Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Element Amendment 80-2 - Environment Impact Report RESOLUTION N0. 4936 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ADOPTING LAND USE ELEMENT AMEND- MENT NO. 80-2 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 changing community needs and objectives ; and A public hearing on adoption of Land Use Element Amendment No. 80-2 to the General Plan was held by the Planning Commission on October 21, 1980, and approved for recommendation to the City Council; and Thereafter, the City Council, after giving notice as pre- scribed by Government Code §65355, held at least one public hear- ing to consider said Land Use Element Amendment No. 80-2; and At said hearing before the City Council all persons desiring to be heard on said amendment were heard, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, pursuant to provisions of Title 7, Chapter 3, Article 6 of the California Government Code, commenc- ing with §65350, that Land Use Element Amendment No. 80-2 to the General Plan, consisting of the following changes is hereby adopted: 1 . The 80 acres centered at the intersection of Warner Avenue and Beach Boulevard be designated multistory node, and 2. The 10. 13 acres , located approximately 450 feet north of Warner Avenue and west of Magnolia Street , be redesignated from low density residential to commercial . PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 15th 1 . JG:bc 12/30/80 day of December 1980. O Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: �Ct y C erk City Attorney 1�� REVIEWED AMD APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED: �AJL,J o z Acting City AddLnistrator D rector of Development Services 2. R• No. 4936 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, ALICIA M. WENTWORTH, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of more than a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 15th day of December 19_BD_, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmen: Thomas, Finley, Bailey, MacAllister. Mandic, Kelly NOES: Councilmen: None ABSTAIN: Pattinson ABSENT: Councilmen: None a-Z��t W City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT 80 =2 Adopted December , 1980 Environmental Impact Report 80-3 huntington beach department of development services RESOLUTION N0. 4936 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ADOPTING LAND USE ELEMENT AMEND- MENT NO. 80-2 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 changing community needs and objectives; and A public hearing on adoption of Land Use Element Amendment • No. 80-2 to the General Plan was held by the Planning Commission on October 21, 1980, and approved for recommendation to the City Council; and Thereafter, the City Council, after giving notice as pro- scribed by Government Code §65355, held at least one public hear- ing to consider said Land Use Element Amendment No. 80-2; and At said hearing before the City Council all persons desiring to be heard on said amendment were heard, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, pursuant to provisions of Title 7, Chapter 3, Article 6 of the California Government Code, commenc- ing with §65350, that Land Use Element Amendment No. 80-2 to the General Plan, consisting of the following changes is hereby adopted: 1. The 80 acres centered at the intersection of Warner Avenue and Beach Boulevard be designated multistory node, and 2. The 10. 13 acres, located approximately 450 feet north of Warner Avenue and west of Magnolia Street , be redesignated from low density residential to commercial . PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 15th 1 . JG:bc 12/30/80 day of December 1980. dP Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: C ty C erk City Attorney REVIEWED AMD APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED: Acting City AddLnistrator D rector of Development Services 2. Res. No. 4936 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, ALICIA N. WENl'WORTH, 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 15th day of December , 19 80 , by the following vote: AYES: Councilmen: Thomas, Finley, Bailey, MacAllister. Mandic. Kelly NOES: Councilmen: None ABSTAIN: Pattinson ABSENT: Councilmen: None City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California The foregoing instrument is a correct Copy of the original on file in this office. Attest City Cir-rk ,�nl Council a;the C�c'c; h Cal. Deputy t RESOLUTION NO. 1268 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN NO. 80-2 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach, California, desires to update and refine the General Plan in keeping with changing community needs and objectives; and WHEREAS, amendments to the Land Use Element are nec- essary to accomplish refinement of the General Plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommends the following amendments to the Land Use Element: 1. " That 9 . 69 acres located south of Ellis Avenue and approxi- mately 1, 320 feet east of Goldenwest Street be redesignated from industrial to estate residential (0 to 2 units/acre) ; that 4 .83 acres located approximately 660 feet south of Ellis Avenue and 1, 320 feet east of Goldenwest Street be ,. redesignated from industrial to estate residential (0 to 4 units/acre) ; 2. That 80 acres centered at the intersection of Warner -Avenue and Beach Boulevard be designated as a multi-story node; 3. That 10.13 acres located approximately 450 feet north of Warner Avenue and west of Magnolia Street be redesignated from low density residential to commercial; WHEREAS, a public hearing on adoption of Land Use Element Amendment to the General Plan No. 80-2 was held by the City Planning Commission on October 21, 1980 , in accordance with provisions of the State Government Code; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Com- mission of the City of Huntington Beach, California, hereby approves said amendment to the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that said amendment to the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach is recommended for adoption by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California. Resolution 1268 Page 2 QPASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of , + the City of Huntington Beach, California, on the 21st day of October, 1980, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Winchell, Porter, Schumacher, Bauer NOES: None ABSENT: Kenefick, Greer ABSTAIN: Bannister ATTEST: )Ja4mes6�W- Pali;, Secretary Marcus M. Porter, C man it 10-21-80 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Methodology 1 2.0 AREAS OF CONCERN 3 2.1 Ellis-Goldenwest Area 3 2.2 Adams-Beach Area 20 2.3 Warner-Beach Area 35 2.4 Warner-Magnolia Area 43 2.5 Ellis-Gothard Area 54 2.6 Environmental Changes 64 3.0 AMENDMENT SUMMARY 67 3.1 Summary of Proposed Land Use Element Amendment 80-2 67 APPENDICES 69 1.0 14TRODUCTION This report concerns Amendment 80-2 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 fifteenth amendment to the Element. Planned land uses throughout the City are depicted on the Land Use Diagram shown in Figure 1-1. 1.1 Methodology This amendment to the Land Use Element considers requests by private property owners to change the land use designations in four areas of the City: one site located south of Ellis Avenue and east of Goldenwest Street; a second located south of Adams Avenue and east of Beach Boulevard; a third located south of Warner Avenue and west of Beach Boulevard; and a fourth located north of Warner Avenue and west of Magnolia Street. A fifth request by the Department of Community Services involves a change in land use for an area located north of Ellis Avenue and west of Gothard Street. The five land use amendment requests will be analyzed in terms of the existing conditions on the site, anticipated impact on surrounding areas; major land uses and enviornmental issues; and consistency with adopted City goals and policies. 1 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 80-3. 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, 2.3, 2.4 and 2.5). Alternative land use designations and feasible mitigation measures to minimize significant effects are also discussed in these sections. Section 2.6 addresses miscellaneous environmental impacts and overall environmental changes 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 AMENDMENTS ------- --- --- -------- ---- ----- -- Land Use Categories PLAMLNO COMM. CITY COUNCIL GATE RESOLUTION DATE RESOLUTION 1 1 -6-76 1187 12-6-76 4368 6.7-77 1196 8-1-77 4484 RESIDENTIAL ' 9-6-77 1206 II-7-77 4551 Estate 52un/gaC I 18_I_78 1232 12-I9-77 466 r Estate 4un/goc 8-I-78 1232 821-78 4660 < 10-17'76 1236 11-6-78 4696 11-21-78 1239 I2-Ie-78 470e , ` (�Low Density <_7 un/gac 3-6-79 I242 3-19-2 4728 "'1►11►777 ,(,,,o. 3-Ie_80 1261 4-7-80 4865 -Medium Density <_15 un/gac s High Density>15 un/gac i ✓\ /; COMMERCIAL ' General i Office Professional ®Mixed Development \ INDUSTRIAL Ge neral I PUBLIC USE Public 9uasi- ubic Institutional is€€ €it isEittl'•.'`i'•.ii i€'t'ti ::... OPT Space 1 PLANNING UNITS .....:..................................... a 'P m1 Reserve 1 n 9 ............... - '' Planned Community OTHER USES 1 Resource Production ' '.ram..•• jr: py.. PAC" G IC OA ..emu.:. :...:.... ._v.:.'..:_,... ..:.:::.:. :vn,:::i ...+y?-:..:.:;:::.....•.as-.:..$,. ..i�:x!..�. .r: ..:.Y'r��..7.,.: _ OCEAN y ..:...::::.:... >.t HUNTINGTON 1354CH, 134-IFORNIA GENERAL PLAN PIANNING DEPARTMENT LAND USE DIAGRAM Adopted December 1976 Revised APRIL 1980 2.0 AREAS OF CONCERN This section addresses each request area designated in Figure 2-1. 2.1 Ellis-Goldenwest Area The first area of concern addressed by Land Use Element 80-2 is located south of Ellis Avenue and east of Goldenwest Street (Figure 2-2). The amendment request being considered was filed by the Mola Development Corporation. 2.1.1 Background The applicant's amendment request is to redesignate approximately 10.17 acres located south of Ellis Avenue and 650 feet east of Goldenwest Street from estate residential (< 2 un/ac) to high density residential. However, the Planning Commission in the past has expressed interest in analyzing the redesignation of the entire 46.63 acre estate residential area between Ellis and Ernest Avenues and east of Goldenwest Street to industrial. The area of concern has been expanded, therefore, to include this larger area. Approximately 37 acres of the area of concern are vacant. Four single-family homes occupy three acres along Goldenwest Street and Ellis Avenue, while 13 oil wells under multiple leases are located on scattered interior sites covering seven acres. At!ftk \ � 2.4 216 2.5 2. Areas of Concern L U ( 0@02 Sept.80O 4 huntington beach planning division Figure 2-1 The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the entirle Ellis-Goldenwest area as estate residential. The north half of the site allows maximum density of two units per acre, while the southern half permits four-unit maximum per acre. The study area is part of a 287-acre estatresidential area which also extends westerly of Goldenwest Street betweeHuntington Central Park and the Seacliff Planned Community. The area oconcern, located east of Goldenwest Street abuts open space to the north an industrial to the east and south. Existing General Plan land use designations for the site and the surrounding area are depicted in Figure 2-2. Zoning within the area of concern is summarized below: ZONING DISTRICT ACRES RA-0 Residential Agricultural District 3.6 combined with oil production RA-O-CD Residential Agricultural District 17.7 combined with oil production and civic district MI-O Light Industrial District 16.0 combined with oil production MI-O-CD Light Industrial District 9.3 combined with oil production and civic district The foregoing indicates that zoning for the subject property has not yet been brought into consistency with the estate residential General Plan designation. The area was originally designated for industrial use by the Phase I Land Use Element. Four factors influenced the industrial designation: 1) alignment of the proposed Route 1 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 1 and 39 freeways 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 first Amendment to the Phase 1 Land Use Element in March, 1975 redesignated the site to estate residential to promote compatible development adjacent to Huntington Central Park. The area encompasses steeply rolling topography with a swale extending east-west, and is used occasionally for equestrian recreation from stables west of Goldenwest Street. lddlmhlb� J w-my CLI P z yCPEN 4 SPACE 0 WEL Suwmw� ............. ........ ........ ...... ....... X................. ...................... ................ .......... ......................... ... .................... .. ....................... . ........... ......... Irk. . .............. .. . . . .......... . ...... ...... .......... ....... ............. .... . .. ............. ... .... . ...... ..... ..... .. ........... .... ...... ... ......... ... ....... ... .... .................. ................... ...... .... N/Df US TRIAL i ... ..... .. ... ........ ............... ........... ...... . ......... .. .. ................................. ................. Kit JNSTRIAL ... ............. ...... ............. ... ................ ....... ........ ......... .......... .......... ... ...... .... ............ . .... ....... . ........ .. ........ ................................ .... .... ... ............. ... . ............. ....................... ........... . .......... ......... .. . ................. ... .................. ... ........ ................ ...... ....... rW C3 0 1000 qx IN D USTRIAL SCALE IN FEET 3 � LLJ A-No GARFIELD MEDIUM DENSITY 15 an/gac AVE. Area of Concern 2- 1 -TENTATIVE GOTHARD g 0 O Lr - - - -STREET REALIGNMENT SOPtL80 J 6 huntington beach planning division Figure 2-2 Since 1975, implementation of the estate land use designation has been delayed pending the formulation of a specific plan or estate zoning ordinance which would provide a comprehensive framework for development design, integration of equestrian activity, community facilities, and traffic circulation. The presence of oil operations, fragmented land ownerships and horse stables have been serious obstacles to estate planning to date. The 287 acre estate area is divided among numerous property owners, some parcels of which contain oil leases and/or horse stables. The area of concern contains 12 lots of various shapes and sizes under six ownerships. The Huntington Beach Company is the largest single owner within the area with 51 percent of the total property. The Mola Development Corporation owns another 21 percent. The Huntington Pacific Corporation is third with 14 percent. The remainder is divided among three small ownerships. Most parcels contain oil facilities and the unencumbered lots are too small or fragmented for a feasible estate development. 2.1.2 Analysis This analysis addresses three land use alternatives. The first option is retention of the estate residential designations (Alternative 1). The second alternative is a change to industrial. The third alternative provides for a mix of medium density and high density residential. The three alternatives are depicted in Figure 2-3. The Mole Development Corporation has requested that 10.17 acres along Ellis Avenue directly across from Sully-Miller Lake be redesignated high density residential. Although located along a designated primary arterial adjacent to an industrial area, a high density land use designation was not considered appropriate for this portion of the study area because of the importance of maintaining compatibility with Central Park. The requested redesignation would concentrate intense residential development adjacent to the park. The site is also located almost entirely within a topographic depression which serves to direct drainage north to Sully-Miller Lake. As a result, it would be difficult to develop high density residential uses and simultaneously preserve the unique topographic features on-site and enhance compatibility with Central Park. 1. Land Use The major land use issues affecting the alternatives under consideration involve compatibility with Huntington Central Park and the expansion of the Central Industrial Corridor. The implications of the three alternatives are analyzed in terms of the following: Inir 7 OPEN SPACE - lit 1 n 2 r` `=%IiESIUENTIAL INDUSTRIAL ;1;STATE1 — --s 4 un/gac;:::: :RKSIDENTIAL:::.;::: ::.: / OPEN SPACE Alternative 1 ESTATE — - 2 un/ ac rt:.:::•:::: :::;::::: RESIDENTIAL IfUSTRIAL �:.:::.>.:;•>::•:INUUSTRIAL: }: ESTATE — 4 un/gac E I L R ESID NT A >1i+: OPEN SPACE Alternative 2 ESTATE — < 2 un/gac " ` MEDIUM / "' '``'DENSITY RES1llENTIAL : �<> KESIDENTIAUZIX _ 1 INDUSTRIAL HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ::::..............................::.:. .::::. /— — —TENTATIVE.GOTHARD >r :::::::•::::. HSTAT C — -4 un ac — — —STREET REALIGNMENT N T RESIDENTIAL T Alternative 3 ELLIS-GOLDENWEST AREA o LAND USE ALTERNATIVES O O ❑ AREA 2.1 Sept.80 O 8 huntington beach planning division Figure 2-3 a. The estate residential designations allow maximums of two and four units per acre, resulting in a total of 146 units at ultimate development and an estimated population of 511 persons. The mixed medium and high density residential alternative allows a maximum of 15 units and 25 units per acre respectively. Approximately 950 total units could be constructed with a population of 1,699 persons. If the area of concern is designated industrial, it would add approximately 769,000 square feet and B90 industrial employees to the C ity's economic base. b. Estate residential provides a high degree of compatibility with both Central Park and adjacent industrial areas by acting as a low intenstiy buffer between the two uses. A maximum of two units per acre would be allowed along Ellis Avenue to retain consistency with the open space designation to the north. Development density increases to a maximum of four units per acre on the southern half of the study area to provide a transition to the industrial uses south of Ernest Avenue. In addition to large lot residential development, sufficient separation from industrial uses could be provided by landscaped buffer areas which also take advantage of variations in the natural topography (Figure 2-4). An industrial designation of the study area would place industrial uses directly adjacent to Central Park with only Ellis Avenue separating the two. This would be in addition to industrial uses already abutting the park's entire east side. A medium/high density residential designation of the site is physically separated from major medium and high density concentrations south of Garfield Avenue and east of Pacific Electric Railroad right-of-way. C. Goldenwest Street is designated as a primary arterial by the Circulation Element and physically separates the study area from 240 acres of estate residential to the west. While an estate residential designation would provide low intensity compatibility with Central Park, it would not address the issue of integrating equestrian uses with the park east of Goldenwest Street. Equestrian stables are concentrated west of Goldenwest Street, and any future connection of equine activity with Central Park would occur in this area. A second consideration is that the general character of the study area and property to the east and south is industrial or oil production. Goldenwest Street would serve as a more logical east-west boundary between estate residential and industrial land use designations. A final consideration 9 U) T (YY z w 0 . ...... �Lus i ........... ........ .. ......... ... .............. ......... ....... ............. ... ... ...... ........... ............. .......... . . . ........ .......... ..... ............: ........ ................. ... . ..... ........ ...... ..... .......... .......... ........... ......... ........... ........... .. .... . ........ ............. .. .......... .... ......... ........................... ....... ...... ...... ... ... ..... .. PT ..................... ........... ......................... .... .. . .................. .......................... ..... .. ......... . . . . ... .. . . ................................. ..... - . ........... .. ......... ................ ...... .. .......... ........................ ...... ......................... .......... ............ ....... .. ..... .. . .................. ....... .... ................. ........ 3� ................ ...... ... . .... ........... ........... .... .... .......... .... ............. ........... 30........... ............................ ................ . ................ —30 .................... ..... .... ..... .... ..... ....... ....... . ... ........................ ... .................... ................. ................ . ... .................... .. ................ ................................ ....... ...... .................... ........................... ................ ......... . ......... . ...... ................. ......................................... .. ...... .. ....... .... ............................ ............ ......... ...... . ......... ..................... . .... ......... ........... ......... ...... .......... ........ ............ ... ... .......... .. .... .................... ... ....... . ................ .... ........ ....... ....... .......... .. ........... .... .... ....... .......... ....... ................ .... ......... ........ .. .. .. ......... .. ......... .... ............... .............. ........ ..... ............. ....... . . ...... . ... ... ...................... ....... ........... ................. . ......... ................................ . ............. ......... . ....... ..... ... ................ ...... ........ . ..... ..... ..... ............... ........ .................... ...... ....... ........ ........ .......................... .... ... .. ............... ............. . .. . . . .... ..... ........ ........ ........ . ..... .. ... ..... ..................... .............. ............................... ......... . ............ ...... ......... .......... ....... .. ...... .................... .................... .............................. ................................................................ .. .. . .. ............................................................... ........... .................................................. ................................................................. ..................................... ......... ................ .. ............................................................. .... .................... ...................................................... .................................................. ... . ....... . .... .............. .............................................. ..... ... ..... .. .... ............................................................ ...... ... ... ... .... .................................................... ............ ... ........... . ................ .. .................... 4n iO()O SCALE IN FEET W FT ij --7 Jor GARFIELD AVE. A R 1]A 2 . 1 0 0 Sept.80 0 huntington beach planning division Figure 2-4 is that the function of Goldenwest Street as the southerly approach to Central Park would be most enhanced by one of the residential alternatives, particularly the low intensity estate designation. An industrial land use designation would require restrictive MI-A and CD zoning to regulate industrial uses and aesthetic compatibility with Central Park. d. The area of concern contains 13 oil wells which produce approximately 21,500 barrels of petroleum annually. The Ellis-Golden west area is not a large contributor to the oil production in the Huntington Beach field, accounting for only .2 percent annually while comprising one percent of the total City wells. However, most of the oil in Huntington Beach is derived from directionally drilled wells tapping offshore oil pools and from wells in water flood programs. When compared to other independent wells in the field, which also tap onshore pools and are in primary production, the area of concern accounts for four percent of those wells and four percent of their total production. An industrial land use designation would be most consistent with protecting this oil production as it phases out. However, estate residential in effect preserves oil activity over the long-term because feasible development would require parcel consolidations, and comprehensive planning of circulation and community facilities. The allowable low densities would not provide sufficient incentive to consolidate until the long-term phase out of oil production. Most parcels are currently large enough to support feasible medium and high density residential projects. To designate the study area medium/high density could result in piecemeal development of the area over the short-term and could prematurely recycle oil uses. e. In considering the need for additional industrial space in the City, approximately 450 acres, or 21 percent of the City's vacant land is designated industrial by the General Plan. The past absorption rate has been approximately 40 acres of new development annually. 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 44 acres, or 10 percent of the current vacant industrial land. The attractiveness of industrial property diminishes with increasing distance from freeway and highway systems. The deletion of the Route 1 and 39 freeways from the State Master Plan has significantly reduced the desirability A9:ft& RIF11 of potential industrial sites in the southern reaches of the Centrai Industrial Corridor. The future realignment of Gothard Street to connect with Crystal Street will improve truck access to the distant San Diego Freeway. 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. It will alsc divert truck traffic from Ellis Avenue and Goldenwest Street, and reduce the mix with Central Park traffic. 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. Housing 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. To retain the existing estate residential desnigation or redesignate the area industrial would limit the City's options in the provision of affordable housing. A redesignation to medium and high density residential, however, would expand the existing small stock of vacant land at these densities as well as the City's potential to provide affordable housing. Developable land within the area of concern would represent 44 acres or an increase of approximately 10 percent of the total (423 acres) remaining vacant medium and high density land in the City. If the study area is changed to medium and high density residential, approximately 950 dwelling units could be added to the City's housing stock at ultimate development. Adoption of an inclusionary zoning ordinance could potentially require that between 95 and 237 units be available for these households. However, fragmented land ownership and the phase-out of oil operations will likely generate piecemeal development and reduce the potential for inclusionary low cost housing. 12 4. Public Services and Utilities a. Sewers The study area is presently unserviced by sewer facilities. Two 10-inch sewer lines are master planned within the area of concern, which will conduct sewage flows to a proposed sewer lift station at Ellis Avenue between Gothard Street and Goldenwest Street. Sewage would then be directed to a 15-inch line extending north on Goldenwest Street. The Department of Public Works has indicated that the proposed sewer facilities (to be constructed by the developer) and the existing 15-inch sewer line will be adequate to serve the area under all three land use alternatives. b. Water An existing 14-inch water main in Goldenwest Street now serves the area of concern. The Department of Public Works has indicated that an additional 12-inch line in Ellis Avenue is planned, and will be sufficient to serve the area under the three land use alternatives considered. Developers will be required to install the new facility. C. Drainage The area of concern is presently serviced by a 33-inch drainage receptor pipe on the north side of Ellis Avenue. The pipe accepts surface flow from Ellis Avenue as well as an east-west swale in the study area and directs it to the Sully-Miller Lake. The Department of Public Works has indicated that any development under the three land use alternatives would require developer installation of 72- and 90-inch storm drains within the study area. These facilities would converge at the Ellis receptor pipe. However, the 33-inch pipe would no longer be adequate to accept drainage flow, and would require enlargement to 102 inches. d. Parks The area of concern is located less than one-fourth mile from the developed portion of Huntington Central Park. If the park's southern boundary is extended to Ellis Avenue, park facilities would abut directly on the study area. No neighborhood parks are currently planned for the immediate area, but this regional park 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 MUM 13 regional and community parks as serving neighbor`13')d park needs. Until such a change in City policy officially occurs, the study area would be deficient in neighborhood park facilities by approximately two acres under the estate residential and by eight acres under the medium/high density residential alternatives. 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 1.15 officers per 1,000 persons. In order to maintain the current level of service, police levels would have to be 'increased by one officer for the estate residential alternative, one officer for the industrial option, and two officers for the medium/high density residential alternative. The site is located less than one mile from the existing police facility. Due to this close proximity, frequent patrol of the area results from police units leaving and returning to the facility, thereby reducing the need for additional patrols. On-site security protection could further minimize the increased demand on the Police Department. Of prime importance to the adequacy of fire protection coverage is response time. 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 less than one-fourth mile from the Gothard Fire Station and is entirely within this response time limit. 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 required. 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. AtMtk 1.4 qnl If the area of concern is developed at the projected intensities, an increase of 45 elementary and 52 middle school students would result under the estate residential alternative, while the medium/high density alternative would increase enrollment by 75 elementary and 83 middle school 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 thus be able to accommodate the projected enrollment generated by this and other projects in the area. The additional high school students generated, approximately 56 under the estate residential alternative and 113 under the medium/high density 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. School boundaries may also be re-delineated to send new students to Edison High School, which currently has a declining enrollment. 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 16-inch main gas supply line is located in Goldenwest Street, and a six inch line runs east-west in Ellis Avenue to serve the area of concern. Overhead 12KV electrical lines run along Goldenwest Street and Ellis Avenue. 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 1980 provided that Aft FIF 15 electrical demand does not exceed estimates and there are no unexpected outages to major sources of electrical supply. The I 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 three alternative 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 Access to the study area is presently taken from Ellis Avenue and Goldenwest Street, designated primary arterials. The design capacity for these streets is 30,000 vehicle trips per day. Present traffic volumes for these arterials in vicinity of the study area are 1,200 daily trips on Ellis Avenue, and 17,000 trips per day on Goldenwest Street. The development of Seacliff IV would increase future volume on Goldenwest Street to 20,100 vehicles per day. The Department of Public Works estimates that the existing estate residential land use designation would result in 1,285 vehicle trips per day. The medium/high density alternative would generate approximately 6,595 daily trips, while t1he industrial land use alternative results in 2,665 additional trips per day. These volumes, when added to the existing traffic on Ellis and Goldenwest, will not exceed their design capacities. Although not yet precise planned, the future realignment of Gothard Street to connect with Crystal Street will provide additional direct access to the area of concern. However, the Gothard Street widening project as well as the realignment with Crystal Street were primarily intended to improve access within the Central Industrial Corridor. The Gothard realignment is then of primary benefit to the study area if it is designated industrial. Truck access to the San Diego Freeway and the area's attractiveness for industrial development would be improved. 16 The residential alternatives could increase conflicts between truck and automobile traffic along Gothard Street. It is reasonable to expect that most such traffic conflict would be limited to Gothard south of Ellis Avenue because most automobile trips from the study area would be distributed southerly to gain access to the Civic Center area and Downtown via the Main Street intertie. This issue would also be mitigated by taking access via Goldenwest Street. Of the two residential alternatives, estate residential would create fewer potential conflicts with industrial traffic on Gothard since the number of trips generated is substantially lower than the medium/high density option. 6. Environmental Issues This section identifies the significant environmental impacts associated with the land uses evaluated. a. Geotechnical The Bolsa-Fairview Fault traverses the north portion of the study area in a northwest-southeast direction within the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone. The fault is reflected on the surface by a series of hills and depressions. The most prominent feature is a deep swale which parallels the approximate location of the fault. Although the study area is located within the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone, it is not within a designated earthquake hazard area.l 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 be required. Any development under the proposed land use designations will involve alteration and grading of the site's topography, particularly the northern most portion in vicinity of the east-west swale. The industrial land use designation will require the most substantial cut and fill activity to bring the area to level grade. The estate residential alternative would establish large lot development and provide flexibility in integrating the site's natural features with minimum modification. The medium/high density option offers less flexibility, but much of the natural swale could be incorporated with minimum alteration through planned development zoning. 17 b. Noise Additional industrial truck and residential traffic will create high future noise levels in vicinity of the site. 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. The estate residential 'Land use alternative would provide the most flexibility in this regard. Areas adjacent to Ellis Avenue and the future Gothard Street realignment 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. C. Air Quality The three land use alternatives under consideration would adversely effect air quality within the South Coast region. An estate residential use would generate less air pollutants than the alternative industrial and medium/high density land use designations - approximately .26, 1.25 and ..58 tons of emissions per day, respectively. The primary air emissions generated include carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, particulates, and sulfur oxides from mobile and stationary 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 three land use alternatives: 1 Based upon the provisions of the Alquist-?riolo Geologic Hazard Zone Act and criteria of the State Mining and Geology Board. At!ftk 18 Emission Source Tons of Emissions/Day Estate Residential Mobile .25 Stationary 01 Total Industrial Mobile 1.23 Stationary 02 Total TM Medium/High Density Residential Mobile .57 Stationary .01 Total .58 The estimated tonnage of emissions may be reduced as newer motor vehicles replace older models, new advances in engine design and motor vehicle inspections are implemented, and/or public transportation is expanded. 2.1.3 Staff Recommendation The medium/high density residential land use alternative approximates the applicant's request to increase residential densities in the area. These uses would be compatible with industrial areas to the east and south, and would provide opportunities to develop low and moderate income housing. However, medium and high density uses are less compatible with Central Park than estate residential, and would be physically separated from major medium/high density concentrations south of Garfield Avenue and east of the Pacific Electric Railroad right-of-way. This alternative could also encourage short-term piecemeal development of the area and may prematurely recycle o it uses. An industrial designation of the property would expand acreage for future industrial development. However, viable industry may not locate within the area of concern until further parcel consolidation oemirs and oil uses pha.ie out of operation. It would also require MI-A and rr) zoning to regulator induntrial uses and aesthetic compatibility with Central Park. Estate residential maximizes compatibility with Central Park and estate areas to the west. It also provides an opportunity to incorporate significant variations of the natural topography in developments. An estate residential designation, however, may not expand housing opportunities for At:W& 19 low and moderate income households, and may not be viable until further lot consolidation and comprehensive site planning occur. The phasing of development within the study :area in relation to the ;Waster planning of Central Park is also an important asue. Depending upon the types of park uses and/or activities event.AaIly ulanned along, ==;!is Avenue, tinny cf the three land use alternatives could conceivably necorne compatible with Centra' Park. Such uses could range from passive pars to vehicle facilities. The medium/high density residentia: ,ar:d :,ndust-ilai alternatives could generate short-term development prior to the ccmpietion of tine Central Park planning effort. In contrast, an estate residentia; resignation would not becorm, feasible for some time, thereby preserving futi.re And use options once Central Park is planned and developed. 'Upon -esolution of park planning issues, land use options within the area of concern could be re-evaluated. Staff, therefore, recommends that the Ellis-aoldenwest area retain the existing estate residential land use designations ( 2 un!ac and 4 un/ac) as depicted as Alternative 1 in Figure 2-3. In addition, the estate residentia: designations should be extended easterly to the Gothard-Crystal aiignrnent in order to create a more logical boundary between residential and industrial uses. This would likewise apply if the Planning Commission selects the medium/high density alternative (Alternative 3). 2.1.4 Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission recommends chat the 46.63 acre area of concern located south of Ellis Avenue and east of Goldenwest Street retain the existing estate residential land use designations (0 to 2 units/acre and 0 to 4 units per acre as shown as Alternative 1 in Figure 2-3. In addition, the estate I residential designations should be extended easterly to the Gothard-Crystal alignment. The north portion of this area covers 9.69 acres and should be redesignated from industrial to estate residential 1\0 to 2 units/acre). The southern section covers 4.83 acres and should be redesignated from industrial to estate residential (0 to 4 units/acre). 2.2 Adams - Beach Area A second area of concern addressed by Land Use Element .Amendment 80-2 is located south of Adams Avenue and east of Beach Boulevard (Figure 2-5). The amendment was requested by the Mola Development Corporation. 2.2.1 Background The applicant's request covers 59.55 acres under a single ownership at the southeast corner of Adams Avenue and Beach Boulevard, divided north-south by an Orange County Flood Control District drainage channel. 'Nest of the channel, the applicant requests redesignation of 6.65 acres of resource production to commercial and 5.21 acres of commercial and 9.36 acres of resource production to high density residential. Existing uses within this sector 20 _.a-_L11 .._.i '..J .----ti---i r 1 ,�AxAfAN DR. 00' 'W� GENERAL ; cc COMMERCIAL CLARKOALI AVE r . 1 1 I J 1 , 1 z RT RT NO PO H r - t Z _ Z r 1 J t - DR. 3) �--1-- RESOURCE PRODUCTI 1---�- r 1 a _ r m — m i ME DIUM _.. DENSITY - —� J � RESIDENTIAL 3 z r - a Q V. 1 H 4 1 - Q --- y� W -- O 11 N w Q f I.o- aYJ DENSITY SITY RS E TI _. Z I Uf- C A P E N EWa .. 1 = 1 - - - W 0 a _ I - N Q i I V 1 I I I 1 I r C F R SOu H RT I PO DR. I I 1 I 1 I I ' 1 i 1 1 I L ' I _ 1 1 1 I 1� -t i I I _ U I - 1 I 7 I I I >:::::i>::•:: W p I rA W 4 I m ••• �•:::•• :':'.':••'••:•:.:•'•:S•'..:•:•:•::.••:•::•:•:•:':•::...''�:�.�.��::':?::::::':':�:i I SEAPORT I I 1 .......::.. 1... r ,�, .I, VE GENERAL w LOW STEp l COMMERCIAL - —' 9 DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AVE Q `d _ of W v N `. Ay Z J ai W ? {, II _1I I I I J I I,OW SAVE i ANAPOLIS I)1',N%A T y' "r1 —,---T-� - IZESIDEA'I'IAL Area of Concern 2 .2 (T@ 0@1=2 Sept. 80 QEP huntington beach planning division 21 Figure 2 include a gas station at the intersection of Adams and Beach, and a nursery at the extreme southwest end of the site along Beach Boulevard. Between these uses are four oil wells owned by the Mola Development Corporation. East of the flood control channel, the applicant requests redesignation of 38.33 acres of low density residential to medium density residential. This portion of the study area is vacant with the exception of seven oil wells owned by Chevron. Zoning within the area of concern is consistent with current General Plan land use designations, and is summarized below: ZONING DISTRICT ACRES RA-0 Residential Agricultural District 9.74 combined with oil production RA-01 Residential Agricultural District 6.47 combined with oil production RI-0 Single Family Residence District 34.60 combined with oil production RI-01 Single Family Residence District 3.73 combined with oil production C2 Community Business District 3.82 C4 Highway Commercial District 1.10 The resource production and commercial areas west of the drainage channel are bounded by commercial land use designations to the north and south and medium density residential west of Beach Boulevard. Although currently vacant, the commercial area north of Adams Avenue is the site of the approved 200,000 square foot Newland Center. The low density residential portion of the study area adjoins low density residential subdivisions on the north, east, and south. The north side is also abutted by a designated linear park along the bluffs between Adams Avenue and Yorktown Avenue. Existing General Plan land use designations for the site and the surrounding area are shown in Figure 2-5. 2.2.2 Analysis The Mola Development Corporation has requested that the area of concern be redesignated commercial, high density residential and medium density residential (Alternative 3). In addition to the applicant's request, three other alternatives are analyzed: redesignation of the area west of the flood control channel to high density residential and commercial, and retention of the low density residential designation to the east (Alternative 1). The second alternative provides for medium density residential and commercial west of the channel, and a combination of low and medium density residential to the east. Alternative 4 would designate the area west of the channel medium density residential and commercial, and the area to the east as low density residential. The four alternativesarm,depicted in Figure 2-6. 22 1 719— r� _ nnnl-- /inuilll I"IIII�Irl��ll= r- ra fill" linage �'R` HIM� ■/NNHB!•laltllaNlw /Ilq �tionel � +;'� ������ ■tU!!N!N ' �'• ^1111111���Qr��,�:,�� 111N� - • u' = nuunuutln/ � � = = n lutnfultl• / �IIIIflIIIIIIIIIIIIIII,II I_• '"'�� �oi)tlllllf" r / _ R _ �� ��� �uN ■_M_N/NN.�Np/_�_�, �r�s u �■ � _� INN■ /_NN_NN_N ■ � sf■■!�■!!.■■■■■M NN Cilia ,° .� ■Na!!!!u Nou!!m! altrsst �"�" �„ .■ ■!. ■wgan!!w,___ ' .I����ZYO' nn�= l..l..!!.0 • nIHHI� �����' � � — tN • Off 1. Land Use The four alternative land use mixes are analyzed in terms of Lhe following considerations: a. The commercial area designates; in ah fou. :and use alternatives will support approximately 58,000 square feet of retail space, including integration of the existing gas station. However, the redesignation of the southwest ccmmercial area to residential would ultimately result in the relocation of the existing 16,000 square foot nursery to the Beach-Adams intersection. The four alternatives vary in the mix of residential densities. The mixed low and high density residential option allows a maximum of seven units and 35 units (based on the R4 zoning request) per acre respectively. Approximately 772 total units could be constructed with a population of 1,456 persons. The requested medium and high density mix would allow maximum densities of 15 units and 35 units per acre, resulting in a total of 1,079 units with an estimated population of 1,988 persons. The low/medium density mix east of the channel would generate a maximum of 652 dwelling units and a population of 1,368 persons. The fourth alternative of medium density west of the channel and low density to the east would generate 486 total units with a population of 1,021 persons. b. The general character of the area east of the Orange County Flood Control District channel is that of a !ow density residential subdivision. The study area directly abuts single family residences on the east and south, and is separated from similar developments to the north by Adams Avenue. A low density residential designation of this sector of the study area would be most compatible with these uses. A medium density designation would be compatible provided that a lower than maximum density suffix is attached to the base zoning (i.e. 8-12 units per acre) or development is clustered at an overall maximum density of 15 units per acre. If the area west of the flood control channel is designated high density residential with R4 zoning a medium, density residential designation would also be acceptable, serving as a transition between high density to the west and low density to the east. A mix of low and medium density east of the channel is also justified. Four local feeder streets from adjacent single-family subdivisions terminate in the southern one-third of the study area. The extension of these streets to complete the circulation system implies that a low density subdivision would be appropriate for this portion of the study area. MW 24 C. Higher intensity uses characterize the area west of the drainage channel. Medium density condominiums are located west of Beach Boulevard, and commercial uses already or will abut the site on the north and south. Both medium and high density residential designations would be compatible with these uses. Adams Avenue and Beach Boulevard are major arterials which serve as a focus for high intensity commercial and residential uses. While the Beach-Adams intersection will soon support 200,000 square feet of commercial space, the study area in proximity to the center would be most appropriate for high density residential development to complement it. Beach Boulevard would provide a logical separation of these intense uses from medium density residential developments and strip commercial businesses to the west. d. The redesignation of the area west of the drainage channel to high density residential could provide sufficient consumer demand to support additional commercial space in the area of concern. A market analysis was conducted for the Beach Boulevard and Atlanta Avenue intersection (one mile south of the study area) in June, 1978, in conjunction with General Plan Amendment 78-1. Because the two areas are close in proximity, the analysis is applicable to the present study. The Beach-Atlanta market study indicated that because there were adequate existing and proposed shopping centers in the general area, additional neighborhood centers anchored by food and drug businesses are not desirable. However, the development of a small convenience center with a liquor store and perhaps a number of offices and/or small retail shops would be more appropriate. The applicant has indicated that the proposed commercial site will be used for the relocation of the nursery and centralization of existing oil production. No additional commercial uses would be planned until the oil operations phase out. e. The study area contains 10 producing oil wells: three west of the drainage channel owned by the Mola Development Corporation and seven to the east owned by Chevron. Production from this field averages 20,500 barrels of oil annually, 85 percent of which is derived from the Chevron wells. The applicant has indicated that the oil production will be preserved through the consolidation of operations, and will not be adversely affected by proposed developments. 2. Economic Considerations The Planning staff in cooperation with Ultrasystems, Inc. conducted a fiscal impact analysis of the four land use alternatives 25 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, 1980-1.990. The results are detailed in Appendix A. 3. Housing As noted in Section 2.1.2, the City's recently adopted revision to twe Housing Element calls for a feasibility study of inclusionary zoning; mechanisms. Although the City's ordinance code does not include 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. There are few remaining medium and high density areas in the City, however. All four land use alternatives offer opportunities for low and moderate income housing. The mixed high and low density residential alternative could add approximately 772 dwelling units to the City's housing stock at ultimate development. Adoption of an inclusionary zoning ordinance could potentially require that between 77 and 193 units be available for low and moderate income households. The mixed high and medium density residential alternative generates approximately 1,079 dwelling units, of which from 107 to 269 could be required as affordable units with an inclusionary zoning ordinance. The low and medium density mix east of the channel adds approximately 652 units to the City's housing stock, resulting in a potential for between 65 and 163 affordable units. The fourth alternative of medium density west of the channel and low density to the east generates approximately 486 total units, resulting in a potential of between 48 and 121 affordable units. 4. Public Services and Utilities a. Sewers The study area is currently serviced by a 24-inch Orange County trunkline in Adams Avenue. No new sewer facilities are master planned for the area. Any new development within the area of concern would connect to the County trunkiine. The Orange County Sanitation District has indicated that this facility will be adequate to serve the area under all four land use alternatives. 26 b. Water An existing eight-inch water line in Beach Boulevard extending 600 feet south of Adams Avenue now serves the area of concern. The Department of Public Works indicates that this line would require an extension to the study area's southerly boundary to adequately provide water service to future developments. In addition, an existing 12-inch water main in Adams Avenue west of Beach Boulevard would require an easterly extension to serve the area. These facilities are projected to adequately service the study area regardless of the density mix of residential development selected. However, developers in the area would also be required to design and install a fire hydrant and water main distribution system for the area, consisting of a six-inch loop with fire hydrants. C. Drainage and Flood Control The area of concern is located in the Talbert Gap, and is subject to local and regional flood hazard. Severe ponding occurs on-site between Beach Boulevard and the Orange County Flood Control District DO-I Channel. The study area in general is also subject to regional flooding in the 100- and 200-year storms. The area of concern is presently serviced by a 60-inch line but new drainage facilities are planned. West of the flood control channel in the vicinity of the intermittent pond, a 48-inch drainage line is master planned. This facility will connect with the Orange County Flood Control District pump station at Adams Avenue, which will collect and disperse water flow to the DO-I Channel. The 48-inch line will also serve to de-water the ponding area. Measures are being taken to eliminate the regional flood hazard posed by the Santa Ana River. The United States Army Corps of Engineers has proposed a plan that would make the City and the rest of Orange County flood safe from a 100-year storm. It will be several years before the project can mitigate flood potential, however. In the interim, development within flood hazard areas will be regulated by the programs for flood hazard abatement in the adopted Seismic-Safety Element. In addition, as a participant in the Federal Flood Insurance Program, Huntington Beach flood hazards are governed by the regulations imposed by the Federal Insurance Administration. The program requires that all new construction and substantial improvements of residential structures have the lowest inhabitable floor elevated one foot above the base flood level. 27 Flood maps are now under revision under an emergency phase to establish specific base flood ievels within communities subject tc flood hazard. The base flood level within the area of concern has preliminarily been set at 11 feet, which means that the lowest habitable floor would be constructed at 12 feet. Compliance would necessitate significant elevation of structures in the study area or utilization of the lowest level for garage space to reduce the need for fill. No compliance with these regulations is required until the regular phase begins. As participants in the program, the City's eligibility for disaster relief and other Federal funding would be suspended if it does not comply with the regular phase. d. Parks The 1977 Parks Analysis indicates that the demand for neighborhood park space in vicinity of the study area is greater than the current supply. However, approximatley 33 acres have been acquired for future neighborhood park development within one-fourth of a mile of the study area. Bartlett Park will consist of 30.5 acres of linear park along the bluffs directly north of Adams Avenue. The Drew Park site is located east of the study area with 2.6 acres acquired for development. These sites will be sufficient to accommodate the demand for park space generated by the four land use alternatives. e. Police and Fire Protection The Police Department operates from a single police facility located at Main Street and Yorktown Avenue. The present authorized level of police manning is approximately 1.15 officers per 1,000 persons. Development under the four land use alternatives would require no more than two additional officers. Response time is of primary importance in determining the adequacy of fire protection coverage. Fire stations should be located to provide an average response time of five minutes or less in 90 percent of the incidents. The area of concern is served by the Lake Fire Station one-half mile away, and is entirely within this response limit. When comparing the land use alternatives no difference in response time is expected. As the study area develops, higher levels of manning will be necessary if the Fire Department is to maintain the level of service required. / i 28 f. Schools The area of concern lies within the Huntington Beach Elementary School District. The first alternative, consisting of low and high density residential, would generate an estimated 66 elementary school aged children and 75 middle school children. The low and medium density mix east of the channel adds 130 elementary and 175 middle school students to the system. The medium/high density alternative generates 150 elementary and 206 middle school students. The fourth alternative of medium density west of the channel and low density to the east generates 124 elementary and 152 middle school students. Most of the additional students would attend Peterson and Sowers schools, both of which are presently operating near capacity. The Huntington Beach Elementary School District has indicated that sufficient excess capacity exists at nearby Perry, Hawes, and Kettler schools to accommodate the remainder of the student load. The study area is also served by the Huntington Beach High School District. The four land use alternatives would generate an estimated 97, 159, 182, and 154 additional students, respectively. These students would attend Edison High School which is located approximately 1k 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 main gas supply line and an overhead 12KV electrical line runs east-west along Adams Avenue to serve the area of concern. 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. 29 Tne Southern, California r dison Company has indicated that electrical load requirements case he r-net t.hrougn 1980 provide, thai-, electrical demand does not exceed estimates and there are no unexpected outages to major sources of electrical supply. ThF-t 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 aIi customer loads during peak demand periods could oecoi-ne marginciii 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 any of the four land use alternatives. 4. Traffic Circulation Access to the study area is taken from Adams Avenue and Beach Boulevard, which are designated major arterials by the Circulation Plan of Arterial Streets and Highways. The design capacity of these streets is 45,000 vehicles per day. Present traffic volumes, however, are well under this capacity. Traffic volumes in vicinity of the study area are 14,500 daily trips on Adams Avenue, and 25,000 trips per day on Beac'n Boulevard. Because the Orange County Flood Control District DO-1 Channel effectively divides the area of concern, the two sections will have different access points. The area east of the channel will take access off Adams Avenue, while the area to the west will be oriented primarily to Beach Boulevard. It is estimated that the low/high density alternative will result in 6,430 vehicle trips, of which 2,360 trips are directed to Adams Avenue and 4,070 trips to Beach Boulevard. The low/medium density mix east of the channel generates 4,920 additional vehicle trips per day, with 2,990 trips distributed to Adams Avenue and 1,930 trips to Beach Boulevard. The medium/high density option adds 7,865 daily trips with 3,795 trips taking access on Adams Avenue and 4,070 trips on Beach Boulevard. The fourth alternative of medium density west of the channel and low density to the east generates 4,290 daily trips with 2,360 trips distributed to Adams Avenue and 1,930 trips to Beach Boulevard. The Department of Public Works has indicated that the traffic volumes generated by the four land use alternatives will not exceed design capacities on adjacent arterials and will not have a significant effect on local street traffic flow. 30 5. Environmental Issues This section identifies the significant environmental impacts associated with the land uses evaluated. a. Geotechnical The North Branch Fault of the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone traverses the area of concern from the southeast to the northwest. The Indianapolis Avenue Fault intersects the North Branch Fault from the east. Although faults lace the study area, it is not a designated earthquake hazard area. However, any development under the four land use alternatives may be subject to seismic activity. Appropriate structural requirements would be imposed by the City on all such projects. In addition, an engineering geologist analysis may also be required. Liquefaction potential may be high in some areas west of the flood control channel where frequent ponding occurs. From this perspective, high density residential development may not be feasible in this location without substantial modification of structural design. To mitigate the potential liquefaction hazard, the ponding areas would be de-watered through construction of a master planned 48-inch drainage line. Any necessary groundwater de-watering discharges would be disposed through sanitary sewers as per Orange County Sanitation District requirements. Soil samples and borings should also be performed for any development or structure to be located within or near these areas. Topographically, most of the study area is located within the floodplain of the Talbert Gap. However, a six-acre area now occupied by the existing nursery is part of the Huntington Beach Mesa with elevations up to 11 feet above the floodplain. To develop this area, as well as the remainder of the area west of the flood control channel will require significant filling to bring the area to grade and meet the requirements of the Federal Flood Insurance Program. b. No ise New residential developments adjacent to Adams Avenue and Beach Boulevard 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 31 measures such as unit ,rod,ifi cat ions, building placement, and barrier construction, would be required to reduce the noise to acceptable levels. Residential developments wili also be sub;ect to noise levels i:l excess of Ldn 60 from oil pumps and engines as production phases out in the study area. Then:: impacts can be mitigated through barriers, oil equipment mufflers, and building placement. C. Air Quality The four land use alternatives would adversely effect air quality within the South Coast Air Basin. The alternative of medium density west of the channel and low density to the east would generate less air poliutants than the other alternatives. The following table summarizes the air emissions generated by the four land use alternatives: Emission Source Tons of Emissions/Day Low/High Density Residential Mobile 1.22 Stationary .01 Total 1.23 Low/Medium Density Residential east of Channel Mobile .95 Stationary .01 Total .96 Medium/High Density Residential Mobile 1.50 Stationary .02 Total 1 52 Medium Density west of Channel/Low Density east of Channe; Mobile :83 Stationary .01 Total .84 The estimated tonnage of emissions ,ray oe reduced as newer motor vehicles replace older models, new advances in engine design and motor vehicle inspections are implemented, and/or public transportation is expanded. o � 32 2.2.3 Staff Recommendation The area east of the (Orange County Flood k'ontrol District: channel is characterized by single-family subdivisions. A low density resident.iai designation of this part of the study area would he most compatible with these uses. However, medium density could be made compatible through Ply zoning, and would enhance the City's options in the provision of affordable housing to low and moderate income households. The City has not yet adopted ar, inclusionary zoning ordinance. Until such an ordinance is adopted, the City must rely on developer agreements to ensure that affordable units are constructed in exchange for higher densities. A final issue to consider is that four local feeder streets from adjacent single-family subdivisions terminate in the southern 13.3 acres of the study area. This suggests that a low density residential designation of the area subdivided for single-family home development would be appropriate. Based upon these considerations, staff recommends that the northern 25.03 acres of the Adams-Beach area east of the flood control channel be redesignated from low density residential to medium density residential. The purpose of this density change is to provide ten percent (10%) low income housing and fifteen percent (15%) moderate income housing of the total number of units constructed. This condition to development of the property is in conformance with the Housing Element of the General Plan and with California Government Code Section 65302(c), which provides that the housing needs of all economic segments of the community shall be adequate. It is also recommended that the southern 13.3 acres east of the channel retain the existing low density residential designation for development of a single-family subdivision and completion of the local circulation system. High intensity uses characterize the area west of the flood control channel. Adams Avenue and Beach Boulevard are major arterials which serve as a focus for these commercial and residential uses. A commercial designation of the southeast corner of the intersection would complement other commercial developments adjacent to the study area. However, it may not result in additional commercial use because the site may serve as a relocation area for the nursery to the south. A high density residential land use designation would be appropriate for the remainder of the area west of the drainage channel due to its location in proximity to major transportation routes and commercial nodes. It would also provide additional opportunity to require low and moderate income housing. Staff, therefore, recommends that west of the flood control channel, 6.65 acres of resource production be redesignated commercial at the Beach-Adams intersection, and 9.36 acres of resource production and commercial to the south be redesignated high density residential. Staff's land use recommendations are depicted in Figure 2-7. At:W& J 33 F r. COMINI F,IWIA 1, � > CLARIDA, DAMS AVE -JL m NORTHPORT "COMMERCIAL DR z 4 ca II' F. 1)F'N S I TY MEDIUM RESIDENTIAU�:i*m DE NSITY RESIDENTIAL f j I )w DEASITY t -RESIDEATIAL- I c-n m t CJ CAPE NEV ............................. 0 I d I I S CF -R DR HI If LOW .. .. ...... RESIDE NT IAL':* RESIDLY1 ..................... .... ..... uj ir .... . .. SEA PORT ... .. ... AVE a L GENEMAI -j MUNSTER w: COMMERCIAL > 0 Ir 4 w AVE. < 0 UJ MALLOY iz > l0i 77 6! AV E 'I ANAMUS I I S F F)--7)� It FS 11)E'N'I*l A L S T A F F R E(C G I";Mr'-_IN ED A If ON I I I I IS I F A I I I 11P E I (I I I Sept. 80 34 huntington beach planning division Fiqure 2-7 2.2.4 Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission recommends that the 59.55 acre area located south of Adams Avenue and east of Beach Boulevard retain the existing resource production, commercial, and low density residential land use designations as shown in Figure 2-5. At the October 21, 1980 public hearing, the Planning Commission deleted the Adams-Beach area from Land Use Element Amendment 80-2. The Mola Development Corporation has subsequently filed an appeal to the City Council for reconsideration. 2.3 Warner Beach Area General Plan Amendment 80-2 addresses a third area of concern located at the southwest corner of the Warner Avenue and Beach Boulevard intersection (Figure 2-8). The .amendment request for consideration was filed by Mola Development Corporation in April 1980. 2.3.1 Background The applicant's amendment request is for the inclusion of this 10.18 acre site within a multi-story suffix area, retaining the existing C-4 base zoning. The site is a former school site and was recently sold as surplus by the Ocean View School District. The site is of an irregular shape with 475 feet fronting on Beach Boulevard, 815 feet on Warner Avenue, 335 feet on Ash Street, 425 feet on Sycamore Avenue, and 280 feet on Elm Street. Adjacent land uses are mixed; immediately south of the applicant's site is an existing 14,700 square foot office complex. Surrounding the site is primarily residential development, with older single family units and newer apartment complexes. The area north of Warner Avenue and west of Beach Boulevard is composed of small individual commercial developments with an 18,960 square foot shopping complex north of the intersection. The area behind these commercial operations is presently being developed as a 129-unit condominium project. The northeast corner of the intersection is occupied by an older shopping complex, service station and liquor store. Behind this development are older single family homes along with a Southern California Edison substation. The southeast corner is occupied by a car wash along Beach Boulevard, while the property behind is residential with a mix of older and a few new single family homes and newer apartment complexes. The purpose of the multi-story suffix zoning classification is to allow and regulate multi-story development in a manner consistent with the General Plan and policies of the City. Special requirements are imposed to insure that multi-story developments enhance the physical, social and environmental characteristics and conditions of the community. 35 f S FNITY G EN. comm. K- LA DAMASK DR. LOW h C. F. C. D DENSITY till— ESIDENTV HIIIIIJI1111111111 MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY fDAMAS DENSITY RESIDENTIAL U#41 31 HII III ID RESIDENTIAL -LL-Ut. F1 GENERAL COMMERCIAL P-% V EL_ i In H FIR DR. GENERAL MEDIUM COMMERCIAL DENSITY .. .. ..... RESIDENTIAL AVESYCAMOTSE ..... L-J -T- z PROPOSED MULTI-STORY I PROP j.-TODE '.. .Y PRESS AM YPRESS (Approximately 80 Acres) L MEDIUM ; 4 MERSEILkE DENSITY TLI RESIDENTIAL z[�DOEWNS',TY T w RESIDENTIAL VALENCIA F FRI MANDRELL' DR KROTIN CR. 2i -j GULL �T Area of Concern 2.3 Sept.80 O @00 13 2 36 huntington beach planning division Figure 2-8 In August 1972 the City Council established a citizens High Rise Study Committee to assist in the formulation of a multi-story ordinance. A multi-story study report was completed in May 1973. This report was followed by a multi-story process report in June 1973 which suggested using "specific plans" to implement the suffix. In October 1974, the multi-story suffix (MS) ordinance was drafted. The Planning Commission approved and the City Council adopted the Multi-Story Policy Plan (General Plan Amendment 77-2 (Part 2)) in February and April 1977, respectively. The General Plan presently designates five multi-story nodes throughout the City (Figure 2-9). The methodology used to make this determination was based on a series of studies combined to present an overall picture of urban form generations and visual impacts of multi-story structures. Study maps were developed to show vacant land, existing multi-story structures, activity generating areas, topography and view opportunities. These maps were compared and an evaluation of the appropriateness of fourteen various areas was developed, with a recommendation for five nodes emerging. The Warner Avenue and Beach Boulevard intersection was not included in the original multi-story study; therefore, the applicant is requesting this amendment for the. inclusion of an additional multi-story node to the General Plan. If the suffix is adopted as part of the General Plan, the applicant will still be required to request a change of zoning in order to attach the multi-story suffix to the base zone. Finally, a conditional use permit will be required prior to development. 2.3.2 Analysis 1. Land Use The existing commercial designation and C-4 zoning allows for a conventional development of approximately 90,000 square feet, with a maximum height of 35 feet. The request for the addition of a multi-story (MS) suffix to the existing zone will allow the applicant's proposal for the initial construction of a 200,000 square foot high rise office building and the potential of two additional structures for a total of approximately 600,000 square feet employing 1,800 people on the site. The nature of this proposal is such that the only means through which this project can be accomplished is with the addition of a multi-story suffix. However, a multi-story suffix is not generally applied on a project by project basis. This designation is reserved for areas within the community which are suitable for the development of multi-story nodes. The Warner Avenue and Beach Boulevard intersection was not included in the original study as a multi-story node. The reasons for this omission include the following: 37 rM . eaw' A :•t•: . ............ ....... ................4...............°.. ................ .... ' ' �• NEl . `•� � 8 ,�.. :�:� woos , `•. 9a )! .................................. .............i....... . . . .. .... ...... sL ATBI I i k \ _ TALBERT e. PLANNING COMM. BILLS DATE REST. \, 4477 1189 a P tge w ww w nw •••€+^~^ ............... F GARFIELD \S%\ . CITY COUNCIL ;.;: ;:; ' ........... .......... ........... .............. YORKTOWN .. DATE RES. 11-7-77 4551 w. _...s...... q ADAMS ........................... i.... ..... ...........:.. INDIANAPOLK EXISTING -""" .• ATLANTA PRIMARY AREA '' ;:• ..... NAMLTON SECONDARY AREA �~ �` BANNING FURTHER STUDY ' \ \` Sept.80 MULTI -, STORY LOCATION MAP huntington beach planning division 38 Figure 2-9 The minimal amount of vacant land in the area. The majority of the parcels are small and individually owned; most are already developed. These same characteristics reduce the prospects for redevelopment, due to the necessity for consolidation. The only exception in the area is the Ocean View School Site. There are no multi-story structures in the area; therefore, no precedent has been set for a multi-story project. • The topography of the area does not provide any unique view opportunities. • The area does not contain an activity node or visual landmark. In addition, in the years since the study was developed, a number of residential projects have been completed in the area and a new 129-unit condominium project has been started. This residential growth will further reduce the chances for area-wide redevelopment. However, this does not preclude an area-wide designation for a multi-story suffix node; residential and manufacturing as well as commercial zones are eligible for a multi-story suffix (R4, R5, MI-A, C2, C3, C4). The benefits for designation of the area as a multi-story node can also be identified. 1. The area is located along a major activity corridor (Beach Boulevard), approximately mid-way between two previously identified multi-story nodes (Huntington Center and Five Points). 2. Beach Boulevard was identified in the multi-story study as one of two major functional and visual corridors within which all multi-story development should occur in appropriate locations and clusters; (with the exception of the area around McDonnell-Douglas), Pacific Coast Highway being identified as the other corridor. The study further stated that these cluster locations are to be determined by their proximity to nodes, intersections and key visual features. 3. The intersection of Warner Avenue and Beach Boulevard is a pivotal point for both east/west and north/south traffic. Beach Boulevard is the primary north/south route for through-town and local traffic and Warner Avenue is the only complete east/west cross-town route. Thus, this intersection, especially the southwest corner, is a key area in the future development of the City. 39 The existing five multi-story nodes described in the study range in size from 80 to 400 acres, with 10 to 25 percent of the area anticipated for actual multi-story development. The applicant's project would dominate the newly designated multi-story node and could potentially develop beyond the anticipated .10 percent of the node area, becoming the only high-rise project within the node. This may or may not be a problem, depending on the rate of development and the desires of surrounding property owners. Presently, the applicant's site is the only site within the node which could accommodate a multi-story suffix. In addition, a major development on this site could greatly influence the community as a whole. A major development would definitely alter the visual image of the area and may encourage a new direction for community growth such as the creation of a new activity corridor west along Warner Avenue to Huntington Harbour. Finally, a development of this scale and type may prove to be in direct competition with the revitalization efforts for the Downtown Area. The Coastal Element presents three alternative land use proposals for the Downtown Area one of which may be precluded if major office developments are being provided elsewhere in the community. 2. Economic Considerations The Planning staff, in cooperation with Ultrasystems, Inc., conducted a fiscal impact analysis of this project and is detailed in Appendix A. 3. Public Services and Facilities a. Sewers The area of concern is serviced by an existing 69 inch County main located along Warner Avenue. The Orange County Sanitation District has indicated that this system will accommodate the applicant's ultimate development proposal. b. Water There is an existing 21 inch County feeder main along Warner Avenue. However, there is presently only one eight inch main off the feeder to service the area of concern and a portion of Beach Boulevard. The whole area is in need of a general upgrading and is presently only adequate for domestic use. The project would require a loop around the site with additional eight inch mains off the feeder along Warner Avenue in order to adequately service the developm ent. AM RM arw 40 ti � t C. Drainage The site's present surface flow is accommodated by an existing 48 inch line along Warner Avenue. This system will be adequate for the applicant's ultimate development proposal. d. 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 1.15 officers per 1,000 persons; however, since employees will only be in the complex for eight hours a day, half of the normal requirement will be sufficient. Therefore, in order to maintain the current level of service, police levels would need to be increased by one officer for the applicant's ultimate development. A proposal of this type will have to be developed under the State standards for high-rise construction. The design must contain special features including a fire, life and safety systems for development approval. 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. 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. e. 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 along Beach Boulevard; an overhead 12KV electrical line runs along Warner Avenue with a break-off into the area of concern. 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 At=& now IM J 41 conditions under wini&' se'vice- .L gels service will M.- provided according to the revised ,nn:iitiomi. The Southern California .'r3iFi.on Coi-npar,y inas indicated that electrical load re-quirennents car. be rnet provided that electri--al demand does not e,,.ceer) ASt'_ ., :' ai'-ed' :t &-ne no Unix xpe ter.: outages to major sources of e ectrical sup ply. The total r., ectrica system demand is exrecte� Lo La^Linje tc increase .annually. if plans to proceed With far_' e anstru::I`c,� of r%ew generating facilities are delayed, Edison's capaoiiity to serve ail customer loads during peak demand periods could becc:r„e imar ginal by 1984. f. Solid Waste Disposal The Rainbow Disposal Company provides soiic waste collection to the City c Huntinrtr,=-; —Reach. iN.o iocal service constraints are expected for the applicant's c.alri nnste development proposal. 4. Traffic Circulation Access to the area of cone-ern is off either i3each Boulevard or Warner Avenue; both are designated major arterials. Present traffic volumes for these arterials are 4.51000 dai."y trips on Beach Boulevard and 25,000 dally- trips or, Wafner .Avenue. The design capacity for these streets is 45,060 vehicle trips per day. A special traffic study has been pr&pared for this proposed development and is contained in Appendix B. 5. Environmental Issues a. Noise The area of concern is located within the Ldn 65-70 noise contour. These figures are within the optimum noise levels for an office-professional land use, which is Ldn 75. Ambient levels will increase as a result of traffic generated from multi--story developments. However, noise decibels at total saturation should be within decibel levels projected for the areas as indicated in the Noise Element of the General Plan. The optimum noise level for all residential uses is Ldn 60 for outdoors and Ldn 45 for indoors. Mitigation measures such as buffers and Parking setbacks may be necessary in order to mai rtain optirnum noise levels fo the existing surrounding residential uses. AdLk ."00. 42 b. Air Quality >i Development of a multi-story office complex will affect air Quality within the South Coast Region. 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. The following table summarizes the air emissions generated by the proposed development: Emission Source Tons of Emissions/Day Office Professional (200,000 sq. ft.) Mobile .72 Stationary .01 Total .73 Office Professional (600,000 sq. ft.) Mobile 2.15 Stationary .01 Total 2.16 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. 2.3.3 Staff Recommendation The amendment request is to include the area of concern within a multi-story suffix area. The area of concern as part of the corridor along Beach Boulevard is in a major activity area. This corridor has been identified as an area in which multi-story development should occur in appropriate locations. The area of concern is located mid-way between two existing multi-story nodes and at a key intersection in the City for both east-west and north-south traffic. Staff, therefore, recommends that a new multi-story node be designated at the intersection of Beach Boulevard and Warner Avenue encompassing approximately 80 acres. 2.3.4 Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission recommends that a new multi-story node be designated at the intersection of Beach Boulevard and Warner Avenue encompassing approximately 80 acres, as depicted in Figure 2-8. 2.4 Warner-Magnolia Area 43 L AvrE 77 HASTINGS CR 1 z MAZA CR. z % )WAGERS CR SAVOY CR. WE CR. ROYER CR -44 DE VILLE CR % PARKER CR CF- E z FERGUSON CR 4x ROYAL DIR.1 LOW DENsrry CAMEL CR. --RESIDENTIAL-r-r , CONNER DR 0 %.......... ...... ..................... z ............... .. ....................... ............... LEM CR. z 140 S A AL M ER I- L C C F F RO�YER FEgRGUSON CR I EM CS PEREK CR R LSI 1)E NTI A I T C KENT CR. C D. IT .............. ,--t- JERRETT CR ........ ......... L&jr 7 ...... -------- jj t y -j < C 0 ---RECREATIONCR (;I, NERAI, z ANTHONYDR (D COMMERCIAL— < 0 COM AC ML AAL WARNER AVE ---N OF FOUNTAIN VALL-EY-T- —COMMERCIAL C, 1,()W F Area of Concern 2.4 62, O Z- Sept.80 huntington beach plan nim 44 1 g division Figure 2-10 2.4.1 Background The area of concern encompases 10.13 gross acres of land located on the west side of Magnolia Street approximately 450 feet north of Warner Avenue (Figure 2-10). The site is owned by S. & K. Greenhouses, Inc. and currently supports a commercial nursery. The area of concern also includes an Orange County Flood Control Channel, which the applicant proposes to cover and incorporate into the project for access and parking. The applicant, Lindborg-Dahl Investors, Inc., has requested that the area of concern be redesignated from low density residential to general commercial to allow construction of an approximately 150,000 square foot office condominium complex. Existing zoning within the area of concern is as follows: Al Agricultural District 7.19 acres Rl Single Family Residence District 1.47 acres Unzoned flood control channel 1.47 acres Surrounding land uses include single family homes to the west, Pleasant View Elementary School and the San Diego Freeway to the north, commercial recreation to the east across Magnolia Street, and a mixture of retail commercial uses and offices immediately south of the flood control channel. 2.4.2 Analysis The area of concern, although designated low density residential, could feasibly support other land uses due to its location, configuration, and lack of permanent structures on the site. This section will analyze three possible land use designations for the area of concern - low density residential, high density residential, and general commercial - with regard to impacts on surrounding land uses, economic feasibility, housing concerns, public works and service capacities, available utilities, traffic and circulation impacts, and environmental concern (Figure 2-11). 1. Land Use The area of concern occupies a strategic location at the intersection of a major arterial (Warner Avenue) and a primary arterial (Magnolia Street) and has a high degree of visibility from the southbound lanes of the San Diego Freeway. The desirability of the site for retail commercial uses is seriously limited, however, by the existence of the flood control channel which reduces street frontage and hinders access, and by the existing two story commercial development at the corner and along Warner Avenue which eliminates necessary visibility. Access to the site is further complicated by the freeway offramp on Magnolia, which creates a steady flow of traffic past the site during the afternoon rush hour, making left turns into and out of the area of concern virtually impossible. Office development is considerably more feasible than retail commercial given lower traffic volumes generated, reduced parking requirements and less emphasis on exposure. 45 0 k1 YET. DR ARNE I T OR -'RESIDENTIAL ... ........... k, mlmutc X �,, 0 R 3:1 M M F.B.0 i WARNER DR ------ Mimi" COMM A J Alternative M(Al JL L.1Nowal j ROYAL_D!tj RESIDENTIAL 1) C.R 1,ow DENSITYr. DR TT� DR RESIDENTIAL- (KENT ....................... CH T b CP COMMERCIAL M ARu DP ............ 0. GZA11011 C'. ON CA . IMI'MCIA F WARNER CQ Alternative 2 LINDA CR c ,L MMERCIAL 1_i C() T W'RL CR LOW DEINSITY DO �A�.ETT DR `V X., "RESIDENTIAL EhiT-CR U T ....................... C, MERLE 11 'ONIMERCIAL C M M P,ft CAA WA R N E R C Alternative 3 Y4A,-"(NE-R-MAGN0L1A AREA SS E F1 To/rl' I� LAN' IS E AJERNAT'VES uC 3 V/ ,) L AREA 2 . 4 Sapt.UU 46 j huntington beach picirining division F i g u re Under the existing low density residential designation, approximately 70 single family homes could be constructed within the area of concern. If the area were redesignated high density residential, a maximum of 216 units could be built with R3 zoning (253 if the flood control channel were incorporated). Access is less of a problem with low density development, as traffic volumes are lower and additional access could be provided by extending Conner Drive from the adjacent tract. In higher density developments, Conner Drive would remain closed to through traffic. The alternative land use designations being considered would have varying impacts on the existing uses surrounding the site; of most concern are the single family homes to the west. The existing low density residential designation would allow harmonious development, but would increase traffic through the tract. New single family development would be impacted by the existing two story commercial development to the south and to some extent by freeway noise. High density residential uses would have a greater impact on the low density area unless buildings were sited to minimize visual impacts and buffering measures were employed. The general commercial designation allows either retail commercial or office uses; impacts on the surrounding areas would vary depending on the zoning applied. The applicant has proposed office condominiums, to be constructed in modules not to exceed two stories in height. Parking and landscaping are to be placed around the periphery of the site and buildings oriented toward Magnolia Street well stepped back in height from the single family area. Covering the flood control channel would provide a second access point and would improve the aesthetics of the general area benefiting all uses. 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. Housing 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. AL-AEL.& J 47 The revised element includes provisions ,:or consideration of ar, inclusionary housing program whereby developers would construct a certain percentage of a project's units for low and ;-moderate income families in exchange for a density bonus or other City incentives. The provision of affordable housing would be difficult under the existing low density designation but could be made more feasible at higher densities. For example, under R2 zoning, the site could accommodate approximately 150 units. A 25 percent density bonus would increase the allowable unit total to 187 units, 46 of which would be required to be affordable units at a 25 percent izciusionary rate. At R3 zoning, 253 units would normally be allowed; a 25 percenntt increase would add 63 units to the total in exchange for 79 affordable units. The applicant had considered the possibility of constructing an affordable-, housing project on the site and met with members of the City '�'ouncil and staff to discuss possible City incentives. The applicant was interested in constructing a Section 8 apartment project, but abandoned the idea due to high land costs, insufficient land writedown funds, and the applicant's feeling that the project would not be economically feasible unless a density of 60 units per acre were allowed. Because of the constraints to developing a feasible, affordable housing project, the applicant abandoned residential uses in favor of the proposed office development. 4. Public Services and Utilities a. Sewers The area of concern is served by an existing eight-inch sewer tine located in Conner Drive that terminates at the western property line of the site. This line runs through the single family tract into a 69-inch County trunk line in Warner Avenue. The Department of Public Works and ;range County Sanitation District have indicated that existing sewer capacity in City and County facilities is adequate to accommodate all of the land use alternatives by connecting into the existing eight-inch Conner Drive line. b. W ater Existing uses within the area of concern presently draw water from an existing eight-inch line in Conner :'.give. An eight-inch line runs along the north side of Warner ;?venue; however, the site only has frontage on Magnolia Street, in whicin no C:ty water lines are located. 48 The Department of Public Works has indicated that any change i-1 use of the subject property would require the replacement of the eight-inch line in Warner Avenue with a 12-inch line the entire one-half mile reach between Newland and Magnolia Streets. In addition, a 12-inch line in Magnolia Street from Warner Avenue to the north property line with a cross connection across the site to Conner Drive would be required to adequately serve the proposes development. The upgrading of water facilities necessary to allow development of the site would be expensive, given the length of the mains that need to be replaced and new mains required. The flood control channel which passes under Magnolia Street may be a constraint to installing new water lines, which could increase the cost of providing adequate water serive to the area of concern. C. Storm Drains Drainage from the area of concern is conveyed directly into the County flood control channel. The Flood Control District has indicated that runoff from development under any of the proposed land use designations could be adequately accommodated by the existing facility. The applicant has proposed to enclose the open drainage channel to provide access and parking. Special drains will have to be installed to prevent excess storm water in the channel from backing up onto the site during high flows. d. Parks The area of concern is located just south of Pleasant View Elementary School, two acres of which are developed as a neighborhood park. The 1977 Parks Analysis indicates that park demand within the quarter section in which the area of concern is located will be met or exceeded at ultimate development. High density residential development would increase the demand for park facilities, but due to the park's proximity to the area of concern, the demand would be adequately met. The proposed office development would act to reduce park demand within the quarter section. e. Police and Fire Protection Police service for the area of concern is provided by the City of Huntington Beach, which operates from one central facility located at Main Street and Yorktown Avenue. The present authorized level of police manning is approximately 1.15 officers per 1,000 persons. None of the alternatives considered would significantly increase 49 the level of staffing neeoeci to adequately serve the area concern, although due t.c the distance from; the ponce facility, additional patrols may be necessary. Fire response to the area or concern is provided by tha City of Huntington Beach from ure 'vlurdy Station, iocated soutin of L_(Iinger Avenue on the west side cf C,othard S%reF`:. Access to clhe s_te is potential probler: in res:or,d ng to fires, ?:herefore, emergency access to the site via Conner Dirve -nay ^c regjirec if either the high density residential or general commercial land use designation is approved. On-sita sp,-;nkler systems should be required to provide immediate fire protection. f. Schools The area of concern is serv_:,J by Pleasant View 'Elementary School, Westmont Middle School and Ocean View High School. Students generated by the alternative land uses being considered are as f of 1 ows: Pleasant View Westmont Ocean View Low Density Residential 21 25 27 High Density Residential 7 17 The existing low density residential designation would have the greater impact on schools, although the schools involved should be able to accommodate these slight increases ir, students. Redesignation of the area of concern to commercial would eliminate these potential additional students. The Ocean View School District has indicated there are no plans to close Pleasant View School. g. Gas and Electrical Utilities Natural gas service and electrical service are provided by the Southern California Gas Company and Southern California Edison, respectively. A three-inch gas line currently runs onto the site from Magnolia Street, which is adequate to accommodate any of the alternative land uses being considered. Electrical service is available from existing 12KV overhead lines along the site's northern property line. Gas service is generally provided as a normal extension of existing facilities. However, the availability of ,atural gas service is based upon present conditions of gas suppiy and regulatory policies. As a public utility, the Southern California Sias CJmpany is under the jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission. J 50 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 1980 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. Solid Waste Disposal The Rainbow Disposal Company provides solid waste collection to the City of Huntington Beach. No local service constraints are expected under any of the alternative land use designations. 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 and Circulation The area of concern fronts on Magnolia Street, a primary arterial with an average daily traffic volume of 26,000 vehicles. Warner Avenue is a major arterial with an average daily volume of 21,000 vehicles. Projected traffic volumes generated by the alternative designations are: Low Density Residential 615 trips High Density Residential 1,775 trips General Commercial 4,590 trips Office Professional 3,930 trips Development of either high density residential or office-professional uses would contribute significantly higher traffic volumes to local arterials than either the existing agricultural use or low density residential use. The site's limited accessibility and the location of the freeway off-ramp present considerable circulation problems that will be difficult to mitigate. Adgtk J 51 The applicant has proposed covering the flood control channel to Drovida two access points, one on Magnolia Street and one on Warner Avenue. According to this access plan, vehicles entering the site from the north would use the Magnolia entrance while vehicles entering from the west, south, and east would use the Warner entrance. Vehicles exiting the site would encounter more serious problems since left turns are not possible from the Warner exit and would be very dangerous from the Magnolia exit, given the steady flow of vehicles from the freeway during the afternoon rush hour. Traffic headed north and east would be required to make d►fficult or dangerous movements while traffic headed south and west would be fairly easily handled. In the case of office professionai development, egress problems are compounded in the afternoon when most cars would be leaving the site and freeway traffic is at a peak. The Orange County Flood Control District has informed the applicant that it has no objection to the proposed channel covering for access and parking purposes. The applicant would be required to purchase the surface rights to the channel after an independent appraisal, but the cost of channel improvements can be subtracted from the purchase price. The existing channel is an open channel, 18-feet wide with vertical concrete walls. In order to cover the channel, the entire affected length would have to be replaced with a box culvert of equal or greater capacity. The: proposed access point on Warner Avenue may not be feasible, however, as the City is currently negotiating with the County to purchase the triangular-shaped section adjacent to Warner for the construction of a water well. The property is currently being appraised as part of the negotiations. No design for the planned well has been prepared to date, but construction of the facility could jeopardize the applicant's access proposal and seriously affect the feasibility of the proposed office development. Since only one access point would not be sufficient to accommodate projected traffic volumes. The City and applicant could pursue joint use of the area in question. An alternative plan would be to pursue reciprocal access agreements with the existing commercial uses to the south. A portion of the flood control channel would still need to be covered, but there would be no conflict with the proposed water well. The Planning Commission has inquired as to alternative water well sites in relation to the proposed project. Tentative investigation by the Department of Public Works indicates that the farther the new well site is located from Warner Avenue, the more expensive and complex the connection to City water mains will be. These complications are caused by the existing flood control channel and the need to L AtZbk MW 52 cross that channel with a 12-inch water main or connect to a main in Heil Avenue. The site currently proposed adjacent to Warner Avenue would not require a crossing of the channel and would therefore be the most ideal site for the well. 6. Environmental Issues a. Noise The area of concern lies directly south of the San Diego Freeway and west of Magnolia Street. Approximately half of the site falls within the Ldn 60 contour, with only a very narrow area along Magnolia within the Ldn 65 contour (based on projected ground transportation noise contours for 1990). Residential uses within the area of concern would be affected by traffic noise, but special mitigation measures such as unit modification, building placement, walls and landscaping could be employed to reduce this exposure and guarantee acceptable interior noise levels of less than Ldn 45. Commercial and office uses are not as sensitive to noise exposure, but mitigation measures could still be employed to reduce noise. b. Air Quality Development of the area of concern under any of the proposed alternative designations would adversely affect air quality in the South Coast Air Basin, primarily due to increased automobile and truck traffic generated by land uses. The projected daily emissions generated by the alternative land use designations are as follows: Mobile Stationary Sources Sources Total Low Density Residential .11 T/day negl. .11 T/day High Density Residential .35 .01 .36 General Commercial .63 negl. .63 Office-Professional .54 negl. .54 The estimated amount of pollution from automobile traffic may be reduced as newer, more efficient vehicles replace older models and as public transit is expanded. 2.4.3 Staff Recommendation After analyzing the various alternative land use designations for the area of concern, staff recommends the general commercial designation as requested by the applicant. The existing low density residential designation is discouraged due to the area of concern's proximity to the San Diego Freeway and associated noise impacts. AIR& 53 f A high density residential designation would be desirable as a rieai;ti o increasing the supply of rental housing in the City, with the possibili y of designating a certain number of units for participation in federal subsidy, programs to provide housing fo; low and moderate income households. However, the site's land value and preparation costs (including removal of existing structures, replacement of the Warner Avenue water line and access treatment) seriously constrain the developer's ability to make such a project economically feasible at conventional densities of less than 35 units per acre. Retail commercial uses may not be feasible on the site due to the lack of good visibility and adequate ingress an egress. The site's peculiar shape may also inhibit the provision of parking for retail uses. Office-professiona! uses constitute an appropriate use of the area, generating less traffic_ than retail uses and having fewer impacts on adjacent single family homes than either high density or retail commercial. Development of the area of concern under the proposed designation will result in the developer upgrading the Warner Avenue water line, which will improve service to a larger area at no cost to the City. 2.4.4 Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission recommends that the 10.13 acre area located approximately 450 feet north of Warner Avenue and west of Magnolia Street be redesignated from low density residential to commercial, as shown as Alternative 3 in Figure 2-11. 2.5 Ellis-Gothard Area 2.5.1 Background The area of concern encompasses 10.00 acres located at the northwest corner of Ellis Avenue and Gothard Street (Figure 2-12). The site is currently owne:i by Sully-Miller contracting (S.Oacres) and Ocean View Mushroom Growers, Inc. (5.0 acres). The northern portion of the site is used for a gravel operation and the southern portion is used as a compost spreading area for the mushroom farm. The area of concern is being considered for inclusion into Huntington Central Park, and is within the study boundary for the park schematic master plan. On March 3, 1980, the City Council directed staff to initiate amendments to the Open Space and Conservation and rand Use Elements of the General Plan to analyze the feasibility of expanding Central Park south to Ellis .Avenue. The area of concern is proposed to be redesignated from industrial to open space. It is currently zoned M1-CD, light manufacturing district with a civic district overlay. Surrounding land uses include the Gothard 'Fire Station and Joint Powers Training Center to the north, an optical machinery manufacturing company and other industr iai uses to the east across lothard Street, vacant industrial land to the south across Ellis Avenue, and Sully-Miller Lake, part of Huntington Central Park, to the west. 54 CF- R :RA::E: PARK) I PRODAN DR INDUSTRIAL CF OPEN SPACE -C w DANMN FAX, ri(w `': INDUSTRIAL LU ESTATE - :5 2 un/gac RESIDENTIAL INDUSTRIAL ESTATE - 5 4 un/gac RESIDENTIAL Area of Concern 2. 5 U@ T@C39 Sept.1810 O huntington beach planning division- 55 Figure 2-12 t. 2.5.2 Analysis The area of concern is located within the Central Industrial Corridor and is surrounded on three sides by industrial uses. The site is not well suited for residential or commercial uses. The following sections will analyze the area of concern for alternative land use designations of industrial and open space. 1. Land Use The suitability of the area of concern for industrial use was analyzed in the 1976 Industrial Land Use Study and the site was given a medium suitability rating. Positive attributes of the site include the followings 1) the site is located at the intersection of a primary arterial (Ellis Avenue) and a secondary arterial (Gothard Street); 2) the 10 acres are contiguous, with no existing permanent structures; 3) the site is flat level surface underlaid by stable soil with high clay content; and 4) it is in proximity to Huntington Central Park. Negative attributes of the site include distance from freeway (3J miles), prohibition of heavy truck traffic on Ellis Avenue east of Newland Street and lack of direct access to the railroad. In a 1977 land use element amendment, the site was recommended to be retained for industrial use while other less attractive sites were recommended for deletion. The recent construction of industrial uses near the area of concern indicates that demand for industrial land in this area of the city still exists. In addition, the completion of the Ellis Avenue railroad underpass gives the site improved accessibility. The open space land use designation has been proposed to allow the area of concern to be incorporated into Huntington Central Park. The Community Services Department is currently preparing a schematic master plan for the development of Central Park. The area of concern is proposed to be developed as a recreational vehicle campground, oriented to Sully-Miller Lake. The lake is to be stocked with trout, and the campground would cater to fishing enthusiasts. A total of 230 RV spaces are proposed for the site, to complement 570 RV spaces proposed to be located on the 25.3 acre mushroom farm property directly across the lake to the west. The plan calls for the area of concern to be graded into tiers so that campsites have lake views. High berming and landscaping around the remaining three sides of the site is proposed to visually buffer the camping area from the surrounding industrial areas. The proposed recreational vehicle campgrounds are expected to be a major source of revenue for the operation and maintenance of Central Park, and may be used to fund additional new development as well. The schematic master plan is preliminary and conceptual in nature; uses now proposed may change as the plan is reviewed and refined. ACM& 00.: r, 56 2. Economic Considerations The economic impacts associated with development of the area of concern under the two alternative land use designations constitute a major issue to be analyzed in addressing the proposed amendment. The proposed recreational vehicle campground is planned to be City-owned and operated. The cost of acquiring the 10-acre site is estimated at $1,973,400, part of which is to be funded by State land and water conservation grants. Development of the facility could also be partially funded using state and federal grant funding sources. The City is currently considering hiring a consultant to perform an economic analysis of the proposed schematic master plan and as yet, no preliminary estimates of projected revenue from the campgrounds are available. 3. Public Services a. Sewers The area of concern is served by a 15-inch line in Gothard Street, which flows south to the Gothard pump station just south of Ellis Avenue. Development of the area of concern under either of the alternatives would create a significant increase in sewage compared to existing uses; however, the Department of Public Works has indicated that existing sewer capacities in the general area are adequate to accommodate any of the proposed alternatives. b. Water The area of concern is presently served by a 12-inch line that runs along the east side of Gothard Street, terminating at Ellis Avenue. Development within the area of concern under either of the alternatives studied could draw upon the Gothard line for water service. In addition, an eight-inch water main in Ellis Avenue east of Gothard Street would be required to be extended west approximately 600 feet to provide alternative service and adequate fire flows to the area of concern. C. Storm Drains The area of concern is characterized by a slight rise along the north-south meridian of the site; as a result drainage from the west half of the area flows to Ellis Avenue and into Sully-Miller Lake while drainage from the east half of the area 57 flows east to Gothard Street. Drainage patterns would presumably stay the seine under industrial or park open space development, but would be altered if the proposed recreational vehicle campground were developed. Under this proposal, all drainage would flow into Sully-Miller Lake due to terraced grading and high berms on three sides. The Department of Public Works indicates that either alternative could be accommodated with surface flow and existing facilities. Additional facilities to control the quality of runoff into the lake may be desirable. d. Parks The open space land use designation has been proposed for the area of concern so that it may be incorporated into Huntington Central Park. Staff is concurrently processing an amendment to the City's Open Space and Conservation Element to analyze the feasibility of expanding Central Park from 297 to 373 acres. The area of concern is part of a larger area addressed in the Open Space and Conservation Element Amendment. The site is proposed for recreational vehicle camping in response to an ever-growing demand for recreational vehicle facilities in California and as a source of revenue for the development, operation, and maintenance of other planned park activities. The area of concern complements a larger RV camping area planned for the mushroom farm site. The two sites would accommodate a total of 800 vehicles at an overall density of 23 spaces per acre. Amendment of the City's General Plan to reflect recreational use of the area of concern would improve the City's ability to acquire the site for public use. The open space designation allows the City to utilize state and federal grant sources in addition to local park acquisition and development funds. The State has tentatively approved $609,600 in land and water conservation grant funds for acquisition of the site, and has indicated that it would be given high priority for additional development funding if acquired by the City by September 1,980. The proposed open space land use designation is a necessary prerequisite to the City receiving state assistance for acquisition and development of the area. The proposed recreational vehicle campground would provide additional camping opportunities and visitor accommodations in the city. At the present time, only about 30 RV or travel trailer spaces are available on a year round basis, located in the privately owned and operated Huntington by the Sea Mobile Home Park at Pacific Coast Highway and Newland Street. These 30 spaces are generally full during the summer with about a 25 percent vacancy rate during the winter. From Akkf 58 F) September to May, the City makes available 150 spaces in the Huntington City Beach parking lot for RV and trailer camping. These spaces are often completely full on weekends and about 50 to 75 percent full during the week. Additional camping facilities are planned for Sunset Aquatic Park (72 spaces to be developed by 1985) and Huntington State Beach (50-100 spaces similar to City operation). As originally planned, the area of concern was to be developed prior to the mushroom farm area, primarily due to land availability and overall costs. However it may prove to be more feasible from a planning standpoint to acquire and develop the larger facility first, thereby developing the park area from the inside out. Additional revenues from the proposed weekend swap meets on the larger site could be realized sooner, and the compatibility of these activities assessed to determine if additional camping spaces are warranted. The area of concern could retain its present industrial designation; however, by postponing redesignation of the site to open space, an industrial development could take place on all or a portion of the site, precluding future open space. use. The southern half of the site is somewhat protected from development, as it is owned by the mushroom farm operator, and presumably would be phased out at the same time as the mushroom farm. Because the area of concern is a potentially attractive site for new industrial development, redesignation to open space should take place soon if it is determined that the site is to be part of Huntington Central Park. C. Police and Fire Protection Police service for the area of concern is provided by the City of Huntington Beach, which operates from one central facility located at Main Street and Yorktown Avenue. The proposed recreational vehicle campground would also be under the surveillance of the City's park ranger. No additional level of police service is anticipated under either of the alternatives. The area of concern is located directly adjacent to the City's Gothard Fire Station, and as a result, fire protection is adequate for both alternative land use designations. JOML 59 f. Gas and Electrical Utilities Natural gas service and electrical service are provided by the Southern California Gas Company and Southern California Edison, respectively. Natural gas to the area of concern is available via a six-inch line in Gothard Street. Electrical service is available from 12KV overhead lines along the west side of Gothard Street. 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 1980 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. g. Solid Waste Disposal The Rainbow Disposal Company provides solid waste collection to the City of Huntington Beach. No local service constraints are expected under either of the alternative 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. 4. Traffic Circulation The area of concern is bounded by Ellis Avenue, a planned primary arterial with an estimated average daily traffic volume of 1,200 vehicles, and by Gothard Street, a secondary arterial with an AMML 60 average daily volume of 4,800 vehicles. Traffic generated by the proposed land use alternatives are as follows: Industrial 450 trips Open Space-park 44 trips Open Space-RV camping 230 trips Development of the area of concern under either of the alternative land use designations would create an increase in traffic compared to existing uses. The open space designation, even if developed as a recreation vehicle campground, would produce only half the daily traffic of a new industrial building according to data obtained from the City's transportation demand model. Neither alternative significantly impacts planned street capacities on arterials in the general area, although short term congestion may occur on Ellis Avenue until the primary arterial is fully improved. 5. Environmental Issues a. Geotechnical The area of concern lies immediately north of the Bolsa-Fairview Fault, and is generally located within the Newport-Inglewood Structural Zone. The Newport-Inglewood Zone is a relatively recent fault system comprised of numerous short, discontinuous, and intertwined faults located deep in the bedrock beneath the Orange County coastal plain. The Bolsa-rairview Fault is one of three known faults in Huntington Beach considered to be geologically active and subject to possible future surface rupture. This potential is considered to be greater in the northern portion of the City, and the area of concern is not located within the Alquist-Priolo Geologic Hazard Special Study Zone. Liquefaction potential within the area of concern is considered to be low due to the site's elevation on the Huntington Beach Mesa, lack of near-surface groundwater, and soil with high clay content. Appropriate structural requirements should be imposed by the City to minimize potential earthquake damage, which could include limiting placement of structures on the southern 30-50 feet of the site to avoid the Bolsa-Fairview Fault. The schematic master plan for Huntington Central Park proposes that the topography of the site be altered so that campsites are terraced to take full advantage of the site's lakeside orientation. Such alteration would affect drainage patterns and slope stability. Erosion control measures should be required if the open space land use designation is approved for the area of concern. 61 b. Noise Offsite noise sources affecting the area of concern include automobile and truck traffic on Ellis Avenue and Gothard Street, the mushroom farm, fire training center, Orange County Transfer station, and other nearby industrial uses, police pistol range and heliport, and the Southern Pacific Railroad. While industrial uses on the site would be rather insensitive to the above noise sources, development of the proposed recreational vehicle campground would require considerble noise alteration in order to create an attractive quiet setting. For this reason, heavily landscaped berms have been incorporated into the proposal, to be located along the north, east and south edges of the site. C. Development of the area of concern under either the industrial or open space designation would affect air quality within the South Coast Air Basin, primarily due to increased automobile and truck traffic generated by land uses. The projected daily emissions generated by the alternative land use designations are as follows: Emission Source Tons of Emission/Day Industrial Mobile .09 Stationary neg 1. Total .09 Open Space-Park Mobile .01 Stationary negl• Total .01 Open Space-RV Camping Mobile .08 Stationary negl. Total .08 The estimated volume of pollution may be reduced as newer, more efficient vehicles replace older models and as public transit is expanded. 62 2.5.3 Staff Recommendation The above analysis indicates that the area of concern could feasibly accommodate either an open space or an industrial land use designation. The site's location adjacent to Sully-Miller Lake, lack of permanent structures, and preliminary approval of State Land and Water Conservation grant monies for acquisition and development of the site favor an open space designation. However, many factors also support retaining the existing industrial designation. The site is located along the Gothard Industrial Corridor and is surrounded on the north, east, and south by existing and planned industrial uses. The site is well suited for industrial use due to its location at the intersection of two arterials, flat topography and stable soil content, division into two 5-acre sites (with the possibility of eventual consolidation), and the availability of adequate public facilities and utilities. In 1974, the City received a $175,000 grant from the Economic Development Administration to help finance improvements to Gothard Street as a means of attracting industry along the corridor. The grant was accepted with the City's commitment to increase employment opportunities along the Gothard corridor and development of the area of concern could add appreciably to industrial employment along the corridor. Recent development in this area indicates that there is substantial demand for vacant 5-10 acre industrial sites along Gothard Street. An important consideration in analyzing the two alternative land uses is the fiscal impact of subsequent development of the area of concern. Open space uses generally require significant investment of local public funds for acquisition, development, and continued maintenance. However, the area of concern is proposed to be acquired using a combination of State grant monies and revenues from the sale of surplus City-owned property. Additional state funds are proposed to match City funds for development of a recreational vehicle campground, and revenues from the operation of this facility are to pay for continued operation and maintenance, based on preliminary projections from the Community Services Department. While the availability of state funds to aid in acquisition and development of a recreational vehicle campground is an inducement for redesignating the area of concern for open space, there are feasible alternatives that would allow the site to be retained for industrial use. The state grant could be applied to other locations nearer the beach or within Central Park on land that is already designated as open space in the Land Use Element. The City presently owns approximatey 117 gross acres within Central Park that are undeveloped, some of this area may be suitable for development of the proposed recreational vehicle campground. The schematic master plan for Central Park is considered preliminary, pending an economic feasibility analysis of the uses and activities proposed. The economic analysis is intended to provide data to support the schematic plan or suggest feasible alternatives. Until the results of the economic analysis have A=& .,00) mom 4 63 been presented, staff recommends retaining the industrial designation, for the area of concern. 2.5.4 Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission recommends that the 10.00 acre area of concern located north of Ellis Avenue and west of Gotha.d Street retain the existing industrial land use designation, as depicted in Figure 2-i2. At the October 21, 1980 public hearing, the Planning Commission deleted t',e Ellis-Gothard area from Land Use Element Amendment 60-2. An appeal has subsequently been filed to the City Council for reconsideration. 2.6 Environmental Changes In accordance with California Enironmenta! Quality Act guidelines, art 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 alternative land uses in Section 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4 and 2.5. 2.6.1 Short-Term and Long-Term Productivity Amendment 80-2 seeks to identify short-range issues within a context o; 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. 2.6.2 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 topograhy will experience a negligiole degree of modification. Construction materials of mineral origin will also be neeoed for development to occur, and fossil fuels will be commitLed for long periods to satisfy local energy demand. However, such development would be consistent with existing land use designations. i 64 2.6.3 Growth Inducing Impacts The proposed amendment will also have growth inducing effects within the areas of concern. An additional population of 2,465 persons could be generated by uses under Land Use Element Amendment 80-2, thereby creating an increased demand on public services and utilities and incrementally affecting air quality, water quality, traffic, and noise levels. The incremental impact on air quality would add a maximum of 3.22 tons of emissions per day to the South Coast Air Basin. The land uses under consideration in accord with General Plan policies and programs should mitigate many of the adverse effects generated by the expected growth. The demand for water and energy will likely increase as a result of the proposed land uses in this amendment. Conservation measures can be implemented to reduce these impacts. The following water conservation measures are recommended for the community at large and individual structures where appropriate. (1) Reduce evaporation from reservoirs by encouraging underground storage or coating water surfaces with evaporation hindering films or substances. (2) Encourage tertiary treatment of and reuse of the return flow of public water supplies wherever such use is acceptable and safe. (3) Discourage development in areas where airconditioning 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 available. (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. The following energy conservation measures are recommended for new structures: (1) Open gas lighting should not be used in public or private buildings. 65 (2) Electric lights should be strategically olaced to maximize the,:• efficiency. Their size and power consuription 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 shodid be used in structures where windows are not shaded by exterior architectural projections or mature plants. mom ONE" 66 3.0 AMENDMENT SUMMARY The following table summarizes the proposed land use amendments addressed in Section 2.0 as recommended by the Planning Commission. 3.1 Summary of Proposed Land Use Element Amendment 80-2 PROPOSED LAND USE ACREAGE SUMMARY Land Use Existing Proposed Net Category Gross Acres Gross Acres Gross Acres RESIDENTIAL Estate (0-2 un/ac) 20.00 29.69 + 9.69 Estate (0-4 un/ac) 26.63 31.46 + 4.83 Low Density 48.46 38.33 -10.13 COMMERCIAL 5.21 15.34 +10.13 INDUSTRIAL 24.52 10.00 -14.52 RESOURCE PRODUCTION 16.01 16.01 -0- Total land area involved in Amendment 80-2: 140.83 acres. NET PROJECTED POPULATION CHANGE Residential Net Gross Max. Units Total Population Types Acres Per Gross Acre Units Per Unit Population Estate (0-2 un/ac) + 9.69 2 19 3.50 + 66 Estate (0-4 un/ac) + 4.83 4 19 3.50 + 66 Low Density -10.13 7 70 3.20 -224 - 92 67 APPENDICES 69 APPENDIX A FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT 80-2 In cooperation with Ultrasystems, Inc., the computerized fiscal impact methodology was . used to analyze the proposed land uses presented in Land Use Element Admendment 80-2. The fiscal impact evaluation encompassed the land use alternatives considered for areas of concern 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, and 2.4. Area 2.5 (Ellis - Gothard Area) was excluded because the City is considering the hiring of a consultant to perform an economic analysis of the proposed schematic master plan for Central Park as a whole. Area 2.1 (Ellis - Goldenwest Area) Three land use alternatives were evaluated for the 46.63 acre area located south of Ellis Avenue and east of Goldenwest Street: 1) Estate Residential - 146 estate homes with a sale price ranging from $250,000 to 717 per unit. 2) Industrial - 769,000 square feet of industrial space with an estimated value of $26;563,7 0. 3) Medium/High Density Residential - 950 condominiums with a sale price ranging from to $IUU,UUU per unit. Table 1 shows that, over the 10-year period chosen, the two proposed residential alternatives generate a surplus ranging from $232,600 for the estate alternative to $496,400 for the medium/high density residential option on a cash flow basis. The industrial alternative has a deficit of $404,200. Area 2.2 (Adams - Beach Area) This area of concern covers 59.55 acres located south of Adams Avenue and east of Beach Boulevard. The following four land use options were analyzed: 1) Low/Hi h DensitX Residential - 268 low density condominums with an average sale price of $11U,UUU; 5U4 high density condominiums with an average sale price of $90,000; and 16,000 square feet of retail commercial space with an estimated value of $434,500. 2) Low/Medium Densit Residential - 59 single-family homes with an average sale price o ; 5V5 medium density condominiums with an average sale price of $100,000; and 16,000 square feet of retail commercial space with an estimated value of $434,500. 3) Medium/High Density Residential - 575 medium density condominiums with an average sale price o 1 , ; 504 high density condominiums with an average sale price of $90,000; and 16,000 square feet of retail commercial space with an estimated value of $434,500. 4) Low/Medium Density Residential - 268 low density condominiums with an average sale price of 110,000; 218 medium density condominiums with an average sale price of $100,000; and 16,000 square feet of retail commercial space with an estimated value of $434,500. Table 2 shows that all four land use alternatives generate a net surplus to the City over the next ten years. The medium/high density option (Alternative 3) produces the highest surplus - $1,035,300. The other alternatives generate surpluses ranging from $662,800 for the low/medium density option (Alternative 4) to $924,000 for the low/high density option (Alternative 1). Area 2.3 (Warner - Beach Area) This area of concern occupies 10.18 acres located south of Warner Avenue and west of Beach Boulevard. The applicant has requested that the site be included within a multi-story suffix area to allow construction of a 600,000 square foot office complex with an estimated value of $60,000,000. Table 3 indicates that this proposal will generate a net surplus of $20,900 over the 10-year period of study. Area 2.4 (Warner - Magnolia Area) Three land use alternatives were evaluated for the 10.13 acre site located north of Warner Avenue and west of Magnolia Street: 1) Low Density Residential - 70 condominiums with an average sale price of $110,000 per unit. 2) High Density Residential - 253 apartment units with an average value of $52,000 per unit. 3) Commercial (Office) - 151,000 square feet of office space with an estimated value of $22,000,000. Table 4 shows that, over the 10-year period selected, all three land use alternatives have a deficit ranging from $67,500 for the office alternative to $230,000 for the low density residential alternative. Cumulative Fiscal Impact of LUE 80-2 In addition to evaluating each area of concern separately, the cumulative fiscal implications of Land Use Element Amendment 80-2 should be considered by decision-makers. As shown in Tables 1-4, the total fiscal impact of the amendment is optimized if the medium/high density residential alternatives are selected for Areas 2.1 and 2.2, and the commercial (office) options are selected for Areas 2.3 and 2.4. This scenario would generate a maximum surplus of $1,485,100 over the next ten years. The least favorable combination of land uses from a fiscal standpoint occurs if industrial is selected for Area 2.1, low/medium density residential (Alternative 4) for Area 2.2, commercial (office) for Area 2.3, and low density residential for Area 2.4. However, this scenario still results in a net surplus of $49,500 over the ten-year period chosen. The significance of these results is that any combination of land uses selected will generate a positive fiscal impact on the City. TABLE 1: TEN-YEAR SUMMARY COMPARISON OF THE PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES FOR THE ELLIS-GOLDENWEST AREA (Area 2.1) Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Cash Flow Basis Estate Industrial Medium/High Density Revenue (1) 1,037.1 1,440.6 3,708.5 Cost (1) 804.5 1,844.8 3,212.1 Revenue-Cost (l) 232.6 -404.2 496.4 Revenue/Cost 1.29 0.78 1.16 (1) in $1,000 TABLE 2: TEN-YEAR SUMMARY COMPARISON OF THE PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES FOR THE ADAMS-BEACH AREA (Area 2.2) Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Low/High Low/Medium Density Medium/High Low/Medium Cash Flow Basis Density East of Channel Density Density Revenue (1) 4,269.8 3,785.9 5,396.4 3,138.5 Cost (1) 3,345.8 3,096.8 4,361.1 2,475.7 Revenue-Cost (1) 924.0 689.1 1,035.3 662.8 Revenue/Cost 1.28 1.22 1.24 1.27 (1) In $1,000 TABLE 3: TEN-YEAR SUMMARY COMPARISON OF THE PROPOSED OFFICE COMPLEX FOR THE WARNER-BEACH AREA (Area 2.3) Commercial Cash Flow Basis (Office) Revenue (1) 1,046.6 Cost (1) 1,025.7 Revenue - Cost (1) 20.9 Revenue/Cost 1.02 (1) in $1,000 TABLE 4: TEN-YEAR SUMMARY COMPARISON OF THE PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES FOR THE WARNER-MAGNOLIA AREA (Area 2.4). Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Low High Commercial Cash Flow Basis Density Density (Office) Revenue (1) 329.3 706.8 594.4 Cost (1) 559.3 932.6 661.9 Revenue - Cost (1) -230.0 -225.8 -67.5 Revenue/Cost 0.59 0.76 0.90 (1) in $1,000 LSiiC':: o OY_ APPENDIX E i rr L !u PBQ&D,Inc. h;tt�iiu r+rs•Arr.tuti cth•1'lannc�rs September 24, 1980 Ms. June Catalano Senior Planner - Advanced Planning City of Huntington Beach P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648 SUBJECT: Preliminary Executive Summary Report Mola Traffic Studies Dear June: At your request and prior to final completion of the project, enclosed is a preliminary copy of the Executive Summary for the Traffic Report prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. , for the Mola Development Corporation. Please bear in mind that this report is a draft; the project will be finalized when Bob Goedhart returns from vacation. Should you need further information, please give me or Mr. Robert Bramen a call . Sincerely, / Mic ael /I . Schneider Principal If enclosure Suite 450, 2323 North Broadway•Santa Ana Financial Center•Santa Ana,California 92706•714-541-4147 A Subsidiary of Parsons Brinckerhoff Qua.de&Douglas,Inc. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This is a traffic report on a proposed 8.1 acre office and commercial development at the southwest corner of Beach Boulevard and Warner Avenue in Huntington Beach, California. The scope of the traffic report is focused on five topic areas: • Trip Generation - Determination of daily and peak hour vehicle trip ends expected to be generated by the development. • Existing Level of Service - Determination of intersection level of service at Beach and Warner as determined by field observations and analysis. • Trip Distribution - Determination of the local allocation of develop- ment generated trips to travel paths or streets in the area, using the Huntington Beach Transportation Demand Model as a basis. • Assignment Analysis and Impacts - Estimation of daily and relevant peak hour traffic volume impacts on arterial streets and evaluation of the significance of those impacts. • Parking and Mitigation Measures - Investigation of proposed parking against implied requirements from trip generation and other con- siderations, and identification of possible mitigation measures for the traffic impacts of the development. The report is intended to be informational in nature, giving objective consideration to the traffic implications of the development based on the information available at this stage of project planning. Project Site. The project site (See Figure 1) is bounded by Beach Boulevard on the east, Warner Avenue on the north, Ash Street on the west, Sycamore Avenue and Elm Street on the southwest. The southern boundary of the site conforms to the boundary line of the Ocean View School District property, separating the site from existing office professional and residential uses fronting on Beach Boulevard and Elm Street southerly to Cypress Avenue. Beach Boulevard (California State Highway 39) and Warner Avenue are major arterial streets. Ash Street, Sycamore Street, and Cypress Avenue are local streets serving residential uses to the immediate south and west of the project site. Proposed Project. The proposed project would remove existing abandoned school buildings belonging to the Ocean View School District and would rede- velop the site. Site development would include construction of a twelve-story office tower in the northwest quadrant of the site, with on-site circulation and parking in the western and southern portions of the site. Preliminary plans call for the tower's plaza level to include a financial institution with drive-in teller services. The other 11 tower floors would serve professional and general office uses. The proposed project would, in the aggregate, entail the development of 198,625 gross square feet of building floor area along with 662 parking spaces and internal circulation, on-site, to serve the development. i 1 Edinger Avenit > 90 e o m s u D d m Heil Avenue R E S I D E N T I A L R E S I. D E N T I A Warner Avenu SCHOOL HIGH SCHOOL Sycamore Ave INDUSTRIAL a TT Blaylock Drive Cypre Ave F-1 F I J V) V) -Ne t E R E S I D E N T I A L ro 0 o Q w R E S I D E N T I A L Slater Avenu FIGURE 1 l�'�JC�DITl � PROJECT SITE �o51 �0 Existing Traffic Conditions. Existing traffic conditions in the project area were established through review of existing data, plus field studies and turning movement counts conducted by Parsons Brinckerhoff. Readily available traffic volume data for Beach Boulevard and Warner Avenue was limited to daily volume totals summarized on the City's annual count map, plus published CALTRANS annual average daily and peak month average daily volumes for Beach Boulevard. 1978 City traffic volume figures (the latest available at the time of this report) indicated 25,000 vehicles per day for Warner west of Beach, and 20,500 for Warner east of Beach. 1979 State-published volumes on Beach Boulevard were 48,000 vehicles per day for Beach north of Warner, and 44,000 vehicles per day for Beach south of Warner. Summertime seasonal traffic pushes the average daily traffic volumes on Beach to 51,000 north of Warner, and 42,000 south of Warner during the peak summer months. Beach Boulevard and Warner Avenue are both classified as major arterials. The daily maximum traffic carrying capability generally associated with this facility classification is 45,000 vehicles per day. Warner Avenue serves as a principal east-west arterial in the City of Huntington Beach. It extends all the way west to Pacific Coast Highway and currently provides the only direct inland access north of Golden West Street to the Huntington Beach coastline. East of Beach Boulevard, Warner Avenue provides a key route between central Huntington Beach and the southbound San Diego Free- way, as well as connecting Huntington Beach with the cities of Fountain Valley and Santa Ana to the east. Beach Boulevard is generally recognized as the most heavily used coastal access corridor in the City of Huntington Beach. North of Warner, Beach Boulevard provides access to the Edinger Avenue commercial area, the northbound San Diego Freeway, and inland communities in Orange County. South of Warner Avenue, Beach Boulevard serves as the City's principal north-south arterial, extending southerly to Pacific Coast Highway. Morning and afternoon peak period turning movement counts at Beach Boulevard and Warner Avenue were conducted by Parsons Brinckerhoff in conjunction with this traffic analysis investigation. The afternoon peak hour is the heavier of the two peak hours. Afternoon peak hour volumes handled by the intersection (Spring, 1980) were 5,791 vehicles per hour. The corresponding morning peak hour volumes were 4,523 vehicles per hour. Analysis of Future Traffic (Without the Project) Future traffic levels likely to be experienced in the project vicinity not including the project) were closely examined. Parsons Brinckerhoff staff re-ran the Huntington Beach Transportation Demand Model for 1995 conditions without the project, after re-examining zonal access assumptions for the development zone in question. Select link runs were made and analyzed for all approach links to the Beach/Warner intersection. Model-generated assignments of traffic associa- ted with those approach links were refined and adjusted by hand, ultimately producing scenarios of future traffic levels in the area without the project. Anticipated stability of turning movement patterns at the Beach/Warner intersection was also considered. The results of this analysis indicated that estimated 1995 daily traffic volumes (without the project) would rise to 51,000 on Beach north of Warner; 45,000 on Beach south of Warner; 28,000 on Warner west of Beach; and 28,000 on Warner east of Beach. 1995 volumes at the Beach/Warner intersection were established at 6,452 for the afternoon peak hour. Seasonal peaks will likely result in higher daily traffic volume levels than those stated here, but the effect on the late afternoon weekday peak hour will not be as great as on the daily totals. Project Trip Generation. After careful consideration of the nature of office uses proposed for the site, daily and peak hour vehicle trip-end generation factors were selected for the proposed development. Based on these factors, it is estimated that the project will generate approximately 2,867 vehicle trips per day, with approximately 566 of these occurring in the afternoon peak hour. Project Trip Distribution. A new complete run of the Huntington Beach Transportation Demand Model was executed assuming the proposed development in place with special computer-generated trips on Beach Boule- vard, Warner Avenue, and other streets expected to be impacted near the project area. Hand techniques were then employed to refine local circulation patterns expected in the immediate vicinity of the site. Project Assignment Analysis and Impacts. On a daily basis, the estimated additional traffic volumes from the project are approximately 775 vehicles per day on Beach Boulevard, north on Warner; 750 vehicles per day on Warner, east of Beach; 720 vehicles per day on Warner, west of Beach; and 630 vehicles per day on Beach, south of Warner. Projected volumes on Warner Avenue are well below the maximum daily volume levels associated with the major arterial roadway classification (45,000 as cited earlier). The project is expected to contribute traffic to a facility (Beach Boulevard) whose current volumes are at, or over, the 45,000 threshold. The project's contribution to that volume is expected to be between 1.3 percent and 1.5 percent on a daily basis. Vehicle Miles Traveled. Trip-making associated with the project is estimated to correspond approximately to a 10,800 daily vehicle mile addition to the Huntington Beach Transportation Demand Model runs made with and without the development. Intersection of Beach and Warner. For each of three different sets of condi- tions current conditions, future conditions without project, and future condi- tions with project) a separate analysis was made of the following: • Intersection turning movements (observed or estimated) for the after- noon peak hour. • Estimated level of service at the intersection on an hourly basis for the afternoon peak hour, as determined by critical lane volumes analysis. • Estimated level of service at the intersection on an hourly basis for the afternoon peak hour, as determined by critical lane volumes analysis. BEACH/WARNER INTERSECTION Hourly Demand(1) Sum of Level of Approximate (All Approaches, Critical Lane Service Volume/Capacity All Lanes) Volumes (2) Ratio Current Conditions (1980) 59971 1 ,624 E(3) 0.98 Future Without Project 6,452 1 ,645 E 1.00 Future With Project (5) 6,806 1 ,817 over- 1 . 10 (1) Hourly demand is in vehicles per hour. (2) Sum of critical lane volumes is in passenger car equivalents per hour. (3) Under current conditions, the northbound Beach Boulevard approach to the intersection is over-saturated for part of the hour, during which the timing of the Beach Boulevard northbound movement appears to cut off part of the departing queue of vehicles. (4) "Future Without Project," conditions were analyzed envisioning Warner Avenue would be developed to full ultimate cross-section as a major arterial. (5) "Future With Project" conditions were analyzed envisioning Warner Avenue would be developed to full ultimate cross-section as a major arterial. The results of these analyses are briefly summarized below. The future demand and critical lane volume estimates were derived under assumptions deemed most appropriate for the purposes of the analysis. Actions which would help mitigate the impact of the project at the Beach/Warner intersection are discussed below. Mitigation Measures Principal mitigation considerations for the proposed project focus on the intersec- tion operation at Beach and Warner, access provisions onto Warner Avenue, and internal project circulation layout and design. • Intersection Operation at Beach and Warner. Project generated traffic will contribute to critical lane volumes on eastbound Warner. Intersection level of service is a function of the sum of critical lane volumes. South- bound Beach Boulevard movements contribute substantially to the esti- mated sum of critical lane volumes. The overall intersection level of service could be improved (sum of critical lane volumes reduced) if future roadway improvements were to result in a clear right-turn-only lane in addition to the three existing through lanes on the southbound Beach Boulevard approach. As an illustration of the mitigating effect, the lane addition referred to would reduce the estimated sum of critical volumes by approximately 53 passenger car equivalents per hour. Similarly, westbound Warner demands contribute to the critical volume total. If Warner were ultimately developed to result in a westbound approach consisting of three through lanes plus a right-turn-only lane, the esti- mated sum of critical volumes could be further reduced by approximately 49 passenger car equivalents per hour. Furthermore, if the eastbound Warner Avenue approach were to be developed to provide dual left turn lanes, two through lanes, and a through-plus-right-turn lane at the curb, the critical volume total would be reduced by approximately 203 passenger car equivalents per hour. The cumulative effect of these three measures would be to reduce the intersection critical lane volume total from 1,817 to 1,512, bringing the volume to capacity ratio down to 0.92 and the operating condition from "over-saturated" back into Level of Service E. • Access Provisions onto Warner Avenue. Conditions in the site vicinity will tend to place emphasis on Warner Avenue for traffic destined north- bound away from the site. It will be unlikely that northbound traffic will be permitted direct left turn egress from the site to northbound Beach Boulevard; this would require a new median cut on Beach Boulevard at a location frequently filled with standing vehicles in the northbound traffic lanes during the current peak hour. Also, the local street network to the south and southwest of the project site is not suitable for carrying signifi- cant development traffic. Therefore, street access for development traffic bound north, west, and east from the site will necessarily be via Warner Avenue for a substantial portion of the development traffic. Access to/from Beach Boulevard will almost certainly be right-turn in-only from southbound Beach Boulevard into the development, and right-turn out-only from the development onto southbound Beach Boule- vard. Traffic volumes departing the site via Warner Avenue will include significant demands for westbound Warner away from the site, for eastbound Warner to turn left at Beach, and for eastbound Warner straight through the intersection at Beach. Field observation of traffic gaps on Warner Avenue suggest that ;protected egress from the site to westbound Warner may be necessary; traffic is sufficiently heavy and consistent on Warner Avenue to make uncontrolled left turns out of the site difficult during the afternoon peak hour. Semi-actuated signai control at a north, exit from the site may need to be considered from safety and side-street interruption standpoints. Such control would need to be coordinated with the Beach/Warner traffic signal. A related consideration is the placement of the principal exit from the site onto Warner Avenue. In addition to the usual criterion, of compati- bility with major entrances planned for development on the north side of Warner, exit placement on Warner will need to consider adequate transi- tion distances for traffic turning right onto Warner and desiring to turn left at Beach. A site layout and circulation scheme which moves the Warner access further west from its initially proposed location may result in better traffic operations in the project area. As another potential mitigation consideration, the possibility of utilizing Ash Street as the principal Warner access may deserve further considera- tion. In order for this to be workable, Ash Street would have to be widened on the east side; the present obstructions and substandard roadway width are not adequate otherwise. Driveway access from the development would then be provided onto Ash Street, and access onto Warner Avenue would be obtained from the Ash/Warner intersection. Semi-actuated signal control provided at the Ash intersection would then benefit not only the proposed development, but also the surrounding residential area to the south and west of the development. A drawback of this scheme is the need to take project land for the roadway widening. Our review of the preliminary site plan indicated this might reduce the on-site parking supply by approximately 20 spaces, but it is believed that code-required parking space totals could still be maintained on the site. • Parking All parking for the development is to be accommodated on-site in a proposed total of 683 parking spaces. Proposed parking facilities are at-grade parking areas, principally west and south of the proposed tower structure. Under this traffic impact investigation, the adequacy of the total spaces , proposed was verified by comparing parking space per trip end relation- ships for this proposed office complex to actual parking and trip end relationships for comparable deveiopments in Southern California. Consistent with the business activity anticipated at the site, peak parking accumulation will occur midday (between approximately iO AM and 3 PM), tapering off toward the end of the business day. Night and weekend parking demands are not expected to be significant. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION WNnW.MN{EACH To : Chuck Clark From: Jim Barnes Subject: EIR 80-3 Date : July 1, 1980 (GPA 80-2) Pursuant to our recent conversation, I have attached a copy of the initial study which identifies issues to be addressed in the EIR for General Plan Ammendment 80-2 (Land Use Element) . If you have any questions please let me know. FNVIRONMENTA1. CHECPI.Iti; FORM I. Background I. Name of Proponent City of Huntington Beach 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent P.O. Box 190 3. Date of Checklist Submission July 1, 1980 4. Agency Requirinp Checklist Development Services Dept. 5. Name of Proposal , if applicable Ammendment to the Land Use El ent of the General P an (GPA 0 II. Environmental Impacts (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attaches sheets. ) YES MAYBE NO 1. F;arth. 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 Tnodi- fication of any unique geologic or physical features? _ -X e. Any .increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off tine site? _ y X f. Changes in deposition; or erosion of beach sinds , or chanties in siltntion , deposition or erosion which may Tr,odifv 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. l.he 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 qual.i.ty, including but not limited to temperature , dissolved oxygen or turbidity? f. Al toraLion 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 intercept.i.on of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? X h. Substantial reduction, in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? _ X i . Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? X Yr:S MAYBE 4. Hant 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 , r:;re 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? _ 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? _ b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? X 7. Lipht and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? —X— _ rr R. 1.an(t Us_o. W1.11 the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? X r ITS MA Y B F NO 9. Natural Resources. W1.11 the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? 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 , biit 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 urea? X 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? X 13. 'rransportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in : a. Ceneration 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 hoods? _ _ X e. Alterations to waterborne , rail or a.ir 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 : 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? 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 : �:•J' 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? 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Greation 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 w YES MAYBE NO 19. Recreation. Will the pronosal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? X 20. Archeological/historical. Will tbv 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? 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 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 suhstantial adverse. effects on human beings , either directly or indirectly? Ill . Discussion of Environmental Evaluation IV. P.eterminationfi `4 On the basis of this initial evaluation : 1 ti.nd that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment , and a NEGATIVE DFCLARATION will be prepared . L 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 NECATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment , and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required . $ 0 A C- �, Date Sig ture For II ' EXPLANATIONS OF "YES" AND "MAYBE"ANSWERS l.b Construction on the subject sites will result in removal of a substantial amount of soil. However specific impacts are too speculative to address at this point. l.c Construction on the subject sites may result in significient changes in topography. A significant amount of filling will be required to develop areas 2 . 1 and 2. 2 . l.g The city. wide geologic hazards study prepared by Leighton Yen and Associates indicates that the Bolsa-Fairview fault tranverses areas 2 . 1 and 2. 4 and the North Branch fault is in close proximity to area 2 . 2. 2. a Projects which are eventually constructed on - the sites could significantly affect ambient air quality. Areas 2 . 1 and 2 . 2 , and 2 . 3 involve substantial increases in density and intensity of use. A cumulative assessment of air quality impacts should be prepared taking into account existing air quality standards. 3.b Projects which are eventually constructed on the sites will substantially decrease water absorption rates and increase runoff. Area 2 . 2 is at a lower elevation then surrounding areas and experiences poor drainage. However specific impacts regarding drainage on the subject sites are too speculative to address at this point. 3.d The decreased water absorption rates and increased runoff resulting from project which will be constructed on the sites may increase the amount of water in local flood control channels. 4 .a None of the areas have significant stands of trees or other vegetation. Area 2. 2 has standing water throughout the year and therefore may exhibit some of the characteristics of a wetland. Since no rare or endangered species of plants or animals are known to inhabit any of the areas , the impact is not anticipated to be significant. 5. a See 4a above. 6 . a Increased automobile traffic and short term construction activity from projects which will be constructed on the sites will result in increased noise levels on adjacent streets. However, specific impacts regarding noise are too speculative to address at this point. 7. Projects eventually constructed on the sites will result in new light and glare. However specific impacts are too speculative to address at this point. 8 . The proposed land use changes on areas 2 . 1 , 2 . 2 , and 2 . 3 will result in a substantial increase in the planned density and/or intensity of use for these areas . The cumulative physical social and economic effects of these proposals should be addressed. 10. There are existing oil operations on areas 2 . 1 and 2 . 2 . Necessary precautions will have to be taken when abandoning or relocating existing oil facilities. 11. The proposed land use changes on areas 2 . 1 and 2 . 2 will substantially increase population density in these areas. There will be secondary effect regarding the location and distribution of population citywide which should be addressed. 12. The proposed land use changes on areas 2 . 1 and 2 . 2 will potentially increase the total housing stock in the city. The potential development of these areas should be evaluated on the basis of whether goals and policies in the city' s newly adopted Housing Element are being met. 13 .a,c, f Projects eventually constructed on the sites will result in a substantial amount of automobile traffic which may significantly impact the city' s circulation system. Based on the number of additional trips generated by projects which will ultimately develop on the sites a general assissment of impacts on street and intersection capacities should be presented. 14 . a-e The potential increases in density and/or- intensity of use resulting from projects which will be developed on the sites may result in significant demand for additional public services. A general assessment of the concerns of potentially affected agencies and departments (ie. , Fire, Police, Public Works, Schools) should be determined and presented ' in the EIR. 16 .a-f The potential increases in density and/or intensity of use resulting from projects which will be developed on the sites may result in significant demand for the expansion of existing utility systems. A general assessment of the concerns of the potentially affected agencies should be determined and presented in the EIR. SECiIONAL DISTRICT MAP . 35-5-11 Cjr.1"vy ()I i, LEGEND 4. HUNFENGfON B11--AC1I ORANGE, (-10UNT )", (,ALIFORNIA. Apr-r-A z.I USE OF PROPERTY MAP TALBERT I I AVE. L iT C3 fl*tiCF- R r. ONTARR) DR I. CF-C Q 9L. -R, YUKON -All-LIN Elf, MY ELLV, AW -Ik CR 00, X (;AFIFIE.LD AVE. SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAF 12-6 -11 Sl9lf (N F'LET CITY of, CA G�IERAI.. F'LAM �t��.ti10ME:t'1T t30-Z,. AT,�A z.�L ORANGE' COU.N '.I:' Y', (.:A. t.,) FORN1A USE OF PROPERTY MAP ADAMS AVE 'l..r J.I__y-1J'.._.. fl •--- ---'.—..._...._.._-'-.^_ I ,s,—�� , 1. " TT Ll "77 _n.. �� f •1:f I _ 'I'�11.L. ;� I / -• I •.,>ixH.:Cq� , ,9MI;''7'j , / _L_- l 1 ••' 1011 Gut•'�11_—�-L.LL_u�xr 1 I -; jCF R "r /I 1.1.nr,� - i '�� i / I I .i II .t- x T 7''• I�y� 'i�[LII t04 i / l I t,;-I ,•�^u - ,i, �-; � i- ,TT T C F- E r= T_ _t >w!„._ :_ �,,..,-....,� - i��.l"�i,l•.III.I.i,l,I;i;l� 1 - � � I � ^?TI I � � ;• I '�; CF-R..1 '•l"� / i 17i 7 DR I I�,. �� I l ~ "�• .` ]IG IJ INDIAt'JAPJLIS 4VE � � REILL'I DR CF-E CR L r T IIERON CR `s ' +j I '{' 1 � CRANE CR I I -�-1" i KILL E nq ;�, I l 1'11• �1:�—T1� 6';' c•I� O Iol , _�.__q+l I •) I f � , ' I,j ul � � ' . Ii 4 4 ( t � . . • i �F,:x�-� I � i,I I xl I t I I f I I•f� I -i I svrtwiilR`ii- � aI ,__ Il' HliII-i- -rr I., i.I• --U��LlI �"5 �__I:.I I_.I.I..1...1�-, -_JZi.�__---.__._. AVE I'%NNING • I :� ECl- IUNAL DISTRICT MAP 26 -• 5 - ii &I: CITY O H V NTll \lJTON BEACH y �ti�� . G�'NERA,t._ f'1•.Q,.N•� AME.N�ME.t�LT �t0—�.:� AREA Z.3 OHANGyj COUNTY, CALIFORNIA USE OF PROPERTY MAP WARNER AVE' it -- ----- ; :;�'IF—Il ND:. I fIN AVE fiF CAIh_ �I vl' I x l:'..'iti., �'I:�i� �t:l.:l:.l' I I I I � .. ! .. ,• , e• I ' .l I ..-. _.._-.. _ > �:-,_ cj _F- J I. i m e Mul i —,Awrr. BE I II il. ._ _CF C F- C I I MNI(N—D%� 1 f.r.WIN I H Lill ; ' I i _ ,lid Iil�il.! •� I !i I ,--i---�--�,r— .,,L i I Lai C F-R ' •' I 'I;f�il'I'I II•!!`ill:lliil�i;: ... � .. . . . . . ' I j :':1� �liijl::ll' ;''I'.';: ' ' .. f;�r:n�n •--'—.T-_— % : . . .... I I I I I I I �I:ti �j'.1!Ilfl� :i:i!i ;II�I:!:j; : �i:ii;:� . � /--i--• ' .-J-----' W 1 -� AVE T' SEC ONAL DISTRICT MAP 35-5-11 C.Irr y OF LEGEND 1-1 U N rrl INCTON' b1 f"JACI-1 EKA L.. FLAI-A 0NvqR__t4 0 E:Z-U- 8 0 0RANGrh COU'NTYI, CALAFORNIA. USE OF PROPERTY MAP TALBERT I fAVE. Ln I TF, CF— R 1�1. L J, TT ONIARIO DR 7.- cr-C QUFIIIX DR C_ gAL.1 1. YUKON UR A AV[ F. .4 _ 1 . _. I-- . ._..__. I .. ---- _____._ -- % to IL 1 7 /rT-- GARFIELD r (7 AVE. ADDENDUM TO LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT 80-2 EIR COMMENTS AND RESPONSES �btate of California GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH 1.�111�TIj i Pr,I it 1400 TENTH STREET SACRAMENTO 95814 f l' 'w Ui_.f11' 77 EDMUND G. BROWN JR. (916) 445-0613 GOVERNOR P. 0. Box 190 f'luntingto 1 '' _,ch, CA 926,18 October 9, 1980 J. R. Barnes Hungting Beach, City of P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 SUBJECT: SCH 80082707 - AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN Dear Mr. Barnes: The State Clearinghouse submitted the above listed environmental document to selected State agencies for review. The review is complete and none of the State agencies have comments. This letter verifies your compliance with environmental review requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincere , 1 Stephen Williamson State Clearinghouse SW/pca %- ++ Enviranmentai Board CITY OF H.LjN i l!VGTO!V BEACH, lit Nrl.%(.TON BFA(1, Post 0"'(,u Box 190 . H•,nt!iic , �= Ch ii;),rli;i 9264 J' in Be '', TO: James R. Barnes, Associate Planner FROM: Irwin Haydock, Chairman DATE: October 14, 1980 SUBJECT: ELLIS-GOLDENWEST AREA - 2 . 1 OF GPA 80-2 The Environmental Board strongly recommends retaining the Estate Residen a1 designation on this area. We commend the Planning Commission and Staff C studying the entire area at this time instead of planning the area in a piecemeal fashion. The Environmental Board has historically supported the Estate developmen because of its preservation of the area' s unique topography, lesser dema for services, compatibility with Central Park, industrial uses and exist : 3 oil, positive tax benefit, ect. An alternative which was discussed was to retain Estate Residential on t southern section nearest Ellis and designate Ml-A-CD on the northern sec )n nearest Ernest, with the swale acting as the divider. The M1-A-CD would provide a buffer between the Estate Residential development and the more hardcore M1 uses which currently exist in the area just north of Ernest. Our Board has always recognized the employment and tax benefit to the Ci from industrial uses. We find the medium/high density residential total unacceptable . In an industrial study done by the City in 1976 , the use of this area fo industry was found infeasible because of the topography and lack of free, access. Quality industry would not locate here. However, by locating industry on the north side of the swale on level ground, perhaps would mitigate these factors. The Environmental Board therefore recommends retention of Estate Residen ; il on this property. Questions on areas of specific concern follow: LAND USE 2. 1. 2 (pg 7) Could Staff address the alternative of a combination of Estate Residential on the northerly section of property on M1-A-CD on the southerly section of property, with the swale acting as the natural divider? Ellis-Goldenwest Area October 14, 1980 Page 2 2. 1. 2. 1c (pg 9) A new traffic signal with an equestrian button has recently been installed at the corner of Ellis and Goldenwest Street Wouldn' t this help integrate the area of concern with equestrian uses and the park east of Goldenwest Street? Is there a possibility of using the culvert under Golden- west Street in the swale as an equestrian crossing? ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS 2. 1.2.2 (pg 10) Fiscal impacts of the three land use alternatives were to be detailed in appendix A which was missing from our copies . Could this be made available? It has always been the under- standing of our Board that Estate Residential was one of the few if not only land use with a positive tax flow to the City because of the high assessed value and relativel low need for services ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES 2. 1. 2. 6 (pg 15) Can preservation of the present topography be made a condition of any project which goes into this area? The topography of the area with its hills and swales is unique to the City and lends much to the aesthetics of the area for all who drive by. We feel preservation of open space and the existing topography should be a must for this area. 2. 1. 2. 6 (pg 15) There is a one hundred plus year old eucalyptus grove near Ernest Street on the north side of the area of concern. Will this grove be given consideration in planning the area as it is home for a number of birds, including the red shafted flicker, kestrel , red tailed and coopers hawks , turkey vultures, barn owls, etc? 2.1.2 .6 (pg 15) Which of the alternatives will be most compatible with wild life in the area? Has wildlife been addressed since the constant presence of water in the swale along with the cattails and marshy plants found there, along with the trees on the property and adjacent ranch uses all indicate the possible presence of larger than normal animal com- munities? do H Environmental Board CtiY OF HUNTING-iON BEACH M'.11 .10NRFA(H Po,,t Oil,,ce BOX 100 .;n i,:. itC;r,';i;i 921648, TO: James R. Barnes, Associate Planner FROM: Irwin Haydock, Chairman DATE: October 14, 1980 SUBJECT: ADAMS-BEACH BOULEVARD - GPA 2 . 2 MOLA DEVELOPMENT The Environmental Board has serious concerns about the preservation of the valuable wildlife habitat on this property. Particularly the ponding area along Beach used by large numbers of migiatory fowl . If these concerns can be mitigated, the Board favors Alternative #1 a providing the best mix of housing opportunities. The low density wil be most compatible with adjacent low density uses . High density uses along Beach could offer a creative way to offer diverse housing types to the public and is will buffered by the flood control channel from the low density uses. Possibily all or a portion of the wildlife habitat along Beach should be preserved. Specific concerns are: 1) This area is the very worst in the City for tule fog at the inter section of Beach and Adams . Will this fact be addressed in traff analysis. 2) Neither wildlife nor plantlife were addressed in the EIR. Should these factors be included since great numbers of migratory and in digneous birds do use the waters here at various times of the yea 3) It has been noticed that water here does not vary with tidal leve Is water here fresh or salt? Is there any indication that this o part of this area could be classified as a marsh or wetlands? 4) Should other agencies be contacted regarding possible impacts on sensitive habitat? do [OLijoe Environmental Board L�-�. CITY OF HIiNTINGI-ON BEACH 1110,11M.1c/N 111UH h.)"I Office Box 190 Be;wh, Gflilorrii,i 9AA8 TO: James R. Barnes, Associate Planner FROM: Irwin Haydock, Chairman DATE: October 14, 1980 SUBJECT: WARNER-BEACH AREA - GPA 80-2 The Environmental Board finds that the multi-story suffix is a good use for this area of concern. It will provide relief from the strip commercial look of Beach Blvd. and perhaps provide impetus for the upgrading of that surrounding area. Access to this project from Warner instead of Beach would seem to be the best way to mitigate negative impacts on Beach Blvd. traffic. SPECIFIC AREAS OF CONERN: 1) Are any seismic or soils tests available on this property from the City or former school occupying this site to aid in determining its suitability for multi-story uses? Many schools, etc. in the vicinity (e.g. Ocean View, Goldenwest College, City Yard) are experiencing ground sinkage. 2) Will seismic or soils tests be conducted? do Environmental Board CITY 0r H1UN 1 iNGJ BEACH tu llO$l Office Box 190 Htmiliiic;i�ir. BE'c3ci�, Ca!1mrm,i 9'.1648 TO: James R. Barnes, Associate Planner FROM: Irwin Haydock, Chairman DATE: October 14 , 1980 SUBJECT: WARNER-MAGNOLIA AREA - GPA 80-2 2 . 4 The Environmental Board finds that the general commercial use propose by the applicant is a good use for this area of concern and we recomn 3 approval for an office-condominium project. This use is the most compatible with existing adjacent single family homes. Connnor Drive should not be considered for access and Warner and/or Magnolia should be pursued. Specific Areas Of Concern: 1) Will the developer or the City pay the cost of upgrading water facilities necessary to allow development of the site? 2) What is the capacity of the adjacent flood control channel in ter of the type of storm it is designed to control. 3) Even with high traffic volumes, wouldn't this area be well within the five (5) minute response time for the Fire Department and mak an emergency access through Connor Drive unnecessary. do LOA-] & Environmental Board V-17kj (:I 1 Y )I 1 Il IN i IN(i 1 ON lil AC I III NIIN(JON III 4(It I�OsI �)1111'I` I)()\ I4)O I I I I I I I I I'll)I I)I I IiU,)I'11, ("I i I I(11 TO: James R. Barnes, Associate Planner FROM: Environmental Board, Irwin Haydock, Chairman DATE: October 14 , 1980 SUBJECT: ELLIS-GOTHARD AREA - GPA 80-2 (2. 5) The Environmental Board strongly recommends retention of the industrial designation on this land. Historically, this Board has supported preservation of the City' s industrial corridor. This corridor was General Planned by looking at a myriad of factors, how they interrelate and determining that a cohesive industrial corridor was the best use of the land. Federal money was taken by the City to improve Gothard Street in order to promote and serve our industrial area. Our City' s leaders made a committment to the industrial area in order to receive those funds. This Board opposes piecemeal planning and opposes taking this piece of property out from among surrounding industrial uses and destroying the integrity of the City' s industrial corridor. do d ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD I. Ellis-Goldenwest Area (2.0 A) Section 2.1.2 The swale as shown in Figure 2-4 could act as a natural divider between estate residential to the north and industrial to the south. However, the swale occupies almost 15 acres near Ellis Avenue. If it is desired to preserve the swale, little area would remain to develop estate residential units. The bulk of the buildable area on the site is concentrated south of the swale and would be devoted to industrial uses. Thus, it would be more logical to designate the Swale area as open space to buffer the park from industrial uses. If this is undesirable, an estate residential or industrial designation of the entire site would be most appropriate. B) Section 2.1.2.Ic The traffic signal at Ellis Avenue and Goldenwest Street would be most effective in integrating equestrian uses in the divided estate areas. C) Section 2.1.2.2 The fiscal impact analysis for this amendment has been incorporated as Appendix A. D) Section 2.1.2.6 Preservation of the present topography can be made a condition of approval of any project which develops within the study area. . E) Section 2.1.2.6 A complete list of vegetation and wildlife in the area of concern has not been compiled. Significant tree stands or wildlife areas could be incorporated into any of the three alternatives, though the industrial alternative may be the most difficult because of less flexibility with cluster F development. In order to determine the extent of vegetation and wildlife on site, a biologist report should be required prior to development. i i 2. Adams-Beach Area (2.2) i A) No response necessary. } B) A complete list of vegetation and wildlife in the area of concern has not been compiled. In order to determine the extent of vegetation and wildlife on site, a biologist report should be required prior to development. C) The Department of Public Works has indicated that the pond located on the site is attributed to a combination of runoff collecting in an area of x impermeable soils and high groundwater. D) This EIR was circulated for comment to all State agencies through the State Clearinghouse. The State Department of Fish and Game had no comment on the amendment nor was any indication given as to whether the site could be considered a sensitive habitat. i 3. Warner-Beach Area (2.3) A) A geologist and soils engineer report should be required prior to development to ensure suitability for multi-story uses. 4. Warner-Magnolia Area (2.4) A) The developer will be required to finance the upgrading of water facilities to serve the site. B) The flood control channel abutting the study area on the south is designed to accommodate a 25-year storm. C) The study area is within the five minute response time for the Fire Department, but access to the area from Magnolia Street or Warner Avenue would be very difficult because of the traffic congestion on these streets and the close proximity to the San Diego Freeway. co v I. .l v HAN'NINUG D I H.'A D, A W1 [,;?I !,1'.0 1 1 1-A I I? I,i,' I.I. t-"(,III i . (.A I(-)(, T 11,,1-1- R D.. A 14 Av I t.I I'l c-IX 11 1.t S, I f, P. 0 Box I SOM, 1,0VJ..CN 1*1-.. '-PAC, F., CA 4 2 7.Is S!) c C30 Lc Y I Huming-to. :1ch, C 264, M J4 ont S R . 13om%e4, As5.c;v%jc Plolmner Da 1- 0 altj -f H-,A;% a% 8e-4 Dept 4 Pevtl-j,, Scr,�c'ej P. 130 JI IRao H a nt -to twC4 cob. df-I A Q 1 c 11 o . 13 0 0 9 2 v Alf? QUALITY SECTION OF PFIR, &CAIRRAL Pt AA( AMENDMENT 0 -2 ADEQUACY OF Kill. ANA'f-,'.LS.L- Ad cl ua c! Inalcic cl,u, i c t:i T1 A Q i t V :io. A r(,,,i J 1-.in F',i-ai ss i c)i i s A la Arc,..-.i Pro I ec,L: Emi ssa.ons r I It r i i L()3 i Pit — ...... k1()Mp'Lc' (,,,I Proj ce 1: Vclii cul a d(� ],),.-o.*,C.(- Stf.,: '! 1-:!.orl y- c 1-0 ori. Ai..r QuA-!Tv---- '()'jAT1-: TT i G A,i,10'N 11 i C;ul 1Z 1"1; 1 1 1 1,OV Ye .11.1 0 r,f,1 V! A N t;>< 1NDUC E j F i C I 1'(':' JI)c i s S 0' (AO) AR"ID Pj I j C A111 013AIXV C) _j V— f �.c'ci:1i rc�cl I � i�c> t•f�i-c`.•l: , "ZI 1)C' r('( o ol• il c I vc) I o oOP (1r, :,1,-;;0:-., AO c;0 i f,' ttice c 1 11Otc oil Ullor sid,� of_- 1} Not Shewh 2, e` 0lilS Of CAI cvIdt;onS and rnc-Cjoto q_Y (.no-f- '03+ +ke pe o Prneh` — osa i 44e eal%�+n erc�a� arE�f. 4, oair Ivali fl%roott- 04 4e 'pr•�osed pr�ec*S Piave .4hat been deo t- Wi- ofJe va*C( . Very truly Yours, J . A. Stuart: lir:i.a;.z 14. Farris , Ifeacl Titipact An LlyS:iS and Eriergy 1:esour.cos Section IleacICIII,Li-tiers 7.0 you ]Ltive any fur. t:hc:r cluesL ions , call _ , 1-e 14. 114zem/ - at: (21-3) 72- 6-#J 7. n Table 1 MAXIMUM 1977 AND 1978 POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS RECORDED AT THE COSTA MESA MONITORING STATION Averaging Recorded Concentrationsl Pollutant Time 1977e 1978� Ozone 1-hour 0.19 ppm 0.22 ppm Nitrogen 1-hour 0.23 ppm 0.30 ppm Oxides4 Annual 0.028 ppm 0.028 ppm Sulfur 1-hour 0.10 ppm 0.07 ppm Dioxide 3-hour 0.087 ppm 24-hour 0.034 ppm 0.019 ppm Annual 0.006 ppm Carbon 1-hour 18.0 ppm 18.0 ppm Monoxide 8-hour 12.4 ppm 12.8 ppm Total Suspended 24-hour 202.0 g/m3 175.0 g/m3 Particulates Annual 68.0 g/m3 65.0 g/m3 Particulate Monthly 4.16 9/m3 3.11 g/m3 Lead Particulate 24-hour 37.7 g/m3 27.2 g/m3 Sulfate Annual 11 .2 g/m3 9.95 g/m3 x; 1 . Maximum recorded value for given averaging time. 2. Source: CARB, 1978. 3. Source: CARB, 1980. 4. Measured as nitrogen dioxide (NO2). : i � s AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT I. Existing Air Quality and Emissions in Area The City of Huntington Beach lies in the southern part of the South Coast Air Basin. This basin is essentially a coastal plain bordered by the Pacific Ocean in the southwest quadrant and by mountains on all other sides. The climate of the proposed project site is strongly influenced by the adjacent Pacific Ocean and is characteristically marine in nature. Moist air off the Pacific Ocean is predominantly responsible for typically high relative humidity. Morning and evening fog is typical along the coast, especially during the late fall and winter months. Historical (1941-1977) annual average precipitation recorded at the Long Beach Airport is 9.72 inches. Typically, the greatest rainfall occurs from December to February. The mean historical daily average temperature, as recorded at the Long Beach Airport, is 630F. The historical (1941-1976) mean hourly windspeed at the Long Beach Airport is 6.4 miles per hour. Wind patterns include daytime ocean winds which reverse direction at night and move from over the land out to sea. The movement of these ocean and drainage winds is driven by the heating and cooling of land and ocean surfaces. These winds are typically stronger during the days, especially during the summer months. During the winter months, however, night drainage winds may be as strong as or stronger than winter daytime ocean winds. A thermal inversion is characterized by atmospheric temperatures that increase with height. When a thermal inversion exists, the vertical mixing of air is reduced, resulting in the accumulation of pollutants released below the mixing height. Thermal inversions in the South Coast Air Basin typically result from the cooling of air adjacent to ocean waters. As the sun rises and warms the atmosphere, cooled air adjacent to the ocean is heated and rises. Extremely low inversions and air stagnation problems are greatest in winter during the night and early morning hours. Longer daytime hours produce summer inversions that are not as low and intense as winter inversions. Typically, thermal inversions occur in the early morning hours during 87 percent of the days in a year. Although ground I eve I inversions average on I y two days in June, ground level inversions in December and January average 22 days a month. The combination of relatively low wind speeds and frequent low thermal inversions results in a naturally high pollution potential in the South Coast Air Basin. In addition, the high mountains surrounding the South Coast Air Basin provide some resistance to the movement of air, further aggravating the ambient pollutant levels in the basin. Presented in Table I are the highest recorded 1977 and 1978 concentrations of ozone (03), nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur dioxide (S02), carbon monoxide (CO), total suspended particulates (TSP), lead (Pb), and sulfates (SO4) for various averaging periods at the Costa Mesa monitoring station. The values obtained at the Costa Mesa station were chosen because it is the closest monitoring station to the project site and values obtained at the Costa Mesa station.are felt to be representative of the air quality at the project site. 2. Project Emissions - Construction Phase The construction of the proposed project is expected to have a temporary minor impact on air quality in the immediate vicinity of the project site. Impacts will be due primarily to emissions from the construction equipment. Localized particulate matter and nitrogen oxide emissions may result in short-term violations of state and federal primary air quality standards during the construction period. However, these impacts, because of their temporary and intermittent nature, and the relatively low amounts of "reactive emissions," are not expected to be significant. Carbon monoxide (CO) will be one of the pollutants emitted in the greatest quantities during the construction phase. Although carbon monoxide does not enter the smog-forming reaction, it could have a deleterious effect on living organisms. Exhaust from the construction equipment and worker vehicles would be the prime source of carbon monoxide emissi ons. 3. Completed Project Vehicular and Stationary Emissions Vehicular emissions were calculated from EPA AP-42 for the average vehicle in the South Coast Air Basin. The 1980 emission factors were used to determine vehicular generation of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, sulfur oxide, particulates, and hydrocarbon emissions. Stationary emission factors were obtained from the Air Quality Management District for commercial and home heating, and were adapted from the Journal of APCA, April 1962, page 158. 4. Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures have been suggested in the analysis. However, the most effective potential measures require actions by higher levels of government for implementation. The higher intensity uses considered in the amendment generally have the effect of increasing air emissions through the generation of higher traffic volumes. Until measures affecting vehicular trips and emissions are implemented, the increased air pollution generated by this amendment must be considered as an unavoidable adverse impact. 5. Growth Inducing impacts Section 2.6.3 indicates the cumulative impact of Land Use Element Amendment 80-2 in terms of the five areas of concern as a whole. However, increased land use intensities and the development of vacant sites may induce development of surrounding areas thereby adversely impacting air quality. MOLA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION/808 ADAMS AVE,HUNTINGTON BEACH,CALIF'926644y�/( } 6994 EL CAMINO REAL SUITE 211,CARLSBAD.CA 92008/(714� / l J� J October 30, 1980 Ms. Alicia Wentworth, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Letter for appeal of Planning Commission Decision dated October 29, 1980/area 2. 1 of Land Use Element 80-2 Dear Ms. Wentworth: This letter is to advise you that we wish to cancel the above mentioned appeal from the decision of the Planning Commission on October 22, 1980. Enclosed in that letter was a check for the amount of one hundred-fifty dollars ($150. ) payable to the City of Huntington Beach that we wish to have refunded. Thank you for your co-operation. Very 1 ours, Peter E. von Elten, General Counsel PEvE/lk i STATE CONTRACTOR'S LICENSE 335113 4 Air -- MOLA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION/808 ADAMS AVE,HUNTINGTON BEACH,CALIF 92648/(714)536-2547 6994 EL CAMINO REAL SUITE 211,CARLSBAD,CA 92008/(714)438-1157 rce October 29, 1980 crrCLER 0 r m�c OCT K �,� I C4tlP; fJ Ms. Alicia Wentworth, Illy P 60 City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Appeal of Planning Commission Decision of October 22, 1980 Regarding area 2. 1 of Land Use Element 18'0-2 Dear Ms. Wentworth: Mola Development Corporation hereby appeals from the decision of the Planning Commission on October 22, 1980, wherein certain real property along the south side of Ellis Avenue between Gothard and Goldenwest, owned by the applicant, retained the estate residential Land Use designation. We are enclosing our check to perfect this appeal in the amount of one hundred-fifty dollars ($150.) payable to the City of Huntington Beach. The reasons for the appeal are that the area in question is not suitable for an estate residential development especially in view of the surrounding industrial and oil uses. A transition or buffer is needed between estate residential for the west of Goldenwest Street and the easterly industrial influence to the subject property. Please advise in writing when this matter will be heard by the City Council. Ver ruly your Peter E. von Elten, General Counsel Enclosure PEvE/lk STATE CONTRACTOR'S LICENSE 335-113 Ms . Alicia Wentworth, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 MOLA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 808 ADAMS AVE,HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92648 A r I t s" REQ.NO. 141281 -DEPARTMENT USE ti,Me I AD701 I I . , I I . , . I I I L__l HAO 1 6 7 Acc't No. 12 M M D D Y Y M M O D Y Y 25 78 80 13 18 19 24 . Date Required HUNTINGTON BEACH MATERIAL Requested by city-.Clerk Approval REQUISITION Approved by Contacted For additional information call Jo Phone PURCHASING Rhone 5210 DATE Noymbelt`" 6. 1980 VENDOR # P.O. # E Mol o ftlel opmen t, Corp H N D 808 AdVAS Avenue P 0 R Huntington &each, California 9260 T F.O.B. Destination Delivery within Confirm Plus Frt.-Prepay&Add: Terms: days -)IJANTITY UNIT Refund of Appeal fee $150.00 PLEASE 14AIl. TOTAL $ REQ..NO. AMOUNT REQ.NO. AMOUNT - REQ.NO. AMOUNT 1 2 3 4 .$ S- 9y DEPALq 'I" !qO t/ camRaclTr PLTX2ta I, `L, ersi , bereby express my opposition to the request that the 59.55 acre area located south of Adams Avenue and east of Beach Boulevard, be redesignated l ��� from resource production, commeercial, and low density residential to commercial, p medium density residential and high density residential. (Area 2.2� of — �', a 3 �i(.GC• Bnntington Beach Planning Division). 7oT,�� /a,P USE &-Le-&,t.-+"-4— yoy r . _ m► a 6 :a /75 •s ti r,/4 t �' �/ J i �' �cr c c'1 6 rz ty I, the undersigned, hereby express wj opposition to the request that the 59.55 acre area located south of Adam Avenue and east of Beach Boulevard, be redesignated fran resource production, conmercial,and low density residential to aomuercial, medium density residential and high density residential. (Area 2.2, of the Hun- tington Beach Planning Division) . 111MC.. ADDRESS � `►-. r/,..•( .�i'y ram.. �✓ •� �d � 4 y i. � t� '.''t. � f 17 7,2 w i Please return to John I<. Cogorno 20302 Sea Circle, Huntington Beach, California 92646, As soon as possible. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH P.O. BOX 190 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CALIFORNIA92648 BUILDING DIVISION(714)5365241 PLANNING DIVISION(714)536-5271 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council ATTN: Frank B. Arguello, Acting City Administrator FROM: Department of Development Services DATE: December 10, 1980 SUBJECT: LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT 80-2 AND EIR 80-3 At the November 17, 1980 meeting, the City Council opened the public hearing on Amendment 80-2 to the Land Use Element of the General Plan and Environmental Impact Report 80-3. Amendment 80-2 originally in- cluded five land use amendment requests. Two of these requests were deleted from the amendment by the Planning Commission and were appealed to the City Council for reconsideration. On November 17, the Council accepted testimony and took straw votes on Areas 2.1, 2.2, C 2.3, and 2. 4. Areas 2.2 (south of Adams Avenue and east of Beach Boulevard) and 2.5 (north of Ellis Avenue and west of Gothard Street) are appealed items resulting from deletion from Amendment 80-2 by the Planning Commission. On November 17 the City Council took a straw vote on Area 2.2, denying the appeal. The Council must take a formal vote on Area 2.2 at the upcoming December 15, 1980 meeting. Because Area 2.5 is also considered in Open Space and Conservation Element 80-1, public testimony was taken and the hearing was continued to December 15, 1980. At the December 15 meeting, the City Council should first take formal action denying the appeal on Area 2.2. The Planning staff recommends that the Council continue to accept testimony and close the public hearing on Area 2.5 and then take a formal vote denying the appeal. After taking action on the appealed items, the Council should approve Environmental Impact Report 80-3, and then adopt Amendment 80-2 by Resolution 4936 incorporating actions on the appeals and straw votes on the Planning Commission recommendations. Respectfully submitted, ClW Palin, Director i JWP:CC:df 1 � '4l REQU EPFOR CITY COUIVCIL ION Submitted by James W. Palin Department Development Services Date Prepared November 3, , 1 9 8 0 Backup Material Attached © Yes No Subject LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 80-2 City Administrator's Comments 736 Approve as Recommended Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions: STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Land Use Element Amendment No. 80-2 constitutes the second amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan for 1980. The amendment in- cludes four requests from private applicants and one request from the Community Services Department for changes in General Plan land use designations. A public hearing on Land Use Element Amendment No. 80-2 was held before the Planning Commission on October 21, 1980, at which time the Commission approved recommendations for the various areas of concern. The Planning Commission deleted the Adams-Beach area (area of concern 2.2) and the Ellis-Gothard area (area of concern 2.5) from the amendment. However, these areas have been appealed to the City Council for reconsideration, and are included in the amendment report. An administrative item to amend the Land Use Element to allow housing density bonuses was also deleted, and is excluded from the amendment report. Minutes from the public hearing are contained in Attachment 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The Planning Commission approved Environmental Impact Report No. 80-3, and recommended City Council approval by the following vote: AYES: Winchell, Porter, Schumacher, Bauer NOES: None ABSENT: Kenefick, Greer ABSTAIN: Bannister The Planning Commission approved Resolution No. 1268 recommending City Council adoption of Land Use Element Amendment No. 80-2 by the following vote: AYES: Winchell, Porter, Schumacher, Bauer NOES: None 1)-4 1, ABSENT: Kenefick, Greer ABSTAIN: Bannister NO a//a Page 2 RECOMMENDATION: 1. Approve Environmental Impact Report No. 80-3. 2. Approve the recommendations of the Planning Commission and adopt by resolution Land Use Element Amendment No. 80-2. 3. Overturn appeals on areas of concern 2. 2 and 2.5, and approve staff land use recommendations as indicated in Attachment 1, Summary of Individual Requests. ANALYSIS• The amendment requests for the areas of concern addressed in Land Use Element Amendment No. 80-2 are summarized in Attachment 1. The amendment includes four requests from private applicants and one request from the Community Services Department for changes in General Plan land use designations. The Planning Commission ap- proved land uses for three of the amendment areas. The Commission deleted the Adams-Beach area (area of concern 2.2) and Ellis- Gothard area (area of concern 2. 5) from the amendment. These areas have been appealed to the City Council for reconsideration. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Environmental documentation for the amendment requests may be found in the amendment report which also serves as Environmental Impact Report No. 80-3. EIR 80-3 was posted for a 45-day period ending October 8, 1980. Public comments and staff responses constitute the Final EIR, and are incorporated in the appendix of the report. FUNDING SOURCE- None required. 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, esalin, Director /!ATmTACH:M7ENTS: velt Services 1. Summary of Individual Requests 2. Land Use Element Amendment No. 80-2 3. Resolution 4. Minutes from public hearing before the Planning Commission on Land Use Element Amendment No. 80-2 (Draft) 5t Letters of Appeal PLANNING AREA OF ENVIRONMENTAL STAFF COMMISSION CONCERN LOCATION ACREAGE APPLICANT REQUB5T INFORMATION RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDATION 2.1 South of Ellis 46.63 Mola Redesignate EIR 80-3 Retain'Estate Retain Estate Ave. , East of Development 10.17 acres Residential (0-2 Residential (0-2 Goldenwest St. Corporation from Estate un/ac) and (0-4 un/ac) and (0-4 Residential un/ac) designa- . un/ac) designa- (0-2 un/ac) tions on 46.63 tions on 46.63 to High Den- acres; redesig- acres; redesig- sity nate area East nate area East to Gothard-Crystal to Gothard-Crystal Realignment from Realignment from Industrial to Industrial to Estate Residential Estate Residential (0-2 un/ac: 9.69 (0-2 un/ac: 9 acres) and Estate acres) and Este Residential (0-4 Residential (0-4 un/ac: 4.83 acres) un/ac: 4.83 acres) 2.2 South of Adams 59.55 Mola Redesignate EIR 80-3 Redesignate 46.25 Retain Commercial, Ave. , East of Development from Commercial, acres from Com- Resource Pro- Beach Blvd. Corporation Resource Pro- mercial, Resource duction, and Low duction, and Low Production, and Density Resi- Density Residen- Low Density Resi- dential desig- tial to Commer- dential to Com- nations; delete cial, Medium mercial, Medium area from amend- Density Resi- Density Residen=. ment (under dential, and tial, and High appeal) High Density Density Resi- Residential dential; retain Low Density Resi- dential desig Is - nation on 13.3 acres. 2.3 South of Warner 10.18 Mola Redesignate from EIR 80-3 Designate a new Designate a new Ave. , West of Development Commercial to Multi-Story Node Multi-Story Node Beach Blvd. Corporation Commercial with covering 80 covering 80 > Multi-Story acres. acres. y Suffix a x z H H Page Two PLANNING :AREA OF ENVIRONMENTAL STAFF COMMISSION CONCERN LOCATION ACREAGE APPLICANT REQUEST INFORMATION RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDATION 2.4 North of Warner 10.13 Lindborg- Redesignate from EIR 80-3 Redesignate from Redesignate from Ave., West of Dahl Low Density Low Density Low Density Magnolia St. Residential to Residential to Residential to Commercial Commercial Commercial 2.5 North of Ellis 10.00 Community Redesignate EIR 8C-3 Retain Industrial Retain Industrial Ave., West of Services from Industrial Designation Designation; Gothard St. Department to Open Space delete area from Amendma (under appeal) Minutes, H.B. Pla ng Commission October 21, 1980 Page 5 There being no other persons to speak in regard to the three alternatives, the public hearing was closed. June Catalano outlined the remaining hearings, which will con- sist of another public hearing before the Planning Commission on October 28, 1980, with possible continuation of a decision to November 4 or November 18 . The City Council will then hold public hearings and, after approval by the City, the plan will be heard by both the Regional and State Coastal Commissions before it is finalized. The Commission recessed at 8: 25 p.m. and reconvened at 8 : 35 p.m. LAND USE ELEMENT 80-2/GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT/EIR 80-3 Requests for changes in the land use designations as shown in the General Plan for the following areas of concern: Area of Concern 2.1 - 46 . 64 acres located south of Ellis Avenue east of Goldenwest Street', from Estate Residential to High Density Residential. Area of Concern 2. 2 - 59. 55 acres located south of Adams Avenue east of Beach Boulevard, from Resource Production, Commercial, and Low Density Residential to Commercial, Medium and High Density Residential Area of Concern 2. 3 - 10. 18 acres south of Warner Avenue west of Beach Boulevard, from Commercial to Commercial with Multi-Story Suffix. Area of Concern 2 .4 - 10. 13 acres located north of Warner Ave- nue west of Magnolia Street, from Low Denisty Residential to Commercial. Area of Concern 2. 5 - 10 acres located north of Ellis Avenue west of Gothard Street, from Industrial to Open Space. Area of Concern 2.1 The Commission determined to take testimony and make a determina- tion on each area of concern separately. Chuck Clark explained the alternatives available; i.e. , retention of the existing designation , designation of the entire area . as industrial, or a combination of medium and high density resi- dential designations. He outlined the reasons for the staff ' s recommendation for retention of estate designation and the exten- sion of that designation easterly to provide a logical boundary at the Gothard/Crystal realignment. The public hearing on Area of Concern 2.1 was opened. Frank Mola addressed the Commission to urge redesignation of the area to medium or high density residential, saying that the ATTACHMENT 4 -5- 10-21-Rn - P.C. Minutes, H.S. Plannin9oommission October 21, 1980 Page 6 development of estate-sized lots would be unsuitable for the site and incompatible with the existing industrial and oil-related uses in the area. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal, and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Schumacher discussed the compatibility of estate devel- opment with existing uses, saying that she believed there would be a market for such a use. Ms. Schumacher also said that existing traffic and circulation patterns in the city would not support high density development in the area. A motion was made by Commissioner Bannister to change the current estate designation within the area of concern to high density resi- dential. Motion failed for lack of a second. ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER THE COMMISSION DETER- MINED TO RETAIN THE EXISTING ESTATE DESIGNATION IN AREA OF CONCERN 2. 1 AND EXTEND THAT DESIGNATION TO THE PROPOSED PRECISE ALIGNMENT OF GOTHARD STREET, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Winchell, Porter, Schumacher, Bauer NOES: Bannister ABSENT: Kenefick, Greer ABSTAIN: None Area of Concern 2 . 2 Chuck Clark described the alternatives the staff had considered for this area and outlined the recommendation arrived at: To change the 6 acres at the intersection of Adams and Beach from resource pro- duction to commercial; to establish a high density residential on the remainder of the area west of the flood control channel; and to es- tablish medium density residential on the area east of the channel except for the southerly 14 acres, which would be designated as low density residential to permit completion of the street pattern in the existing development to the south. At the request of the Commission Savoy Bellavia reviewed the unit count per acre allowed by each of the density designations and June Catalano explained the State legis- lation in regard to provision of affordable housing through developer agreements. The Commission discussed the goals contained in the Housing Element for the provision of affordable housing and the application of the recently enacted State provisions to a development. Legal counsel Jim Georges stated that the provision of the Government Code providing for a density bonus if at least 25 percent of a development is affordable housing is mandatory and not permissive - a municipality must grant such a bonus if a developer is willing to enter into an agreement for affordable housing. This bonus, it was explained by staff, is applicable at the time a project is brought in for entitle- ment and not at the time the zoning is granted. Commissioner Winchell expressed the concern that granting the high density designation at this time with a density bonus later would constitute granting a much higher density bonus than originally intended. -6- 10-21-80 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Pla`iining Commission October 21, 1980 Page 7 The public hearing on Area of Concern 2.2 was opened. John Goodell presented a petition into the record in opposition to the requested redesignation of the area of concern. He said it had been signed by 487 taxpayers objecting to the intro- duction of either moderate or high density development into the vicinity or the provision of low and moderate income housing. Frank Mola, applicant, addressed the Commission in support of his request. He said that the existing high traffic patterns and the topographical problems on the portion of the property west of the flood control channel make it unsuitable for single- family development and that in his opinion medium density on the easterly portion of the site would provide a quality develop- ment that would be compatible with surrounding uses. He emphazized that it was not his intention to put "low cost" housing into the area. Dr. Alfred Klineman addressed the Commission to describe research literature linking increased density in housing with various types of mental illnesses and disruption of family life and to urge that the quality of life be maintained in Huntington Beach. John Guerno spoke in opposition to changing the designation, citing the existence of fault lines through the property. He also questioned the procedure used for notifying the public of this hearing. Peter von Elten, legal counsel for the applicant, spoke in support of the request, noting that the construction of single- family homes on individual lots is no longer an economically viable approach because of the rapidly increasing land and con- struction costs. Gene Fallon, 8231 Munster, Huntington Beach, addressed the Com- mission in favor of retaining the low density designation on the site. He said that he had bought his house with that under- standing and did not like to see the zoning changed; he also asked if there could be a feasibility study conducted as to the cost to taxpayers in City services for the additional density on the property. Mr. Fallon also noted that there are birds and animals on the site which should be considered. Michael McDonald, 20072 Cape Cottage Drive, also opposed the redesignation of the property, saying that he too had bought his home with the understanding that the zoning next to him was R1. Harold Ewing, 20242 Lighthouse Circle, discussed earthquake safety on the property and the possibility that future inhabi- tants would have to be evacuated and housed elsewhere in the event of a seismic occurrence. Mike Molke addressed thr crime potential high density might involve, and spoke in favor of single-family development. -7- 10-21-80 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. PlannilfCommission • October. 21, 1980 Page 8 Ed Kuhlmann, 8232 Munster Drive, spoke in favor of low density discussing traffic concerns, which streets would be going through from the tract to the south, and the quality of the ensuing pro- ject if it should be redesignated. He asked that the people in the area be involved with any future rezoning or development pro- ject. Jule D'Angelo, 20202 Cape Cottage Drive, also favored the low den- sity designation, saying that more intensive development would lead to traffic and crime problems. Larry Keaton spoke in regard to the animals and birds using the site as a habitat and requested that a wildlife survey be done prior to redesignation of the area. Richard Smith, 20161 South New Britain Lane, addressed the loss of light and privacy which might result because of the more intensive development of the site. Regina Goss, a 15-year resident on Munster Drive, suggested that if no one wishes any development to take place the City should buy back the land and leave it in agriculture. Carol Gora, 8252 Munster Drive, cited traffic and school problems as a basis for opposing any higher density designation on the site. Gene Shaffer asked for reinforced environmental information because of the following: 1) 57 varieties of birds inhabit the site, in- cluding the endangered osprey; 2) fish inhabit the pond; 3) the pond is probably fed by natural springs; 4) the ground is weakened by oil production and the site is in an area where seismic activity can be expected; and 5) any development on the site will result in an adverse effect on the overall air quality of the community. Mary Lent, nearby resident, also opposed the redesignation of the site because people had bought their homes under the impression that the area would remain low density residential. Hal Coffey said that Huntington Beach probably has more reasonably priced housing than any other beach community, that there is plenty of high density housing north of Adams Avenue, and that if the owner has the option of proposing high density the residents should also have the option of proposing that the area be designated as open space. George Johnson, 20221 South New Britain Lane, said he is in favor of retaining the low density designation for the property. Pat Guzman, 20021 North New Britain Lane, also favored low density. Colin Guiver, Pacific Sands resident, objected to not having been informed by the City of this proposal. Secretary Palin reported to the Commission and the public on the legal requirements for notifi- cation and the method which the City had followed in this matter. -8- 1-21-80 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Poning Commission October 21, 1980 Page 9 The public hearing on Area of Concern 2. 2 was closed. The Commission discussed briefly the acceptability of some increased density along the Beach Boulevard portion of the property, and the procedural steps involved in a partial approval, a denial, or a deletion of the request. ON MOTION BY BAUER AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER THE COMMISSION DETERMINED TO DELETE AREA OF CONCERN 2. 2 FROM THE LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Winchell, Porter, Schumacher, Bauer NOES: Bannister ABSENT: Kenefick, Greer ABSTAIN: None The Commission recessed at 10: 30 and reconvened at 10 :45 p.m. Area of Concern 2 . 3 The public hearing was opened. There were no persons to speak for or against the proposal, and the public hearing was closed. Chuck Clark explained that it had been the staff' s recommenda- tion to expand the multi-story designation from that origin- ally requested by the applicant to the 80 acres shown in the amendment. Commission discussion ensued. ON MOTION BY SCHUMACHER AND SECOND BY-BAUER THE COMMISSION APPROVED AREA OF CONCERN 2. 3 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher, Bauer NOES: None ABSENT: Kenefick, Greer ABSTAIN: None Area of Concern 2.4 Chuck Clark discussed the alternatives analyzed by staff and reported that the recommendation was for a commercial desig- nation. In response to questioning from Commissioner Bannister, City staff informed the Commission that negotiations are still in progress between the City, the developer, and the Orange County Flood Control District in regard to the location of a water well and the covering of the flood control channel for access to the site and it is hoped to have both these problems resolved soon. -9- 10-21-80 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Plannir-Commission • October 21, 1980 Page 10 The public hearing was opened. Ed Blain, 16901 Roque Lane, addressed the Commission to discuss the possible traffic impacts which high density commercial at the proposed location might have on the adjacent residential tract. He asked that in the event the redesignation is allowed Conners Lane remain closed to keep commercial traffic out of the housing tract. Mr. Huish, operater of a recreation center across the street from the subject property, also discussed how access would be taken and how the commercial use of the property would affect traffic turning movements into the already developed parcels. David Dahl, 1720 Pacific Coast Highway, the applicant for the amend- ment, spoke to the Commission to describe his plans in general and explain that it is their intention to meet with the neighbors in the area and discuss with them what is proposed concerning access and other problems. He asked approval of the commercial designation with the understanding that setbacks, access, etc. would be worked out through a specific plan for development. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Bannister expressed continuing reservations about approving the commercial designation prior to a resolution of the negotiations with the Flood Control District. Mr. Dahl said that his understanding of those negotiations is that they have proceeded far enough that finalization is almost a formality; he also cited precedents for the covering of the channels and said that the County has no history of denial of a request of that nature. Further discussion ensued. ON MOTION BY BANNISTER AND SECOND BY BAUER THE COMMISSION APPROVED AREA OF CONCERN 2.4 TO REDESIGNATE THE REQUESTED AREA TO COMMER- CIAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher, Bauer NOES: None ABSENT: Kenefick, Greer ABSTAIN: None Area of Concern 2. 5 Staff had no additional information to submit. The public hearing was opened. Joe Whaling, 6732 Calpe, spoke in opposition to the redesignation of this parcel at Ellis Avenue and Gothard Street, saying that there is at present no reason to add park area when existing parks are going undeveloped for lack of funds. -10- 10-21-80 P.C. Minutes, H.B. Ping Commission S October 21, 1980 Page 11 Robert Monroe, representing Sully-Miller (owner of part of the subject property) also spoke in favor of retaining the existing indus- trial designation on this 10-acre parcel, citing the intrusion into an existing industrial area which would be created, the taking of the property off the tax rolls and adding a potential financial bur- den to the public, and the appearance of "spot zoning" which it appears would result from the redesignation. Ed Zschoche also spoke in opposition to the redesignation and in addition objected to the commercialization of Central Park by the installation .of a recreational vehicle park area. A. C. Marion requested clarification of the area which would be covered by this portion of the amendment. There being no other persons to address the matter, the public hearing on Area of Concern 2. 5 was. closed. The Commission reviewed the proposal and the public comments. ON MOTION BY BAUER AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER AREA OF CONCERN NO. 2. 5 WAS DELETED FROM LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN 80-2, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, . Winchell, Porter, Schumacher, Bauer NOES: None ABSENT: Kenefick, Greer ABSTAIN: None Amendment to Standards and Criteria of the Land Use Element: June Catalano outlined the provisions for a density bonus for the construction of affordable housing within a development as suggested by staff in this section of the amendment. She pointed out that there is presently no language in the General Plan to comply with the State-mandated density bonus, which requires that a bonus be granted or other .concessions made to any developer who proposes to include at least 25 percent affordable housing in a project. The proposals submitted by staff would establish standard findings with which any proposed project would have to comply in order to be granted this bonus, and would serve to give the City a measure of control over the means it would apply to conform to the new State legislation. In the discussion which followed, the Commissioners made the following comments: Commissioner Bannister expressed the need for a definitive de- cision from the City Council in regard to low-cost housing before any decision is made on this matter. Commissioner Bauer said he felt the City would have greater flexibility in approving developments if these findings are not adopted, but if each development is addressed on its own merits -11- 10-21-80 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planni Commission • October 21, 1980 Page 12 when it is filed. It was his feeling that a decision on this matter will be of tremendous importance and alternatives need to be examined which will preclude automatic approval of what may be a violation of the intent of elected and/or appointed City officials and which may lead to building ghettos in the community. Commissioner Schumacher questioned the method by which people will qualify for purchase of the affordable housing and how it could be guaranteed to remain affordable after it is constructed. Legal counsel Jim Georges confirmed the mandatory nature of the applicable section of the Government Code (S. 65915) and staff mem- ber Bill Holman pointed out that failure to grant the density bonus might force the. City into granting other alternatives that Could be considerably more expensive for the City in the long run in terms of infrastructure costs involved. The public hearing on the amendment to the standards and criteria was opened. Frank Mola addressed the Commission in support of adoption of the proposed required findings. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the pro- posal, and the public hearing was closed.. Further discussion followed. ON MOTION BY BANNISTER AND SECOND BY BAUER THE COMMISSION DELETED THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE STANDARDS AND CRITERIA FROM THE LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher, Bauer NOES: None ABSENT: Kenefick, Greer ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY PORTER AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 80-3 WAS APPROVED AND RECOMMENDED FOR CERTIFICATION BY THE CITY COUNCIL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Winchell, Porter, Schumacher, Bauer NOES: None ABSENT: Kenefick, Greer ABSTAIN: Bannister ON MOTION BY SCHUMACHER AND SECOND BY PORTER THE COMMISSION APPROVED LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN NO. 80-2 THROUGH THE ADOPTION OF AMENDED RESOLUTION NO. .1268, FOR RECOMMENDA- TION TO THE CITY COUNCIL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Winchell, Porter, Schumacher, Bauer NOES: None ABSENT: Kenefick, Greer ABSTAIN: Bannister -12- 10-21-80 - P.C. October 27, 1980 2, 1 f 9 A City Clerk (/ d'Ty 10 City of Huntington Beach �Y9 0i � P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648 The undersigned hereby appeal the actions taken by the Planning Commission on October 21, 1980 regarding the proposed Open Space and Conservation Element Amendment 80-1 and Land Use Element Amend- ment 80-2. The following specific actions are appealed: 1. Deletion of three areas totalling approximately 75.3 gross acres F)ReA o* located north of Ellis Avenue between Edwards and Gothard Streets Open $pace. , Co-v5Wv^rrav from consideration for designation as a recreation area in the ELer►.e,�T go-► Open Space and Conservation Element. 2. Removal of the two neighborhood park sites located at the inter- section of Goldenwest Street and Palm Avenue from the list of undeveloped park sites proposed to be deleted from the Open Space and Conservation Element. 3. Deletion of the 10-acre area located at the northwest of Ellis 47 2-5 f Avenue and Gothard Street, which was proposed to be redesignated Op_ P from industrial to open space in the Land Use Element. FJ�•��"YO-a2 P REASON FOR APPEAL: On August 13, 1979, the City Council held a study session to discuss the cost and revenue factors associated with the City' s park system. After projecting operating and maintenance costs over the next ten years, staff concluded that the City could not adequately maintain the entire system of 50 parks totalling 400 acres with existing funding sources. The City Council directed the Community Services Department to consider alternative development plans for 15 neighborhood park sites and to prepare a list of parks recommended for deletion from the program. Alternative funding sources for park maintenance were discussed, in- cluding a proposal to expand the boundaries of Central Park in order to incorporate revenue producing activities. The City Council agreed in concept with a plan to divide Central Park into three areas designated for passive, non-revenue-producing active, and revenue-producing active uses and activities. This concept was to be used as the basis for pre- paring a schematic master plan for Central Park. On January 21, 1980, a joint study session was held with the City Council and Community Services Commission, at which time the schematic master plan was reviewed and conceptually approved. On March 3, 1980, the City Council adopted Resolution 4853, expanding the park boundary to Ellis Avenue for the purpose of conducting planning and feasibility studies, and directing the Department of Development Services to initiate an amendment to the Open Space and Conservation Element to reflect the new boundary. ATTACHMENT 5-B Page Two On June 1, 1979, the City applied to the State Department of Parks and Recreation for a Land and Water Conservation Grant of. $1.2 million for the acquisition of the 8.9-net acre site at the northwest corner of Ellis and Gothard for a recreational vehicle camping facility. On December 28, 1979, the City received notification from the State that $609, 600 had been approved for the proposed acquisition. The proposed amendments to the Land Use and the Open Space and Conser- vation Elements are necessary to allow the incorporation of revenue producing uses and activities into Central Park to provide an ongoing source of revenue for park maintenance, and to allow further refine- ment of the master plan for Central Park. Additionally, the proposed general plan amendments for the property at Ellis and Gothard must be adopted in order to allow the City to apply the State grant toward acquiring this property for the RV camping facility in keeping with the overall community recreational needs and goals as stated in the General Plan. Please schedule these items for a public hearing at the November 17, 1980 regular City Council meeting. l zCouncilman , n Don MacAllister, Councilman •�UNr Gcre[fe. r-�r�r BSYo n rr�rQ ryQ� x Net4c,%C4jlF MOLA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION/808 ADAMS AVE,HUNTINGTON BEACH,CALIF 92648 Q)5336-25d7_} 6994 EL CAMINO REAL SUITE 211,CARLSBAD,CA 92008/(714)438-1157 October 22, 1980 Ms. Alicia Wentworth, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: File 21.01 Appeal to City Council- of GPA :8."0'-;Z (,area- 2. 2) Dear Ms. Wentworth: Enclosed please find our company' s check in the amount of one hundred fifty dollars ($150.00) representing the appeal fee required to perfect the following requested appeal. Mola Development Corporation hereby appeals from the decision of the Planning Commission on October 21,1980 deleting Area 2.2 from the General Plan Amendment 80-2. We would wish this appeal to be heard by the City Council in conjunction with their review of GPA 80-2. The reasons for appeal are as follows: 1. The area in question was deleted without any substantial discussion or vote on the other alternatives presented by the staff. 2. The decision of the Planning Commission was made with no rational thought or attention being paid to the staff presentation and research. 3. The reaction of the surrounding residents, in opposition to the General Plan Amendment, appeared to be the sole motivation for the decision. This decision usurped the Planning Commission's function of overall planning for the benefit of the City of Huntington Beach as a whole. STATE CONTRACTOR'S LICENSE 335-113 Ms. Alicia Wentworth, City Clerk Appeal to City Council (Page two) 4. The decision of the Planning Commission was arbitrary and capricious. Please advise in writing as to when this appeal will be heard. Xu ours, Peter E. Von Elten, General Counsel enclosure (1) PEvE/lk A, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH P.O. BOX 190 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CALIFORNIA92648 BUILDING DIVISION(714)536-5241 PLANNING DIVISION(714)536-5271 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council ATTN: Frank B. Arguello, Acting City Administrator FROM: James W. Palin, Director of Development Services DATE: November 12, 1980 SUBJECT: LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT 80-2 The City Council will conduct a public hearing on Land Use Element Amendment 80-2 on November 17, 1980. The amendment encompasses items D-2b - (LUE 80-2 and EIR 80-3 as a whole) , and D-2c and D-2d (appeals to Planning Commission actions on areas 2.2 and 2.5) on the agenda. In order to facilitate the conduct of the public hearing on the amendment and related appeals, staff recommends that the following procedures be used: 1. Referring to item D-2b, the City Council should open the public hearing on the amendment for areas 2.1, 2.3, and 2.4. a. Accept public testimony on area 2.1 and take a straw vote on the desired land use designations. b. Accept public testimony on area 2.3 and take a straw vote on the desired land use designations. c. Accept public testimony on area 2.4 and take a straw vote on the desired land use designations, 2. Referring to item D-2c, the City Council should open the public hearing on the appeal to the Planning Commission decision deleting area 2.2 from LUE 80-2, accept public testimony, and take a straw vote on the desired land use designations. I 3. Referring to item D-2d, the City Council should open the public hearing on the appeal to the Planning Commission decision deleting area 2.5 from . LUE 80-2, accept public testimony, and continue to December 1, . 1980 for a straw vote on the desired land use designations. 4. Continue LUE 80-2 and EIR 80-3 to December 1, 1980. At that meeting, .following a straw vote on area 2.5, the Council could take a formal vote on LUE 80-2 as a whole. Staff recommends this approach because area 2.5 is considered in both Land Use Element Amendment 80-2 and Open Space and Conservation Element Amendment 80-1. The Agenda Review Committee recommended that the Open Space and Conservation Element amendment be continued to December 1, 1980. A i J Page Two It was also recommended that area 2.5 of the Land Use Element amendment be continued to. December 1. This would allow the City Council to accept public testimony and take action on the Open Space and Conservation Element amendment prior to action on area 2.5 of the Land Use Element amendment at the December lst meeting.. Respectfully submitted, ames W. Palin, Director Department of Development Services JWP:CC:gc leg CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH P.O. BOX 190 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CALIFORNIA 92648 BUILDING DIVISION(714)5366241 PLANNING DIVISION(714)536-Ml TO: Honorable Mayor and Council Members Attention: Ben Arguello, City Administrator FROM: James W. Palin, Director Development Services/Planning Division DATE: November 10, 1980 SUBJECT: LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 80-2, AREA OF CONCERN 2.2 At the October 21 public hearing on Land Use Element Amendment 80-2, the Planning Commission denied the request and deleted area of concern 2. 2 (south of Adams Avenue and east of Beach Boulevard) . Since then the applicant has filed an appeal for City Council reconsideration on November 17, 1980. At the time of the Planning Commission' s public hearing on this item, 489 residents living adjacent to area 2.2 signed petitions, or sent letters in opposition to the proposed amendment. The property owners opposed the medium and high density residential request, and desired that the area retain a low density residential designation. Respectfully submitted, James W. Palin, Director JWP:CC:dc Z� At f ' i 3000 EAST SOUTH / P.O. BOX 5399 / LONG BEACH, CALIPORNIA 90805 / (213) 979-1873 • The Honorable Planning Commission ��yy j City of Huntington Beach, California QiL��c, y�&W3 2`S My name is Robert Munro. I am employed by Sully-Miller Contracting Company, the owner of a portion of the land proposed for rezoning through Land Use Element Amendment No. 80-2. Sully-Miller Contracting Company objects to the proposed change of zone. The current and developing use of nearby land shows that the best use of the Sully-Miller parcel is industrial. The land immediately north of ours is in use as the fire department's training facility - which, while municipally owned, is definitely an industrial use. Immediately north of the fire facilities are privately owned industrial uses. The area to the east - across Gothard St. - is rapidly being developed with "first class" industrial buildings and actively used for industrial purposes. South - across Ellis St.the land is still involved in oil production. Under Amendment No. 80-2, this land south of Ellis St. is to continue to be industrial. A look at the map clearly shows the proposed change of zone as an intrusion into a consistent industrial area. While I understand that it will always be necessary to adjust the boundaries separating different uses in a general plan, the proposal being considered here - Amendment No. 80-2 - looks very much like "spot zoning" to accommodate a specific user rather than a true general plan establishing general use concepts. Changing the zone of the Sully-Miller parcel from industrial to open space clearly eliminates the ability of Sully-Miller to utilize the land. Fairness requires the City to purchase this land if the zone change is approved. Changing the zone as proposed will thus convert this land from a tax paying parcel with the potential for substantial increase in contribution to the city to a tax free parcel with the potential to become a burden on the city for maintenance and upkeep. City of Huntington Beach October 21, 1980 Page Two In summary, Sully-Miller protests the change of zone proposed by Land Use Element Amendment No. 80-2. It appears to be "spot zoning". The land is well suited to its present zoning - industrial - which use is consistent with most nearby development. Very truly yours, BLUE DIAMOND MATkRIALS R.R. Munro Manager of Special Services I i i i i 9y HUNTINGTON BEACH CHAMBER of COMMERCE 165e2 BEACH BOULEVARD,SUITE 224 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CALIFORNIA 926" TELEPHONE 014)IiB2-MI Feal"s HUNTINGTON BEACH December 15, 1980 s EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE- 1980 Honorable Mayor and � 0� Members of the City Council 0 � JOYCE ROLLINGS-President C." n. Western Mutual Escrow City of Huntington Beach Box 190 O. f:►� a' c WILLIAM COMPTON - 1st Vire Pres. P. Atke7t;yl� So.Calif. Edison Co. �"x►9.o. I Huntington Beach CA 92648 JEROME M. BAME - 2nd Vice Pres. �y Attorney Dear Mayor and Councilpersons: � r JACK LINDLEY-Treasurer Collection Agency of HB RALPH C.KISER- Executive Mgr After listening to the presentations on December 8th STAN BOTELHO by various persons interested in keeping the downtown General Telephone area from developing to its true potential, it seems that the DALE L.DUNN following facts should be considered in your decisions: Seacfiff Really ROBERT TERRY TRAFFIC: With proper plans, controls and decisions b our Terry Buick y very capable city staff, traffic patterns will be no problem. DIRECTORS 1980 Same with Parkin . With 18 neighborhood shopping centers CHARey -SENNC.P.A. GHOFF III in operation now and two majors - Beach and Adams and Attorney -C.P.A. DANIEL DEAN north of Huntington Center - our city streets are adequate for Jonathan's Studio 300,000 population; according to our Public Works Depart- EVERETT J.DODGE ment. Pacific Coast Highway must be enlarged to six lanes Huntington Executive Park as planned by CaITlrans. FRED EDMONDS McOonneft Douglas McDonn EWIN ECONOMICS: The time is long overdue when the downtown CAROLYNHB•FV Bd.of Realtors should share its tax obligations to the rest of the city. JACK FEEHAN (Upkeep, police, fire and other city costs,) Rather than a So.Calif.Gag Co. drag on city costs, it can be economically viable. Property GLURIA GITSHAM owners should be permitted to share in our city's prosperity. Women's Div. President JACK R.HIGLEY For too long, certain elements have held back progress in United Calif. Bank this area. STEVE HOLDEN So.Shores insurance TOURISTS: We are a beach community. We have an obligation ERIK LUNDOUIST to accomodate, rather than discourage visitors. Adequate C.P.A. g Q SUZIOSBORN shops, hotels, which should draw$500,000 annually to city Century 21 - Surf Realty from bed taxes; plus other thousands from sales taxes and WILLIAM PETERSON utility taxes, restaurants, etc. should be provided. We Bank of America should capitalize on tourism - it is a valuable resource. JERRY SHEA Beac h n Huntingtoh Company PENCEeacSHEL This may be our last and best opportunity (for a long time) Aminrnl USA to turn this area around. We should not let it slip away. B DALE SMITH J c Penney For the Board of Directors, RICHARD TOM A LA. Richard L Tom A Assoc DON WALTER Pacific City Bank 1 DARRELL WARD Rr ise 1 J All Shores Real Estate Executive Manager STAN YOUNG Huntington Beach Company RK/hg Ontington Beach Comoy e 2110 MAIN STREET,HUNTINGTON BEACH,CALIFORNIA 92648 (714)960.4351 S.A.YOUNG VICE PRESIDENT GENERAL MANAGER P, n 3,:( 1:) October 21, 1980 i i'-ntinn(•;I! ; , LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 80-2 Planning Commission City of Hu n.tington .Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, Ca. 92648 Members of the Planning Commission: The Huntington Beach Company is- the owner of a majority of the property affected by Land Use Element No. 80-2, Area of Concern 2. 1. We. wish to go on record as opposing Alternative No. 2 since we do not believe this property is suited for industrial development. We believe a residential designation for this property is more appropriate. Specifically, we favor Alternative 3 or a .similar alternative which will permit construction of a variety of residential units within a wide price range which is not feasible within an estate residential . area. Sincerely, U�vrtrr S . A 0;) Vice President SAY/h RAY\F • • 1. PL.APR41ING DEPT. October 15, 1980 O r P. 0. r3cx 190 :h; CA Q2C".3 Planning Commissioner City of Huntington Beach P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, Calif. 92.648 Dear Sir: I vehemently object to amendment No. 80.2 and to changing area (2.2) from resource production, commercial and low density residential to commercial medium density residential and high density residential. We already have mass condominium developments in the area such as La Questa Condominiums on Beach .Blvd. We need to raise the quality of Huntington Beach to attract more substantial residence to e'leVate business in the area and .not to increase traffic, noise and pollution which will most likely to result. This will cause the downfall of this neighborhood and reduce taxes to the city. Lets keep Huntington Beach. a beautiful suburb, not another busy commercial and heavily densed depreciating area. We need single family housing. Sincerely,. N d Nour Salem 8291 Flaxman Drive Huntington Beach, California 92646 P. 0. Box CA 926AM L� a �-ao o, do�o-� �`-°- / 61 000, LAf_� 3 L1,7 �OHvo.G 107 o 1 "Beo rw ► Wvat. S�ouc+e 17, s y Itk4%tIA ton 15caC.h Co.. �z` Novem a y� er 17.. 1 i 78o liknfiir► ton 3ea4 C7fiy Council Q h ur,ti n9 on i3eacti , Cat f orni w. �= "Deow Mem6tn of the 61- Council 4t arm fthen - year r;auids of R Y&nt n 1on $each► Teackers �r► c�i" w►i le St,�►oolS an Nava I �ved Fn l'�Kn�ly1 ton Shorecli MoLi a how,e 'p%rK S ihoe March cf 11 y 7- lJt are Vexy happl wilt okr res;dehfii al a tj , bwt care m wc,h tohcerned a,694 sevuiA asruTs of tfiQ impacT on our area, of t9t �roposeld M d;urn - to - hi5b - density re%oni rn�j of t�c Mol a -JR-operTy ea5�' Beach $Ivo4. and soK1� of hilarns Aveviue in Hkr71-,VeQM. B&a.cb►. 21m articµlar concernis t6, advh;ll'ed aimrse, e4tet' A air c�r�.oLlt Its Sou` , Coast Air- 1asih (p9p, 2.7 E I R 8o-3 ) df all T r%4, resid%nt;al zcnin9 alttehatiVQs. We cant W;cr e, 1" &T fie, Cif- Cour►e.;1 w i II c1, ree �1'Jity a rh ass a Lonin eas 14 rp, which will maKC us yde nd r ou►r a I % oh Possible -- or even w or, ro6- ab a -- K1'Nre aclvan�P.s in en one dts� an � e - I f _„_ 9 9n d w►otor vt�+ ci �n Setctioh and tApon expansion of rt4 is transpertvaf un pg. 18, EI R) We, are, concerned also about high - densit�� NSe as proposfd� o� tha, pvnd,jno area c0on9 Beach 13Ivod, , wh icl, k46 been tl,-y only. 6�Y1 �rl ttt, 3 % years we �►ave lived nr�arlo � 7To w0A ;n I&tt Ak'wC 4 1 of , after a. Ion) skrnme,r dr*%3kt. The pond - wgter level ;S not %Rtuted by t;d as as ►s thy, wa'rir level ih t4e, ad jacenT flood control Channel, so -rke loond rr►K sr loe spri VI) - ied . Thwt f act ) cokpled W 4 wco,ken►n� of t� % 9roKr►d by Tait oil Jwtlls in *Q, area) m%kcs 1�,s cwm Sound very risky for k;5h - c6n5itVC0 he3►den't';al or cornm¢rcicLI roue . Ot V�,r s Q.Qiai Concern ks is -t,t fact thQt how4re. in At, Em i ron VVIO T al "T,CLcT �e,porT is it e,vp-n r+%e,►itj oilier 1"kccr T' js cac rut �t is a Known w;ldl,fe INLI;i!at whose- Nse 6 51 s tits of birds we. �wm, v,%ca9,a dNrir► -1�V. last 31/2. eCrs . q .or CsLr5Q- more. s moles USe. 'I' t w %If%k I, bat' our rtuWC6 cogt(X;n only ta5t, we have. obstrvej Prow+ R cW j*wrkScl or, Itacln 'Blvdi . 4 - Ce Oar AKdkbon Socitty (5m a,,,Aot Sar chaphr) �llaw ­ mtmobtrs k we. bt&n jKst• " vvs6 'ea " we. 'vt ht" Ilo f;nd I at tc astray WQ.,ve. watc6*A Weis pond. durihq 1978 and 1411 hQ6 appAr enfily broKap a *S Me, - f aN . Ike sQ. NO Scarct. ctnJ prer'etteel hawks arm St&h 43ir►q At 13ond and sarrow►din f itld A4i1 and Mows. beer, seeh enAa, ihq iVI toKrt- . . ?Me &ON9. PmCc l tas Trees aloK �e 61 w as sh, f!, � y y� � obscr�a yen erchas . We 6a►c warcko d hem catch 'f 1sti �rrob4 '1'11e and ar,d f!L1 Ila i o it er cIR j tc, te&r tLm arT aKd eon'. � At 63t 04 aar recorded bird si htl'"Is SinC% /l39/77 � a.cco, i�.S 11�iS I eto r. ys K certai n P art. W ticowl t. IID set_ At %A teMtr'tu in ot4r bird;n riotebyooK . Aei hors who Uvt nLgr Its. };eld Vre KeV& 17 Ste Owls and h t See" lit, eurcaly�ths 1'r«s $411 o w,ia3rotin9 Western �anaoJers • AMiw4als stun by Surprised heilbors Are ci real cc yaUS p opPoS uvn3 and raccoohs. �1 Urbar+ devalo�hAtVit iS CJ05% ►g in KyOoh kS ('oval in Huhtm - `tbh Beat4. "BveatI Spe e c prov; dcd bj pvrK,3 Will btcomt ►nc reoA;vn ly im+ r1' vnt to ws. the PVIdI" area, be't�wte►i lkat, $lVa(► Qw j -r4r, ,/ - iloc l -control ckannol U041 Adams Rvenue hia SttM so un -� , w a swtAle -For bui Wib%5 P%rposeS.I coulj ` rovide a l4pe-I of patX)Qw l for ow•r c)A' jvty% o�d rawd e4li Id + it we,r` r as Q. 9 L �r�at Vtd h at ur al habitat for 0.11 i rn a1 - .aw d b i rd j i f t, in our Co m rw4 n,l'y . Lie. wrle Its Council to CONS, dtr 1RIS Strlombly • S in e.croly ybwrs ,.nitow. T�►9e i of 3 S ec �a �i rdl S Saes► oil" Tk po r%A " A rca (50.T� o� R aw►S S1- ahcl &ST- o $eack 1�1V4.) ;roan 611111-0 10115180 E awl Lono - b 1 I le d ?I e.d- 6; NA Crrebe KnoT Double - veate.A Ga'rno rant We.sttLrr% 5 ar►dp i faer Ducl�a ; M0614rd W115OW& -PWO.rope. *P;V%T-4 1 Co mrn o n S n; tot Pfw+erican 1+► ;4tcoh C.a! I �orn► a G�f1 S1Iov ale r �crS1�er s ern ^ BI t4 t, - w i v►9e4 Tea 1 C-OZ Ah Ie-r r► J CinnAr►nor, Tial MONrntin DavQ. G`r"v, - winyd T-a,l ►` o�,K Don- Co►r►vasbacK 1. 9-ltr-d Kin VAQr CornrnonoW Bu�r�rle 6eAA T�K441 N�OG+I'C r1q Ho oven �1�rgahser :fir.) l.uo��u lea a� 5hr ke Why -Ta►le� I��t�, STarl►v;c� Hawks ; Sham► - s�,�nn�d �ud�bon's 1�arbler ��d -Ta�l�d Houses rJ�arroW Qsrrty (Sin91e ►9�s7q� ppor ilao) WeSturl M'z*Aow)4rK merl;n Rent-wlnYY N"K61rcl o �hn �'(e�rr2) S�arro�J Zmv x's PIacK�i r•d Common Etre-'r r% 31acK ?home �iouSQ Snowy EytIr El Amer•$il"trn Rmcrican Geld �r,ch CGrv.at BIKP- I�eron MVo►nnq� Sparrow Amv-ri can coon White - crown ed .`arrow AvwLr,ca,h Avoct. ' :SOnq SpgrroW ZIacK- nezKe4 StiIr J Sew« - �ial mal'ec� l�bver OKr c6tpnci cl' s,3M-',v► record% are. )� � I I cer' AVa�lwla�e• �111 O� rprv);DKS Wta wade Sfll ;Tar� Sa,r,��� ��x- �rom a co,r �►arKec� on *�e cc alvot. 3D Solo+ oj A Banns StYeet Gr�.ater Q11owIe-�S .,1Qan Sri,F�P-Y*,'°`aher �ssar �Ilowle S Tb.`��' 3 i OFFICE OF THE CIT-X,,CLEBKr-- 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, Caufornia 92648 CIA o.sc. 7-0 T -Z u > . 'V �o dC'/�i4-F- i 3000 EAST SOUTH STREET / P.O. BOX 5399 / LONG BEACH. CALIFORNIA 90805 / (213) 979-1873 November 17, 1980 The Honorable City Council City of Huntington Beach California My name is Robert Munro. I am employed by Sully-Miller Contracting Company, the owner of a portion of the land in area 2.5 of land use element amendment 80-2 to the city's general plan. Sully-Miller Contracting Company agrees with the decision of the Planning Commission to delete area 2.5 from the proposed change to open space classification. We thus are against the appeal from that decision. In simple terms, Sully-Miller believes that this land is properly industrial in character and should be used as industrial land. Immediately north of the Sully-Miller parcel is the Fire Department's Training Facility, which is definitely an industrial type use even though municiply owned. Immediately north of the training facility are privately owned industrial uses. The area to the east, across Gothard Street, is rapidly being developed into industrial uses. South, across Ellis Street, the land is still involved in oil production. A look at the map shows that this proposed change of use is an intrusion into a consistent industrial area. The proposal being considered here, that is area 2.5, looks very much like spot zoning intended to accommodate a specific user, rather than a general plan establishing general use concepts. As I stated at the hearing before the Planning Commission, the changing of the zone of the Sully-Miller parcel from industrial to open space clearly prevents Sully-Miller from using the land. It seems only fair that if this were to happen the city must purchase the land. So doing of course changes the land from a tax paying parcel with a potential for a substantial increase in contribution to the city to a tax free parcel with a potential to become a financial burden on the city for maintenance and upkeep. To summarize, Sully-Miller Contracting Company agrees with the decision of the Planning Commission that the land use in area of concern 2.5 should remain as industrial and not be changed. Sully-Miller is against the appeal from that decision. RRM:j b INTHF: Superior Court J OFT HE STATE OF C..AI.IFORNIA In and for the CounlY of Orange CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH+ CITY CLERK I'ROOh'OI'I'llfil,l('A'1'ION Public Hearings NOTICE OF PUBLIC DARING LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT NQ 80-2 TO THE GENERAIrP1,AN FIR NO W3 ' State.of'California Iss NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held br-(&City County of Orange 1''' Council of the City of Huntington Beach,in the Council Chamber of the me Cente Huntingtoa Beach at the hour of 7:30 P.M.or as soon thereafter as„pe*We on Rita J. Richter Monday,the 17th day of November,1980.for the purpose of considering Lana Use Element Amendment No,804 W the General Plan,requests to: r 1. Redesignate 46.63 eves of land located south of F.lis Avenue anflolast b1• i Goldenwest Street from.Estate Residential to High Density Residential; That I am and at all times herein mentioned was a citizen of i 2. (Deleted) the United States,over the age of twenty-one years,and that.I 3. Redesignate 10.18 acres of land located south of Warner Avenue and I am not a party to,nor interested in the above entitled matter; I ofBeach Boulevard from Commercial to Commercial with a Multi.Stn r that I am the principal clerk of the printer of the 4. Redee;ignate 10.13 acres of Land located 450 feet north of Warner Avenue I and Wat of Magnolia Street from Low Density Residential to CA=UW- Huntington BEach Independent Review ��) Environmental loped Report No,8"wilt be beard in eonjuncb,;n th the a newspaper of general circulation,published in the City of Lend Use Element Amendment No.80.2 Copies of the proposed Lend Use Element Amendment and Envunmental Impact Report are atailable for review in the City Caerk's Ofrice. .e,-. 1 Huntington Beach All interested persons am invited to attend said hearing and expreis their opinions for or against said Land Use Element Amendment No.80-2 and"RIR No, 1 County of Orange and which newspaper is published for the 80-a Further'nfermat'on may be obtained from the Office of the City Clerk•MMain Street,Huntington Beech,Caljfornin 92M(714)538-5227. disemination of local news and intelligence of a general charac- DATED October A i980. ' ter, and which newspaper at all times herein mentioned had CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH: and still has a bona fide subscription list of paying subscribers, By ALICIA M.WENTWORTH i and which newspaper has been established, printed and pub- City Clerk lished at regular intervals in the said County of Orange for a period exceeding one year; that the notice, of which the NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING annexed is a printed copy, has been published in the regular APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION DELETING AR and entire issue of said newspaper,and not in any supplement 25 FROM LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT SO-2 thereof,on the following dates,to wit: LAN NOTICE IS HEREBY GGIIVEN that THE a publ chap i will be held AT' Councl of the City of Huntington Beach,in the Council C�ber of the C vie C'nteti, Huntington Beach at the hour of 7:30 P.M.,or as soon thereafter as possible on Monday,the 17th day of November,19M for the purpose of considering in'abpeaf filed by Councilmen Pattineon and MacAllister to the decision of tl(S'plop, g November 69 1980 Commission to delete Area 25 of Land Use Element Amendment 80-2 to tbtp f:enerel ! Plan;a request to redesignate 10.00 acres of land located north of Ellis Avenue and West OfGtrtherd Street from Industrial to Open Space. � V. 4 Environmental Impact Report 80-3 will be beard in conjunction with said appeal All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and eapt mohair opinions for or against said appeal.Further information may be obtained Cr4 the ace of the City Clerk,2000 Street,Huntington Bach,California 9 {714) 538-5227. DATED October 81,1980. I 1 certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the forego- CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACHt ing is true and correct. By,ALICIA M.WENTWORTH .•,. City Clerk N Garden Grove Pub.Nov.6,1980 Dated at..................:...... Hunt Beach Ind.Rev.910383 1 NOTICE OF PUBLIC California, is ....th d �lemb 80 APPEAL To PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION DELETIN9--AREA 22 FROM LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT 80-2 TO THE GENERAL PLAN NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a,pubbe hearing will be held by the City' i Council of the City of Huntington Beach,in the Corme7 Chamber of the Civic Center, Huntington Beach,at the hour of 7:30 P.M..or as soon tbereafter as possible on, Signature Monday,the 17th day of November,198%for the purpose of considering an eppeal Ned to the demwit of the Planning Commission to delete Area 2.2 from I,spd.11ee i Element Amendment 80-2 to the General Plan;a request to redesignate 5955 acres of I land located south of Adams Avenue and act of Beach Boulevard from Resource{ emu) Production. Commercial and Low Density Residential to Commercial, Medium; Density Residential and High.pity Reeidential �! Environmental Impact Report 8�3 win be beard in conjunction with aid appeal Alf interested persons am invited to attend said.hearing and express their'�/ eprmons for or against said appeal.Further Wormatim may be obtained from the \J Once of the City Clerk,2000 Main Street,Huntington Beach,California 92648,(714). r Cr38.5227. DATED October 31,1980. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH B.ALICIA M.WENTWORTH C ay dent J_ ;C:AF-813RO /STATE OF CALIFORNIA—RESOURCES AGENCY RO WN J .,Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME - 350'Golden, Shore Long :::�ach, CA -90802 (243) 590--5113 ,.,H November 179 1980 PLAPJNIt,G DEPT. NOV 17BOO James R. Barnes, Associate Planner City of Huntington Beach P. 0. Box 190. Department of -Development Services fluntington-B:ach, CA 92648 Planning Division P.O. Box.190 Huntington Beach, CA ' 92648- Dear Mro' Barnes 0n September 2 of this year we'received the Land Use Element Amendment 90-21 . Environmental Impact Report 80-3 (SCH 80082707) distributed by the City of Huntington Beach. We submitted no comments on the document at that time. However, upon closer examination. we find that .the document was severely lacking in information concerning the 59.55-acre parcel located south of Adams Avenue and east of Beach Bo%levard. There is no mention in the document as to the wetland habitat contained on site. The document does mention severe ponding, but -we feel that the site has wetland habitat value and in turn significant wild life value. t Wetlands- such as the one contained on the subject parcel are at a premium and warrant protection - not destruction. We feel that granting the proposed Land Use Element change-will lead to the destruction of a significant wildlife resource of the City of Huntington Beach. Field personnel have observed numerous bird species utilizing the acre in question' and feel- that it is of local ecological importance. Additionally• we_feel that the EIR was inadequate and did not sufficiently repre- sent the resource value of the parcel. Accordingly, we oppose the proposed _.• redesignation of the parcel from Resource Production, Commerical, and Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential, High Density Residential and Commercial. Wei in- fact, encourage .the preservation of the wetland habitat on the -site. We believe• that this position is consistent with the Resource Agency's Wetlands 1$ I•t r:y e n r;r•,i,y vir vih-i ciI •;i of-A nrhod' for your information. `11ibrA.: y6il L[;P.' LlitC ;�'j.i/;f'l,l-ii�i_l y 1 rj c [�1':' �:ttl; our orrlmr;nt s If you have_ - - ' - a any gtleStlO[1` 1 3 +J•i . r Sincerely, ' Fred A. Worthley Jr. Region 'j Attachment _'topa: Oi'l�.C'1•,F::,• 01 BOAl'DS, 'l:i:l) C. W-Ii•1.f.", 1.(.!. h. , `. �.•1 :�cr 1an6:3 P<')l.icy fol: ! C.:c.l)'l;itl:ClC:Li.0)1 J:'rUjC:C:t ' .•, m Ofiicc of the Sccrcic:Jy Vi ' ,' ' • ". ,• . .. � I ,, • . .. ."? ♦ T ^1 i O7 1'' f' . .. ,. _ 11 1'UT.,:I'(. 1 C1:.! � fl.r' �•;'•:}.. i�'! •I'(.).. �1 >:•li'•.Y,t, I III li) PhRCl•:LS 1*R,0:•!�'i'ii : RE ; ii'.'" _..''.:.�.,!'i':�if 'i _ •.'.....`:.F:11,LA; .."):,; POL,I:f cy. There' riceds to be an ' irac.:ndmc:rlL to t:ll^ Re! ,(.),,I c:::. Ac1['ncy ' fi '►'Jctltlnd�; Policy (.�� a;ltccl ,Septc::;li�ur 221 1.9.77) to at'..1.c.l':; �1e11c1c:1: .:1)ec�.�lJ.' cc.�rl;litivi:s the • C'0vC'lo %;ucnt: of F,I11a 13, y 1 :;U] at:.'.r.I- v;(:t:].c1ntlS re • t.IlC: pu.b].i.c bC.r1C1f it s, of a projc t far outwoic;h the loss of fl ,c, e Sm"11. , 1 so— lated wetlallos have vory lilwi.t.cd .} io l.ogic:lll. , C'.dIIc a..L.3.c):IZ.,I ro'crea.tlona 1 � c'1nd"opc:n S'1JaCC 'Va'Iues . Such wit:.liliids f:l)':o . i.n l:osJ.~ dont:ial', :comm orcia]. , or "i.ndu.str.i. il. are:c;, and a.I (! }):_r.pctuat.od .by strec-t . or, storm c:,:ai.n runoff . Sc)nic c:rent(, tau )1..ic he al a:lcl ,izliclty pro})l.c,::;:: . Their .].or.ai i.o^ is' not condur.i.:�e ti) .fihc �:c:_:I'nt:�lti.c):1 c)f. tic?::] rlOW o1: ;t:c� their managor.l!:rlt for, fish , ar 1:C'crc: 1�iOil . :1,1. .::r.lC`:. CE1SC s fish , a:E: , l'E'.C.1 C'i.7t ].C)Jl., l;at:C'Y CjLli:l.i.t:.j' , I1IlC1 pU})l.d C }lE .::1 I.:III illl'.1 fielic'ty woulcl be servccl ijet t-c,r by i•%C.rillit: tAl.)c1 t'llor;c 11'i1r(4inal. I•:Ct].ilI,'>U:: V-0 be dc:vO-10T)od, and by requiring cc mpon;-;.al:ion hat: would . nllb.sta fit i al. ] Y restore or on;lance a wetland at: �iJlat}lc:r 1_c)c:�lticln . 7'Jlerefore,' it is the l�o].icy ot: ' t}lc_> ' 1tc.sc.�lla:cr.::; T►c)c�nc•y that this ;:gc:I:c:}� and its D^t?:ll:t.?il nt, ,. Boa)-c�s , ' and Cc)l-;!n3.SI c_)ns r: ;� �i:.lt:'hoi:ir.c or. ��ppl:c�vc pro?"cct.s 4haL• f i.l.l. or.. ot:hcrw i .se, ; harm Or cic-:.; -r.c.;y �:,i�l:l:�lncls of one hzi] i acre or. ]:e__s when �l]�J. of the foll_.cxai_ng f:i:ndiilcj;,l��li�d conditions arc�.�. mct , Findings :.. - 1. T}lE: t;etl.zind hay:' i.ns•i.,nifi.cant: bi.ologi.c:al. , .educati.on al. ,' and recreational.. values . 2. The vxt:land -is Sul:r.oundec? r.es icic'ni:.i.a.l. , coul:ilercial., Or ] nclu' t2. ial. CIC?VE lo1');''•C:i1t�: �•:�1ich . arc i..11CC):'!;i.:tt:.l.})'1C' t1i.tJl -the functioning of the uret:1and ''Fjs .il slgil.:i>i:i.c ant. fish or. . wildlife ha0itat. ' •3. The wetland is not adjacent to �ll7otlic�r v:ciland, �aatcr- way, or •ope i space. 14. I'liidl lJ`', ',.hall be .su��por. Led by G;rittcn and/or photographic evidence. . �OnI'.;IrU1' 1:It 1)J.1,o i l `:i.`C_1.l o }'r.t�C• 2 j ')'}' cC rc j iic) folm..li bl] 4 I:I+?ans of res t cu i ncj Or m n zigi:ng i:hc ::etl%►I;ci to ..► s.ignifici•.lnt. l.c:vcl.. of biological 5. No III!i.C1.;C, c�Ilr'zo-i ,ered., or rare pl.anL or animal would be �ldvc�.)::_;c:) y afJ.cctcd if thc� �:'r:.Lli►nd l,;ere dcrstroyed. Coriditioll: .`1'rle ].(7z;.i of t:}l(: P.ct:l.a_l1 shall ,]C_ C:O::.t)E.ns:ltC.Cl' UIl at least El•rl aC:):C: for acre The COIt _�CII:�."I.1 ].C�;1 shill) create a new wet-.14111d or l:E:stO):C' c1 C1C?<1]7c1C,i^Ci WC t].ilnCl ].71 it lOC i1ti.U11 that will. -be ut i.1i (:`d }];r fi.s.i) C) l•1].1.cl1.11:C. The Com. nonsation shall. create` a wetland Uf significant biological val.ur_:. `t'hc l.onc�-tcr.rn :Yetl.and values Of the compere ration 1_IndS stall. not be less after Urojcct coil-- plet:ion than t}l:! comi-inod vjetlaml value's of the pr..ojcct: and compensctti.on 1. 1pds undc!r. ' prcprc)jc•ct conditions . Corm 3?c!ns:lt.ic)iI mc.:il u):c.s shall j?C in writing and, in th} form of eithcr con6j.-I:ionC; cm a pE'.Lmi.t: or an act rec:.io..nt-, sii jnf_+d by t}'Ie applici.:nt and the Dcpartlncrit of Pis II and GL-1Ine or Ltl(... I:csatlrcc Agency. The rcr;ponc-;i.jA1it_y ,for the inte):nr._!at c)n and applicat.ion o.f this policy 'to any project: is c1c] ec��►ted to. the Cepartl:icnt of L'iG;tl• al-.cl Gaj;,C and i�; s'ubjact to appeal to the Socrot iry for Resources . fs/ IWO' D. JOE.NISON Ih.lc_y D. Johnson S.ccretary for Resourccs 4rr y y t.; Publish NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 80-2 TO THE GENERAL PLAN i EIR NO. 80-3 I NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public nearing 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 17th day of November , 1980 . for the purpose of considering Land Use Element Amendment No. 80-2 to the General Plan, requests to: 1. Redesignate 46.63 acres of land located south of Ellis Avenue and ast of Goldenwest Street from Estate Residential to High Density Residential ; 2. (Deleted) 3. Redesignate 10.18 acres of land located south of Warner Avenue and west of Beach Boulevard from Commercial to Commercial with a Multi-Story Suffix; 4. Redesignate 10.13 acres of land located 450 feet north of Warner Avenue and West of Magnolia Street from Low Density Residential to Commercial ; 5. (Deleted) Environmental Impact Report No. 80-3 will be heard in conjunction with the Land Use El ment Amendment No. 80-2 Cop es of the proposed Land Use Element Amendment and Environmental Impact Report are �t ' lable for review in the City Clerk's Office. 1� interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and express their opinions for or against said Land Use Element Amendment No. 80-2 and EIR No. 80-3. Further information may be obtained from the Office of the City Clerk, 2000 Main Street, Huntington'Beach% California. 92648 - (714) 536-5227 DATED 2-.30• CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH By: Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk IN THE 1 n Superior Court OF THE F: n Rex 1_fin STATE OF CALIFORNIA Flun!lrtT.t. ;,t:CA 92r,` In and for the County of Orange CITY :DF HUNTINGTON BEACHr PLANNING' PROOF..OF PUBLICATION ` Public Hearing 80-2 NAM fE oe PIAUc I�uuo r `' « rrr ` •I.ANo USE eUNMf&W;!1 NOTICE IS HEREBY OPM Met'•public'bming will'be'Mld by lbd City:. State of California ) 'Planning Commissioo of the City of Huntington Bearit.Gfdoroi%for the purpose o1 County of Orange )'a' Redesiiggnate Use ��°tt°eeedd°tMfo o Ellie eAveower t d east Gof oldew'. . woof Street from Estate Rm ideertud to High Density Residential; >< Rad"Wate S9.66 acres of land Imatad soutb of Adam Aveave and am of Besrb BouhnArd tram Rewjn*Prrduetik CnmooMal and low DensityRraides W Rita J. Richter, Commercial.Medium Density Residential and Hitt,Deodty Residetial: !4 That 1 am and at all times herein mentioned wag a citizen of &Rade"itnote IMIS sass of land looted south of Warne.Avenue and west ota;4' ,.. Boulrwrd irnm the United M Comme►eW to Comore-lal with a Multi$tery Suffra:States,over the age of twenty-one years,and that I 1,Redaeitnate 10.IS sera of lend located 150 feet north of Warner Avmw and win' am not a party to,nor interested iri the above entitled matter: Street from Low Density Residential to Commercial .0 Z te 10600 arras of land located north of M Averts and vat of Getbtnd that 1 am the principal clerk of the printer of the Street loduatrial to Open ;and Huntington Beach Independent Review ` Environment Impact Rapnrt No.eD.t will to.herd in oonjune wi be.he tend Use Ebmest Amendment No.40.2 �aN.rtLi s� }��...... a newspaper of general circulation,published in the City of Said hearing will he held t the►m of 7V0 V.M.,on beiti 42,IM.1n the. Council Chambers Building of�Civie Center,4000 Maio Street,Huntington Bese6l�«t California. HUntington Beach All interested persons art invited tip attend said hearing and espress'their' opinions for or 7ainat the proposed Land,(lane Element Amendment Na tip-2. County of Orange and which newspaper is published for the Further information may be,ob.flad from the City Plassint Depvtaagat.. dissemination of local news and intelligence of a general charac- T# a No.(71s1578.6m. ..., 11 ATEDthiamdes.oam he4In& ter, and which newspaper at all times herein mentioned had _ CITY PI ANNING COMMISSION and still has a bona fide subscription list of paying subscribers, i "':'' Byt JAM M W.PANN, . and which newspaper has been established,printed and pub- IIa6�9 1lir0— I ?' lisped at regular intervals in the said County of Orange for a Hint.Beach Ind.Rev.010044 period exceeding one year; that the notice, of which the '--"""'"—"'" "'"' annexed is a printed copy, has been published in the regular and entire issue of said newspaper,and not in any supplement thereof,on the following dates,to wit: October 9+ 1980 / , f 11:prt:ify Or declare)under.penalty of perjury.that the forego- ing is true and correct: Dated at...............Gard,ert:.Grome............... 9th OC ober 80 Califo is,this ........dayof . 19........ f 1� ....... Signature i Form No.CAF n INFORMATION SHEET PLANNING DEPARTMENT 4 PEA 2, I CASE NO. ZONE: REZONE TO:__,____ LOTS:,__ ACRES: PLOT PLAN CHECKED: LOGGED IN:. LEGAL'CHECKED: GENERAL PLAN LOCATION LANNING COMMISSION (300' RADIUS) PANNING (ABUTTING) APPLICANT OWNER ASSESSOR PARCEL LIST n a 1% 4 la � j 1 -i_ 1 111-071-27 James T Hudson Land Use Element Artier mmt, '318 14th Street tiuntirigt+on Beach, Calif No. 80-2 Area 2.1 92648 111-071-31 111-110-19 City of Huntington Beach Irvin G Greer 1209 Park Street H mtUgbon Beach, Calif 92648 - 111-072-05 111-120-01 ihmtingtM Beach ompo y S & c odl OD, Inc Standard Oil Co of Calif 411 Main Street #B Property Tait lei viairoti FMta4tington Beacb, Calif 225 Bush Street 92648 San Francisco, calif 111-120-06 9412U I-fnda L 7homas -------- 19782 Soenic Bay Lane F3mtington Beach, Calif 92648 ./111-072-1 111-120-24 l dward 1 Jokm A Thomas P.O. 697 19782 Soude Bay Lane 648 Beach, Huntirryton Beach, Calif 92648 •'111-072-14 1U-120-27 Irene C inhi.tfield et al Travis B t ll et al Dexter G kbitfield J Jr et al 928 S FbSs Street P. Boot 1Santa Ana, Calif 92701 bbeaif 92626 111-110-02 �'uoe L Greer 111-120-28 18792 Stewart Street Weir 0thOil St �t Ibmtirxjton Beach, Calif 401 20th Stread 92648 Beach, Calif 92648 _ 111-110-03 rimer E Goetsch V /bA9 bxv co a j.' 610 Main Street i fil7 /N JT; iuntington Beach, Calif 92648 - 9 111-110-18 Mola Development Corp Hobert P Mandic Sr 12689 Lykikf]a Lme 808 Adams Ave Garden Grove, Calif Huntington Beach, CA 92648 92641 - 1 111-UU-24 ocean 'view ft shroom Gravers Inc Area 2.1 18196 Goluernaest Street iiuntingt n Beach, Calif 92648 111-120-27 Travus B Mitchell et al William J Scott Jr et al 1965 Lony Beach Blvd. lAny beach, Calif 90806 111-072-11 cola Development Corp 808 Adams Avenue 1luntington beach, Calif 92b46 Y 110-211-09 11U-130-02 Land Use Element Amendment Lora C Howell A. C. Mahon TR No. 80-2 11 E Orange Grove Rd P.0. Box 108 Area 2.1 Apt 622 .iwztington Beach, Calif Tuscon, Armzmna 85704 92648 110-280-01 110-219-11 110-211-10 william Tarxiis Ruth L Gordin et al 715Ign A Ala F Estrada 1180 S Beverl Drive 2219 Greenleaf Street bama Street Huntington Beach, Calif Ins Angeles, CA I Salts Ana, Calif 92648 9UO35 92706 110-210-02 110-211-01 110-211-11 Adele A Hankey Gyneth P Smith Mike V Perez 28232 Ortega Highway Boot 702 2230 Florida Street San Juan Capistrano, Calif lAke Arrowhead, Calif Beach, Calif 93675 92352 92648 110-210-03 110-211-02 110-211-13 t ti chael W Niccole et al P mI 11 P Bmghetti R G Zepeda 400 Orange Avenue 10208 Disney Circle 1310 W Palm Lane Huntington Beach, Calif FAuttingbon Beads, Calif Phoenix, Arizona 92648 92646 85007 110-210-06 110-211-03 110-220-02 John R Schuesler Milton H Marow Ronald L Brindle 16121 Marjan Lane 272 S PAxford Drive 18851 GDldenwest Street Huntington Beach, Calif Beverly Hills, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92647 90212 92648 110-2*07 110-211-0y- 111-071-24 wuis Seplts et al Charles G Tunstall ZR Ocean View Growers 471 Walnut Place 8851 El Rancho Avenue 2833 lif Blvd Suite 309 Costa Mesa, Calif Plountain Valley, Ca Ault 92627 92708 V , Calif if 110-210-08 110-211-06 111-071-25 Iw�tington Beach Company Join F 9=Vson Mabel H Bradley 2110 Main Street 727 Williams Avenue P.O. BDx 270 tuntington Beach, Calif Beach, Calif . Huntington Beach, Calif 92648 92648 92648 110-210-09 110-211-07 111-071-26 duntington Beach Company Violet McKee Richard J Pariseau 'lax Division 3324 Wycming Circle 5622 Brighton Drive 225 Bush Street Costa Mesa, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif san Francisco, Calif 94120 92626 92649 11U--210-10 110-211-08 111-071-29 Lpnnis Ni coole Dale E Thagx on Vianora Corp. 4U0 3rd Street 2117 S Anchor Street P.O. Box 58212 Huntington Beach, Calif Anaheim, Calif Ins Angeles, Calif 92648 92802 90058 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO.80-2 O THE GENERAL PLAN&EIR NO.80-3 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 17th day of November,1980 for the purpose of considering Land Use Element Amendment No.80-2 to the General Plan,requests to:11) Redesignate 46.63 acres of land located south of Ellis Avenue and east of Goldenwest Street from Estate Residential to High Density Residential.(2) Deleted.(3) Redesignate 10.18 acres of land located south of Warner Avenue and west of Beach Boulevard from Commercial to Commercial with a Multi-Story Suffix.(4) Redesignate 10.13 acres of land located 450 feet north of Warner Avenue and West of Magnolia Street from Low Density Residential to Commercial.(5) Deleted. Environmental Impact Report No. 80-3 will be heard in conjunction with the Land Use Element Amendment No.80-2. Copies of the proposed Land Use Element Amendment and Environmental Impact Report are available for review in the City Clerk's Office. All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and express their opinions for or against said Land Use Element Amendment No.80-2and E I R No.80-3. Further information may be obtained from the Office of the City Clerk,2000 Main Street,Huntington Beach,CA 92648 (714)536-5227 Dated: 10/30/80 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH By: ALICIA M.WENTWORTH City Clerk Pub.11/6/80 Hunt.Beach Ind. z-ti—y /3 Publish 11/6 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION DELETING AREA 2.2 FROM LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT 80-2 TO THE GENERAL PLAN 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 17th day of November 19 80 . for the purpose of considering an appeal filed to the decision of the Planning Commission to delete Area 2.2 from Land Use Element Amendment 80-2 to the General Plan; a request to redesignate 59.55 acres of land located south of Adams Avenue and east of Beach Boulevard from Resource Production, Commercial and Low Density Residential to Commercial , Medium Density Residential and High Density Residential . Environmental Impact Report 80-3 will be heard in conjunction with said appeal . All ir:tamtod persons are invited to attend said hearing and express their opir*ians for as a"iast said appeal Furthor 100motion my ire ebtaised frm the Office of the City Cleat, 2W ftia Street. Nvatfatta* iteck, Califomia. l2W - (714) $36-5227 DATCII �.JJV 11Le .._ CITY OF !#NT146TON BEACH By: Alicia M. iier' broth city C1*A 3-0 Publ i sh // — G PUBLIC HEARING APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION -CE-TI _ REA 2. p vs e GPheN7Y?o 2. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, in the Council Chamber of the Civic Center, Huntington Beach, at the hour of 7s30 P.M. , or as soon thereafter as possible on 19 Monday the 17th day of November 8Q• for the purpose of considering an appeal filed to the decision of tgw Plannin,�^ Lr,p Ase �?Ww+0mT7.},nelv meA"rTO-1. 7'b "CA, f" ' �) Commission to delete Area 2.2Afrom� ; a-requtsi=U 0,/�- r acFel--o�nd-Toca-ted' south of Adams Avenue and east of Beach _ Boulevard from Resource Production, Commercial and Low Density Residential to _�__...�ide. _ Commercial , Medium.._D�iy--Rrs•tdenti�afi-and"11t-gfi.,Uensit y Resnti._._ail. ��. E -3 wi l l be heai^d in conjuncticon--*Ath...said..ap,pea _ All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and express their opinions for or against said - appeal Further information may be obtained from the Office of the City Clerk, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California. 92648 - (714) 536-5227 DATED /p—,j'D -• 80 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH By: Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk , az502-35 151-511 02 A MareSki Martha C oxman �.0051 N New Britain Larne JAW Use FJAment Amendmexit 20251 s New Britain Larme f f,mt x Beach, Calif MD. 80-2 Area 2.2 Huntington Beach, Calif 92646 J1tly 15,1980 (JR) 92646 r 151-502-36 1,91- / 151-512-1 Zame�a Gc�oacam3 l�'aard��Wt � A Kleinman 20061 N � Bd� Lage �Le 20242 S New Britain Lane t ,�i Bew11�, Cal . Calif H�ultu�gtcxl Beach, Calif 92546 92646 i5l-502-37 �.S3, i -45 151-512-02 Gerald A Gallagher 2I 1N �tai n Lam 20252 S New Britain Larne 9264 �' Amach.4 Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92646 lDl-502-38 151-512--03 Jams A Allen Jr �M�i ��taoor�e Gordon B Amendola 20081 N New Britain LAM 20 . 8 bi t ffi^itain lam 20251 Cape Cottage Lane lluuntington Beach., Call l P 8� t= , C+ali.f Huntigton Beach, Calif 92645 92646 i5l--502-39 LU-542--47 151-512-04 tk!ter DeFrosperis Jr abl"dowd - Pacific Cjorp Harold M=phy 20151 S New Britain Laws 1 W Mr&Asth= Blvd. 20241 Cape C)attage Iane iiuntiagtan Beach, Cali OwtA Homo Caw Huntington Beach, Calif 92646 92" 92646 L51-502-40 151-504-02 151-513-01 2utaard H Smith Donald W 8emaurd William H Saldauranlo .20161 S New BritAdn Lame+ 83 U bit Drive 8262 Southport Drive Hunti.rr B �&c1l, Calif inow Beach, Calif Hx*j gton Beach, Cali.t 92646 92646 i 151-50 151-504-03 151-513-02 F Wi1.li= P Cupp Carol Chapel Ij 83U NnrdV ort Drive 8272 Southport Drive C nlif Nkastl beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 9 6 92646 92646 151-502-42 151-504-04 151-513-03 Ezra C Uaw a.t x Abbert G D mm Herbert W Aobinsaan 20181 S N w Britain Lane 8301 Nxtbpart Drive 8282 Southport Derive 'Amti Beach, Calif Hnrttiangtaa Beach, Calif Htx*ingtoru Beach, Calif 92646 92646 92646 151-502-43 151-511-01 ,Tames H Holland Glen A Gram J 20191 S New Britain lam 20241 S b1m :Britain Laare Htnti" BQIK*f C" Hwtirag m Beach, Calif 92646 92646 6 151-5U2-25 lbx�s Land Use Elanent Amenk eant Aniello Vittiello 21 !31. Cape Wttage Lane bb. 80-2 .Area 2.2 iane xAaItis�trAl Win, Calif July 15, 1980 (JH) 20051 cottage xuntirxjton Beach, Caiif .e'-b46 92646 1_,k1-502--09 151-502-17 151-502-26 ue rl J Airs IXMI GwOwn Deruus J McLaughlin 2W32 S New Britain Lame 13OU Iftl.1abf Avenue 20041 Cape Cottage Lane itauntir,r#m Heard, Cali 32646 9Y'�E Calif 91342 Huuti_rygtan Beach, Calif 92646 151-502-10 f 151-502-27 Ary B Triodes 2U 222 S Now Britain I"aiftint.iixjtcn Beach, Call O[= Dennis ,P 92646 , Calif Beads, Calif 92 151-502-28 6%kren A Yarr ti X. 5m, ► Mario A Diaz 20202 South New Britain 1400 20062 N New Britain Lane aw itington Beach, CAI J f Calif Himtingtoan Beach, Calif IV646 22646 s �1- �32-11 151�G 151-502-29 Lx)r,ais S S)a arda Om C P~ wen 20192 S New Britain Latxte 20M cws stage I.UM t tunt ngt cA-, Beads, Calif axkk fwdgt©n BeMd1, Calif 92646 92646 151-502-30 1"'utbo ny S Di Dio Slut. Wayne D Herndon 20182 S New Dritain Lam 20091 C" C"ottup Late 20082 N New Britain Ia�te _funtisx = Beach, Calif Bmtingw Mach, Calif Huntingtm Beam, Calif 92a,,6 92646 92646 1`)1-502--14 LU-502-22 151-502-32 c k.urge T Cox aftowd N Henry M Benavi,dez 2t,172 S New Britain Lane 2mi Cmpe Octtag+e Lane 20001 N New Britain Lane itwtu ton Bezach, Cali ,Beach, Chi if Huntington Beach, Calif 9-64 6 92646 92646 1!-d-502-15 M-502-23 151-502-33 .Arnold Blumenthal Nemeth E Burrell Noel GUZMELn Aror,ta KORitarut 20071 Caps Wttage Iane 20021 N New Brita*n lam 201.b2 S New WiWA Lane Fbtxt. ngtcm Beach, Cal i Iiut Ungtm Beach, Cdlif HUntlxgto n Beach, Calif 92646 92646 92646 1.51-502-16 151-502-24 1.51-502-44 Pcbert J Kramer ACM B Sty IZ71'k-4' ;,- 20152 S Now Britain Lam 20061 Cape C Dttage Lane 20031 N New Bratau, 'Lane Mmtingt,on Beata, Calif Btuttiaagtian Beath, Calif amumgton Beact3, c of 92646 92646 92646 51-301-01 151-302-31 ,'Ltle Ins & Trust Co./ lar Land use 8lemeut AmerxIlaent Title Ins & Trust Co./ or tLc:hard R Hannan *6 90-2 Dudley M Cantwell Q 31 Miter Drive Arm 2.2 8241 Malloy Drive !unto- Beech, CMl f 9264b JOIY is im WH) B tingto�n Beach, Calif 92646 151-301-02 M-302-03 151-302-32 ,'it.le Ins & Trust OD./ or T144 Is & Trust Co./ our Title Ins & Trust Co./ or irut ur L Meows :pbjup a QWU Philip D Warner ,j241 Munster Drive s2 axwbic Drive 10041 Beverly Derive iuntingtogi Beac4i, "b" 92 , 404MMM Mach, Calif 92646 Huatfngton Bead, Calif 92646 L51-301-03 .. ..Q4 151-502-01 Iltle Ina & Trust OD./ (W 22*14 has K-=76�fi- 3251 OD./ or Russell J cudlipp I.�onald Q Stretz y L-0 -K-4 20151 Cape Cottage Llimpame M u teat drive Beech, C alI :Iuntin9ton , 96 lif 92646 92646 9� 151-301-04 .. ,�..qg 151-502-02 title Ins & Trust Co./ ter " zoo & mnxt OD./ or Jams L Reef Ibbert P Johnsw 20161 Cape Cottage La aszo=aalft me 8261 Mater Drives Fhaztingto�i Beach, Calif i hmtingtm Beach, Calif 92646 Poach, Calif 92646 96W6 C' (0 5r6 151-301-05 LU-303..06 151-502-03 `L'i.tle Ins & Trust Co./ our Tit. ► As'A grist Co./ or Eames J E1ser taobert H Tb arew at al 00"I d a ULISM 20171 Cape Oottage Lane 8271 Munster Dive am mmftw Drive Huntington Beech, Calif iiunth gtm Beach, Calif 92646 MotingterA Beach Cali 92646 92646 151-301-06 LU-302-28 151-502-04 Ilitle Ins & Trust Co./ or Title Ina & Trust Co./ or Edwin W Wallace Esther M Trerise sect S Id I leer 20181 Cape Cottage Lame Van C Ka 8291 Munster Derive am �� Drive Hunt.ingbon Beach, Calif Htntivgton Beach, Calif 92646 92646 Huntington Brach, Calif 151-302-29 151-502-05 92646 TLUO Ina & Trust OD./ or Anne if rappbwk-rw H1rAn L AM= 20191 Cape Cottage Lane 8261 Malloy Drive Mm ington Beach, Calif Btot*ington Beech, Calif 92646 92646 151-302-01 151-302-30 151-502-06 Title Ins & Trust Co./ or Patrick Stanford Larry Walcher 20201 Cape Cottage Lane 8232 Munster Drive Now Breech, Calif lAmtingt cn Bead, Cali 92646 29M 92646 151-302-02 151-302-30 151-502-07 Title Ins & Trust Co./ Sac' i[i .0 m H. sky Raymond A Futami. % rim C Oordee 192U Simms Cadiz Ad 20221 Cape C ottege LwA III Ic 8242 Nester Derive - Irvim, Cal 1 92, e 92646 92646ngton Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Cali 926" >iti�9 -09 151-293-20 x�.t.I.e Ins. Ltc Cb./ or° Leuad tme2 FitTitle Ins & 7Yust �./ or �rsz eNo. 80- / 2.7 wis J Piper �y 15, 1980 20361 Somexville .lane, alif 92647 �tirxiton Beach, �-�t, 9264b 92fs4£ -22-10 151-293-07 151-293-21 i Lt-e Irw & Trot OD./ or Title im & (b./ or Title Ins & Trust Co./ or .xuuL J wiz Mary L Sturd.ivsnt 'inl Malloy Drive ,ice 20371 Somerville large limes , Calif 92 � -#�.7.i4- Hantingt on Beach, Calif 92646 `l`it le the & '3 mwt (b.1 at 151-293-22 Charles L Muryby Jr Ins i Trust Oo./ or Title Ins & gust Co./ or 8181 MLIW Driven T.*wi Freda Wallaroe Hwtington beacb, lit -,j �9WAR Mean lane 20381 Somerville Lam 151-292-11 Hailed, Calif 92646 Huntington Beach, Calif 92646 151-292-12 ,«-2 300 � 151-293-23 Ta tl_e &Ins. & Trust 0o6/ear �# >3�s .i t Co./ or Title Ins & Trust Co./ or 1e1ec'y R Lunt Norman R Lee 8171 Malloy Drive WOW 20391 Somerville Lane imy,ti,rgton Beach, CAlif 92646 iewr°-em&+§ PaG22 Huntington Beach, Calif 92646 1W- 292-13 yam,-293-10 151-293-24 Vue Ins & Trust Co./ or 2Ltio bps 6 Trust W./ or Title Ins & Trust Co./ or .) () L.epue (:,ya* V WwLts David A Batman 8151 Mal1W Drive 24381 SWw Sme Lane 20401 Somerville Lazne �krati agton Beach, 'Calif 92646 HLV*4 agt M Hew3h, Calif 92646 Huntington .Beach, Calif 92646 a_`,S-1192-1.4 151 293-11 151-293-25 T:,; ie Ins h I.Yust C G./ or Title Tes & Tit OD./ or Title Ins & Trust Co./ or i wAa A Miner Awes Y Vrokuls Delmar Moore 8141 M lloy Drive 20371 Swim Soft Lane 20421 Somerville Lane t'knitixagt�on Bevach,Cali_f 92646 ,may; pp Beach, Calif 92646 Mmtington Beach, Calif 92646 isi--292-15> 1$1.-293-12 151-293-38 Ltle Ins & Trust Co./ or Title Iris & Tnxst Cb./ or Franchise Realty iLrthur C Mee Willim L Ward Interstate Corp 8131 ploy Drive 20361 Seneca Seas Lam P.O. Boot 66207 H'a"It"yytOn Beach, Calif 926" azttington Bpi, Calif 92646 Chic-,ago, Ill. 60666 151-292-16 151-293-13 151-293-40 Title Ins & Tit W./ or Adams & Morehead Francis J Stil'Am Irwestment Partnership 20402 Severe Seas Lwje 2790 Harbor Blvd Hurat3zagtc�n Beach, Calif 92646 Suite 310 151-292-16 151--293-14 Costa Mesa, CaIii Title Ins & Trust Co./ or Title in* & Trust co./ or 92626 Torbjorn iC Pederem Joseph O 1*rl tey 81U Me►1,loy D"M 2042.2 Seven Seas Lane Huntington Beech, Calif926" MmUngtan Basch, Calif 92646 3-05 151-514-02 y R Fb3c LMd Use RIONNat Amenctent H Stephen Doddridge onUVO rt Driv® lb. W2 8272 Seaport Drive gton B"ch' Cali f n*Jay lg2 1990 92646Beach, Calif 13-06 W-513-15 151-514-03 ,l L Ballaris ROMW S aftb Harvey H Ck"V 3outbport Drive am Cs 16 8282 Seaport Drive rxjton Bwcb, Call 1 , ambf Calif Huntington Beach, calif 92646 -13-09 151-514-04 of Vbt8 Affairs of Stato William D Halasr Ilif s, 8302 Seaport Drive R Goodall Beach' C53 1 Sea Circle 92646 ington Cali f i, }- 151-514-05 Randall L May 8312 Seaport Drive ftwd4 Cali!` Taxiturgton Beach, Calif 92646 -513-10 4 -06 � p�lT Sun La Bongs 'ftm CILVIm 8322 Seaport Drive 11 Sea Circle ;htt6 B�. Calif lb=U ngton Basch, Calif tangtm Basch, Calif 92646 96 '-513-U ygl.., ..ag 153-091-10 -eph A Ruiz �N#I, amim W T Newland Estate ,01 Sea Circle 2033,1 M Cj3%4 Signal Tmxb ark Prop. Inc itirigton Beach, Calif MX*J g2ton asses, Cat 1 f 17890 Sky Pw* Blvd a46 92646 Irvine, Calif 92714 1-513-12 153-566-02 a, k wi V,S m Ibmm I W T Newland Estate �291 a 20M Asaml� RwxkAph P Weiler et al Beech, Cal 9 Bpi, Calif 8342 C=larkdale Drive ;W01 if Beards, 41-.9?�646 -)1-513-13 l -513-20 153-566-03 -maid S Braes W T Newland Estate )392 Sea Circle Wale W ldo E Baker ,mti.nyton Beach, CAW naton Drotb Cal 1 f 19961 Erk3ewood I�nne 2646 2646 Huntington Beach, Calif 92646 51-513-14 UL-51h01 153-566-04 ohn R ibgotno -- H T y=9 W T Nod and 9;state 0302 Sea Circle $ Dove Donald C Petsrsw untingtm Haack, Calif 0� ' C {t 19951 NigawBea h, C 2646 6 H� Hach, Csl.i! 92646 ! ',)3-574-14 L"d Uwe t ' T Newland W, W 2 1 gorge N 2.2 *MA WH) 1V gal WO r 53-574-15 _ 4 T NoW141 Md AMrUir.. . � ►tit Yank F clW3 9942 w6=0 Iatie kmting� � e i , Calif 92646 153-574-14 i T New ' on bhert R ; L9932 # w {U' "%# ## 4 D41ve u 4time** kMtu-jgb¢t 6 call tmgton I L53-574-17 4 T Newland Bstat* id 0 Harper �' mas J Doff*y 1 $Orthport Drive 1991 t Beach, Calif 1b i L53-574-18 151-5 0 4-96 4 T Newland be C O*teg Marren �T it 61 import Drive I—V 4 8gntington Beach, Calif Beach, Calif 926" 92646 153-574-19 Kola Development Corp I T Newland 85tate 8W AdW Avenue 'filbert W IdooWns HuntfiMgtoA Beach, CA 92648 L9931 Cato Circle kmtington Beach, Calif 926" 153-574-20 4 T Newland Estate Patricia M mmkin 19941 Cato Circle (hmtington Beach, Calif 92646 L53-574-21 d T Newland Estate Stephen Beck 19951 Cato Circle amtingt an Beach, Calif 926" 153-574-22 4 T Neal nd Mate Rnbwt A Dwol 19722--Mt mw Lwmnr- Hnntl vjbon Bwtch, tali! 9M" 25-183-09 151-291-U8 John L HenrickAM at al Lmd Um 82doent Amenctinit80-2 Title Ins & Trust Op/or %bl a DevelopmIt 009p Charles E Kennedy et al 417 Main Street 0 WH) 21062 Brookhurst Street Huntington C'f9040 Huntington Beach, Calif 92646 25-143-10 151-292-1 John L M a -1rj*M 41 �t1.0 I won Title Ins. & Trust Oo/ or 80 Hunti�t�oo� � � � Drive spa , te '� 9M ItM�I► �' CJelif �122 �� Drive Beac�2i, Ca].if 92648 92746 H� Beach, Calif 92646 15-143-11 151-292--02 P-b±ft jPWt C7o/.or Title Ins & Trust CID./ oc ` = Bert W Harding Jr 77 8132 MWAtMr DdMve yk 480M, Calif 82546 Huntmxjb on Beach, Cat,f 92646 Chevron S A Into � 30 OD`/or Till292-03 vrnn Title Ins & Trust CD./ Cr Attn Property Tax Dept. Dens �Yy P.P. Bax 7611 DrAx" 8142 der Drive San Francisoo, Calif 94M , Calif 92646 IbxAingtan Beads, Calif 92646 25-170-04 151-292-04 Hunti.rx3tcn Beads C)p VWW Tkah Must C!o/Or Title Ins & Trust Co./ or 2110 Ma4n Street Jerzy L Shummy Huntington Beach, Calif IM41 Now 1,m wive 8152 Munftn Drive 92648 Wap W^rb® Reach, Calif 92646 Huntington Beach, Call 92648 15-171-04 151-291-4m 151-292-05 Title Eais i Trust OD/or Joel B Dooley Title Ins. & Zi'ust CID./Or 19872 Saltuater Circle A P C DriOMM ve Pobert C Rathbone Jwitington Beach, Calif 301 E Meadow IAne 92648 . inftm Beach, Cal,f 92646 Monrovia, Calif 91016 2j-171-06 1U-291--05 151-292-06 vale S Newman Title im & Trust 00/ar Title Ins & Trust Co./ or 4600 Marra Drive Aster jo Tarzana, Calif U71. Haft,,r Wive 8182 Master Drive 91356 Ems► Beach, Calif 92646 Huntington Beach, Calif 92646 25-171-10 151-291-06 151-292-07 AA,M f---I- al Title Ins & Unst CID/Or Title Ins & Trust Cb./ or Dorothy M Qr*bs H Raymond ► cNai_r 13 Slam xkzWter Drive 1300 N Vexdugo A3 Ut 92026 Mutington Beach, Calif 92646 Glendale, Calif 91208 151-281-03 151-291-07 151-292-08 Orange County Flood Ombw . Title Ins & Trust Co/or Title Ins. t Trust Co./ or District I&nft Mbat'gomery *dM Glenn T Eagl.eebon P.O. Box 1078 - 8191 Minster Drive Ionise P Eagleston Santa Ana►, Calif 927022 I&IMInatm Beach, Calif 92646 8212 Munster Drive, H.B. 92646 At/7 AZViN sr &'s 92c*8 '1,5 3-566-02 153-567-U Wand W T Newland Estate P at Laud Um Slanent Amendumnt Pmam J Kathnann 8342 110- 80-2 19932 Cato Circle I Calif 92646 Ax" 2.2 (JH) ungton Beach, Calif 92646 t M53-567-03 153-567-12 w T »e Jm" * pAutmen W T Newland Estate Waldo & X"" Ott Lane RAm t 4rDuaan Jr 19961 U 1 5 A Meech, Cal 1991.2 Cato Circle C4�it 92 92*#,d an Beach, Calif 926U 153- 1 , a**"-" 153-574-07 W T � �� � �8�at�e WT Nod and $state Jams A Bier 1 1 p Lams 19931 Wow I me fawn, Calif 92646 Huntington Beach, Calif 92646 153-566-10 153�5 ?.-1#5 153-574-08 W T Newlar4 Rp"to 14 9~ AM4=d Xxt&to W T New ]4nd Rotate EUmd F. Amlq* Ciao* x Oldw Betty B Coat at al 19942 Acrttawk 1 t 19941 Weems Tam 9' 1 r Calif 92646 Hnntxagtan Beach, Cam! 926 6 153-566-U 153-% 4" 153-574-09 W T Newland Estate K T W T Newland Estate Sate W Grow Armando R FUAZ 19952 RothWt rAne Law 19951 kbers Leese H�turgton BAmch, Calif 92646 , Calif 92646 Huntington Bearb, Calif 92646 t 153-566-12 153-574-10 W Tla Newland T � �►be W T Newland Estate ej�cvj9kc9F � K St al Clarence H HeiI 19962 lame 1"62 Oda Circle M71 %hates Inane Beach, Calif 92W a ntimpm Someh, Calif 92646 amtington Beach, Caw 92646 153-566-13 153-567-.M 153-574-11 W T Newland Estate M T Xmd#A d Rotate W T Newland Estate Iats D Riva Jos g glym Antonio E Hernandez 19982 lothert. Lane 19962 Cato Circle 19981 Weems Iaa>re I u�t�xwgton E aaoh, Call 92646 Ibmt1hatopBemcb, Cml i g 92646 Huntington Beavli, Calif'92646 153-567-01 153-567-09 153-574-12 W T Newland Estate W T NWT} Rotate W T Newland Estate Donald M Grigsby Paul H J�%*I* Vincent R Tritz 19911 Pother Lane 6r02 yam, Owyln Orive 19982 Weems I,®ne Huntington Beach, C&I J 92646 Nm*inOm Beach, Ca1*1.f 92646 Huntington Beach, Calif 92646 920" 153-567--02 153-W 7-1,0 153-574-12 W T Newland Estate 18 T UyUmd matte W T Newland Estate Kenneth H Riel 19931 Aathex t ime 19%2 Cmko tea, 19962 Wwms Larim t�mt3 r>�ton s t9w,l - _92646 am2tingtom Reach, Calif 92646 Hantington Beach, Calif 92W 10-51-292-09 25--171-10 "gtle Insurance & Trust �./or Clinton S. Eastman CO./Or ,ewge Pagers ArOA 2.2 14600 Coldenaaest St $201 17UI Beach B1vd.Suite 103 Wettmumster, Cab bntiorm Beach, Cali 9447 92683 L51-293-07 153-566-12 W T Newland Estate John Y. Young4 ,i► C�k Alfred Rnl ir.Traf Z0421 Seven Sews Lane A01 ft" Ci=he 19962 Rather Lane a2646 96 untington Beach, E:�1 1apgcttt boq i, Ca1if Huntington. Beach, Cali 92646 L51-293-09 151-51.3-12 lichael R. IA char Jae R1m Kim Ia9w `r 20291 Sea Circle W391 Seven Seas L^* �� Low Uh � Beards, Cat1.�.f tuntingtcn Heath, (!Ali �, M 1111 )2646 92646 L51-502-05 151-302-04 Luella M Atwood et aal. Iry 040aft at al Title Insurunce & Tr uat,/or 20191 Cale Cottagw a ing � 82ar � � iuntbon Beach, Calif 1t eadu kalif 32646t3ngbonbeach, Cali t 92646 L51-502-27 153"574`14 151-502-18Rld�rd R Dee tennis E Wand Cbttaic� Lane Cam � 0042 N New Britain Lao Lao 2 H0131 C ri Beads, Calif ��9tcn Beach, Calif , Calif 92646 4 92646 94" _51-502-29 153-57448 151-502-19Marlyn K Smith Joanne ® Nelson i W lizW Jr 24121 Cade Qottage Lame j 0072 N New Britain Lane 199U Csty Ci=le H� Beach, Cali f 64t6ington Beach, 8w Calif 92646 92646 cb, Calif 92646 _51-502-41 151-291-02 151-502-44 Ocvo A Barillar Kh y OWW eat al !0171 S New Britain Lsne 8121 Na A*mr Drive [untington Beach, Cali W boacb, CIa11f 12646 02646 .51-513-04 M-292." 151-502-44 "ayes M Lees Midwel Majdick Roxanne W. Kruasick 1202 Southport Drive 8182 MLuUtw bave 20201 S stew Britain Lane (untugton Beach, Calif Ift A Beach, Cal. £ Huntington, Beach. Calif ►2646 926" 92646 .51-513-16 25-143-11 i k-Ivxd Rudderow Pipeline 1W !0332 Sea Circle I 7 M. Wau* Ave #R Punta ngt n 8ese W-OLIlf _ ta, Cal i 12646 �k ri �rp �Vt 49 7/V 153 -ff,7N1----&-- 99-/Z 151 151- Via.- �1/- -- - - - --- -- -- ✓�� lc�• t.ster,� A14 � ill - /D - - - - e!� I wo 00 /S/ a9 ,JnNytauluc 0 t)a�6aA)- J eZ r rid _A-173— 5-6 7-O�L /J-/;- JDc—)- — 4 7 _ /5-3— 5-?,o -7 — 0(4o Adft dr loINFORMATION SHEET p PLANNING DEPARTMENT P-CA �• �. CASE NO. ZONE REZONE TO �LOTS ACRES PLOT PLAN CHECKED LOGGED IN:. LEGAL CHECKED GENERAL PLAN LOCATION ceo r ®PLANNING COMMISSION (300' RADIUS) ®B Z.A (ABUTTING) APPLICANT OWNER ASSESSOR PARCEL LIST 23 t J��� g L• / "7 �,Z e �a INFORMATION SHEET PLANNING DEPARTMENT CASE NO ZONE +� REZONE TO LOTS„ ACRES PLOT PLAN CHECKED LOGGED IN:. LEGAL CHECKED: GENERAL PLAN LOCATION L U $ O -2. Elp-LANNING COMMISSION (300' RADIUS) OBI A (ABUTTING) APPLICANT OWNER ASSESSOR PARCEL LIST zdlpf xI"fC( - K) 9 - / -is- ( , 7 -/r 20 ✓ter - , �Si - `3 -�r Gi NVTI- S! y - I +y- s ✓�j� _ I,us"_ / 7 ✓1S'3 - 09/ ) i �, i3, ✓ems- - s3 - 14-/y Lts ? - sc -�,1III -a, l3 3 a y �g 3 .• 5 7 �F ^ P' is- zat? ✓ - �� 1 '- 4 L�aFlo � � s- 1 ✓1 S-1 - 2 - 193 9 4* �y 5/ • !� l 1 }2-191-16 111-381-14Wll�m K Brown ji(mard B. Rapp Jr Area 2.3 3202 S. Way )L 8 W Ooean Front Santa Ana, Calif ''1'�' Calif 9 )2661 2704 142-191-17 167-324-05 111-381-16 --A- rd L Meynagn Pat Browning Cmar Kahle Sr. I042 Adel.ia Circle 17032 A St., Apt B 924 Dorw:od Street w tuntuigt on Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Costa Mesa, Calf 92b46 92647 92627 t62x 167-324-07 111-382-04 wil]ti�mu P. Anthony George R Finley Jr 10585 Slater Avenue 5435 Middlecacest Rd Fountain Valley, Calif Rarer Palos Verdes, Calif 92708 90273 1b5-282-05 111-383-10 111-382-05Key jAizabeth Marines' Myron Miller Vale 7091 Ash Street W943 Santa Madrim Circle 15421 Dogwood Street 17091 Ash Beach, Calif fountain Valley, Calif Westminster, Calif Hunti92647 92708 92683 165-282-07 111-383-29 111-382-13 i x4uas Lambert Peggy French Donald Goguen 8611 Truxton Drive c/oQuail Properties P.O. Box 1006 Amtuigton Beach Calif 1400 Quail Street NmPort beach, Calif )2646 Newport Beach, Calif 92660 92663 165-282-09 111-384-14 111-382-15 Ularles E Taylor Gerald Robertson Shaw Jou Cheng L8644 Los Leans Street 15431 Vermont Street Kenru.th F Fare Lountain Valley, Calif Wmtmirmter, Calif f 8089 Canuluto Malloroo )2708 92683 La Jolla, Calif 90237 L65-2d3-U1 111-384-15 111-383-06 1W Otto et al Philip Zisakis Gzridhart L Agrawal 9092 Talbert Ave #9 16351 ?opts Lane 22 Hamden Circle Lowitai.n Valley, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Simsbury, Ct. 92708 92647 167-214-U1 Ul-384-18 Willaiin Saul Leonard Lichter 901 Lanpson Avenue 17111 Beach Blvd., #212 r,arden Grove, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92641 92649 L67-324-03 142-191-14 .Loyd Marines Stepp DuBow 12598 Vista Panorama Drive 52 Royal Saint George Rd Banta Ana, Calif Newport Beach, Calif ,j27U5 — 92660 a. 3 �mrd AA)o? / C'd go-I 20� Qc9&cP -7 iii- Asa - �o� �Poyi�Cl1� L- � l�.�Q/Jde�s i Cad 90�7`� / 7d4i �- Od c9c,�9&<47 /-V 66y�. /000 JLV���O-�-3 ae3 - /0 fsvtpi �cv,Qcr�' ,Z. "IU D. P,.2L2�QP/LTC2� C'a 9a�� Plu�2��o Zisdk,� 9c;2&4:�/7 it/-3s�- i8 .@ejc�eh 6&2tY, e�r>Y'/>, Cad 9alo�'I 09 7- /B�S�� �o���a� vc42e.�y1 ed 9a 708 of 9o9a -rdtdm� .46e. #9 uaw�,", da 9e9-708 W71 A w- . Jnod&n Gee, , ac� 1427 - 3c;4 - 03 Ia598 v/6;6 �rLor1�-r.� OiJ. 1 703 c;� A S f' Alor 6 &/,Ybl� 6�" , Od q 7 9c9 709 �18 GU. Cetd,;k? FeOrUf' IbI64:61 �td CAI 4(o /ras-c-; 9a- os oil ad 9a� ale 8089 C�a�Yw�u,� �iae2.��v Od 90,93-7 4 7 as Odd-r>-yoae�n G'cr� • - 7Zerv�ao2,� �z�.h,6:�C, 19 Aft 0 0 INFORMATION SHE ET Is I PLANNING DEPARTMENT 4,e F,4 �- CASE NO ZONE REZONE TO _...__ LOTS ACRES PLOT PLAN CHECKED LOGGED IN LEGAL CHECKED GENERAL PLAN LOCATION BANNING COMMISSION (300' RADIUS) [:]B Z A (ABUTTING) APPLICANT OWNER ASSESSOR PARCEL LIST 10 7, 6g1 � if r -38- 1 - I -Pj- IJ / 3 6 2 - 2, #t 1.7j =1 A& n �g J i — 3 7'r' 3� J�� - i91 - IDI ► 2� � �, ��i,a3 -�' 2 �,� - Zo2 - ► l� Is' /4 14* 11 J 4.7 '-3.1 s- 1- w ft 111-384-11 'and Ilse clement No. 80-2 111-383-24 Cry Ocean View School District Tul v 15, 1980 17021 Beach Boulevard r>a�Te 2 - Dawn aua d.3 18174 Santa Cecilia Circle Hunturft l Beach, CA. 92647 Fb mtain Valley, CA. 92708 111-383-10 111-383-25 111-384-12patsy Lilly '',jron Miller Jahn Knight 7931 Cypress Avenue 7842 9yveatiose Street Huntington Beach, CA. 92647 Huntington Beach, CA. 92647 111-383-12 111-383-26 111-384-14 fartkes Disho"n Martin Jue Bdaen-Bonn 7k!tkjklk3k3k3k3k3kjk3kjk3k 7852 Sycamore Avenue Hinting ton Beach, CA. 92647 111-383-12 111-383-28 111-384-15 Vartkes Dri.shoian Marctm Villaramm t RVINW&-*59m& 7901 Cypress Street 8081 Holsa Ammue . Tuntingtan Beach, CA. 92647 ML&my City, CA. 92655 111-383-14 111-383-29 111-384-18 ' hie Moore ew a UKxu rd Lichter 17102 Ash Street Twltuton Beach, CA. 92647 3 9 111-383-15 M-383-31 142-191-10 Tason Dieternm Paul Nolz Donald Janes ;n22 Harvard Avenue 7861 Cypress Avenue 17931 Beach Blvd. va lestmunster, CA. 92683 Huntington Beach, CA. 92647 Huntington Beach, CA. 92647 111-383-19 111-383-32 142-191-12 ,Yank Mir]ahangir Stet= Nakao J.B. King Jr. ')742 Brassie Circle 16668 Glass Motmtain Street 1927 Teresita Lane 'Imt.imton Beach, CA. 92649 Fbtntain Valley, CA. 92708 Newport Beach, CA. 92660 111-383-21 111-384-03 142-191-14 KatePealty Susie Thanpson,/Metha Barr 1741 W. Katell 17108 Ash Street 1741 W. Kat-atta Avenue ITtmtingtcn Beach, CA. 92647 Anaheim, CA. 92804 -Tbrzw,a, &,3ram 111-383-23 111-384-08 142-193.15 Marcelo Jiron Geneva Walker T, n. Box 186 171n S. Elm Street Take Arr Amad, CA. 92352 Htmtingtnn Beach, CA. 92647 ln(3 Use Tlement No 80-2 111-381-11 - 111-382-13 FIJI-, 15, 1980 George Toy Donald Goguen Dawn 19332 Manor Point Circle Q� 3 Huntingtan Beach, CA. 92648 107-100-67 111-381-12 111-332-15 T-tke Stewart Lows Canqiano Jr. - T' 0 Box 248 % Robert Sangster 2662 '1n Andreas, CA. 95249 115 Via Jucar Newport Beach, CA 92663 111-381-1 Ul-381-14 111-382-16 a I. Hamm Ray Hopkins 14682 Monroe Street 16311 Normandy Lane ^Rich,►ay City, CA. 92655 7 HuntirK ton Beach, CA. 92647 111-381-02 111-381-15 111-382-17 T) F Farr H®ryoon,Homayocnne3ad H C. Box 1396 7761 Sycm=e Street �1 'b.mtzngton Beach, CA. 92647 Huntington Beach, CA. 92647 S .y 111-381-03 111-382-19 ,leg Beiarano 111-381-16 s Myrm Meier 17022 Oak Street Omar Kahle Sr' 16551 Redwood Circle funtington Beach, CA. 92647 Shop QL-4264-7- Fountain Valley, CA 92708 111-381-04 Ul-381-19 111-383-01 *Ixres Durston Mrs. Sexton Clarence Snyder 1762 Warner Avenue Gross 7822 E. Sycamore Street "�tntinclton Beach, CA. 92647 Nelson 359 San Miguel Dr. #102 Huntington Beach, CA. 92647 Newport Beach, CA. 92660 w9w"NOOOM Ul-382-02 111-383-02 Lewis Shaver Jr. Ova Tunstall 17081 Ash Street 7832 E. Sycamore Huntuvjbon Beach, CA. 92647 Huntington Beach, CA. 92647 111-381-09 Ul-382-04 TN-)� Francesrht rcbmt HOU22MWNFth 111-383-06 *60t Carousel Lane t Rebmt 11untingtxn Beach, CA. 92649 92647 111-381-10 111-382-05 mod, Hanna .Hdera bd fimper 111-383-09 15751 Brookhurst $t. 149e4 mWomita Dr. William Hann Suite 133 i 132 Ash Ste? CA. 92647 Westminster, CA. 92683 ,inch Use Element No. 80-2 rulv 16, 1980 twee, 4 - Dawn dO Q. • 3 16 ?IR � �jkj -, / c/ D L. Dickey 170 167-324-10 ' ,-neral Baptist Churdi/oc+emvi w -/o D.L. Dickey 17101 A Street ' untington Beach, CA. 92647 167-324-11 lamer Beadh Cb., Inc. 17042 Beach Blvd. lcintingtan Beach, CA. 92647 167-325=15 ('-iliforma. First Bank ite Location Division n Box 1311 ,-in nlego, CA. 92112 r,-tnd use Dlenent No. 80-2 165-282-04 _ 165-283-07 Tuly 15, 1980 /Agee Flores Jeffrey Jameson et al ,,ache 3 - DaTwn 7852 Cypress St. c/o Shoreline Associates Hu ntington Beach, CA. (2647 8907 Warner Avenue #163 Huntington Beach, CA. 92647 142-191-16 165-282-05 165-283-08 Aawai�der�ee Audelia Duarte ty 17190 Elm Street . Htuttington Beach, CA. 92647 T 7 142-191-17 165-282-06 167-324-02 Ailoso", it. IAupa Panto3a Willaim Saul neraffrentm 7972 Cypeea Avenm -9i64i Haatingbatz Basdi, CI►. 92647 7 142-191-18 165-282-07 167-324-03 Aldus Haqerman Dun" Iawbart Lloyd Mwa es 2021 AliBo Avenue 406neet rbsta Mesa, CA. 92627 7 Santa Ana, CA. 92705 142-191-19 165-282-08 167-324-04 rkonald Hix Fred Orrin Michael McMahon 17551 Bates Circle 17151 S. Elm Street 17031 A Street Thmtmx#on EW=�Ch 4.x v 9 HUntingtcp Beach, CA. 92647 HLntuxjbon Beach, CA. 92647 142-191-23 165-282-09 167-324-05 T.F3 King, Jr. Pat 8nvwning 1927 Terssita Iane *Iewport Beach, CA. 92660 ' 142-191-24 165-283-01 167-324-06 r Tom Otto mt al Stanley Greenwood �/e-maul donna-fsei�My 17051 A Street 7 Huntington Beach, CA. 92647 14vt6kospbon .Baneh, C*-9,0W 142-202-01 165-283-05 167-324-07 Tbhert Beauchamp et al A.R. Evens b 1752 Larnley Avenue % W.E. Fisher 0/0 Irvuie, CA. 92714 101 Shows Cliff Drive 9 Oar na Del Mar, CA. 92625 142-202-14 165-283-06 James Fcocx c Rdm Alvarez 167-324-08 305 17th Street /�j, `� T 17162 Elm Street Pat Brow urig Huntington Beach, CA. 92648 ; Huntxngt on Beach, CA. 92647 8832 Savvy Circle Huntingtcn Beach, CA. 92647 Mola Development Corp 7 �"MIAI --V7- 808 Adams Avenue Y's 946 po Huntington Beach, CA 992648 GEN - COMM1101 ! �■� . ��BU rrrr�r�rrrrr�rirrrrrrrll Ill _. am I� ■■�■ � � 1111ME 1 III I1 ■_11111111111 _ _ 'rrr rrr��r i���r��r��� ., ■ � � ' � �rrrrrrrrrrrrr :�:-^:��u�r�rrr���ri ■ ■ � it�l�l UPam GENERAL 11111111. ' �u� lIIM i!1 11`INI �1COMMERCIAL ■' , `•r�ion���� I■ NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING JD USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO 80 2 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING O THE GENERAL PLAN& EIR NO 80 3 JD USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO 80 2 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be 10 THE GENERAL PLAN& EIR NO 80 3 held by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach in NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be the Council Chamber of the Civic Center Huntington Beach at held by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach in the hour of 7 30 p m or as soon thereafter as possible on the Council Chamber of the Civic Center Huntington Beach at Monday the 17th day of November 1980 for the purpose of the hour of 7 30 p m or as soon thereafter as possible on considering Land Use Element Amendment No 80 2 to the Monday the 17th day of November 1980 for the purpose of General Plan requests to (1) Redesignate 46 63 acres of land considering Land Use Element Amendment No 80 2 to the located south of Ellis Avenue and east of Goldenwest Street General Plan requests to (1) Redesignate 46 63 acres of land from Estate Residential to High Density Residential (2) located south of Ellis Avenue and east of Goldenwest Street Deleted (3) Redesignate 10 18 acres of land located south of from Estate Residential to High Density Residential (2) Warner and west of Beach Boulevard from Commercial to Deleted (3) Redesignate 10 18 acres of land located south of Commercial with a Multi Story Suffix (4) Redesignate 10 13 Warner and west of Beach Boulevard from Commercial to acres of land located 450 feet north of Warner Avenue and Commercial with a Multi Story Suffix (4) Redesignate 10 13 West of Magnolia Street from Low Density Residential to acres of land located 450 feet north of Warner Avenue and Commercial (5) Deleted Environmental Impact Report No West of Magnolia Street from Low Density Residential to 80 3 will be heard in conjunction with the Land Use Element Commercial (5) Deleted Environmental Impact Report No Amendment No 80 2 Copies of the proposed Land Use 80 3 will be heard in conjunction with the Land Use Element Element Amendment and Environmental Impact Report are Amendment No 80 2 Copies of the proposed Land Use available for review in the City Clerk s Office Element Amendment and Environmental Impact Report are All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and available for review in the City Clerk s Office express their opinions for or against said Land Use Element All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and Amendment No 80 2 and EI R No 80 3 express their opinions for or against said Land Use Element Further information may be obtained from the Office of the Amendment No 80 2 and EI R No 80 3 City Clerk 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach CA 92648 Further information may be obtained from the Office of the (714)536 5227 City Clerk 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach CA 92648 Dated 10/30/80 (714)536 5227 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Dated 10/30/80 By ALICIA M WENTWORTH CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH City Clerk By ALICIA M WENTWORTH City Clerk Pub 11/6/80 Hunt Beach Ind Pub 11/6/80 Hunt Beach Ind HASTINGS CR Z MAZA CR. ,- y k % F WAGERS CR SAVOY R. �, N WENDY CR. q ROYER CR DE VILLE CR c's PARKER CR CF— E — a . 0 FERGUSON CR Q J ' ROYAL DR I.OW DENSITY > CAMEL CR. RESIDENTIAL T a J GONNER DR O Z SALEM CR. Z LOW VEREK L CR z DE NS IT Y KENT CR. - T E C D. -AN ---- JERRETT CR - o� i Y OI Q J J` RECREATION CR. N ANTHONY D o - c GORIIVIEI(CIAI. COMMERCIAL WARNER AVE OF FOUNTAIN VALLEY rn - - COIVIMERCIAL Q 1.Ow w a liES11)ENTIA1, Area of Concern 2.4 ro O 0 G] Sept.80 O 44 hunt ington beach planning division Figure 2-10 I ' I I ' I ' � I I -'- - - - - - - - - - - 'i - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I I OW6 '10 '4-'" H UDI&ITVXW i OCOT6 'lTx L19Z6 01O 'tip UD*krT*xV 'Y U" WWLM 'M ' X TOM 'M AWd - - - - - - - - - - - - - �- - - - - - - - - - .SMV-14T 1 ' I ' 'PATe WHO "t6T i 'm XOAM Tts ' '3S MJWV 'M Ton sm 'r now 'M T"d - - _ - - - - K-M-LOT , - - - - - - - - - - E T-M LOT ' �b _ _ _ _ _ ZT"Z_TI"LOT - - - - - - - - - - - - - -I- - - - - - - - - - I , 1 I L19t6 silo i &W6 -90 V@M mV*T ma6 'O 'A'[TM uvw3mm4d 6La ' '-M J@tx&00 7,649 I *XO OL014H 91691 `O =30" i vT��i «i @dm I UTWJNM ��d TT-ZT8'YOT 90KTIP-I.OT 36- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - SOKTQ-LOT I 91056 ' ' Lf9t6 04 ''i�A �4aR7Rsfi i LM6 '!7 ftpvm u=Aurvjm 6 Me et" ' 'jI moulcO Zop88 4=1101) ''I MPOO i +CAM "'Y bruD 36-- - - - - - - - - -- - -►0 Zt8"'Lot � - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I - --- -- -—--- - -- - - -- --- - LOT ' 9M6 '#O NPOW uDQ&JT*"I L►966 '4 NPMQ WAXr AN i 1.r9Z6 ' '&Y PTWDJM MOT ja istnoU two ' i SWIM Tom S'itTA r-- 'd 9010111M i mi l OWMM UPKqtJ# 26 TO"ZTO-LOT I 36 gams-LOT ,_ 06 SO-'[IM01 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I ' 1 ' 'jQ -uuuco TL89 TE'9Y ' ':CtinLEETT A'LTIN 'J Awr -a =4000 ; ■PUi 'Y •mm"r 06 VO-TTB'LOT ; to-TTI-LOT aQ CO-TTO-LOT - --- - -- -- --- ------- --- -r --- --- --- ------ --- -- --- +--- -------- --- --- - - I I , LtlC6 '4 %m" unbrnu ! ; L►9Z6 'ITM fq"ft ' 26 TO-ITS-LOT ortv*-LOT ; 26 9MEL-LOT - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -I- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - r - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - ' I 1 I , I 9►9L6 'WO '4f8 L► Lr6 'fit OWWO 0001:1-M ow WrTo'cew TT99I i '*K JOAM C46L ' low 1 IVTJWM TCMM AMU QxupgmTe Sf T£Z-LOT ; n-Ift-LOT ' 0 "TEMOT - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MOM 'jT L 'o'Tsar w i ' i tOLt6 'MVD *=W *VMS 009L um 'O'd i OT006 OLOT 34 'O'd 'ATQ Xn 41.3 orr�d 1 IDT�ld T JWADD 'JTM JO *CO TT m O UDTM ' pwri A*Mc�) ap 60-TEC-LOT Et'LOT ; 010'90-TEL-LOT - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -'- - - - - - -- - -- - - -- - -- ------r ----- -- - -- - - - -- - - - - ' OD I tee r--w:'Olt ,imocm li Timm" am am ' � - I �-2 LAIDum nowwr AI4lT aim w. AREA 2.4 - - - - --- - - -'- ----- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -r - - - - - - - - - - - - 107.-812-18 qc I 107-812-19 QC 107-812-20 9C Haul E. M&arda ' Mary G. Skuvtadt l.. A842 Decak Cir. 1025 SwIside C>we last ' Wz ingtan Beach. Ca. 92647 ' tiw4x t Beach, a. 92660 ; Sau�te, (h W.""'�� I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I 107-812...0 gc i 107-812-n 9C ; 107-812-27 qc Sene hvtano William 84 TW n.a I Miguel Ablascal 8802 Derek Mr. 1 S"2 Derek Mr. 8791 Jarrett Cyr. Mx*J gtm Beach a. 92647 ' liastingUm Beach, a. 92647 1 Mirkington Beach, Ca. 92647 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -'- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 107-812-28 gc I 107-8 gc 107-812-30 9C / 18341 Cher Tkim Lune ; ' 8831 Jarrett Cir. Ksrtiratm Beach. Ca. 926" Caa. 92647 ; fiv*Ington Bleach. Co. 92647 I ' - - - - - - - - - --- ----- --,-- - - -- - - - -- -- - -- - - - - - - - -'- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - -- - - - I 107-812-31 9c � 107-812.-32 gc I 107-812-33 qC John Jaeww ' e"T C. "VIM I James 8841 Jarrett CYr. ' W51 Jarrett Cyr. i 88 Hsac Cam. 92647 ; [isrtlnQt�n Beach, Ca,. 92647 ' Caa. 92647 I ' I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 107-812 34 9c 107-812.M ct ; 107-812-36 Robert Blundell � Ardestdr Aoahec Mike lam me 8842 Jarrett Cir. I %02 P<wt Clyde Dr. 8822 Jarrett Mr. Kntingtan Beach, a. 92647 ' Kz*lrjgtcn Beact'. ON. 92646 1 Ka*ingtan Beach, M. 92647 I .I I - - - - - -- - - -- --- - - - - -- - - - - '- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - -- - - -- - - - 107-812..37 9C � 107-812-38 9c 107-812-44 9C Jotn D. UNW I Gerald L. Wolf Wmat A. C?r[we 8802 Jkrrstt Cir. ' 8792 .fit Mr. 1 8791 AnthxTy Dr. Rs* rqtlon Beech. Co. 92647 i E mUngtcm Beach M. 92647 � Kentingtan Beach- C.. 92647 I I 107-812-45 9c Aeu A. �l� 107-8 9C 107..812-47 QC 8801 Anthony Dr. i '� S I cAmff*er Kittlase az*ingtan Beach, Ca. 92647 ' Be 8831 lanthorry Dr. ' Beeactti a. 92647 I IKmtiex2 Beech, Ca. 92647 I _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ L _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ T _ - _ - _ - - - - - _ _ - - - - - - _ - 107-812-48 9C 107-812-49 gC ' 107-812-50 9c JatVw time I Philip Klippel ; David E. Moeer 8842 Anthorry Dr. ; 8832 Anthwq Dr. 18822 Anthorry Ur Ksatirrgtcn Beach, Cal. 926447 I MwCLno tr Beach, Ca.. 92647 ; HzCingtaa Beac,'h, a. 92647 � I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - r - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -'- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I 107-A13-51 9C 141.2%-Ol 9c ' 143-294-02 Arxkv Saati ' Jon M. Wish ; ltiountain valley C7al.f Part Imc. 8802 Anthony Dr. 33208 PeAmo acvesa ' John M. mish mintinotan oaac% Ca<. 92W i San Juan Ca. 92675 33206 Prseo C erveze _ - - i_ _ _ Sin Juan Capistrano, Ca. 92675 - - - - - - - - - - - - - � I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 143-301-21 ' 107-812-29 (]Ulf Oil Corp. of Calif. I Robert K Landers Dw stie Tax Dept- 18821 Jarrett Circle P d PbIt SM, fin• Amm ' Huntington Beach , CA 92647 I,os Angeles, ca 90054 ' ..4i .. . ... . . . . 107-812-20 - Robert L Johnson Area 2 4 3369 Cherokee Avenue Southgate, Calif 902$Q 107-812-46 Cheng-Yuong Lee 8821 Anthony Drive Hunti.nyton Beach, Calif 92647 107-812-33 • lee H Liao • 8852 Jarrett Circle ; Huntington Beach, Calif 92647 . . . .... .... . . . . . 107-231-10 Blanchard Enterprises Inc 809 Darner Avenue Suite 211 Huntington Beach, Calif 92647 107-231-07 Tamura Enterprises - 8881 Warner Avenue wnu.ngton Beach, Calif 92647 107-811-06 Irving Green -6Judy Green 17530 Santa Dcx ungo Circle Mountain Valley, Calif 92708 107-812-04 Robert Raising Jr 4532 Guava Avenue Seal Beach, Calif 90740 107-812-11 Wade N Hoy 8791 Derek Cirlce Huntington Beach, Calif 92647 1 IL A D USE air MOOMW No. 80-P AREK 2.4 1 - - - - - - - - - -- -- - - ---- -- - -- - - - -- - 143-301-31,32 qc 1 143-30L-M gc ' Je Htiiih ; arvium M*Mrpria 33208 Teo oar%e" Gloaftle. Car. 91202 Seri JUM Ompistrwe. Ca. 92675 I ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 I I ' I 1 1 I I � I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I I I I I I I ' I ' I I I I I I 1 I 1 1 I i I I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -1- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I 1 I I 1 I 1 I I I � I 1 _ _ -- - -- - -- - 1--- -_. _ --- - - - -- - - - - - - - -- - - - - -- I I I I I I I I 1 I - - - - - - - - - - - - - -I- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I L 1 _ _ I 1 � I � I I I � I I I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - '- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 1 1 I I I I I I 1 I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - '- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 1 ' 1 I 1 ` 1 I I I I � I I 1 1 I I I 1 1 I Aw INFORMATION SHEET PLANNING DEPARTMENT CASE NO ZONE REZONE TO ____r__LOTS_„„ ACRES PLOT PLAN CHECKED LOGGED IN _,_ LEGAL CHECKED GENERAL PLAN LOCA71ON PLANNING COMMISSION (300' RADIUS) B Z A (ABUTTING) APPLICANT OWNER ASSESSOR PARCEL LIST --- �a7 SIP .io,l�!s'�lG 1 0 '7 --65Z -1 o / 0'7 --F / ( 1 49 01 -- g 1 z 1 6 Z 21 .1--H 39. f it -fi5/ Iq3 - 3oI - 2 /, 3 /, 32 ,_j(,, NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING 3 USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO 80 2 i O THE GENERAL PLAN&EIR NO 80 3 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 17th day of November 1980 for the purpose of considering Land Use Element Amendment No 80 2 to the General Plan requests to (1) Redesignate 46 63 acres of land located south of Ellis Avenue and east of Goldenwest Street from Estate Residential to High Density Residential (2) Deleted (3) Redesignate 10 18 acres of land located south of Warner Avenue and west of Beach Boulevard from Commercial to Commercial with a Multi Story Suffix (4) Redesignate 10 13 acres of land located 450 feet north of Warner Avenue and West of Magnolia Street from Low Density Residential to Commercial (5) Deleted Environmental Impact Report No 80 3 will be heard in conjunction with the Land Use Element Amendment No 80 2 Copies of the proposed Land Use Element Amendment and Environmental Impact Report are available for review in the City Clerk s Office All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and express their opinions for or against said Land Use Element Amendment No 80 2 and E I R No 80 3 Further information may be obtained from the Office of the City Clerk 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach CA 92648 (714)536 5227 Dated 10/30/80 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH By ALICIA M WENTWORTH City Clerk Pub 11/6/80 Hunt Beach Ind a 111-071-11 law U.,e Clement 80-2 Sully-+Miller ContractuN Co 3000 L South Street Area 2 5 .Long Beach, Calif 9Ud05 111-071-24 111-071-24 ocean view Mushroom Growers Inc 18196 Gol&mwest Street ihmt. nyton Beach, Calif 92648 111-072-11 111-072-11 Sioa®a�oc 111-072-11 111-072-11 Mola Develop mt Corp 417 Main Street Huntington Beach, Calif 9264d 159-212-07 Margo Co. 9330 r-,tam to Avenue Riverside, Calif 92509 lil-12U-27 Travis B Mitchell et al William J Soott Jr et al 1965 Long death Blvd lAny raacn, Calif 908U6 1 111-071-12 y/ Su11y-Mi11er C. ntracting Co. I,ar�d Use Element Amerx$nent Union Oil of Calif Property Division No 80- P.O 760U 2.5 (JH) Angeles, Calif 111-072-1 0051 d --- - P.O 697 tir�gton Beach, Calif 92648 L11-071-24 111-072-20 f Ocean View Growers Inc Hmtuwgbon Beach Company 2833 Blvd. 225 Bush Street Suite 09 San Francisco, Calif V , Calif 90058 94120 Ul-071-31 159-211-03 City of Huntington Beach william J Sullivan ------------ 16601 Graham Street Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 111-071-49 159-211-08 Masami Fu3ita saes L Wbod Fujita Fanns 321 S San Vicente Blvd #203 14452 Chestnut Street Los Angeles, Calif 90048 Westminster, Calif 92683 111-071-50 159-211-11 F uj ita, Mitsuko William F Beesemayer 7646 E Bolsa Avenue Tract 8788 Joint Venture .Midway City, Calif 3835 Birch Street 92655 Newport Beach Calif 92660 111-072-07 159-21-2-03K Z Huntington Beach Company Margo Standard Oa.l Co of Calif P.O. •15679 Property Tax Divlston Beach, Calif P O Box 3495 815 San Francisco, Calif 159-212-08 94119 Larry H Strasbaugh et al - 3400 Airport Way IDN Beach, Calif 90806 111-072-08 159-212-09 Huntington Beach Company Dansbach Ltuversity 2110 Main Street P.O. Hoar 5550 1 mt.ingtan Beech, Calif Huntingto n Beach, Calif 92648 92646 Publish 11/6/80 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION DELETING AREA 2 5 FROM LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT 80-2 TO THE GENERAL PLAN 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 17th day of November , 19 8Q for the purpose of considering an appeal filed by Councilmen Pattinson and MacAllister to the decision of the Planning Commission to delete Area 2 5 of Land Use Element Amendment 80-2 to the General Plan, a request to redesignate 10 00 acres of land located north of Ellis Avenue and west of Gothard Street from Industrial to Open Space Environmental Impact Report 80-3 will be heard in conjunction with said appeal All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and express their opinions for or against said a„„eai Further information may be obtained from the Office of the City Clerk, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648 - (714) 536-5227 DATED 10/31/80 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH By Alicia M Wentworth City Clerk Publish L NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING �y^�c�,( 'ro �1.4-n+N►�ICo�tM►sSiAnl �Gt3i�n) �,e/e��•�� Qi�j FAOM �ANt� (�Sls ►�IJDMi9NP ��-�. 7a 60-A0$114-L. 9)4,V 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 ?3 o P M , or as soon thereafter as possible on ,I4o,,J*X the l ' day of &jib ® n 19 for the purpose of considering Qw c w-9 -v 6o*a�d S-V w-t- Qom- ro 9 3 QAD �-k b44 L-^ c ,&A- All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and express their opinions for or against said &Z"4j Further information may be obtained from the Office of the City Clerk, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648 - (714) 536-5227 DATED to CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH By Alicia M Wentworth City Clerk evur-illar Coo uss RIGWnt 9133WAmt spa G f Calif ft 80-2 Division (JH) P.O. 7600 Ca12f j926;r 51 Beach# Calif 48 071�-26 111-072-20 v G rowers Inc Huntington ;:283 Blvd. 225 Bmhte 9 Saga Francigm, C%lif Calif 90058 96120 1U-071-31 159-211-03 City of Mmtuxjtotn beach Millian J SQmw= 16601 Grahwa Street Huntington Rich, Calif 92649 111-071 49 159-211-08 raommi Pujita L Wood qw b FQAta Farms 321 S San Vicente Blvd 9303 14452 Chestrmt Street las Angeles, Cali 90048 Wasbdmtar,, Calif 92683 111.-071-50 159-211-11 Fujita, YntsWm William F Beemmayw 7646 E bolsa Avenue Tract 8788 Joint VerAmm City, Calif 3835 Birch Street 92655 "Wport Beach Calif 92650 111-072-07 159-212- Beach Ompmy R . Standard oil CID of Olaf P.O. ftxperty15679 Dvisu m , calif P.O. B= 3495 15 San F'g =, Calif 159-212-08 94119 Lw=y H Strasbaugh etal 3400 AAirport6W 7 e.".,°'9 Beach, Calif 90806 111-072-08 159-212-09 HmtuxjtDn Baach Ompany Dmuftch University 2110 Morin Start P.O. box 5550 Huntington Bch, Calif Huntingto n fin, Calif 92648 92646 90806 PM ° F*[ '&TO 43-MM fOM996T iv ,zs °xd` r ueTnrm Ts Tlsw4yN 9 STJW.X , LZ-OZT-TTT 60SZ6 irm 'ePrsxaArd etmay -lT4TUomrT Off 6 LO-ZTZ-6ST FITIM Nome UD*xg4unt1 488245 u*rl-: T LTV dx* qumutyramaa sTcrq TT-ZLO-TTT ° TT-7LO-TTT XWEMM TT ZLO-TTT TT-ZLO-TTT 8lp9Z6 lqomM uo*4&munF7 WS '4TOJ 961ST =I sxeAo-TJ vmoxtpzm mot! upecO WZ-TLO-TIT I jig WZ-TLO-TTT S()AOF ITT c 6uoq S*Z TawS tn� a OOOF Z-08 '4�TZ Ggn I °CD &MlmxnucO TTT* TTT' I INFORMATION SHEET T , PLANNING DEPARTMENT ,4Rr - CASE NO ZONE REZONE TO LOTS ACRES PLO r PLAN CHECKED LOGGED IN LEGAL CHECKED GENERAL PLAN AaM Iff4t M&WMJ LOCATION A/0- 'CFO PLANNING COMMISSION (300' RADIUS) B Z A (ABUTTING) APPLICANT OWNER ASSESSOR PARCEL LIST �-�- °7 o , CF_ ' ` i:RAt-.-'E .-U-:Si ..ci PROC AN DR. INDUSTRIAL W OPEN SPACE C F-C a z (FRE Tt,. 1AT.(.i'Ci:rk-Fly.. I TJOY OR. O. INDUSTRIAL i i ESTATE; — 2 un/gac RESIDENTIAL INDUSTRIAL ESTATE', — 54 un/gac RESIDENTIAL Area of Concern 2. 5 O O Sept.80 O huntington beach planning division 55 Figure 2-12 •• � 'Y�', �. ,' ', ' .. .. ' ' .sA�:•f�txv;•�'='.M•�. f �,�r,:'lT'yl, .�1:w•,.� � r'.. '- ; ��•• .r''� ••, ',• �,• •� � ' a'�+set.j!?'E'�' a�'. .1�j•ATvf Y�, +.�'''Vt��,r���?.. -POP � at AM ry '•� •• ''R{� •y •R�'' 4, is � .. ', •.��:�. .ti.� ,t �,. 'J� a{s.,f p,• ��> j'1 .rt4rq.. Y47.. `�„s�, R'dl.juEeZ-:'•}.. S'.+:�'. '�w►�' �.{•- E•+• •? '4y. '�s.�ai*J Jr�ia• .�S;a ��.•:, ;�". 'o•�n�,.rd t� �( :i�/•'f►j�+' ' ;y' ! �'' •�%p•i'r: a,�y. Y...• `,�i '. r' lr Ik `: ay` •• ,a :e i g , ;� •1.�.s�.V. ! '�i L; [ 1'�E�o Off* 'w7 �""5;, "r y t i+ :�: -�.' •f..d,�S�, {�,_�"ywy fi'r t�ir t"1••'�•�E••. t'�. .. ," ! :fir•.�i.,lv. ••�•,. j+Gi•- a ft�r+ye, :h ,, •i.• •Is.[ 1'..•' 'sr •' lr '! � '�,l s if7�•f�.:` ..� .:e e�� jj++ �. '1�. 191.•i••e� ' S'.. ��•�••'.�' •�, '�•+',•�``•+•�.1•••'''''''�����rr'�. .S•'�. '�.•{ �!V.a' • J IO. ,'•�yaj(a., .M tt)17 ••l• t••� •,-•. • 4 ,M. • .7. � _1• .;+•...i. +.eC�y ,f s! ,' t, ••'�,•.}•J+,.1 aR i4+[•' Y{1.1{-a.�..� �' ... ;h a+ 4.' • .. '.... .• 'may .R,' •• ,. • '' •• .!.••Y •+ `)' .. '' � • . . t4 a.i•`9'1''' •'�'Lc'• .pCI '',a'• y��I•` 'C'Y'••' f. 4!1'rw r`i Y' a..:. ••{�•i!.L 4+�,+rJ,d�•#'• f' qw':• }v'..~•�;. 1 ,r ti.••"i; ?: d \ • .1'~,. ;a �J6r.S„Lni4k ' 4 •_ ' • _ ,r. ... .,,._.•__ � _. _ �a__as.•.•ua. ._ '. _ •............:.::�:a_..:..•.,�:.'_,._.'+�•,'e a ...-.-r..... •• -_ '1 - -_ ' Cy ni .. � •� yi a• +•� - •°'Y�"r'^1�Y7'1',i• ` 'i�y■.rlt�•A,.�! i�.��•��G�:S�y7•'• e •j '/IaJ� +�ti' .: •• •t' A. 6 . . �.iMJi,k,.�g�i�'� it 1 t{�����))• r � _ 16 .i • ., •�.r.7 r 7JCC'�I �f�•..'R jv-J..�. •' � �•• W •• • � . .. • � : 'fly •• • ... . •5• : ^ �. +•'!: La.. ,■.iir 'f.J7 ♦4 �' �:;ar t.� 4• ' K �j'' ...•..• '. •: ..' .. 1 ,; ~$. •• � ,yF :� .aS. ••+; - •�• :p■ .' .. fad . •1' - < �is w ,� •. �, ��'•r• ':, k :�� a •� '��'.s+l. ' 'Lay- f;.a^.ti'..••�, � �•• �.. �. .• �• � �• �.. 'a' � ...' •r ` `. ,a•'••L..Jy.f !.a/t..r,la'�r ti+•' i 24, . .. •�'�I'•,•MY•.� � Y ,' s .• • s• '' . ' 1. .• •e? •r 1., .. ' i � . .r' .• .' .. SAY.:rh,.� (y.Y� 1. F.A�'.4.Y M�•�j(• •y`� •s.,yy�-•t .�y: - � t,r, Si..r'x;'s e'e�'1•P flr��!�L• a'�- ��jy�..(��'y�ry' .� .. .' , '.. ... �»f,. ��:� .'"�',� ' yyr. � , �.. • . . �:,.s ��i•}��•, 1 J t p• . .. :ir• 'r.; '�' n..`'�i s,. .rt`Z •�•r, .ai-ray+•,. :t •t � -6 �� : . ,. r. 1. ...� e'. • '. .:`x:�tdS;ti�'!'.a"'`'^..:.�•s,_---_--_ ,e,.r.. _— —_ _ _s;i..`.%_» - ..__._ ..;'•s .•j,•' 'f _ .'�] ..11� • ■■ m ww ., EMIL I1111111111111111111111111111111�. NINE MN ■ I111 5 � All 111I��.n.Mill ■� NO I l 1111111111111111 NINEEN NOI I'111 ' ill1111111111111 NEW ■ = � 1111 111 '1I1111111111 , 1111111111 I1111111111111►.:=___":"/�11111111111 ■� � III111111111111Ir rnllllllllllll . I11111111111111 111111111111 11111111111111' ...... II 111l1111� 1 NEW MNGENERAL • -.�. MEN ■ ■■t I (fi FlgtcMAN 1 I I T ��—D�R.I� -- — W GENERAL O COMMERCIAL `! O W � O u = CLARK041I 111 FT AD MS - AVE Z J NORTHPORT o J z DR. RESOURCE W PRODUCTIO _ Z Q ' m MEDIUM K DENSITY RESIDENTIAL Z 4 4 O � - W LOW m DENSITY W RESIDENTIAL = " C PE EW r 1 }• �' � W ' O a N Q 1 j j ' SOUTHPORT DR " CF -R I I ,r,•s I 1 U • � I 2 I I •{ yWQ� � O � � ;f SEAPORT VE j 77 ac _ GENERAL w W LOW COMMERCIAL J MUNSTER 2 DENSITY o: I I o RESIDENTIAL J' AVE Q , _� W i 1 ( , r- _ � Z - l I J W i MALL Y J LD i bi -- W Y� 1LOWi..AVE /t ANAPOLIS } Y DI•"NSIT &—r RESIDENTIAL Area of Concern 2.2 UD@ 0@0E Sept.80 O huntington beach planning division 21 Figure 2-5 C1 — 1 ` 0RX.-77E (Ii'jNT!NGT.n,N ..E:N1R►L PARK) MNDR IK INDUSTRIAL 3 OPEN SPACE a (FiR�cTk F�TF VNiNG F,- c7 1 , rim d - INDUSTRIAL 4 I I I� L ESTATE—<_2 un/gac RESIDENTIAL INDUSTRIAL ESTATE— 54 un/gac RESIDENTIAL Area of Concern 2.5 O O G] Sept.80 O huntington beach planning division 55 Figure 2-12 J • W TAN OR 3 d Uzi CPEN SPACE - a s .�x.1:;}}::.}}}•,•.<••;.�'•::}i'�?+: rh•f�?''{?�;�,: :�:}.� ::�:�:�::; rr:ch�;1x:k:{•,i.}:•}:•}. ex ..... ..:..... , :;:.• f}j}f{ 1 ;kky .k.;.kM1.;r.;.}; :: ::•:r :f{r:. •.:::�}}}}}:.}}}•t,}::�::.}:tt::•:{.;•i:?:t.:•;t•.} :.�..}:.}:t:.}t{:':::'.:::.: :: IrVYUSTRIAL ..y.:,r ;r {.'}';'irk+ 'k '. ,,•i:;;4\ ,{:+�kk;.};.y.: ! r`rf::::r::r}•.:•2:ti.; ty}::;•:;;: ,r{;•.r:r }:+t; t'i,;:i::.,:•}::.}:•}i•}:•}:•: :. }........ :r ���k',+. �.:.,}•.:k}}:•,•:}::rr'�� kk�k�:kk•>:�:',••:� :�:: :r�:rt• • k 1 .}i::x rf:�rr:i;?k:r�� k:,•��: r�;is>:�>:� :���:� : •��.1 �' : r':'+:+::1. .; .,x}•: . .:t�}::?:?s. ..0.ms :}:f:> {:}•tip?i:: ::`y:;:•,�,..}.}?•: {;1?'•'.•:{ '{:}::':: ':' :;}}:•.,:1.1•'•' ' •,• ;+;G.r'r?::r?•`: : t';a; {r`Lr;{:rr r :r :: ;:;:}.: '}} :: :ti.r1;f; k.�.;% r::,•:1}}k: sc si � F- M to . IN USTR.IAL �L--�—`�- ---ice----loco SC4LF IN FEET F•� 3 - 5 W ~ � to u 6t 1_ GARFIELD MEDIUM DENSITY A un/gac AVE. r Area of Concern 2. 1 _TENTATIVE GOTHARD TpL ,p ————STREET REALIGNMENT O O Q 6 qEphuntington beach planning division Sept.80 • Figure 2-2 E AVE • THASTI Z MA2A CR. J J yGtir F WAGERS CR SAVOY CR. `ram ` WENDY CR. 2s� � 9F �0 ROYER CR DE VILLE CR. C'S' PARKER CR CF— E a . o — Z ._. FERGUSON CR Q J ROYAL DR Low DENSITY } CAMEL CR. RESIDENTIAL Q 1 CONNER DR _.I . 0 IX SALEM CR. LOW X PEREK CR "-DENSITY KENT CR. Ii,ESIDENTIA11 C D. F _ v. JERRETT CR Y _. o. Q LL C - J _ I Z % RECREATION CR. ANTHONYJ D If GENERAL o COMMERCIAL Q COMMERCIAL - d WARNER' !AVE OF f- FOUNTAIN VALLEYE] �- vl _. COMMERCIAL d t.O W w UENSi7'y' crLJ _R.ESIDENTIAL Area of Concern 2.4 UD ( O •o O D Sept.80 O huntington beach planning division 44 Figure 2-10