HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Element Amendment 84-1 Environmental Impact Report f
RESOLUTION NO. 5373
•w
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ADOPTING LAND USE ELEMENT
AMENDMENT NO. 84-1 TO THE CITY 'S GENERAL PLAN
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach
desires to update and refine the General Plan in keeping with
changing community needs and objectives ; and
A public hearing. on adoption of Land use Element Amendment
No . 84-1 to the General Plan was held by the Planning Commission
on April 3, 1984, and approved for recommendation to the City
Council ; and
Therefore , the City Council , after giving notice as pre-
scribed by Government Code § 65355, held at least one public
hearing to consider said Land Use Element Amendment No . 84-1 ; 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 , commenc-
ing with Section 65350, that Land Use Element Amendment No . 84-1
to the General Plan consisting of the following changes is hereby
adopted :
1 . That 3. 61 acres located at the southeast corner of
Gothard Street and Center Avenue be redesignated from Public ,
Quasi-Public , Institutional to General Commercial.
2 . That 3. 41 acres located at the southwest corner of
Garfield Avenue and Bushard Street from Low Density Residential
to General Commercial .
RCS : ps
5/10/84
Rev. 1
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 7th
.day of May 1984 .
. mod r
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Clerk City A torney //
REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED:
City Administrat r Director of Development
Services
2.
Res. No. 5373
S'rATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH )
I, ALICIA M. WENTWORTH, the duly elected, qualified City
Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the
City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of
members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven;
that the foregoing• resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative
vote of more than a majority of all the members of said City Council
at a regular meeting thereof held on the 7th day
of May 19 84 by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmen:
Pattinson, MacAllister, Thomas, Kelly, Finley, Bailey, Mandic
NOES: Councilmen:
None
ABSENT: Councilmen:
None
City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk
of the City Council of the City
of Huntington Beach, California
y,
i
1 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
2000 MAIN STREET
HUMTWGTON BEACH, CACi& 9Z64a
LAND USE . ELEMENT
AMENDMENT. 84ri.
Environmental Impact. Report 83-4
huntington beach department of
development services
i
I
i
i
RESOLUTION NO. 5373
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ADOPTING LAND USE ELEMENT
AMENDMENT NO. 84-1 TO THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach
desires to update and refine the General Plan in keeping with
changing community needs and objectives ; and
A public hearing on adoption of Land use Element Amendment
No . 84-1 to the General Plan was held by the Planning Commission
on April 3, 1984, and approved for recommendation to the City
Council ; and
Therefore, the City Council , after giving notice as pre-
scribed by Government Code § 65355, held at least one public
^- hearing to consider said Land Use Element Amendment No. 84-1 ; 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, commenc-
ing with Section 65350, that Land Use Element Amendment No. 84-1
to the General Plan consisting of the following changes is hereby
adopted:
1 . That 3. 61 acres located at the southeast corner of
Gothard Street and Center Avenue be redesignated from Public ,
Quasi-Public , Institutional to General Commercial .
2. That 3. 41 acres located at the southwest corner of
Garfield Avenue and Bushard Street from Low Density Residential
to General Commercial .
RCS : ps
5/10/84
Rev. 1 .
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 7th
day of May 1984.
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
-- ,
City Clerk City A torney
REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED:
City Administrat r Director of Development
Services
2.
Res. No. 5373
S'tA'rE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH )
I, ALICIA M. WENTWORTH, the duly elected, qualified City
Clerk of the City of, Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the
City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of
members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven;
that the foregoing.resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative
vote of more than 'a majority of all the members of said City Council
at a regular meeting thereof held on the 7th , day
of May 19 84 by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmen:
Pattinson, MacAllister, Thomas, Kelly, Finley, Bailey, Mandic
NOES: Councilmen:
None
ABSENT: Councilmen:
None
City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk
of the City Council of the City
of Huntington Beach, California
The foregoing instrument is a correct copy
of the original on file in this office.
Atteot � .....��..............._....
City Cle!A C-wd *i io Ci:rk of the City
Counc of the City of iiuntingt n Beach, Cal.
Deputy
`ly - .- -- ------
1
Land Use Categories
AMENDMENTS RESIDENTIAL
PLANNING COMM. CITY COUNCIL � '
DATE RESOLUTION DATE RESOLUTION I I-6-76 87 1 2-6-76 4368
`♦1• /�. y
0�2
� q0ti 07i6- 7 1196 8-I-77 4484 07Q 9
Estate <2un/gac
9-29-77 1202 11-7-77 4551
12-6-77 1206 -19-7 4572 *117 Estate s 3 un/gac
8-1-78 1232 8-21-78 4660
10-17-78 236 11- 78 4 Estate 54un/gac
- 12 12-18-78 4708 =Low Density3-6-791242 3-19-79 4728
-8
0
3-18 2614-7-80
4865 /\ / Q2OEM Medium Density
10-21-80 1268 12-15-80 4936
5-19-81 1273 6-15-81 5005 .r SAN DIEGO / ""
FREEWAY
A as,„�.,,;•,-. E
\, ,a-; / Medium High Density
II-3-81 1278 12-7-81 5053
11-17-81 1279 12-21-81 5060 049 % O I High Density/Conservation
8-z-82 5147 7P �` \ /,;;'
12-20-82 5206 / ✓' \ % \ - <' /- iiiii®High Density
12-7-82 1299 2-7-83 5223 / /�
i 4-19-63 1303 5-16-83 ---- -\ ,k //• `\ COMMERCIAL
12-4-83 1315 II-3-83 5327 ' \j - / .•.•� ';. ;,,_~� R `\ ®General
i 12-6-83 1315 I-3-84 5341 /. :•, i 400 t>
/ \\ 1,,sL / \ Visitor-Serving
I 0�� �sr /,
M Office Professional
0 %
MIXED USE
S
EM
Mixed Development
- 5
Mix
Office/Residential
I............................................ ,,-'11:,;•-'', :::�, ... .... ... ,,�:-,_,;�_m ::::..::.. .,,,- :..,- . '�' ` / Commercial/Support Recreation
........................................ ......................................
........... ..............................................
.................................... .............................................. INDUSTRIAL
€, \
=
................................ .........................................
Genera
.............................. .......................................................
......... ................................................................... .:.:.. _�-.+:-:::::,,;:. .......................... .'-,�.,_,._,,..=.,k- :r;•. \ ;��'.-:u°'.-z�� 99 Resource Pr
oduction.............................. ::::::::�:::::::::::s::::, `';.: -' - '.::;•::::::::;:>s:�sEt:::::::. ;.1;;_; � �- ¢r Production
:_ / 3 industrial Energy
...... ......................... ,..„ ,_,.� .... s°,�`-'.� -;IT:m.J=,. ,,�,�'�.. " OPEN SPACE
- -
°',/��.I,.,I.. / --- General
1,
�
,
r Wat
er
11
OF - P
M Conservation
a, „u: ; : :,'r•,.,rfr ''; Recreation
,M h
I
OTHER USES
•'a-n;
l:✓ll n,
--�•�,,.�.ti<,• "r�` a:'</'+ Public,
Quasi
- l' I titu do nal
�S✓f° P
.................. .........
M Planned Community
-
t t• E
5 a"
-rG
nn Reserve
in
- PI
- 9
'j
�r
1-
,('
n n
a Bo.Coast I Zone Boundary
Y
!
4
,y;9�6n; f�:" ����'��,.�°:�,��"°����'r����'��ic'tie`-,,�"�e�`-.ci:���.�.:��n.Y'i���:,'�"�i�i�l`I..'i?},`°„s'�'•������������:.�'.:::.
• � 1 p
f):
9[.
u"s
1.« ,e
S xl I h' —n -
�'� -- =- v'.''�xF�,�--_,w.3r;`e:,R�S'r Af':^�j"�i''�° �„�as�y, ♦ i.:Sf�
:.:...:...
°2'�^'
"
_
- "' - ';F.� __, __ - ,,.��'.'r ,���...- .`yea" ,-,"��,�-�,,,-. ��, w'�,`•r�� - r-✓
.eT.
PACIFIC COAST
OCEAN
PACIFIC OCEAN_-- ,�,�. �,atio," _ -� \ea aayoi♦aa pi�•.9�'-`p�tya eq�p ge'►°0�1 ® _ ® �„�,_��;s� ��s�e,. __ _
i ;k_;,:�• - ---_- _,�oiRJ�.�Ic4s�sa.<:N,~uo'..'_-•o ® D
3i•4
GENERAL PLAN
HUNTINGTON BEACH CALIFORNIA LAND USE DIAGRAM
PLANNING DIVISION Adopted December1976
Revised JAN. 1984 C'RM 31R
i
fi. R
0
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
o
1.0 INTRODUCTION l
1.1 Methodology 1
1.2 Environmental Assessment 1
2.0 AREAS OF CONCERN 5
2.1 Graham Place 5
2.2 Garfield-Bushard Area 10
2.3 Gothard-Center Drive Area 19
3.0 . ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES 23
3.1 Short-Term and Long-Term Productivity 23
3.2 Irreversible Environmental Changes 23
3.3 Growth Inducing Impacts ,0 24
APPENDICES
Appendix A Fiscal Impact Land Use Assumptions - Area 2.2
Appendix B Initial Study - Area 2.2
Appendix C Negative Declaration No. 83-53 - Area 2-3
Appendix D Letters of Comment
j
Y
:a
l
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report analyzes Amendment 84-1 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
twenty-second 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 three areas of the City (Figure
1-1). Two of the requests were from private property owners and
one was initiated by the City. The first site is known as Graham
Place, located in the unincorporated Bolsa Chica area. The second
is at the southwest corner of Garfield Avenue and Bushard Street,
and the third area of concern is located at the southeast corner of
Center Drive and Gothard Street. The amendment requests 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.
1.2 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
1
C
A
eau
E
L
j
Y.Vh
2. 1 u�
2.2
wrnrox
�i
Areas ®f Concern
O
0
2
1 e e
J
document addresses each of the points required." In conformance
with State guidelines, this document will constitute the EIR for
area 2.2 of Land Use Element Amendment 84-1. An initial study
addressing this area of concern was prepared pursuant to Section
15080 of the State Government Code to identify potentially
significant impacts associated with the proposed land use
designation. The EIR 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 in Section 2.2. Alternative land use
designations and feasible mitigation measures to minimize
U significant effects are also discussed in that section. Section 3.0
addresses overall environmental changes related to the following
considerations: 1) the relationship between short-term and
long-term productivity; 2) irreversible or unavoidable environmental
changes; and 3) growth inducing impacts.
The Graham Place area (Area 2.1) involves a General Plan
Amendment, a prezoning request, and an annexation proposal within
the Bolsa Chica. Because of the sensitive nature of the projec.t's
location and the complex interrelationships involved in the planning
of the Bolsa Chica, the environmental assessment for Area 2.1 is
contained in a separate EIR (83-3) that will accompany the land_ use
analysis contained in this document. Negative Declaration 83-53
addresses environmental impacts of the City-initiated request_ at
Center Drive and Gothard Street (see Appendix C).
t
3
2.0 AREAS OF CONCERN
2.1 Graham Place
2.1.1 Background
The Fieldstone Company has re ested a General Plan Amendment
and Pre-Annexation Zone Cha on the 42.4 acre Graham Place
site (known as the W.R. Gra e property) located in the
unincorporated Bolsa Chica ea of range County at the terminus
of Graham Street. Th site is bordered by: 1. the Garden
Grove-Wintersburg Flood ontrol Chann 1 to the northwest, existing
single-family residentia development wit in the City of Huntington
Beach to the northea , and undeveloped olsa Chica within the
County of Orange to he south, southeast, a d west. The applicant
has requested to a end the Land Use Eleme t to redesignate the
property from Pla ning Reserve to Low Densit Residential, which
would allow a m imum density of seven units pe acre. As with the
remainder of a Bolsa Chica area, the site is ithin the City's
sphere of i luence, but carries no zoning de ignation. The
applicant is requesting a pre-zoning designation o R 1, allowing
either sin e-family conventional detached homes on ;000 square
foot ruin* um lots or single-family attached units at maximum
density of 6.5 units per acre under the Planned sidential
Devel ment provisions of the Huntington Beach •Zonin Code.
Exis ng land use and zoning designations on the site and surr nding
pro erties are, depicted in Fig.ures 2.-1 and 2-2.
he site is currently vacant. Three abandoned oil wells located 'n
the eastern. portion.of.the site and two pipelines extending into th
project area reflect the former usage of the site for oil production.
purposes. The applicant proposes a conceptual plan of 95
" 5
E (�
l WARNER d AVE
(.I1.I I I1.11 �`L 1��I_LI=ILLIZ) �. LI IZTT'' GENERA
_El DOpeDO DR - RQ4 p a _ N
M IUM DENSITY_ COWER AL
_- PENOLf. r _ _
{ RE DENTIAL ' - - ___ _ _ _ _ J y
NEW
DENSITY
a
HIGH DEN - TY R' ,IDENTIAL
RESIDENTIA NE nrO-f C4- _ \ \
RECREATION
u
IDS M,bM.0 DI 0.
-
�, - LO DENSITY I '
RESIDENTIAL
♦ t _ _ M rt T"T T� � '�
♦♦.♦ ; YIN{ CF-ECA
-
♦
4 IL'
\� • l R
a•0 CF-R rr 1
PLANNING RESERVE
`
o i
EXISTING GENERAL PLAN
Area ' of Concern 2. 1
° ° d 0° 0
v6
F'iqure 2-1
WARNER — �I t AVE L
y C4 d R5 lly(0)C41 — RI RI �il _ RI—
\�„ .•p' l ie EL DORADO OR �� nOT
R2 1p"2 RI =RI �A I i �I RI' C
Y �_
- RY RI Jjl ;--'
PENDLE�N 0 �)RI RI RI RI �lRI R,?�/D? R IO2
R I . `I < R I
R2 RIF d s RI 1 /
R3'2 r DLENROY DR o aT iI /j RI
RI RI or
, R3 RI
`0001 IAA '
Al GKN DR
COASTAL —
ZONE
»�•�_ I '`
RI RI ''' �' €_.. RI RI RI RI
RI rru cR C —E �r
j Ik S o a
RI RI E ��
RI I R t w'. f! ; _
L at
RI• .. q.Dr. -- --" Da — o
• e s �s RI
' d •� • ro PRICE DP
/ R2LS5) R I I RI R I R 1 M
R2(55) R2(55 .1R1 I = RI RI ..
'\ 2(5.5) RI`` ffi
__ ..fu. —T.rt>---- R I
OP
� . (55) R2(5 RI LowDEs RI DA
s�X L..,,. I cRI _
/ RI RAPKAEL OR
1 b.•ua/I1L1LL W w N.IW Irs '
U.•..•a.l U�l..ltw•.•fr.l 10 f� / *� �e ..:. I M OR
i.l 11•avaluA Ar.la rb yp.l ��� I P ,
..a.e..uP.•.y..Rw. lu bniulod' .. CF-R 1' RI
lrr. a .�..,� h I`'`
L RI
LEGEND ` RI v RI RI RI
�•••� COASIY sou"My ` a� c� RI ••.�. ADU ._ OR .
RI s b e 6 R r
` Rl RI PI !
` RI. RI RI r RI I
f I
RI d
' RI
fl n�
EXISTING ZONING
Area of Concern 2. 1
00 oao
0
0
Figure 2-2
r
single-family detached units and 107 single-story townhomes to be
constructed on the property.
2.1.2 Analysis
E vironmental Impact Report No. 83-3 evaluates existing condition
an impacts associated with the Low Density Residential reque ,
and commends appropriate mitigation measures. The EIR cont ins
the a lysis for landforms, geotechnical resources, water reso ces,
biologi I resources, cultural resources, traffic circulati , air
quality, oise, land use, relevant planning programs, de hetics,
communit services and utilities, energy conservation, d fiscal
impact. T following analysis evaluates the request and other
alternatives terms of land use compatibility and con stency with
past and curre t planning efforts in the general area.
Staff considered other General Plan land use des' nations for the
subject property, cluding Planning Reserve, an various densities
of residential use a ove seven units per acre. e site is currently
designated Planning Reserve as is the eater part of the
unincorporated Bolsa hica. The major exc ption is the 530 acres
of existing and propos d wetland restora on area (per the 1973
State agreement with Si al Landmark) 1 ated west and southwest
of the site. This area is signated Op Space by the City's Land
Use Element.
The Planning Reserve designat n is pplicable to the following: "
a. Land areas in a pre-develo ent phase that are not yet fully
planned or ready for imm is e development.
b. Land in transition to imate u e that may designated as a
"holding" zone.
C. Resource product' n areas includin 1and_ uses for agriculture
or oil extraction urposes.
The intent of this ategory is not to preclu development, but to"
identify such ar as as deserving special at ntion and planning
effort. The P nning Reserve designation i the Bolsa Chica
recognizes th comprehensive planning effort, n occurring under
the Orange ounty Local Coastal Program. The ounty LCP was
adopted by he Board of Supervisors in '1981 but h s not yet been
certified y the California Coastal Commission. The County
expects o re-submit its LCP to the Coastal Commi ion in early
1984. he Land Use Plan component of the County L currently
desi ates the areea of concern and the area to the outhwest,
sou , and southeast as Medium Density Residential (3.5 to .5 units
p acre). This category is consistent with the City's Low ensity
esidential category which allows a maximum density of seve units
per acre. Therefore, the requested land use designation con rms
with the County's planning efforts in the Bolsa Chica and prov es
land usLa compatibility with the .existing single-family subdivisi s
abutting the site to the northeast and east within the City.
8 .. .
rom the criteria of, consistency with the County LCP, a City lan
u designation of low density is the most appropriate use of e
sit Residential densities above 6.5 units per acre would ot.
con rm with the intent of the County's planning efforts i 41he
Bolsa hica. The County Land Use Plan concentrates the ulk' of
High ensity (6.5 to 18 units per acre) and Heavy ensity
Residen 'al (18 to 28 units per acre) on the Bolsa .0 ca Mesa
located n thwest of the site. Residential development ' the Bolsa
Chica low nds is intended to be primarily low densi and water
oriented in haracter. Navigable waterways would provide tidal
flushing and cess to interior developed areas of a lowlands as
well as bufferi between the 600 acre planned wi life habitat and .
residential uses. A predominantly low density c racter within the
developable por 'ons of the lowlands wo Id provide more
compatibility with these channels and the sa marsh system than
would a medium or 'gh density residential al rnative.
The extent and config ation of the area concern is unique within
the Bolsa Chica. The R. Grace owner ip of the site is the only
major separate legal par I from the S nal Bolsa properties and the
salt marsh area owned b the Stat . The . subject property was
divided off from and was tended to be a second phase to .the
single-family residential de lop ents in Tracts 7495 and 8630
abutting the site to the northe t Consequently, the removal of the
Planning Reserve designation d the development of the site as
Low Density Residential wo d be compatible with this earlier
planning effort. Additionally, the ev.elopment of the site ahead of
the Bolsa Chica study area ould n set a precedent for piecemeal
development - of the . ar Altho h within the Bolsa Chica,
development of the site an be cons ed a logical extension. of the
existing single-family acts to the no heast. The existing homes
were originally built ith the intention f completing development
to the south and fi eshing the cul-de=sac and knuckles which are
now pact of the proposed project. The .proposed low density
development wou be sufficiently served by xisting public services
and utilities wit minor alterations as indicate in FIR •83-3.
Although co ►dered an extension of Tracts 7495 nd 8630, the area
of concern vertheless interfaces with significant lanning issues. in
the Bolsa hica. EIR 83-3 identifies a number of is ues In the Bolsa
'Chica t ' t either directly or indirectly .affect the s bject property
and "Pr posed land use designation. Geotechnical, hydrological,
wetla d restoration, and public services concerns ar among the
,mos significant impacts 'now being investigated by the ounty and
of r agencies as part of the LCP :process. As recommen d by the
;the City, should coordinate with the County and re ire the
pplicant to participate in or contribute funding to the arious
programs under consideration to .mitigate these concerns.
2.1.3, Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the area of concern be redesignated fro
Planning Reserve to Low Density Residential.
,9
2.2 Garfield-Bushard Area
2.2.1 Background
Area of Concern 2.2 is a request by the San Alto Development
-Company to change the General Plan.designation on 2.21 + acres of
vacant property located at the southwest comer of Bushard Street
and, Garfield Avenue from Low Density Residential to General
Commercial.
A General Telephone switching facility is located on 1.2+ acres
immediately south of the subject property and within 'the Low
Density Residential General Plan designation area. This use is
inconsistent with the existing residential designation but would be
consistent with a commercial designation. For purposes of
analyzing a commercial use for the vacant 2.21 + acres, staff has
expanded the area of concern to include the entire 3.41+ gross acres
located at the southwest corner of Garfield Avenue and Bushard
Street between Garfield and Litchfield Drive.
This amendment analyzes three potential land use designations for
the 2.21 acre site: (1) Low Density Residential, (2) Medium Density
Residential, and (3) General Commercial, the applicant's request.
Under a Low Density Residential land use designation, both a
conventional RI subdivision and a planned residential development
are considered for the study area in this report. An off ice
professional use and a neighborhood convenience center are
analyzed for the site under a General Commercial designation.
2.2.2 Analysis
1. Land Use
The City's General Plan designates property, south, west, and
east of the study area as Low Density Residential
(Figure 2-3). Property north of .the study area is located
within the City of Fountain Valley and is also designated for
low density residential development.
Surrounding land uses are predominantly single-family homes
to the north, south, and west, with a community garden
directly east of the site across Bushard Street. Diagonally
across from the study area, on the northeast comer of Bushard
and Garfield, is a neighborhood commercial center.
The area of concern is currently zoned R5, Office-Professional
(Figure 2-4). Property south, east, and west of the study area
has RI, Low Density Residential, zoning. Property to the
north, located in the City of Fountain Valley, is zoned RI-PD
(Low Density-Planned Development).
10
� 1111111-�
• � - ` �i i�1■�I � ._ .�-.� �■'.� ■III/������ � �.- .
� :■IIIIIIII II11II � �•��.� �
ENSITY
' � � .`/IIIIIIII■IIII■1■ ■■I■I■■�■■■■I■I■■\�
LII
I �►/ w . �11111 111111 II II 11 I 1■
� � � � ■ ■■I IIN� i
• NINE
ME
i = : o � 1 NI ■_ � _i
i� �■11�■1�11111 ; � '■� =i= i. ii r��-ii::ice\■■■■h 'r
1I �N111I11�Z I��IIIIII■NIN■� s� g . a/.■i a■� tl :s
mol1III1 ■1II/ 111111■I111IIIII■ A���N �M� 11NIII!fa
1111111r:1
111 Sn = 1 I I■/IME iN1111\
�:' =1�v■ 1=- _ � NNI IIn11 u�NI�;
� . ■IIIIIn1. _.•������ 11� ��IInI -II1uI11 �
Lit!IIIIIII IH� N1IHN NNnn.• �IIIIIII:
11I 1 uIIII■•: .�IIIII �
�.
MINI
g
. ,
1 Jk
_ 31 U
GARFIELD -- AVE.
of y �Hu IN w _.
p RI Z 7 2p.62 R) _-pL,.EFIN Rl RA
R LN R
_ SH RRY a R I ALBACORE DR = -
F RI RI J RI RI RI ;R R5 16 RI QQ o^ Ho
N C 2 J WILL LM CR 1� ■ BASS DR KURI
U J RI U 1� � I � N
' -' -- ----- R I �_ LL
R3
�, N LR IT HFI L ~ RI RI RI ; M H C2 1
R I R I
RI 6 LAR _ VE AR00
wYD[ PARM a DR I R 1 R I >z
0. C. F. C D. y
......-. ...r. .._....._... - pOw
........:r;R ( a:a' RI a['i��r.; R�;w RA R
--- -
------------—'----------------------- = 12
KREPP DR. J - FLOUNDER OR
RI
CF--E w
J
a i RONNEY DR K DR
M40IIP,AM DR • Q Iw
RI 1'faLi3c'R'i •::;;,:::,1 =p1 RI RI 1
p{ RI RI RI RI MH
BLANE C _ SAILFISH DR _
RI aRl
y BRABwuI ' Oi 2 HRI
KAREN C TARPON DR.
uRI RI RI RI RI RI d�AN.NIK i RI oR z O GRAND ' RI DR. RI FAIR TID CR u_------
FRl •< C4
roalcrowN RI
AVE.
RI RI RI RI
VERONICA OR GREENWICH DR c DELAFIELD C m i FRFOEPoCK w
RI 3 RI RI W RI RILRI RI I� `'""''"'"D'ot1 RI
WARFIELD OR " C DN -
Y PORTSNOUTH DR. INNSBRUCK =LR
RI RI J RI RI RI _ RI RI W �x CF-E
NANTUCKET OR LVAR I CF-R S,-Hoc-u a
¢ ��s COAgTIMM)FI p1.
MADELINE DR LL HYANNIS PORT DR. WARBURTON DR •a
RIS RI CFc RI -'� RI^ RI
I
CAPE COD DR. TELHAN DR 90b
RI
RI J.
NORTH LINE SE V, 1/, SEC.6-6.M3
S MCMLEV DR z I R3wl R3 R3 R3LR I R3
;i::Hiii+i.) GRDTDN DR J
i R2
R3
Q verrsw000 Da """T"L�� xMKa.Tao LN
PIONEER R2 oR
1320!TO 1
RI RI RI RI Rl RI R3 RS J R3 `3 R3J R3 R3 R3 �R3 R3 R3 R3 ¢
GETTYSRURG DR. _
fR N LLINE LOT 65TR„B R I C) w o: VR3
R3 O
1 w UWAHuDR I'D�� CRlAVFORD CR u ,+ I. w n R3 'R3 r C DO
o. sT w R3 £ SQ U � R xwSwW R5 0 A. R3
ADAMS AVE. r
• �6 i3
T B,
EXISTING ZONING
Area of Concern 2.2
o �
o '
12
FiaurP 2-A
Low density residential development in the area of concern
could accommodate approximately 14 condominiums (6.5
units/acre) or 11 single-family homes (5 units/acre).
Implementing zoning would likely be R 1-PD (Low
Density-Planned Development) or R 1 (Low Density Residential),
respectively. Of all the alternatives considered for the site,
low density residential development, properly landscaped and
buffered, would be most compatible with the single-family
home residential character of the surrounding neighborhood.
A medium density residential development of 21 units (10
units/acre) could pose incompatibility problems with the largely
low intensive uses surrounding the site. Medium density
residential may, however, offer increased affordability over
lower density developments. With adequate setbacks, buffering
and landscape screening, staff feels that a medium density
residential development in the study area could be properly
designed to be visually integrated with the adjacent
single-family homes.
Staff has estimated that a neighborhood commercial center
developed on the 2.21 acre site could contain approximately .11
tenants and offer 15,700 square feet of building space.,. A
similar development exists on the northeast corner of Bushard
Street and Garfield Avenue (diagonally across the street from
the area of concern) within the City of Fountain Valley.
The subject site's corner location offers both visibility and easy
access and could provide the surrounding area with convenient
shopping and services. The site substantially conforms to the
General Plan land use criteria for commercial uses which
recommends commercial convenience centers be located at .the
intersection of a local or secondary arterial street. (In the case
of the study area, the site is located at the corner of a primary
and secondary arterial.) The applicant has indicated that
conceptual plans for the neighborhood center are of a single
story design which would serve to minimize any adverse visual
impacts with the adjacent single-family homes.
Staff recommends that any commercial development approved
for the site be conditioned to prohibit loading and unloading
from the rear of the development to minimize noise impacts on
the adjacent neighborhood, particularly the six single-family
homes which back onto the western portion of the site. With
appropriate setbacks, sensitive landscape screening, buffering
and design, conditioned under a "Q'I (qualified) zoning
designation, - staff believes a single story neighborhood
commercial development could be designed to be compatible
with the surrounding low intensity land uses.
1
As stated previously, the area of concern occupies a corner
location at the intersection of a primary arterial (Garfield
Avenue) and a secondary arterial (Bushard Street) which
offers both easy accessibility and visibility. Utilizing the
entire 2.21 acres, staff has estimated that approximately
32,700 square feet of office professional space could be built
on the site. The desirability of office professional
development on the site is somewhat limited because of its
location away from the City's primary areas of office
concentration - along Beach Boulevard between Talbert and
Adams Avenues and the proposed areas in the Downtown. In
addition, many office developments in the City currently
have vacant space available, and three major office
developments are in the planning stages which will add
significantly to the City's supply of office space.
Additionally, six single-family homes back directly onto the
western boundary of the study area and would be visually
impacted by any multi-story office development on the
subject site. This could be partially mitigated by placing a
height limitation on any office development approved in the
study area.
2. Economic Considerations
The Planning staff, in cooperation with Ultrasystems, Inc.,
conducted a fiscal impact analysis of the land use
alternatives using the computerized methodology developed
for the City (see Appendix A). For purposes of analysis, the
revenues and expenditures of each alternative were projected
over a ten year period, 1983-1993. The results are
summarized in the table below:
Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5
Single- Condos Office
Condos Family Medium Pro- Neighborhood
Low Density Homes Density fessional Commercial
Revenue 89,442 99,196 134,515 70,864 374,867
Cost 72,407 97,203 110,328 194,640 143,965
Revenue
minus Cost 17,035 1,993 24,187 -123,776 230,902
Revenue/Cost 1.2 1.0 1.2 0.4 2.6
14
3. Housing
Approving the applicant's request for a General Commercial
designation would have no significant impact on the City's
housing stock. A redesignation to Low or Medium Density
Residential could result in an expansion of the City's housing
stock; however, the addition would not be significant due to
the small size of the area. Medium Density Residential
development, however, would allow for a larger number of
housing units on the 2.21 acre site, offering the possibility of Q
} increased affordability to potential homebuyers.
4. Public Services and Utilities
a. Sewers
A 54" County trunk sewer runs in Bushard Street.
Development of the subject property would require
offsite installation of approximately 200 feet of
eight-inch sewer line from Litchfield Drive parallel to
Bushard Street with a cross connection into both the
site and the County trunk sewer line. Once this is
accomplished, development would be possible under any
of the alternatives considered for the study area.
b. Water
A 12" water main runs into both Garfield Avenue and
Bushard Street. Connection into these lines would
provide adequate water service for any of the
alternatives considered for the study area.
C. Drainage
The Public Works Department has indicated that with
proper grading the site would optimally drain to
Bushard Street which has adequate capacity to
accommodate storm drainage from any of the proposed d
land use alternatives.
d. Parks
Talbert Park, a 5.4 acre neighborhood park facility, is
in close proximity to the area of concern. According to
the 1977 Parks Analysis, the supply of park and
recreation facilities within the subject quartersection
exceeds the current demand. Staff believes that any of
the residential alternatives considered for the study
area would be adequately served by existing facilities in
the area. Commercial or office professional
development would not increase recreational demand.
15
e. Police and Fire Protection
Police service for the area of concern is provided by
the City of Huntington Beach which operates from a
central facility located at Main Street and Yorktown
Avenue. Because of the small size of the study area, no
additional staffing is anticipated should the site develop
under any of the alternatives considered in this report.
Fire response to the area of concern is provided by the
City of Huntington Beach from the Bushard Station
located approximately one mile south of the study
area. Because of the close proximity of the fire
station and the accessibility of the corner location, no
significant concerns are anticipated at this time in
providing adequate fire protection for any of the
alternatives considered for the site.
f. Schools
The area of concern is located within the Fountain
Valley School District and is served by Miola
Elementary School and Huntington Beach High School.
The school district has indicated that the schools
involved would be able to accommodate the increase in
students generated by any of the residential
alternatives considered for the area of concern. Office
professional or neighborhood commercial development
would have no impact on the area's schools.
Students generated by the other land uses being
considered are as follows:
Huntington
Beach High
Miola School
Single Family Homes 7 4
Low Density Condominiums 9 5 J�
Medium Density Condominiums 5 9
g. Gas, Electrical and Telephone Utilities
Natural gas service and electrical service are provided
by the Southern California Gas Company and Southern
California Edison, respectively. The Southern California
Edison Company has indicated that electrical load
requirements can be met for any of the land uses
considered for the study area provided that electrical
demand does not exceed estimates, and there are no
16
unexpected outages- to major sources of electrical
supply. Similarly, the Southern California Gas Company
foresees no difficulty in serving future development
under any of the proposed land uses provided current
natural gas supplies continue to be available. The
General Telephone Company, which provides telephone
service for Huntington Beach, has indicated that
adequate service can be provided for the area of concern
under any of the land use alternatives.
h. Solid Waste Disposal
The Rainbow Disposal Company provides solid waste
collection to the City of Huntington Beach. No local
service constraints are expected under any of the
alternative land use designations assuming there is
adequate access to accommodate the company's refuse
trucks.
5. Traffic and Circulation
The study area is located at the signalized intersection of
Garfield Avenue, a primary arterial with a capacity of 30,000
daily vehicle trips, and Bushard Street, a secondary arterial
with a capacity of 20,000 daily vehicle trips. Existing traffic
volumes total approximately 10,600 daily trips on Bushard,
south of Garfield, and approximately 15,600 daily trips on
Bushard, north of Garfield. Garfield Avenue presently
accommodates about 9,500 trips. The existing traffic
volumes, then, on both Garfield and Bushard are substantially
below the projected capacity of the two arterials.
Access to the site for any of the alternatives considered could
be easily accomplished with ingress and egress from either
Garfield Avenue or Bushard Street. The relatively low traffic
generation from the alternatives considered would not
significantly impact the surrounding residential neighborhoods.
Projected daily traffic volumes from the study area are
estimated as follows:
Land Use Alternative Traffic Generation
Low Density Residential
14 Condominiums 71 trips/day
11 Single Family Homes I10 trips/day
Medium Density Residential 168 trips/day
Office Professional 402 trips/day
Neighborhood Convenience 514 trips/day
17
6. Environmental Issues
a. Noise
The area of concern lies at the inersection of a primary
arterial (Garfield Avenue) and a secondary arterial
(Bushard Street). Based on projected 1990 Ground
Transportation Noise Exposure Impacts, the majority of
the site falls within the Ldn 65 noise contour, with only
a small portion around the perimeter of the site within
the Ldn 70 noise contour.
These noise levels are within acceptable levels (Ldn 80)
for commercial development. Residential development,
however, would be affected by traffic noise, but special
mitigation measures such as unit modification, building
placement, walls, berming and/or landscaping could be
employed to reduce this noise exposure and guarantee
acceptable noise levels of less than Ldn 45.
b. Air Quality
The proposed General Plan Amendment will not have
any immediate impact on existing air quality; however,
future development as a result of the amendment may
create an increase in mobile and stationary source
emissions.
The following table illustrates a "worst case" or
complete buildout scenario of the amendment area.
The figures used represent 1982 emissions for average
vehicles in the South Coast Air Basin as developed by
the South Coast Air Quality Management District.
These emissions are not considered to be significant to
the regional air basin. Additionally, it should be noted
that when development .occurs the actual amount of
pollutants may be less, due to advanced exhaust control
technology and more stringent air pollution legislation.
LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL(single family homes 5 units/acre)
Mobile Emissions .008 tons/day
Stationary Emissions Negligible
TOTAL .008 tons/day
LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (condominiums 6.5 units/acre)
Mobile Emissions .005 tons/day
Stationary Emissions Negligible
TOTAL .005 tons/day
18
MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (condominiums 10 units/acre)
Mobile Emissions .012 tons/day
Stationary Emissions Negligible
TOTAL .012 tons/day
OFFICE/PROFESSIONAL
Mobile Emissions .011 tons/day
Stationary Emissions Negligible
TOTAL .011 tons/day
NEIGHBORHOOD CONVENIENCE
Mobile Emissions .028 tons/day
Stationary Emissions Negligible
TOTAL .028 tons/day
2.2.3 Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the applicant's request,
redesignating the 2.21+ acre site from . Low Density
Residential to General Commercial. Staff additionally
recommends that the 1.2+ acres south of the study area also
be redesignated to General Commercial, making the existing
commercial use on the site consistent with the property's
General Plan land use designation.
Approval of the applicant's request will allow for the
development of a neighborhood convenience center on the 2.21
vacant acres. Although located in a predominantly residential
area, the site conforms to the General Plan locational criteria
for neighborhood convenience uses and is well buffered to the
north by Garfield Avenue, to the east by Bushard Street and
to the south by the GTE switching facility. Through extra
landscaping, setbacks and sensitive project design, staff
believes that the proposed single story convenience center
could be designed as a compatible use with the six adjacent
single-family homes located west of the site.
2.3 Gothard Street/Center Drive Area
2.3.1 Background
This section addresses a City-initiated proposal to change the
General Plan designation on an area bounded by Center Drive
to the north and Gothard Street to the west. The proposal
would change the General Plan designation from Public,
Quasi-Public, Institutional to General Commercial. Existing
General Plan and zoning designations are depicted in Figures
2-5 and 2-6.
19
BOLSA - -- -- AVE. 14l/
C
F-
N, o
m
AVYfiRS AVE � K
G —� G a.acswc
7G?'IGMN if
$ G�
� gp covcoaaA n
STMIN T �IIVVV(11
WHITNEY OR.
LOW DENSITY
SEA. RESIDENTIAL.
AY 1 F
rnanM G� 1 9Q � .xY
__ G � f Cy xxAwEu
N I \
O j Z
U
Q ova
ga MOLkAOEW1 M - �
Q S y�a
1-r �="LLLLLI I I s MI s E
NC uGAN AVE
' Sfi/71 NSTE�R
1
PUBLIC , QUASI-PUBLIC,
MIXED
INSTITUTIONAL' DEVELOPMENT
CF'-E �I
CF-E DR.
I ' I W
L� m
W
2
W o ---r - z
i o I
GENERAL COMMERCIAL i
EDINGER AVE t\
r
EXISTING GENERAL PLAN
Area of Concern 2.3
0
0 1
20
Fiqure 2-5
BCLSA AVF
C
r
er p
ED
¢ m
39ti a
CRY OF WESTMINSTER
10NTIN�TON BEACH RI
WHITNEY DR a 11AR HAY 4VE -- I
RI ml
s�
. n � EVERR OR. I E N wP T 9
R I�O� RI R I I
ROCKW ELL AVE.
z ROCKWELL AVE
y0 0
u 0
ozI 0
p HI DARWIN AVE LL
_ MI < U�¢
I—AWN CITY OF WESTMINSTER �^ a
SUGAR •VE
_ CITY 5 ^ RI MINSTER
O�rRI
n
RI
k9Y
NORTH HUNTINGTON NORTH HUNTINGTON
C F-E CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN
a
ZCF-E RA
3
SE III SE 11-5-II • 1 -�
I MI ROS R I:.::;:,:< :,:' ROS RI s
WOO.
r
C4
w = N LINE S 1/2 SE 1/4 SW
SEC H-S-II ( ^ n A)N 0.30'30�E-63'
Z W Q VV CI MO1CWE-260'
W % H EI N35.15']6'W-8602' V
V FI N65•11'EI'V-3BI.10 E, W
W (V" o' GI M20.0]'36'W-6M2f S m
1
EDINGER AVE
EXISTING ZONING A
Area of Concern 2.3'
O O o d
21
Figure 2-6
2.3.2 Analysis
1. Land Use
The Gothard Street/Center Drive area covers
approximately + 3.61 acres of land and is bounded by
Gothard Street and Center Drive. The northeast corner
of this area (0.36 acres) is zoned RI-Low Density
Residential, and is part of the Edison right-of-way. The
remaining 3.25 acres are zoned C4, Highway
Commercial, and are developed with uses which are
consistent. Existing land uses within this property
include: restaurar]ts,, game arcade, market, service
facilities, stationery store, and a variety of retail uses.
Other than the area zoned RI on which the Edison
right-of-way is located, there is no vacant land within
the Gothard Street/Center Drive area. Surrounding land
uses to the subject site include Levitz Furniture to the
south (General Planned commerical and zoned C4,
Highway Commercial), Huntington Center to the east
(General Planned Commercial and zoned C2, Community
Business) and to the west Golden West College (General
Planned Public, Quasi-Public, Institutional). The college
ultimate boundaries have been established, thus limiting
the area for a General Plan designation of Public,
Quasi-Public, Institutional in the immediate vicinity.
The surrounding land uses to the subject site are
compatible with the proposed General Plan designation
and complementary in use.
2. Public Services and Utilities, Traffic Circulation
Because of the nature of this amendment, an analysis of
these items is not applicable. Past development in this
area has been subject to environmental review at the
project level (Negative Declarations 74-88, 76-52) and
any future development will be subject to the California
Environmental Quality Act. However, a Negative
Declaration Request No. 83-53 was posted for 10 days in
a newspaper of general circulation inviting public
comments on the proposed General Plan Amendment.
Staff did not receive any communications on this matter,
either written or verbal. (See Appendix C.)
2.3.3 Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Gothard Street/Center Drive area
be designated General Commercial on the General Plan. The
staff further recommends the adoption of Negative
Declaration No. 83-53.
22
4
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES
In accordance with California Environmental Quality Act guidelines, an
environmental assessment is required to address short-term and long-term
effects, irreversible environmental changes, and growth-inducing impacts of
the total project or plan. This section analyzes these concerns in context of
the recommended land use change in Section 2.2. Area 2.1 is analyzed in
Environmental Impact Report 83-3, and Area 2.3 is evaluated under Negative
Declaration No. 83-53 (Appendix C).
3.1 Short-term and Long-term Productivity
Amendment 84-1 does not in and of itself create long-term
impacts. Rather, it makes a change in the general types of land use
that may be allowed on a particular area at the time of
development. Amendment 84-1 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 change necessary to bring the zoning into
conformance with the General Plan. The zoning change that would
result would have significant short-term effects, such as reducing or
increasing intensity of development permitted, and providing
stimulus for development.
3.2 Irreversible Environmental Changes
The amendment will mitigate most adverse effects. However,
irreversible environmental change of a secondary nature can be
23
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 or
highly probable. Construction materials of mineral origin will also
be needed for development to occur, and fossil fuels will be
committed for long periods to satisfy local energy demand.
However, such development would be consistent with existing land
use designations.
3.3 Growth Inducing Impacts
The proposed amendment may also have growth-inducing effects
within the areas of concern. Should one of the residential land use
designations be implemented, an additional population could create
an increased demand on public services and utilities, incrementally
affecting air quality, water quality, traffic and noise levels.
However, the proposed use, in accord with General Plan policies and
programs, should mitigate many of the adverse effects generated by
the expected growth.
The demand for water and energy will likely increase as a result of
the proposed land uses in this amendment. Conservation measures
can be implemented City- and County-wide to reduce these impacts,
such as:
1. Reduce evaporation from reservoirs by encouraging
underground storage or coating water surfaces with
evaporation hindering films or substances.
2. Encourage tertiary treatment of and reuse of the return flow
of public water supplies wherever such use is acceptable and
safe.
3. Waterspread where appropriate to recharge the underground
water supply.
4. Meter water and encourage repair of leaky connections to
stimulate more economical use.
5. Reduce consumption of toilets and showers by requiring
appropriate modifications to these applicances.
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.
S. Discourage electrical heating in public and private
structures. Encourage solar-assisted heating systems.
24
9. Encourage the use of reflecting and/or insulating glass in
structures where windows are not shaded by exterior
architectural projections or natural.plants.
25
APPENDIX A
Fiscal Impact Land Use Assumptions
Area 2.2
(f�
U
•o
In cooperation with Ultrasystems, Inc., the computerized fiscal impact
methodology was used to analyze the proposed land. uses considered- for the
Garfield-Bushard Area of Concern 2.2
Five land use alternatives were evaluated for the 2.21+ acre site:
1. Low Density Condominiums (6.5 units/acre) - 14 condominiums with an
estimated average selling price of $130,000 per unit.
2. Single Family Homes (5 units/acre) - 11 homes with an estimated average
selling price of $160,000 per unit.
3. Medium Density Condominiums (10 units/acre) - 21 condominiums with an
estimated selling price of $120,000 per unit.
4. Office-Professional (14,800 square feet/acre) - 32,708 square feet of
office professional space with an estimated full market value of
$1,500,000 per acre..
5. Neighborhood Convenience (7,062 square feet/acre) - 15,608 square, feet
of neighborhood convenience with an estimated full market value of
$800,000 per acre.
Results:
Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5
Single- Condos Office
Condos Family Medium Profes- Neighborhood
Low Density Homes Density sional Commercial
Revenue 89,442 99,196 134,515 70,864 374,867
Cost. 72,407 97,203 110,328 194,640 143,965
Revenue
Minus Cost 17,035 1,993 24,187 -123,776 230,902
Revenue/Cost 1.2 1.0 1.2 0.4 2.6
The above table indicates that, over a ten year period, all of the residential
alternatives will generate a surplus to the City ranging from $1,993 for single
family homes (5 units/acre) to $24,187 for medium density condominiums (21
units/acre). A neighborhood convenience center is projected to generate a
positive cash flow of $230,902. An office professional use on the 2.21+ acre
site has a negative cash flow projection of $123,776.
Qualification of Results
It must be noted that the results of the fiscal impact analysis should only be
considered to be approximations of the costs and revenues associated with the
land use alternatives. Actual taxable building values, spendable resident
incomes and commercial sales tax generation rates may vary from those
figures used to operate the model. Such variations, along with unforeseen
State tax formula changes, may substantially affect the actual revenues
generated. City expenditures may also vary from estimated levels. As such,
the fiscal impact results should be recognized as approximations and should be
considered in comparative terms only, rather than as absolute projections of .
costs and revenues. If cost and revenue tables for different alternatives
appear to be somewhat close to the same, then the alternatives should be
considered to have identical fiscal impacts rather than measurable
differences. Additionally, . fiscal impact results which are close to the
breakeven point should be considered to be inconclusive rather than actual
statements of whether a land use will result in a fiscal surplus or a deficit to
the City.
APPENDIX B
Initial Study
Area 2.2
b
APPENDIX
ENVIRONMENTAL. CHECKLIST FORM
(To Be Completed By Lead Agency)
t. Background
I. Norne of Proponent City of Huntington Beach
2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent (714) 5 36-5 2 71
2000 Main Street, P.O. Box 1,
Huntington Beach, California 92648
3. Date of Checklist Submitted 11/8/83
4. Agency Requiring Checklist City of Huntington Beach
5. Name of Proposal, if applicable General Plan Amendment No. 84-1
II. Environmental Impacts
(Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.)
Yes Maybe No
I. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes
in geologic, substructures? X
b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction
or overcovering of the soil? X
c. Change in topography or ground surface X
relief features?
d. The destruction, covering or modification
of any unique geologic or physical features? X
e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of X
soils, either on or off the site?
f. Changes in deposition- or erosion of beach
sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or
erosion which may modify the channel of a
river or stream or the bed,-.of the ocean or
any bay, inlet or lake? X
115
Yes Mafbe No
g. Exposure of people or property to geolo-
gic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides,
mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? X
2. Air. Will the proposal result in:
a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration
of ambient air quality? X
• a
b. The creation of objectionable odors? X
c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or
temperature, or any change in climate, X
either locally or regionally?
3. Water. Will the proposal result in:
a. Changes in currents, or the course of di-,
rection of water movements, in either X
marine or fresh waters?
b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage. pat-
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, X
dissolved oxygen or turbidity?
f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow
of ground waters? X
i
•g. Change in the quantity of ground waters,
either through direct additions or with-
drowals, or through interception of an X
aquifer by cuts or excavations?
h. Substantial reduction in the amount of
water otherwise available for public water
supplies? X
i. Exposure of people or property to water re- X
lated hazards such as flooding or tidal waves?
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 X
plants)?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of plants? X
4` c. Introduction of new species of plants into
an area, or in a barrier to the normal" X
replenishment of existing species?
d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural X
crop?
S. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or
numbers of any species of animals (birds, ;
land animals including reptiles, fish and X
shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)?
b. Reduction"of the numbers of any unique, X
rare or endangered species of animals?
c. Introduction-of new species of animals into
an area,,or result in a barrier to the X
migration or movement of animals?
d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife
habitat?
6. Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels? X
X
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce (�
new light or glare? }
8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a sub-
stantial alteration of the present or planned
land use of an area? X
9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural
resources? X
117
Yes Ma be No _
b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable X
natural resource?
10. Risk of Upset. Mill the proposal Involves
a. A risk of an explosion or the release
of hazardous substances (including, but not
limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation) in the event of an accident or
X
upset conditions?
b: Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or an emergency evacuation X
plan?
II. Population. Will the proposal alter the location,
distribution, density, or growth rate. of the X
human population of an area?
-ti
12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing hous-
ing, or create a demand for additional housing? X
13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal
result in:
a. Generation of substantial additional X
vehicular movement?
b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or X
demand for new parking?
c. Substantial impact upon existing transpor- X
tation systems?
d. Alterations to present patterns of circula- X
tion or movement of people and/or goods?
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air
traffic? X
f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor X
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians?
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:
a. Fire protection? X
b. Police 'protection? X
c. Schools? X
118
Yes Maybe No
X
d. Parks or other recreational facilities?
e. Maintenance of public facilities, including X
maids?
f. Other governmental services? X
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or, energy?
b. Substantial increase in demand upon exist-
ing sources of energy, or require the X
development of new sources of energy?
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need
for new systems, or substantial alterations to
the following. utilities:
-t
a. Power or natural gas?
b. Communications systems?
C. Water?
d. Sewer or septic tanks?
e. Storm water drainage?
f. Solid waste and disposal?
17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in:
a. Creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard (excluding mental health)?
b. Exposure of people to potential health X
hazards?
18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the
obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to ,.X .
the public, or will the proposal result in the
creation of an aesthetically offensive site open.
to public view? X
. 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in on
impact upon the quality or quantity of existing X
recreational opportunities?
20. Cultural Resources.
a. Will the proposal result in the alteration
of or the destruction of a prehistoric or
historic archaeological site? X
119
Yes Maybe 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 proposal restrict existing religlous
or sacred uses within the potential •irnpoct
area?
21. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
a. Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish
or wildlife species, cause a fish or wild-
life population to drop below self sus-
taining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant_ or animal or_ eliminate
important examples of the major periods X
of California history or prehistory?
b. Does the project have the potential to
achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of
long-term, environmental goals? (A short-
term impact on the environment is one
which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive
period of time while long-term impacts X
will endure well into the future.)
c. Does the project have impacts which are
'individually limited, but cumulatively con-
siderable? (A project may impact on two
or more separate resources where the impact
on each resource is relatively small, but
where the effect of the total of those
.. impacts on the environment is significant.) X
d. Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X
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-
rnent, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. IX
otl) e Signature
nature
For
(Note: This is only a suggested form. Public agencies are free to devise their own
format for initial studies.) ._
121
EXPLANATION OF "YES" AND "MAYBE" ANSWERS
lb. Construction in Area 1 may result in removal and overcovering
of soil .
lg. The City-wide Geologic Study, prepared by Leighton-Yen and Associates,
indicates the Bolsa-Fairview fault is in close proximity to Area 1 .
3b. Development in Area 1 may decrease absorption rates and increase
runoff..
6a. Increased automobile traffic and short-term construction may result
in increased noise levels.
7. The .proposed development of Area l .as a neighborhood commercial
center would result in new lighting .
8. The proposed land use in Area 1 will res.Nlt in a substantial change
from an existing vacant use to a commerc£al use .
13b. Proposed development in Area 1 as a neighborhood commercial center
will create new parking demand .
'la , h. Development of Area 1 may increase the need for additional fire
an�i/or 1)0.1.ice service .
18 . Development of Area 1 could potentially obstract the views from
the backyards of approximately six single family homes adjacent
Lo the site .
APPENDIX C
Negative Declaration No. 83-53
Area 2.3
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
INITIAL STUDY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
I . BACKGROUND
1. Appl icant City of A ntington Beach 2. Address 2000 Main Street
3. Telephone 5 36-5 2 71
4. Project Location Center Drive Gothard Street - Area
5. Project Title/Description General Plan Amendment -
6. Date 12- 21- 83
II . ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: (Explanations of all "Yes" and "Maybe" answers are required
on attached sheet) .
1. Physical Environment: Will the project have a significant impact on the physical 9
environment with respect to: a) hydrology, b) . air quality, c) geology, d) flora and
fauna, e) noise, f) archaeological/historical . Yes Maybe No X Other
2. Impact of Environment"on Project: Will the project be subject to impacts from the
surrounding environment? i .e. , natural environment; manmade environment. Yes
Maybe No X
3. Im acts on Public Services: Will the project have a significant impact upon, or re-
sult in a need for a new or altered government service in any of the following
areas: fire, police, schools, parks or other governmental agencies. Yes
Maybe No X
4. Impacts on Traffic/Circulation: Will project result in substantial vehicular move"
ment, or impact surrounding circulation system, or increase traffic hazard? Yes
Maybe No
5. . Will the project result in a substantial alteration or have a negative affect on .,
the existing: land use, population/housing,-energy/utilities, natural resources,
human health? Yes Maybe No X
6. Other potential environmental impacts not discussed above (see attached sheet).
III . OTHER RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES AND/OR PERSONS CONTACTED'
( ) See Attached ( X ) Not Applicable
I`1. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE:
1. Will project degrade quality of environment? Yes Maybe No. X
2. Will project achieve short-term goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental
goals? Yes Maybe No X
3. Does the ,project have impacts which are individually limited but cumulatively
considerable? Yes Maybe No X
4. Will the project adversely affect human beings either directly or indirectly?
Yes Maybe No X
V. DETERMINATION
( X .) Negative Declaration
( ) Negative Declaration With Mitigation
( ) Environmental Impact Report
DATE 1?_ -ZQ�Sj SIGNATURE /I&YA
a
APPENDIX D
Letters of Comment
0
J• ' CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION
NUNfINGTON MUM '
To Chuck Clark From Les Evans
Associate Planner City Engineer
Subject EIR 83-4 for LUE 84-1 Date January 10, 1984
We have reviewed the subject report and have no comments .
LE: jy
HUNTINGTON BEACH
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
AN 11 ►
°P: . Box 190
Huntington Beacht CA.92648
STATE OF CALIFORNIA—HEALTH AND WELFAR%WENCY GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Govemor
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES
2151 BERKELEY WAY e m
BERKELEY, CA 94704 `
415/540-2665
December. 23, 1983
Bob Aldrich
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
Post Office Box 190
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
SUBJECT: City of Huntington Beach's NOP for Land Use Element
of the General Plan (GPA 84-1) - SCH #83111608
Dear Mr. Aldrich:
The Department has reviewed the subject environmental document and offers
the following comments.
In response to your NOP, we are enclosing a document prepared by the Noise
Control Program entitled, "Guidelines for Noise Study Reports as Part of
Environmental Impact Reports", which provides some general guidelines as
to what this office considers important in EIRs.
If you have. any questions or need further information concerning these com-
ments, please contact Dr. Jerome Lukas of the Noise Control Program, Office
of Local Environmental Health Programs, at,2151 Berkeley Way, Room No. 613,
Berkeley; CA 94704, 415/540-2665.
Stuart E. Richardson, Jr., R.S., Chief
Office of Local Environmental Health Programs
Pnior
S. Lukas, P .D.
Psychoacousticia
NOISE CONTROL PROGRAM
Enclosure
cc: EHD
SCH HUNTINGTON BEACH
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
DEC 1:- .)
P.O. Box 190
Huntington Beach CA 92648
' .y _si:....c...
Amiff;Tft
ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT
November 21, 1983
HUNTINGTON BEACH
.-DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
Mr. Robert Aldrich r1oV.2
Development Services
City of Huntington Beach
P.O. Box 190 P.O. Box 190
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington:Beach, CA 92648
Dear Mr. Aldrich:
SUBJECT: NOTICE OF PREPARATION- DEIR 83-4
We have reviewed this NOP and would like to submit the following
comments for your consideration during the preparation_ of DEIR -83-4:
S OCTD currently operates Route 35 on Garfield Avenue . adjacent
the project parcel in Area of Concern 1. We do not expect this
proposed change to result in any -impacts .-to Route '35.
• Area of Concern 2, at :the intersection of Gothard ,and ' Center,
is directly adjacent to the .site for the proposed OCTD Transit
Center on the northeast corner of this intersection. When this
center is implemented, four to five routes will operate in the
immediate vicinity of ..the proposed .GPA parcel. For ;this
reason, we are requesting that the City consider the placement
, of driveways on this parcel to minimize potential conflicts
between bus and auto traffic and to facilitate the transit
service at this intersection. We will be glad to assist City
staff in this matter.
We would appreciate receiving a copy .of the DEIR when it becomes
available for public review. If you require any further information
on transit operations in the proposed project areas, please call me
or Christine Huard-Spencer at 971-6419.
Sincerely
Dick Hsu
Environmental Coordinator
DH:XL
i 11222 ACACIA PARKWAY io P.O. BOX 3005 0 GARDEN GROVE, CALIFORNIA 92642 1
STATE OF CALIFORNIA-BUSINESS,TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN,Governor
DEPARTMENT OF. TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF AERONAUTICS
1120"N" STREET
SAC RAMENTO,CA 95814
�..
(916) 322-3090
December 1 , 1983
Mr . Bob Aldrich
City of Huntington Beach
P. 0. Box 190
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Dear Mr. Aldrich:
This is in response to. the request for our .pomments on the Notice
of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for
Land Use Element of the General Plan (GPA-84-1 ) in the City of
Huntington Beach, SCH #83111608.
The proposal appears to be approximately three miles southeast
of the Meadowlark Airport. We are generally concerned about any
potential for noise and safety impacts of airport flight opera-
tions upon surrounding land uses. However , the distance and
direction of the proposal from the airport alleviates our concerns.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
MARK F. MISPAGEL, Chief
Division of Aeronautics
C. E. Smith
Aviation Consultant
HUNTINGTON BEACH
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
:"3
P.O. Box 190
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Ntrrto�,
° `\ae TELEPHONES:
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS jYf .��� AREA
a9,714
OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 9 6 2-2 41 1
P. O. BOX 8127, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708
10844 ELLIS AVENUE (EUCLID OFF-RAMP, SAN DIEGO FREEWAY)
December 27 , . 1983
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
P . 0 . Box 190
Huntington Beach , CA 92648
Attention : Bob Aldrich
Subject : EIR 83-4
The Districts are in receipt of the Notice of Preparation
for subject .EIR . Area 1 , the southwest corner of Garfield
Avenue and Bushard Street has been master planned for low
density residential development using a flow coefficient of
1550 gallons per day per acre . Area 2 , the southeast corner
of Center Avenue and Gothard Street has been planned for
commercial development using a flow coefficient of 3230
gallons per day per acre .
The Districts ' facilities have been constructed to accomo-
date the above flows . If it is anticipated the flow from
the projects will exceed that amount , flow reduction
measures should be incorporated into the development .
If you have any questions , please contact Hilary Baker at
540-2910 .
Thomas M. Dawes_
Deputy Chief Engineer
TMD/jb HUNTINGTON BEACH
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
P.O. Box 190
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Southern California Edison Company
P.O. BOX 2069
1333 BOLSA AVE.
WESTMINSTCR. CALIFORNIA 92663. 1269
November 28 , 1983 HUNTINGTON BEACH
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
FJ E Q 1
City of Huntington Beach
P .O . B o x 190 P.O. Box 190
Huntington Beach , CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Attention : Bob Aldrich
Development Services
Subject : E . I . R . - General Plan Amendment No . 84-1 ,
Rezoning to commercial , 2 . 21± acres , southwest
corner Bushard St . & Garfield Ave .
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 requ,irements. 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 y'
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.
fXC oolidge
Service Planne�`�
RLC : da
61STRICT OFFICE SERVING CORONA OE.L MAR •COSfA MESA •FOUNTAIN VALLEY • IIUNTIN>701`4 BEACH
INTHE n2
Superior Court S3
OF THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
" In and for the County of Orange
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH9 CITY CLERK
7 PROOF OF
- � Lu �
PUBLIC HEARINGeT 1 i9 83-4
ZONE CASE 83-10
State of California ) NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING I
County of Orange jss LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT
84-1
;ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT .
RITA J. RIGHTER + 83-4/
NEGATIVE DECLARATION 93-53
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a
That I am and at all times herein mentioned was a citizen of public hearing will he held by the City I
the United States,over the age of twenty-one ears,and that I `Council of the City of Huntington Beach
g Y- Y fto the,Counci)Chamber of the Civic Cen-
am not a party to,nor interested in the above entitled matter; Iter;Huntington Beach,at the hoiu of 7:30
that I am the principal clerk of the printer of the ;P.M.,or as soon thereafter as ble on
P P P Monday,the 7th day of May,1984,for the
purpose ,of .considering a proposed
.,amendment to the Land Use Element of
HUNTINGTON BEACH IND. REVIEW the General Plan(LUE#84-1)Environ-
mental Impact Report#1!.4 and Nega-
a newspaper of general circulation,published in the City of tive Declaration #83-53 which includes
the following items: .
1. Redesignate 3.41 acres located at
HUNTINGTON BEACH the southwest corner of Garfield Ave-J
nue and Bushaid Street from Low
County of Orange and which newspaper is published for the Density Residential to General Com-
rc
disemination of local news and intelligence of a general charac- 2. Re 1
g g , 2. Redesignate 3.61 acres located at
ter, and which newspaper at all times herein mentioned had the southeast corner of Gothard Street
and still has a bona fide subscription list of paying subscribers, and Center,Avenue from Public,,
Quasi-public,.lnstitutional to General
and which newspaper has been established, printed and pub- Commercial
lished at regular intervals in the said County of Orange for a All interested Persons are invited to'
period exceeding one year; that the notice, of which the attend said hearing end said
their
P g Y opinions for or eeggemst said Lead Use
annexed is a printed copy, has been published in the regular Element 84-1,EIR 83-4 and ND 83-S&
and entire issue of said newspaper,and not in an supplement Further information may be obtained
Y PP 4 from the Office of the City Clerk,2000
thereof,on the following dates,to wit: i Main Street,Huntington Beach,Celifor- '
IIII nia.92848"-(714)636-5227.
DATED 4/20/84
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
April 269 1984 By.Alicia M.Wentworth'
City Clerk
• I
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPEAL TO PLANNING OOMMISSION
ZO DENIAL OF
NE MIO
I certify(or declare)under penalty of perjury that the forego- � GIVEN Pe Y P J rY g i NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that e
ing is true and correct. i ( public hearing will be held by the City
GARDEN GROVE ` CounciloCouthecthambHunthnCn ch,
Dated at................................................ ter,Huntington Beach,at the hour of 7:30 "
84 P.M.,or as soon thereafter as passible on
fornia,this . Monday the 7thons day of May,1984 for the
�thlay of ..ARCl I.19........ Purpose of conaiderin�an appeal to the, '
Planning Commission a denial of Zone
n� Case No.83-10,a request to re-zone 2.21
` .... l't a''J'. R i c h t e r acres located at the southwest corner of
r '''''L✓' ' ' Garfield Avenue and Bushard Street from
Office Professional District(R-6)to Com-
Signature munity Business District W4).
A legal description is on file in the .
Development Services Department,
All interested persons are invited to
attend said hearing and ezpreBs their
opinions for or against said Zone Case
Further information may be obtained
from the Office of the City Clerk,2000
Main Street,Huntington Beach,Califor-
nia.92W-(714)536-5227
DATED April 20,1984
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
By.Alicia M.Wentworth
City Clerk
Pub.Apr.26,1984
Hunt Beach Ind.Rev.#35952
I
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Date April 25, 1984
Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson, City Administr o
Prepared by: James W. Palin, Director, Development Services ��• "
Subject: LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 84-1, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT NO. 83-4, NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 83-53
1$s 53?5
Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions,Attachments:
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
Transmitted for public hearing is Land Use Element Amendment No.
84-1, Environmental Impact Report No. 83-4 , and Negative
Declaration No. .83-53. The amendment addresses a number of
proposed changes to the Land Use Element as requested by private
property owners and the City of Huntington Beach. The requests
are being forwarded to the City Council along with the Planning
Commission' s recommendations as part of Land Use Element Amendment
No. 84-1.
RECOMMENDATION:
Planning Commission Recommendation:
1. Approve Environmental Impact Report No. 83-4.
2. Approve Negative Declaration No. 83-53 .
3. Approve the recommendation of the Planning Commission (as
indicated in Attachment 1 , Summary of Requests) and adopt by
resolution, Land Use Element Amendment No. 84-1.
Staff Recommendations:
The Department of Development Services staff ' s recommendations are
shown in Attachment 1, Summary of Requests.
ANALYSIS:
ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY ERSKINE , ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT NO. 83-4 AS AMENDED BY COMMISSIONER PORTER WAS APPROVED AS
ADEQUATE AND RECOMMENDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR CERTIFICATION BY
THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
PIO 4/81
4.
AYES : Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter , Schumacher,
Mirjahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT: Erskine
ABSTAIN : None
ON MOTION BY LIVINGOOD AND SECOND BY HIGGINS NEGATIVE DECLARATION
NO. 83-53 WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES : Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter , Erskine,
Schumacher, Mirjahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN : None
The Planning Commission took separate straw votes on each request
item. These votes along with any discussion, are included in the
attached draft minutes of the April 3 , 1984 Planning Commission
meeting. The attached Summary of Requests also contains the
Planning Commission recommendations for each area of concern.
ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY ERSKINE LAND USE ELEMENT
AMENDMENT NO. 84-1 WAS APPROVED (PER STRAW VOTES) ADOPTING
RESOLUTION NO. 1317 AS AMENDED TO REFLECT PLANNING COMMISSION
ACTION, AND RECOMMENDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR FINAL ADOPTION , BY
THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter , Erskine,
Schumacher, Mirjahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN : None
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS :
Environmental documentation for the amendment requests may be
found in the amendment report which also serves as Environmental
Impact Report No. 83-4 and Negative Declaration No. 83-53. EIR
83-4 was posted for a 45-day review period which ended on
February 13, 1984 . Public comments and staff responses constitute
the Final EIR and are incorporated in the appendix of the report.
Negative Declaration No. 83-53 was posted for a 10-day review
period which ended on January 3, 1984 . No comments were received.
ALTERNATIVES:
The City Council may adopt the requested changes as recommended by
the Planning Commission, as recommended by the planning staff
(except Area 2. 1) , they may modify them as desired, or may retain
the existing designations in the Land Use Element.
-2- 4-25-84 - RCA
' 1
4
ATTACHMENTS :
1. Summary of Requests
2. Land Use Element Amendment 84-1/EIR 83-4/ND 83-53
3. Minutes from Public Hearing before the Planning
Commission - April 3, 1984
4. Resolution adopting the Land Use Element Amendment
5. Letter from the Fieldstone Company requesting that the
Planning Commission reconsider its decision to continue
Area 2.1 of Land Use Element 84-1, EIR 83-3 andd
Prezone Change 83-11
6. Letter from the Fieldstone Company to the City Council
appealing the Planning C'ommission' s decision to
continue Area 2. 1 of Land Use Element Amendment 84-1,
EIR 83-3 and Prezone Change 83-11
7 . Legal Opinion from the City Attorney' s Office
addressing the Fieldstone Company's right to appeal the
Planning Commission' s action on Area 2. 1 of LUE 84-1,
EIR 83-3 , and Prezone Change 83-11
8. Petition from adjacent property owners opposing Area
2. 2.
CWT:JWP:CC:jlm
0594d
-3- 4-25-84 - RCA
ATTACHMENT 1
SUMMARY OF REQUESTS
AREA 2. 1 - The applicant' s request is to redesignate 42.4 acres located
in the unincorporated Bolsa Chica area of Orange County at the terminus
of Graham Street between the Orange County Flood Control District '
Wintersburg Channel and a point approximately 1400 feet south of Graham
Street from planning reserve to low density residential. Prezone
Change No. 83-11 was prepared by staff to be approved concurrently with
this land use amendment. EIR 83-3 was prepared separately by Van Dell
and Associates to provide documentation for these requests.
Planning Commission Recommendation:
1. Find EIR 83-3 inadequate and continue to the Planning Commission
meeting of _June 19 , 1984.
2. Continue Area 2. 1 to the Planning Commission meeting of
September 18, 1984.
3. Continue Prezone Change No. 83-11 to the Planning Commission
meeting of September 18, 1984 .
After the April 3 Commission hearing, the applicant (The Fieldstone
Company) filed a letter with the Planning Commission requesting a
reconsideration of the EIR and Area 2 .1. A concurrent letter was also
filed appealing the Planning Commission' s action to the City Council.
Staff has transmitted both letters for the City Council's information.
The Planning Commission originally voted to continue both the EIR, land
use amendment request and prezone change request to September 18,
1984. At its meeting of April 24 , 1984, the Planning Commission voted
to reconsider EIR 83-3 and continue to June 19, 1984 . The Planning
Commission also voted to retain the continuation date of September 18 ,
1984, for reconsideration of Area 2 .1 of Land Use Element No. 84-1 and
Prezone Change No. 83-11. The City Attorney' s Office has prepared a
legal opinion regarding the applicant' s right to appeal the Planning
Commission' s action to the City Council (attached) . The legal opinion
would seem to indicate that the Planning Commission's action is not
appealable.
Staff Recommendation:
1. Continue EIR 83-3 to the Planning Commission meeting of June 5,
1984.
2. Continue Area 2. 1 to the Planning Commission meeting of June 5,
1984.
3. Continue Prezone Change No. 83-11 to the Planning Commission
meeting of June 5, 1984.
AREA 2.2 - The applicant ' s request is to redesignate 2.21 acres located
at the southwest corner of Garfield Avenue and Bushard Street from low
density residential to general commercial. Staff expanded the study
area to include an additional 1.2 acres south of the area of concern.
Zone Change No. 83-10 was submitted by the applicant to be processed
concurrently with this land use amendment request. EIR 83-4 was
prepared to address the environmental impacts of these proposals.
Planning Commission Recommendation:
1. Approve EIR 83-4.
2. Deny the applicant' s request and retain the existing low density
residential designation.
Staff Recommendation:
1. Approve EIR 83-4.
2. Approve the redesignation of the 3 .41 acre site from low density
residential to general commercial.
AREA 2. 3 - The City-initiated request is to redesignate 3 . 61 acres
located at the southeast corner of Gothard Street and Center Avenue
from public, quasi-public, institutional to general commercial.
Negative Declaration No. 83-53 provides environmental documentation for
the request.
Planning Commission Recommendation:
1. Approve Negative Declaration No. 83-53.
2. Approve the redesignation to general commercial.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff concurs with the Planning Commission' s recommendation.
CC :j lm
0596d
-2-
Y
Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission
April 3 , 1984
Page ,5
ON MOTION BY MIRJAHANGIR AND SECOND BY HIGGINS THE COMMISSION
DEFERRED ACTION ON CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 84-7 AND CONDI-
TIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 84-02 UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE. APPLICATION
FOR THESE: ITEMS' IS COMPLETED ,. BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE :
AYES : Higgins, Winchell , Livengood, Porter, Erskine ,
Schumacher, Mirjahangir
NOES:. None
ABSENT : None
ABSTAIN: None
LAND USE ELEMENT: AMENDMENT NO. 84-1/EIR NO. 83-3/EIR 83-4/
NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 83-53 (ZC 83-10 AND PREZONE CHANGE 83-11)
This request includes the following items :
Area Redesignate 42 . 4 acres located .in the unincorporated Bolsa
2.1 Chica area of Orange County at the terminus of Graham Street
between the Orange County Flood Control District' s .Winters-
burg Channel and a point approximately 1 , 400 feet south of
Graham Street from Planning Reserve. to Low Density Residential ;
to prezone the same property Low ,Density Residential (Rl
District) .
Area Redesignate 3 . 41 acres located at the southwest corner of
2.2 Garfield .Avenue and Bushard Street from Low Density Resi-
dential to. General Commercial and .to rezone the property from
Office Professional' (R5) to Community Business (C2) District.
Area Redesignate 3 . 61 acres located at the southwest corner of
2.3 Gothard Street and Center Drive from Public , Quasi-Public,
Institutional to General Commercial.
Commissioner Erskine announced that he would be abstaining from
.the discussion and voting on Item 2. 1, the consideration of
the Graham Street property.
Staff planner Chuck Clark outlined the various proposals and
their accompanying environmental documentation and zone change
requests for the information ,of the Commission. It was the
consensus ,of. the Commission to proceed with discussion of the
proposed element amendment item by item.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 83-3
Howard Zele,fsky reviewed the procedural steps for the prepara-
tion of the EIR for the Fieldstone project at the end of Graham
Street, Thomas Miner, Lynette Cervantes , Steve Nelson, and Michael
McGaughey, . . representing Van Dell & Associates , were present
at the meeting. Thomas Minor, project manager for the .environ-
mental impact report, spoke briefly to .describe the preparation
of the document.
-5- 4-3-84 - P .C .
Minutes , H. B. Planning Commission
April 3 , 1984
Page 6
Commissioner Porter expressed the opinion that the report directs
itself to the conceptual stage of development as opposed to going
into the development phase. Mr. Miner pointed out that the EIR
looks beyond the initial review steps to more detailed plans for
implementation of the mitigation measures, suggested in the docu-
ment, saying this is' appropriate because of the uncertainty as'so-
ciated with the plans for the Bolsa 'Chica area and also because
final development plans for this specific project will be avail-
able only after they progress beyond the current stage. He also
stated that the question of how this project will fit into the
County ' s Local Coastal Program for the Bolsa Chica. has been con
sidered and it is his belief that the project will not foreclose
any of the options under study by the County.
The public hearing on Environmental Impact Report 83-3. and Area
of Concern 2 . 1 of Land Use Element Amendment No.. 84-1 was opened.
Andy Durham, representing .the applicant , said that he felt the
consultants had done a good .job in evaluating the proposal and
offered to respond to any questions the Commission might have .
Terry Dolton, 17982 Shoreham Lane , addressed the Commission to
say ,that this property is part of the larger Bolsa Chica and it
should be considered as such. He pointed out that the report has
not addressed the "no ,project" alternative ; that it has not spoken.
to matters of public safety and welfare such as the percolation
factor and possible public liability for flooding and seismic. acti-
vities ; that the project is subject to. pending litigation at
the present time; that first consideration should have been given
to the restoration of wildlife areas and the alignment of the
linear park; and that the site has been used as a dump over past
years . He urged that concrete information 'be made . available on
.those items prior to .any approval at this stage .
Rhoda Martyn, past president of Los Amigos De Bolsa Chica, spoke
to urge rejection of both the environmental impact report and
the Graham Place proposal. She said that the area in question has
been identified as a wetland; although badly. abused by the dumping
of dredging materials .and subsequent ploughing and discing by
Signal. Citing. elevations in the area which do not coincide with
-those discussed in the EIR, drainage problems due to' undersized .
drainage channels and pumps which are not functioning at capacity ,
..potential public service costs , .and the unanimity of opinion
among both private and public agencies that this is "piecemeal
planning" which if accepted will preclude all .other options , Ms.
Martyn concluded that the EIR is not consistent with the County' s
. .plan, does - not adequately address the relationship of this
project to the larger project and should , therefore, be rejected'.
Bud Fain , 17706 Gainsford Lane , , chairman of the local homeowners '
association, addressed the Commission in favor of the. project.
He refuted the claim of piecemeal planning, saying that the project
-6- 4-3-84 - P.C .
Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission
April 3 , , 1984'
Page 7
only represents the completion of the tract in which he ' lives
(The Landing) , promised when the residents purchased their
homes there. He stated that the residents consider the area
a. health, and safety hazard in the condition in which it is at
present with trash, dumping, noise , dirt, and bikers present-
ing undesirable elements for the -neighborhood. Mr. Fain also
stated that no flooding occurred during last year' s heavy
rains and the drainage in their area actually is very good.He
closed by stating that the 42 acres under consideration does
not in any way resemble the rest of the Bolsa Chica and. it.
should not be classed as_ a part of that larger area.
Darlene Frost, project manager for Signal Corporation, informed
the Commission that her company ' s overriding concern is that
the development of the Graham Place property should occur in a
manner compatible with the Orange County General Plan and Local
Coastal Program, indicating that numerous technical issues of .
drainage, tidal barriers , road alignments , and habitat restora-
tion demonstrate .the intricate relationship of the -parcel with
the entire Bolsa .Chica. Given the recent progress toward a ,
certifiable . LCP Ms . Frost characterized the present .proposal
as piecemeal and premature and asked that the Commission con-
sider a holistic approach to the Bolsa Chica and not approve the
FIR at this time.
Robert Ameeti , 17661 Falkirk Lane, expressed the opinion that
the project is really two separate . areas - the single-family
project adjacent. to The Landing and the area to the right
closer .to the ocean which is going to be developed with town-
homes .
Michael Knapp., 17692 Gainsford Lane, addressed the Commission
to urge a decision in favor of the project and the FIR. He
pointed out that the area cannot be considered an aesthetically
pleasing visual aspect or one which could be considered .worth
conserving and addressed again the fact that the proposal is
merely the promised continuation of Tract 8630 planned since
1976 . He spoke to the matter of a. proposed desilting basin in
the County' s plan which is not included .in the plan under dis-
cussion, , noting that the County had added the basin only in
its resubmittal of its plan in December of 1983 . fie questioned
the desirability of a desilting basin placed adjacent to resi-
dential units without any .buffer.ing and pointed out that the
project .proposed is .at a. density consistent with that shown in
the County ' s plan.
.Floyd Belsito, 17111 Beach Boulevard, Suite 208 , . spoke to
.support the proposal. He noted the fact that present residents
in the neighboring tracts are living under the same seismic
and flood conditions applicable to the proposed development,
conditions that were perhaps outweighed by the excellent. loca-
tion , proximity to the beach , and the fine housing opportunity.
-7 4-3-84 - P .C..
Minutes , H.B. Planning Commission
April 3, 1984
Page 8
Robert-F. Gremel , 15621 Selkirk Drive , spoke as a homeowner in
the area east of Graham Street. He expressed concern about the
nature of the proposed development near his side of Graham, sayer
ing that the developer' s suggestion that high--cost duplexes or
triplexes be built was , unfortunately, not an obligation. He
said he could support the project if a' row of. single-family homes
were to be built along Berkshire adjacent to the California
Classic development to preserve the nature of that single-family
_ neighborhood and if Fieldstone would stipulate to not building
structures which would be conducive to rentals or double occu-
pancy by two or more owners .
'Bill Parker, 17882 Falcon Circle, objected to the proposal be-
cause of the traffic congestion which would be caused by the
single entrance into the complex.
Richard Harlow, consultant to Fieldstone, stated that he feels
the EIR has fairly evaluated the environmental concerns ; however,
many..,of the issues addressed here have brought the general plan
amendment and the zone change into the discussion on the report.
He asked the Commission to make that distinction and to realize
that many of the issues put .forward are more appropriately dis-
cussed at the implementation level . Although Fieldstone does
consider their 42 acres a separate parcel and a separate planning
issue , they stand ready to work with the County , City, and with
Signal to develop in a comprehensive. manner.
There were no other persons to speak for or against the environ-
mental impact report and -the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Livengood presented several questions to staff and
received the following responses : Biological assessments . and
other documents requested by the Coastal Commission have been
forwarded; the consultant' s report to be prepared. by . Woodward
Clyde has not been received and reviewed by staff (Howard 'Zelef=
sky indicated that it' has not as yet been completed) ; and the flood
plain requirements mandate that a structure be elevated .above the
100-year flood level plus one foot: Mr. Livengood also suggested
that barriers be installed so that vehicles could not access the
subject property from Graham Street, thereby alleviating the
dumping problem.
Mr. Livengood then asked the legal counsel , Art De 'La•. Loza, if
an approval action on this EIR would prejudice the ability of the
local government to .prepare a certifiable LCP for the Bolsa Chica,
Mr. De La Loza replied that since there are other agencies that
need to make certain approvals on the proposal and that since the
applicant is aware of those other agencies there. should be no
reasonable detrimental reliance on the part of the applicant be-
cause of the Commission ' s action. He had previously instructed
the Commission that part of any -approval action on its part must
-8- 4-3-84 - P .C .,
Minutes , H. B. , Planning Commission
1\pril 3 , 1984
Page 9
be an affirmative finding that all provisions mentioned in
Public Resources Code , Section 21100 , have been met by. the
EIR. Absent the Commission' s satisfaction that all short-
and long-term objectives of the Code have been met no approval
action could be taken. Another possibility pointed out by
legal counsel was that the person. preparing the environmental
document could address the issues brought up' at this meeting
and either resolve them or include a statement in the docu-
ment saying that these certain issues are not significant
and outlining why they do not significantly impact the pro-
ject and therefore do not need to be discussed in detail .
Extensive discussion followed among Commission members , in-
cluding the focus of the document on the subject project only
without considering the entire Bolsa Chica, the elevations ,
flood hazard possibility, geological and biological data,
the road system to serve the area, and the possibility of an
ocean cut with resultant risk of tidal surge and downstream
inundation. Commissioners Winchell and Porter expressed
the consensus of the Commission that the report does not ad-
equately respond to the issues raised by other public agencies
nor does it address the final plan for the Bolsa Chica.
Procedural steps were reviewed with legal counsel and staff .
A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD TO CONTINUE THIS TO A DATE TO
BE AGREED UPON BY THE COMMISSION AND FIND ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT 83-3 INADEQUATE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS :
1 . The document does not meet the requirements of S . 15006
of. the State EIR Guidelines outlining the basic purpose
of the California Environmental Quality Act, which states
that:
a. A basic purpose is to identify ways that environmental
damage can be avoided or significantly reduced ;
b. The document should attempt to prevent significant,
avoidable damage to the environment by requiring
changes in projects through the use of alternatives
and mitigating measures when a governmental agency
finals the changes to be feasible.
2 . The document has . not responded to the comment of the
State Department of Fish and Game that specific mitigation .
measures have not been provided throughout the document.
The absence of. information in the document , incomplete
identification of impacts , the lack of positive mitiga-
tion measures , plus further complications due to the un-
known LCP status contribute to the inadequacy of this
document.
3 ._ The EIR does not adequately address the. concerns of two
State agencies , one federal agency, and the major land=
-9- 4-3-84 - P .C.
Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission
April 3 , 1984
Page . 10
owner in the area that there are not adequate mitigating
measures to protect not only the project but the surround-
ing areas.
. 4 . The report makes continual reference to the County' s Local
Coastal Plan that is not certified., basing important concerns
such as traffic, minimal impacts on Graham on a major arterial
that may never be built.
. 5 . The EIR. should not be approved until the findings of geotech
nical studies on faulting, liquefaction, and subsidence pre-
pared at the request of Orange County by Woodward 'Clyde Con-
s.ultants are available , based" on their full reports document-
ing this work.
6 . The EIR as written'- does not use facts and continually, states
. . . will be :addressed at subsequent levels of review. "
7 . Adequate mitigation measures are not detailed to protect the
project from the .ambitious oil redevelopment program by
Aminoil of its North Bolsa lease.
8 . All material facts are not addressed in the report, and there
is no listing in the report of items. which are found not to
significantly impact the project, as outlined by legal counsel
earlier.
9 . The scope and intent of environmental information which is
required by .the public agencies responding to the draft EIR
is not present in . this document.
Chairman Porter inquired how the maker .of the motion wished to
handle the date to which the item would be continued; Commissioner
Livengood stated that. he will delete the reference to a date and
make it under . a separate motion.
Chairman Porter thereupon clarified the motion on the floor as
a motion to find EIR. 83-3 inadequate based on the preceding
findings .
THE MOTION WITH REFERENCE TO THE DATE FOR CONTINUANCE DELETED WAS
APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES : Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir
NOES: Higgins
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Erskine
ON MOTION .BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY WINCHELL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT NO. 83-3 WAS CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 18 , 1984
BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
�_10- 4-3-84 - P .C .
Minutes, H.B. P_Ldnning Commission
April 3., 1984
Page 11
AYES : Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir
NOES : Higgins
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Erskine
Dick Harlow questioned the .necessity for this continuance ,
asking if the EIR could not be corrected and re-advertised for .
an earlier hearing. Florence Webb suggested that this. Area of
Concern could be broken • away..from the present land use amend-
ment and processed separately as Amendment 84-2 . The Commis-
sion, however,, indicated that it would be difficult to
improve. on the date because the forthcoming Coastal Conservancy
plan is mandated for the end of June and . it .should be incorpor-
ated into this document.
Commissioner tivengood said that his motion stands as made.
He noted that evaluation of. the environmental document need not.
be exhaustive but it is to be just in the light of what is
reasonably feasible . The courts have looked for a good faith
effort and . full disclosure; his feeling is that the key word is
"full disclosure. " He said we do not have that, and based on
the testimony we .have received we will not have it until the
other plans are complete .
Commissioner Schumacher indicated that she wished to change
her vote on the denial of the EIR to a "no". vote. Legal .counsel
advised her that this .was not possible but she could indicate
for the record that intention.
The Commission recessed at 9 : 50 p.m. and reconvened at 10 : 00 .
Staff and* legal .counsel conferred as . to further procedure. Art
De La Loza recommended that, in order to maintain a clear and
Accurate record and obtain maximum participation it might be
best to consider each portion of the Land Use Element Amendment
separately. Florence Webb recommended in light of the previ-
ous action on the environmerital impact report that Area of
Concern 2 . 1 be. opened and continued.
Chairman Porter opened the public hearing, on Area of Concern
2 . 1 of the amendment. There were no persons to provide further
input, and the public hearing was closed.
ON MOTION BY WINCHELL. AND SECOND BY PORTER AREA OF CONCERN 2 . 1
OF LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 84-1 WAS CONTINUED TO. THE
MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 18 , 1984 , BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE :
AYES : Higgins , Winchell , Livengood , Porter, Schumacher ,
Mirjahangir
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Erskine
-11- 4-3-84 - P . C.
Minutes , H.B. Planning Commission
April 3 , 1984
Page 12
LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 84-1 - AREA OF CONCERN 2 . 2/EIR 8-4
Applicant : San Alto- Development Company
A request to redesignate 3 . 41 acres located at the southwest corner
of Garfield Avenue and. Bushard Street from .Low Density Residential
to General Commercial and to rezone the same property from Office
Professional . (R5) to Community Business' (C2) District.
The Commission briefly discussed the compatibility of the proposed
commercial with surrounding residential uses and how such a project
might be treated to attain compatibility.. Mike Adams responded
that a "Q" designation on the zone change would allow staff to im-
pose conditions relating to landscaping, setbacks , etc. to any
specific project when"it is proposed. The fiscal impact of the.
amendment was also reviewed, as well as _the viability of a small
commercial development at this location and the possible dilution. of
the market for existing commercial facilities .
The public hearing on Area 2 . 2 of Land Use Element Amendment 84-1
and EIR 83-4 was opened.
Marilyn Lugaro, 19082 Mathew Circle , submitted a petition from
neighboring property owners in opposition to the proposals. Noting
existing noise problems from an adjacent General Telephone Company .
she protested the addition of any small shopping center to this
location.
Richard Parks , 19062 Hillsboro Circle , indicated that the neighbors
realize that this particular property is underutilized; their con-
cern is with the uncertainty .of types of uses and impacts which will
result from the change of designation and rezoning.
Abraham and Joan Walker, 9371 Litchfield Drive , spoke to the safety
and welfare of the children living in the neighborhood., They were
concerned that the .center not contain liquor stores or bars. but that
types .of businesses go in that would be of use and value to the
immediate community.
Vera Harper spoke in support. of the proposal, saying that office
professional or low density residential designations are not feasible
on such a small parcel.
There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal
and the public hearing was closed..
The'- Commission discussed the building .heights . allowable under the
proposed C2 designation, as well as the setbacks required between
commercial and residential uses . Chairman Porter asked that the
report be. clarified (on Page 13 relating to conditions which could
be applied to a commercial development) -to more accurately reflect
what the Commission is authorized to impose under the existing
applications . Staff will correct the document.
-12- 4-3-84 - P.C. .
* Minutes.,, H.B. Planning Commission
April 3 , 1984
Page 13
In response to questioning from Commissioner Mirjahangir, the
applicant indicated that he has immediate plans to proceed
with . construction .of .the ' single-story shopping center if his
requests are approved: He added that his plans call for a 20-
foot setback :from adjoining residential units .
ON MOTION .BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY ERSKINE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT NO. 83-4 .AS AMENDED BY COMMISSIONER PORTER WAS APPROVED AS
ADEQUATE AND RECOMMENDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR CERTIFICATION
BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES : Higgins , Winchell , Livengood, Porter, Erskine ,
Schumacher , Mirjahangir
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER THE COMMISSION
RECOMMENDED :THAT AREA OF CONCERN 2 . 2 OF LAND USE ELEMENT AMEND- .
MENT 84-1 BE DENIED AND THE SUBJECT AREA REMAIN AS IT IS
PRESENTLY DESIGNATED ON THE GENERAL PLAN (LOW DENSITY RESIDEN-
TIAL) BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE :
AYES : Higgins , Winchell , Porter, Schumacher.
NOES : Livengood, Erskine, Mirjahangir.
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 84-1 - AREA OF CONCERN 2 . 3
AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 83-53 '
Applicant: City ,of Huntington 'Beach
A request to redesignate 3. 61 acres located at the southeast
corner of Gothard Street and Center Drive from Public, Quasi-
Public, Institutional to General Commercial.
Charles. Clark reported that the purpose of. this amendment is
to bring the General Plan designation on the property into
conformance with its zoning and .with .the existing use.
The. public hearing was opened; no one was present to speak
for or against the proposal , and th.e public hearing was closed.
ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY HIGGINS NEGATIVE DECLARA-
TION NO. 83-53 WAS APPROVED, BY THE FOLLOWING; VOTE:
AYES : Higgins , Winchell , Livengood, Porter, Erskine ,
Schumacher, Mirjahangir
NOES :. None
ABSENT : None
. ABSTAIN: None
-137 4-3-84 - P . C .
• ' i
Minutes , H. B. Planning Commission
April 3., 1984
Page 14 ,
ON MOTION BY WINCHELL 'AND SECOND BY HIGGINS THE COMMISSION RECOM-
MENDED THAT LAND USE AMENDMENT NO. . 84-1 , AREA OF CONCERN 2 . 3 , BE .
APPROVED AND THE LAND .USE DESIGNATION CHANGED TO GENERAL COMMER-
CIAL, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE :
AYES : Higgins , Winchell , Livengood; Porter, Erskine ,
Schumacher, Mirjahangir
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY ERSKINE RESOLUTION NO. 1317 ,
ADOPTING LAND. USE ELEMENT NO. 84-1 WITH THE DELETION OF AREAS OF
CONCERN 2 . 1 AND .2 . 2 , WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES : Higgins , Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine ,
Schumacher, Mirjahangir
NOES : None
.ABSENT : None
ABSTAIN: None
ZONE CHANGE NO. 83-10
Applicant: San Alto' Development Co.
.A .request to rezone approximately 2 . 21 acres from R5 (Office Pro-
fessional) to C2 (Community Business) District located on the
southwest corner of Garfield Avenue and Bushard Street ,(in conjunc-
tion with LUE 84-1 , Area 2 . 2)
The Commission considered this zone change request in light of
its prior action on Area of Concern 2 . 2 of LUE 84-1.
The public hearing was opened. By reference, the testimony given
by the public relative to}_ Area of Concern 2 . 2 was adopted. The
public hearing was closed.
ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY PORTER ZONE CHANGE NO .
83-10. WAS DENIED BY THE FOLLOWING .VOTE:
AYES : Higgins , Winchell, Livengood, Porter , Schumacher
NOES : Erskine, Mirjahangir
ABSENT : None
ABSTAIN: None
ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER STAFF WAS DIRECTED,
TOPREPARE A ZONE CHANGE TO Rl (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) TO BRING
THE ZONING INTO CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION AS
PREVIOUSLY RECOMMENDED, . BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES : Higgins , Winchell , Livengood , Porter, Schumacher
NOES Erskine , Mirjahangir
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
-14- 4-3-84 - P.C .'
a ,
r
Publish 4/26/84
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT 84-1
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 83-4/NEGATIVE DECLARATION 83-53
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held by the City Council
of the City of Huntington Beach, in the Council Chamber of the Civic Center,
Huntington Beach, at the hour of 7:30 P.M. , or as soon thereafter as
possible on Monday the 7th day of May 19 84 .
for the purpose of considering a proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of
the General Plan (LUE #84-1 ) Environmental Impact Report #83-4 and Negative is
Declaration #83-53 which includes the following items: .
1 . Redesignate 3.41 acres located at the southwest corner of Garfield
Avenue and Bushard Street from Low Density Residential to General
Commercial ,
2, Redesignate 3.61 acres located at the southeast corner of Gothard
Street and Center Avenue from Public, Quasi-public, Institutional
to General Commercial .
All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and express their
opinions for or against said Land Use Element 84-1 , EIR 83-4 and ND 83-53
Further information may be obtained from the Office of the City Clerk, 2000 Main
Street, Huntington Beach, California. 92648 - (714) 536-5227
DATED 4/20/84 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
By: Alicia M. Wentworth
City Clerk ��
,sk `'��- "�`�;'�f9 i` ?° -•;r.+, . ;��'�ro���s:- _. •4Y """s-.: *;•�y+� {fit 1 �f�'a'�!d�p��?P�°.;tv:'fl+�,:f'�,C,'�"�° F+.a� '^;iw `.^±r..t�' -�; _..:-
.y31. '. .. �i:+•'-.;,,,. 'r -Y 4� ��� "'=-�':�'Y.9Fl:?k� �t`.'s...q F'. r. SQL'( `xh.._���,- "�., k..,-- .ry¢.0 �•` ��'� ;Y{•:
"� •'�' `�`'LM�'� �,�+'"f �'S�'"?;+i:+���r"� i:�"'} fir. -'�'� `�� � '�E` +
Ilati+: 'o�i•;a-.. .. ;4e.,....::SZT�>_,.f,L• c:.i'::~�' v 4it?�.�+" ,�'w''r, +,���r�;"�}��'�'-�q'"�0� .�" ..9F'S' "fir
» _ ..-+�.>�' :a''A ., ".'•s::-.: ,-L: C'.ia.�i. .�..' r.! t't!N.�< .r'a.; �„at+'.., :.$ g
+. -i'"%.: �a, ..Gfc"..rw•'d.'� 3y`�:s9d`yq'•
k.i � i_ f� �•f�`_�.". .. .f.' � :..a..•�.m.�,y,.<<.•_, w,..,. _-,Xis
-.3
..ya• r3;�r: :w. -.wx'' -.-� .:z� bib",
'1---
NB 5668
--' CARBON SET ADDRESSING TA RBONSE
37-822 (4722) 2 PART LABELS TURNSIU88ACh HOLD ENDS11RMLY QRIII(i`.OGEIHEP SNAPAPARI
142-071- 58
`aontgomery Ward Dev. Corp .
z/o Tax Dept .
901 Avenue K
;;rand Prairie , TX 7SOS0 .
142-071- 60
City of. Huntington Beach
City Hall
Auntington Beach, CA 92648
1,42-072- 02 ,03, S4 --
Coast Community College Dst
'1701 Fairview Road
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
142-474- 03
13i.schof, Josef
7S61 Center Ave. #48
;iunting.ton Beach, CA 92647
I
42 -071- 63
lerwel Enterprises
7777 Center Drive
luntington Beach; CA 92647
1-42- 071- 66
reeway Ind. Park.
.evitz Furniture Corp .
\t t.n : David M. Devins
'.'12 High Street
'ottstown PA 19464
L42-072- 08
!;reeway Industrial Park
!.80S E. Garry. St . ,Ste . 110
)anta Ana, CA 9270S
I
- J
142-07158 142-071-63
Montgomery Ward Dev. Corp. Jerwel Enterorises
�ax Dept. 7777 Center Drive
venue i Huntington Beach, CA 92647
Grand Prairie= TX 75050
142-071-60 142-07-66
I City of Huntington Beach Freeway Industrial Park
City Hall Levitz Furniture Corp.
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Attn: David M. Devins
212 High Street
Pottstown,_PA_-19464
142-072-02,03-54 142-072--08
Coast Community College District Freeway Industrial Park
2701 Fairview Road 1805 E. Garry St. Suite #110
Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Santa Ana, CA 92705
142-474-03 Bischof, Josef A 12ea
a, 3
7561 Center Ave. #48r
Huntington Beach, CA 92647 G v
LEGAL NOTICE
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING '
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held
by the City Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach,
California, for the purpose of considering a proposex amendment to the
Land Use Element of the General Plan (LUE 84=1�)�,�
s� Environmental Impact Report 83- 4 ; 1egative' Declaration 83- 53,
which include the following.
items :
r�lnPncityCi C1 3„��,
Redesignate 3 . 41 acres located at the southwest corner of Garfield Avenue
and Bushard Street from low density residential to general commercial .
�• Redesignate 3. 61 acres located at the southeast corner of Gothard Street
and Center Drive from public , quasi-public, institutional to general
commercial .
Said hearing will be held at the hour of 7 : 00 P .M. , on
_Tue.sday, April 3, 1984 in the Council Chambers Building of the
Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California. '
All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and
express their opinions for o gainst the proposed General Plan Amendment ,
Environmental Impact Report , gative Declaration,
Further information may be obtained from the City Planning
Department.
Telephone No. (714) 536-5271
DATED this 22nd day of March 1984
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
By James IV . Palin, Secretary.
NOTICE TO CLERK TO SCHEDULE PUBLIC HEARING p
ITEM ���.� � ��1 rJ 4AV ," <
TO: CITY CLERK'S OFFICE DATE:
FROM:
PLEASE SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING USING THE ATTACHED LEGAL NOTICE FOR THE
7 DAY OF Y' 19,
/AP's are attached
AP's will follow
No AP's
Initiated by: /
Planning Commission c!
Planning Department
Petition
* Appeal
Other
Adoption of. Environmental Status (x)
YES NO
Refer to (3?1A-R C- Planning Department - Extension #
for additional information.
* If appeal, please transmit exact wording to be required in the legal.
Publish 4/26/84
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT 84-1
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 83-4/NEGATIVE DECLARATION 83-53
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held by the City Council
of the City of Huntington Beach, in the Council Chamber of the Civic Center,
Huntington Beach, at the hour of 7:30 P.M. , or as soon thereafter as
possible on Monday the 7th day of May 19 84 .
for the purpose of considering a proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of
the General Plan (LUE #84-1 ) Environmental Impact Report #83-4 and Negative i ;
Declaration #83-53 which includes the following items: ,
1 . Redesignate 3.41 acres located at the southwest corner of Garfield
Avenue and Bushard Street from Low Density Residential to General
Commercial .
�2. Redesignate 3.61 acres located at the southeast corner of Gothard
Street. and Center Avenue from Public. Quasi-public, Institutional
to General Commercial .
All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and express their
opinions for or against said Land Use Element 84-1 , EIR 83-4 and ND 83-53 j
Further information may be obtained from the Office of the City Clerk, 2000 Main
Street, Huntington Beach, California. 92648 - (714) 536-5227
DATED 4/20/84 /
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
By: Alicia M. Wentwor h
City Clerk
!1'S'�-•3 6 2''-3.3......_._.,.__...,....a...,..„.....,....,...,.. ..1.5.3.-3 62_3_q_._...._: _._.._._.._.._...._. 15 3-3 6 2` 36
MELVIN I . HARPER EDDIE R. HAYES MELVIN I. HARPS ' �
19021 MATHEW-CIRCLE 19011 MATHEW CIRCLE 10211 KAIMU DR.
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIF. I HUNTINGTON BEACH , CALIF. HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALL:
92646 92646 9264 -
153-362-39 153-362-41 153•-362=42
MELVIN I . HARPER MELVIN I. HARPER MELVIN I . HARPER
19062 MATHEW CIRCLE 119092 MATHEW CIRCLE 19102 MATHEW CIRCLE
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIF: , HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIF. HUNTINGTON BEACH, CAL7 '
92646 I 92646 92641
157-252-19 T5'1L. 20
RONALD K. LARUFFA BRI'A14 C: BUSCOMBE
• 19425 WARBLER AVE. 25002 *- TRAILVIEW TERRACi
I FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIF. EL TbRo, CALIF.
-9±9 4$ 92708 92630
157-252-21 157-252-22 157=252123 +
THOMAS R. KARPINSKI ROBERT ZAFIRATOS CHARLES� D. .BARRON
9449 WARBLER AVE. 9459 WARBLER AVE. 18955 •* CAPENSE ST.
FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIF. FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIF. FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIF .
92708 92708 92708
157-252-24 157-252-25 157�252-, 34
NAVIN D. ZYAS CAROL E. WALBERT THOMAS PETERS
18945 CAPENSE ST. 18933 CAPENSE ST. 9444 ;SHRIKE AVE.
FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIF. FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIF. FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIF .
92708
92708 92708
157-252-35 ' 157-252-36 157y253 06
1-1ARJ,1,;'Y E. DAHNKE PETER MARUSCHAK JOANN JOHNSON
9434 SHRIKE AVE. 9422 SHRIKE AVE. 7882. BEACHPOINT DR. :'.
FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIF. 1 FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIF. HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALT. .
92708 I 92708 9264
157-253-07 1157-253-08 =25 09
AR` HUR J . CABRERA LARRY BOSTOCK FRANK G BEELS
9432 WARBLER AVE. 9444 WARBLER AVE. 9456 WARBLER AVE.
FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIF. ! FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIF. FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALI17 .
92708 92708 92708
157-253-10 157-253-11 157-253-12
LRE D. BERGERSON j WILL,IAM R. REYNOLDS JOSEPH J. BANGAN
9466 WARBLER AVE. 9476 WARBLER AVE. 9486 WARBLER AVE.
FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIF. I'OUN'.I'ATN VALLEY, CALIF. FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIF
92708 i 92708 92708
157-253-13 1.57-253-14 157' 253-15
RON.AL,DO G . STORF i EVEL,YN HYATT JOHN P. DALPOGGETTO
lb')(')6 CAPFNSE ST. 18956 CAPENSE ST. 18946 CAPENSE ST.
FOUNTATN VALLEY, CALIF. FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIF. FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CA1,I1-
92708 92708 92708
1.57--253-1.6 i 157-2.53-17 157-2.84=01
FRANK A . CLARK JOHN K. VASINA 'MOSBAci!ERAd CO..
1.8934 CAPENSE ST. 18924 CAPENSE ST. 2828' N.... HASKELL AVE.
FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIF. FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIF. DALL� Sj 'TEXAS
92708 I 92708 75204
1.57-284-02 1.57- 2� 4 -54 157-284-05
DANK Of 7\1,11 N CCA
I',N'I'linNY COT.,S1'ON I NAY TOYODA
4500 ('r,i';I'I,l;i DR . 1' 207_ cl �)7 r,t(1Ki '1 ? 1;1 AV1 9528 ._Sh101CF'1RI�E AVE:. . .._.
AI .:I li,'1' l,i % C 1 / i.Tl' L . .i. ....IAl
a 7. 14.1. -v
- rnnv::'sxuaa_ ssxwwr:xa:?^m:mecicA: n+
153-331;1-7 U 153-371-03 153-311-04
MLVI,�" I: HARPER EARL A. LAMB WILLIAM G. LAMB
185T SAMAR 'DR. 18752 GREGORY LANE 9542 GARFIELD AVE.
COSI'A MESA, CALIF. HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIF. HUNTINGTON BEACH, CAL.T ;
92626 j 92646 92646
153-371-05 ! 153-371-70 1`53�371-71
WILLIAM G. LAMB EARL A. LAMB r ROBERT ANETSBERGER
9542 CARFIELD AVE. 9541 BASS DR. 4509 GREENMEADOWS AVE.
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIF. � HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIF. - ' TORRANCE, , CALIF.
92646 I 92646 : . , 90505
153-371-72 153-371-73 `373=02
EARL A. LAMB EARL A. LAMB TEAR•L: A LAMB
18752 GREGORY LANE P.O. BOX 1284 19101 WALLEYE LANE
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIF. .• MAMMOTH LAKES, CALIF. HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIi
92646 I 93546 9264 (
153-373-03 153-373-09 153=373-10 F �
EARL A. LAMB EARL A. LAMB EARL 'Ar LAMB
19072 CARP CIRCLE 19122 BUSHARD ST 1911 BUSHARD ST
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIF. jHUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIF. HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALII-
92646
92646 9264
153-373-12 153-351-12 153j3'51'L13
CARL H. REINHART IRICHARD A. LAITRES EDWARD EADER
P. O. BOX 4476 9402 LITCHFIELD- DR. 3809 SEASHORE DR.
IRVINE, CALIF. IHUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIF. "NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF.
92716 92646 92663
153-351-14 i 153-351-15 15� 3a1t 26
SHARON K. LOVE iFREDERICK A. RYAN MELVIN I : HARPER
9422 LITCHFIELD DR. 9432 LITCHFIELD DR. 1' 9431 VELARDO DR.
IIUN`.I'INGTON BEACH, CALIF. : HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIF. HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIV
92646 ' 92646 .. � = 92646
i53-351-21 153-351-22 ' ', ,:153-351-•23
EMMA CIMINO CHARLES DBRAITIS ARNOLD, Pi ADAMS
9421 VELARDO DR. ! 9411 VELARDO DR. 9401 '-VELARDO DR.
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIF. HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIF. HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIi'
92646 92646 _ 9264 (.
153-362-18 1153-362-19 153-362•�20
DONALD L. STERLING JUNE A. BALLARD STEVE HARJER
1901.2 HILLSBORO CIRCLE 19022 HILLSBORO CIRCLE 19032 HILLSBORO CIRCLE
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIF. HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIF. HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIF
92646 92646 ! 92646
153-362-23 153-362-25 I153-362-26
DONALD W. WALTERS ABRAHAM L. WALKER 1STEVEN M. TIERNEY
19071 HILLSBORO CIRCLE 9371 LITCHFIELD DR. 9381 'LITCHFIELD DR.
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIF. HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIF. HUNTINGTON BEACH, CAL-Ti ;
92646 92646 9264
i
1- 53-362-27 153-362-28 153 -362-29
MT.CIIAEL L. RICHARD ROSALIE M. METZGER j MELVIN I . HARPER
3712 S . MEYLER ST. ' 19081 MATHEW CIRCLE j19071 MATHEW CIRCLE
SAN PEDRO, CALIF. HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIF. ! HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALL ;
90731 92646 92641
1.53-362-30 153-362-31 i153-362-32
11AZE11, M. SKINNER HI.'f VIN I . 1IARPI,R MELVIN I . HARPER
19061. MATIlEW CIRCLE -19n4l NIATIIF:W CIRCLE 19031 MATHEW CIRCLE
kl(T 'c7N C'AT,TF. !II1NT1 t (,TON PIX..ACIT , CALIF . 11UN'.1'INGTON IRF,,7\C1l , C nT
/-284-06 157-284-07 157-284-09
ICK .0. CHALMERS BOR KAMENTS1,11 DEPT OF VET AFFAIRS
')40 .SMOKOTREE AVE. 9552 SMOKETREE AVE . 9578 SMOKETREE AVE.
'OUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIF. FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIF. FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CAi,
_ 92708 92708 j 927.
57-284-44 157-284-43 157-284-30
PTA LAMB MARTIN L. MELTZNER VICTOR PIETRANTONI
8752 GREGORY LANE 2976 QUEENSBURY DR. .� 9583 SHIMIZU RIVER C
,UN`1'INGTON BEACH, CALIF. ! LOS ANGELES , CALIF. FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CAI.,
V,_ 9,2646• i 90064 927 -
157-284-17 I - 157-284-31
} MERVIN N . JACKA { EDWIN R. MCINTYRE
958'8 SHIMIZU RIVER CIR 9582 SHIMIZU RIVER C
FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIF. FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CAI.
92708 92"7
. 53-371-06 153-311-69 153-351-16
liLLIAM LAMB j CARL GREIFZU RICHARD SPARNO
1542 GARFIELD AVE. 9551 BASS 9452 LITCHFIELD DR.
"UNTINGTON BEACH, CALIF. i HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIF. 'HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA
92646 92646 92
: 53-373-04 j 153-371-68 157-284-08
IARJORIE T. VIERS CHARLES M. FROELIC I, FRANCOIS VALENTI
.9121 WALLEYE LANE i 19072 WALLEYE . 9895 SITKA
!UNTINGTON BEACH, CALIF. HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIF. FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CAI,
92646 92646 i i ., 927
153-362-35 153-362-24 y153-362-21
:ENT KENZLI ALVIN C. LUNDEN f .NOE 'CRUZ
119012 MATHEWS CIRCLE i 19082 HILLSBORO CIRCLE 19042 HILLSBORO CIRC,'
:IUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIF. !, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIF. "',:.HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA:
92646 92646 92,
1-53-362-37 153-351-19 ; ' 153 `362-22
'IELVIN I . HARPER JACK WEAR ! RICHARD N. PARKS
1-9032 MATHEW CIRCLE 9451 VELARDO i . ' 19872 INVERNESS
.'UNTINGTON BEACH, CALIF. HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIF.,, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA.'
92646 92646 92,
1-53-373-01 153-351-18 153-362-40
iLWOOD BONNER CHARLES F. HOFFARD GEORGE P. LUGARO
9341 PORTSMOUTH DR. 9461 VELARDO 19072 MATHEW CIRCLE
IUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIF. , HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIF.: HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA
92646 92646 92.
t53--362-38 153-373-11
4M. F. BOUCHARD JAMES E. SMITH lQ. /"
!9042 MATHEW CIRCLE 19102 BUSHARD 79J-6:
1UNTINGTON BEACH, CALIF. : HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIF.; , O�
92646 92646 .I ,� `"t1
i
!
Mr. M P us Porter
April 11 , 1984
Page 2
The EIR evaluated the proposal as a land use
amendment and zone change; the Planning
Commission evaluated the proposal in far
more detail than is required at this time.
Specific implementation issues would normally
be addressed at the tentative trac4 map and
conditional use permit stages.
• The 5�-month continuance does not take into
consideration the possibility that the Bolsa
Chica planning issues may be resolved in a
more timely manner .
'Pherefore, we ask that the Planning Commission act
favorably on our request for reconsideration and set the
EIR, General Plan Amendment, and Zone Change for public
hearing on June 5 , 1984 .
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
THE FIELDSTONE COMPANY
A. S . Durham
Project Manager
ASD:pj
The Niel e G it. 14 Corporate Plaza,Newport& CA-I" M) 851-8313
April 11, 1984
Mr. Marcus Porter
Chairman, Planning Commission
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Re: Reconsideration of Planning
Commission Actions
EIR 83-3
GPA 84-1
ZC 83-11
Dear Mr. Porter ,
The Fieldstone Company respectfully requests
reconsideration of the actions taken by the Planning
Commission at its April 3rd meeting regarding Graham
Place , the 42 . 4-acre parcel located at the westerly
termination of Graham Street. At that time, the
Commission found inadequate EIR No. 83-3 and voted
F to continue the matter to September 18 , 1984 . In
conjunction with that action, our proposed Land Use
Element Amendment 84-1 (Area of Concern 2 . 1) and 'Lone
Change No. 83-11 were likewise continued to September
18 .
i
We believe that the 5�-month continuance is of
longer duration than necessary to respond to the issues
raised by the Commission. In addition, it is impor-
tant to recognize the following:
• Our proposal is fully consistent with both the
pending County of Orange Land Use Plan and
State Coastal Conservancy Habitat -Conservation
Plan.
r
' 'S` ,N-� 5
The Fieldr Co. 'my, 14 C)rlx)tate Plaza, Newport Bea 'A , i(�la) 851.8313
s .
April 11 , 1984
City Clerk
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 4
Re: Appeal of Planning Commission Actions
EIR 83-3
GPA 84-1
ZC 83-11
To whom it may concern:
This letter is to appeal the actions taken by
the Planning Commission at its April 3rd meeting
regarding Graham Place , the 42.4 acre parcel located
at the westerly termination of Graham Street. The
Commission found inadequate EIR No. 83-3 and voted
to continue the matter until September 18 , 1984 . In
conjunction with that action, our proposed Land Use
Element Amendment 84-1 (Area of Concern 2. 1 ) and
'Lone Change No. 83-11 were likewise continued to
September 18 , 1984 .
Our appeal is based on the following four issues:
• The Commission did not allow time for a
respot]se from the EIR consultant to address
its specific concerns . The consultant,
1 Van Dell and Associates, has indicated that
it will be able to bring the EIR to acceptable
standards in a much shorter period- of time.
• Our proposal is fully consistent with both
• the pending County of Orange Land Use Plan
and State Coastal Conservancy Habitat
Conservation Plan.
City C, A
April 11 , 1984
Page 2
• The EIR evaluated the proposal as a land use
amendment and zone change; the Planning
Commission evaluated the proposal in far more
detail than is required at this time. Specific
implementation issues would normally be ad-
dressed at the tentative tract map4and condi-
tional use permit' stages.
• The 531-month continuance does not take into
consideration the possibility that' the Bolsa
Chica planning issues may be resolved in a
more timely manner .
We hope to have a public hearing on this appeal at
the earliest possible date . Thank you for your consid-
eration.
Sincerely,
a THE FIELDST014E COMPANY
A. S. Durham
Project Manager
ASD:pj
cc: James Palin, Director of Development Services
Howard Zelefsky, Assistant Planner
f
M
� j -- 8VNT iQTC`t4 BEACH
A� �_ATY OF 14UMTINGTOI'o BEACk1 DEYELQPftExt SERVICES
INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION
HUNTINGTON BFACH APR 10.1984
P. 0. Box 1
JAHES W . PALIN GAIL HUTTOIIHunfington Beach, Ck91-648
To Development Services From City Attorney e.0
+',
I Subject FIELDSTONE DEVELOPM Date
ENT April 6 , 1984 t4
OPINION
4
Background :
EIR No . 83-3 prepared for Fieldstone Development for an area
adjacent to the Bolsa Chica in County territory was found not to be
certifiable as to completion by the Planning Commission at its
April 3 , 1984 , meeting . The matter, was accordingly continued to
September 18 , 1984 .
Question : Does the normal 10-day appeal period for any action
taken by the Commission apply to such finding and con-
tinuance?
Answer : No .
Liscussior.
�oction 9880 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance, Code provides in
relevant part as follows :
"Appeal. may be made to the City Corrrloil from
any decision , determination or re��iairements
of the Planr'ii.ng Commission by filing notice
thereof in writing with the City Clark within
ten ( 10 ) days after such decision or, deter-
mination or requirement is made . Such notice
shall set forth in detail the action; and
grounds by and upon which the applicantt.or
interested party deem himself aggrieved . "
( Emphasis added )
However , coexisting with § 9880 is § 9876 which provides that :
"The Council ar,d the Commission may respec-
tively prescribe its own rules and regula-
tions for condue!ting its hearing and taking
testimony , and miry cont;intro hearings , when
necessary . " ( Emphasis added )
Since the Huntington Beaoh Ordinance Code spccifically refers to
continuances separately from decisions , determinations or require-
ments , the legislative intent. must be that a continuance is not, an
action that is appealable .
James W . Palin April 6 , 1;84
Re : Fieldstone Development Page Two
Moreover , and by analogy , Code of Civil Procedure § 1094 . 5 which
addresses "review of administrative orders , or decisions, " pr-.'iides
in relevant part that a writ of review may be issued "for the
purpose of inquiring into the validity of any final administrative
order or decision made as the . result of a proceeding in which by
fi law a hearing is required . "
At the April 3, 1984 , Planning Commission meeting , the Commission
did not make a final administrative order or decision . Rather it
found that at the present time the EIR prepared for Fieldstone
Development for an area adjacent to the Bolsa Chica could not be
., certifiable as to completion . Hearings on its certification were
continued until September 18 , 1984 .
14 Ca1 . Admin . Code § 15162 provides in relevant part that a public
agency can require additional EIR where " ( 3 ) New information of
substantial importance to the project become available . " The
Planning Commission continued the hearings until September 18,
1984 , because , among other things , in July and August , 1984 , the
Coastal Commission will be taking action related to the Bolsa Chi-i
area . This new information will enable the Commission to deterrnir,e
if' the Fieldstone Development EIR is certifiable as to completion .
The iommission was specific as to the date c)f the continuance ,
.`,r,ptembcr 18 , 1984 , and Pave clear t eferer,cn as to the reasons fr,r
t.h,, oontinuance . The Commission was action; within its discr.etior,
7 undr�r Huntington Beach Ordinance Code 5 9870 , to continue when
f necessary , and _in accordance with 14 Cal . Admin . Code § 15162 .
r �
In addition , Fieldstone Development was represented in person, at
the April 3, 1984 - -Planning Commission meeting by Richard Harlow .
Mr . Harlow did not request that the Commission officially rule that.
the Fieldstone EIR could not be certified as to completion ; rather ,
Mr . Harlow allowed the hearing on the matter to be continued ,
thereby acquiescing to the Commission ' s action'.
i Mr . Harlow did not person 3ally appeal the Commission ' s continuance
1 at the time ; therefore , Fieldstone waived its right to appeal .
/
GAIL HU�I'TON
City Attorney
r
ps
Prepared with the assistance of Carol Ann Brown , Legal Intern
r -
*lr
1,
March 26, 1984
James W. Palin, Director LI �Ox 6 sIGM47R'�`�
Development Services
City of Huntington . Beach
P.O. Box 190
California 92648
Dear Mr . Palin:
We do object to the rezoning of the 3 . 41 acres located .at the
southwest corner of Bushard Street and Garfield Avenue from
Low Density Residential to General Commercial . This is .a reply
to protest your request letter dated .March. 20 , 1984 .
As homeowners we ru.-chased OLir h.;mes knowing that the vacant
lanr in q,aestion was zoned for Low Density Residential Use R-5 .
Our decision to purchasewas based upon this ' knowledge . We feel
that it will be of, no value to our neiq�,honccod to nave a com-
mercial establishment on t}�e corner and T,vill in fact be detre-
mental to our family :nei.gnborhood. We have adequate shopping
on bo qh mile intersections at Magnolia and Brookhurst.
( Y -
Kit, 74
.r
1 `
to the I-CIZOMH}l of the 1.41 ,i( res �I oc;ited a I the southwest corner of
I1wd),Ild )Ircct [I)(' rlicld Av(,iim, lrom Low Density sldcntial to Gciicral
-cial. phis .-t reply - request 'IL(,.r dated MI-irch 20, 19M.,
to protest your tiest k
As homeowners we purchased our homes knowing that the vacant land in question
was ;qofwd for Low Density Pesicleiail-il I Ise R-5. Our decision to purchase was bzased
upoll 1111� I<Ilo\vl(,dg(,. We feel thl-it it will be of no valm., to our neighborhood to hove
(-.t1-ibI1Shmcii1. on Ilw c orncr and will m fact be detrimental to our
famik f.1cighborhood. We have adequate shopping on both ri-ille intersections at.
Wign(diLi and Birookhurst.
110M[-:(,)WN ER PETITION AGAINST REZONING OF THE 3.41 ACRES LOCATED
AT Tflf-: SOUTHWEST CORNER OF BUSHARD STREET AND GARFIELD -AVENUE
from low density residental to general commercial.
NA M I ADDRESS
ZY
- -- - --.t_--- .- - ---jam d�`�-----�-���..��77�,L,,,���9Z��-
fe 6 M
loatch' e-
bAl
AL AJA V\
roe
v
-7L4
c-
L
Jzl
L7�4
f
I-,Z�-2L
/ V/c d.` .`b),,t to Ihc rezun)oX of ^ dhr 3.41 orrcx |ocotrd at dm souI-hwe.xt corner of
|.�ox|urJ S/rrc| 1-md -(icN /\v,nuc tron/ Low Density �idnitia| to Ccncra|
/m"'r'�iuL Thix \r u reply �o pn,�c,1 ynor rr�u»�! |/ '.�r dutcd March ZU, 1984'
,
As homeowners we purchased our hom,s khowing that the vacant |and ill question
was q'x'rd (nr Low. Density Residential | /a` R-\ Our drdsino to purchase was ha,;rd
upoo |hu know|vJuc, We [cr| that it will b(, c).| no value to our neighborhood to homl.
u ronm`,n'iu| ,stab|ishmcnt on the 'nmrr and will in taut be detrimental to oor
[u"i|r n,iXNx,r},xxL VV, |uy(, ,d,1o.)|, ^|wNvoX `v' |v`|h n//|, iw,u,''vx!` :|
Mugnn|i^ und8rook|mrst, '
�
HOyWE(lVVNER PETITION AG/\(NST REZONING OF THE l41 /\[KES LOCATED
AT T| UL SOUTHWEST ('OKNOl OF |}OSH/\KD STREET AND GARFIELD E
'' "''' '"° ",'"^`r '==."=..`= to 6=..".". "'""..nuu..
'
NAML ADDRESS
,j 4-1
/
^^
'
-------
`
'
`
^
-- —
'
`
'
'
_~
. /
V/' d. "b|'` / k` Um rcu/oioA of, dn 3.41 u'n`s |mcatcd a U)c on Lit )wix/ conlrr n[
` '| So,ci Io(, 'dicW 0 um, from Low Density `�idlda| to (�' |
� n
This v. a reply to pr,\,m your rr^or/i |k ..cr da(rd ��unih' ZO, 1984,
�
/\� |)(`//v.`vvn.'n wr |`u1-(1u^,d mx |mxv'` k/^'wxYg, /|/o| U^' vu' uo |uoJ m qo,`ow/
was. qw`cd for Low Density Residential Use R-J. Our decision to purchase was based
upon this ko'``v|cdXp' We [ec| that it Will he Of no vak/c to our neighborhood to have
a /nnoo,rr'a| egaN/sho'cnt on the corner and will in fa(:1 be detrimental to Our-
family neighborhood. We have xhoppi/l)' oo hn|h mi|c intersrctmox ar
' Magnolia and Hrookhorsi, '
`
'
N}&1L,OWNER PETITION AGAINST REZONING OF THE 3,41 ACRES LOCATED
AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER /E
from low density rrsidunta| to general cmnm'rdaL '
N/\K4L , /\D|}KES5
/
~� '/
-
----_-------- `---_'___--_---__'___-__--_--__-_'___----__-___-___'- _--_----_`----_- �-_-_-_'
`
----_-___--_---_- -
-
'
�
' -----
` /
Office of the City Clerk
City of Huntington Beach
b !4
l
P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA92648 L:: 040 nn ^e,ea 9 fa
w,z
iy
-1-5 7--2-5 3-1--
-BAW=-AN
9486 T RBLER AVE.
1 FO TAIN VALLEY , CALIF. �.II
92708 1