an opportunity to provide such housing under an inclusionary zoning ordinance with the utilization of density bonuses. Staff, therefore, recommends that the Beach-Talbert area be redesignated medium density residential. It is also recommended that PD zoning be included at the implementatin level to ensure adequate buffering with adjacent commercial and industrial uses to the east and west, and compatibility with the low density planned development to the south. 2.2.4 Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission recommends that the 11.81 acre area of concern located south of Talbert Avenue and west of Beach Boulevard be redesignated from low density residential to medium density residential. 31 r 2.3 Beach-Talbert Area B A third area of concern addressed by Land Use Element Amendment 80-1 is located north of Talbert Avenue and east of Beach Boulevard (Figure 2-8). The Amendment was requested by the Department of Development Services. 2.3.1 Background At its February 5, 1980 meeting, the Planning Commission approved a zone change request from the Roman Catholic Bishop of Orange to rezone approximately,4.1 acres from SP-1 (Special District Cemetery) to "Q" RA (Qualified Residential Agricultural). The purpose of the request was to construct a church. An additional 46.27 acres surrounding this site is presently vacant or in cemetery use, and under the some ownership. The property owner intends to use the vacant area as a future expansion of the existing cemetery. Zoning for this area is SP-I, but the Land Use Element currently designates the entire 50.37 acres (church and cemetery sites) as open space. The existing cemetery occupies approximately 22 acres located at the northeast corner of Beach Boulevard and Talbert Avenue. The proposed church would cover another four acres on the north side of Talbert Avenue and 1540 feet east of Beach Boulevard. The remaining 24 acres of vacant land for cemetery expansion abuts these existing and proposed uses to the northeast between Talbert Avenue and -Newman Avenue. Adjacent commercial uses are located across Beach Boulevard to the west and at the southeast corner of Beach and Talbert Avenue. The Huntington Intercommunity Hospital and medical offices occupy 17 acres directly north of the cemetery. Medium density apartments and single-family residences adjoin the vacant portion of the site to the north across Newman Avenue. The study area abuts medium density condominiums and older single-family homes to the east. Single-family subdivisions and Crest View Elementary School are located to the south across Talbert Avenue. 2.3.2 Analysis The primary issue of this amendment request focuses on the open space land use designation. The staff report to the zone change on the church site indicated that the Land Use Element was inadvertently changed from public, quasi-public, institutional to open space without public hearing in 1975-76. Further,review of the record, however, shows that the change in land use designation was one of many made to the Land Use Element at the time of revision and.adoption of the General Plan in December 1976. It was also found that the redesiqnation of the subject property to open space was intentional. MW 32 tj ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ • ■ ■ e ■ • ■ o ■ a • ■ ... m m ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ • ■ m ■ ■ ■ o ■ ■ ........ . . ■ . . ■ ■ ■ ■ • ■ . i :���...- • ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ • ■ :'i::i::.:i.:::£::ii:i:ici?i' »iisi'sie»iie „��i, ■ a ■ • ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Hii ...... a i::;.:..::::: �,.t;� m ■ m ■ ■ ■ ■ m • ■ • ■ •:itsi::i°£"iiii:;i�!•:i::i: :l,... .1;.•:L y .£ iEiiEiii 8 is y��,,.4 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ TALBERT,■® • ■ . . e ® ;w •®®■®®®®®■■®■®■ • ■ • ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ a ■ ■ a ■ a ■ a ° • ■ • a e ■ a ■ ■ •°■°■°■°•°■°o • • • • • • mm ••• ■ m m • • ■ e • ■ a ■ ■ o ■ ® ■ ■ ■ ■ • :iiiii::...;::: ............... RESIDENTIAL C 0 MINER CIAL PUBLIC USE ESTATE = Z ur/gac GENERAL OPEN SPACE LOW DENSITY 4 ur/gac OFFICE PROFESSIONAL . MEDIUM DEN SITY::5- Tun I NDU S-f R IA L HIGH DEN3ITY> 15bn/gac ■ ■ ® GENERAL Figure 2-B A92t& GENERAL PLAN! TALBERT - BEACH BLVD. AREA B untie t o bftG,,Uch o idivision 33 However, open space was not intended to accommodate related institutional uses such as churches, mortuaries, and religious schools. These uses require residential or institutional land use designations, depending upon size and locational criteria specified in the General Plan. Since the SP-1 classification can only be consistent with an open space land use, ancillary cemetery uses are Beverly limited. It is the staff's position that cemetaries not be classified as open space but rather as institutional. There are no policies or criteria in the General Plan to justify cemetaries as passive or active open space areas. Open space as defined by the Land Use and Open Space/Conservation Elements incorporates only scenic corridors, recreation areas, resource preserves, neighborhood parks, water areas, resource production and planned open space development. The Zoning and Land Use Element Consistency Matrix as depicted in Figure 4-1 of the General Plan document should, therefore, be revised to make SP-1 consistent with the public, quasi-public, institutional land use designation rather than open space. Designation of the study area as public, quasi-public, institutional accommodates cemetery use, but also provides the opportunity to develop other institutional,and public uses without encountering consistency problems. This could potentially intensify development and related issues of traffic congestion, environmental quality, and demand for public services and facilities. However, ultimate use of the property is expected to remain dominated by the cemetery with the exception of the four-acre church site. As a result, neither use individually or collectively is anticipated to significantly impact the issue areas identified above. The public, quasi-public, institutional designation within this low intensity scenario is also generally compatible with surrounding land uses. Other land use designations_on the area of concern were rejected by staff for a number of reasons. The existing cemetery already occupies the northeast corner of Beach Boulevard and Talbert Avenue, rendering a commercial designation inappropriate due to the lack of exposure to Beach Boulevard. Office-professional could be considered along Newman Avenue adjacent to the hospital complex. However, since there are over three acres of vacant land within the Huntington Intercommunity Hospital area and additional office space one-half mile to the south, the need for office-professional within the study area is marginal. Medium density residential would provide additional housing opportunities to lower income families, and would be compatible with medium density developments directly to the east. Talbert and Newman Avenues could serve as logical boundaries and buffers to the single-family subdivisions to the north and south; but medium density would also add to traffic congestion on Newman Avenue near the hospital complex and increase the demand on public facilities in the general area. A low density residential designation would create a lower magnitude of impacts on public facilities and the traffic system, but would add little to the opportunity for housing for low and moderate income households. Adft ;4 i 2.3.3 Staff Recommendation The ultimate intended use of 46 acres within the area of concern is for cemetery and related facilities, while the remaining four acres comprise a proposed church site. Since cemeteries are also most appropriately classified as institutional uses, the study area should be redesignated from open space to . public, quasi-public, institutional. In addition, the staff. recommends that the Zoning and Land Use Llement Consistency Matrix as dep.icted in Figure 4-1 of the General Plan document be changed to show the SP-1 zoning district consistent with public, quasi-public, institutional rather than open space. 2.3.4 Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission recommends that the 50.37 acre area of concern located north of Talbert Avenue and east of Beach Boulevard be redesignated from open space to public, quasi-public, institutional. The Commission also recommends that the Zoning and Land Use Element Consistency Matrix as depicted in Figure 4-1 of the General Plan document be changed to show the SP-1 zoning district consistent with public, quasi-public, institutional rather than open space. 35 • A • • • ZONING CLASSIFICATION Of 110, NJ !DO rM NOW p• Ar0 ■ r•"r•♦r•♦ ■ ■ r e, Al ►M/\ / ► /■ 0FE 13 /■ • M"ra, rw,,ro, .e • ROS ►•I ►•/►•I \•/►•I •I \•I►•I►•I ►•/►•/►•I►•I 2.4 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 changes in Sections 2.1 , 2.2, and 2.3. 2.4.1 Short-Term and Long-Term Productivity Amendment 80-1 seeks to identify short-range issues within 'a context of long-range goals, policies, and environmental planning programs. The amendment is in itself 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. The long-term effects would include land uses which implement . General Plan policies. 2.4.2 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. 2.4.3 Growth Inducing Impacts The proposed amendment will also have, growth inducing effects within the areas of concern. An additional population of 134 persons could be generated by uses under Land Use Element Amendment 80-1, thereby creating an increased demand on public services and utilities and incrementally affecting air quality, water quality, traffic, and noise levels. However, the proposed uses in accord with General Plan policies and programs should mitigate many of the adverse effects generated by the expected growth. 37 The major issue surrounding utility service to the Garfield-Goldenwest Area is how to provide such service without inducing growth that prematurely terminates oil production in the area. If residential development occurred in logical phases or in large projects in close proximity to existing utility lines, service could be provided as a normal extension at developer expense. However, given the variable phase out of oil operations and the fragmented ownership patterns, it is probable that many small projects will develop in a haphazard pattern without regard to the location of utility lines. The development of interior parcels first compounds the problem since utilities would have to be pulled in thereby inducing growth on lots adjoining the constructed utility. Yet, short of prohibiting such development, this may have the least effect when confronted with the alternative of providing a one time comprehensive utility project through the use of capital improvement funds or an assessment district. On the contrary, requiring developers to pull in utilities perhaps through a reimbursement agreement could have the effect of discouraging growth until utilities are logically extended. 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 to reduce these impacts. The following water conservation measures are recommended for the community at large and individual structures where appropriate. (I ) Reduce evaporation from reservoirs by encouraging underground storage or coating water surfaces with evaporation hindering films or substances. (2) Encourage tertiary treatment of and reuse of the return flow of public water supplies wherever such use is acceptable and safe. (3) Discourage development in areas where air conditioning may be used frequently and for long periods. (4) Land use planning should be sensitive to the underground water level and not produce greater demand on the underground water supply than is ava i lab le. (5) Waterspreading where appropriate should be encouraged in order to recharge the underground water supply. (6) Metering of water can stimulate more economical use and encourage repair of leaky connections. (7) Toilets and showers are commonly over-designed and use more water than necessary. Consumption can be reduced by introducing appropriate modifications to toilets and showers. 38 The following energy conservation measures are recommended for new structures: (1 ) Open gas lighting should not be used in public or private buildings. (2) Electric lights should be strategically placed to maximize their efficiency. Their size and power consumption should be minimized as much as possible. (3) Electrical heating in public and private structures should be discouraged. Solar-assisted heating systems should be encouraged. (4) Reflecting and/or insulating glass should be used in structures where windows are not shaded by exterior architectural projections or nature p lants. 39 r 3.0 ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS This section addresses a request by the Planning Division to add energy conservation policies to the Land Use Element. There is a growing awareness that energy conservation measures such as solar energy systems in homes and business establishments can reduce shelter costs through the savings derived from reduced energy consumption. The best way to promote energy conservation is to incorporate these measures into the regular planning and regulatory process which begins with the goals and policies presented in the City's General Plan. Additional regulatory measures will have to be adopted to fully realize energy conservation potentials in Huntington Beach. For these reasons, the Planning Commission recommends that the Land Use Element be revised to incorporate the following policies in Section 3.4.2.3, Natural Resources, page 75: (7) Promote design in development that will accommodate energy conservation features. (8) Promote a pattern of development within the City which would facilitate the establishment of mass transit systems. 41 4.0 AMENDMENT SUMMARY The following table summarizes the proposed land use amendments addressed in Section 2.0 as recommended by the Planning Commission. 4.1 Summary of Proposed Land Use Element Amendment 80-I. PROPOSED LAND USE ACREAGE SUMMARY Land Use Existing Proposed Net Category Gross Acres Gross Acres Gross Acres RESIDENTIAL Low Density 11.81 0 -1 1.81 Medium Density 97.38 109.19 +1 1.81 OPEN SPACE 50.37 0 -50.37 PUBLIC, QUASI-PUBLIC, INSTITUTIONAL 0 50.37 .+50.37 Total land area involved in Amendment 80-I: 159.56 gross acres. NET PROJECTED POPULATION CHANGE Max. Units Residential Net Gross Per Total Population Types Acres Gross Acre Units Per Unit Population Low Density -11.81 7 82 3.44 -282 Medium Density +I 1.81 15 177 2.35 +416 +T34 43 APPENDICES APPENDIX A FISCAL IMPACT'ANALYSIS GARFIELD - GOLDENWEST AREA In cooperation with Ultrasystems, Inc. the computerized fiscal impact methodology (see: Final Report on the Develo ment and Application of a Land Use Fiscal Impact Methodologyfor. the City of Huntington Beac olume , Methodology Development Nove er 1, 19 9) was used to evaluate the three proposed land use alternatives as part, of Land Use Element Amendment 80-1 for the Garfield-Golden west Area. For analysis purposes, the 10-year period from July I, 1980 through June 30, 1990 was selected, representing fiscal years 1981 through 1990. It was assumed that existing developments and projects under construction would remain in the study area throughout the 10=year period. The analysis incorporates these uses as given, and focuses on the probable development of vacant parcels and the recycling of oil production areas. For new residential development'it was assumed that the majority of uses would be condominium planned ,developments similar to the project now under construction by . the Mola Development Company south of Garfield Avenue and east of the railroad right-of-way. Medium density apartments were designated for the smallest parcels where planned developments appeared less probable. New industrial developments were assumed to be a mix of light manufacturing and commercial services with a large number of businesses per structure (less than 8000 square feet of building space per tenant). This industrial mix was based .upon typical new developments in the Central Industrial Corridor (i.e., the northwest corner of Nichols and Slater). Typical uses would include metal fabricators, electronic equipment manufacturers, machine shops, welding shops, engineering. services, building contractors, automobile parts sales, statuary shops, furniture shops and sales, photographic services, and audio-visual services. Table I shows that, over the 10-year period chosen,-all three proposed alternatives have a deficit ranging from $0.75 million for the industrial alternative to $0.42 million for the residential alternative on the basis of today's dollars versus a deficit of $1.65 million for the industrial alternative 'to $1.04 million for the residential alternative on a cash flow basis.) Tables 2-4 present the corresponding annual revenue and cost comparisons: It should be noted that the residential alternative generates the highest expenditure over the 10-year period but tends to produce substantially more revenue than the industrial alternative. It was found that sales tax and business license fees provide the bulk of revenues from industrial uses. Sales tax from industrial was approximately. two times that generated by the assumed residential developments ($1 .29 million for industrial versus $0.67 million for residential on a cash flow . basis). ' However, property tax revenues from the residential uses were much higher than those generated by industrial uses ($1.09 million for residential versus $0.38 million for industrial on a cash flow basis). The valuation of residential and industrial properties was derived from comparable recent developments in the City. In addition to property taxes, residential uses showed a comparative advantage from other revenue sources such as permit and processing fees, fines, and revenue from other agencies (gasoline taxes and motor vehicle in-lieu fees). oday's dollar indicates the present value of future costs and revenues discounting inflationary changes over time; whereas, cash flow refers to valuing costs and revenues by accounting for inflationary changes over time. APPENDIX A Although the deficits produced by all three alternatives may run counter 'to traditional conception of land use revenues, they can be explained for the most part by the repercussions of Proposition 13. The effect of Proposition 13 was to reduce property taxes by 60 percent in the initial year on existing developments, and to assess at one percent of full market value all existing and future developments. Property tax increases were further limited to a maximum, of two percent annually. Without these limitations, the three alternatives would have generated substantially more total revenues and offset much of the projected deficits. This was verified by applying the computerized fiscal impact methodology to pre-Proposition 13 conditions. There are a number of qualifications regarding the deficit results of the analysis which should be noted. First, the study analyzed only direct fiscal impacts on general fund revenues and expenditures. There was no attempt to predict the continuing impact of State bail-out funds, other revenue transfers, and the development of new revenue sources. Secondly, the effects of the Gann Initiative were applied to projected expenditures based upon consumer price index increases. However, until the issues surrounding the implementation of Gann are resolved and a specific formula developed, expenditure projections may or may not reflect the true fiscal picture over the long-term. A third consideration is that the fiscal impact model is less successful at predicting secondary fiscal impacts from the growth which could be generated by the proposed land uses. It should be pointed out that all other known .fiscal impact methodologies have the some problem. Finally, future increases in the assumed housing values and changes in the industrial uses to those which are more sales tax-oriented could dramatically alter these projections. APPENDIX A TABLE 1 10-YEAR SUMMARY COMPARISON OF THE PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES FOR THE GARFIELD AVENUE - GOLDEN WEST STREET GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT Proposed Alternative Cash Flow Basis Industrial Residential Mixed Revenue (1) 9 (2) 2,694.3 3,586.6 2,908.4 Cost (1) 4,348.9 40629.2 49422.7 Revenue-Cost (1) - 19654.6 - 1,042.6 - 1,514.3 Revenue/Cost 0.62 0:78 0.66 In Today' Dollars (3) Revenue (1) 1(2) 1,532.9 2,013.3 19658.7 Cost (1) 2,288.8 2,440.2 2,344.5 Revenue-Cost (1) - 755.9 - 426.9 - 685.8 Revenue/Cost 0.67 0.83 0.71 0) in $1 ,000 (2) . Includes permit and processing fees plus library fees, but excludes parks, sewer and drainage fees (3) Current year dollars discounted at 10% TABLE 2 ANNUAL REVENUE AND COST COMPARISON FOR THE PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL ALTERNATIVE Cash Flow Today's Dollars** Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue Minus -To-Cost Minus -To-Cost Fiscal Year Revenue* Cost*' Cost* Ratio Revenue* Cost* Cost* Ratio 1980-1981 176.4 126.7 49.7 1 .39 165.4 115.2 50.2 1 .44 1981-1982 176.3 174.2 2.1 1.01 145.7 143.9 1.8 1.01 1982-1983 183.1 214.6 -31 .5 0.85 137.6 161 .3 -23.7 0.85 1983-1984 217.2 272.9 -55.7 0.80 148.4 186.4 -38.0 0.80 1984-1985 237.5 345.7 -108.2 0.69 147.5 214.6 -67.1 0.69 b 1985-1986 278.0 436.4 -158.4 0.64 156.9 246.3 -89.4 0.64 m 1986-1987 309.9 538.5 228.6 0.58 159.0 276.3 -117.3 0.58 1987-1988 343.7 647.4 -303.7 0.53 160.3 302.0, -141.7 0.53 9 1988-1989 374.0 746.9 -372.9 0.50 158.6 316.8 -158.2 0.50 1989-1990 398.2 845.6 -447.4 0.47 153.5 326.0 -172.5 0.47 TOTAL 2,694.3 4,348.9 -1,654.6 0.62 1,532.9 2,288.8 -755.9 0.67 * In $1,000 ** Current year dollars discounted at 10% TABLE 3 ANNUAL REVENUE AND COST COMPARISON FOR THE PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL ALTERNATIVE Cash Flow Today's Dollars** Revenue Revenue Revenue . Revenue Minus -To-Cost Minus -To-.Cost Fiscal Year Revenue* Cost* Cost* Ratio Revenue* Cost* Cost* Ratio 1980-1981 192.8 118.0 74.8 1 .63 179.9 107.3 72.6 1.68 1981-1982 256.4 172.6 83.8 1.49 211.9 142.E 69.3 1.49 1982-1983 210.2 251.5 -41 .3 0.84 157.9 189.0 -31 .1 0.84 1983-1984 301.2 329.4 -28.2 0.92 205.7 225.0 -19.3 0.92 1984-1985 322.2 387.2 -65.0 0.83 200.1 240.4 -40.3 0.83 hd 1985-1986 348.8 471.0 -122.2 0.74 .196.9 265.9 -69.0 0.74 m 1986-1987 396.9 554.6 -157.7 0.72 203.7 284.6 -80.9 0.7.2 1987-1988 468.4 637.8 -169.4 0.73 218.5 297.6 -79.1 0.73 a 1988-1989 507.9 769.2 -261 .3 0.66 214.4 326.2 -111.8 0.66 1989-1990 581.8 937.9 -356.1 0.62 .224.3 361.6 -137.3 0.62 TOTAL 3,586.6 4,629.2 -1,042.6 0.78 2,013.3 2,440..2 -4 26.9 0.83 * In $1,000 ** Current year dollars discounted at 10% 1 TABLE 4 ANNUAL REVENUE AND COST COMPARISON FOR THE PROPOSED MIXED INDUSTRIAL AND RESIDENTIAL ALTERNATIVE Cash Flow Today's Dollars** Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue Minus -To-Cost Minus -To-Cost Fiscal Year Revenue* Cost* Cost* Ratio Revenue* Cost* Cost* Ratio 1980-1981 199.6 126.7 72.9 1 .58 186.4 115.2 71.2 1 .62 1981-1982 179.9 188.0 - 8.1 0.96 148.7 155.4 - 6.7 0.96 1982-1983 208.8 241 .3 - 32.5 0.87 156.9 181 .3 - 24.4 0.87 1983-1984 244.8 297.8 - 53.0 0.82 167.2 203.4 - 36.2 0.82 1984-1985 260.4 365.5 -105.1 0.71 161.7 227.0 - 65.3 0.71 b 1985-1986 294.5 442.8 -148.3 0.67 166.2 250.0 - 83.8 0.67 m 1986=1987 315.1 536.0 -220.9 0.59 161 .7 275.0 -113.3 0.59 >4 1987-1988 367.6 633.0 -265.4 0.58 171.5 295.3 -123.8 0.58 a 1988-1989 400.4 732.8 -332.4 0.55 169.8 310.8 -141 .0 0.55 1989-1990 437.3 858.8 -421.5 0.51 168.6 331.1 -162.5 0.51 TOTAL 2,908.4 4,422.7 -1,514.3 0.66 1,658.7 2,344.5 -685.8 0..71 * In $1,000 ** Current year dollars discounted at 10% APPENDIX B GQkDENWEST .I � T. T r � r / T Z m Nf 4 D 1 � m 1 - D i 1 N z ,7 1 1 1 RYSTAL ST 1 Mq � N�� 4 HOL LY ♦SST. a sr T 70 APPENDIX D i r - I , 43 I J.;j D_ _J4141.4 .......... CF-C • ' U CF-E -8F Algnu' _ . • • • B, - �-ff VdL- 48" — e • • J. so low Li i—� up ./4 i..�/ / .9' / • ' In' • 1 • !Nd/wAnlw ' OLD TOW N DRAINAGE DISTRICT GARFIELD -GOLDENWEST AREA (8")= PROPOSED WATER EXISTING - ----- I J LGAR FIELR_=.Q4LDENWES AREA PROPOSED %A " I N \ N H S� -N- i kA 6.{8.. 6" -) a X 3 Q W V S J z .. •- O a = a WATER 42" STORAGE APPENDIX E _� • PROPOSED DRAINAGE SYSTEM 1 BEACH-TALBERT AREA T r, GOTHARD ± 1 i I III r 1 rl - 1 L 111 R-- .�L_ � ��a®s� sue■ ■a�� ��s� NFU�NDQ LN 77 jW ji- DD UETI !- J 1 } 1 D - --- -------- r IC ` 1 m L 1 --- _ - } L L- - 1_ 171 f BEACH BLVD Ho'tj CITY ®F H`JNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT_COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH To Chuck Clark From James R. Barnesl�� Associate Planner Associate. Planner Subject GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 80-1 Date November 14 , 1979 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION As was discussed in our meeting with June earlier this week, I feel that the most comprehensive and concise method of meeting CEQA requirements in regard to GPA 80-1 is to process the general plan document as an EIR. Section 15148 of the State EIR Guidelines states that "The require- ments 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. " Attached is an initial study which focuses on potentially significant environmental effects of the general plan amendment proposal. Effects dismissed in the initial study as clearly insignificant and unlikely to occur need not be discussed further in the EIR. A cover letter should be included in the general plan document indi- cating where in the document the environmental setting and impacts associated with areas identified in the initial study are addressed. A separate section of the document should also be included discussing the following mandatory elementsof an EIR: 1) Any significant envir- onmental effects which cannot be avoided if the proposal is implemented; 2) Mitigation measures proposed to minimize the significant effects; 3) Alternatives to the proposed action; 4) The relationship between local short-term uses of man's environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity; 5) Any significant environmental changes which would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented; 6) The growth-inducing impact of the proposed action. JRB:df Attachment f ENVIRONMENTAL CNECFLIST FORM I. Background Industrial Property Owners-Garfield/Goldenaest area Woodtree Development Co. - Talbert/Beach area 1. Name of Proponent Developiment Svc. Dept. - Circulation Element Amendment 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent ---------- 3. Date of Checklist Submission --------7------ 4. Agency Requiring Checklist Development Services Department 5. Name of Proposal , if. applicable General Plan Amendment 80-1 II. Environmental Impacts (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.) YES MAYBE NO 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? X b. disruptions , displacements , com- paction or overcovering of the soil? X C. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? X d. The destruction, covering or modi- fication 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 YES. MAYBE NO g. Exposure of people or property to geological hazards such as earth— quakes , landslides , mudslides , ground failure, or similar hazards? X 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deteri— oration 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 or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? X b. Changes in absorption rates , drainage patterns , or the rate and amount of surface runoff? X c. Alterations to the course of flow of flood waters? X d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? x e. Discharge into surface waters or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature , dissolved oxygen or turbidity? X - f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? X g. Change in the quantity of ground waters , either through direct addi— tions or withdrawals , or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? X i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? X 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, 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 crop? X 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 ani- mals 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. Lipht and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? X 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? X YFS MAYBE NO 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? X b. Substantial depletion of any non- renewable natural resource? X 10. Risk of Upset. Does the proposal involve 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 11 . 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 housing, 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. Fffects on existing, parking facilities, or demand for new parking? _X _ C. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? X d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? X e. Alterations to waterborne , rail or air traffic? X f. Increase in traffic hazardous 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 r YES MAYBE NO a. Fire protection? X b. Police protection?' X C. Schools? X d. Parks or other recreational facilities? X e. 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 existing 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. Communications systems? X. c. Water? X d. Sewer or septic tanks? X e. Storm water drainage? X f. Solid waste and disposal? X 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (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 YES MAYBE NO 19. Recreation. Will the .proDosal result in an impact upon the .quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? X 20. Archeological/Historical. . Will tbf- proposal result in an alteration of a significant archeological or historical site, structure , object or building? 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 wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels , threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? X b. Does the project have the 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.) c. Does the project have impacts which X are individually limited , but cumu- latively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small , but where the effect of the total of those impacts, on the environment is significant.,) d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings , either directly or indirectly? - III. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation IV. Determination , (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the hasis .of this initial evaluation : U T find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment , and a NEGATIVE DFCI,ARATION 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 added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment , and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required . Date gnature r III. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRCNMENTAL EVALUTION 1. b,c Execution of soils associated with projects which will eventually result fran the General Plan Amendment will alter existing topography within the project areas. However, the impacts at this point are too speculative for evaluation. 2. b Development resulting fran the Talbert/Beach and Garfield/Goldem est land use changes may adversely effect ambient air quality. However, there will be little or no effect in relation to development allowable under existing zoning on the property. The Circulation Element changes could have beneficial impacts on existing air quality. 3.b The existing drainage patterns in the Talbert/Beach and Garfield/Goldenwest areas could be changed as a result of eventual development on the subject sites. However, the impacts at this point are too speculative for evaluation. 6. a Noise levels associated with projects which will eventually result from the General P1an. Amendment will increase. Of particular concern are noise levels resulting frcm a fixed rail or rapid transit system along the Transportation Corridor. 7. New light and glare associated with projects which will eventually result for the General Plan Amendment will be provided. However, the impacts at this point are too speculative for evaluation. 8. Present land use designations would be altered with this proposal. The impacts should be discussed. 11. The local population distribution and location will be altered by the General Plan Amendment. The impacts should be discussed. 12. The City's housing supply will be effected by the General Plan Amendment. The impacts should be discussed. 13 a,b Thraffic levels associated with development which will eventually result from the (general Plan Amendment in the Talbert/Beach and Garfield/Goldenwest areas will increase. The impacts should be discussed. ' 13 c,d The proposed amendments to the Circulation Element will alter City wide patterns of circulation. The impacts should be discussed. 14 a-e The Talbert/Beach and Garfield/Goldenwest land use changes may result in the need for increased governmental services. The impacts should be discussed 16 a-f The Talbert/Beach and Garfield/Goldenwest land use changes may result in alterations to utility systems. The impacts should be discussed. 19 The Talbert/Beach and Garfield/Goldwest land use changes may result in an impact on the quality or quality of existing recreational opportunities. the Impacts should be discussed. EIR COMMENTS AND RESPONSES . State of California THE RESOURCES AGENCY OF CALIFORNIA Memorandum To Jim Burns, Assistant Secretary Date January 31, 1980 Resources Agency James R. Barnes, Associate Planner Subject: DEIR - Huntington Beach City of Huntington Beach General Plan Amendment 80-1 P. 0. Box 190 SCH 80011003 Huntington Beach, California 92648 From Department of Conservation—Division of Oil and Gas Sacrom*nto The Division of Oil and Gas has reviewed the Draft EIR for the Land Use Element 80-1 to the Huntington Beach General Plan. The following comment is offered for your consideration. The report states on page 12 that almost 60 percent of the area is still vacant or in oil production, which is expected to phase out over the next 10 to 15 years. Alternative 1 indicates that the area may be designated as Medium Density Residential . This designa- tion, if adopted, could effect continued oil production and access to wells for maintenance and abandonment. In that regard, the Long Beach staff of the CDOG has recently consulted with Mr. Multari of the Huntington Beach Planning Division and offered their assistance in providing technical advice on oil resources in the area and delineation of sites critical to future oil extraction. We look forward to working with the city staff on this important issue. M. f State Oil a as Supervisor APPROVED: Suzanne Butterfield Environmental Protection Coordinator Office of the Director ®• CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH c INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION . HUNTINGTON BEACH To Chuck Clark From Environmental Resources Associate Planner Section Subject Negative Declaration No. 80-16 Date February 28, 1980 (LUE 80-1) Applicant: City of Huntington Beach Request: Redesignate 50. 37 acres on the Land Use Element from open space to Institutional Location: North of Talbert, east of Beach. Background Based on the Staff ' s initial study of this project a Draft Negative Declaration was published in the local newspaper and posted in the Office of the City Clerk for a 10-day public review period ending February 25, 1980 and X no comments, the attached comments were received. Recommendation The Environmental Resources Section recommends that the Planning Commission and City Council approve Negative Declaration No. 80-16 finding that the proposed project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Respectfully submitted, 1 mes R. Barnes A�sociate Planner JRB:gc ® I CITY OF HUNTINGTON BE, /i DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT �..i P.O. Box 190 ' Huntington Beach, CA.92648 ni�n�r,fl�ti of�!N Tel: (714) 536-5271 ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM Fee - $75 '00 FOR CITY USE ONLY City of Huntington Beach Date Annlicant/Authorized Agent Received: Project N '/* Number: NV P.O. Box 190, Huntington Beach, Ca. 92648 Department of Origin: Mailing, Address Development Services 714-536-5550 Other Applications or Telephone Permit Numbers : LUE 80-1 Roman Catholic Bishop of Orange Property Owner 3420 Irvine Ave. Newport Beach, Calif. 92660 Mailinq Address Telephone 1. 0 Project Information (please attach Plot Plan and submit photographs of subject property) 1 . 1 Nature of Project: Give complete description of the proposed project. Land Use Element 80-1 Area 2. 3 Proposed redesignation from open space to public, quasi-public , institutional on 50. 37 acres. .1. 2 Location of Project: (Address, nearest street intersections) North of Talbert Avenue, east of Beach Boulevard 1 . 3 Assessor ' s Parcel Number: 167-601-8 , 9,10, 11, 12 -1- SP-1 1 . 4 What-' is the present zoning on the property? 1 . 5 What is the surrounding land use to the: Resi- North Hospital, Medical Offices, Medium Density Apartments, Single Family dential South General Commercial, Elementary School, Single Family Residential East !Medium Density Condominiums West General Commercial 1 . 6 If the project is commercial or industrial give a complete description of activities and other pertinent information including but not limited to estimated employment per shift and' any potential hazardous materials which may be used, etc . NA 1. 7 If the project is residential, indicate number, types and size of units and associated facilities. NA 1. 8 If the project is institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employment per shift and maximum occupancy. . Cemetary on 24 acres. Proposed church on 4 acres. The remaining 22 acres are vacant. The proposed church will accan>tiodate religious services on weekends and holy days. Permanent staff of 6 priests (currently in resi- dence) . Maximum occupancy is 900 persons. 1. 9 Project land area (acres) 50.37 Number of parking spaces NA 1. 10 Square feet of building area NA Number of * floors NA 1. 11. Height of tallest structure involved in the project NA 2 . 0 Environmental Setting 2. 1 Drainage and Flood Control a) Please describe how on-site drainage will be accommodated. Volume unknown. Drainage to Talbert Avenue and Newman Avenue and then to Beach Boulevard. -2- 2 . 2 Land Form NO ' :a) Is the site presently graded? b) Indicate the gross cubic yards of grading proposed Nk the acres of land to be graded NA , the amount c earth to be transported on the site NA , and the amount of earth to be transported off the site ' c) What will be the maximum height and grade of cut or fiil after grading is completed? NA 2 . 3 ' Soils a) Type of soils on the subject site? (Submit soils report if available) . Ramona Clay Loam Ramona Loam 2. 4 Vegetation a) Attach a map indicating the location, type and size of trees located on the site. Indicate below the number, type and size of trees to be removed as a result of the project. Photographs indicate the growth of shrubs and trees on the cemetary site; and grass and shrubs scattered throughout the vacant area. 2 . 5 Water Quality a) Does any portion of' the project abut or encroach on beaches, estuaries, bays, tidelands, or inland water areas? NO b) Describe how the project will effect any body of water. NA 2. 6 Air nuality a) If the project is industrial, describe and list air pollution sources and quantity and types of pollutants emitted as a result of the project. NA 2. 7 Noise a) Describe any adjacent off-site noise sources (i .e. , air- , ports , industry, freeways) . Normal Traffic. b) What noise will be produced by the project? If available , please hive noise levels in decible measurement and typical time' distribution when noise will be produced. No appreciable noise except nozmal traffic associated with the cemetary,-• proposed church, and future institutional or office uses. -3- i c. , How will noise produced by the project compare with existing noise levels? No appreciable difference. 2 . 8 Traffic Approximately how much traffic will be generated by the project: (check one) 0-50 vehicular trips per day 50 - 250 vehicular trips per day 250 - 500 vehicular trips per day X over 500 vehicular trips per day 3.0 Public Services and Facilities 3. 1 Water a) Will the project require installation or replacement of new water lines? Yes b) Please estimate the daily volume in gallons required to serve the project. 1200 gals./day 3. 2 Sewer a) Will the project require installation or replacement of new sewer lines? Yes b) Please indicate the approximate amount of sewage generated ,from the project. 1000 gals./day 3. 3 Solid Waste a) If the project is industrial , describe the type and amount (pounds/day) of solid waste generated by the project. NA 4 . 0 Social 4 . 1 Population Displacement a) Will any residential occupants be displaced by the project activities? No b) Describe briefly the type of buildings or improvements to be demolished by the project. None , -4- r 5. 0 Mitigating Measures 5. 1 Are there measures included in the project which may conserve nonrenewable resources (e. g. electricity, gas, water) ? Please describe. No 5. 2 Are there measures included in the project which would protect or enhance flora and fauna? Please describe. New landscaping as development occurs. 5. 3. Are there measures proposed in the design of the project to reduce noise pollution? Please describe. No noise produced. 5. 4 Are there measures proposed in the design of the project (e. g. architectural treatment and landscaping) which have been coordinated with design of the existing community to minimize visual effect? Please describe. Landscaping with Eucalyptus to be added as new development occurs. 5. 5 Are there measures proposed in the design of the project to .reduce water pollution? Please describe. No. 5. 6 Are there measures proposed which would reduce air pollution? No List any Air Pollution Control District equipment required. NA 5. 7 Are there measures or facilities designed into the project to facilitate resource recovery and/or energy conservation (e.g. solar heating, special insulation, etc. ) ? Please describe . No 6. 0 Alternatives 6 . 1 Are there alternatives , to the project which may result in a lesser adverse environmental effect? Please explain all project alternatives on an attached sheet. No. Refer to amendment analysis. T hereby certify that the information herein is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge . Signature Date Filed -5- ® CITY OF HUnTInGTOn BEACH DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES BUILDING DIVISION (714)536-5241 PLANNING DIVISION (714) 536-5271 7 • P_O. Box 190, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648 QN- 3/a;z-Iro (A- R E C E. d D P-IAR 2 0 1980 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Al"-►'N: Floyd G. Belsito, City Administrator CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH FROM: Department of Development Services ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE DA'1.'L:: March 20 , 1980 SUBJECI': GENERAL PLAN LAND USE AMENDMENT NO. 80-1 The Planning Commission at .its March 18 , 1980 meeting approved General Ilan Land Use Amendment No. 80-1, which contains two areas of concern both located on Talbert Avenue. The first of these areas, encompassing 11 . 81 acres, is located on the west side of Beach Boulevard and it is proposed to redesignate such area from low density residential to medium density residential . The second area of concern is located on the north side of Talbert Avenue east of Beach Boulevard and would redesig- n<ite 50 . 37 acres of property from open space to public/quasi-public institutional . This area is currently occupied by a cemetery, and it is proposed to construct a church facility on the easterly four (4) acres of the site. The Department of Development Services would very much like to have this Q amendment scheduled for the April 7, 1980 City Council meeting, as the U second meeting in April will be the first Council meeting after the City election and we feel it might be very difficult to schedule the joint City Council/Planning Commission study session which is customarily held on these amendments just prior to your regular meeting on that date . Therefore, if the Council concurs with holding the public hearing on General Plan Land Use Amendment No. 80-1 at your April-7 meeting, Mr . Belsito should be so informed so that we will have adequate time for proper scheduling and noticing the joint study session prior to the regular Council meeting . Neither of these redesignations appeared to be controversial in the hearing before the Planning Commission. I await your direction on this matter. Respectfully submitted, James W. Palin Director JWP:df e .e: IN THE Superior Court APPROVED By CITY COUNCIL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA In and for the County of Orange 1 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CITY CLERK PROOF OF PUBLICATION Public Hearing 80-1 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HF.ABIIiC State of California ) LAND tME ELPWqT County of Orange )ss AMENDMENT NO.804 NOTICE 1$KO MY GIIM that a:' ublic bearing will be bold by the City Rita J. Richter of the elty of Hrmtington Bib. in the Council Chambm ad the Crvie Cea ter,Huntington Beach,at the hour of flri6ZM That I am and at all times herein mentioned was a citizen of P ay r anon thereafter ofe' M the Tth day d 19t3M1' 1 the United States,over the age of twenty-one years,and that I the purpose of ao4eidetingon �LOS Ele-, am not a party to,nor interested in the above entitled matter; moot Amendment Na I'to the Gila,— P �esto t« I`,`that I am the principal clerk of the printer of the L Radeaignate 1121 saw of land loisted south of Talbert Avenue and.d90.feet' west of Beach Boulevard:from,Lon.- . dl Huntington Beach Independent Review °ti°�. �° " Ir- a newspaper of general circulation,published in the City of 2 gate 6OX saes.(land located, north of Talbert Avenue and east'df Beech Boulevard from open apace�tp., Huntington Beach 1:c,quasi-public, onak. 3 Add conservation policies•to- County of Orange and which newspaper is published for the the Lend Element '" disem Environmentgl impact Report No.7M ination of local news and intelligence of a general charac- 'will be beard in conjunction with'+the ter, and which newspaper at all times herein mentioned had Land Use Element Amendment Na W and still has a bona fide subscription list of paying subscribers, All interested moons are uviteA attend said bearing and express ,tbeir and which newspaper has been established, printed and pub; ooppinions for or against said Land.Pse lished at regular intervals in the said County of Orange for a Element Amendment N.Wl snd�EIR ' period exceeding that the notice, of which the No,7M Furthermformationmaybeob- P g one year; twined from the Office of the City Clerk, annexed is a printed copy, has been published in the regular 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beac"cb', ' and entire issue of said newspaper,and not in any supplement CallfATE 9.March( 80. 62?7' thereof,on the following dates,to wit: CITUF HUNT04GGTDN BEACH By. ALICIA X WENTWORTK Clerk March 279 1980 Pub Mar zi Hunt Beacbynd Rev.tt10674 I certify(or declare) under penalty of perjury that the forego- ing is true and correct. Dated at...............y.,..Garden Grove .............................. Cali thi 27 t19y of .. rC .;19.. 8.0... . l Signature V\ t/ i Form No.CAF-6579 i REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Submitted by James W. Palin Department Development Services Date Prepared March 27, , 19 80 Backup Material Attached © Yes No Subject LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 8 0-1 City Administrator's Comments Approve as recommended Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions: STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Land Use Element Amendment No. 80-1 constitutes the first amendment to the Land Use 'Element of the General Plan for 1980. The amendment includes three requests from private and City applicants for changes in land use, and one request from the Department of Development Services to add energy conservation policies to the Land Use Element. A public hearing on Land Use Element Amendment No. 80-1 was held be- fore the Planning Commission on March 18, .1980, at which time the Commission adopted recommendations for the various areas of concern and administrative items. The Planning Commission recommended that the .Garfield-Goldenwest area (area of concern 2,1) be. cpntinued for furtI nutes staff _study to the next ; Land Use Element amendment. 1 the ,_ro,nt public .hea4g;ng are cont a ne - n Lt„c quit:,. - PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The Planning Commission approved Environmental Impact Report No. 79-5 and Negative Declaration No. 80-16, and recommended City Council approval by the following vote: AYES: Winchell, Kenefick, Porter, Bazil NOES: None ABSENT: Greer, Shea, Bauer ABSTAIN: None The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 1261 recommending adoption of Land Use Element Amendment No. 80-1 by the following vote: AYES: Winchell, Kenefick, Porter, Bazil, Bauer NOES: None �od ABSENT: Greer, Shea ABSTAIN: None - Pio 3ne Page Two RECOMMENDATION- 1. Approve Environmental Impact Report No. 79-5 and Negative Declaration No. 80=16. 2. Approve the recommendations of the Planning Commission and adopt by resolution Land Use Element Amendment No. 80-1. ANALYSIS: The amendment requests for the areas of concern addressed in Land Use Element Amendment No. 80-1 are summarized in Attachment 1. The first two areas derive from requests by private property owners. The third amendment request (2. 3) originated from the Department of Development Services. In conjunction with this request, staff has recommended that the Zoning and Land Use Element Consistency Matrix be amended to show the SP-1 (special cemetery) zoning district con- sistent with the public, quasi-public, institutional land use desig- nation rather than open space. The Department of Development Services has also requested as an administrative change the addition of energy conservation policies to the Land Use Element. The Planning Commission approved all amendment requests with the ' exception of the Garfield-Goldenwest area (area of concern 2.1) . The Commission recommends that area of concern 2.1 be continued to Land Use Element Amendment No. 80-2. The Planning Staff was directed to investigate the use of a resource production overlay to protect existing ,oil operations. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Environmental documentation for the amendment requests (except area of concern 2. 3) may be found in the amendment report which also serves as Environmental Impact Report No. 79-5. EIR 79-5 was posted for a 45-day review period ending February 11, 1980. Public comments and staff responses constitute the Final EIR, and are incorporated in the appendix of the report. Negative Declaration No. 80-16 covers area of concern 2.3. Its posting period ended on February 25, 1980. No comments were received. FUNDING SOURCE: None required. Page Three ALTERNATIVES• The City Council may adopt the requested changes as recommended, modify them as desired, or retain the existing designations in the Land Use Element. Respectfully submitted, e Armies W. Palin, Director Development Services JWP:CLC:gc ATTACHMENTS: 1. Summary of Individual Requests. 2. Land Use Element Amendment No. 80-1 3. Resolution 4. Minutes from public hearing before the. Planning Commission on Land Use Element Amendment No. 80-1. . G PLANNING CITY AREA OF ENVIRONMENTAL STAFF COMMISSION COUNCIL CONCERN LOCATION ACREAGE APPLICANT REQUEST INFORMATION RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDATION ACTION 2.1 South of Garfield 97.38 D. Wier Redesignate from EIR 79-5 Retain Medium Continue to Avenue, East of et al Medium Density Density Residential Land Use Goldenwest Street Residential to designation Element Industrial Amendment 80-2 2.2 South of Talbert 11.81 Woodtree Redesignate from EIR 79-5 Redesignate from Redesignate from Avenue, West of Development Low Density to Low Density to Low Density to Beach Blvd. Co. Medium Density Medium Density Medium Density Residential Residential Residential 2.3 North of Talbert 50.37 Dept. of Redesignate from ND 80-16 Redesignate from Redesignate from Avenue, East of Development Open Space to Open Space to Open Space to Beach Blvd. Services Public, Quasi-Public Public, Quasi-Public Public, Quasi-Public Institutional Institutional Institutional Mil)u tes, I1 .13. 1'layll,flrig CoillllllssiOn March 18 , 1980 Page 10 ON MOTION BY BAZIL AND SECOND BY KENEFICK NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 80-20 WAS ADOPTED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Winchell, Kenefick, Porter, Bazil, Bauer NOES : None ABSENT: Greer, Shea ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY KENEFICK AND SECOND BY BAZIL ZONE CHANGE NO. 80-5 WAS APPROVED FOR RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDtINGS AND CONDITION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS : 1 . The proposed zone change is in conformance with the City ' s General Plan. 2 . Development of a self-storage facility on the site will be com- patible with surrounding land uses , provided that measures are taken to adequately buffer the site from property to the north. CONDITION OF APPROVAL: 1 . The subject site shall be developed as a self-storage facility or County Sanitation District facilities . AYES : Winchell, Kenefick, Porter, Bazil , Bauer NOES : None . ABSENT• Greer, Shea � C fY ;A ABSTAIN: None =�` '* [ ' E L� AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT NO. 80-1 (Cor�t__foIarch�_�L9$Q� Initiated by the Department of Development Services June Catalano reported that the information which the Commission had previously requested has been included in the staff report. She also recommended that, if it is the Commission' s desire to adopt a change in the land use for the Garfield/Goldenwest area, this portion of the current amendment be continued to the next General Plan Amendment to allow further analysis of the energy production issues and to permit further consideration of the function of the industrial corridor . After discussion, the Commission concurred with the recommendation of staff . Chairman Bazil requested that the staff proceed with Resource Production zoning which can be used as an overlay on any base district zoning to protect existing oil operations . ON MOTION BY PORTER AND SECOND BY KENEFICK AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT NO. 80-1, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF AREA OF CONCERN 2 .1 (GARFIELD/GOLDENWEST AREA, WHICH WILL BE CONTINUED TO A LATER LAND USE AMENDMENT) WAS APPROVED BY THE ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 1261 , BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES : Winchell , Kenefick, Porter, Bazil, Bauer NOES : None ABSENT: Greer, Shea ABSTAIN: No:�e -10- 3-18-80 - P .C . , March 18 pp rov. � , 1980 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California TUESDAY, MARCH 4 , 1980 - 7 :00 PM COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Winchell , Kenefick, Porter, Bazil COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Greer, Shea, Bauer CONSENT CALENDAR: Commissioner .Winchell questioned former Commission action on Consent Agenda Item A-2, conformance with general plan for aband- onment of' a waterline easement within Tract 9580. After review. staff was directed to correct the information for Conformance to the General Plan No. 80-6 and bring it back to the Commission at .its March 18, 1980 meeting. .Commissioner Bazil requested that the minutes of the meeting_ of February 20, 1980. be corrected to reflect a request fora written legal opinion in regard to the old Pacific Electric right-of-way. ON MOTION BY PORTER .AND SECOND BY WINCHELL THE CONSENT AGENDA, CONSISTING OF .THE AMENDED MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF FEBRUARY 20, , 1980, CONFORMANCE WITH . GE' NERAL PLAN NO. 80-5, AND AN EXTENSION OF TIME FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 78-13 AND TENTATIVE TRACT 10414 , WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES : Winchell, Porter, Bazil NOES : None ABSENT: Greer, Shea, Bauer ABSTAIN: Kenefick ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: .AMENDMENT - (Cont. from Feb. 20, 1980) Initiated by the Department o eve opmen Services Staff planner June Catalano reviewed the three areas of concern to be considered, as well as outlining the addition of energy con- servation policies into the Land Use Element of the General Plan. Nlinutes, H. B. P nni Commission J March 4 , 1980 Page 2 Chuck Clark, Associate Planner, gave a brief review of the results of staff ' s study of these areas and presented the reasons for the staff ' s recommendations for each area. Savoy Bellavia informed the Commission that a tape of the meeting of February 20 was available at the meeting for Commissioners who had not been present at that meeting . A xecess was called to permit Commissioner Kenefick to listed to this tape; the meeting was recon- vened at 7 : 40 p:m. The public hearing was opened. Testimony was taken area-by-area . Richard Hammond, general manager of Cambro, addressed the Commission in favor of retaining the industrial designation on the Garfield/Golden- west area of concern. He cited the incompatibility between existing industrial uses and the existing and future residential developments which will be constructed .if the area is designated medium density residential as recommended by staff . Donald Weir, 201 20th Street, addressed the Commission also in opposition to 'residential zoning in the subject area. John Gustafson, property developer in the area, spoke in .favor of an industrial designation being carried .down to Clay Avenue,, rather than redesignation to residential . He noted that such use would be more compatible with existing uses, would supply a need in the coin- munity, and would generate tax revenues . William J. Scott, 2978 Costa Mesa Drive, also favored retention of the existing industrial designation in ,the area. Dick Harlow, representing the Huntington Beach Company, concurred with staff ' s recommendation for medium density residential in the Garfield/Goldenwest area of concern, saying that the long-term effects of residential would be more beneficial to the City than would the effects of. further industrial development. George Woods, representing the applicant on four acres of the area of concern south of Talbert Avenue and west of Beach Boulevard, spoke to urge the Commission to approve medium density residential for this area. Lee Collins, co-owner of S acres within the site, also supported des- ignation as medium density residential for this area of concern. There were no persons present to speak in regard, 'to the other area and items contained in this amendment, and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion followed, centering in the main_ on the desig- nation of the Garfield/Goldenwest area of concern. Fiscal impacts, compatibility of both designations with existing uses, and impacts on the existing oil wells in the vicinity were. considered. Commis- sioner Porter questioned whether or not the phasing out of the -2 3-4-80 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. -Pla _ng Commission March 4., 1980 Page 3 oil production would, be accelerated by the residential designation. Chuck Clark replied that it would be the staff 's recommendation that the "0" suffix be retained on any redesignation for the life of the existing wells , .which given the present energy situation would probably be 15 to 20 years . Commissioner Porter pointed out that large landowners are able to develop residential in conjunction with oil production by the use of islands, but that this option is not available to small property owners and the re- source production facilities would not be compatible with residential in his opinion. Commissioner Kenefick also expressed reservation; about the mix of uses. Commissioner .Bazil spoke in favor of redesignation to residential for the majority of the subject area, but asked that the staff consider rtaining .an industrial designation. for the small parcel between the railroad right-of-way to Huntington Street between Clay and Garfield Avenues. Further discussion took place, which indicated that no majority decision could be reached on the amend- ment. at this meeting . Straw votes were asked for, producing the following results: Garfield/Goldenwest Area of Concern: Industrial designation, Porter and Kenefick; Residential designation,. Winchell. and Bazil . Talbert, west of Beach Area. of Concern: Medium. Density designa- tion, Kenefick, Porter, Bazil; Retaining present R1-PD-Q designa- tion, Winchell . Talbert, east of Beach Area of Concern: Unanimous vote in favor .of redesignation to institutional . . Administrative Items: Unanimous vote to add energy conservation policies to the Land Use Element. Staff was instructed to ask absent members to listen to the tape of this meeting prior to further consideration of the matter. A MOTION WAS MADE . BY PORTER AND SECONDED BY KENEFICK TO ADOPT LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 80-1 AS OUTLINED BY STAFF. MOTION FAILED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: None NOES : Winchell, Kenefick, Porter, Bazil ABSENT: Greer, Shea, Bauer ABSTAIN: None Staff pointed out that, contrary to the Commission 's stated in- tent to continue this matter, the vote had effectively denied the amendment.' ON MOTION BY PORTER AND SECOND BY WINCHELL THE COMMISSION DETER- MINED TO RECONSIDER ITS ACTION ON LAND USE AMENDMENT NO. 80-1 BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Winchell, Kenefick, Porter, Bazil NOES : None ABSENT: Greer, Shea, Bauer ABSTAIN: None -3- ' Minutes , H.B. P1 ..r, Commission March 4 , 1980 Paq(,., 4 ON NOTION BY KENEFICK AND SECOND BY PORTER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 79-5 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 80-16 WERE ADOPTED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES : Winchell, Kenefick; Porter, Bazil NOES : None ABSENT: Greer, Shea, Bauer ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY KENEFICK AND SECOND BY PORTER LAND USE ELEMENT AMEND- MENT. NO. 80-1 WAS. CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF MARCH 18, 1980, TO PERMIT EXPLORATION OF ALTERNATIVES. AND CONSIDERATION OF RESOURCE ,PRODUCTION DESIGNATION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES : Winchell, Kenefick, Porter, Bazil NOES : None ABSENT: Greer, Shea, Bauer ABSTAIN: None ZONE CHANGE NO. 80-1/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 80-3 (Cont. from 2-20-80) Applicant: Robert F. Curtis To permit rezoning of an approximately one-acre parcel of land from R2 to C4 ; subject property is located on. the east side of Bolsa Chica .Street approximately 732 feet north of Warner Avenue. Savoy Bellavia informed the Commission that the ordinance .has been , revised to include a 50 foot setback requirement and to impose a "Q" designation which will require that the property in question be dev- eloped only in conjunction with the adjoining parcel to the south, also under the ownership of the applicant. The public hearing was reopened. There were no persons present to address the Commission in regard to the proposal , and the public hearing .was closed . ON MOTION BY KENEFICK AND SECOND BY WINCHELL NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 80-3 WAS APPROVED, BY THE FOLLOWING -VOTE: AYES: Winchell, Kenefick, Porter, Bazil NOES : None ABSENT: Greer, Shea, Bauer . ABSTAIN: None ON'MOTION BY KENEFICK AND SECOND BY PORTER ZONE CHANGE NO. 80-1 FROM R2 TO -"Q" C-4 WAS APPROVED rOP. RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL VITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS , BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS: 1 . Commercial development on the property is consistent with the City ' s General Plan. -4- 3-4-80 - P.C. MINUTES, Huntington Beach Planning"Commission, February 20, 1980 Page 9 It was the consensus of the Commission to continue the application to the March 4. 1980 Planning Commission meeting to allow the entire Commission to be present. ON MOTION BY PORTER AND SECOND BY WINCHELL, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 80-1 WAS CONTINUED TO MARCH 4, 1980, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Winc5hell, Porter, Bazil, Greer NOLS: Norte ABSENT: Kenefick, Shea, Bauer ABSTAIN: None Commissioner Greer stated that he would not.like to see any more applications for mixed commercial/industrial. uses, in an existing industrial complex to be accepted by the City until such time enforcement problems can be worked out, and the ordinance is taken completely apart and rewritten again. Jaynes ,Georges, Deputy City Attorney; stated that the City cannot refuse taking applications without a moratorium on mixed uses being initiated. LAND USE ELEMENT NO. 80-1 Jim Palin reported that the.staff had` transmitted for public hearing Land Use Element Amendment 80-1, which includes two. requests from private applicants for changes in land .use and 'one request from Development Services to add energy conservation policies to the I-'and Use Element. Mr. Palin then outlined the areas of concern' to the Commission and their-subsequent requests. Mr. Palin then presented suggested action to the Commission of receiving public testimony on Environmental Impact Report 79-5 and I-and Use Element Amendment No. 80-1; then continuing the public hearing on Area of Concern 2.3 and deferring action on Environmental Impact Report 79-5 and Land Use Element Amendment 80-1 until the March 4. 1980 regular meeting to allow the designation to be changed from open space to institutional. The public hearing was opened. Mr. John Gustafson addressed. the Commission and stated that he was in concurrence with the suggested continuance of Land Use Element No. 80-1 to the March 4, 1980 meeting. Mr. Joe Whaling addressed the Commission regarding Area of Concern 2.2, south of Talbert Avenue, west of Beach Boulevard requesting redesignation from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential. Mr. Whaling said that he. was opposed to the proposal stating that Medium Density would create additional problems brought on through increased density. Mr. Serge Zweibel addressed the Commission regarding Area .of Concern 2.2, and spoke in, favor of the proposed redesignation to allow more affordable housing with greater densi ty. MINUTES, Huntington Beach Planning Commission February 20, 1980 Rage 10 William Scott addressed the Commission stating that he owns three acres in Area of Concern 2.1. south of Garfield Avenue east of Goldenwest Street requesting redesignation from Medium Density Residential to Industrial and spoke in favor of the proposal: Tht!rN being no other parties present to speak on the application, the public hearing was e lased. ON MOTION 13Y PORTER AND SECOND BY WINCHELL, LAND USE ELEMENT NO. . 00-i WAS CONTINUED TO MARCH 4, 1980. BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Winchell, Porter, Bazil, Greer NOI=S: None ABSENT: ;,Kenefick, Shea, Bauer CIRCULATION ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 80-1 Jim Palin reported ' that the City Council had reviewed with the Community Services Commission plans for Huntington Central Park and the . Council requested that the Community Services Department review the park plans and the proposed alignment of Ellis Avenue: Mr. Palin recommended the Commission continue the hearing to the March 18; 1980 Planning Commission meeting. in order to receive input from the Community Services Division regarding the park and the Ellis Alignment. fhe public Dearing was opened. A cjentlernan from the audience addressed the Commission (no .name given) and spoke' in opposi.tio n to Item 2.1 as outlined in the staff report, the realignment of .Ellis Avenue bt-tween Edwards and Goldenwest Streets northward to intersect with Talbert Avenue at Edwards Street. He felt that if the EIR were reviewed, it would be clear that this short stretch of street would increase traffic, and subsequently traffic signals would have to be erected along Goldenwest Street. He further felt that the proposal would interfere with equestrian use of the streets in question. There being no other parties present to speak on the application, the public hearing was closed. Planning Commission concurred that the application should be continued to the March 18, 1980 Planning Commission meeting to allow for proper input from the Development Services Department. ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY PORTER, CIRCULATION ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 80-1 WAS CONTINUED TO MARCH 18, 1980, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Winchell, Porter, Bazil, Greer NOES: None ABSENT: Kenefick, Shea, Bauer ABSTAIN: None Publish March 27, 1980 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 80-1 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, in the Council Chamber of the Civic Center, Huntington Beach, at .the hour of 7:30 P.M. , or as soon .thereafter as possible on Monday the 7th day of April 19-go , for the purpose of considering Land Use Element Amendment No. 80-1 to the General Plan, requests to: 1 . Redesignate 11 .81 acres of land located south of Talbert Avenue and 430 feet west of Beach Boulevard from. Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential . 2. Redesignate 50.37 acres of land located north of Talbert Avenue and east of Beach Boulevard from open space to public, quasi-public, institutional ; and 3. Add energy conservation policies to the Land Use Element. Environmental Impact Report No. 79-5 will be heard in conjunction with the Land Use Element Amendment No. 80-1 . All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and express their opinions for or against said Land Use Element Amendment No. 80-1 and EIR No•. 79-5. Further information may be obtained from the Office of the City Clerk, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California. 02648 - (714) 536-5227 DATED March 24, 1980 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH By: Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk Publish the Huntington Beach Indepen on 1980' LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 80-1 NOTICE I HEREBX GIVEN that a public hearing will be held by the City ' - '' �TM�.� �„n- of the City of Huntington Beach, California, for the purpose of considering Land Use Element Amendment No. 80-1 to the General Plan, requests to: �. Redesignate'll.81 acres of land located south of Talbert' Avenue and 430 feet west of Beach Boulevard. frcm Low Density Residential to Medium Density Resi- dential; .anel- r. Element Add energy conservation policies to the Land Use Element. nvironmental. Impact Report No. 79-5 will be heard in conjunction with the Land Use Amendment No. 80-1. Lie /j r 7•V- • d hearing will be held at the hour of P .M. , on 1980 , in the Council Chambers Building of the Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California. All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and express their opinions for or against t:ze proposed Land Use Element Amendment No. 80-1 Further information may be obtained from the City Planning Department. Telephone No. (714) 536-5550 DATED this 111th day of 1980 CITY PLANNING COMMISSION By James W. Palin, Secretary 167-482-11 167-501-14 Raymond P Kelly Land Use Element 80-1 Shirl C Cowley 8262 Noble Circle Area of concern 2.3 WH) 17732 Forest Lane Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92647 92647 167-482-12 167-484-30 Ivan C Ransford Carol Green Burton3-01 8261 Newnandd Avenue 719 Acacia Avenue S Leach 8272 Noble Circle Huntington Beach, Calif Huntingtoni Beach, Calif ')2647 92648 Huntington Beach, Calif 92647 167-482-13 167-484-31 Earl Pandora Investments Inc James Kavi.ani .et al Earl Mazzari 3-02 17471 Beach Blvd. 11067 Slater Avenue E M Huntington Beach, Calif Flouitain Valley, Calif Acacia Avenue 92647 � 92708 Huntington ��' Calif 92648 167-482-14 167-484-32 167-903-03 Alfred Jimenez Alfred G D Hix Hollis V Inng Sr 8241 Netianand Avenue 8131 Newmand Avenue 8292 Noble Circle I iunti.ngton.Beach, .Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92647 92647 92647 167-482-15 167-501-10 tiillcxest Church 167-503-b4 1,Iissionary Baptist Harold W Bradley Jr. . 9191 Nemiand Avenue 8312 Noble Circle Huntington Beach, Calif 92647 Huntington Beach, Calif 92647 167-482116 167-501-10 167-503-05 Lawrence Kates Terrance E Reay Theodore Monroy P.O. .Bax 25991 17682 Forest Lane 8322 Noble Circle 10s Angeles, Calif Huntingtoh,Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 90025 92647 92647 167-482-17 167-501-11 Charles W Johnson Frederick A MacDonald Jr 167-503-06 i 29622 Vista Plaza DriVe 17692 Forest lane Jean P Berube South Laguna, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif. 8321 Newien Avenue 92677 92647 Huntington Beach, Calif 92647 i 167-483-27 167-501-12 -07 Jams A Thomas Jr Ronald 0. ©o iper 167-50I M 656 Walt Street 17712 Forest Lane Thomas Carden Westminster, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 8311 g Beach ton Avenue 92663 92647 Huntinngton ' Cal-if 92647 167-483-28 167--:501-13 167-503-08 Virgil H Gragson David D Westerfield. David R Martinez 17701 Van Buren, St Apt A 17722 forest Lane 8291 Netiacraar Avenue Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92647 99647 ��� Beach, Calif 92647 k • 1 �A 7A_3 159-141-02 159-141-18 PA R 24, 1979 Jo Scott Espie Swinntertcn/ S 79 Pane 1 - 1 W.F. Jolly `� Billy Wolfe V 13561 Beach Blvd. 5001 Galway Circle Westminster, CA. 92683 Huntington Beach, CA. 92647 1.11.-260-25 159-141-03 159-141-19 �,Y,ank Richmond Charles Lindsay Jr. Sarah 14artsolf/Ilerbert Saner 304 'La Veta 11232 Los Alamitos Blvd. 18151 Beach Blvd. i � :hmtirigton Reach, CA. 92648 Encinitas, CA. 92024 Los Alamitos, CA. 90720 159-141-04 159-141-20 Tames L. Poaat 0 W.E. Jolly Florence Linthicum/ Tarries 13561' Westminster Ave. Roselle Samier 305 17th Street Westminster, CA. 92683 11232 Los Alamitos Blvd. HuntimT on Beach, CA. 92648 Los Alamitos, CA. 90720 1 1.1-20-1q 159-141-06 159-141-22 . ^.itv of FIuntinc7ton Reach IeTby Collins/Serge Zweibel Lucretia Williams/ 231�- S. 'rale Dr. I ✓ Paul Williams yj Beverly Hills, CA. 90211 807 S. Highland Ave. Fullerton, CA. 92632 1.1..1.-2ti�1-41 159-141-08 159-141-28 Laszlo Kovacs Roselle Sumer Brendan Dixon 4645 F. Pacific Clast "W. 11232 Los Alamitos Blvd. 460'Daroca Ave. ✓ Lon" Beach, M 90864 Los Alamitos*, CA. 90720 bang Beach, CA. 90814 159-141-09 117.-?.60-45 159-141-30 M Theodore anth Roselle Sm ei, ea er ,Tack Haley Th Dorothy Vaughan 11232 Los Alamitos. Blvd. , 16812.Pact-Pic Coast TW. y/ 277 East H Street Sunset Peach, CA. 90742 Los �amitos , �• 90720 Colt, CA. 92324 11.1-260-49 159-141-10 159-141-36 tied Smith Nora Wilder/Roselle Scomr Robert Warner 2.0F42 7bbe 11232 Los Alamitos Blvd. ✓ ✓ rnrory Circle 4450 E 6th Street I3tmtington leach, CA. A2646 Los Alamutos, CA. 90720 �M Beach, CA. 90814 159-141-13 159-A41.-37 flames Hutchinson Kasha Jones/Billy �aolfe � /pis Bernet � p,n. Box 9ti 5001 Galway Circle 291 S. Euclid Awa-me. Fhmtinctton Peach, CA. 92648 Huntington Beach, CA. 92647 Pasadena, CA. 91101 159-1.41-17 15�-141-01 � 159-141-40 ,T. caul Elliott John Chilton Emil Neural/ nary Barker 670 Valparaiso Dr. ?.]4 q. ".arf:i.eld Avenue7807 N. 34th Avenue �,onterev park, CA. 91754 Claremont, CA. 91711 Phoenix, Arizona 95021. 7�_.z 165-181-02 165-181-19 James Stop, Edgar Scott/Morris Fier 3800 E. 1st Street 2045 Holiday Road bong Beach, CA. 90803 Newport Beach, CA. 92660 1.5n-1 11-41 165481-03 165-181-20 '�.7. Arnold. ✓ Salvatore La Parne Edgar Scott ,lox 370 15921 Butterfield St. 7821 Talbert Avenue rT)T1rnS°:, CA. 9n630 Flountain Valley, CA. 92708 Huntington Beach, CA. 92648 1.59-141-45 165-181-04 165-181-21 ,'-1,71.o<rio Aram Charsls McOolltm et al Huntington Beach Congregation £'62 Talbert Avenue -P.O. .Box 5025 of Jehovahs Witnesses Inc. 'hmti.ncrt-�on Beach, CA. 92648 H at�ntii qtm Beads, CA. 92646 7851 Talbert Avenue Huntington Beach,' CA. 92646 1.9-141--47 165-181-05 165-181-22 t-+l on T' ncaid Carol Heinz Brtice.Miller R'. 2 - Box 255 17941 Baim Circle 7871 Talbert Avenue '*-�ni.son, TX .75620 Huntington Beach, CA. 92647 Huntington Beach, CA. 92648 165=-181-14 165-181-24 (mod beard/rIerald Faust Thomas Hai roa Manuel Hidalgo. ?'),ti'? Rreen Street 14191 Janice Street Investment Concepts `'mom Wbstminster, CA. 92683 770 S. Main St. Suite 161 Orange, CA. 92668 165-181-15 165-181-34 '.'nnald Beard/�kerald Faust m William Shi Autdrobile Club of CA 17n-62 rreet Street 14102 1N1 Dr. 2601 S. Figueroa 'T11nt-sue Beach, r.A. 12649 Westminster, CA. 92683 Los Angeles, CA. 90054 165-161-16 165-181-35. >n rt TramGod Surrah et al Weldon Hunter/Robert Taube '�81 Melbourne Drive '215 Old Ranch Road . 2622 Circle Drive '��u�titxibon Beach, CA. 15�647 Seal Beach, CA. 90740 `Newport Beach, CA. 92660 165-181-17 165-181-36 »enix. Mutual Life Sns. Co. Emil Schultz Donald Janes ,oa1. Estate Division '6862 Loyola Drive 17931 Beach Blvd. Arxeritford, .T n H� Beach, CA. 92647 Huntington Beach, CA. 92647 ' -art ord, CT 061I5 ',13-181-01 165-181-18 165-181-37 hrris Krutcik Gorge Burr Dilday "li3 Larwin Avenue 1401 Cliff Drive 244 Redondo Avenue tmress. CA. 96630 Newport Beach, CA. 92663 Lang Beach, CA. 90803 M N -ter ,-rt�1-�r 2A, i.n79 :Jno ? - T:kac m 1�5_1R1-3Q I\ut-.rmnbile Flub of CA . �rnl S. F'1gL1E',2�[k'1 ?n . Arn?eles; CA. Q2660 ulranl-l.in Buooell.a J 1,^t (7oUrtsicle Circle 1 rnntinoton taeach, C.A. g2649 TIIJAn Kooklan 1.1.n2n Tngl(n-vood Ave. lvy,•rthortne, CA. 9025n 165-251-20 Clara �,oalolin/Serge Zweibel 'MI-) S. Gale Drive Trverly Hills, CA. 90211 } 157-381-10 tillun llllinger�uth ��Land Use Element 80-1 las W. Turner Klin Area of Concern 2.3 453 Via lido Soud Judy a Turner t4ewport Beach, Calif 2864 Hickory Pl Apt D 92663 Costa Mesa, Calif 92626 111-292-21 157-381=02 157-381-11 i'lorFance Ii Waters TR Irehe R Hoback Neal B Voorhees Waters & Tarnutzer 8252 Talbert Avenue 13292 Euclid Avenue 1815 Westcliff Drive Beach, Calif Garden Gave, Calif 92643 u�- .)ort Beach, Calif 92663 92646 111-292-22 r 137-381-03 157-381-12 Albert Dattels Iiralyn M Alonzo Mark E Williams 434 Puerto Del Mar 8262 Talbert Avenue . 8281 Gladys Avenue Pacific Palisades, Calif MmtUxjtc n �` • Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 96272 92646 92646 112-060-03 157=381-04 157-381-13 Lary J Lambert '�odwe F Wilson William M Carragher P.U. Box927 8272 Talbert Avenue 8271 Gladys.Avenue Santa Ana, Calif Huntbxft n Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92702 92646 92646 112-U60-04 157-381-05 157-381-14 ilLeA M Lambert Standford Sayles Deene T Brandt P.O. Box 927 8282 Talbert Avenue 8251 Gladys Avenue Santa Ana, Calif tin � Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif J2702 92646 ' 92646 112-060-05 157-381-06 157-381-15 ldchard Bukowski Jef ey Ruiz Stephen L loor ds 18j6l Pammy Larne 8302 Talbert Avenue 8241.Gladys Street Huntington Beach, Calif Himtin5tm Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92648 92646 92646 112-060-06 157-381707 157-381-16 Sebastian Bottari Petrick H Williams Paul.R Cloutier 18062 Beach Blvd 8312 Talbert Avenue 18061 Wharton Street Iuntington Beach, Calif Beach, Calif .Huntington Beach, Calif 92648 92646 29646 112-06U-67 '157-381-08 157-383-07 Ocean View School District Richard D Rwidolph Ronald L Graichen 17U21 Beach Blvd 8322 'Talbert Avenue 19331 Weymouth Lane 1 Hntington Beach, Calif , Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92647 .92646 . 92646 157-381-01 157-381-09 157-383-08 Stevkm J Turko Adams Homes . Anthony N Gwnez 242 Talbert Avenue 10082. Garfield Avenue 18032 Hartlund Avenue Itun6ngton Beach, Calif HmtinctOn Beach, Calif Huntingttarn Beach, Calif 92646 92646 92646 157-'383-09 Tand Use Elerient 80-1 167-531-19 Carl. W Ermel p,� of Concern 2.3 Lyle B Weaver idU22 Iiartlund Street 18121 S 2nd Street l ku-iE.i igton Beach, Calif Fountain Valley, Calif 92646 92708 157-383=10 165-181-37 167-531-20 Jaiies R Glenn R Burr Dilday David D Weaver 13002 Hartlund Street 244 Padondo, Avenue 8412 Jalia Drive IfLuitington Beach, Calif Iag Beach,` Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 29646 90803 92647 157-383-11 165-181-38 167-531-21 Prances M Clarke Allen E H m Ray=4 G Wilson et al 18001' Gulf Lane Williams Bros. Furniture 9839. Emmons Circle liunti.ngton,Beach, Calif 13833 S. Figueroa Street Fountain Valley, Calif 92646 Ins Angeles, Calif 90061 92708 157-383-12 165-181-39 167-531-22 Ronald L Courreges god Ziebarth Kenneth A Weber 18011 Gulf Lane . 1639 9th Street 8392 Jalni Drive Huntington Beach, Calif Santa Monica, Calif Hun 29646 90404 92647 �n Beach, Calif 157-383-13 165-181-40 167-531-23 William L Nienc3orf Thomas,H Bernatz Cbrine C Lecrivain 18021 Gulf Lane 17931 Beach. Blvd., Suite M 8421 Talbert Avenue iuntington Beach, Calif Huntirngtoai Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92646 92647 92646 157-383-14 165-531-02 167-531-24 Ceres P Froelich Lin J Ju Julien E Iecrivain 13031 Gulf Lane 9081 Ooeanc+est Drive 8371 Talbert Avenue Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington tington Beach, Calif 92646 92646 92646 159-141-56 167-531-08 167-531-25 iemy B Collins Lawrence E Gates Russell M Jedinak Serge Zweibel 424 Vista Flora 10990 Warner Avenue 231 1/2 Gale Drive - Npewport Beach, Calif Fountain Valley, Calif Deverly Hills, Calif 90211 92660 92708 165-181-35 167-531 77 167-482-09 4Jeldori A Hunter Charles D. Javens nx nas M Bennett Robert be 8442 Jalm.Drive 8241 Noble Circle 2622 Circle Drive Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif port Beach, Calif 92660 92647 92647 165-181-36 167r531-18 167-482-10 ixinald P Jones TR Michael S Kirchner Thomas Bickerstaff 17931 Reach Blvd 8432 Jahn Drive 8252 Noble Circle 947 26 .ngton Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 9264 92647 29647 1G7-:503-09 Occupant kobert E Hibbing 8418 El Arroyo Drive Land Use Element 80-1 ,3281 Newman Avenue Area of Concerns 2.3 Huntington Beach, Calif i Iwtington Beach, Calif ( ) 92647 ' 92647 ' 167-5 Occ pa nt . Occupant Piatth�ew w R Gauss 8402 El Arroyo Drive 8420 El Arroyo Drive 8271 i+iewi[tari Avenue Huntingtm Beach, Calif Hunt i -igton Beach, Calif iiuntuigton Beach, Calif 92647 92647 92647 �I 1.67-601-U1 cater for special surgery Inc. Occupant Occupant 17752 Beach.Blvd. 8404 El Arroyo Drive 8422 El Arroyo Drive iwiti iigton Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92647 92647 92647 167-601-02 i +huitingt�an Iriteroomnauuty Occupant Occupant Hospital Inc 8406 El Arroyo Drive 8424 El Arroyo Drive 17772 Beach Blvd. Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif itunti.ngton Beach, Calif 92647 92647 92647 16'1-60gto Occupant Occupant iiwitington Associates 8408 El Arroyo.Drive 8426 El Arroyo Drive ttichard Grundy Administrator Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 17172 Beach Blvd 92647 92647 luntington Beach, Calif 92647 .1-67-601-08 Occui n Catholic Bishop of Orange 8410 El Arco Occupant yo Drive 428 El 8428 El Arroyo Drive ; 440 S Batavia Street orange, Calif 92668 Huntington ' Beach, Calif 92646 92647 i 167-601-14 Occupant Occupant rrican Mediwrp Inc 8412 El Arroyo Drive 8430 El. Arroyo Drive Attn: Legal DepartEas Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 2049 Century Park East 92647 92647 Los Angeles, Calif 90067 i I.G7-6U1-16 Occupant , Occupant i Rintington Intercm7 u-xity 8414 El Arroyo Drive 8432 El Arroyo Drive Jospital Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 'ittn: Controller 92647 92647 17772 Beach Blvd. Hntington Beach, Calif Occupant Occupant 92647 8416 El Arroyo Drive 8872 E1.Arroyo Drive -----__— _..___.� Huntingt;,on Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92647 92647 �xx uraant Occupant 8876 El Arroyo Drive Land Use Element 80-1 17715 Brittany Larne iuntington Beach, Calif Area of Concern 2.3 (M) Huntington Beach, Calif 92647 Feb. 11, 1980 92647 Occupant Occupant Occupant d680 El Arroyo Drive 17695 Brittany Lany 17717 Brittany Lane iuntington Beach, Calif Humtington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif ')2647 92647 92647 Occupant Occupant Occupant 8384 El Arroyo Drive 17697 Brittany.Lane 17719 Brittany Larne Burlington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92647 92647 92647 occupant Occupant Occupant 8888 E1 Arroyo Dive. 17701 Brittany Iane 17721 Brittany Lane lturitington Beach, Calif Huntingtm Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92647 92647 92647 a Occupant Occupant Oft 17683 Brittany Lane 17763 Brittany Lane 17723 Brittany Lane uuntington Beach, Calif' Huntington Beach; Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92647 92647 92647 u-laupant Occupant Occupant 17685 Brittany Lane 17707 Brittany Lane 17725 Brittany Lane Auntington Beach, Calif' Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 9264*7 92647 92647 Occulxnnt Occupant i7689 Brittany Iane 17707 Brittany Lane 1 iuinting on Beach,Calif Huntington Beach, Calif )i647 92647 Occupant 17691 Brittany Lwief 17709 Brittany Iane 1:urrt::iri,jton Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92647 Occupant 1.7i.,93 Brittany Lane 17711 Brittany Lane i it.urti ngton Beach, Calif Huntington Beach,Calif ::2647 92647 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEAF, NOTICE OF PuSLIC HEARING LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO.80-1 LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO.80-1 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, held by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, in the Council Chamber of the Civic Center,Huntington Beach, in the Council Chamber of the Civic Center,Huntington Beach, at the hour of 7:30 p.m.,or as soon thereafter as possible on at the hour of 7:30 p.m.or as soon thereafter as possible on Monday the 7th day of April,1980,for the purpose of Monday the 7th day of April,1980,for the purpose of considering Land Use Element Amendment No.80-1 to the considering Land Use Element Amendment No.80-1 to the General Plan,requests to: General Plan,requests to: 1. Redesignate 11.81 acres of land located south of Talbert 1. Redesignate 11.81 acres of land located south of Talbert Avenue and 430 feet west of Beach Boulevard from Low Avenue and 430 feet west of Beach Boulevard from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential. Density Residential to Medium Density Residential. 2. Redesignate 50.37 acres of land located north of Talbert 2. Redesignate 50.37 acres of land located north of Talbert Avenue and east of Beach Boulevard from open space to Avenue and east of Beach Boulevard from open space to public,quasi-public,institutional;and public,quasi-public,institutional,•and 3. Add energy conservation policies to the Land Use Element. 3. Add energy conservation policies to the Land Use Element. Environmental Impact Report No.79-5 will be heard in Environmental Impact Report No.79-5 will be heard in conjunction with the Land Use Element Amendment No.80-1. conjunction with the Land Use Element Amendment No.80-1. All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and express their opinions for or against said Land Use Element express their opinions for or against said Land Use Element Amendment No.80-1 and EIR No.79-5. Amendment No.80-1 and EIR No.79-5. e Further information may be obtained from the Office of the Further information may be obtained from the Office of the City Clerk,2000 Main Street,Huntington Beach,CA,92648 I City Clerk,2000 Main Street,Huntington Beach,CA.92648 (714)536-5227. (714)536-5227. Dated: March 24,1980 ! Dated: March 24,1980 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH By: ALICIA M.WENTWORTH I By:ALICIA M.WENTWORTH City Clerk } City Clerk i r E Pub.3/27/80 Pub.3/27/80 Hunt.Beach Ind. Hunt.Beach Ind. k NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO.80-1 p LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO.80-1 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be 1 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held b the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach held by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, Y Y Y 9t in the Council Chamber of the Civic Center,Huntington Beach,' in the Council Chamber of the Civic Center,Huntington Beach, at the hour of 7:30 p.m.,or as soon thereafter as possible on at the hour of 7:30 p.m.,or as soon, thereafter as possible on Monday the 7th day of April,1980,for the purpose of Monday the 7th day of April,1980,for the purpose of considering Land Use Element Amendment No.80-1 to the considering Land Use Element Amendment No.80-1 to the General Plan,requests to: General Plan,_requests to: 1. Redesignate 11.81 acres of land located south of Talbert 1• Redesignate 11.81 acres of land located south of Talbert Avenue and 430 feet west of Beach Boulevard from Low ti Avenue and 430 feet west of Beach Boulevard from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential. Density Residential to Medium Density Residential. 2. Redesignate 50.37 acres of land located north of Talbert 2. Redesignate 50.37 acres of land located north of Talbert Avenue and east of Beach Boulevard from open space to SS Avenue and east of Beach Boulevard from open space to public,quasi-public,institutional;and 1 public,quasi-public,institutional;and 3. Add energy conservation policies to the Land Use Element. g 3. Add energy conservation policies to the Land Use Element. Environmental Impact Report No.79-5 willlbe heard in Environmental Impact Report No.79-5 will be heard in conjunction with the Land Use Element Amendment No.80-1. conjunction with the Land Use Element Amendment No.80-1. All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and express their opinions for or against said Land Use Element ; express theii opinions for or against said Land Use Element Amendment No.80-1 and EIR No.79-5. Amendment No.80-1 and EIR No.79-5. Further information may be obtained from the Office of the Further information may be obtained from the Office of the City Clerk,2000 Main Street,Huntington Beach,CA.92648 City Clerk,2000 Main Street,Huntington Beach,CA.92648 (714)536-5227. (714)536-5227. Dated: March 24,1980 Dated: March 24,1980 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH G CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH By: ALICIA M.WENTWORTH By: ALICIA M.WENTWORTH City Clerk City Clerk r Pub.3/27/80 4 Pub.3/27/80 Hunt.Beach Ind. Hunt.Beach Ind. OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK o 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, Calif r,nia 92648 3 'y I --",)TICE OF PUBLIC HEARING LA-6 ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO.804 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, in the Council Chamber of the Civic Center,Huntington Beach, at the hour of 7:30 p.m.or as soon thereafter as possible on Monday the 7th day of April,1980,for the purpose of considering Land Use Element Amendment No.80-1 to the General Plan,requests to: 1. Redesignate 11.81 acres of land located south of Talbert Avenue and 430 feet west of Beach Boulevard from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential. 2. Redesignate 50.37 acres of land located north of Talbert Avenue and east of Beach Boulevard from open space to public,quasi-public,institutional;and 3. Add energy conservation policies to the Land Use Element. i Environmental Impact Report No.79-5 will be heard in conjunction with the Land Use Element Amendment No.80-1. All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and express their opinions for or against said Land Use Element Amendment No.80-1 and E I R No.79-5. Further information may be obtained from the Office of the \ City Clerk,2000 Main Street,Huntington Beach,CA.92648 (714)536-5227. I Dated: March 24,1980 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH By: ALICIA M.WENTWORTH City Clerk Pub.3/27/80 Hunt.Beach Ind.