Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Land Use Element Amendment 82-1 - Environmental Impact Repor
r RESOLUTION NO. 5206 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ADOPTING IN PART LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 82-1 TO THE CITY' S GENERAL PLAN. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Huntincl- ton 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. 82-1 to the General Plan was held by the Planning Commission on November 16, 1982 and continued to and closed on December 7, 1982, and approved for recommendation to the City Council; and Thereafter, the City Council, after giving notice as prescribed by Government Code Section 65355, held at least one public hearing to consider Items 2. 1, 2. 3 , and 2 . 7 of said Land Use Element Amendment No. 82-1; 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 , commencing with Section 65350, that Items 2.1, 2 . 3 , and 2 . 7 of Land Use Element Amendment No. 82-1 to the General Plan, consist- ing of the following changes, is hereby adopted: 1. That 1. 52 acres located approximately 600 feet north of Yorktown Avenue and 500 feet east of Main Street be redesignated from medium density residential to office professional. 2. That 19 . 4 acres located on the west side of Iiuntinct- ton Street between Clay Avenue and Garfield Avenue be redesignated from medium density residential to general industrial. 3 . That under Section 3 .4 . 3 . 1, Standards and Criteria, on Page 82 of the Land Use Element, the following wording be added: /dmf ].2/9/82 r t r (6) Density Bonus Where a developer has agreed to construct a per- centage of the total units of a housing develop- ment for persons and families of low and moderate income, the City may grant a density bonus of that same percentage over the otherwise allowable den- sity under the applicable zoning ordinance and General Plan land use designation subject to a dev- elopment agreement and as long as the following findings are made by the Planning Commission: 1. The capacities of the City and county water, sewer, and storm drain systems are adequate or are made adequate to accommodate the proposed in- crease in density as well as all other planned uses in the area. 2. The proposed increase in density will not have a significant adverse impact on traffic volumes and road capacities, school enrollments, and recrea- tional resources. 3. The character of the surrounding area is not ad- versely impacted nor the overall intent of the General Plan sacrificed. f PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 20th day of December, 1982. 4W 1�. Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: J�� City Clerk City AN ney -B"�- REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED: t 1Q1 City Administra irector of Development Services -2- f • Res. No. 5206 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) I COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, ALICIA M. WENTWORTH, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of more than a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 20th day of December , 19 82 , by the following vote: AYES: Councilmen: _Pattinson. MacAllister, Mandic, Finley. Bailey. Kelly NOES: Councilmen: None ABSENT: Councilmen: None NOT VOTING:Thomas City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California 4I 1 ell MPM SERVICES INC. Wo , Marketing Professional Management 2 - 1 1982 Development Ser:'!LIs November 12 , 1982 Mr . James Pal .in Director/Development Services City of Huntington Beach P. O . Box 190 Huntington Beach , CA Dear Mr . Palm : Received your general letter concerning the redesignation of 19 . 4 acres on the west side of Huntington Street , be- tween Clay Avenue and Garfield Avenue . A proposed change seems to be logical and of general benefit to the rtr- ea . Therefore , we would have no objections to the rezoning . The parcel Lhat we are concerned in lies east of property- running betwef�n lluntinyLon SLreel. and Delaware Street . Sincerely , Boyce e. : )O--nes President BDJ/ss 1801 F Suite 102, R,rkcourt Place, Santa Ana,Ca.92701 - (714)972-1227 r - IN THE Superior Court OF TI IR, STATE OF CALIFORNIA In and for the County of Orange L CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PROQZQFPUBLICATION City Clerk RETRACTION OF NOTICES State of Califoi nin ) t'1�l� M'.1111heap• County of Orange )s^ diY1a1 qrt JAMIE J. MOORE That I am and at all times herein mentioned was a citizen of s�uet,�,'� the United Stntes,over the age of twenty-one years,and that I waM-isisi am not a party to,nor interested in the above entitled matter; ]aft Re- that I am the principal clerk of the printer of the a �4 HUNT. REACH IND. REV. Woo at a newspaper of general circulation,published in the City of ,6, .MMIfar- HUNTINGTON BEACH (714 County of Orange and which newspaper is published for the MiL disemination of local news and intelligence of a general charac- abed ter, and which newspaper at. all times herein mentioned had t and still has a bona fide suhscriplion list of paying subscribers, and which newspaper has been established, printed and pub- lished at regular intervals in the said County of Orange for a period exceeding one year; that the notice, of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been published in the regular and entire issue of said newspaper,and not in any supplement thereof,on the following dates,to wit: Dec. 119 169 1982 i certify(or declare)under penalty of perjury that the forego- ing is true and correct. Dated at.......GARDEN GROVE....................... 17 Dec. 82 Cali fornia/,'this .........day of .... ....199............ J.. l igneture IN THE Superior Court I OF THE , STATE OF CALIFORNIA In and for the County of Orange a CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH v PROOF OF PUBLICATION City Clerk u� PUBLIC HEARING State of California ) County of Orange )ss. JAN MOORE That I am and at all times herein mentioned was a citizen of NV H ZONE CHANGE NOL82-16 oW the United States,over the age of twenty-one years,and that I CODE AMENDMENT NO.82-12 am not a party to,nor interested in the above entitled matter; NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a that I am the principal clerk of the printer of the ppuubbcs of theeanng Citwilly be held by the City P P P Cwgcd of the City of Huntington Beach, m the 6ouncd Chamber of the Cme Can HUNT. BEACH IND. REV. pM nn>�r t aspu,•lieon Monday the 20th day of December,1M a newspaper of general circulation,published in the City of for the purpose of oonsidermg Zone! Change No 82-16 and Code Amendment HUNTINGTON BEACH 13 62a2,a rezoning aped n north ly of 13 71 dCree of property boated north ot- Warner Avenue between Edgerrat�and Count• of Orange and which newspaper is published for the Sceptre I enas from ROS Harbour Bay 3 gP n Space)to HuntmgWn Harbour Bqy disemination of local news and intelligence of a general charac- Club SpeafW Plan A bgal deecnption is ter, and which newspaper at all times herein mentioned had on file in the Office of the City Clerk. All interested persons are invited to and still has a bona fide subscription list of paying subscribers, attend,-aid heuung end e�rees thar and which newspaper has been established, printed and pub- opmtone for or against said Zone Change lished at regular intervals in the said Count of Orange for a Further information may Cl obtained g Y g from the Office of the City Clerk,2000 period exceeding one year; that the notice, of which the Main Street,Huntington Beach,Cabfor- annexed is a printed copy, has been published in the regular ma DATED(714)536-5227 December 9,1982. and entire issue of said newspaper,and not in any supplement- .CITY OF HUNTINGTON thereof,on the following dates,to wit: 'BEACH Ci AlicciakM Wentworth Cler Pub�p�ceatuber 9,1982 Hunt,Beach Ind Rev#31105 December 97 1982 I certify(or declare)under penalty of perjury that the forego- ing is true and correct Dated at... GARDEN GROVE........................... California,this ...10.day of .De......19 82.... Signature ''4 J^ 0 Z Z Form No .POP 92082 IN THE pp v 'D Superior Curt OF THE 0 Jo STATE OF CALIFORNIA In and for the County of Orange r, ll CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH+ PROOF OF PT A'6 City Clerk PUBLIC HEARING State of California County of Orange )ss- JAN MOORE NUMOrSEARING LUE 62-1 ad SIR 62-s NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a That I am and at all times herein mentioned was a citizen of 'pubhc��h8 will be bold by the City the United States,over the age of twenty-one ears,and that I Council of the City b r of Heath, g Y- Y m the Council Chamber�the Civic Can- am not a party to,nor interested in the above entitled matter; ter,Huntington Beach,at the hour of7M that I am the principal clerk of the printer of the MM,or,as Won,thereafter a p0e093161 an HUNT. BEACH IND. REV. fin admenhe to the eidermea � amendment w the tend use Element of the CiWB General Plan(LUS No.82-1) and tat Impact Repart No, a newspaper of general circulation,published in the City of 82-3 vdueh includes the i items: I Rede*hate 152 wnae lo� HUNTINGTON BEACH Avenue and 500&sad north of Ma Yorktown �� from Medium Density Residential to County of Orange and which newspaper is published for the OKicePto[eenoad .4- disemination of local news and intelligence of a general charac- 2 ue autd,out of ✓�1 ter, and which newspaper at all times herein mentioned had St. from o to and still has a bona fide subscription list of paying subscribers, RDedes g 3. nste 194 acres located on the and which newspaper has been established, printed and pub- west side of Huntington 8L between 4K lished at regular intervals in the said County of Orange for a Clay Ave. and Garfield Ave. ftin r Gen- period exceeding one year; that the notice, of which the �IW annexed is a printed copy, has been published in the regular 4 Redesigmte 5.7 acres the north aide 1' _ and entire issue of said newspaper,and not in any supplement of ppttrreeuw AYe' thereof,on the following dates,to wit- Muted DevelopmenL P� 5. &a adiTate 5 6 acres located west of , School t batet View I from General to cam Density ReBiden December 99 1982 s ate17::=v �;s"�southeast Ave Banning 110� Countyfrom Indtuc4�to Low 7.Add density bonus Qrovwone for real- dental development to the Land Use vFlem t I certify(or declare)under penalty of perjury that the forego- °teed persons are;ranted to ing is true and correct. attend emd hearing and their GARDEN GROVE nio f«°raem°°t9W -1`na Datedat................................................ Further ssformatron may be obtained from the oWm of the City Clerk,MW 10 Dec. 82 Mans street,Huntington Beach,CW-- California,this ........day of..........19........ ma,9Z648(714)536.5227 DA1 RD Demmber 9,1982 CITY OF HUNTINGTON . W ......................... BEACH By ALraa M.Wentworth City Clerk Signature Pub December 9.1982 Hunt Beach I�Rev.A311U6_____ / Form No.POP 92082 r REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Date December 8 , 1982 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson, City Administrate 0 Prepared by: James W. Palin, Director of Development Services POY Subject: LAND USE ELEMENT NO. 82-1 and ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 82-3 XC5s 500 Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions,Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Land Use Element Amendment No. 82-1 includes one administrative item to add provisions for density bonuses to the City' s General Plan and six requests for changes in land use designations. Three of these items (the administrative item and two land use change requests) are being forwarded to the City Council for consideration at the December 20, 1982 meeting. The remaining four items will be forwarded to the City Council. in January 1983. Concurrent zone change requests will also be heard at the December 20, 1982 meeting for the two requests for changes in land use designation. It is. anticipated that there 'mav;be, ap- peals to the Planning Commission' s actions on the zone changes that accompanied the remaining four items in the Land Use Element Amendment. Postponing these items until January will enable the Council to hear any appeals concurrently with the related items in the amendment. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: , The Planning Commission recommended certification of Environmental Im- pact Report No. 82-3 to the City Council by the following vote: ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY WINCHELL: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Mirjahangir NOES: Porter, Schumacher ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None The Planning Commission took separate straw votes on each request item. These votes, along with the findings and/or reasons for each action, are included in the attached draft minutes from the Planning Commission' s December 7, 1982 meeting. The Planning Commission approved Resolution No. 1299 recommending City Council adoption of Land Use Element Amendment No. 82-1 by the follow- ing vote: ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY PORTER: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ''9 A.,010-1 PIO 4/81 Land Use Element Amendm, z 82-1 December 8, 1982 Page 2 RECOMMENDATIONS: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 5206 Since the City Council has only three of the seven items in the Land Use Element Amendment before them at the December 20, 1982 meeting, staff and the Planning Commission are recommending that the Council adopt the Amend- ment and supporting environmental information in part. The remaining items in the Amendment can be acted upon in January. 1. Certify Environmental Impact Report No. 82-3 as it pertains to Items 2.1, 2.3, and 2. 7. 2. Approve the recommendations of the Planning Commission and adopt by resolution Items 2.1, 2.3, and 2.7 of Land Use Element Amendment No. 82-1. ANALYSIS: The amendment request items 2.1, 2.3, and 2.7 forwarded to the City Council at this time are summarized in Attachment 1. The requests are analyzed in detail in the sections of the Land Use Element Amendment report No. 82-1 forwarded with this request for Council action. Draft minutes from the Planning Commission's public hearings on November 16 and December 7, 1982 on the Land Use Element Amendment are also attached. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Environmental documentation for the amendment requests may be found in the amendment report which also serves as Environmental Impact Report No. 82-3. EIR 82-3 was posted for a 45-day review period ending December 3, 1982. Public comments and staff responses are incorporated in the appendix of the report. 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. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Land Use Element Amendment No. 82-1 (Items 2.1, 2.3, and 2.7) and Environmental Impact Report No. 82-3. 2. Summary of Requests Chart 3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1299 4. Draft minutes from Planning Commission meetings on November 16 and December 7, 1982 5. Resolution for City Council adoption No. 5206 CWT:JWP:CItdf SUMMARY OF REQUESTS ATTACHMENT 1 ENVIRON- REQUEST ITEM/ MENTAL STAFF PLANNING AREA OF INFORMA- RECOMMEN- COMMISSION CONCERN LOCATION ACREAGE APPLICANT REQUEST TION DATION RECOMMENDATION 2.1 500 feet east of 1.52 Huntington Medium Density EIR 82-3 Medium Density Medium Density Resi- Main Street, 600 Beach Residential to Residential to dential to Office feet north of Company Office Pro- Office Pro- Professional Yorktown Avenue fessional fessional 2.3 West side of 19.4 Cambro Man- Medium Density EIR 82-3 Medium Density Medium Density Resi- Huntington Street ufacturing Residential to Residential to dential to General between Clay Ave- Company General In- General Indus- Industrial nue and Garfield dustrial trial Avenue 2.7 Administrative - City of Add provisions EIR 82-3 Add provisions Add provisions for Item Huntington for density for density densityt,bonuses'for Beach bonuses for bonuses for affordable housing affordable affordable the General Plan housing to the housing to the General Plan General Plan 01 RESOLUTION NO. 1299 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE " CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMEND- ING ADOPTION OF LAND USE ELEMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN NO. 82-1 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission -of the City of Hunting- ton beach, California, desires to update and refine the General Plan in keeping with changing community needs and objectives; and WHEREAS, amendments to the Land Use Element are necessary to accomplish refinement of the General Plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommends the following amendments to the Land Use Element: 1. That 1. 52 acres located approximately 600 feet north of Yorktown Avenue and 500 feet east of Main Street be Vedesignated from medium density residential to office professional. 2. That 19. 4 acres located on the west side of Huntington Street between Clay Avenue and Garfield Avenue be redes- ignated from medium density residential to general industrial. l 3. That under Section 3. 4 . 3. 1, Standards and Criteria, on Page 82 of the Land Use Element the following wording be added: (6) Density Bonus Where a developer has agreed to construct a percentage of the total units of a housing development for persons and families of low and moderate income, the City may grant a density bonus of that same percentage over the otherwise allowable density under the applicable zoning ordinance and General Plan land use designation subject to a development agreement and as long as the following findings are made by the Planning Commission: 1. The capacities of the City and county water, sewer, and storm drain systems are adequate or are made adequate to accommodate the proposed increase in density as well as all. other planned land uses in the area. 2. The proposed increase in density will not have a significant adverse impact on traffic volumes and road capacities, school enrollments, and recrea- tional resources. 3. The character of the surrounding area is not adversely impacted nor the overall intent of the General Plan sacrificed. Resolution N. Page 2 WHEREAS, a public hearing on adoption of Land Use Element Amendment to the General Plan No. 82-1 was held by the City Planning Commission on November 16, 1982, and continued to and closed on December 7, 1982, in accordance with provisions of the + State Government Code; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach, California, hereby approves said amendment to the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said amendment to the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach is recommended for adoption by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach, California, on the 7th day of December, 1982, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: J es W. Pa , Secretary Tim Paone, Chairman APPROVED A 'ORRECTED ON 12-7-82 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Council Chambers —Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 16', 1982 - 7:00 PM COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Higgins., Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher_ , -Mirjahangir ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Leigh Miller inquired about some Zenace that could be converted in- to a trailer space at a mobit home park in the Ci Chairman Paone suggested that Mr. Miller that information fSavoy Bel.lavia. Z CO10ENT CALENDAR: �;�N�T: BY LIVEN . OD AND SECOND BY HIGG S, THE CONSENT CALEN R C OF TH MINUTES OF THE REGULA MEETING OF NOVEMBER , 1982, AEST R EXTENSION OF TIME O TENTATIVE TRACT 1091 AND CON- DSE ERMIT N0. 80-4 WAS APP VED BY THE FOLLOWIN VOTE: AI:iggins, Livengood, Wi ell, Paone, Porter Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES- None ANone ANone OP REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: LAND USE -ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 82-1/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 82-3 Initiated by the City of Huntington Beach This LUE includes a staff-initiated proposal to add density bonus provisions for affordable housing. to the General Plan. and requests for changes in land use designations in six areas which correspond to the following zone changes: Numbers 82-12, 82-9, 82-18, 82-19, 82-16, 82-17 and 82-10, also Code Amendment No. 82-12. Staff re- commends that public testimony be taken and that these items all be continued to the meeting of December 7 , 1982, with the exception of Zone Change No. 82-17, which should be continued to December 21, 1982. Chairman Paone explained the overall procedure to the public. Florence Webb elaborated on the Chairman' s explanation stating that because of the large number of items and the fact that the 45-day review period H.B. Planning Commis in November 16, 1982 Page 2 on the EIR will not end until December 3, 1982, a continuance was re- commended. Carol Inge gave a brief presentation on the LUE and the density bonus provisions proposed. Commissioner Porter stated his opinion regarding the procedure. He preferred that the EIR be certified prior to taking testimony on the Land Use Element Amendment. The Chairman opened the public hearing on the density bonus provisions. No one came forward to address this issue; therefore, the public hearing was closed. ZONE CHANGE NO. 82-12 (In conjunction with LUE 82-1; Area of Concern 2.1) Applicant: Huntington Beach Company The original request was to rezone 1.52 acres of property located ap- proximately 500 feet east of Main Street and 600 feet north of Yorktown Avenue from R2-01-PD and R2-0-PD-CD to R5-0-CD. However, the applicant requested that an "O1" designation be put on the property so that drilling activity can continue. The public hearing was not opened on Zone Change No. 82-12 . The public hearing was opened on EIR 82-3 and LUE 82-1. Representing the applicant, Huntington Beach Company, Dave Eadie stated that because of economics, and since the office park has access to the oil islands, he supports the use of continuing Chevron's operation of drilling on the site, which calls for "R5-01-CD" . He further stated that the anticipated projection for oil operations on the site was at least the next ten to fifteen years. Nancy Schreiner spoke in opposition to the request; she felt it would lower property values in the area. ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD ZONE CHANGE NO. 82-12 WAS CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF DECEMBER 7, 1982, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher, Mir]ahangir NOES : None • ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ZONE CHANGE NO. 82-9 (In conjunction with LUE 82-1, Area 2.2) Applicant: M. D. Janes Company, Incorporated A request to rezone approximately 25 net acres of property located on the east side of Goldenwest Street between Ellis and Talbert Avenue, from RA-O-CD and M1-CD to R2-0. The existing use is the Mushroom Farm. Staff gave a brief presentation stating that residential alternatives were included in the report. Commissioner Porter felt that, because City Council expressed a desire to explore the possibility of affordable housing in the Central Park area, that this possibility should be examined. -2- 11-16-82 - P.C. H.B. Planning Commission November 16 , 1982 Page 3 Commissioner Livengood asked if an appraisal could be done on the property. Acting Secretary Webb explained that staff does not have the authority to hire an appraiser. A straw vote revealed that no other commissioners agreed with Mr. Livengood. However, Ms. Webb said staff would be happy to supply the Commissioners with estimates and comparable prices on the property. The public hearing was opened on Zone Change No. 82-9, which is Area of Concern 2.2 on the LUE. Georqe Alvarez, speaking on behalf of the applicant, supported the proposed zone change, stating that residential would not necessarily preclude the "open look" of the area. Ron Dryer, also speaking for the proposal, stated that the owner of the property wishes to retire and would appreciate a timely decision. The public hearing was closed. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY HIGGINS ZONE CHANGE NO. 82-9 WAS CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF DECEMBER 7, 1982, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ZONE CHANGE NO. 82-18/ZONE CHANGE NO. 82-19 (In conjunction with LUE 82-1, Areas 2. 3 and 2.4) Owners : Huntington Beach Company & City of Huntington Beach Zone Change 82-18 is a request by the Huntington Beach Company to add an oil suffix to the northeast corner of their property located between Cambro' s operation and the City water fac:.lity, which is generally located on the west side of Huntington Street between Clay and Gar- field Avenues. Zone Change 82-19 is the City-owned portion of the same area. This request is for M1 (Light Industrial) zoning. Because of the close proximity of the properties, the two zone changes were heard together, along with the LUE, Areas '2. 3 and 2.4. The public hearing was opened. The following persons spoke against the proposed zone changes: Robert Trommler, Nancy Schreiner, Jerry Ford, Suzanne Horsburgh, Dean Albright, Mark Price, Donald Pierce, Bob Wilson and Jim Craigens. Most of these resided at the condominium immediately adjacent to the subject site. The main concern was about the noise factor with the existing Cambro 'plant along with an antici- pated increase in noise with a possible expansion of the operation. Other concerns were raised relative to a transportation corridor along the railroad right-of-way. Dick Hammond, General Manager of Cambro, spoke in favor of the proposed zone changes. He further felt that the company has attenuated the noise level to the minimum. The public hearing was closed on Zone Change T709. 82-18 and 82-19. Commissioners discussed the Pacific Electric right-of-way and the noise problem. Commissioner Schumacher suggested a qualified zoning . 3- 11-16-82 - P.C. H.B. Planning Commission November 16 , 1982 Page 4 be placed on the property so that conditions could be added addressing the noise problem. There was some discussion about pro3ected oil operations in the area. A motion was made by Schumacher and seconded by Porter to add a "Q" designation to the request and instructing staff to readvertise the zone change (82-18) reflecting this change in the request. This motion was amended to be Ml-A-O-Q and require a conditional use permit appli- cation to be heard by the Planning Commission with additional conditions to be added at staff's discretion. The final motion was amended as follows: ON MOTION BY SCHUMACHER AND SECOND BY PORTER STAFF WAS DIRECTED TO READVERTISE THE ZONE CHANGES REGARDING THIS AREA, LEAVING THE OIL DESIGNATION WHERE REQUIRED AND REQUIRE A "Q" DESIGNATION WHERE RE- QUIRED ON THE CAMBRO DEVELOPMENT, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Wincllell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD ZONE CHANGE NO. 82-18 AND ZONE CHANGE NO. 82-19 WERE CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF DECEMBER 7, 1982, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES : Higgins, Livengood, Wincl,ell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None The Chairman called for a three-minute recess. ZONE CHANGE NO. 82-16/CODE AMENDMENT NO. 82-12 (In con3unction with LUE 82-1, Area 2.4) Applicant: Huntington Harbour Beach Club & Marina Landal Development and Pacific Development Inc. The zone change and code amendment would establish a specific plan on 13. 7 acres of property located on the north side of Warner Avenue be- tween Edgewater and Sceptre Lanes rezoning the property from ROS to Huntington Harbour Bay Club Specific Plan. The purpose of the Plan is to permit a mix of open space and recreational uses, commercial uses, residential uses, a public marina, parking and uses incidental to these activities. Claudette Dupuy of staff explained on the LUE portion of the plan only recreational and residential uses would be allowed; that the zoning would be handled by the Specific Plan. Jim Barnes gave a presentation on the zone change and the code amendment. He stated that the Specific Plan was prepared by the applicant and reviewed by the staff establishing -4- 11-16-82 - P.C. H.B. Planning Commission November 16, 1982 Page 5 specific standards for use of the property. One area of the plan would permit the construction of 48 residential units which would be con- sistent with the recommendation of the Land Use Element Amendment. Commissioners had some questions about the density of other comparable condominiums and the possibility of obstructing the view with regard to Coastal Act regulations. Commissioner Schumacher inquired as to the highest the building can be constructed under the Specific Plan. Mr. Barnes said that although the Plan speaks of a 45 foot building, with the measurement calculated at ground level it could be as high as 55 feet above existing grade. In actual stories that would translate to 4 or 5. The public hearing was opened. Dirk Harlow gave a presentation in favor of granting the request. He recited a historical account of the Club area, updating that to the recent denial of the City Council of the previously proposed "guest cottages" . The following persons spoke in opposition to the zone change and the code amendment: Lou Cardenas Michael Cavallo Frank Weber John Cronn Luanna Young Pauline Robison Ed Sundberg Chuck Ford Peter Young Marvin Beitner Lee Whittenberg Morris Stone Mr. Weeland Donald 7�ltig Dean Albright Ken Kirk Bonnie ,�ltig Mrs. Schwartz The following persons spoke in fay.)r of the proposed plan: Sheldon Grossman Jim Sargeant Shell Grossman Chuck Bennett Ken Moocly Harold Prouse Donald Watson Dick Kagasoff Doctor Ben Bill Hartge John Silver Doris Ahadpour Neal Wells Peter Shore (owner) On the opposing side, a petition was submitted with over 1, 000 signatures; also, such issues were raised as the tennis club mem- bers being "forced" to lose their membership and 3oin somewhere else; that the concept of recreation opera space presented in the beginning would be changed; that the proposed density would cause traffic prob- lems; that views would be obstructed; and that it would be inconsistent with the Coastal regulations by not providing adequate access to the waterways. Arguments in favor stated that the proposed development would improve the "live aboard" problem that currently exists; that it would benefit the community as a whole; and that it was the best plan that has been proposed so far. It was also pointed out that the peti- tions received against the proposal may have been misleading as most of those signing the petition were opposed to the opening of Edgewater Lane. This was erroneous information. The public hearing was closed on Zone Change No. 82-16 and Code Amend- ment No. 82-12 . A straw vote was taken on Commissioner Livengood' s suggestion that staff be directed to prepare alternate findings for denial, with results as follows: OPPOSED TO SUGGESTION: Higgins, Winchell, Paone, Mir3ahangir IN FAVOR OF SUGGESTION: Porter, Schumacher, Livengood -5- I1-16-82 - P.C. H.B. Planning Commission November 16 , 1982 Page 6 Commissioner Porter asked staff to explore what impact the additional boat slips in the marina would have on the parking and to investigate 3ust how much of the parking could be attributed to "live aboards" . There was some concern about the liquifaction of the ground, whether the building would "sink" , or the possibility of water getting into the subterranean garages if there was a severe tide change. Commis- sioners wanted to know what the acreage and density was on the Weatherly Bay condominiums. ON MOTION BY PORTER AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD ZONE CHANGE NO. 82-16 AND CODE AMENDMENT NO. 82-16 WERE CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF DECEMBER 7, 1982, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher, Mir3ahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ZONE CHANGE NO. 82-17 (In con3unction with LUE 82-1, Area 2 . 5) Initiated by the City of Huntington Beach A request to rezone 5 . 47 acres of propert+Y located at 17161 Gothard Street between Ocean View High School and the City Maintenance Yard, from Ml (Light Industrial) to MH (Mobile Home) . The public hearing was opened. Leigh Miller spoke in favor of the proposed zone change, on behalf of the owner of the Beachview Mobile Home Park. The public hearing was closed on Zone Change "To. 82-17. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY PORTER TO CONTINUE ZONE CHANGE NO. 82-17 UNTIL THE MOBILE HOME ORDINANCE BECOMES EFFECTIVE, VOTE WAS PASSED AS FOLLOWS: AYES : Livengood, Higgins, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher, Mir3ahangir NOES : None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None A MOTION WAS THEN MADE BY PORTER AND SECONDED BY PAONE TO RECONSIDER THE LAST MOTION, WHICH PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AY.ES: Higgins, Livengood, Wincl,ell, Paone, Porter, MirDahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY HIGGINS ZONE CHANGE NO. 82-17 WAS CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF DECEMBER 21, 1982, DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE ORDINANCE BECOMES EFFECTIVE DECEMBER 14, 1982, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winctell, Paone, Porter, Mir3ahangir 6- 11-16-82 - P.C. H.B. Planning Commiss-Lon November 16, 1982 Page 7 NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None ZONE CHANGE NO. 82-10 (In conjunction with LUE 82-1, Area 2. 6) Initiated by the City of Huntington Beach A request to rezone 1.2 acres of property located at the southeast corner of Banning Avenue and Magnolia Street from Ml-A to R1 (Low Density Residential) . The public hearing was opened on the zone change. Robert Overby spoke against the proposed zone change. He further stated that at the August 3 Planning Commission meeting when the item was tabled, the Commission said the 43 persons listed on the petition would be notified. The public hearing was kjlosed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY PORTER .AND SECONDED BY WINCHELL DIRECTING STAFF TO REVIEW THE AUGUST 3, 1982 TAPE REGARDING SPECIAL NOTIFICATION INSTRUCTIONS . THIS MOTION PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES : None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND RY PORTER ZONE CHANGE NO. 82-10 WAS CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF DECEMBER 1, 1982, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES : Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None After some discussion took place regarding procedure on the environ- mental document, the Chairman closed the public hearing on the EIR; however, the public hearing on the Land Use Element Amendment remains open. A straw vote was taken to determinelif the public hearing on December 7 be limited to only new testimony; resulting as follows : IN FAVOR: Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir OPPOSED: Higgins, Livengood, WLnchell, Paone Further discussion took place regarding the history of the Huntington Harbour land. ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER LAND USE ELEMENT AMEND- MENT NO. 82-1 AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 82-3 WERE CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF DECEMBER 7, 1982 , BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: . 7- 11-16-82 - P.C. H.B. Planning Commission Npvember 16, 1982 Page 8 AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher, Mir3ahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None A straw vote was taken to determine if the zone change and code amend- ment on the beach club property should be readvertised to show a "PD" (planned development) suffix, with the following results: IN FAVOR: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher, Mir3ahangir OPPOSED: None ONE CHANGE NO. 82-20 f Initiated by the City of Huntington Beach A request to permit a change of one on approximately 20 acres of pro- perty located southwesterly of he proposed extension of Palm Avenue and the proposed future align ent of 38th Street, from R4-0 to R4-21-0, High Density Residential Dis rict, combined with oil production having a maximum of 21 units per a re. The public hearing was op ned. Seeing no ';one came forward, the public hearing was closed. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD ND SECOND BY WINCHELL ZONE CHANGE NO. 82-20 WAS CONTINUED TO THE ETING OF DEC''EMBER 7, 1982, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, ivengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher, Mir3ahan it NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None SPECIAL SIGN P RMIT NO. 82-6 Applicant: S perior Electrical Ad A request t permit an additional rreestanding sign within 180 feet of an exis ing freestandinq sign in lieu of a 600 foot separation on property ocated in the Huntington Shopping Center on Edinger Avenue. Because a hour was late, the applicant agreed to a continuance; there- fore, t e public hearing was not opened. Chairman Paone assured the applic t that the special sign permit application would be heard first on the December 7th agenda. ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY PORTER SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 82-6 WAS CONTINUED, WITH CONSENT OF APPLICANT, TO THE MEETING OF DECEMBER 7, 1982, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Wincliell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher, Mir3ahangir -8- 11-16-82 - P.C. . ............,.- DRAFT MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California TUESDAY, DECEMBER 7, 1982 - 7:00 PM COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir CONSENT CALENDAR: A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECONDED BY PORTER TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR CONSISTING OF THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 16, 1982, AFTER THE FOLLOWING CORRECTION WAS MADE ON PAGE 5 WHICH WILL READ, "ON THE OPPOSING SIDE, A PETITION WAS SUBMITTED WITH OVER 1,000 SIGNATURES . " . IT WAS APPROVED AS CORRECTED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: . AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None COMMISSION ITEM: ON MOTION BY PORTER AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD STAFF WAS DIRECTED NOT TO ADVERTISE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEMS REQUIRING ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW UNTIL THE MANDATORY REVIEW PERIOD HAS EXPIRED. IF STAFF OR COMMISSION FEEL THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS OF AN ITEM WARRANT ADDI- TIONAL PUBLIC EXPOSURE, A SEPARATE HEARING MAY BE SCHEDULED DURING THE REVIEW PERIOD, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Livengood, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: Higgins, Paone ABSENT: None - ABSTAIN: None REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 82-6 (Continued from 11-16-82) Applicant: Superior Electrical Ad. H.B. Planning Con ;sion December 7, 1982 I Page 2 i1Rw A request to permit an additional freestanding sign within 180+ feet of an existing freestanding sign in lieu of a 600 foot separation on property located within the Huntington Shopping Center on Edinger Avenue. The public hearing was opened. Chris Kimball, representing the appli- cant, made a brief presentation on the proposed sign. The public hearing was closed. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY PORTER, SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 82-6 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The existing signage along Edinger Avenue, combined with the pro- posed signage totals less than the maximum allowed square footage; however, the total number of signs complies with the maximum allowed. With the addition of the proposed sign (the total num- ber of 4) , no additional freestanding signs will be allowed on the Edinger frontage. 2. The variation in sign heights and locations affords visibility to all signage. 3. The proposed sign will not be detrimental to the property located in the vicinity. 4. The proposed sign will be located at a controlled intersection which will provide a traffic vision safeguard. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The sign shall be constructed in accordance with the location and design demonstrated on the sign location plan received an dated October 25, 1982, and the sign elevation received and dated October 4, 1982. 2. There will be no additional freestanding signs along the Edinger frontage. AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 82-1/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT s NO. 82-3 This Land Use Element Amendment includes a staff-initiated proposal to add density bonus provisions for affordable housing to the General Plan; two City-initiated requests to change land use designations on H.B. Planning Com. _,sion December 7, 1982 FtORRAFF7TT Page 3 City owned property and four requests from private applicants for changes in land use designations. These six areas of concern also relate to zone change requests. Staff suggested that the Commission handle the EIR and the amendment by separate review of each separate proposal with a straw vote taken on each portion; the EIR and the amendment as a whole (respectively) would then be approved by a formal vote and the adoption of the reso- lution. The Commission concurred with this approach. The Commission was also given the option to ask for executive session at this time to discuss legalities with representative of the City Attorney's office. Commission consensus was to proceed without an executive session. Public testumny on the EIR was received on November 16, 1982. EIR No. 82-3, Area of Concern 2.1 A request by the Huntington Beach Company to change the designation on property located 500 feet east of Main Street and 600 feet north of Yorktown, from medium density residential to office professional. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY HIGGINS THE COMMISSION APPROVED THE AREA 2.1 PORTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT FOR CERTIFICATION, AS PRESENTED, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None EIR No. 82-3, Area of Concern 2.2 (The Mushroom Farm) A request by the Janes Company to change the land use designation on property located east of Goldenwest Street, north of Ellis Avenue, from open space to medium density residential. ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER THE COMMISSION APPROVED THE AREA 2.2 PORTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT FOR CERTIFICATION, AS PRESENTED, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None EIR No. 82-3, Area of Concern 2.3 A request by the Cambro Manufacturing Company to change the land use designation on property located at the northwest corner of Huntington Street and Clay Avenue (Cambro Manufacturing Plant) , from medium density residential to industrial. H.B. Planning Comn«ssion December 7, 1982 DRAFT Page 4 ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY WINCHELL THE COMMISSION APPROVED THE AREA 2.3 PORTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT FOR CERTIFICATION, AS PRESENTED, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None EIR No. 82-3, Area of Concern 2.4 (Huntington Harbour) A request by the Huntington Harbour Beach Club and Marina to change the land use designation on property located north of Warner at Edgewater Lane (Huntington Harbour Beach Club) , from open space to mixed development. Staff stated that a number of comments on this portion of the EIR were received. Further, staff felt that the pro- posed change of land use is consistent with the Coastal Element. Commission discussed the possible effects of a denial as it relates to the recent Land Use Plan adopted by the Coastal Commission. Mr. Palin stated that if the Planning Commission chose to deny it, the present land use designation of open space would remain. Commissioner Schumacher noticed that there was no mention in the document of a soils test and. asked Richard Harlow, representing the applicant, to respond. Mr. Harlow stated that things of this nature would be addressed at the time and conditional use permit application is submitted on the actual project. He further stated that there should be no problem as the harbor is man-made. Commissioner Livengood stated he would support the findings made in the EIR, but would oppose the request for a change in designation. Cannissioner Mir]Jaahangir will abstain fran the vote on the zone change but will vote on the EIR and the LUE. ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY PAONE THE COMMISSION APPROVED THE AREA 2.4 PORTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT FOR CERTIFICATION, AS PRESENTED, BY THE FOLLOWING STRATI VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Mirjahangir NOES: Porter, Schumacher ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None EIR No. 82-3, Area of Concern 2.5 (Beachview Mobile Home Park) A request by the City to change the land use designation on property located west of Gothard Street, north of the City Yard (Beachview Mobile Home Park) , from industrial to medium density residential. 6 • ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD THE COMMISSION APPROVED ' THE AREA 2.5 PORTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT FOR CERTIFICATION, AS PRESENTED, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None H.B. Planning Com Sion HOME December 7, 1982 Page 5 DRAt I ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None I EIR No. 82-3, Area of Concern 2.6 A request by the City to change the land use designation on property located east of Magnolia Street, between Banning Street and the Orange County Flood Control Channel, from industrial energy production to low density residential. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY HIGGINS THE COMMISSION APPROVED THE AREA 2.6 PORTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT FOR CERTIFICATION, AS PRESENTED, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: lJone OVERALL CERTIFICATION OF EIR NO. 82-3 Brief discussion took place by the Commission reiterating' some points that were previously brought out. Some discussion took place regarding the Talbert redevelopment area. ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY WINCHELL, EIR NO. 82-3 WAS CERTI- FIED AS ADEQUATE, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Mirjahangir NOES: Schumacher, Porter ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Chairman Paone announced the resumption of the public hearing on Land Use Element No. 82-1 and reminding the public that only new testimony will be received on each area of concern. LUE 82-1, Area of Concern 2.1 (near Main and Yorktown) Applicant: Huntington Beach Company Seeing no one wished to address this area of concern, the Chairman closed the public hearing on this portion of the LUE. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY VORTER THE COMMISSION RECOMMENDED THAT AREA 2.1 OF THE LAND USE AMENDMENT BE ADOPTED, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: ' AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None H.B. Planning Com ,sion ' December 7, 1982 DRAFi Page 6 LUE 82-1, Area of Concern 2.2 (Mushroom Farm, Ellis/Goldenwest) Applicant: The Janes Company Staff stated that pursuant to the Commission's request, a response was made to include discussion on affordable housing in this area of concern. Staff also obtained an estimate of the value of the site with the present zoning, of $6.7 million. The Commission was also aprised of the fact that the City Council continued their discussion on the Planning Mode Study to their December 20, 1982 meeting. Since there was no further testimony, the public hearing was closed on this area. Commissioner Porter disagreed with the statement made on Page 19 as it relates to housing that " . . . the City has no policy except in the Coastal Zone". He felt that on Page 69 of the General Plan Hous- ing Element that this policy was stated. Commissioner Winchell agreed with Mr. Porter's comment. Mr. Palin recalled a specific issue that was before the Commission on property located at Adams and Beach. He said that although the Commission recommended affordable housing, the City Council did not adopt the recommendation as "policy" , but he further agreed that the Housing Element does stress that the City encourage affordable housing. ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER THE COMMISSION RECOM- MENDED DENIAL OF AREA 2.2 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS; BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: FINDINGS FOR DENIAL: The Commission recommends that the existing open space and recreational designation be retained, based on the following findings: 1. Because of the site's unique location adjacent to the Huntington Central Park and Sully Miller Lake, future development of the site as an additional recreational facility would seem to be the most compatible land use. 2. Open space and recreational land use designation would also be consistent with future expansion plans for Central Park. 3. While low density or estate residential would be compatible with surrounding uses, there could be potential conflicts with the heliport and firing range. 4. Residential development would isolate the two sections of Huntington Central Park. 5. An office development on this site would be a high intensity use adjacent to open space and would, therefore, be incompatible. 6. The Planning Mode Study showed that currently there is no demand for offices on this site. AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Paone, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES : Livengood, Porter ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None H.B. Planning Comm. ion December 7, 1982 ; Page 7 LUE 82-1, Area of Concern 2.3 (Cambro Manufacturing Plant) AA22licant: Cambro Manufacturing Company Carol Inge informed the Commission that pursuant to their request, the maps in the LUE were amended in Area 2.3. The Chairman resumed the hearing on this area, once again asking that only new testimony be given. Juan Lopez, a resident in the area, spoke against the proposed request, stating that problems that now exist (traffic, parking, noise, odors, etc. ) , would be further exacerbated. There being no further testimony, the public hearing on this area of the LUE was closed. Commissioner Porter stated that he supported the LUE, but added that it was a matter of necessity to attach conditions to the zone change to insure some measure of compatibility. Commissioner Winchell brought out the point that the plant has been in existence a long time. Mr. Palin stated that a conceptual site plan has been submitted by the ap- plicant in conjunction with the zone change request. He further stated that Cambro wants to be a good neighbor and he would like to see them remain in Huntington Beach. ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER THE COMMISSION RECOMMENDED THAT AREA 2.3 BE ADOPTED AS RECEDED BY STAFF ON PAGE 32, SECTION 2.3.3 OF THE L.U.E. DOCUMENT , BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher, Mir]ahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None LUE 82-1, Area of Concern 2.4 (Huntington Harbour Beach Club) Applicant: Huntington Harbour Beach Club and Marina Chairman Paone announced that now was the time to take any new testi- mony relative to Area of Concern 2.4. Louis Cardenas, speaking against the requested land use change stated that he agreed with the report by the Public Works Department shown in Attachment 3 on page 38. How- ever, he felt that traffic problem, being mitigated directly across from the Beach Club property, would now be "pushed upstream" and will not disappear. Richard Harlow, speaking for the applicant, stated that any other details could be addressed in the specific plan document. Since no other new information was presented, the public hearing on Area 2.4 of the LUE was closed. Mr. Palin stated that although there is no sidewalk on Warner Avenue, that this issue would be addressed at the time of the conditional use permit application; and that the project would also recommend some modification at the end of Edgewater to handle the landscaping of that area. The Commissioners discussed the method that was used to calculate the density. Before the Commission made a motion on this matter, Art Folger advised them that the validity of the ROS zoning was not the matter before them. H.B. Planning Comp sion December 7, 1982 -m FT Page 8u�Klf A I i Commissioners also discussed procedures as they relate to land use amendments, that although they were not required to come up with find- ings on an approval or denial, the City Council requested that they express their reasons for the vote. City Attorney' s office agreed with this statement. ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY PORTER AREA 2.4 OF LUE 82-1 WAS DENIED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: FINDINGS FOR DENIAL: 1. The proposed land use designation is inconsistent with the certi- fied Local Coastal Program for Huntington Beach. 2. A mixed development is not compatible with the existing surround- ing development. 3. The existing General Plan land use designation of open space is compati.ble with the existing development which allows all uses proposed in the mixed use designation, other than residential. AYES: Livengood, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher NOES: Higgins, Paone ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Mirjahangir LUE 82-1, Area of Concern 2.5 (Beachview Mobile Home Park) Initiated by the City of Huntington Beach The public hearing resumed on Area 2.5 of the LUE. Seeing no one wished to address this issue, the public hearing was closed. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY PORTER AREA 2.5 OF LUE 82-1 WAS DENIED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: FINDINGS FOR DENIAL: 1. A change of zoning and land use designation on the subject site would not be in conformance with the City' s stated goal of main- taining the integrity of the Gothard Industrial Corridor. 2. The existing mobile home park can continue to operate in its present zone as a legal nonconforming use under a mobile home park overlay; additionally, even with a residential designation and zoning, the park would also operate as a nonconforming use. 3. The MH zoning requires that park gzze be 10 acres with a maximum density of 9 units per acre. The subject mobile home park is a 5. 6 acres in size and is developed at a density of 14.5 spaces at present. Thus, it is not in conformance with the MH re- quirements. 4. The existing incompatibility between the City' s maintenance yard i H.B. Planning Com. ision 7n December 7, 1982 0 ',,,, i F7n Page 9 r 4 and the mobile home park would not be alleviated by the proposed residential zoning and, in fact, that incompatibility could be exacerbated by any future residential development. 5. Under the existing industrial zoning, the mobile home park over- lay would require the property owner to present any proposal for change to the City for approval. Likewise, any future development of industrial uses on the property will be brought before the City for consideration of special buffering and analysis of drainage and access problems. AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None LUE 82-1, Area of Concern 2.6 (Banning and Magnolia) Initiated by the City of Huntington Beach The public hearing resumed on Area 2.6 of the LUE. Robert Overby spoke against the proposed use. He submitted pictures and an additional petition that included another block of surrounding residents. He stated that there must be some entity (maybe the County of Orange) t$at is maintaining this "green area". Madelyn Van Dorton also spoke against the proposed change of land use designation. The public hearing was closed. Secretary Palin informed the Commission that the City had requested staff to analyze all of its holdings; that it can no longer afford to hold on to the land. He further felt that the only possible use of the property was low density. Commissioner Schumacher questioned the location of a curb cut for access to any development on the site. Mr. Palin cited a remnant piece elsewhere in the City where this had been done effectively. ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD AREA OF CONCERN 2.6 OF LUE 82-1 WAS DENIED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDING, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: FINDING FOR DENIAL: There would be no safe access to any type of development that might be constructed on the site. AYES: Livengood, Winchell, Paone, _Porter, Schumacher NOES: Higgins, Mirjahangir s ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None LUE 82-1, Area of Concern 2.7 (Density Bonus Provisions) Initiated by the City of Huntington Beach H.B. Planning Con sion December 7, 1982 Page 10 Ra AnA FgiTi Secretary Palin informed the Commission that this was an administrative action before them. He went on to say that the Government Code requires that, if a developer agrees to provide affordable housing, you must grant him an increase in density or some other incentive. Also, by having this policy it would allow the City to grant a density bonus to exceed the General Plan designation on a particular property without going through the amendment process on each project. Commissioner Winchell asked if staff had included the information that was added by the Planning Commission when this was discussed about two years ago. Staff assured the Commission that this was done. Commissioners briefly discussed the ramifications of their decision on an up-coming agenda item, a project request by the Huntington Breakers company. Tom Tincher underscored the need for this vehicle in the redevelopment process. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY PORTER, AREA 2.7, DENSITY BONUS PROVISIONS, OF LUE 82-1, WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: AYES: Biggins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: Schumacher ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None OVERALL APPROVAL OF LUE NO. 82-1: A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECONDED BY PORTER THAT LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 82-1, AS ACTED UPON BY THE COMMISSION THROUGH ITS PRIOR STRAW VOTES, BE APPROVED FOR RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION, BY THE APPROVAL OF AMENDED RESOLUTION NO. 1299. THIS MOTION PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ZONE CHANGE NO. 82- (Continued from -16-82) Applicant: HuntlLv2ton Beach Com an /blic to zone 1.52 acres of operty from R2-01- and R2-O-PD-CD D Office Professional ombined with oil pr uction, Civic . The property is loc ed approximately 50 feet east of t and 600 feet nort of Yorktown Avenue. = hearing was ope d. Dave Eadie, repr enting the appli- a brief statem t in favorbf grant g the zone change. hearing was osed. i •� ' ON MOTION BY LIVENGO AND SECOND BY MIRJAH GIR ZONE CHANGE NO. 82-12 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: �f.✓uf. N[Wc .i�' DRAFT -4Vr Ctt r(° ID Pt� LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT 82-1 Environmental Impact Report 82-3 huntington beach department of development services October 1982 (Revised 10/26) (REVISED 12/9/82) TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Methodology 1 2.0 AREAS OF CONCERN AND ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM 5 2.1 Yorktown-Main Area 5 2.2 Mushroom Farm Area 13 2.3 Cambro Manufacturing Plant Area 25 2.4 Huntington Harbour Beach Club Area 33 2.5 Beachview Mobile Home Area 41 2.6 Magnolia-Banning Area 51 2.7 Density Bonus Provisions for Affordable Housing 59 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES 61 3.1 Short-Term and Long-Term Productivity 61 3.2 Irreversible Environmental Changes 62 3.3 Growth Inducing Impacts 62 APPENDICES. Appendix A Fiscal Impact Land Use Assumptions Appendix B Initial Study Appendix C Air Quality Calculations Appendix D Letters of Comment Appendix E Letter from State Department of Health Services 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report analyzes Amendment 82-1 to the Land Use Element of the Huntington Beach General Plan. The Land Use Element was adopted as a mandated element of the General Plan in December, 1973; this is the eighteenth amendment to the element. Existing general plan land uses throughout the City are depicted in the attached Land Use Diagrams. 1.1 Methodology This amendment to the Land Use Element considers requests to change the land use designations in six areas of the City (Figure 1-1). Three of the requests were from private property owners and three were initiated by the City. The first site is located northeast of the Seacliff Office Park near Yorktown Avenue and Main Street; the second site is the Mushroom Farm area north of Ellis Avenue and east of Goldenwest Street; the third site is the Cambro Manufacturing Plant area north of Clay Avenue and west of Huntington Street; the fourth site is the Huntington Harbour Beach Club off of Warner Avenue; the fifth site is the Beachview Mobile Homq Park located immediately north of the City Maintenance Yard on Gothard Street; the sixth site is a City-owned property near the intersection of Banning Avenue and Magnolia Street. The amendment request on the six sites are analyzed in terms of the existing conditions on the site, anticipated impact on surrounding areas, major land uses and environmental issues, and consistency with adopted City goals and policies. 1 2A �.. 2. �YMI .2 ILLII ' 2 . 2.3 .6 A. Areas of Concern U @--j Oo � huntington beach planning division 2 Figure 1-1 Environmental Assessment 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 82-1. An initial study addressing all six areas of concern was prepared pursuant to Section 15080 of the State Government Code to identify potentially significant impacts associated with the proposed land use designations. The E.I.R. focuses on those impacts that were determined to be significant. 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, 2.5 and 2.6). Alternative land use designations and feasible mitigation measures to minimize significant effects are also discussed in these sections. Section 3.0 addresses overall environmental changes related to the following considerations: 1) the relationship between local short-term productivity; 2) irreversible or unavoidable environmental changes; and 3) growth inducing impacts. 3 2.0 AREAS OF CONCERN 2.1 YORKTOWN/MAIN STREET AREA The first area of concern addressed by Land Use Element Amendment 82-1 is a 1.52 acre parcel owned by The Huntington Beach Company, located approximately 500 feet east of Main Street and 600 feet north of Yorktown Avenue behind the existing Seacliff Office Park. (See Figure 1-1.) 2.1.1 Background The applicant, The Huntington Beach Company, has requested redesignation of the subject property from medium density residential to office professional (see Figure 2-1). This amendment analyzes both the existing and the requested designation. The area of concern is presently an "oil island" containing five oil pumping units and is zoned R2-01-PD (medium density residential with an oil suffix and a planned development suffix) (see Figure 2-2). The -01 suffix allows drilling of new wells to occur on this parcel. Surrounding parcels have an -0 suffix which allows continued operation and the redrilling of existing wells but no new drilling. The expected life of the wells on the property in question is estimated by the property owner to be ten years. -Due to the size of the subject site and the number of oil wells located on it, the site will, in all likelihood, continue to exist as an oil island until such time as the oil operations cease. The City recently approved a conditional use permit submitted by the Huntington Beach Company for construction of a parking lot to serve Seacliff Office Park. This parking lot includes a small portion of the southwest corner of the subject site. 5 —J r. f `-- l r 0 "c i CLAY L ) MEDIUM DENSITY --- RESIDENTIAL -- -- GLL�,ELANI A'✓E GENERAL COMMERCIAL — IISTATE AV _ OFFICE I PROFESSIONAL a 0 m ---- YORKTOWN a j A PUBLIC USE WICHITA AVE. --- — Existing General Plan Area of Ccsncern 2 . 1 O O o o � 0 Figure 2-1 6 Property to the southwest of the subject site is designated general commercial, zoned R5-0-CD and is part of the Seacliff Office Park development. The remaining surrounding parcels are designated medium density residential and zoned R2-0-PD. These residential parcels are undeveloped except for a house owned by the Huntington Beach Company. A medium density condominium project referred to as "The Ranch" is proposed for 48 acres of this residentially zoned area. 2.1.2 Analysis 1. Land Use Under the existing general plan designation of medium density residential, a maximum of 22 units could be developed on the subject site. This would result in an estimated population of 62 persons. The requested redesignation to office professional could result in the development of approximately 17,793 square feet of office space which would generate about 29 employees. The existing medium density residential designation is compatible with . the surrounding parcels similarly designated to the north, east, and southeast. If this designation is retained on the subject site, development could possibly be integrated into the proposed "Ranch" residential project. Again, however, development on the subject site will probably not occur for approximately ten years until the oil uses are'phased out. By that time, the adjacent residential project will probably be completed, making integration of the subject site more difficult. Residential development on the area of concern, however, would pose no significant compatibility problem with the office development to the southwest. Development on the area of concern would be buffered by the existing parking lot that serves the office park. A redesignation of the site to office professional would be compatible with the existing Seacliff Office Park development to the southwest. Office development on the subject site could probably be easily integrated into the existing office park. Any potential impacts to surrounding residential uses from office development on the subject site could likely be mitigated by design and/or buffering (i.e., screening, setbacks, etc.). 2. Economic Considerations Planning staff, in cooperation with Ultrasystems, Inc., conducted a fiscal impact analysis of the two land use alternatives using the computerized methodology developed for the City. For purposes of analysis, the revenues and expenditures of each alternative were projected over a ten year period, 1982-1992. The land use assumptions are detailed in Appendix A. The results are summarized in the table below: Alternative 1 - Alternative 2 Cash Flow Basis Medium Density Residential Office Professional Revenue (1) 177.23 37.36 Cost (1) 136.33 104.08 Revenue minus cost (1) 40.90 -66.72 Revenue/cost 1.30 .36 (1) in $1,000 7 _j IGARFIELD I I I I .__i AVE.I I _ .RA 0 92CI 1-11 Rom— �I -- -- - °e ' R2 5 a, O Miff R2` R5 E$RHARBOR A_.bNNM7, . B� C2 N �- MI R2 R 2 :, m o RA-0 m N UNE BL 3003 B3004 a a RA o� R2 -- - R 2 R2 C 0 E-S_v-TR--..:__ 50 r¢ a R2� R2 W R 2 m R2 V 2 Mi � 3 i,. R=Q'-o OLD FlC TOWN SPECI a R2 s-� R 2 PLANOISTRICT I.) 3oo.iz zenlz CLAY sv Yew - - _ AVE. C2-0 C 314 <x5 D R3 zza- VRI o R2 - R3 cz' o �Q 1/1 I� R 2 R 2 115 -. --_- 4. R2-o�D •1\L'.J rD CLo�fRI IDnD 290 LINE TR 3950 , 2E. •,W' AV m N n�10 C2-0-CD �3a C2-0 RN W G Ca 50 n 7 1m RI n"" 0 RI 5 99.39 56E //S3936 E ~ gm crD�co-�T -rn f� -��- e' ETR 39so WILLIAMS AVE fn . •s _• L .1 .ni..xw Q ? x51 W a r Z x99 •999,9w - vs R2 R2 W •' � ' U R2 C2—0 CD R5-0 CD R2-o �)CD N y R 2 26n 330 f p N �� 3 X C4 °� I °x ` R� Rz z3o- 'NRRTOWN — AVE. 341.9e sag�9_c a5so \�p' - C,Z RI01-GO r } � ;,,• 8 C4 CF-C R2-0 31.E�� e CF—E—CD 5 R2-0-CD 5D RA N wi ---nvE W R 2 (.2 C lTA— I .. -...>.-1 O oCF—E-CD w � CD-0 R2-0 R2 R2 ° <R �o 0 o f cDo LL CF-E Rd o L -CD-0 �ENI,L l -CD 0 0 R4 17 un9• '/nia�. -rc- UTICA _ — _ so VE m \ I ( CD-0�f�� ���V� � R2 0 R2-0 oN R _ CF—R RI RI RI RI RI R2 vCD-0 �,:tiTo - o� o r I o 0 I200 Q II N N fi o CD 0 0 [Cos ��0 IIr 0 0 D- ¢ N aRI � fr aN SnurErn K a SPRtNGFIELD C` (`I ,f(� ( O O R2 a C 1 O•,y'. h° �J;Jf y O O .J lJ �./ ILTAIAR DR _ „e�^e},yet• ? oa �(-��D0 z�� -0 -0 ¢ N 9aJ x z RI RI RI RI RI R2 -0 ROCF4STER o R�ao� a o a W 1� RI � R� 0 9��� a m� c� oaaa�J R a w R3-0 R3-0 ° a 0 f1'•�Rh Fo RI ADAMS i ; AVE I Existing Zoning Area of Concern 2 . 1 0 0 0 o � O . Figure 2-2. 8 cR o. r. e� d .r ..rv,...e�.,... .:IF ._... COURSE 42 �voe6.Li +i t :.l ', y♦� As the table shows, over a ten year period the residential alternative would generate a surplus to the City of approximately $40,900 and the office professional would generate a deficit of approximately $66,720. 3. Housing A designation of office professional on the area of concern would remove 1.52 acres from the City's stock of potential areas for residential development. This would not have a significant impact on the City's capability to provide medium density housing. Retaining the existing medium density residential designation would retain 1.52 acres of the City's stock of potential areas for residential development. This may enhance the City's potential to provide for affordable housing units. However, because of the small number of units involved, the impact on affordable housing would not be significant. 4. Public Services and Utilities a. An eight inch City sewer line exists south of the area of concern. This line presently serves the Seacliff Office Park. The City's Public Works Department has indicated that adequate capacity in this line exists to accommodate development on the subject site under either alternative analyzed. In addition, an eight inch sewer line extends north of Yorktown Avenue east of Main Street. Again, adequate capacity exists to serve development on the subject site if it ties into this line. b. Storm Drains A drainage retention basin exists west of the area of concern. Currently, this is used to accommodate drainage from Seacliff Office Park. The drainage basin empties into a storm drain in Yorktown Avenue. According to the City's Public Works Department, adequate capacity exists in both facilities to serve development on the subject site under either alternative. C. Water Existing water mains in the vicinity of the subject site include 12 inch lines along Yorktown and Main Streets, as well as 12, 15, and 42 inch lines north of the subject site along Clay Avenue. The City's Water Division has indicated that existing water mains are expected to be adequate for either of the two alternatives analyzed. d. Parks The Community Services Department has indicated that the area of concern will be adequately served by existing or planned community parks. There are currently no neighborhood parks in the immediate vicinity. However, if the site remains medium density residential it will likely be served by the open space provided in the "Ranch" project. In addition, community parks will be developed in the near 9 future at the intersection of Main Street and Utica Avenue and between Huntington and Delaware Streets just north of Yorktown Avenue. These parks will serve the subject area also. e. Police and Fire Protection The City's Police and Fire Departments have indicated that the alternatives analyzed for the area of concern will not create any problems with police or fire protection, or require a significant change in personnel. f. Schools The Huntington Beach City School District has indicated that the residential alternative analyzed for the subject site would not generate a significant number of students. The Huntington Beach High School District has adequate capacity to accommodate students generated by the residential alternative. g. Gas and Electrical Utilities, Phone Service The Southern California Gas Company, the Edison Company, and General Telephone have responded that provision of services to the area of concern poses no problem under either land use alternative. h. Solid Waste Disposal The Rainbow Disposal Company provides solid waste collection to the City. No local service constraints are expected under either of the alternative uses analyzed. 5. Traffic and Circulation The area of concern is located near the northeast corner of Yorktown Avenue and Main Street. Present traffic count on Yorktown Avenue is 5,000 vehicles per day. The current traffic load on Main Street is 13,300 vehicles per day. Maximum capacity of both Main Street and Yorktown Avenue is 40,000 vehicles per day. Projected future traffic volumes from the area of concern are as follows: Land Use Alternative Traffic Generation medium density residential 147 trips/day office professional 438 trips/day Source: Huntington Beach Planning Division, 1982. Traffic generated by the area of concern under either development alternative would not significantly affect Main Street or Yorktown Avenue or the Main/Yorktown intersection presently or in the forseeable future. 10 The Orange County Transit District (OCTD) has indicated that existing bus routes can adequately serve the area of concern under either land use alternative. 6. Environmental Issues a. Noise The area of concern is exposed to an exterior noise level of 60, which is within the normally acceptable range for residential uses. This should pose no constraint to either residential or office professional development. Noise generated from the site is not expected to be significant. 2.1.3 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the site be redesignated office professional as the applicant has requested. The subject site can likely be more easily integrated into the existing office park development than into a residential area. Redesignation to office professional will create no significant compatibility problems with surrounding uses, nor will it adversely impact existing streets or community facilities. 2.1.4 Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission recommends that the site be redesignated from Medium Density Residential to Office Professional. 11 2. 2 MUSHROOM FARM AREA (Pages 13--23) THIS SECTION WILL BE FORWARDED TO CITY COUNCIL FOR CONSIDERATION IN JANUARY, 1983. 2.3 CAMBRO MANUFACTURING PLANT AREA The third area of concern addressed by Land Use Amendment 82-1 is a 19.4 acre site located north of Clay Avenue between the Pacific Electric right-of-way and Huntington Street south of Garfield Avenue (see Figure 1-1). 2.3.1 Background The applicant, Cambro Manufacturing Company, requested a redesignation of their property from medium density residential to general industrial. City staff expanded the amendment area to include all property north of the Cambro plant to Garfield Avenue. The expanded site includes vacant property owned by the Huntington Beach Company and the City's water facility, bringing the total site to approximately 19.4 gross acres. (See figure 2-6.) The existing (residential) and requested (industrial) land use designations are both being considered in this analysis. At the present time, Cambro Manufacturing Company occupies the southern portion of the property area. North of Cambro is a vacant parcel of land with some oil production owned by the Huntington Beach Company. The remaining property north to Garfield is occupied by the City's water facility and includes a reservoir, office building and equipment yard. The entire project area is currently designated medium density residential in the City's General Plan (Figure 2-7). Zoning on the site is Light Industrial (M-1) on the Cambro property with the remainder of the amendment area zoned Medium Density Residential (R-2) (Figure 2-8). If an industrial general plan designation is selected, it should be accompanied by a zone change to industrial for that portion of the site currently zoned R-2. The area north of the study site is designated office professional. Properties to the east, west and south of the amendment area are designated medium density residential. A planned residential development ("The Ranch") has been proposed by the Huntington Beach Company for the property south of Clay Avenue between Main and Huntington Streets. This project has not yet been approved but proposes development of residential units at a medium density with private recreation centers and common open space. The property east of the project includes a mobile home park (Huntington Mobile Estates), some apartment buildings and single family residential units. Immediately west of the project area is the Pacific Electric right-of-way-, and adjacent to that is the Pier Pointe condominium development which includes 159 units. 25 PLANNING ZONING Dr t ECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP 2-6- II ° NOT _ __ .. - IN FEET ADOPTED- MARCH 7,1960 NOTE CITY OF IS I DI NENS OT F IN�EEi T CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 754 ALr mNE AOJDINN6 A RwMr DF W IS NITEMDEO TO ERTEMO TO THE CENTER AMENDED ORD N0. AMENDED ORD NO. °f S.. N-T DF w.r 6-20-60 773 2-21-66 1186 LEGEND: - 7-18-60 731 ID-3-66 1256 0 SINOLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT HUNTINGTON BEACH 11-7_61, 74 ?-- 69 1527 Q Two FAM-1—FE RESIDENCE IS DISTRICT 2-20.61 817 2 17-69 1474 F®- COMMUNITY FACILITIES(EDUCATIONAL)DISTRICT 6-5-61 64♦ IO-G-69 1527 R5 OFFCE-PROFE561CNAL DISTRICT 6-19-61 647 q-I9-TO 1606 D ORD, 9-18-61 668 3-15-71 1639 RA-1 RE610ENTI•L•oIIILUITURAL DISTRICT TRIAL DISTRICT ORANGE COUNTY, CALIF 0 R N I A ;-29JNJ 6 zos. 2;a2 ;o; ;Z ;; © MpdMyUNw SBVS xE54T DISTRICT AAE NDED ORD NO. 8.16 76 2107 6-4-62 907 7-17-72 1762 NwNw•r COMMERCIAL AMENDED BY ZONE CASE: "MO-is z39� 92t 46 2126 10-t5-62 932 9-5-72 1775 RJ MTED MULTIRLE FAMILY RESIDENCE oerMltr log,123,138,K7,176.177,178, J-Is-el ton -3-77 2153 12-3-62 838 12-17-73 889 © MEwN60NN00° CO—AL 7-6-SI 2♦9♦ 12-6-76 2135 179,180,143,200,206.212,237, 1-7-63 947 10-15-73 1876 ® MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 1-Ie9T 2I1I OuuURr RC ITIES(CIVIC)DISTRICT 244,298,269,282,288,302,331, 6-6 77 218C 2-4-63 930 8-4-75 1999 C - 333,379,473,505,545,66-40, 6-20-77 Z212 6-24-65 9768 979 8-4-75 2000 -'-- CONRIN N YL IL 2_ 0 COMBINED WRH OIL PRODUCTION 68-18,88-32, 9-223,70-10,70-28, � 1 l-is-76 I-6-84 1026 8-4-75 2002 0 71-I8.71-32,72-I61F),72-16(L),72-23,73-22,73-2Q 75-3A,75-38,7530,75-3E,PPA.75-2,76-4,76-07,76-12,7;-15,7618,z _7 2224 8--4--75 10-5-64 logo ® 76-16,76-6,FPR75-8,76-22.76-24,PPA-76-4,77-1,778,PPA-76-8,PP176-6D,77-3'Y;78-2,77-13,77-K,78-13,PA79-3,80-16, 5-q 45-65 1132 943-75 2004 CIVIC DISTRICT - aO(L[DCTrsOE MR(iSwPEaCIFeICTlmRAN -9 67 0 cD IGARFIELD I 1 7e 203 77 07 A LHf1 AVE. 3 ? 2 I R-2 xi y RA-O-S C1 �� VC)TY ,. „I f - R2 eJo WATER MI n FACILITY R5 ! « R2s E C2 > ' R 2 - - R2 m O O R -p -_J T LUTE SLR J00J—4 c RA oe R2 1"i \ --€ -YR— 2 vACA T STAFF I CLUSION R2 C4, R2 R 2 • J `�~ RI� R, R2 <.:: r c MiBRo ORIGI AL A R2 J 3 Ott'TI"'AN SPEC 2 0 PLAN(DISTRICT L) R2 JOD.Iz zeal CLAY .run R•- AVE Iss' r-zso-- C2-0- y Ir. 354 PP a 425 12 R3 - D JR R3 0 gR2 R4pR2 R2-0-PD IR20PD 0 0 0 ,n 2� xmN _IRI C2-0-CD ,° C2-pA.3z..El °'[f N N K:A'>:oN2 fE,, 15 c R 2 ;o RI RI WILLIAMS AVE IY)C2- DC i T.uIw M1` 4f�T iR J9o0 2M1♦ Llj Q U o R2 R2 U 0 W R2 Lu C2-0-CD R5-MD R2-0-,rf)-CD c, �h� R2 330 2e' Mw N a ° : 3 ° C4fa R2 C2{bE :f o W 'i 2J0 YORNTCHM4 J •3f'sa•[ -'_- AV 3.TSA �m d co g efJ, e C2 8 3 C4 R2 0 p .0 310E CF-C I CF-E-CD ,ENT:_R) y. R2-0-CD 5 ICNITA.--_aVE R A R2 C 2 � O � O CF-E-CD R 0 c0 o a R2-0 R2 R2 MY CR CF-E oG cD o VENICI, Pam. O� CD-0 0 _ � OV JJo__ R4 R ro�JODe'w• �J �rxrE ry E a __ UTICA VE vD�"°F A -CD-0, O R2-0 R2-0 « CD-O CF-R RI RI RI RI RI 2 -CD-0 au�tir° o 0 O �� �N� . Y I 6 RI O ; ANSANTE R2 C4 ` SPRIN6F1EL0 Fox'), ` IC T o N 0I xT wRDR d' I � O O ' 4 �a t'\ Q- a � -0 -0 -0 I M Ev N so� S t+ :DN z RI RI RI RI RI R2 -0 ROcHFSTER o a Rao R� a a %iR10 �4 '4,5'r 9 Q wa eA `� w J�,Rz RI O °+ - a �l 1H-1-HHU� J R3-0 ^R3-0 m a z n .I Rho F— _ I t-F----},I��) RI I AVE 26 Area of Concern Three Figure 2-6 Ir a OFFICE PROFESSIONAL + - -- INDUSTRIAL co •t' r z 3 ►= a so Z J W 60 GARFIELD �° MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL s , Q-EARHARB( _ - _-7L, - -- o - =7 -j' -- -- i _- D (,LL\,El AND AVL J. STATE AV Existing General Plan Area of Concern 2 . 3 0 0 0 o � o - Figure 2-7 27 RA-0-CD R5 so "0 ITO 4, R 3 rcOw-;,;& CR mom--*,i" M2-0 RIO% ssoE Ile R� (DISTRICT� MI-0 3E ROJI., �zzTa To Q TWO) RA-0 31 R _0_ mj_0 R21: A-0. MI-0 ki 299.90 (DISTRICT ERNEST AVE ONE) R5 C41 cn —wt MI-0-CD ON CIFICA C)I 4MUNITY PLAN (DI F lCr ONE) R3 2 MI-0 2WO j MI-A-CD MI-0 M2-01 z w R5 FE o R 2 w R5 g 1. 1. R5 mm 3 lz R3 9 R2 11 R21 R5 R? R2 GAI R5? R2 CRAI. ;01 cl R2 R5 ------------- 'R2�: ml C2 R2 R2 0 RA-0 .'vm:.Vff. 1 0 N BLK M03 83004 < RA- E.1 v TR__--- R2 t. R2 C4! ----------- R 2 R2 CLAY 2 PLAN MOST FUCT 1.) AVE. C2-0- .6 42 T J-1 ci-� R 224 R3 �CV ► R R2 R2-0-PD 0 R 2 R4 R 2 2o UNIE T.M. R2-0 PD I RI IN RI 2-0-CD C2-0 ej cli C—Et— R .1 —A 1� R 2 RI R 11111 . 116ILL IAMS AM 3950 U) LLJ 114, C3 z R2 R2 ILI R2 5 0 R5-0-CD R2-0-,rf)-CD ?0 R2 0 C2-0-CD V�R3 R2 C4- YOR"TOWN 5VV3V5*-C 4 E. R2-0 C4 CF-C CF-E-CD R2-0-CD 5 �1 RA • NA 'CHA-----MM,� R2 C;l !L ICF-E-CD II I R2 2 CF-E Existing Zoning F Area of Concern 2.3 o 28 Figure 2-8 HUNTINGTON BEACH r. +` WLLEY CR 11DKEWOOD I R �I I��--'T�I--C--IR�I�-�I��tT—'�-r i MDYT C 'A� ,I, i AROLYN K•'�WY LISTER p ; ') _ AIGRLEMODU G+ , • z cRlusw '+EA ` RL.. a s I...._ � -' swrA I Rs a syti MDRDNDD sT / T WYK Sr 7 A 9 Wwra ST / SOUTHERN CALIF. p KIINTA MARTa ST. ffff CR. / W1Ta CRXERNE 3t , ' NM•DP R. l y ACON LR UNTA NADRI A OR $� 1 �44' DR. 1 MTA CLAAA W E GOLDENWEST STREET u Analysis 1. Land Use Under the existing medium density residential designation, 291 units could be developed on the site if it were totally vacant. Such a development could add 517 people and would be compatible with the surrounding land uses as they are predominately medium to high density residential. However, as previously mentioned, Cambro Manufacturing Company and the City's water yard currently occupy portions of this site. These uses have effectively committed the majority of the site to light industrial uses for the foreseeable future. Additionally, the project applicant, Cambro Manufacturing Company, would like to expand its existing operation and is negotiating with the Huntington Beach Company for the purchase of the property adjacent to the existing plant for this expansion. Since it is unlikely that either of these uses will recycle, the only area remaining for residential development is that portion of the site between Cambro and the City water yard. This vacant site could accommodate approximately 97 units if developed at medium density. However, this particular site would not be an optimal location for residential use as . there could be compatibility problems from noise and odor. The second alternative is to designate the entire site industrial. Approximately 125,000 square feet of building space could be constructed in the area that is now vacant. From a land use perspective, *an industrial designation would not be the most compatible use adjacent to residential. However, in this case because industrial facilities already exist, a redesignation to industrial would make the existing uses consistent with the General Plan. Historically, neither the City's water facility nor the Cambro operation have presented severe compatibility problems in terms of traffic, noise or odor, and to date the City has received no complaints from neighboring residents. The site is buffered on three sides by streets and on the fourth by the Pacific Electric right-of-way. Should an expansion of existing facilities or development of new industrial occur, maximum screening and noise attenuation measures should be incorporated into the design to insure compatibility. This is especially critical on the west side where only the Pacific Electric easement separates Cambro's operation from the Pier Ponte condominiums. 2. Economic Considerations The Planning staff, in cooperation with Ultrasystems, Inc., conducted a fiscal impact analysis of the two land use alternatives using the computerized methodology developed for the City. For purposes of analysis, the revenues and expenditures of each alternative were projected over a ten year period; 1982-1992. The land use assumptions are detailed in Appendix A. The- results are summarized in the table below: 29 Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Cash Flow Basis Medium Density Residential General Industrial Revenue (1) 1,292.25 656.94 Cost (1) 1,073.25 585.47 Revenue minus cost (1) 219,00 714.7 Revenue/cost 1.20 1.12 (1) in $1,000 As the above table shows over a ten year period the residential alternative would generate a surplus to the City of approximately $219,000 and the general industrial would generate a surplus of approximately $714,700. 3. Housing A designation of medium density residential could provide an additional 291 housing units to the City's housing stock if the site totally recycled, or 97 units if only the vacant portion of the site developed. The City's Housing Element of the General Plan includes policies aimed at increasing housing opportunities for households with low and moderate incomes. A • medium density designation could expand the City's potential to provide affordable housing. 4. Public Services and Utilities a. Sewers The study area is served by a 24 inch sewer located in Garfield Avenue as well as 8 inch sewers in Clay and Huntington Streets. The Public Works Department does not anticipate any difficulty in serving the project area. b. . Water The area is served by a 21 inch water main in Huntington Street and a 6 inch water main in Garfield Avenue. In addition, there are two 12 inch water mains and one 42 inch water main in Clay Avenue that also provide service to the site. The Public Works Department does not anticipate any difficulty in serving the project area. C. Drainage The project site is served by a 24 inch storm drain in Garfield Avenue. The City's Department of Public Works does not anticipate that any improvements will be needed to this system. d. Parks The area of concern is served by Perry Park which is a two acre neighborhood park located approximately one mile east of the project site. A 1977 parks analysis study shows that there is a shortage of park facilities in this area. Should residential development occur, additional demand would be placed on the existing park system, however, the Community Services Department has indicated that this would not result in any serious impacts under either of the land use alternatives. 30 e. Police and Fire Protection The Huntington Beach Police Department has indicated that full development of the site under either an industrial or residential alternative would require the addition of two police officers to the existing staff. The City's Fire Department has indicated that they would not have any problem serving the project area. f. Schools The Huntington Beach City School District has indicated that the number of students generated from this site would be insignificant in terms of the District's future planning. The site would also be served by the Huntington Beach Union High School District. The High School District has experienced a decrease in students in recent years and will have no problem accommodating additional students. g. Gas and Electrical Utilities and Telephone Service The subject site is currently served by Southern California Gas Company, Southern California Edison Company and General Telephone. These companies have indicated that there will be no difficulty serving future development under any of the three alternatives. h. Solid Waste Disposal The Rainbow Disposal Company has indicated that it can provide adequate service to the property under any of the land use alternatives. 5. Traffic and Circulation The area of concern is bounded by Garfield Avenue, Huntington Street and Clay Avenue. Access to the project site can be taken from any of these streets. Garfield Avenue is presently a four lane undivided road with an estimated future capacity of 30,000 daily trips. Currently, traffic on Garfield is 4,800 trips per day. Clay Avenue and Huntington Streets have an estimated capacity of 5,000 daily trips when fully improved. No existing traffic counts were available for either of these streets. Estimated future traffic volumes from the study area are as follows: Land Use Alternative Traffic Generation Medium Density Residential 1,920 Trips Per Day (291 dwelling units) - General Industrial 3,116 Trips Per Day (588 employees) Source: Huntington Beach Planning Division, 1982 31 The Public Works Department reviewed both the residential and the industrial alternatives and have indicated that neither would generate significant amounts of traffic. They did recommend however, that, if possible, access be taken from Clay Avenue and Garfield Street, and in addition at the time full development occurs, Clay and Huntington Streets be widened to their full capacity with curbs and gutters installed. The need to widen these streets will ultimately be predicated on the development of "The Ranch" south of the amendment site. When the Ranch develops, the intersection of Clay Avenue and Main Street may also have to be improved. The Orange County Transit District has indicated that development under either land use alternative could result in the need for a bus stop and shelter on Garfield Avenue. 6. Environmental Issues An initial study was prepared for the area of concern pursuant to Article 7, Section 15080 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. This initial study is included as Appendix B. No significant environmental impacts were identified for either of the two land use alternatives other than those already discussed in this analysis. 2.3.3 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the site be redesignated to industrial use. With Cambro Manufacturing and the City water yard already present on site, the land has realistically been committed to industrial uses for the foreseeable future. Additionally, should residential development occur on the vacant property located between the two industrial uses, potential conflicts could arise from noise or odor. An industrial designation would make the land use and General Plan consistent, and would assure compatible development on the remaining vacant property. 2.3.4 Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission recommends that the subject site be redesignated from medium density residential to general industrial. 32 2. 4 HUNTINGTON HARBOUR BEACH CLUB (Pages 33-40) THIS SECTION WILL BE FORWARDED TO CITY COUNCIL FOR CONSIDERATION IN JANUARY, 1983 2. 5 BEACHVIEW MOBILE HOME PARK (Pages 41-50) THIS SECTION WILL BE FORWARDED TO CITY COUNCIL FOR CONSIDERATION IN JANUARY, 1983. 2. 6 MAGNOLIA-BANNING AREA (Pages 51-58) THIS SECTION WILL BE FORWARDED TO CITY COUNCIL FOR CONSIDERATION IN JANUARY, 1983. 2.7 ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM - DENSITY BONUS PROVISIONS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING A "Density Bonus" is an increase in the total number of units that a developer is allowed to build on a project site over the otherwise allowable residential density under the applicable zoning ordinance. Local governments can use their authority to grant density bonuses as a way to promote construction of housing units for low and moderate income families. For example, Section 65915 of the California Government Code requires that when a developer agrees to build 25 percent of a residential project as units for low and moderate income households the City must grant either a density bonus or two other bonus incentives to that developer. The City of Huntington Beach may in the near future want to grant density bonuses to promote affordable housing in this community. Once a density bonus is granted, however, the proposed project will in many instances•exceed the density allowed under the General Plan land usq designation on the project site. In order to maintain "consistency" or conformance between the proposed project and the General Plan, the City would have to initiate a General Plan Amendment on the project site. In order to eliminate the potential need for the City to process general plan amendments every time it wants to grant a density bonus, staff is recommending that the City add language to the General Plan enabling it to exceed the applicable land use designation for projects providing affordable housing. 2.7.1 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that in Section 3.4.3.1, Standards and Criteria on Page 82 of the Land Use Element, the following wording be added: (6) Density Bonus: Where a developer has agreed to construct a percentage of the total units of a housing development for persons and families of low and moderate income, the City may grant a density bonus of that same percentage over the otherwise allowable density under the applicable zoning ordinance and General Plan land use designation subject to a development agreement and as long as the following findings are made by the Planning Commission: 1. The capacities of the City and County water, sewer, and storm drain systems are adequate or are made adequate to accommodate the proposed increase in density as well as all other planned land uses in the area. 59 2. The proposed increase in density will not have a significant adverse impact on traffic volumes and road capacities, school enrollments, and recreational resources. 3. The character of the surrounding area is not adversely impacted nor the overall intent of the General Plan sacrificed. 2.7.2 Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission recommends that Section 3.4.3.1, Standards and Criteria of the Land Use Element be amended as recommended by staff. 60 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES In accordance with California Environmental Quality Act guidelines, an environmental assessment is required to address short-term and long-term effects, irreversible environmental changes, and growth inducing impacts of the total project or plan. This section analyzes these concerns in context of the recommended land use changes in Section 2.0. 3.1 SHORT-TERM AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY Amendment 82-1 does not in and of itself create long term impacts. Rather, it makes changes in the general types of land uses that may be allowed on a particular area at the time of development. Amendment 82-1 seeks to identify short-range issues within a context of long-range goals, policies, and environmental planning programs. The amendment itself acts as a mitigation measure designed to minimize any adverse effects on long-term productivity resulting from short-term uses. One of the steps required to implement the amendment is an analysis of the zone changes necessary to bring the zoning into conformance with the General Plan. The zoning changes that would result would have significant short-term effects, such as creating non-conforming uses, reducing or increasing intensity of development permitted, and providing stimulus for development. 61 3.2 IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES The Amendment will mitigate most adverse effects. However, irreversible environmental change of a secondary nature can be expected from development under the proposed amendment. Loss of open space will occur as vacant land is converted to other uses. Although the option to recycle the land to open space after development is available, it is probably not economically feasible. Alteration of topography will be an irreversible change. Although mitigating measures can be imposed as part of the development process, the natural topography will experience a negligible degree of modification. Construction materials of mineral origin will also be needed for development to occur, and fossil fuels will be committed for long periods to satisfy local energy demand. 3.3 GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS The proposed amendment may have growth inducing effects within the areas of concern. An estimated population of 1208 persons could be generated in the areas of concern under the existing General Plan land use designations. If the higher density alternatives are chosen in each of the areas of concern, an estimated population of 2,394 persons could be generated. This would be an increase of 1,186 persons over the City's existing General Plan. Any increase in population would increase demand on public services and utilities and incrementally affecting air quality, water quality, traffic, and noise levels. However, the proposed uses in accord with General Plan policies and programs should mitigate many of the adverse effects generated by the expected growth. An Air Quality Management Plan for the south coast area has been developed based on population projections which reflect the existing general plans of this City and other jurisdictions. If the alternatives chosen in this General Plan Amendment result in a net gain in population over and above that predicted by the existing General Plan, then the amendment may be inconsistent with the region's Air Quality Management Plan. Mitigation measures would include any actions at the project level or Citywide to reduce increases in automobile traffic and increase the use of mass transit facilities. The demand for water and energy will likely increase as a result of the proposed land uses in this amendment. Conservation measures can be implemented City- and County-wide to reduce these impacts such as: 1. Reduce evaporation from reservoirs by encouraging underground storage or coating water surfaces with evaporation hindering films or substances. 2. Encourage tertiary treatment of and reuse of the return flow of public water supplies wherever such use is acceptable and safe. 3. Waterspread where appropriate to recharge the underground water supply. 4. Meter water and encourage repair pf leaky connections to stimulate more economical use. 62 5. Reduce consumption of toilets and showers by requiring appropriate modifications to these appliances. 6. Prohibit the use of open gas lighting in public or private buildings. 7. Strategically place electric lights to maximize their efficiency. Their size and power consumption should be minimized as much as possible. 8. Discourage electrical heating in public and private structures. Encourage solar-assisted heating systems. 9. Encourage the use of reflecting and/or insulating glass in structures where windows are not shaded by exterior architectural projections or natural plants. 63 APPENDIX A LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS FOR FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS In cooperation with Ultrasystems, Inc., the computerized fiscal impact methodology was used to analyze the proposed land uses presented in Land Use Element Amendment 82-1. The fiscal impact evaluation encompassed the land use alternatives considered for areas of concern 2.1 through 2.6. Area 2.1 - YORKTOWN/MAIN Two land use alternatives were evaluated for the 1.52 acre area located approximately 500 feet north of Yorktown Avenue and 600 feet east of Main Street: 1. Office/Professional - 17,793 square feet of office space with an estimated value of $900,000 per acre. 2. Medium Density Residential - 22 medium density units with an average sale price of $125,000 per unit. Area 2.2 - MUSHROOM FARM Five land use alternatives were evaluated for the 26.6 acre area located east of Goldenwest Street and north of Ellis Avenue: 1. Recreational Vehicle Park - 580 R.V. spaces with 6,444 square feet of accessory building space, all on City-owned property. , 2. Medium Density Residential - 399 medium density condominium units with an average selling price of $130,000. 3. Low Density Residential a. Low Density Residential - 186 low density condominium units with an average selling price of $150,000. b. Estate Residential - 106 low density detached single family homes with an average selling price of $350,000. 4. Office/Professional - 324,174 square feet of office space with an estimated value of $900,000 per acre. Area 2.3 - CAMBRO MANUFACTURING PLANT AREA Two land use alternatives were evaluated for the 19.4 acre site located north of Clay Avenue between the Pacific Electric right-of-way and Huntington Street south of Garfield Avenue. It should be pointed out that 4.9 acres of the subject site presently occupied by the City's water facility were excluded from the fiscal impact analysis 1. Industrial/Medium Density Residential - 132 medium density condominiums with an average sale price of $120,000; and the existing 21,228 square feet of industrial. 2. Industrial - 14,204 square feet of-light manufacturing with an estimated value of $800,000 per acre; and the existing 21,228 square feet of industrial. Area 2.4 - HUNTINGTON HARBOUR BEACH CLUB Three land use alternatives were evaluated for the 5.7 acre site located on Warner Avenue between Edgewater and Sceptre Lanes: 1. Open Space - 5.7 acres of recreational open space with 4,607 square feet of accessory building (existing) valued at $351,071. 2. Open Space/Medium Density Residential - 2.6 acres of recreational open space with 4,607 square feet of accessory buildings (existing) valued at $351,071; and 48 medium density condominiums with an average sale price of $250,000. 3. Medium Density Residential - 39 medium density condominiums with an average selling price of $350,000. Area 2.5 - BEACHVIEW MOBILE HOME PARK Four land use alternatives for the 5.6 acre area located on Gothard Street between Ocean View High School and the City Yard: 1. Mobile Home Park - The existing 81 unit mobile home park with a full assessed value of $289,771. 2. Low Density Residential - 39 low density condominium units with an average selling price of $139,000. 3. Medium Density Residential - 84 medium density condominium units with an average selling price of_�7120,000. 4. Light Manufacturin - 92,411 square feet of office space with an estimated value of 800,000 per acre. Area 2.6 - MAGNOLIA/BANNING Five land use alternatives were evaluated for the 1.6 acre site located at the southeast corner of Banning Avenue and Magnolia Street: 1. Industrial Resource Production - 26,400 square feet of industrial space with an estimated value of 800,000 per acre. 2. Low Density Residential - 8 low density units with an estimated selling price of $150,000. 3. Open Space - a 1.6 acrew City-owned neighborhood park. 4. General Commercial - 11,360 square feet of light manufacturing space with an estimated value of $800,000 per acre. APPENDIX B INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CWECIdIST FORM I. Fkckground I. Name of Proponent City of Huntington Beach 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent P.O. Box 190, Huntington Beach,CA. (714) 536-5251 92648 3. Date of Checklist Submitted September 2,1982 4. Agency Requiring Checklist City of Huntington Beach 5. Name of Proposal, if applicable rPnPral Plan Amendment 82-1 II. Environmental Ifrpocts (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.) Yes Maybe ' No I. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? x_ b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? X c. Change in topography or ground surface X relief features? d. The destruction, covering or modification X of any unique geologic or physical features? e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? X f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? x area of concern 4 115 Yes M No g. Exposure of people or property to geolo- gic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, X mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration AREASk of ambient riir quality? 1--( See Appendix C b. The creation of objectionable odors? X C. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or ternperoture, or any change in climate, X either locally or regionally? 3. Water. Will the proposa; result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course of di- rection of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? X b. Changes in absorption -ates, drainage pot- terns, or the rate and amount of surface X runoff? c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood X waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? X e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, in- cluding but not limited to temperature, AREAS dissolved oxygen or turbidity? 2-4 f. Alteration of the direction or rote of flow of ground waters? X g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? X h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supp lies? X i. Exposure of people or property to water re- AREA lated hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? 5 116 Yes Maybe No 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? X b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? X c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? X d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural AREA crop? S. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, -land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)? T X b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? .X c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? X d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? X 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: AREA a. Increases in existing noise levels? 3 6 b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? X 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? X B. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a sub- stantial alteration of the present or planned AREA land use of an area? 1-6 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? X 117 Yes AQie_ No b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? X 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involves a. A risk of on oxplosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? X b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? X 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rote of the AREA human population of an area? 1&6 AREA 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing hous- ing, or create a demand for additional housing? 1&6 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional , X vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? X c. Substantial impact upon existing transpor- tation systems? X d. Alterations to present patterns of circula- tion or movement of people and/or goods? X e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? X f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? X 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: X a. Fire protection? X h. Police protection? X C. Schools? X 118 Yes Maybe No AREA AREA d. Parks or other recreational facilities? 2 4 e. Mointenonce of public facilities, including roods? X f. Other govemmental services? X 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? X b. Substantial increase in demand upon exist- ing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? X 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? _X b.- Communications systems? X C. Water? X d. Sewer or septic tanks? AREA 2e4 AREA e. Storm water drainage? 5 _ f. Solid waste and disposal? 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential X health hazard (excluding mental health)? b. Exposure of people to potential health AREA hazards? 2 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 on aesthetically offensive site open AREA to public view? 6&4 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon ,the quality or quantity of existing AREA recreational opportunities? 2&4 20. Cultural Resources. a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric-or ARILA historic archaeological site? 119 Yes Mcybe No b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or X historic building, structure, or object? c. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? X d. Will the protosal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact X area? 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality cf the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wild- life population to drop below self sus- taining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? _ b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short- term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) X c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively con- siderable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) _ d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X Ill. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation IV. Determination (To be completed by the Lead Agency) 120 On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ~� I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environ- ment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ��� FOCUSED EIR* date Signature For (Note: This is only a suggested form. Public agencies are free to devise their own format for initial studies.) * The EIR is focused on various issues for different project areas. The EIR will be prepared in conjunction with the General Plan Amendment analysis. 121 II. Explanations of "yes and maybe" answers. lf. Area of Concern 4 is located immediately adjacent to Weatherly Bay. In light of this, grading to accommodate new developments may alter drainage patterns resulting in potential impacts to the Bay. 2a. In all study areas increased traffic as a result of new develop- ment would increase the, amount of emissions. At this time, it is not known if theseJAwwill be significant or will affect exist- ing ambient air quality levels. 3e. See explanation lf. for Area of Concern 4. Additionally, Area of Concern 2 is located approximately 100 feet from Sully-Miller Lake. This lake was created as the result of former use of the site as a gravel quarry. Grading for new projects could affect run-off and siltation into the lake. 3i. Area of Concern 5 is currently being used as a mobile home park. Due to its location at the base of a swale, the site is subject to flooding during the rainy season. 4d. The majority of Area of Concern 2 is presently used fqr a mush- room farm. New development would preclude continued use of this land for agricultural purposes. , 6a. Areas 3, 5 and 6 could develop as industrial uses which may re- sult in increased noise levels. At the General Plan Amendment level it is difficult to assess the impact as no specific pro- ject has been proposed. 8 . The proposed projects are a General Plan Amendment thereby con- stituting changes in land use. 11. Residential alternatives could result in an increase in popula- tion. 12. Additional housing opportunities would be provided by new resi- dential developments. 13a. All proposed projects could result in increased traffic, how- ever, at this time it is not known if this increase will be significant. 14d. Area of Concern 2 is being considered for inclusion into Huntington Central Park. If included this would increase the amount of public recreational opportunities in the City. Area of Concern 4 is presently occupied by the Huntington Harbour Beach Club. Part of the requested General Plan Amendment is to upgrade the existing facilities which would have a benefi- cial impact on recreational opportunities. 16d. Area of Concern 2 is undeveloped at this time and may not be sewered. APPENDIX C AIR QUALITY CALCULATIONS The General Plan Amendments will not have any immediate impact on existing air quality; however future development as a result of the amendments, may create an increase in mobile and stationary source emissions. The following table illustrates a "worst case" or complete builtout scenario of each amendment area. The figures used represent 1982 emissions for average vehicles in the South Coast Air Basin as developed by the South Coast Air Duality Managment District. These emissions are not considered to be significant to the regional air basin. Additionally, it should be noted that when development occurs, the actual amount of pollutants may be less due to advanced exhaust control technology and more stringent air pollution legislation. PROJECTED DAILY EMISSIONS Area 1 - HUNTINGTON BEACH COMPANY Medium Density Residential Mobile Emissions .0013 tons/day Stationary Emissions .0003 tons/day TOTAL .0016 tons/day Office Professional Mobile Emissions .062 tons/day Stationary Emissions negligible TOTAL .062 tons/day Area 2 - M.D. JANES COMPANY Open Space Mobile Emissions .0199 tons/day Stationary Emissions negligibld TOTAL .0199 tons/day Medium Denisty Mobile Emissions .0195 tons/day Stationary Emissions .0058 tons/day TOTAL .0253 tons/day Low Density Mobile Emissions .0358 tons/day Stationary Emissions .028 tons/day TOTAL .063 tons/day Estate Residential Mobile Emissions .02 tons/day Stationary Emissions .015 tons/day TOTAL .035 .tons/day Office Professional Mobile Emissions 1.08 tons/day Stationary Emissions 1.94 tons/day TOTAL 3.02 tons/day Area 3 - CAMBRO MANUFACTURING COMPANY Medium Density Residential Mobile Emissions .37 tons/day Stationary Emissions .03 tons/day TOTAL .4 tons/day General Industrial Mobile Emissions .4 tons/day Stationary Emissions .005 tons/day TOTAL .405 tons/day Area 4 - HUNTINGTON HARBOUR BEACH CLUB Open Space Mobile Emissions .12 tons/day Stationary Emissions .00007 tons/day TOTAL .1207 tons/day Mixed Development Mobile Emissions .05 tons/day Stationary Emissions .005 tons/day TOTAL .055 tons/day Low Density Mobile Emissions .007 tons/day Stationary Emissions .0058 tons/ day TOTAL .0128 tons/day Area 5 - BEACHVIEW MOBILE HOME PARK General Industrial Mobile Emissions .079 tons/day Stationary Emissions .0002 tons/day TOTAL .0792 tons/day Medium Density Residential Mobile Emissions .1130 tons/day Stationary Emissions .00123 tons/day .11423 tons/day Low Density Residential Mobile Emissions .1089 tons/day Stationary Emissions .00079 tons/day TOTAL .10969 tons/day Area 6 - CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Industrial Energy Production Mobile Emissions .015 tons/day Stationary Emissions .00004 tons/day TOTAL .0154 tons/day Low Density Residential Mobile Emissions .02 tons/day Stationary Emissions .0019 tons/day TOTAL .0219 tons/day Open Space Mobile Emissions negligible Stationary Emissions negligible General Commercial Mobile Emissions .08 tons/day Stationary Emissions .0018 tons/day TOTAL .08018 APPENDIX D LETTERS OF COMMENT LETTERS OF COMMENT: D--1) Huntington Beach Department of Public Works D-2) Huntington Beach Police Department D-3) Huntington Beach Communtiy Services Department D-4) Southern California Gas Company D-5) Southern California Edison Company D-6) General Telephone Company D-7) County Sanitiation Districts, Orange County D-8) Huntington Beach City School District D-9) Ocean View School District D-10) Ocean View School District D-11) Huntington Beach Union High School District D-12) Orange County Transit District D-13) California Coastal Carudssion D-14) Alexander Googooian D-15) Huntington Beach Environmental Board CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEAC11 a INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH To Claudette Dupuy From Les Evans Assistant Planner City Engineer Subject General Plan Amendx nt No. 82-1 Date Sept. 9, 1982 Attached are maps showinq location and size of storm drain and sewer systems in in each area of concern. The existing water system in each area has been plotted on the exhibit maps which are also attached. The problems associated with the land uses proposed for each area of concern have been reviewed briefly by this department due to the short response period. Com- ments are as follows: Area of. Concern No. l_ No particular concerns were noted for either proposed use. The access and circu- lation plan should be reviewed carefully to insure compatibility with the proposed transit corridor along railroad right-of-way and with the Axisting office uses at the northeast corner of Main and Yorktown. Area of Concern No. 2 I. Estate residential_ or open space would be most compatible with the park, Fl.lis- Goldenwest Specific Plan and the proposed nearby recreational uses from a traffic standpoint. 2. Access onto Goldenwest should be limited to one opening; and access onto Ellis should also be limited to one openinq compatible with proposed street openings on the south side of Ellis. 3. Arterial streets need full improvements. 4. The Goldenwest sewer will need to be paralleled. 5. Drainage to Sully-Miller Lake must be carefully controlled and cleaned up. Area of Concern No. 3 320,139 square feet of industrial use may create access problems. Most desirable access points are from Clay (one opening) and Gothard (one opening) . Lack of good adequ.,.teaccess may make the site unsuitable for industrial use. Area of Concern No. 4 This area has had severe sewaqe problems due to its low elevation. Backflow safe- guards will have to be considered along with the upgrading to Pump Station "D" to handle additional flow. Area of Concern No. 5 1. Access problems again. There should be no access from Betty Drive to Gothard. 92,411 square feet of industrial on a cul-de-sac street with only one opening onto Gothard may be undesirable. D- 1 Memo to Claudette Dupuy General Plan Amendment No. 82-1 September 9, 1982 Page 2 2. This area is also prone to flooding and has poor soils. Careful consideration must be given to drainage and foundation design. Area of Concern No. 6 1. Access will be limited to one opening on Magnolia (right turn in and out only) . 2. The site drains to the northeast and will have to be redesigned for drainage. LE:7y Attach. D-1 I• ' CITY OF FIIrlN'1'INGT4a1+1 I3E.aCH frf, fEIVrD RINTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION �]SL HUNTINGTON BEACH �' v ►0:-A lef"I Ir,I ce c To CLAUDL Y1 L DUPUY From CARL KARN Assistant Planner Administrative Aide Subject GENERAL PLAN A1v1ENDMLNT NO. 82-1 Date SEPTEMBER 7, 1982 I was assigned by Chief Robitaille to compile the necessary data in regard to your memo (General Plan Amendment No. 82-1) . The estimated additional police officers needed to effectively enforce the proposed developments are provided in the following information. These figures were obtained on the basis of one call for service per 1000 sq. feet for commercial structures and one call for service per 1.26 dwellings for residential structures. Recreational facilities were based on an estimated .0075 officers per acre. The average response time for priority calls are as follows. Priority 1 4.46 minutes Priority 2 11.75 minutes Priority 3 24.62 minutes The proposed developmental areas do not impose any innnediate problems with law enforcement nor does it require a significant change in personnel. Additional Officeis Needed Area of Concern #1 - Alternative 1 - no significant impact alternative 2 - no significant impact Area of Concern #2 - Alternative 1 - no significant impact Alternative 2 - 2 additional officers Alternative 3 - 1 additional officer Alternative 4 - 2 additional officers Alternative S - 1 additional officer Area of Concern #3 - Alternative 1 - 2 additional officers Alternative 2 - 2 additional officers Area of Concern #4 - Alternative 1 - no significant impact Alternative 2 - no significant impact Alternative 3 - no significant impact Area of Concern #S - Alternative 1 - 1 additional officer Alternative 2 - 1 addltlonal officer Alternative 3 - no significant impact Area of Concern #6 - Alternative 1 - no significant impact Alternative 2 - no significant impact Alternative 3 - no significant impact CK/se D-2 CITY OF 1-11UPATINGTON BEACH [464 L INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATIO HUNTINGTON BEACH i.r1 To Claudette Dupuy From V , nt Moorhouse Development Cervices Director, Community Services Subject General Plan Amendment 82-1 Date August 31 , 1982 In response to your memo of August 25 , 1982 , please be advised that the proposed amendments will. .have little or no impact on the ability of Community Services to provide library or recre- ational services to those sites . VGM: cs J Rr IVE SEP 1 i. L D- 3 ORANGE COUNTY DIVISION • P O BOX 3334, ANAIIFIM, CALIF 92803 September 1, 1982 City of Huntington Beach RECEIVED P.O. Box 190 S EP 2 1982 Huntington Beach, CA. 92648 Development Services Attn: Claudette Dupuy, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment 82-1 This letter is not to be interpreted as a contractual commitment to serve the proposed project, but only as an information service. Its intent is to notify you that the Southern California Gas Company has facilities in the area where the above-naffed project is proposed. Gas service to the project could be pro- vided from an existing main as shown on the attached atlas sheet without any significant impact on the environment. The service would be in accordance with the Company's policies and extension rules on file with the California Public Utilities Commission at the time contractual arrangements are made. The availability of natural gas service, as set forth in this letter, 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. We can also be affected by actions of federal regulatory agencies. Should these agencies take any action which affects gas supply or the condition under which service is available, gas service will be provided in accordance with revised conditions. Residential (System Area Average) Yearly Single Family 1095 Therms/year/dwelling unit Multi-Family 4 or less units 640 Therms/year/dwelling unit Multi-Family 5 or more units 580 Therms/year/dwelling unit These estimates are based on gas consumption in residential units served by Southern California Gas Company during 1975 and it should not be implied that any particular home, apartment or tract of homes will use these amounts of energy. This is particularly true due to the State's new insulation requirements and consumers' efforts toward energy conservation. Estimates of gas usage for non-residential projects are developed on an individual basis and are obtained from the Commercial-Industrial Market Services Staff by calling 213-689-2041 or 213-689-2062. D-4 We have developed several programs which are available, upon request, to provide assistance in selecting the most effective applications of energy conservation techniques for a particular project. If you desire further information on any of our energy conservation programs, please contact this office for assistance. Sincerely, D.M. Glover Technical Supervisor ES/pjg Enclosure t Southern California Edison Company P.O. BOX 2069 7333 BOLSA AVE. WESTMINSTER, CALIFORNIA 926833-1269 September 23, 1982 ' TELEPHONE -• . v .. 0 (714)973-5491 SEP 2 71982 Development Services City of Huntington Beach P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach , CA 92648 Attention : Claudette Dupuy Planning Dept. Subject : E. I . R. -- General Plan Amendment• No. 82-1 Gentlemen': This is to advise that the subject property is located within the service territory of the .Southern California Edison Company and that the electric loads of the project are within parameters 'of projected load growth which Edison is planning to meet in this area. Unless the demand for electrical generating capacity exceeds our estimates , .and provided that there are no unexpected out- ages to major sources of electrical supply , we expect to meet our electrical. requirements for the next several years . Our total system demand is expected to continue to increase annually ; however , excluding ' any. unforeseen problems , our plans for new generation resources indicate that our ability to serve all customer loads during peak demand periods will be adequate during the decade of the ' 80s . Current conservation efforts on the part of Edison ' s customers . have resulted in energy savings . Optimization of conservation measures in this project will contribute to the overall energy savings goal . Very truly yours , R. L. Coolidge Service Planner RLC :da D-5 DISTRICT OFFICE SERVING: CORONA DEL MAR •COSTA MESA •FOUNTAIN VALLEY •HUNTINGTON BEACH MIDWAY CITY •NEWPORT BEACH • ROSSMOOR •SEAL BEACH •SUNSET BEACH •WESTMINSTER RECEIVED SEP 131982 General Telephone Company of California Development Services 6774 Westminster Blvd. Westminster,California 92683-3788 213 594-4526 714 891-5321 In Reply Refer To September 10, 1982 3774 A13.10 City of Huntington Beach Department of Development Services Planning Division Attention Claudette Dupuy, Assistant Planner P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Ms. Dupuy In response to your letter of August 31, 1982 regarding the proposed amendent (82-1) to the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan, General Telephone will not have any problems serving the project sites regardless of the land use selected. The location and size of all existing facilities and all improvements needed to serve the project sites have not been shown as the telephone conversation with your office on September 9, determined this informa- tion was not required. However, when additional telephone facilities are required they will be provided by General Telephone Company in a timely manner to serve the development of any and all of these project sites. If I can be of further assistance, please contact me at (714) 891-5321. Very truly yours GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA W. R. DUVALL Resident Engineer D-6 A part of General Telephone & Electronics COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS TELEPHONES: AREA CODE 714 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 9 6 2-2 41 '111 P. O. BOX 8127. FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 9270B 10844 ELLIS AVENUE (EUCLID OFF-RAMP, SAN DIEGO FREEWAY) September 9, 1982 ' v y SEP 2 01982 City of Huntington Beach Development P.O. Box 190 Services Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Attention: * Claudette Dupuy Subject: General Plan Amendment No. 82-1 This is in response to your August 25, 1982 letter requesting a review of General Plan Amendment No. 82-1. Your exhibits have been marked to show Districts' existing trunk sewers in the vicinity of the proposed land use changes. Generally the alternatives suggest higher land uses than anticipated on the Districts' 1975 Ultimate Land Use Plan. However, this office believes that the existing trunk sewer and treatment facilities will be able to accommodate the higher flows. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact the undersigned. Thomas M. Dawes Deputy Chief Engineer TMD:hc Enclosure D-7 HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT 20451 Craimer Lane a P.O.Box 71 Huntington Beach,California 92648 (714)964-8888 O IN - BOARD OF TRUSTEES September 20, 1982 Gary Nelson,D.D.S. President Brian Garland Development Services Clerk Ms. Claudette Dupuy, Assistant Planner Sherry Barlow City of Huntington Beach Member Dept. of Development Svs. , Bldg. Div. Pat Cohen Post Office Box 190 Member Huntington Beach, California 92648 Norma Vander Molen Member Dear Ms. Dupuy: Per our conversation several days ago, I have reviewed the General Plan Amendment No. 82-1 and wish to report the following: ADMINISTRATION Area of Concern #1 - Insignificant, no concern. Lawrence Kemper, Ed.D. Area of Concern #2 - This is not in our district. District Superintendent Ronald Brown Area of Concern #3 - This is in our district and it effects the Perry Assistant School. Assuming that a "medium density" repre- Superintendent sented here would primarily consist of condomin- Personnel iums, current statistics would indicate that they Robert Hawthorne would yield only 21 pupils which would be insig- Assistant nificant in our educational planning. Superintendent Business Services Area of Concern #4 - This is not in our district. James M'.Macon Director of Educational Services Area of Concern #5 - This is not in our district. Duane Dishno Area of Concern #6 - Is in our district but is insignificant. Director of Special Services I hope that this information is helpful to you. Sincerely yours, R. WTHORNE Assistant Superintendent Business Services - RMH/mat D-8 f;+ September 17, 1982 "IN QUEST OF EXCELLENCE" Ms Claudette Dupuy, Assistant Planner City of Huntington Beach Department of Development Services SEP 2 0 1982 P. 0. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Development Services Dear Claudette: Following are the potential numbers of K-8 students that could be generated by the alternatives in the areas of concern in the Ocean View School District: Area of Concern #2 Alternative #2 . . . . . . . . . . . 80 students Alternative #3 . . . . . . . . . . 40 students Area of Concern #4 Alternative #2 . . . . . . . . . . . 10 students Alternative #3 . . . . . . . . . . . 8 students Area of Concern #5 Alternative #2 . . . . . . . . . . . 17 students Alternative #3 . . . . . . . . . . . 8 students The District anticipates no problem in accommodating the above number of students. Sincerely, Milton R. Berg � Director of Business Support Services MRB:am D-9 OCM VIEW SUPERINTENDENT BOARD OF TRUSTEES SCHOOL DISTRICT Dale Coogan Maxwell Sudia Ma us,Clerk Sheila Marcus,Clerk ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENTS Marianne Blank Monte McMurray Charles Osterlund James Jones Janet Garrick 16940 8 STREET Joseph Condon HUNTINGTON BEACH,CALIFORNIA 92647 We Are An Equal opportunity Employer 714647.2551 The District does not discriminate on the basis of ape,gamier•or handicap. RECEIVED "" SEP 7 1982 ' peveWpment Services September 2, 1982 "IN QUEST OF EXCELLENCE" Ms Claudette Dupuy, Assistant Planner City of Huntington Beach Department of Development Services P. 0. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Claudette: Either alternative being analyzed for the 5.6 acres mentioned in your recent letter would not create a problem for Ocean View Scbool District. We estimate the number of children generated would not exceed fifteen K-8 students and the District would have no problem accommodating that number. Yours trul;��,4 ' Milton R. BeLness Director of Support Services MRB:am D-10 OCMVIEW- SUPERINTENDENT BOARD OF TRUSTEES SCHOOL DISTRICT Dale Coogan Maxwell Sud President Shellsia Marcus,Clerk ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENTS Marianne Blank Monte McMurray Charles Osterlund James Jones Janet Garrick 16940 B STREET Joseph Condon HUNTINGTON BEACH,CALIFORNIA 92947 we An An Equal OpW&Wly EnWayar 71ft47.2551 the Distdat does not diaedminete on Ow basis of apt,gerwer,or handftap. oTON eE'� Huntington Beach Union High School District o ,'e 10251 Yorktown Avenue,Huntington Beach,California 92646 (714)964-3339 y » O Frank J.Abbott,Ed.D. Board of Trustees SCHOOL Superintendent of Schools Brian W.Lake President Stephen H.Smith a Vice President Ron E.Marcus OC-7 1�82 Clerk Development Services Sherry L.Baum Ms. Claudette Dupuy, Assistant Planner Helen E.Dine City of Huntington Beach P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Subject: General Plan Amendment 82-1 Dear Ms. Dupuy: Per your request of September 14, our staff has reviewed the potential student generation of the alternatives outlined in your six areas of concern. Find enclosed your summary sheet annotated with the numbers of potential students (at our current yield ratio) that would eater our schools should this development occur. The particular high school impacted by that development has also been noted on the page. , As you may be well aware, our district has been in a three-year steady decline ranging from 3% to 6% of our student population. Our high schools, therefore, are no longer overcrowded as in previous years. Thus, the modest student yields, even in the highest instance (area of concern #2), would not prove to be a burden for that particular school in our district. If you need any further information in this area, please feel free to contact Glen Dysinger here in our office. Sincerely, Fr J. b Superinte nt FJA/mnp Enclosure D-11 '41 lntirntnn Ronrh WPatminstw Marim Fountain Vallev Frirv)n Orean View Fveronq H'Qh Scholl , Adult School r;uk*ince Center Wmtembing F*j,- hnn r'r•nMr SEP 2 21982 Development Services ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT OISTRICT September 20, 1982 Ms. Claudette Dupuy Assistant Planner City of Huntington Beach P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Ms. Dupuy: SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 82-1 We have reviewed the proposed General Plan Amendment, and have several comments on potential impacts on transit services. We have indicated the existing transit routes at these sites oq the enclosed maps. In general, we recommend that transit facilities, such as bus stops, turnouts, and shelters, be accommodated at all developments likely to generate moderate-to-high transit ridership. Specific comments by area of concern are: Area of Concern 1: This site has transit access nearby on three I routes. It is unlikely that the proposed amendment would result in any significant transit impacts due to the size of the site, the location, and potential land uses. Area of Concern 2: This site is currently served by Route 25 (Golden West). Alternative land uses 1-4 could result in need for a bus turnout and shelter on Golden West. Area of Concern 3: This site has transit access nearby on two routes, and may have direct service on Garfield in the future. Both alternatives could result in the need for a bus .stop and shelter at this location. Area of Concern 4: This site is currently served by two routes. Depending on future levels of development here and in Bolsa Chica, traffic volumes on Warner may warrant a bus turnout and shelter. Area of Concern 5: This site is currently served by one route and may warrant a bus stop depending on the land use and trip demand. 11222 ACACIA PARKWAY • P.O. BOX 3005 • GARDEN GROVE,CALIFORNIA 92642 • PHONE(714)971-6200 D-12 � I Ms. Dupuy September 20, 1982 Page Two i I Area of Concern 6: This site is currently served by two routes. There are not likely to be any impacts on transit service as a result of any of the proposed land uses. While it appears that the proposed GPA will not generate significant impacts that require modifications to existing bus service, we i would appreciate your consideration of transit facility needs in ' future planning and design of the development areas 2 through 5. We will be glad to provide you further assistance, as the EIR's on or specific plans for these sites are being prepared. If you need any further information, please call me or Christine I Huard-Spencer at (714) 971-6412. Sincerely, 1 i I I f � i Dick Hsu Environmental Coordinator Enclosure DH:B i I I i I i I I 4 j I i Stale of California, Edmund G. Brow Califorrn;i Coastal Commission 631 Howard Street,4th floor San Francisco, California 94105 (41 S) 543-8555 November 2.4,1982 Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse r.WV J 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 Oevelo Sacramento, CA 95814 Pment Services ATTM:Terry RE: SCI1## 82091702 Draft EIR for GI' Amendment 82.-1(EIR 82-3)City of Huntington Beach. Gentlemen: The staff of the Coastal Commission has reviewed the referenced EIR and offers -the following comments for consideration. -Iwo areas being considered for land use designation changes are in tlae coastal zone(areas 2.4 and 2.6). Regarding the Huntington harbour [leach Club Area, Area 2.4,the City's Local Coastal Plan designates this site a!; gpen Space Recreation. As certified in part by the Commission on November 17,1982 this land use designation does not allow residential uses.Therefore the EIR should indi- cate that any land use designation change would require an amendment to the City's Local Coastal Plan,and such amendment must be consistent with the poli- cies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act. Section 30222 of the Act provides that the use of private lands suitable for visitor-serving facilities designed to enhance public opportunities for coast.al recreation shall have priority over private residential , general industrial or general commercial but not over agriculture of, coastal-dependent industry. Tile EIR fails to evaluate how the proposed amendment to establish residential uses with recreation uses would address these priorities. Further, Sections 30210-30212 of the Act ensure the provision of public access in new development. The EIR (p.36) notes that concern should be given to pre- serving access and views to the area.Yet, the EIR notes on page 38(d) that the existing recreational amenities including a private beach would serve the development.The maintenance of a private recreational facility may not be consistent with the provisions of the Act.The EIR tails to discuss how public access would be assured consistent with the public access policie's of the Coastal Act. The EIR also notes on page 37(4a) that the sewage pump station facilities are nearing capacity.Section 30254 provides in part that ". . .Where existing or planned public works facilities can accomnaodatq only a limited amount of new development services to coastal dependent land use, essential public services and basic industries. . .public recreation, commercial recreation and visitor serving land uses shall not be precluded by other development."The EIR fails to i evaluate whether commitment to mired residential use would preclude higher priority uses tinder the Coastal Act. Regarding the Magnolia-Banniny Area (Area 2.6) the EIR fails to evaluate the project in light of the provisions of the energy policies of the Coastal Act. The EIR should evaluate the potential of the site to accommodate energy expansion or coastal dependent energy or industrial facilities in conformance with Sections 30?60-30264 of t:ho Act. (hank you for the opportunity to conment on this EIR Sincerely, Eliz eth A. Fuchs Coastal Analyst cc:D3vid Loomil;, South Coast Claudette flupuy, City of Huntington Beach Alexander Goog,)oian RECE�yEQ• Attornet� at £ t t"4' , N HT1N Nove�er ��;8 9192ALiF. ou 2� 67 PH Paz City of Huntington Beach (�u'y w ���2 Department of Development Services P.O. Box 190 Developr"ent Serf;:es Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Attn: Claudette Dupuy, City Planner Subject : Environmental Impact Report 82-3 • Land Use Amendment 82-1, Area 2.4 Gentlemen: Upon review of the EIR for the above-referenced project, there are several inadequacies that I feel need to be discussed in greater detail before the EIR is certified. The first comment I would have is that the discussion of the environmental impacts of retaining the existing Recreation Open Space designation on the site is superficially discussed. There is no indication of additional types of recreation uses that could be developed on the site and what the environmental impacts of those other uses might be. Also, the anticipated traffic generation for Open Space Recreation (64 end trips) seems to be substantially understated. By actual count on Saturday, November 13, 1982 , there were 61 vehicles observed on the subject property at 11 : 00 a.m. That day was a cloudy, overcast day. On the following day at noon, there were 139 vehicles on the lot. During the peak sailing and cruising times of the year, many more vehicles would be utilizing the property, particularly if the restaurant and meeting rooms provide the type of quality dining and recreation environment that the residents of this area can support. I would suggest that approximately 200 to 250 vehicle end trips per day could be generated just by the recreation uses . There is no specific discussion in- the EIR regarding the consistency of this proposed Land Use Amendment with the Coastal Element , Seismic Safety Element, or Housing Element of the City' s General Plan. A brief review of the Coastal Element finds that the proposal under consideration may be inconsistent with the following policies of the Coastal Element : 15933 South Clark Avenue •Suite B•Bellflower, California 90706.(213) 925-5563 City of Huntington Beach November 23, 1982 Page Two -Policy 4g, Page 139 -Policy 6a, Page 140 -Policy 15f, Page 151 There is no specific discussion regarding the cumulative impacts of this project with anticipated future developments that could occur on the south side of Warner Avenue. More attention should be given to the discussion of the coordinated phasing of the realignment of Warner Avenue with future residential construction in the Bolsa Chica Bluff area. Finally, it would seem that the only reason for recommending approval of this Land Use Amendment is that it is what the applicant is requgsting and that it is profitable to the City. If future revenue to the City is the major basis for approving Land Use Amendments , then Open Space and Recreation areas will soon disappear. Hopefully, the City can balance its gbals for new housing with other goals such as preservation of Open Space , accessibility to shoreline areas , and view retention of shorelines and harbor areas . The City has previously reviewed this site for the construction of 42 guest cottages , and the request was denied by both the Planning Commission and the City Council . The two most pertinent Findings of Fact adopted by both the Commission and Council were: "l. The intent of the ROS Zone as established did not include uses of this type; i .e . , residential development , whether temporary or not. 2. Zoning prior to ROS was R1. If the zoning was as it had been, the use would not be permitted. The proposed use does not conform to the use of surrounding properties . " Finally, there was an amendment made to the EIR by an Errata Sheet which was inserted to the report at the hearing on November 16 , 1982 , and which had to do with access . Since we are not privy to this change, we can only speculate as to what it purports to provide. I would seriously urge that more detailed analysis be included in the EIR in those areas which has been discussed above. City of Huntington Beach November 23, 1982 Page Three In conclusion may I point out that three items were considered . simultaneously at the hearing of November 16 , 1982. They were 1) the LIR 82-3; 2) Land Use Amendment 82-1; and 3) Huntington Harbor Bay Specific Plan. To limit interested property owners , as I was and am, to three minutes as to all these items , and to prohibit us from accumulating time (3 minutes) amongst each other, which had been promised prior to the hearing, effectively denied me and others to our right to a fair hearing. The conduct just referred to denied me of my constitutionally protected right to due process and a fair and impartial hearing. Ver truly your AL DER G00- AN 26975 Edgewate ane • Huntington Beach, Y92649 A D D E N D U M The following persons join in and concur with the comments made by Alexander Googooian. Ad,,ee, A,�, Drp Environmental Board s CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH H HUNTINGTONRFA(H Post Office Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648 TO: Planning Commission DATE: December 1, 1982 FROM: Environmental Board SUBJECT: DRAFT LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 82-1 The Huntington Beach Environmental Board has reviewed Draft Land Use Element Amendment 82-1, and submits the following comments re- garding the six areas covered in this land use amendment. Area of Concern 2.1 - Yorktown/Main Street Area The Land Use Amendment indicates that a 1.52 acre parcel located approximately 500 feet east of Main Street and 600 feet north of Yorktown Avenue would be redesignated from medium density residential to office professional. The Environmental Board feels that this zone change is premature at this point in time in that such piece- meal changes without overall recognition of the cumulative impact have a tendency to destroy the overall intent of the Huntington Beach Land Use Plan. Further, it is pointed out that this change would likely result in an additional 438 vehicle trips per day originating from any development on this parcel. Although this number of trips is minimal, no attempt has been made to address the cumulative effect of additional traffic on surrounding streets. Area of Concern 2.2 - Mushroom Farm Area The Land Use Amendment proposes to redesignate 20.1 acres of land from open space to medium density residential. The staff recommen- dation is to keep the zoning as open space, and the Environmental Board wishes to add their support to the staff recommendation. Any residential development in this area would have significant problems with storm drainage, water supply, and sewage. Another major objection by the staff and again supported by the En- vironmental Board, is that this area is currently surrounded by Huntington Central Park, and is proposed for eventual inclusion in Central Park. A zone change to medium density residential is incom- patible with the proposed incorporation into the park. The Environ- mental Board concurs with the staff zecommendation, and opposes this zone redesignation. Area of Concern 2.3 - Cambro Manufacturing Plant Area The Land Use Amendment proposes to redesignate a 19.4 acre site from medium density residential to general industrial. Although not op- posed to this redesignation, the Environmental Board notes with great alarm that city planning maps showing the subject area have LUE 82-1 Dec. 1, 1982 Page 2 removed (hopefully inadvertently) the old Pacific Electric right-of- way. These planning maps have been distributed at recent Planning Commission meetings. We object to this misinformation, as the right- of-way remains in existence and as you well know, represents a po- tential transportation corridor for future mass transit from Hunting- ton Beach. The Environmental Board urgently requests that the planning maps be corrected to reflect existence of the right-of-way. Area of Concern 2.4 - Huntington Harbor Beach Club The Land Use Amendment proposes to redesignate 5.7 gross acres from open space to mixed development. The Land Use Amendment goes on to state that it is the intent of the applicant to construct residential condominiums on this property after its redesignation. The Environ- mental Board opposes the mixed development zoning, even in conjunc- tion with the proposed specific plan, as not providing sufficient control as to the type of development which would eventually be im- plemented. If residential is the intent of the applicant, then the zoning change should be to residential, rather than mixed development which allows a variety of uses from retail shops to recreational facilities. In addition, the applicant has indicated that the proposed residential condominiums would be five stories in height. This exceeds the three- story height restriction for areas outside of high rise nodes, and is completely incompatible with the existing developments around the Huntington Harbor Beach Club. The Environmental Board is opposed to any zone redesignation which would result in such high-rise construc- tion, and which would severely impact the visual and aesthetic values of the site. Area of Concern 2.5 - Beach View Mobile Home Park The Land Use Element proposed to redesignate a 5. 6 acre parcel lo- cated west of Gothard Street just north of the City Yard. The area is presently zoned as general industrial, which is inconsistent with the current mobile home use. However, if rezoned as a mobile home district, this park would not conform to the City's mobile home zoning requirements due to the fact that existing density is 14 .4 dwelling units per acre, versus a maximum mobile home zoning density of 9 units per acre. Further, as this park is less than the minimum 10 acres specified in the mobile home zoning requirements, it would not be in conformance with this requirement. Nevertheless, low cost housing is needed in Huntington Beach, and since this park was built in 1961, the zoning should be Changed to reflect its current land use as a mobile home park. The-Environmental Board recommends that this area be rezoned for mobile homes, but continue to be allowed to be in non-conformance with the structural requirements of the mobile home designation. Area of Concern 2.6 - Magnolia/Banning Area The Land Use Amendment proposes to redesignate the 1.6 acre site LUE 82-1 Dec. 1, 1982 Page 3 located at the southeast corner of Banning Avenue and Magnolia Street from industrial resource production to low density residential. The Environmental Board concurs with the staff recommendation that the most appropriate land use designation is low density residential: . Access appears to be the only area of significant questions. Access out of site should be by right turn onto Magnolia only. Access into site should require modification of the Magnolia/ Banning intersection. . The residential development should attempt to incorporate conser- vation measures listed on Pages 60 and 61 of the EIR. To the extent possible, areas should be preserved within the residential structures for containers to be used in the separation of recyclable materials - approximately 2 ft. by 2 ft. of floor space in a closet or pantry is suggested. A central area within the project should be preserved for a small recycle center - approximately 8 ft. by 8 ft. Consideration should also be given to leaving provisions availabre for installation of solar water heating units - i.e. , plumbing and structural amendments that might be 'necessary. Water conserving measures should be required. The Environmental Board urges the Planning Commission to implement the Land Use Amendment changes in conformance with the recommenda- tions listed above. HUNTINGTON BEACH ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD Irwin Haydock Chairman IH:MFK:ic:jlm RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FOCUSED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 82-3 A. Letter from Orange County Transit District RESPONSE: -Comments from O.CTD regarding potential improvements to the existing bus system will be incorporated into the appropriate sections of the Land Use Amendment 82-1. B. Letter from California Coastal Commission RESPONSE: Area of Concern 2.4 -Regarding the comment that the E.I .R. should indicate that any land use designation change would require an amendment to the City' s Local Coastal Plan and should be consistent with the California Coastal Act. - This comment will be added to page 36, Section 2.4.2. 1 of the LUE Amendment document. -Regarding the comment about consistency with Section 30222 of the California Coastal Act. - The mixed-use designation would allow both recreation and residential uses on the subject site. It does not preclude recreational uses. The Specific Plan being processed concurrently with LUE 82-1 proposed to improve and expand existing recreation facilities on the site. -Regarding the comment about Sections 30210 - 30212 of the Coastal Act. - Neither a mixed use or residential land use designation on this site in the General Plan will preclude public access to the Huntington Harbour Waterways. The provision of such access will have to be ensured at the project level. The Specific Plan being processed concurrently with LUE 82-1 proposes a ten- foot wide public walking along the entire bulkhead which would provide. public access to the waterway. -Regarding the comment on the sewage pump station - Pump Station "D" has the capacity to accommodate future developments, how- ever, improvements to the outfall lines will be- required prior to significant development. In terms of pump station capacity, the additional residential units would not preclude future development of this area for "high priority uses" as defined by the Coastal Act. Area of Concern 2. 6 Regarding the comment that the EIR should evaluate the potential of the site to accommodate coastal dependent energy or industrial facilities - The LUE Amendment document states on page 53 Section 2. 6. 2.1 that due to the small size and irregular shape of the site it is unlikely that any significant industrial development would occur under the existing land use designation. Page 3 Element - Any residential development on the subject site will have to comely with this policy. -Regarding comments on the seismic safety element - the following discussion will be added to the Land Use Amendment: "The pro- ject site along with a major portion of Huntington Harbour is located in the Alquist-Priolo Geologic Hazard Zone. This zone identifies areas of high seismic risk. Geologic studies are required by State law prior to building in this area and will be required as conditions for approval. -Regarding the comment about the Errata sheet distributed to the Planning Commission - The Errata sheet clarified (1) that access to and from the subject property would be taken from Warner Avenue only and (2) that any residential development on the site would have to comply with the City' s affordable housing policy in the coastal zone. These issues arose during the public testimony. OFFICE PROFESSIONAL + z INDUSTRIAL V10 � z 3 � Tma z J W = G GARFIELD 60 I�E-m U) MEDIUM DENSITY �•;- -- - - rt--fi1 - - RESIDENTIAL i -EARHARec Ll • _ Hir ` GLE\,ELYAVE -_ Existing General Plan Area of Concern 2 . 3 o o - Figure 2-7 27 APPENDIX E LETTER FROM DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES 1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA—HEALTH AND WEL'Y AGENCY _ EDMUND G BROWN JR, Go", DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 6tfiVICES ' 107 SOUTH BROADWAY.ROOM$Na 7128 LOS ANGELES.CA 90012 (213) 620-2380 June a, 1982 h i k :. . r i .juii b IS•'1) �i Mr. James R. Barnes Sc Associate Planner r i Department of Development Services City of Huntington Beach P. 0. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mr. Barnes: This letter is in response to your Mr. Charles W. Thompson's April 15, 1982 letter to Mr. John Hinton of this office, regarding the Bruce Bros. Pit being considered a "potential hazardous waste disposal site." Our abandoned site people did not have enough information to consider the Bruce Bros. Pit a potential hazardous waste site. This office's regular staff on March 10, 1980 inspected and sampled the soil in an area in which drilling muds were disposed of. The investigation was at the request of the City of Huntington Beach after the area had been cleaned-up. All samples upon analysis were determined to be non-hazardous. Additionally we have reviewed the Abondoned Site Groups file and found nothing in it to indicate that the Bruce Bros. Pit is a "potential hazardous waste disposal site." Therefore, based upon the information available to this office, we do not consider the Bruce Bros. Pit a 'potential hazari d posal site." Jo n A. H. .E. Waitsance and EnforcementSection Hazardous Waste Management Branch JAH:mw -119-