HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Element Amendment 87-2(a) - EIR 87-2 - OCTD Propert RESOLUTION NO. 5795
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH APPROVING LAND
USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL
PLAN NO. 87-2a, CONCERNING REAL PROPERTY
NEAR GOTHARD STREET ' AND CENTER AVENUE
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. 87-2a to the General Plan was held by the Planning Commission
on June 2 , 1987; . and
Thereafter the City Council , after giving notice as
prescribed by Government Code Section 65355 , held at least one
public -hearing to consider Land Use Element Amendment No. 87-2a'
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 7.1
Chapter 3, Article 6-of California Government Code commencing with
Section 65350 , that Land Use Element Amendment No . 87-2a
consisting of the following change is hereby adopted as an
amendment to the Land Use Diagram thereof :
That approximately 2 . 7 acres located on the northeast
corner of Gothard Street and Center Drive be redesignated
from Public, Quasi-Public, Institutional to Mixed
Development .
f
The real property affected by this change of use is described
and depicted on Exhibit- A, attached hereto and incorporated by
reference herein.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
adjourned
Huntington Beach at a regular /meeting thereof held on the 27th day
of July 1987 .
Ma G
ATTEST : APPROVED AS TO. FORM :
��/ity Clerk City Attorney
REVIEW ND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED:
C ' dministrator e for C ity
Development
2335L
Res No. 5795
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss:
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH )
I, ALICIA M. WEN VORTH, 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 adjourned meeting thereof held on the 27th day
of July 19 87 by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmen:
Winchell, Finley, Kelly, Erskine. Green
NOES: Councilmen:
None
ABSENT: Councilmen:
Mays
NOT VOTING: Bannister
City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk
of the City Council of. the City
of Huntington Beach, California
LAND USE ELEMENT
AMENDMENT . 87 . . 2a
Environmental ._Impact Report ' . 87-2
huntington beach department of
R ' development services
t
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Land Use Element Amendment 87-2a addresses Area of Concern 2.2 located at the
northeast corner of Gothard Street and Center Drive. Area of Concern 2.1, Meadowlark.
Airport, is covered by Land Use.Element Amendment 87-2c.
Area 2.1 - Meadowlark Airport
Addressed in Land Use Element Amendment 87-2c.
Area 2.2 Northeast Corner of Intersection of Gothard Street and Center Drive. West of
Huntington Center
Area of concern 2.2 is a request by the City or Huntington Beach to change the'General Plan
land use designation on 2.7 acres of land owned by the Orange County Transit District
(OCTD). The current land use designation on the property is Public, Quasi-public,
Institutional. The request is for a change to Mixed Development.
Staff recommends that the land use designation be changed to Mixed Development but that
prior to the granting of any entitlements, further traffic analysis be conducted to address
the circulation concerns identified in Section 2.2.2.5 of this report.
(8579d)
Land Use Categories
AMENDMENTS
PLANNING COM. COUNCIL
DATE RESOLUTION DA EYRESOLUTION �9 RESIDENTIAL
11-6-7 874366
6-7-77 1196 IB-61-77 4484 0'G! eFC S GROG
9-29-77 1202 11-7-77 4551 Ok. 9•Y �?OP 9 i Estate stun/gac
12-6-77 1206 12-19-77 4572 -11
� Estate <_3 un/gac
8-1-78 1232 8-21-78 4660
Estate <_4 un/ ac
10-17-78 1239 11-1878 4708 /'• ( Low Density g
II-21-78 1239 12-IB-78 4708 ;.,••
3-6-79 1242 3-1979 4728
3-18-80 1261 4-7-80 4865 �; /•\ / •'• ^�\ Po-? Medium Density
10-21-80 1268 12-15-80 4936 `•'" ��
5-19-81 1273 6-15-81 5005 .r SAN DIEGO FREEWAY ��/ -,°-�• :• / PpP`` Medium High Density
11-17-8 127E 12-7-81 506 High Density
II-17-81 1279 12-21-81 5060 c0
8-2-82 5147 /
12-20-82 5206 / ✓• \ % '\ - ;;. <' -,.� M Senior Residential
12-7-82 1299 2-7-83 5223 - - `\ _ ;;;:,';=' '\ / /;,;; �, COMMERCIAL
4-4-83 1314 5-16-83 5327 / `/ \ /., s <• - ®General
10-4-83 1314 II_3-84 5327 - - 4� /
12-6-83 1315 -3-84 5341 / - \/ ',:=_•. ._---,-':-: - 6
4-3-84 1317 5-7-84 5373 ® - -_--_- _ _}_' aa' \ -
11-5-84 5457A /' Visitor-Serving
10 16 84 1344 II 19 84 54578
6-4-84 1 4 - - a�t
3 4 7 85 5457C Professional
`\ P
i
Office P
6-17-85 5532 - - ___ - __ _
t /
I-22-86 134 5639
2-I -86 -
MIXED US
ES E S
5-6-8 7 6-2-86 - -5670
Development
- Mixed
_ S
_ nti I
................................................... ...... ................... . ::;;�'.���• • •''''� .�,�� "��"rw�..,_: ffice Reside a
^.
''set•==\
'iii::::::::>::::::::i:::iii:iBiii:i::i:i�• ............
........................................... ................................... � �.�� • • : .... ... �� -w - Commercial.Support Recreation
.................................... k3�.ra���z�.=_�. :� ...... .......... -.,,asp_ ;'1'::.:::,:;::.
:..............._.................... .............................................• �,_�ear,:� . .... .......... .:...
_.................. ................................................. Y,...� n y..:, .;>;:•; •::::::�::�s::�a::.-"�-��.: ° 'rt:�,. a�a�° ,<:::;'.: •\ \ INDUSTRIAL
Genera
/
•\ •e- source Production uct ion
kr<
Re\ i......................................tt:s :s::: Industrial EnergyProduction
V
_ t;=•
_ OPEN SPACE
E
s =
S y
k p
9 -
1
�• MR ater W
9
a
\
P F a
. a.•,,.fir--. . `�s ��'sE�,iiiTiffi r9A Conservation
-'",GS
�Recreation
, .
e
sF�
1_ USE
• ,ti- CO'� THE
�r a„
+ -i,�t-a�
Public Qu
asi-Public,institutional tit do nal
r
Jr 4_ • -
b -
1r�r - -P
•:�r,�':w,.:::,<.� a�v Solid WasteF Facil
ity-te Planned Community
Y
r -
- r -
r : -
f.
g a n Reserve
-
nrr _
- Win
=,ALL u
,_...
-Coastal Zone Boundary
unda r
Y
MEAN
-- Conservation Overlay
- - v
MENsw;
Ea
.o
/ .
,
3E 6----
. n Q
r
y.w.,
tFilm —P
Qel
t'y
0. j..
r_xv
e j
d p
i
I,I5
_ +l
N
.E
♦
- u
I
♦
I
�LL
PACIFIC COAST
Hw
y- — , ° _ ." OCEAN
•"'' - PACIFIC
.��-. _ •.ai.y. r..R.+oJ►': .n:♦.�•i �q �L' _may--.+s =4,» S1+(
PACIFIC OCEAN �� - .•.••e •. •.+ ♦2�„♦w•+ O 0 - 1
I - --- sr4P`aR)S�•r.♦trr�,.�.t4.�:s;a Cas°+.,.� `e+
w m
® GENERAL PLAN
HUNTINGTON BEACH C4LIFORNIA LAND USE DIAGRAM
PLANNING DIVISION i Adopted December1976
Revised JUNE 1986 C'R-11
I
o :
_ Ekf� � foi„Gff
\\ 2.1 r-
,af.O
fu„
* / .row„
wrs
x
� t
• I
i
L. U. E; 87-2 AREAS OF CONCERN
, I
; I
huntington beach planning division
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECT.ION PAGE
1 : 0 INTRODUCTION: . . . . . 1
1 : l Methodology . . . . . : . . . . 1
* 2 . 0 AREAS OF CONCERN . 3
2 . 1 Meadowlark Airport . . . . . . . 3
2 . 1 . 1 -Background 3
2 : 1 :2 History . . . . 3
2 . 1.3 Analysis . . . . . . . 6
2 : 1 . 3 : 1 Land Use: 4 . : . 7
2 . 1 .3 . 2 Housing . . . . 16
2 . 1 . 3 . 3 Economic- Considerations 17
2 . 1 :3 :4 Public Services and Utilities : : : 17
L 1 . 3 . 5 Traffic and Circulation . . . . 17
2 . 1 .3 . 6 Environmental Issues • 34
2 : 1 .2 . 7 Regional Airport/Air Traffic Impacts . . . 39
2 . 1 :4 Staff Recommendation. 40
2 .2 Northwest Corner of Gothard
Street and Center Drive: . . 41
2 .2.. 1 Background . . : : : : 41'
2 .2 .2 Analysis 43
2 . 2 :2 : 1 Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
2 . 2 . 2 :2. Housing • . . . . . . . . 48
2 :2: 2 :3 Economic Considerations . . . 48
2 . 2 . 2 :4 Public Services and Utilities: : 49
2 , 2 .2. 5 Traffic and Circulation 51
2 .2 :2 . 0 Environmental 'Issues . . . : : . . 54
2 -2 .2 . 1 Staff Recommendation. . . . 56
3 . 0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES : 57
3 . 1 Short-Term and Long-Term Productivity . . . 57'
3 . 2 Itteversibible Environmental Changes . . . 58
3 :3 Growth Inducing Impacts 58
* Area of Concern 2 . 1, Meadowlark Airport is addressed in Land Use
Element 81-2cand is not included in this report :
(8510d)
APPENDICES
Appendix A General Assumptions : Area 2 . 1
Appendix B Fiscal Impact Model : Technical Appendices
Appendix C Meadowlark Market Report Outline: Area 2 . 1
Appendix D Traffic: Levels of Service Area 2 . 1
Appendix E Traffic: Analysis of Adjacent Proposed Development :
Area 2 . 1
Appendix F Traffic: Trip Generation: Area 2 . 1
Appendix G Air Quality Calculations : Area 2 . 1
Appendix H Results of Preliminary Soil Investigation:. Area 2 . 1
Appendix I Regional Airport/Air Traffic Impacts Responses :
Area 2 . 1
Appendix J Initial Study
Appendix K Comments and Responses : Area 2 . 1
Appendix L Comments and Responses : Area 2 . 2
ii
LIST OF TABLES
PAGE NO.
1 . Meadowlark Airport Accidents 1980 through 1986 7
2 . Alternative Land Use Concepts : Area 2 -1 10
3 . Student Generation: Area 2 . 1 22
4 .1 Existing Arterial Level of Service for Study Area :
Area 2 . 1 26.-
5 . Future Arterial Level of Service for Study Area :
Area 2 . 1 28
6 . Near Term Afternoon, Peak Hour Intersection Level of
Service: Area 2 . 1 29
7 . Long Term Afternoon Peak Hour Intersection Level
of Service: Area 2 . 1 31
LIST OF FIGURES
1;. Existing Zoning : Area 2 . 1 4
2 . General Plan Designations : Area 2 . 1 5.
3 . Land Use Alternatives : Area 2 . 1 11
4 . Suggested Internal Street System: Area 2 . 1 33
5 . Study Area Including the Bolsa .Fairview and Newport
Inglewood Faults : Area 2 . 1 37
6 . Goldenwest Transportation Center Site Plan: Area 2 . 2 42
7. General Plan .Designations - Existing: Area 2 . 2 46
8 . Zoning Designations Existing: Area 2 . 2 47
iii
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report concerns Amendment 87-2 to the Land Use Element of the
Huntington Beach General Plan. The Land UseJElement was adopted as
a mandated element of the General Plan in December, 1973 ; this is
the thirty-first amendment to the element . Planned land uses
throughout the City are depicted in the attached Land Use Diagram.
1 . 1 Methodology
This amendment concerns changes in General Plan, designations on two
sites . These sites (Areas 2 . 1 and 2 . 2) are covered by Environmental
Impact Report 87-2 contained in this document . The amendment
requests for Areas 2 . 1 and 2 . 2 will be analyzed in terms of the
existing conditions on the site, major land use, circulation and
environmental issues , and' con,sistency with adopted' City goals and
policies .
(0588D) -1-
i
Section 15148 of the State EIR Guidelines states that "The
requirements for an EIR on a local general plan element or amendment
thereof will be satisfied by the general plan or element document
and no separate EIR will be required if : 1) the general plan
addresses all the points required to be in an EIR by Article 9 of
the State EIR Guidelines , and 2) the document contains a special
section or a cover sheet identifying where the general plan document
addresses each of the points required. " In conformance with State
guidelines, this document will constitute the EIRs for Land Use
Element Amendment 87-2 . The environmental setting and significant.
impacts associated with the issue areas identified in the initial
study are addressed under Areas of Concern (Sections 2 . 1 and 2 . 2) .
Alternative land use designations and feasible mitigation measures
to minimize significant effects are also discussed in this section.
Section 3 . 0 addresses overall environmental changes related to the
following considerations : 1) the relationship between local
short-term productivity; 2) irreversible or unavoidable
environmental changes; and 3) growth inducing impacts .
w
(0588D) -2- ,
2 . 2 NORTHEAST CORNER OF GOTHARO STREET AND CENTER DRIVE
2 .2 . 1 Backaround
Item 2 . 2 is a request by the City of Huntington Beach to' change the
General- Plan land use designation on 2. 7 acres of land owned by the
Orange County Transit District (OCTD) . The current lanrI use
designation is Public, Quasi-public, Institut�ioniai . The request is
for a .change to Mixed Development . The site lis bounded on the north
and west. by Gothard" Street, on the east by the Edisoni Electric
Company and Southern Pacific Railroad right-otf-ways, and on the
south by Center Drive. It is also approximately 1, 00'0` feet
northwest of Huntington Center , a regional shopping center. The
site is zoned Community Facilities-Education with a` base, zone' of
R-1,, Low .Density Residential:, CF-E (9-1) . Itl is piesezitly vacant
and unimproved, but is used as al bus stop' by the Orange County
Transit District .
t
On April 15, 198'6, the City Planning Commission approved, C6hditional
Use Permit' (CUP) 85-69 for the subject property to allow the'
development of a transportation center on the site. The approved.
transportation center, which is scheduled for development in the
late 1987, will consist of 117 surface automobile park-and=ride
spaces , three bus bays to serve Greyhound andlairport bus lines, 12
bus bays- for the Orange County Transit District, passenger shell,t'e'rs
and a 1, 2.00 square foot office facility for the Greyhound bus
services . A conceptual design of the transportation center is' shown
in Figure 6 .
(0588D) -41-
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS
GOLDEN WEST
i RA .7r pO��R 1AnON
CR
O.CrD l
M-PE 4L
I I rf
4^ I I
I
aenaw -,
I
I
I F
I I '
I
1 -
1 '
1.
' I
I I
I ,
I
II -
I
I I
i , I
VRr-`
SM PLAN
• NNTB ,
�' - .ylorrtcA tr�c►r[ro r��ucics
GOLDEN WEST TRANSPOWA7loN CENSER TRANSPORTATION CENTER SITE PLAN
S**illman Boatman / Stull 6 Lee AREA 2 . 2 FIGURE 6
CPA 87-2
f -42-
. I
The present zoning and General. Plan designatilon on the subject
property will permit the transportation center as described. A.
condition for approval of the CUP, however, was that "OCTD shall
reserve the ' air rights ' above the subject sifte for possible future
use .(office structure or parking compound) . " I To implement the
condition placed on the CUP by the Planning Commission, OCTD has
proposed a joint development agreement for the site whereby a
private developer will develop an office use labove the approved
transportation center. The office facilities will be coordinated
and/or integrated with the transportation center uses .
A feasibility study on two conceptual development scenarios for such
a joint project has been conducted by Spillman/Boatman/Stull and
Lee. One scenario proposes that office use be built in the air
space above the western portion of the site which is currently
designated as a surface parking facility. The office use in this
scenario would consist of approximately 117, 0,00 square feet of floor
area . The second scenario proposes development of the air space
above the entire transportation center . The Joffice use would
consists of approximately 210, 000 square feet� of floor area . Both
scenarios include parking structures . After Ithorough analysis, the
firm concluded that both alternatives would be economically
feasible. Consequently, OCTD is interested in pursuing a joint
development agreement .
To ,permit the development of the air rights above the transportation
center, the City has initiated this General Plan Amendment . A zone
change from Community Facilites - Education/Low Density Residential
to Commercial with a Multi-story suffix (C4-MS) is being processed
concurrently with the general plan amendment .! The C4-MS zoning can
accommodate the proposed office use with limited commercial use, as
well as the transportation center .
2 . 2 . 2 Analysis
The following analysis examines three development scenarios for the
subject property. The first scenario 'is the I"no-project"
alternative which consists of the already approved transportation
center with no development of the air space above . This would not
require a General Plan Amendment or zone change.
The second and third scenarios analyze the coInceptual development
scenarios offered in the joint development feasibility study
conducted by Spillman/Boatman/Stull and Lee, land include the
approved transportation center plus office/commercial space . Both
of these scenarios would require a general plan amendment and .a zone
change to reflect a Mixed Use general plan dersignation and
Commercial zoning (C4) .
In most cases, when general plan amendment requests are reviewed,
several alternative land uses are analyzed in addition to the
request . In this case, however , only two alternative land uses are
analyzed; the existing Public, Quasi-public, Institutional
designation and the proposed Mixed Use designation. The analysis is
limited to these two alternative land uses due to the special
circumstances of developing the site. j
(0588D) -43-
This analysis is being conducted in order to review the feasibility ..
of carrying out Planning Commission policy; such policy being the
Commissi'on' s desire to promote joint ventureship on the OCTD site.
The 'results of this analysis are to be reviewed by the decision
making body,' as well as the general public, so that an informed
decision regarding the joint venture policy can be made.
Alternative 1 - The 2 . 7 acre site will accommodate the already.
approved OCTD Transportation Center . The transportation center will
consist of the following :
117 Surface park and ride spaces
15 Bus bays
1200 Gross square feet of office space
Scheduled� to be operational in 1987, the transportation center is
expected to serve 900 passengers daily during weekdays , and 1, 820
daily passengers on summer weekends .
(Existing General- Plan designation of Public, Quasi-public,
Institutional will remain.-)
Alternative 2 - The 2 . 7 acre site will accommodate the OCTD
Transportation Center in addition to a 3 . 5 level parking structure
with 492 parking spaces and 117, 000 gross square feet of office
space:
117 Surface park and ride spaces
15 Bus bays
118 , 200 (117, 000 + 1, 200) gross square feet of office space
3 . 5 Level parking structure with 492 spaces
(The existing General Plan designation will be changed to Mixed
Development . )
Alternative 3 The 2 . 7 acre site will accommodate the OCTD
Transportation Center in addition to a 4 . 5 level parking structure ,
with 800 parking spaces and 210, 000 gross square feet of office
space:
117 Surface park and ride spaces
15 Bus bays E
211, 200 '(210, 000 + 1, 200) gross square feet of office space
4 . 5 Level parking structure with 800 spaces
(The existing -General Plan designation will be changed to Mixed
Development . )
a r
(0588D) -44-
► 2 .2 . 2 . 1 Land Use
As shown in Figure 7, the City' s General Plari designates the
property to the east of the site, beyond the 'Edison and Southern
Pacific railroad rights-of-way, as Mixed Development . South of the
subject site, the area is general planned as General Commercial, and
west and north of the OCTD site, the area is general planned Public,
Quasi-public, Institutional .
As indicated in Figure 8, the OCTD site is currently zoned
CF-E (R-1) , Community Facilities-Education wilth a base zone of Low
.Density Residential . The site has carried this zone designation
since December of 1969 , when the CF-E overlay, was placed on the
base zone. The CF-E designation reflected th.e use of the site for
overflow parking from Golden West College . The area to the north
and west is zoned CF-E also. The property tol the east (adjacent to
the site) is zoned R1 . Further to the east the area is zoned as the
North Huntington Center Specific Plan. Southlof the subject site,
the property is zoned C-4 , Commercial .
As previously mentioned, the subject site is presently vacant and
undeveloped, but does serve as a bus stop forJOCTD. The site, is
included in .the Huntington Center Commercial District Redevelopment .
Project Area . The redevelopment plan for this area was adopted in
November of 1984 . A primary objective of the plan is to correct
circulation problems within the project area. Construction of the
transportation center alone will help to alleviate some of the
problems . Further traffic studies will be necessary, however, in
order. to evaluate the impacts of developing office space over the
approved center .
Adjacent land uses to the site are primarily commercial and office.
Huntington Center, a retail shopping mall is located southeast of
the OCTD site. East of the site, beyond the undeveloped Edison and
railroad rights-of-way is a mixed use area which includes the Old
World speciality shopping center and an apartment complex. Further
east is One Pacific Plaza, a mixed use development project
consisting of office space and restaurant use's . An additional
building with a hotel and office is currently under construction at
One Pacific Plaza . Golden West College lies to the west of the
subject site and commercial uses exist south of the site along
Gothard Street .
Staff believes that the proposed development on the subject site
would be compatible with surrounding land uses . It has already been
established that the transportation center to.lbe located at this
site would be a compatible land use, and staff believes that the
addition of office space to the" site will have little additional
impact with regard to land use compatibility. With proper site
design, building design, and setback requirements, a project of this
nature can be seen as a. cohesive extension of the mixed development
uses to the east .
(0588D) -45-
FIGURE 7
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONScow A PL*
'
99 w
a
weu.fti fY OXGATE
L
6 T W STMIN TF;F
77,— v
WHiTNEY DR. NAM AY
i.
ru.ST R-
_.. - crew WAr
LOW DENSITY _ --
R0rKWftL AVE
LL
R I
DARWIN
n
Ll -�`1"
No X
Y OF
MC U4AR _
" &
PUBLIC, QUASI.-PUBLIC., II'ISTITUTIONAL it
MIXED DEVELOPMENT
CF-E
CF-E
CENTER -- AV
E.
n i i
l
I GENERAL COMMERCIAL
O
4D I
I
EDINGER
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS
AREA 2 . 2 FIGURE 7
HUNTINGTON BEACH C4LIFORNIA GPA 87-2
KY PLANNING DIVISION
-46-
FIGURE 8
ZONE DESIGNATIONS
AVE'
3: J
spti
u CITY -- OF _wESTMINSTER
. NTIN:TJN BF,AIH RI
"TNEY 1 GR �hf2Hpv A'!L
a Eo RIE,
m
} 1
Cq �Jf
E EYERE$T CA. L.E DC,A WAY
9
• °�^� , RI�OF RI RI
OI ( TN
'{• ROC KW ELL AVE.
Z AaCKWELL AVE.
OARAIN AVF 4
N oZ W��G
MI a � 111
'TY OF WFSTMINSTER :1
NSUGAN Avg
- a -- CITY - I RI - MI NSTER + -
R I
RI MI
� I k� -
NORTH HUNTINGTON NORTH RUNTINGTON '
CENTF.R SPECIFIC PL4N CF-NTER SFECIFIC PL.:
CF_E .,`
x
2
j C4'MI C2 C2 a --c::r>_s ,:f I. C2 $
' = - ----------------- `-?--
C4
F I I
W _ NEixE si/2-ill s C4 •)x p5o'3D"E-63'
c � BI 3 Ep 29'30"F-655
u� CI xa2•Ix'Ss-E-3l�6'
DI NpiVWE-260' _
[ E7 N 33•1316°W-D6.02'
lW n O i � FI N55•s�'18"w-3Na ii' Q
O u^ I W
CI W C 1 G1 N 20.03'!6"W-e32.21' 50 m
0
1 - �---- —— —750
�I
EDINGER AVE 2�2
ZONEIDESIGNATIONS Y
AREA 12 . 2 FIGURE 8
GPA 87-2
HUNTINGTON BEACH 04LIFORNIN
PLANNING' :DIVISION
-47-
Although land use compatibility is not an issue with this project,
. staff does have some concerns with potential traffic generation from
the proposed development and how it will impact the overall
circulation system in the area . Development of the transportation
center alone may help alleviate circulation problems in the area,
but the development of office use over the transportation center may
in fact exacerbate circulation problems unless mitigation measures
are provided. Traffic/circulation impacts are discussed in more
detail in Section 2 . 2 . 2 . 5 of this report .
2 .2 . 2 . 2 Housing
The proposed project will have no impact on the existing housing
stock within the City. No new units are proposed and the project
itself will not impact any- existing residential units . The new
employees associated with an office development, however, may create
additional demand for housing within the City.
2 .2 . 2 . 3 Economic Considerations
The P1-anning staff utilized its standard fiscal impact methodology
to analyze the alternatives in this amendment . The revenues and
expenditures associated with each -alternative were predicted for one
year for comparison purposes . The fact that the project site is
located in a redevelopment area . is taken, into consideration and the
property tax revenues reflect this . ' The results . are summarized in
the table below. Appendix B contains a summary of the fiscal impact
assumptions .
Alt . #1 Alt . #2 Alt . #3
Revenue $154 $16, 259 $28, 9'93
Cost $2, 966 $10, 051 $15, 683
Revenue - Cost ($2, 812) $6,208 $13 , 310
Revenue/Cost 0 .05 1 . 62 1 . 85
As shown above, Alternative 3 generates the' greatest net revenue and
highest revenue to cost ratio. Conversely, Alternative 1 generates
a deficit and a negative revenue to cost ratio . I.t is important to
note that the ratios shown above do not include property tax
revenues . There are two reasons for this : 1) No property tax is
collected from OCTD itself since it is a public entity; and 2) the
property tax revenue that will be collectible from the
private/non-OCTD uses will go directly into the Huntington Center
Redevelopment Fund until the year 2019 . Normally, property tax
revenues go into the City' s General Fund, - but due to -the site ' s„
redevelopment status, the General Fund will receive no property tax
revenues until the year 2019 , at which time the Huntington Center
Redevelopment Project Area designation will expire.
The figures noted in the table above should be viewed in comparative
terms only rather than as a prediction of exact revenues and costs .
' 1 r
(0588D) -48-
I
h
2 .2 . 2 . 4 Public Services and Utilities
a. Sewers
An eight-inch sewer pipe currently exists. in Gothard Street but ends
just' north of Center` p'rive. The City has approved the extension of
this sewer line in order to serve the approved. transportation
center . The , eight-inch sewer line wi11' a1low sewage from the
project site to `flow (bygravity)' south on Gothard Street to Heil,
then west to Golden West . - From' �there, the sewage will flow to the
Slater` Pump Station which is under County jurisdiction.
The City is currently monitoring the twelve inch sewer line that
runs aiong Heil betweeneGothard' and Golden West as this line is
close to capacity; 'Prior to approval of anyladditional development
on the site` (over and abovea the` previously approved Transportation
Center) , flow, testing should be conducted, !It it is determined that
the= existing sewage pipeline system cannot accommodate the proposed
development. the installation of a parallel line may be necessary.
The County Sanitation District has indicated that although the
Slater'Pump"Station' sj approaching capacity, ;thew alternatives' within
this . study` can be accommodated. The district further notes that if
it= is anticipated that any washing or repair pf buses will be done
_.J .. 1
at the project site, it will be � necessary for� the project proponent
to contact 'the District ' s �lndustria- Waste DiIvision It should be
note the proposed office use would haves no impact on bus
washing orr repai74
r .
b. Water
The subject property is currently served by an eight inch water line
in Gothard Street . After reviewing the development alternatives
containedin' this analysis, mthe 'City' s Pub lic: Works Department
concluded that the existing water distribution system is, capable of
supporting any of the p ns proposed developmet . This conclusion was
based on the assumption that normal water main extensions willbe
constructed with any newd.eyelo,pment and was-qualified by the
statement that a computer model ` of the water distribution system was
not available to verify. the assessment . Prior to. .any, alternative
development .on the ,site, a computer analysisshould be performed' to
verify any 4possible, capacity constraints .
(0588D) -49-
c. Storm Drains
The storm water runoff (sheet flow) from the site will be the same
whether the air-rights over the transportation center are developed
or not . The proposed office use will not increase the amount of
site coverage or impervious surface and, therefore, will not impact
the city' s drainage -system. Storm water from the site `will flow
south on Gothard Street to Edinger Avenue into the underground storm
water drainage system.
d. P-slice and Fire Protection
Police service for the area is provided by the City of Huntington
Beach which operates from a central facility located at Main Street
and Yorktown Avenue_ . Based on City Police Department planning
standards, whereby an additional 535 calls per year- constitutes the
need for ari additiional office, none- of the alternatives' herein will ,
generate the need fo.r additional police officers .
Fire protection for the subject site can-` be provided by the' City of
Huntington Beach from the Murdy Station located at' Murdy and
Got-hard. The response ° time to' this site'- is approximately two (2)
minutes which is well within the department ' s °five minute response-'.
time standard . It should 'be noted that 'any building over 5, 000
square feet or three stories will ' require a sprinkler system for '
fire protection. a
e. Parks ,
Neither the transportation facility nor the proposed office
alternative will directly-create a demand for park facilities .
However, since a housing demand may be created by future employees
of the project, an ` indirect demand for park sites may be created .
This demand cannot be quantified at -this time .
f . Schools
Neither the transportation facility nor the proposed office
alternative will directly create a demand - for' public school
facilities . However, since ' a housing demand may be created by
future employees of the project; an indirect demand for public
school facilities may be created._ Such an indirect demand cannot be
quantified at this time.
(05$$D) - -50-
g. Gas and Electrical Utilities
Natural gas service is provided by the Southern California Gas
Company. There is a three inch gas main under Center Drive and in
Gothard Street . , According to the Gas Company' s Atlas sheets, the "
Gothard Street gas main currently terminates just north of the
intersection of Gothard Street and Center Drive. The Company has
indicated that gas service to any of the land use alternatives
contained herein could be served by the existing main without any
significant impact on the environment . The service would be in
accordance with the Company' s policies and extension rules on file
with the California Public Utilities Commissilon at the time
contractual agreements are made. The Company has developed several,
energy conservation techniques for projects o;f this nature and is
willing to provide these to developers . Stafif recommends that any
available energy saving techniques. be incorporated_ into the project
where feasible.
It should be noted that since the Gas Company is a public utility_
and is under the jurisdiction of federal and g state regulator
y
agencies, gas supply may be affected by the overall availability of
natural gas, and by state and federal regulatory policies .
Electrical service is provided by the Edison Company. Adequate
electrical power supply can be provided from 112 • KV distribution
lines in the vicinity of the area of concern. Edison notes that the
total electrical system demand is expected tolcontinue to increase
annually. However, excluding any unforeseen problems, their plans
for new generation resources indicate that their ability to serve
all customer loads during peak demand periods1will be adequate for
the remainder of the decade.
h. Solid waste Disposal
The Rainbow Disposal Company provides solid waste collection to ' the
City of Huntington Beach., The Company has indicated that no service
constraints are anticipated under any of the land use designations .
Internal circulation within any project should be designed' to
accommodate the Company' s refuse trucks so as not to require any
backing up- of the trucks within the project .
2 . 2 . 2 . 5 Traffic and Circulation
The circulation analysis contained in this section assumes the
development of the OCTD Transportation Centerfas approved. Trip
generation information and intersection capacity analyses were
obtained from the Traffic Impact and Parking Demand study prepared
for OCTD by Greer and Company in 1985 .
(0588D) - 51-
r
Present Conditions
The project site is located at the northeast corner of the
Gothard/Center intersection, approximately 2300 feet south of the `
San Diego Freeway ( I-405) . ' The site has approximately 750 feet of
frontage along Gothard Street and 350 feet along Center Drive.
The I-405 is the major regional traffic carrier in the project
vicinity. Freeway on and off ramps serving the project site are
provided at Beach Boulevard and Golden West Street.
Gothard Street has a north-south alignment adjacent to the project
site . . It is designated as a secondary arterial in the City' s i
circulation element of the- General Plan, and extends from Garfield
Avenue to ' McFadden Avenue. ' Between Center Drive and Edinger Avenue,
Gothard Street has four lanes divided by a two-way, left turn lane.
A painted median divides the four lanes between Center and McFadden
Avenue. There are left turn pockets on Gothard Street at Center,
Edinger and McFadden.
In March, 1985 , the city estimated the average daily traffic volume
(ADT) on Gothard Street , between Edinger and McFadden, to be
16 , 600 . Assuming a one percent growth rate per year, the 1987 ADT
would be approximately 16, 933 . The maximum design capacity of
Gothard is -20, 000 ADT. The traffic study by Greer and Company
indicates that, the transportation center alone will have minimal
impact- on the present ADT on- Gothard near the subject site. During
the P.M. peak hour, an estimated 130 passenger vehicle trips and 64
bus trips will be generated. (Estimates of the total number of auto
and bus trips generated daily are not available. ) The traffic study
further concludes that the intersections at, Center and Gothard,
Edinger and Gothard and Gothard and McFadden will maintain a level
of service* B during P.M. peak hour traffic even with the
development of the transportation center .
Center. Drive has an east-west alignment adjacent to the project site
and is also designated as a secondary arterial in the city' s
circulation element . Center Drive extends from Gothard Avenue to
Beach Boulevard and is essentially a four lane roadway with a design
capacity of 20, 000 ADT. Traffic figures for current estimated ADT
on Center Drive are not available. As mentioned previously, the
Greer and' Company Traffic Study indicates that turning movements at
the Center/Gothard intersection will remain at level of service B
with the development of the approved transportation site.
As indicated in the site- plan in Figure 2-1, access to' the approved
transportation center will be taken via Gothard Street for
automobiles; there will be one driveway for both ingress and
egress . Bus traffic will enter the site via Gothard Street but will
exit the site at Center Drive.
* Levels of service are defined as A through F. A description of
the six levels of service is contained in Appendix D of this
report .
(0588D) -52- '
In summary, assuming the development of the Transportation Center,
as approved (without the development of the air rights above the
center) , traffic circulation in the project area will maintain
acceptable levels of service.
Projected Traffic Volumes
Daily traffic volumes projected "to be generated by the alternative
land .uses are the following :
Average Daily
Alternative Traffic Generation
1 . - Approved OCTD (Information not
Transportation Center available)
'2, - Approved OCTD 1775 auto oriented
Transportation Center trips (15/ks£)
plus : 117, 000 gross
square feet of office
. space
3 - Approved OCTD 3150 auto oriented f
Transportation Center trips (15/ksf)
plus : 210 , 000 gross
square feet of office
space.
As indicated• in the table above, the third alternative would
generate the greatest amount of daily automobile trips. Gothard
Street will be impacted most by this traffic since both ingress and
egress to the project site is proposed to betaken from this
street. Given the design capacity of Gothard Street (20, 000) , the
•ADT associated with development of Alternative 2 may place the
arterial very close to capacity. Development of Alternative 3 may
cause the design capacity of Gothard Street to be exceeded.
Gothard Street Re-alignment
The existing Gothard/McFadden intersection is proposed to be
relocated so that Gothard Street will align with Hoover Street in
Westminster, north of the San Diego Freeway. 1 The City Council '
approved the realignment of Gothard Street between Center Drive and
McFadden Avenue by Resolution Number 5647 and Ordinance Number
2827 . The realignment will take a portion of the transportation
center site at the northern most point, but should not impact the
proposed site design. Greer and Company analyzed the impacts of the
potential realignment with the approved transportation center in
year 2000 . The study concluded that the Level of Service (LOS) at
the Center/Gothard, Edinger/Gothard and Gothard/McFadden
intersections will go from LOS B in 1987 to LOS E, C, and D,
respectively in the year 2000 . Level
(0588D) -53-
of Service E is unacceptable. It should be noted that the Greer and f.
Company analysis considered only the impacts of the development of
the approved transportation center and not the additional
development of the air space above. Such development would
presumably have an even greater negative impact on the levels of
service.
In summary, staff has the following concerns with regard to proposed
development of Alternatives 2 and 3 and their impact on traffic
circulation in the area .
. 1 . Single point access (ingress/egress) to the. site on Gothard
Street for auto oriented traffic .
Given the projected volumes of traffic to be utilizing the
site, one access point may be inadequate.
2 . Gothard Street design capacity.
Again, given the projected traffic volumes, the present
design capacity on Gothard Street may not adequately
accommodate the traffic generated by the site.
•3.. Turning movements and intersection capacity.
As indicated by the Greer and Company Traffic Study,
turning movements at the nearby intersections may be at
unacceptable levels of service by year 2000 even without
the development of the air rights above the transportation
center . . Without traffic circulation mitigation measures,
development- of the air rights . as proposed may be infeasible.
A primary objective of the Huntington Center Commercial District
Redevelopment Project Area Plan is to correct the problems within
the project area with regard ,to circulation. . The subject site is a
part of this plan and as such, should comply with the plan' s goals
and objectives .
In view of this and given the concerns noted above, staff recommends
that further detailed traffic studies for the area be completed.-- .-
The new .traffic studies should take into consideration the proposed
development -and its potential impact on the surrounding circulation
system,• in- addition to staff ' s specific concerns .
2 . 2 . 2 . 6 Environmental Issues
a . . Noise Exposure
Noise exposure on the property ranges from 60 ldn to 65 ldn, with
the area fronting Gothard being the nosiest . The existing noise
levels on the property, - pre-transportation center development, fall
within the normally acceptable range for office use. The maximum
i
i
(0588D) -54-
acceptable- noise level for office use is 75 Idn. The noise,
generated by the approved transportation center will have to be
considered if office space is developed above the OCTD Center .
Double paned windows and noise-proofed construction materials may, be
necessary for the office building.
b. Air Quality
Development' of the air rights above the approv ed transportation
center, as depicted in both Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 , would
adversely affect the ' air quality in the South Coast Air Basin, The
adverse affects would be due, primarily, to increased automobile
traffic generated by the office use'. Projected daily emissions from !
the proposed uses are indicated in Appendix GI of this document .
c. Seismic, .-.Soils, Geology and Flood Hazard
In compliance with the Alquist-Priolo Geologic Hazards Zones Act of
1974 , a special studies zone which includes the Newport Inglewood
earthquake fault has been established in Huntington Beach. This
special studies zone does not extend into thelproject area .
Therefore,.. the proposed development of the ai'r rights above the
transportation center need not be subject to the zone ' s specific
seismic safety requirements .
However, since the subject site is- located in an area susceptible to
liquifaction ( a- phenomenon where ,the soil structure collapses and
subsidence of the ground occurs) , it will be 'appropriate to address
the mitigation of potential seismic hazards when a specific project
is proposed and development entitlements are `requested. In addition
to the liquifaction potential on the site, the soils have a moderate
to high shrink-swell potential due to the clay content . This soil
characteristic should also be considered in the structural design of
the project .
The study area is located in Flood Insurance Rate. Map (FIRM) zone
"B. " Zone "B" indicates areas between iimits1of the 100 year flood
and 500 year flood; or certain areas subject to 100 year flooding
.with average depths less than one (1) foot orlwhere the contributing
drainage area is less than one square mile; or areas protected by
levees from the base flood. For structures within this zone, no
. . flood mitigation measures are required by the Federal Emergency
Management Agnecy or by the City zoning code.
According to the State Department of Conservation' s Division of Oil
and Gas maps, no oil wells exist in the development site area .
(0588D) -55-
2 . 2 . 3 Staff Recommendation
In order -to,-carry out policy set by the Planning Commission to
encourage joint ventureship on the OCTD site, staff recommends
approval of General Plan Amendment 87•-2, area- 2 -2 . Approval, of. this
request will change the land use designation on the site from
Public, Quasi-public, Institutional to Mixed Development . Staff
also recommends approval of Zone Change 87-2 from CF-E (R-1) ,
Community Facilities - Education with a base• zone of Low Density
Residential, to C-4 - - MS, Commercial District -with a Multi-story
Suffix.
Staff recommends approval in concept of Alternative Two as proposed
herein. However; it- is also- recommended• that', prior to the granting
of any entitlements , further traffic analysis be conducted to
address the circulation concerns identified in Section 2 . 2 . 2 . 5 of
this report . The detailed traffic study will provide the final
analysis of the 'amount of 'building square footage which can. be
accommodated� onthe site .
i
(4588D) -56-
1
f r
3 .0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES I
In accordance with California Environmental Quality_ Act guidelines,
an environmental assessment is required" to " a(llress short team and
long-term_ effects, irreversible environmental changes, and growth
inducing impacts of the total project or plan. This sectrori
analyzes these concerns in context of the recommended land use
.. .
changes in Section 2 . 0 .
3 . 1 Short-Term and Long-Term Productivity
Amendment 87-2 does not in and of itself create long term impacts .
Rather, it makes changes in the general type of land uses that may
be allowed on a particular area at the time o`f development .
Amendment 87-2 seeks to identify short-range issues withrin a .context
of lon ° <' " 'long:.-.range goals, policies, and environmental planning parograms .
The amendment itself acts as�� a mitigation measure designed to
minimize any adverse effects on long-term productivity resulting
from short-term uses . e
One of the steps required to implement the amendment is an analysis
of the zone` changes necessary to bring the zoning into conformance
with, the General Plan. The zoning changes that would result ,would
have significant short-term effects, such as creating non-conforming
uses, reducing or increasing intensity of development p.ermitt,.ed, and
providing stimulus for <development .
�
(0588D) -57-
f
3 . 2 Irreversible Environmental Changes
The Amendment EIR addresses mitigation measures for most adverse
effects . However, irreversible environmental change of a secondary
nature can be expected from development under the proposed
amendments . Loss of open space will occur as vacant land is
converted to other uses . Although the option to recycle the land to
open space after development is available, it is probably not
economically feasible . Alteration of topography will be an
irreversible change. Although mitigating measures can be imposed as
part of the development process, the natural topography will
experience a negligible degree of modification. Construction
materials of mineral origin will also be needed for development to
occur, and fossil fuels will be committed for long periods to
satisfy local energy demand. However, such development would be
consistent with existing land use designations .
3 . 3 Growth Inducing Impacts
The proposed amendment will also have growth inducing effects within
the area of concern. An additional population of 1, 931* persons
could be generated by uses under Land Use Element Amendment 87-2,
thereby crating an increased demand on public services and utilities
and incrementally affecting air quality, water quality, traffic, and
noise levels .
The demand for water and 'energy will likely increase as a result of
the proposed land uses in this amendment . conservation measures
such as those outlined below can be implemented City-wide to reduce
these impacts .
Water
Interior •
1 . Supply line pressure: water pressure greater than 50 pounds
per square inch (psi) can be reduced to 50 psi or - less by..
means of a pressure-reducing valve.
2 . Drinking fountains : ' Drinking fountains can be equipped -with
self-closing valves . ' .
3 . , Laundry Facilities : Water--conserving models of washers can
-be used.
4 . Restaurants : Water-conserving models. of dishwashers can be
used or spray emitters that have been retrofitted for reduced
flow. Drinking water can be served upon request only.
* The Alternatives listed in Area 2 . 1' will generate an additional
population ranging from 1, 394 to 1, 931 . . The alternatives listed
" in` Area 2 . 2 will not directly generate any additional population
,ink Huntington Beach.
(0588D) -58-
5 : Ultra-low-flush toilets : 1 1/' 2 gallon per flush toilets can
be installed in all new constructions .
1
6 . Bus and car washing uses : A permit from the Orange County
Sanitation Districts will be require for' such uses .
Exterior :
1 . Landscape with low-water-using plant wherever feasible .
2 . Minimize use of lawn by limiting it to lawn-dependent uses,
such as playing fields . When lawn is used, require warm
season grasses .
3 . Group plants of similar water use to reduce over irrigation
of, law-water using plants .
4 . Provide information to occupants regarding benefits of
low-water-using landscaping and sources of additional
assistance
5 . Use mulch extensively in all landscaped areas . mulch
applied .on top of soil .will improve the water-holding
capacity of the soil by reducing evaporation and - soil
compaction, f
6 . Preserve and protect existing trees and shrubs . Established
Plants are often adapted to low-water-using conditions and
their use saves water needed to establish replacement
vegetation.
7. Install efficient irrigation systems ithat minimize runoff
and evaporation and maximize the water that will reach the
plant roots . Dip irrigation, soil moristure sensors; and
automatic irrigation systems are a few mehtods of increasing
irrigation efficiency.
8 . Use pervious paving material whenever feasible to reduce
surface water runoff and aid in ground water recharge.
9 . Grade slops so that runoff of surface water is minimized.
10 . Investigate the feasibility of utilizing reclaimed waste
water, stored rainwater, or grey water for irrigation.
11 . Encourage cluster development, which can reduce the amount
of land being converted to urban use . I ' This will reduce the
amount of impervious paving created and thereby aid in
ground water recharge. I
12 . Preserve existing natural drainage as and encourage the
incorporation of natural drainage systems in new
developments . This aids ground water recharge.
(05,88D) -59-
13 . _ To aid in ground- water recharge, preserve' flood plains and
aquifer recharge areas as open space.
14 . Encourage tertiary treatment of and reuse of the return flow
of public water suppli;es wherever such use is acceptable and
safe.
Gas , Electric, Air. .Quality:
1 . Prohibit the use of open gas lighting in public or private
buildings .
2 . If lighting is included in the parking It and/or recreations
area, energy efficiency lamps shall be used (e.g . high
pressure sodium vapor, metal halide) . All outside lighting
shall be directed to prevent "spillage" onto adjacent
properties .
3 . Strategically place electric lights to maximize their
efficiency. Their size and power consumption should be
minimized as much as possible.
4 . Discourage electrical heating in public and private
structures . Encourage solar--assisted heating systems .
5 . Encourage the use of reflecting and/or insulting glass in
structures where windows are not shaded by exterior
architectural projections or natural plants .
6 . Information on equipment or facilities which may generate
air pollutants shall be submitted to the South Coast Air.
Quality Management District staff for their review prior to
the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy . for any ,use
within the building .
7 . Commercial and office projects should provide on--site day
care facilities where feasible in order to reduce private
vehicle trips . Ride share programs should also be
encouraged. Restaurants and other shopping opportunities
should be encouraged in major employment centers to further
reduce the need for private vehicle trips from the site.
7
(0588D) -60-
w
APPENDIX A
GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS
AREA 2 . 1
i
GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS: AREA 2.1
DENSITY POPULATION SEWAGE TRAFFIC STUDENTS POLICE FIRE PARKS
(Units/ Persons/ GPD/AC Daily Trips/ Students/Unit
Acre Unit (Peaking Dwelling Units Edison/H.B. High Calls/Unit/''r Calls/Unit/Yr Ac/1000 Pop.
LAND USE Factor 2.5)
Low Density
Residential 7 3.27 2020 9 .21/.26 6 .07 .92
Mobile Home 9 1.5 2020 4.8 . 12/.04 .15 .07 .92
Medium Density
Residential 15 2 3880 7 .12.04 7 .07 .92
Medium High
Density
Residential 25 1.75 5820 5 .12/04 .7 .07 .92
Senior Citizen
Residential 37 1.5 5820 3.3 0 .1 .18 .92
Commercial 30% of 0 3230 600 0 .006 calls/ N/A .92
gr. acreage Sq. Ft.
(0588D)
APPENDIX, B
FISCAL IMPACT MODEL
TECHNICAL APPENDICES
E
FISCAL' IMPACT MODEL
TECHNICAL APPENDICES
Major revenue and cost impacts are assessed in this analysis for the
first full year after development of the proposed project (or
alternative) , in current year dollars . Assumptions and planning
factors have been derived from staff research, other agency data and .
private sector sources . Implementation of the model has been aided
by the use of a Burroughs B--26 micro-computer using Enhanced
Multi-plan software.
There are three reas of concern analyzed in General Plan Amendment
87-2 ; 2 . 1 and 2 . 2 and 5 . 1 . The technical appendix for the fiscal
analysis for area 5 . 0 is contained in section 5 . 0 of this report .
This technical appendix contains information for areas 2 . 1 and 2 . 2
only. . Area of concern 2 . 1 contains six alternatives and area of
concern 2 . 2 containes three alternatives . The following list
identifies each area of concern and the alternatives contained
therein. The information given below includes the proposed project,
estimated market valuations for each alternative and the estimated
population generated by each residential scenario
AREA 2. 1:
Alternative 1 - Existing Use
Airport including : administrative building, Meadowlark Cafe,
gasoline sales, flight school, air craft repair facilities and
residential unit . Total assessed value = $1, 746 , 949 .
Alternative 2 -- Low Density Residential and Mobile Home
385 Single family detached units
$200 , 000 per unit market value
- 1, 259 residents based on 3 . 27 people/unit
90 Mobile homes
- $50, 000 per unti market value
$246, 150 assessed land value for 10 acre mobile home site
135 residents based on 1. 5 people/unit
Total population = 1, 394
Total market value = $122,246, 150
Alternative 3 - Low & Medium Density .Residential and Commercial
Retail
- 245 Single family detached units
- $200 , 000 per unit market value
- 801 residents based on 3 . 27 people/unit
- 300 Condominium units
- $150, 000 per unit market value
- 600 residents based on 2 people/unit
- 130 , 680 square feet of retail commercial development
- 104 , 544 square feet of leasable space
- Land value = $327, 500 @ $32, 756/acre
- Construction value = $7, 840, 800 @ $60 square feet
- Total population = 1,401
- Total market value = $102, 168, 300
Alternative 4 - Medium Density Residential and Commer ia1 Retail.
825 Condominium units
$150, 000 per unit market .value
1; 650 residents based on 2 people/unit
130 , 680 square feet of retail commerciall development
104 , 544 square feet of leasable space
Land value = $327, 500 @ $32, 750/acre
Construction value = $7, 840, 800 @ $60/acre
Total population = 1, 650
Total market value= $131, 590 , 800
Alternative 5 - Medium Density, Medium-high Density and Senior
Citizens Residential Developments and Commercial
Retail f
- 450 Condominium units
$140, 000 .per unit market value
- 900 residents based on 2 people/unit
375 Apartment/townhome Units
$100000 per unit market value
656 residents based on 1 . 75 people/unit
250 Senior citizen units
$50 , 000 per unit market value
375 residents based on 1 . 5 people/unit
- 196 , 020 square feet commercial retail development
156 , 816 square feet of leasable space
Land value = $425, 750 @ $32, 750/acre
- Construction value = $12, 775 , 010 @ $63/square Foot
Total population = 1, 931
Total market value = $125 , 775, 010
Alternative 6 - Low Density, Medium Density, ?Medi'um-high Density and
Senior Citizen Residential Pllus Commercial
- 64 Single family units
- $2-00,'000 per unit market value
209 residents based on 3 . 27 people/unit
429 Condominium units
$140, 000 per unit market value
838 residents based on 2 . 0 people/unit
375 Apartment/townhome units
$100 , 000 per unit market value
656 residents base on 2 . 0 people/unit
* Estimate provided by Richard Harlow appli.cant ' s project manager .
r
•
- 108 Senior- .citizen units �.
$50, 000 per' unit market value
162 residents based on 1 . 5 people unit
159 ,430 square feet commercial development
- 127, 544 square feet of leasable space
Land value = $491, 250 ,@.$32, 750/acre
Construction value = '$9 , 565 , 800 @ $60 square foot
Total population = 1, 883
Total market value , ,$125, 817, 050
Each revenue and cost category used in this analysis is detailed in
table format . This format enables the reader to follow the
rationale.,used _to achieve - the results which are summarized in the
report ., Summary tables. follow the conclusion of this text .
Detailed tables are available upon request .
AREA 2 . 2 :
It should be noted that the subject . site is located within an
established redevelopment area . Property taxes collected from this
site will go into the Redevelopment Fund for Huntington Center•,• not
the City' s General Fund. The redevelopment area was established in
1984 for 35 years .
Alternative 1 - Existing Use
Approved transportation center including 117 surface park and
ride spaces, 15 bus bays and. a 1,.200 square foot office
building for Greyhound ticket sales . Total assessed value
$1, 581, 704 . Total taxable value = $114 , 204 (this figure ,
excludes the land value since OCTD is not required to pay
property taxes) .
- 1, 200 square feet of office development
- Construction value $114 ,204 C $95 . 171 square foot
Alternative 2 - Office Use in Airspace Above Transportation Center
- Approved transportation center described in Alternative 1
above, plus a 3 . 5 level parking structurte with 492 spaces and
117, 000 gross square fet of office space.
Construction value = $11,279 , 970 @ $96 .41/square , foot
93 , 600 square feet of leasable space
- Land value = 1,467, 500
Market value (total) _ $12 , 861, 674
Alternative 3 -
Approved transportation center as described in Alternative 1
above, plus a 4 . 5 level parking structure with 800 spaces and
210., 000 gross square feet of office space
I
- Construction value = $19', 706,400 @ $93 . 84/square foot
168 , 000 square feet of leasable space
Land value = $1,467, 500
Market value (total) = $21, 288 , 104
1.0 REVENUES
-1. 1 Property Tax
Property tax revenue is derived from county property tax placed on
new development, which is one percent of the market value of the
land and (or) improvements . Of that one percent, the City of
Huntington Beach collects, through the Generall Fund, a specific
percent of the revenue, determined by the tax rate area (TRA) in
which the proposed project (or alternative) ils located. The City is
divided into twenty-eight (28) TRA' s ranging from TRA 04-001 to TRA
04--045 .
The TRA applicable to GPA 87-2 are the following :
IRA' s PERCENT OF 11%
REVENUE COLLECTED
Area 2 . 1
04-007 19 . 2%
Area 2 . 2
04-026 19 . 1%
Market value assumptions were based on:
1 . Residential unit value - current residential sales in the
City. - .1 -
2 . Commercial square footage -` Caldwell Banker real estate
development division, Mike Browning real estate analyst . .
Spillman, Boatman/Stull & Lee Golden West Transportation
Center Joint Development Study for OCTD, October 1:986
3 . Commercial land - Orange County tax assessor tax rolls ,
assessed market valuation of land or iand minus improvements .
i.
1 . 2 Sales Tax
The State of California places a six percent sales tax on retail
sales .- - Of that six percent the City receives 16 . 6 percent or one
cent for every six cents collected. %
Sales tax for residential projects is based on an estimated family
income determined by the unit or house value . The annual retail
sales tax collected is then derived from the Internal Revenue
Service "Optional State Sales Tax Tables . "
It is assumed that a large percent of Huntington Beach residents .
spend retail dollars outside of the City. Therefore, it is
estimated that for every new resident the City captures only 40
percent of the annual retail sales tax revenue generated by that
resident .
Commercial retail sales tax revenue is based on an estimated sales
per gross .le,asable square. feet, (80 percent of the total -building.
square footage) derived from the Dollars and Cents of Shopping
Centers, compiled and published by the Urban Land Institute.
For the applicants proposed development (Alternative 5)� and
Alternatives 3_, 4 . and 6 , • it 'is assumed that a community shopping
center would be appropriate for the commercial portion of the
subject site . A community center typically contains an array of
business that would include: a supermarket, chain drug store,
restaurant , clothing store, etc. There usually are services that do
not generate retail sales such as a cleaners, hair stylist and a
bank. These uses that- do not generate sales tax revenue would
comprise approximately 10 percent of the community center . Within
this 10 percent, the portion of the supermarket that does not
generate retail sales tax is also included.
1 . 3 Utility User and Franchise Tax
Huntington Beach collects a five percent utility user tax on the
annual sales of electricity, natural gas, water, telephone and cable
television services in the City.
A franchise tax of •one - percent of the annual electricity sales and
four percent of the annual natural gas sales is collected from the
respective utility providers in the City.
Factors used for this section of the analysis areas follows.
Electricity
According to the California Energy Commission, average electricity
changes are:
Residential $36 . 99 per unit, per month*
Commercial = . 0894 cents per kilowatt hour, -using 12 . 2 KWH
per square foot per year applied to commercial and
recreation developments .
Natural Gas
Average natural gas charges are:
Residential = $33 . 02 per unit, per month
Commercial = $. 669 per million BTU' s, using an annual rate
of .42 BTU' s .per square foot applied to commercial and
recreational developments .
water
Based on City Water. Department analyses :
9
Average residential water billing is $18 . 69 for a two" month
period, per unit .
Data on commercial billing can not be identified per unit or store
because one water meter -may service many units or stores . -
`Commercial water customers include all customers except residential
and comprise approximately 27 percent of the water billings in the
City.
Research is in progress in order to attempt to estimate revenue
generated by commercial water customers . Therefore, commercial
water billing .revenue is not included in this analysis .
Telephone
General Telephone is unable to provide the City with any data on
average phone billings for residential or commercial customers .
They do not compile the type of information that would be
appropriate for a fiscal analysis . **
An average estimated residential telephone bill is forty -dolla.rs
($40 . 00) per month. This data was derived from the Holly Property
EIR. However, there are no studies available at this time f-ram
either public or private sources that could enable staff to estimate
an average commercial telephone billing.
* Figures have been rounded in the analysis
** John Kiefer, General Telephone, Tax Payment Department
i
Cable Television
For cable T:V. service in the City, the basic rate paid by residents
is $12 . 50 per month. {This figure was rounded to $13 . 00 in the
analysis . } It is assumed that all new residents in the City will
subscribe to the cable service.
1 .4 Business License Fee
The City requires all businesses , commercial and industrial, in the
City to have a license. Business license fees are- based on the
number of employees per business and also a fee per number of
trucks . It is not feasible to estimate the number of trucks per
business, but employees have been estimated based on the following
assumptions .
An Urban Land Institute study reported an average of 10, 776 square
feet per business in a community shopping center . The common
planning actor used for retail commercial business is one employee
per 500 square feet of leasable space.
For a non-retail business such as a bank, - the employee per square
foot factor that is applicable is one employee per 250 square feet.
However, since the majority of uses in a community center are
retail, only the retail employee factor per square feet will be used
in this analysis .
1 . 5 Additional Revenue
F
Additional revenue is generated by new residential . development on a
per capita basis . This revenue is derived from funds* collected by
the State of California that are distributed back to local
municipalities using a formula that is primarily based on that
municipality' s population. In the Preliminary City Budget, Fiscal
Year 1986-1987, four major revenue items are applicable to this .
analysis . Based on the January 1986 State Department- of Finance
population estimate for Huntington Beach of 184 , 300, the revenues
are calculated as follows :
Fines . Forfeitures and Penalties is $2, 195, 000 divided by
184 , 300 equals $11 . 90 per capita .
Cigarette Tax- is $532, 100 divided by 184 , 300 equals $2 . 89 per,
capita .
Motor Vehicle In--Lieu Tax is $5, 248, 000 divided by 184, 300 and
equals $28 .48 per capita .
Gas= Tax Funds (2107 and 2107. 5) are $1, 620, 600 divided by.
184 ,300 equaling $8 . 79 per capita .
* State subventions .
2.0 COSTS '
Research and discussions with each department have resulted in the
application of different methods to assess relative costs . These
results depended on the amount of data available and the level of
automation in each department. For example, Ithe police department
has the most sophisticated data analysis related to activity .by type
of land use. Working with police department computeri2ed archival
data it was possible to assess the number of calls for a particular
type of land use;- The number of calls has aidirect relationship to
the number of officers needed, and, ultimately, a recomrriendatiori for
the hiring of additional officers based on the impacts from
development .
2 . 1 Cost Assumptions
The City of Huntington Beach Preliminary Budget, Fiscal Year
1986-1987, was used as the primary source for`' this section of the
analysis . Capital expenditures were excluded from the budget as
they are not applicable to the proposed development . The applicable
programs under each budget item can generally be assigned to
privately developed acreage in the City on the following basis:
Residential land uses comprise approximately178 percent of privately
developed acres, commercial land uses comprise 10 petcent anal
industrial land uses comprise 12 percent : Where appropriate; this
land use distribution will be used to assess ccost impacts-: '
2.2 General and Administration Ex endituresi
While this fund includes numerous programs (altotal of 20) ; new
development would measurably impact orily the non-departmental
(budget program lbl) category. Non-departmental activities range
from City utility expenditures to liability program expenditures and
comprise; of -the 1986-87 budget, $7, 950 , 300 .
The most equitable method of distributing this expenditure is on a .
cost per acre, regardless of the type of landl use . There are
approximately . 12,230 privately developed acres in the City and
divided into the above budget figure results 'in a cost per acre'- of
$650 .
i
2 . 3 Police Department
From surveys of major land uses- in the City police calls per itype of
development were derived. The police calls by type of land use are
as follows.:
s
POLICE CALLS/UNIT
LAND .USE OR SQUARE FEET "
, .Residential, .
-Single family . 60/uni.t
-Multi-family
low density . 70/unit
-Multi-family
Multi-story and high density . 55/unit
Commercial' 1/1693 square .feet
Office and retail or . 0006 calls per
square foot
Industrial 1/2328 square feet
or . 0004 calls per
square foot ,
Calls relate to the number of additional, officers per year that
would be needed. to service new- development . A• patrol bfficer.' s
average annual salary, including benefits, is $54 , 000 . Five or more
officers would result in capital expenditures, such as a vehicle .
When calls per year reach 535, the Police Department would recommend
hiring an officer . For .the. purpose of this analysis, it will be. . .
assumed that the Department will incur a cost whether the calls for
a particular project reach 535 - or a portion of . that total. Calls by
type of land use and estimated annual costs for alternatives in each
area are shown in detailed tables that are available upon request .
2 . 4 Fire Department
It is the the assessment of Fire Department Staff, ' primarily Tom
Poe. (Deputy Fire Marshall, Fire-. Prevention Division) , that new
residential development will impact two programs : Public Safety _
Administration, Program No.. 300 and Public Safety, Fire Control
Program 302 . The total 1986-1987 budget for these programs, minus
capital expenditures, is $7, 528, 860 . The majority of public safety
activity, approximately 75 percent, is provided to residential land
uses in the City. Assuming costs for public safety on a per capita
basis the result would be as follows :
($7 , 528, 860) ( . 75) _ $5 , 646 , 645 divided by the 1986 City population
of 184 , 300 = $31 per capita .
` Commercial land uses , however, have `a relatively small impact on the
Fire Department , Six percent of Fire Safetylservic_ e (programs_ 300
and .302) can be attributed to commercial uses, or ( . 06)
{$7, 528, 860)=$451, 732 . In addition to Fire Safety, •Commercial uses
also impact program 1308, Hazmat Response Unit'. It is estimated that
.. , ,
.25percent of lie 1986-87 program budged or ( . 25) ($36, 130) _ $9 , 033
can' e' attributed to commercial uses . Of the three programs the
total cost is $460, 765 . r Applied on a per acre basis the cost
distribution is $460, 765 divided by 1223 commercial acres $377 per
acre.
2 . 5 Community Services
According to Jim Engle, Superintendent of Recreation and Parks
Development, n
Plan Amen dmentoneof the development scenarios analyzed in General
87-2 would require and/or generate an increase in
park acreage in the City. Nor would those scenarios require an
increase rn community services staff or existing programs that are
not self supporting r
In addition to any park development costs incurred by the proposed
project, it is assumed that' new residents inithe City will have some
impact on the cost 'of' park maintenance. 'Although park maintenance
is` a budgeted program within the Public Works` department, it will be
shown under Community Services in-order to identify the cost impacts
separate from other Public Works programs .
According -to Daryl Smith, Superintendent. of Park Maintenance, it
costs the city $3 , 000, per year, per acre,, toymaintain the -parks . In
order to determine a cost per capita the ' fol,l�owing fgrmula was
developed; . . - j
There are currently 555 acres of park land that are included in the
$3 , 000, per acre, per year cost . The currentyCity population is
18�4 , 30.0;. Park acreage divided by population results' in . 00.3 acres
of pa er park p person that are maintained by, the City. Park acreage
per person multiplied by, cost per acre results in an annual park
maintenance cost per capita of '$9 . 00,.
Acreage Maintenance Annual
Maintained Population Costi Cost/Capita.
(555). / (184 , 30,0,) _ . 0,03 ($3 , 000) = ($9 . 00:).
2 . 6 Public Works
In a discussion with Les Evans , City Engineer it was. determined
that the scope of 'development assessed in this analysis would only
have a measurable impact o,n Public Works P-ro6 ams 53,6 and 53.1, sewer-
_ _ .. •
maintenance. Mr . Evans a;ls.o, stated• that residential development
generates the g„re.atest impact on sewer maintenance in the. City., Fo,r
budget year 1986-1987 the total cost four sewer maintenance. is.`
$580, 8.93 . Since residential generates. the largest impact it is
realistic to measure that impact on a per capita basis. For
commercial land uses the cost will be measured on a per ac.re, b.asis .
Residential costs are as follows :
Severity eight percent of $580, 893 $453 , 097 divided by -the '1986
population estimate. of 184 , 300 = $2 .46 per capita .
The per.-acre -cost is derived from the balance of the programs which
equals $127, 796 divided by 2, 691 acres (commercial and industrial)'
and results in $47 . 50 per ,acre.
Summary tables of revenues versus costs, for each area, immediately,
follow this text . The computer print--out containing detailed tables
of each catagory discussed in this appendix are available upon
request . The computer print-out containing detailed tables of each
catagory discussed in this appendix are available upon request .
APPENDIX C
MEADOWLARK MARKET REPORT OUTLINE
AREA 2 . 1
. MEADOWLARK MARKET REPORT OUTLINE
Based on growth in the subject area related to population,
household income and traffic, :plus existing commercial retail
occupancy rates and taxable sales, Laventhol & Horwath are
recommending that the Meadowlark Airport site will support a
commercial retail center.
Results of the market analysis prepared for the Nerio Family
include. the following :
The Meadowlark site should be able to support a phased
neighborhood center consisting of 70, 000 to 90 , 000 square feet
of space in a Phase One development program; an amount which
could potentially be absorbed during an 18 month leasing
period. Phase Two, to be developed one year following
completion of Phase One, should consist of a 50, 000 square
foot addition, for a total of 140, 000 square feet .
Suggested tenant types include a supermarket to serve as a
major anchor tenant, a small drug/pharmacy store and a variety
of apparel outlets . Other specialized stores and suggested
tenant types are indicated in Recommended Tenant Mix. This
center would also include space for a restaurant and fast food
service.
Assumptions used to support the market report findings are as
follows :
1 . Population - number of people and age aggregates . The
report states that in 1980 , 58 percent of the population
within a three-mile trade radius were 25 to 75 years
old. In 1991, this group is estimated to grow to 67
percent along with growth in the total population.
Therefore, there is now and will be a population to
support existing and future commercial entities in the
area .
2 . Income . - again, with a three-mile radius . The average
annual income for 52 percent of all households exceeds
$35 , 000 . By 1991, it is estimated that 61 percent of
that population will have an income exceeding $35, 000 .
3 . Traffic - increasing daily trips represent strong
commercial traffic in the area.
4 . Occupancy rate - for competitive centers surveyed the
rate was 95 percent indicating strong demand for retail
stores in the area .
5 . Taxable Sales - between 1980 and 1985 taxable sales in
the City increased by an annual average of 11 percent
which was higher than surrounding cities . The report
' predicts an 'annual 'iricreas'e to 13 percent by 1991 .
Below is a table which projects revenue for commercial centers
within a ,three-mile radius of Meadowlark Airport .
(1) (2) (3)
Supportable
Growth in Typical New Retail SF
Sales Potential Dollar 1986-1991 •
Store Type 1986-1991 Sales Per SF (1)/(2)
Variety Stores $ 487, 000 $309 1, 580
Grocery Stores 12, 539 , 000 303 41, 350
Apparel Stores 3 , 299 , 000 140 23 , 570
Shoe Stores 558 , 000 156 3 , 580
Jewelry Stores 661, 000 . 299 2 , 210
Restaurants 6, 542, 000 277 23 , 600
Drug Stores 2, 201, 000 182 12, 100
Liquor Stores 1,252, 000 189 6, 630
Total 114 , 620
Source: Urban Decision Systems
Laventhol & Horwath Real Estate Advisory Services
APPENDIX D
TRAFFIC: LEVELS OF SERVICE
AREA 2 . 1
o
a
LEVELS OF SERVICE '
The concept of levels of service is defined as a qualitative measure
describing operational conditions within a traffic stream, and their
perception by motorists . A level-of-service definition generally
described these conditions in terms of such factors as speed and
travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions ; conform and
convenience, and safety.
Six levels of service are defined. They are given letter
designations , from A to F, with Leval of Service 'A' representing
the best operating conditions and Level of Service 'F' the worst .
Level of Volume/
Service Definition
Capacity
A Represents free flow. Individual users 0 . 00 - 0 . 60
are virtually unaffected by the presence .
of others in the traffic stream. Freedom
to select desired speeds and to maneuver
within the traffic stream is extremely
high. The general level of comfort and
convenience is excellent .
B Is in the range of stable flow, but the 0 . 61 - 0 . 70
presence of other users in the traffic
stream begins to be noticeable. Freedom
to select desired speeds is relatively
unaffected, but there is a slight decline
in the freedom to maneuver within the
traffic stream from LOS W . The level
of comfort and convenience provided is
somewhat less that at LOS 'A' , because
the presence of others in the traffic
stream begins to affect individual
behavior .
C Is in the range of stable flow, but marks 0 . 71 - 0 . 80
the beginning of the range of flow in which
the operation of individual users becomes
significantly affected by interactions with
others in the traffic stream. The
selection of speed is now affected by the
presence of toehrs, and maneuvering within
the traffic stream requires substantial
viligiance on the part of the user . The
general level of comfort and convenience
declines noticeably at this level .
LEVELS OF SERVICE .(Continued)
Level of Definition Volume/
Service Capacity
D Represents high-density, but stable, flow. 0 . 81 - 0 . 90
Speed and freedom to maneuver are severly
restricted, ' and the driver experiences a
genera111y poor level ofcomfort and
converiaence. small increases �in traffic
flow will generally cause' operational'
problems at this level .
E Represents operating conditions at or near the 0 .91 - 100
cap a city level . All speeds are reduced 'to a . ,
low, but relatively uniform value. j••Freedom1
to maneuver' with the traffic stream is
F•
extremely difficult, and it is generally
accomplishe_ d' by forcing a vehicle or
pedestrian to "give way" to accI .ommodate such
maneuv exters . Comfort and convenience` levels1ts
are remely poor, and driver frustration is
generallyhgh. Operations ; at, this level
are usually unstable, because small increases
III ".'
in flow or`minor 'perturbations within the
traffic stream will cause breakdowns .
F It used to define forced or breakdown flow. over 1 . 00
This condition exists wherever the amount of
traffic approaching a point exceeds the
amount which_ can traverse the point; Queues
forma behind such locations . operations
within the queue are characterized , byf
stop-and-go waves, # and they are extremely
unstable. Vehicles may progress ate
reasonable speeds for several hundred feet or
more then be required to stop in a cyclic
fashion.
Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board
Special Report No . 209, Washington, D.C. 1985 ` '`
The Table below lists estimated average daily traffic (ADT) at
various levels of service by roadway classification.
ARTERIAL 'ADT AND LEVEL OF'-SERVICE
Type of Maximum ADT and Corres -onding Level of Service
Arterial Descri Lion A B °° C D ' E F
Major 6 lanes, divided 36, 000 40,"500 45, 000 49 , 500 54 , 000
'Primary 4 laries, divided •24 , 000 27, 000- 30 , 000 33 , 000 36 , 0'00
Secondary 4 lanes, undivided 16 ,'000 18 , 00'0 20, 000 22, 000 24 , 000
Commuter 2 lanes , undivided 5, 000 7, 500 10., 000 12, 500 15, 000
*Volumes greater than maximum ADT at LOS 'E '
The City of Huntington ,Beach Public Works Department utilizes a
2, 500' maximum ADT for residential streets as an acceptable level of
service.
i ' I
y '
APPENDIX E
ANALYSIS OF ADJACENT PROPOSED
DEVELOPMENT: AREA 2j1
Analysis of Adjacent . Proposed Development : Area 2 . 1
The Planning Commission reviewed a .proposal• for development on an
adjacent site on July 1, 1986 , and had concerns regarding access to
future development in the Meadowlark area and circulation on Pearce
Drive. the item was continued and staff was directed to explore
alternative street layouts .
At the August 5, 1986 meeting, seven alternatives were proposed.
Three alternatives were reviewed in depth. They were as follows :
Alternative 42
This layout is a slight modification to the applicant ' s request and
shows eight lots off a short cul-de-sac. The lots are rectangular
in shape which eliminates the need for a variance for reduced lot
width and frontage. Access to Bolsa Chica would be limited to right'
turns into and out of "A" Street . Moody Circle would remain
unchanged. A maximum of 28 units could be obtained.
Alternative #3
This concept entails a connection between the proposed "A" Street
cul-de-sac and existing Moody circle to the north. A connection
could be .made by acquiring lot #6 of Tract 12206 and extending Moody
circle southerly to an L-shaped "A" Street within the proposed
subdivision. The new subdivision would have eight lots and a
maximum of 28 apartment units . Lot #6 is currently vacant and
conversion ton a street would result in, a loss of one lot and three
units from the northerly tract . At the north end of Moody Circle,
an emergency gate and landscaping could be provided. The driveways
on the two northerly developments could serve as turnaround areas .
Additional on-street parking would be created between lots #5 and #6
of Tract 12206.
Alternative #6
This alternative combines access from Bolsa Chica to Moody Circle
and from Bolsa Chica to parcels east of the subject property and
future Meadowlark Airport development . Acquisition of lot #6 of
Tract 12206 for the Moody Circle extension and an easterly extension
of "A: Street to the easterly property line would be necessary.
In response to the alternatives, the applicant preferred #2 . He
stated in regards to #3 and #6 that the project would not be
feasible if he had to acquire lot #6 of Tract #12206; and the owner
of lot #6 indicated he is unwilling to sell lot #6 for street
purposes . Thus, if the City required the re-routing of Moody Circle
as a condition of approval and the applicant was unsuccessful in
acquiring the lot, the City must then be prepared to initiate
condemnation proceedings to 'obtain lot #6 at fair market value.
Pertaining to the three alternatives, the Planning Commission had
concerns regarding the safety of the project in relation to the
Meadowlark Airport traffic and inadequate access to adjacent
existing and proposed developments necessarylto alleviate traffic
problems, due to the mandatory processing time and the unwillingness
of the applicant to extend the processing time for further analysis,
the Planing Commission acted and denied the `request .
4n August 18, 1986, the City Council adoptedlan urgency ordinance to
institute a building moratorium on Moody Circle directly north of
the subject property. The moratorium will remain in effect until
August 21, 1987 .
1 .
26
H
s rf?E'Er .
�'•Z u BOLSA CHIC/4 �•
O
'4 _ `
IN
clOr
e! • Sr i a �s .r 1 RAOJIYI�I SAW 1 •»I�Vr
ROOAAL—
SEVEL� �'� J/
illill
OD
tiJ
got
T.
N.
• A u r
a
-�
4
1, oil `
1 `
l
CL of
X x
JIB • J•J• ►ry�� {� IN 0 r
[. 1 Si \IAt~ r.r ., r
, •/ �S�
-,.
b
`p 4�
,. •. {f ]t= ` + ice'—
4 1 n � .}�y 4 ►�'
ROOST VE'L f £ sr _ - �� .�.r'' +• L• . i Room rsi r } 1•K i ' '
• +, r
13
oi
r ,
74
4 C
r . � '• . ;ran- , , •
ti 0 9OLSA Ct!!CA �.571>eFr 1
.i . r.7ro
W.
� ` h� 1� r L 1 •. Ti '1 y � i� v�`J �
h '/
f tI, .. f....� .. �R L r1 1 RtAtA/ CIMLI + k
rK
. �Ilk _ ..� s
LO
t f
RR
� � i. � �� IA ;ilk / I i � / Y.'� �+! •� � N � � � If�
.: t4- 6- -O-
F71(9
It
IIA
4 y� A} _ ' .,r' •� •
a
ROOSEvar sr • ' r•.,-s.. �, k 4 I w?I�+
4 �,....
A H •
c
_ 1` n
JA
1'
w
APPENDIX F
TRAFFIC: TRIP GENERATION FOR ALTERNATIVE LAND USES
AREA 2 . 1
TRIP GENERATION FOR ALTERNATIVE LAND USES: AREA 2.1
ALT, 1 ALT, 2 ALT. 3 ALT. 4 ALT ALT
UNITS/ TRIP RATE
LAND USE ACRE RATE UNIT UNITS TRIP UNITS TRIP UNITS TRIPS UNITS TRIPS UNITS TRIPS UNITS TRIP
Residential
Low 6.5 9.0 D.U. 385 3465 245 2205 64 576
Medium 15.0 7.0 D.U. 300 2100 825 5775 450 3150 429 3003
Med High 25.5 5.0 D.U. 375 1875 375 1875
Mobile Home 9.0 4.8 D.U. 90 432
Sr. Citizen 3.3 D.U. 250 825 108 356
Commercial 600.0 ACRE 10AC 6000 10AC 6000 14AC 8400 12.2 7320
TOTAL 3897 10305 11775 14250 13130
(0588D)
APPENDIX G
AIR QUALITY CALCULATIONS
AREA 2 . 1
f
_ t
AIR QUALITY CALCULATIONS
Area -2 . 1
ALTERNATIVE 1
No data on emmissions of airplanes .
ALTERNATIVE 2
Type of Unit Size NONHOME BASED EMISSIONS
Mobile Home 90 Units Carbon Monoxide (T/Y =T0
Single Family Housing 385 Units Hydrocarbons (T/Y) = 0
Nitrogen Oxides (T/Y) =0
NONHOME BASED
Trips VMT Fuel Consumption
Nonwork 0 0 (Gal/Year) = 0
Work 0 0
Total 0 0 HOME BASED EMISSIONS
Carbon Monoxide (T/Y) = 181
HOME BASED Hydrocarbons (T/Y) = 20
Trips VMT Nitrogen Oxides (T/Y) = 12
Home-Work 1399 12297
Home-Shop 1077 3478 Fuel Consumption.
Home-Other 2629 13618 (Gal/Year) = 349193
Total 5105 29394 Assumes Temperature = 55
ALTERNATIVE 3
Type of Unit Size NONHOME BASED EMISSIONS
Single Family Housing 245 Units Carbon Monoxide (T/Y = 299
Condominiums 300 Units Hydrocarbons (T/Y) = 44
Shopping Center 130680 sq. ft . Nitrogen Oxides (T/Y) = 29
NONHOME BASED
Trips VMT Fuel Consumption
Nonwork 17288 94219 (Gal/Year) = 885084
Work 352 2854
Total 17640 97074 HOME BASED EMISSIONS
Carbon Monoxide (T/Y) = 179
HOME BASED Hydrocarbons (T/Y) = 20
Trips VMT Nitrogen Oxides (T/Y) = 11
Home--Work 1380 1.21.30
Home-Shop 1063 3433 Fuel Consumption
Home-Other 2595 13442 (Gal/Year) = 344601
Total 5038 29005 Assumes Temperature = 55
ALTERNATIVE 4
Type of Unit Size NONHOME BASED EMISSIONS
Condominiums 825 'Units Carbon Monoxide MY 299
Shopping Center 130680 sq. ft . Hydrocarbons (T/Y) = 44
Nitrogen Oxides (T/Y) = 29
NONHOME BASED
Trips VMT Fuel Consumption
Nonwork 17288 94219 (Gall/Year) = 885084
Work 352 2584
Total. 17640 97074 HOME BASED EMISSIONS
Carbon Monoxide (T/Y) = 205
HOME BASED Hyd-rocarbons (T/Y) = 23
Trips VMT Nitrogen Oxides (T/Y) = 13
Home-Work 1582 13905
Home-Shop 1218 3934 Fuel Consumption
Home-Other 2949 15405 (GZ/Yeas) = 394955
Total 5774 33245 Assumes Temperature = 55
ALTERNATIVE 5
Type of Unit Size NONHOME BASED EMISSIONS
Condominiums 450 Units Car-bon Monoxide (T/Y = 233
Low Rise Apartments 375 Units Hydrocarbons (T/Y) = 34
Retirement Community 250 Units Nitrogen Oxides (T/Y) 22
Shopping Center 196020 sq. ft .
NONHOME BASED
Trips VMT Fuel Consumption
Nonwork 13446 73280 (Gail/Year) = 688404
Work 274 2222
Total 13720 75502 HOME BASED EMISSIONS
Carbon Monoxide (T/Y) = 254
HOME BASED Hydrocarbons (T/Y) = 29
Trips VMT Nitrogen Oxides (T/Y) = 16
Home-Work 1959 17219 I
Home-Shop 1508 4870 Fuel Consumption
Home-Other 3682 19072 (Gail/Year) = 489011
Total 7149 - 41163 Assumes Temperature = 55
ALTERNATIVE 6
Type of- Unit Size NONHOME BASED EMISSIONS
Single Family Housing 64 Units Carbon Monoxide (T/Y. = 189
Condominiums 429 Units Hydrocarbons (T/Y) = 28
L'ow Rise Apartment 375 Units Nitrogen Oxides (T/Y) = 18
Retirement Community 108 Units
Shopping Center 159429 sq . ft . Fuel Consumpton
(Gal/Year) = 559909
NONHOME BASED
Trips VMT
Nonwork 10936 59601
Work 233 1808
Total 11159 61409 HOME BASED- EMISSIONS
Carbon Monoxide (T/Y) . = 256
HOME BASED Hydrocarbons (T/Y) = 29
Trips VMT Nitrogen Oxides (T/Y) w 17
Home-Work 1973 17342
Home-Shop 1519 4906 Fuel Consumption
Home-Other 3709 19212 (Gal/Year) = 492565
Total 7201 41461 Assumes Temperature = 55
Area 2 . 2
Air emission calculations for Alternative 1, Area 2 . 2 were not
available. The emi-ssion generation numbers noted in Alternatives 2 and
3 below do not include emissions that will be generated by the
transportation facility.
ALTERNATIVE 2
Type of Unit Size NONHOME BASED EMISSIONS
General Office 17, 000 sq. ft . Carbon Monoxide (T/Y, = 5.1
Hydrocarbons (T/Y) - 7
Nitrogen Oxides (T/Y) = 4
NONHOME BASED
Trips VMT Fuel Consumption
Nonwork 1085 5640 (Gal/Year} = 114727
Work 719 5831
Total 17640 97074 HOME BASED EMISSIONS
Carbon Monoxide (T/Y) = 205
HOME BASED Hydrocarbons (T/Y) = 23
Trips VMT Nitrogen Oxides (T/Y) = 13
Home-Work 0 0
Home-Shop 0 0 Fuel Consumption
Home-Other 0 0 (Gal/Year) = 0
Total 0 0 Assumes Temperature = 55
ALTERNATIVE 3
Type of Unit Size N0 HOME BASED EMISSIONS.
General Office Bldg. 210000 sq. ft . Carbon Monoxide (T/Y = 92
Hydrocarbons (T/Y) = 12
Nitrogen Oxides (T/Y) = 8
NONHOME BASED
Trips VMT Fuel Consumption
Nonwork 1858 10126 (Gail/Year) = 205977
Work 1291 10470 1
Total 3149 20596 HOME BASED EMISSIONS
Carbon Monoxide (T/Y) = 0
HOME BASED Hydrocarbons (T/Y) = 0
Trips VMT Nitrogen Oxides (T/Y) = 0
Home-Work 0 0
Home-Shop 0 0 Fuel Consumption
Home-Other 0 0 (Ga#l/Yeas) = 0
Total 0 0 Assumes Temperature = 55
E
APPENDIX H
RESULTS OF PRELIMINARY SOIL INVESTIGATION
AREA 2 . 1
e
I'lAy
I '
I
ILI
H.V.La /I1 aster & co., Inc.
GEOTECHNICAL E N G I NEE k I N G
FP
9040 July 18, 1986
N STREET
30X 246CAL 90680 -
�o
Mr. Richard Nerio -�
"4 c/o Bolsa Realty _
9340 Bolsa Avenue - '-
Westminster, California 92683
` Project: Proposed Meadowlark Airport Redevelopment File No. 86-10LS13
Huntington Beach, California
Subject: Results of Preliminary Soil Investigation
Dear Mr. Nerio:
. In accordance with our Proposal letter dated April 15, 1986, we have completed
Phase 1 of the geotechnical engineering study for the project site.
A total of 15 borings ranging between 16 and 20 feet in depth were drilled with
,
a 24-inch-diameter, bucket-auger on June 30, July 1 and 2, 1986.
Approximate boring locations are shown on the enclosed plan.
The soils encountered throughout the area include alluvial deposits of SILTY
CLAYS, SILTY SANDS, CLAYEY/SANDY SILTS and, to a relatively minor extent, rela-
tively "clean" SAND. Organic soils or peat deposits were not encountered in
any boring drilled for this preliminary study. Also, groundwater was not en-
countered within the depths penetrated.
Field logs detailing the soils were recorded and moisture contents were deter-
mined for the various soils. This information will be included in the report
covering Phase 2 of the geotechnical investigation.
ALL REPORTS SUBMITTED BY THIS OFFICE BECOME THE SOLE PROPERTY OF THE CLIENT AND ANY REQUEST FOR
ADDITIONAL COPIES OF REPORTS MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM THE CLIENT.
Mr. Richard Nerio File No. 86--10813
Project: Meadowlark Airport Redevelopment July 18, 1986
The information obtainer' to date indicates that the property can be made suit
able -for redevelopment for low-rise commercial and residential structures using
conventional grading procedures. The surface soils are expansive and this char-
acteristic. will require consideration in design and construction of footings and
slabs on grade. Spread footings are compatible with indicated soil conditions;
however, differing conditions requiring special consideration may be encountered
during the Phase 2 portion of this investigation-.
We have completed Phase 1 of this investigation in accordance with generally
accepted geotechnical engineering practice. No further warranty, expressed or
't implied, is offered as to the comments included in this report.
Thank you for this opportunity to be of assistance. Please do not hesitate to
contact our office if you have any question about this report or require further
assistance at this time.
I
Very truly yours,
H. V. LAWMASTER & CO. ,INC.
Don P. Harrington, P.E.
_President
Registration Expires 6/30/89
DPH:nh
Enclosure
(5 copies submitted)
i
II
a
I
}
-2- H. V. LAWMASTER & CO., INC.
a
APPENDIX I
REGIONAL AIRPORWAIR TRAFFIC IMPACTS RESPONSES
AREA 2 . 1
J i
STATE OF CALOORNIA--BUSINESS,TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN,Governor
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION -
DIVISION OF AERONAUTICS
1130 K STREET-4TH FLOOR
MAIL:P.O.BOX 1499
'SACRAMENTO,CA 95807
1916►322-3090
HO TDD 323-7665
.Tune 17 , 1986 HUNTiNGTO(4 guu.
OEVELOPMENT SERVICES
Ms . Diana Teran Blaisure
Assistant PIanner
I'.J,
City of Huntington Beach ;dux i„J
P . O . B o x 190 Huntingtoo Beach, t,AZ64
Huntington Beach , CA 92548
Dear Ms . Blaisure :
The closure of Meadowlark Airport would have several impacts on
the immediate area , including. Huntington Beach , Orange County,
Los Angeles County and many airports in the area .
Our records indicate that there are over 150 aircraft based at
Meadowlark . Should Meadowlark close , the closest airports that
these aircraft could relocate to are Long Beach , Fullerton and
John Wayne-Orange County Airports . As you can see , these airports
are quite a distance for residents of Huntington Beach to drive .
All of these airports have towers and many of the aircraft at
Meadowlark do not have radios . They would either have to bear.
the expense of purchasing a radio or relocate t•o a non-tower
airport such as Compton , Corona , Cable (Upland ) or Skylark
(Lake. Elsinore ) Airports , which are even further from
Huntington Beach .
Relocating aircraft out of Orange County would also mean that
property taxes on these aircraft would be collected by another
county .
If you have any questions or if we can provide additional
information , please let us know .
Sincerely ,
JACK D . KEMMERLY , Chief
WDiision of Aeronautics
l �
Duane H . Ferguson
Aviation Consultant .
APPENDIX J
INITIAL STUDY
4:
: r
i
1 .
1
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648
DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
BUILDING DIVISION ,'714) 535.5241 PLANNING DIV!SION (714) 536-5271
State Clearinghouse
14CO 10th Street , Room 121
Sacramento, California 95814
Attention : Glenn Stober
Subject : SCH# 86031200
Dear Mr . Stober :
On March 7 , 1986 I mailed your office a Notice of Preparation for
General Plan Amendment No . 86-1 . Your office assigned the project
' SCH# 86031206 . This letter is to request that General Plan
Amendment. 86-1 be changed to General Plan Amendment 87-2 and that an
additional item be added to the amendment .
in the nine ( 9 ) months since the Notice of Preparation was
submitted, the City has been waiting for the applicant to complete
certain studies needed for the Environmental Impact Report . The
studies are now nearly complete, but it will be impossible to
process the document until 1987 . As such , we would like to change
the General Plan Amendment number from 86-1 to 87-2 .
Additionally, we now have a request by the Orange County Transit
District to amend the General Plan Land Use Designation on 2 . 7 acres
of property located on the northeast corner of Gothard Street and
Center Drive from Public , Quasi-Public, Institutional to Mixed
Development . The proposal is for a Transportation Center featuring
park and ride facilities and fifteen ( 15 ) bus bays, and 210 , 000
. square feet of office space constructed over the Transportation
Center. The Transportation Center is already approved, but the
office project cannot be considered until a General Plan Amendment
and Environmental Impact Report are adopted .
Please let me know if this request can be added to SCH# 8603.1206 .
Alternatively, perhaps SCH# 86031206 could be withdrawn and a new
Notice of Preparation submitted for the two items . I have prepared
an Environmental Checklist Form and Notice of Preparation for the
new request and have enclosed it here . If you have any questions
concerning this request please contact me at ( 714 ) 536-5271 .
Sincerel ,
a Simmons
Associate Planner
( 6878d)
Attachments : Environmental checklist Form, dated December 18, 1986
Notice of Preparation dated December 18, 1986 .
APPENDIX J
NOTICE OF PREPARATION
TO- St FROM: City of Huntington Bea h
l ResponsibleAgency) (LeadAgency)
_ Main Street
(Address) ] ess
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
SUBJECT: Notice cF- Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Huntington be the Lend Agency and will prepare on environmental
impact report for 17e project identified below. We need to know the views-of, your
agency as' to the scope and content of the. environmental information which is germane
to your agency's statutory responsibilities in connection withr the proposed project. Your .
cgency will need to ..se the EIR prepared by our agency when considering your permit
or other approval for the project, ;
The project description, location, and the probable environmental effects are contained
in the atrached me'erials. A copy of the Initial Study 1X is, is not, otteched.
Due to tt,e`time limirs mandated by State law, your response must be sent at the earliest
passible date but not !o'er. than 45 days after receipt of -his notice.
Please se'rd your resperse to Hal Simmon"s at the f
cddress shown above. We will need true ncme for a concoct person in your ogency.
Project Title:
General Plan Land Use Element Amendment No. '87-2
Project licant if n
1 � `°y' City of Huntington Beach
DATE }Z- QVf j Signature
Title Associate Planner
E
Telephone (714) 536-5271
'Reference: Califorrrc Administrative Code, Title 14, Sections 15035.7, 15054.3, 15066.
122
APPEND X I
ENVIRONMENTAL. CI-ECKLIST FORM
(To 2,e. Completed By Lead Agency)
I. Bockgrourxl
I. Narr.e of Proc)onent City of Huntington Beach
2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent - 2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 (714) 536-5271
3. Date -of _neck list Submitted December 18, 1986
4. Agency Requiring Checklist City of. Huntington Beach
5- i";cme' of Proposal, if appliccble General Plan Amendment No. 87-2
f l_ Environmental `rVocrs
(Explanations of all "vas" and "maybe" .answers are required on, attached si.,eets.)
_. Yes M2Y No
Barth_ l::.I the: proposal result in:
l_r_tc`, F ec;rth conditicns or in changes.
qe._-*j;c• substructures? x
b. D sr w;cru, displacements, compaction x
or overcovering of the soil?
C. C hcn-,e in topography or ground surface
relief iectures? x
d. The desrruction, covering or modification
of any unique geologic or physical features? x
e. Any .increase in wind or water erosion of
soils, either on or off the site? x
f. Ch<nges in deposition or erosion of beach
sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or
erosion: which may modify the channel of a
river or stream or the bed of the ocean or
any bay, inlet or lake? x
Yes No -
g. cposure of people or property to geolo-
gic `,czards such rs &arthquekes, landslides, X
rr rislides, ground failure, or similar hazards?
?, Air. rlitl the proposal result in:
a. Substantial air emissions .or deterioration
of ambient r.ir quality? X
b. The c-&:ihon of, objectionable odors? ,. X
C. A:teration of air movement, moisture, or,,
ter-Derature, or eny chance in climate, X
e,:. t-r iocalty or regionally?
3. Water. 'Nil] the propo$al result in:
a. Chcn;es in currents, or the course of di-
re of water movements, in either X
mcrrne or .fresh waters? r
b. Changes in absorption rates,. drainage pat-
-" ,errs,, the rate and amount of surface
ru rn i'?. + X
c. A!tercticns to the course or flow of flood
waters? _
d. Chcr+-A in the omo unt of surface water in
'r:,lter body? � X_
e. Jlsr.'-.arge into ;.;rface waters, or in any
cl;erotion of surface water quality, in-
cluding but not limited to temperature,,-, I
dis�oived oxygen or turbidity? X
f:- Alteration of the direction or rate of flow X
of ground waters?
g. Chc-cz in the quantity of ground waters, ,
either through-direct additions or with-
drawals, or through interception of an X
aquifer by cuts or excavations?
h. Substantial reduction in the amount of
- water otherwise available for public water X
supplies?
i. Expornure of people or properly to water re- X
lated hazards such as 'flooding or tidar waves?
116
Yes Mcrybe h:o
4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or
nurrbe: of any species of plants (including
trees, sr)rubs, grass, crop3F and aquatic
plants)? X
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of plants? x _
C. lntrodi.f_tion of new species of plants into
an area, or in a barrier to the normal X
rep ler;uhnieni of existing species?
d. Rcd+x. xt in acreage of any agricultural X
crop'
S. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Chang- ',n the diversity of species, or
numbers of any species, of animals (birds,
land animals irci�di ,g 'reptiles, fish and
she l l f i,h, benthic organ isms or insects)? -
0. Reduc'icc of the ru rb.ers of any unique, X
rare or endcNered saagies of cnirrials?
c. intror:u-_tion of new species of animals into
on cr-a, or result in a barrier to the X
migration or movement of cinimals?
('. Deter:crition :o existing fish or wildlife
habitat? X
b. Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels? X
b, Exposyre of people to severe noise levels? X
7. Light and ;lore. Will the proposal produce X
new light or glare?
8. Laid Use. Will the proposal result in a sub-
stantial a.icradon of the present or planned
Iand use o f an area? X:
9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in;
a. Increase in the rate of use of-any natural
resources' X
117
Yiei Mrryba Ne
b. Scbs tan tial depletion of any nonrenewable
natural resource? k
10. Risk of Upset. Mil the prcposal involves
a. A riak of on ek:�losion or the release
of hazardous ii bstarraes (including; but not
liihi?ed to, 6's1, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation) in the event of an accident or
upset Conditions? x
o. Pos;�bie interference, with an errwig.-ricy
respa�se pI� or ai emergeriry evoivatian X
plan.
I1. PapuiaiirAi. 'Hill the proposal Ober the location,
distribu-ion, density; or growth rate of the
Ni nari population of an drew
X
12. Housing. Nill the Proposal affect exlsting hous,-
ing; or create a demand foir additional housing? X
!3< 7:rsortatiori/Circulation. `Ni Il t�e proposal
resit I t i iY:
a. Generdtion of Substantial cdditional
vehicular movement? _x
' 1
o. Effec-ts on pdr;cing foci!ities; or
den rct+ for new pat`k i69? x
C. Substantial it-pact upon existing transpor-
tati3+i systems'. X_
d. AIterariors to present potterns of circula-
tion crr movement of people and/or goods? X
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air X "
traff ic?
f. Increase in traffic hdzards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? "X.
14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an
effect upon, or result in a need for new or
altered g.,-ernrnental, services in any of the
fo I l ow i ng areas:
C. Fire protection? X
b. Police protection?
C. Schools? X
IB
s
Yes me Na
d. Parks or other recreational facilities? X
> P. +
e- Mointen..ince of pt.blic facilities, including X
roads?
+
f. Other governmental services? X
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? X
b. Subs'rntirtl increase in demand upon exist-
inq scv rces of energy; or require the
deve'eoment of new sources of energy? X
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need
for new vistems, or substantial alterations to
the following utilities; _
a: Power r natural gas? _ X
b. Corn n•wnications systerns? X
C. Water' X
Sewer or septic tanks?
e. Stor water drainage? X
f. Solid 4 •.%,e and disposal? X
i?. Human I-le.;+;h. Will the proposal result in:
a. Creation of any health hazcrd or potential' -
health hnzard (excluding mental health)? �X
-b. Exposune of people�to potential health X
haz crds?
18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the
obstructia. of any scenic vista or view open to
the public, or will the proposal result in the
creation of an aestheticaliy offensive site open
- to public view? X
19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an
impoct upu. the qualityzor quantity of existing
recreational opportunities? X
20. Cultural Resources.
a. Will V�e proposal result in the alteration
of or the destruction of a prehistoric or
historic orchocological site? X
1.l 9
r .
Yes Mayt_. No
b.. Will the pr,apc-sal result in adverse physical
or oes*heticr'effects to a prehistoric or
his'nric Rbuf Iding, S rvcture, orr object? X
C. Does-the proposal have the potent iai to
c�::"se `at'physicnl `et►ai�ge which would affect
unique ethnic cultural valves? X
d., Will the proposal restrict «fisting religious
' or`sacred`uses within the potential Irri ac
Orca? ;��nr +r r ,sarcxe ♦ a t _.t y.; -P t X
, t P-.t/ H
Z I. Mandatory Findings of 5ignif icance.
I.,H�.,t It. z-r. F , a 'tP `a,. Iz s..r.
a. Does the project hgve the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment,
s` fl;tzntially reduce the habitat of a fish
or wildh a 'species,A cause' a fish or wild-
life doopulgtion ta'drop below self•`sus-
toinc�y- levels, threaten toy eliminate a
,.,.,, I.-
reduce
punt or anima) the
nur.,ber or res,ricts the rorige of a rare or.
endcr^eered p?ent orl animal' or eliminate
Imfi rlGns eXCn^¢les 4f the mq or periods
of �ii_Fornic h♦story or prehistory.
b_. Does the project have the potential to
ac: efe snort=`term;" to the disadyantcge ofi
{ong-turn environmental �3acls? (A"s`�ort-�
tern :Zarlet ant!he fenvircnment Is one
W- ' iC Occurs in a reiatively brief, dcfInit4ve
par;c•] of time 'while long-term fimpocts X
will -enure- well into the future.)
c. Does ;he project have im-Ipccts which are
indiv:uually Limited, but Cumulatively con-
sidera^le? {A project may impact on two
or more separate resources where the in-Voct
wl
an each resource is relatively small, but
where the effect of the total of those
irrp=octs on the- environment fis significant.)
d. Does the project have environmental effects
wh h will Ccyse substant.iai adverse effects
on humon beings, either directly or, indrrect,ly' X
111. Discussion of Environmental Evalvation
.ytr♦ l .:� .. a -. • .. .'ii•' s ♦ <. '
IV. DetermirnciU<x-
(To be, comple:z.a by the Lead Agency)
iza,
On the basis of-•th s initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect —�
on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ''
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 tc the project. , A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED.
I fired the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the erwiron- ----
ment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL, IMPACT REPORT .is required. � X
are rature
.•i
For
(Note: This is only a suggested form. Public agencies are free to devise their own
format for initial studies.)
1
1
l
F.
k -
Y r of -
EXPLAr�ATIOO. OF. .'YES' kND 'MAYBE." ;,AI3STr1ERS
Ia . Portions of the sire may Ibe 'comp"osed of soiis with high clay.
And/or peat and organic content- and may therefore require
excavation and replaceineht of soil .
lb. Construction on th e. site may =equire ' combdction or
displacement of 'soil :
lc. Grading and landscaping may cause a change iri ground. surf"a,ce
relief features :
le. During grading and ,constiUctibn there may be a temporary
increase in wind and/or water erosion of soil's on Ehe' site .
ig: The NeW-p6zt Inglewood Earthgdake Fault System passes tti"rough
the City:
2a . Additioftai vehicular traffic` assaciated with the proposed,
project may result in some deteriotation of airibieiit air,
quality: .
3b . construction inay alter the flow of . ruhoff ftam the site.
6a . Development of the site will generate Human acid Ve—iicie noise :
7 . Developiiient of the site wii1 result in additional street
lights . Additionally, glare may r'esuit from glass sided
buildings..
B . The site is presently planned for Public; Quasi-=Udblic;,
Iristitutiorial . Trhd proposal is for Mixed Development which
would allow a multi-story office 8di�iding:
12. The proposai wili geri6tate a substantial number of employee`s ,
some of whom may need housing in the- City.
13a . The proposal will generate vehic'ulae tr'atfic:
13b. The proposal wili require a large parkirid structure t-o" be
coristrueted on site:
13c . The proposal will generate increasers demand on existing public
and pri:vare traisportatiori systems c 'The project will be
constructed in the air-'space over a- public transportation
center, hdwever:
13f . Incteased vehiciiiax traffic may pose a haza d to pd&6s-triaris
and bicyclists iri the area.
j
• 4
14a-f. The proposed project may require additional governmental
services. - -
, 16a-e . The proposed project may require alterations in some
` ut--; lity systems. .,
18. The site is presently undeveloped . The' proposal is for a
multi-story office. building which will need to be designed
in an aesthetically pleasing manner . .
21c. The cumulative effect of relatively small impacts on .
various- resources will" be examined. . ,
l
Y
( 6962d) _ _
�, CITY C7 _ a-�lL,.�NTINGTON BEACH
P.O. BOX 19p CALIFORNIA 92648
DEPARTMENT OF DtVE,_OPMENT SERVICES
BUILDIfVG DIVISION (1141 SjG-4241 PLANNING DIVISION (714) 536 5271
March 7 , 1986
office of the Governbr
Office of Planning and Research
State .Ciearinghouse
1400 lOth Stzeet , Room 121
Sacramento; CA 95814
t-tebtion : Glen Stober
SUBJECT: Notice of Preparation General Plan Amendment Nc. . 86-1
Gentlemen:
The applicant for a proposal to am4 nd the General Plan Land Use
Element as delineated on tL.he attached map hay requested that the
City of Kuntington Beach Department of Development Services initiate
the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for the project .
The City of Huntington Beach will be the lead agency for the project
and will prepare the EIR.
The amendment consists of the following:
A request_ to change the Land Use designation on 65 } acres of
property .located north of Warner Avenuef, south of F?eil Avenue ,
between Boisa Chica and Graham Streets from Low Density
Residential to Planned Community. The proposed land uses under
the Planned tommunity designation are ai follows :
Medium Density . Residential 30 Acres ( 450 Units )
Medium High Density Residential 15 Acres 075 Units )
Senior Residential 5 Acres ( 250 Units
CommeriHal 15 acres '( 150 ,000 square feet )
65 • Acres
The above land uses will be analyzed as Alternative 1 . The following
alternatives will also be analyzed:
Alt , 2 Private Small-Plane Airport ( Existing Use )
• I
Notice of Preparation
General Plan Amendment No . 86-1
Page Two
Alt . 3 Low Density Residential 55 Acres ( 357 - Units )
Mobile Home 10 Acres ( 90 Units )
65 Acres
Alt . 4 Low Density Residential 35 Acres ( 227 Units )
Medium Density Residential 20 Acres ( 300 Units )
Commercial 10 Acres ( 100 ,000 square feet )
65 Acres
Alt . 5 Medium .Densi.ty Residential 50 Acres ( 750 Units )
Commercial 15 Acres ( 150 ,000 square feet )
63 Acres
In order for your concerns to be incorporated into the draft' EIR, we
will need your views as to the scope and content of the environmental
information relevant to the project .
Due to the time limits mandated by State law, your response must be
sent at the earliest possible date, but not later than 30 days after
receipt of this notice . "
If you have any questions regardinc -this natter , please do not
hesitate to contact our office .
Sincerely,
Hal Simmons
Associate Planner
HS: kla
( 4381d )
ATTACHMENTS:
1 . Area 1 Map, r . z
2 . Environmental Checklist Form
1W
SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP 21-5-1I - -- --
CITY OF
HUN TINGTON BEACH
ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
USE OF PROPERTY MAP
ECINGER
N
OR J +. NA5C1t5EN 9R ' C►4T7,[ ? R E
ORE r
MARGRum 4
-.
L4N6A R Z u
2 CF-E —
_
' [ .� T L R4 4 sD. 4)A
_HERVL DR M = W .,- -...,... - t r
SiSSON !IR
PROPQ SED D. L F G. ']. CF—E
j Mf A00'rls Rn iHt:-: - , .,1 F JS\\ '♦ u JR
� I
VERTVRI i DR _
�r MARSMALL DR
i
L ENYf DR M10OLECOFF ]R r ��
IlJL -5 - I svE
��`�' � I i �, i Fc XXI 4 'S-•-R I ~ g_ .^�R.{
l I
l
CF— R- J DoNLT�
Ei
P:T
� CDR16XD1 �.R
40
4 i
< t
o pArpNE: x
i s
I rr
WARNER- AVE t
n r►, � � ,en n
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 85-1
APPEMIX I
ENVIRONMENTAL CriECKLIST FORM
e
(To Be Completed By Lead Agency)
!. Background
!. Name of Propcnent City of Huntington Beach
2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent 2000 Main Street
Hun i gton 3each, California 92643 (714) 536=5271
3. Date of Checklist Submitted March 7, 1986
4. Agency Requiring Checklist C'i t _N } i -�g*nn Reach
S. Name of Proposal, if applicable General Plan amendment No. •86-1
I1. Environmental Impacts
(Explorations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on ottoched sheets.)
yes No
1. Earth, Will the proposal result in:
a. lnsteble earth conditions or in changes
in geologic substructures? i
b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction
or overcovering of- tie •soii? Y
c. Chmge in topography or ground surface
relief features? x
d. The destruction, covering or modification
of any unique geologic or physical features? '�
e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of
soils, either on or off the site? X
f. Changes in deposition or 'erasion of beach
sands, or clusnges 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
Y" MnL No -
g. Exposure of people or properly to geolo
gic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides;
mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? X
2. Air. Wiii the proposal result in:
q. Substantial air emissions or dt terioration
of ambient air quality? X
b. The creation of objectioiabfe odors? may_
C. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or
temperature, or any charkje in climate,
either locally or regionally?
3. Water. Will the proposal result in:
a. Changes in currents, or the course of di-
recticn of water movernents, in either
marine or fresh waters? X
b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage pat-
terns, or the rate and amount of surface
runoff? X
c. Alterations to She course or flow of flood
waters? X .
d. Chcxige 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-
c!uding but not limited to temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity? X
f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow
of ground waters? X
g. Change in the quantity of ground waters,
either through direct additions or with-
drawals, 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-
loted hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? X
116
i
Yes
4. PlaM Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the �iversity of species, or
number of_any species of plants (including
trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic
p ion t.)? X
b. R%duction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of plants? X
c. Introduction of new species of pants into
on area, or in o barrier to the normal
replenishment of existing species? X
d. Reduction in acreage of any- agricultural
crop? X
5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or
numbers of any species of animals (birds,
land animals including reptiles, fish and
shellfish; benthic organisms or insects)? X
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of animals? X
C. Introdction of new species of animals into
an area, or result in a barrier to the
migration or movement of animals? X
d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife
habitat? X
6. Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels? X
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? X
7. Light and Glare. , Will the proposal produce .
new light or glare? X
8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a sub-
stontio[ 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 No
b: Sibstantial depletion of any nonrenewable
notvrai resource? x _.
10. Risk of LOQ et. *11 tthe p"rgadsal iri mlvies
a. A risk of on explosion or the release
of hazardmii u bitoynms (ncludinq,,Wt riot
iiriiited to; oil, pesticides, ct►crnioals at
radi(iricn) in the event of an accident at .
tipsettoniditiorxs?
b ,
Pcasbie interferenc�t with an -
- e�rges�;7.,I
response Plan or an erne gency evoci;atian
plan? Y
P,6p66iion. Will the proposa( a!ter tha Ioc 'ton,
dI'46iAbri, density; or growth 'rate of tlx
K66,i i poi)Oct i cn of an area? .._
12. H jjg. Wlij the propoaai affect existing hoirs-
ing, o'r create a demand far additional housin-g? Y
13: Tra«spo<tationlCirciilation; WIh the proposal
result in:
u. Generation of svbstohtiai additional
•vehicuiar movement? `
b. Effects on exi§ting parliiirg facilities, or
ci riha6j for new parking? X
c: Silbstvntial iripoct ttpati existing tr'cnsper-
•tation systems?
d. Alterations to present patteins of circuits-
tion or movement of peoOle andJor goods?
.e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air
traffic? X
f: Iricreosc in traffic haiards to rhotor ,
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? Y
14. Public Services. ' Will the proposal hove dh
effect upon, or result in a need far new o"r
aitered govemrr;eiital services in any of tl'4
following areas:
a. Fire protection? X.:..
b: Police protection? ,}t_
c. Schools? X
Yes
d. Parks or other recreational facilities? X
4A. Maintenance of public facilities, incsvcinq
roncfs? X
f. Other governmental services? ;{
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:,
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? X
b. Substantial increase in demand upon exist-
ing sources of energy, or require the
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:
a. Power or natural gas? X
b. Communications systems? X
C. Water? X
d. Sewer or septic tacks? X
e. Storm water drainage? X
f. Solid waste and disposal?
17. !-kxnm 1-�l th. Will the proposal result in:
a. Creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard (excluding mental health)? X
b. - Exposure of people to potential health
hazards? X
19. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the
obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to
the public, or will the proposal-result in the
creation of on aesthetically offensive site open
to public view? X
19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an
impact upon the quality or quantity of_ existing
-- recreational opportunities? X
20. Cultural Resources,
a Will the proposal result in the alteration
of or the destruction of a prehistoric or
historic ardsoeological site? X
f
119
Yes _
b. Will the proposal result in adverse physk l
or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or
historic building, structure, or object? X
c. Does the proposal have the potential to
cause a p gsical cfia,ge which. would affect
unique ethnic cultural values?
d. Will the proposal restrict existing religlots
or'sacred uses within the potential I..' t
area? X
21. Mandatory Findings of 5ignifica-ce. .
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
numiber or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods
of California history or prehistory? X
b. Does the project have the potential to
achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of
long-term, environmental goals? (A short-
term impact on the environment is one
which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive
period of time while long-terra impacts
will endure well into the futures
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 irnpoct
on each resource is relatively small, but
where the effect of the total of those
irnpocts on the environment is significant.) X
d, Does the project have environmental effects
which will. cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X
III. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
IV. Determination
(To be completed by the. Lead Agency)
120
•
On the basis of this initial evaluations
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a .significant effect t
on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I�I
1 find, that although t'.e proposed project could have a significant effect
�. an the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case 1
because the mitigation measures,descr bed on on attached sheet-have
been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED.
1 find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect cn the erviron- —
nxnt, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I Y I
maggh 7 1986
to ig tore
F or
{Nate: 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
la . Portions of the site may be composed of soils with high
clay and/or peat and organic content and may therefore
require excavation and replacements of soil .
lb . Construction on the site may require compaction or
d-isplacement of soil .
lc.. Grading and landscaping may cause a change in ground
surface relief features .;
le . During grading and construction there may be a temporary
increase in wind and/or water erosion of soils on the site .
lg . The Newport=Inglewood Earthquake Fault System passes
through the City.
2a . Additional vehicular traffic associated with the proposed
pro?ect may result in some deterioration of ambient air
quality.
3b . Construction may alter the flow of runoff from the site .
6a . Development of the site will generate human and vehicle
noise .
7 . Development of the site will result in additional street
lights .
8 . The site is presently planned for Low Density
Residential . The proposal is for a mix of Medium,
Medium-High and nigh bensity Residential and General
Commercial .
11 . The proposal may result in approximately 2,000 additional
people residing in the area.
12 . The proposal will create additional housing.
13a . The proposal will generate vehicular traffic .
13c . The proposal will generate increased demand on existing
public and private transportation systems.
13e . The proposal will result in the closure of Meadowlark
Airport which presently operates 'on' the site.
13f . Increased vehicular traffic may poe a hazard to
pedestrians and bicyclists in the area .
i
1
i
14a--f . The proposed project may require -aadit,ional governmental
services .
16a-e . The proposed project may require alterations in some
utility systems . ,
18 . The existing airport on the site- 'is a largely "open-space"
type of .use which will. be eliminated, by .the proposed
project .
19 . Recreational flying opportunities provided by the existing
airport on the site will be lost .
20a . A portion of the property is identified as , Ora Site 368
and is presently undergoing scientific excavation . ' '
20b ,' Proposal may have an adverse affect on Ora 368 as well as
any potentially historic buildings associated with the
airport .
-...21c. The, cumulative effect `of relatively ' small impacts on
various resources will be examined .
( 4386d ) < :
APPENDIX L
COMMENTS AND .RESPONSES
AREA 2 .2
T:.Q~ °- COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS
OF.ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
a -P.O. BOX 8127, FOUNTAIN VALLEY. CALIFORNIA 92728-8127
10844 ELLIS, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708-7018
''kcr co+
(714) 962-2411
February 9, 1987
c�
-�s
City of Huntington Beach -
P.O. Box 190
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 -
Attention: James W. Palin, .Director
, Development Services
Subject: General Plan Amendment No. 87--2
District staff has reviewed the 2.7 acre general plan amendment located at the
intersection of Gothard Street and Center Drive near Huntington Shopping Center.
All three of the alternatives for the Orange County Transit District
Transportation Center appear to be consistent with the Districts ' Land Use Plan .
If it is anticipated that any washing or repair of buses will be done at this
location , it will be necessary to contact the Districts' Industrial Waste
Division to ascertain what requirements they may impose.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate
to call .
G
Thomas M. Dawes
Director of Engineering
TMD:E3:HJB:lb
p1SPOS,g4
O
QC n
P.O. BOX 1026 ® HUNTiNGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92547 0 PHQNE (71 4) 947-3581
January 26 , 1987 �;; ,nytikivi� rF•.C'i
DEV __
City of Huntington Beach
Department of Development Services F. Q BoX190
P.O.Box 190
64,3
Huntington Beach, Ca . 92548 Huhtington Beach,BA �z
Attn: James W. Palin, Director
Subject : General Plan Amendment No. 87-2
Dear Mr. Palin .
In answer to, your letter regarding the General Plan
Amendment No. 87-.2 , Rainbow Disposal Company Inc. does•
not find any problem at this time in association with
servicing the proposed land use.
If you have any further questions, please feel free to
contact my office.
Sincerely,
Stanl-..y F... Tkaczy
Vice President
SFT/ew
i
. a
Southern California Edison Company SCE
{{ V,O. BOX 2060
7333 BOLSA AVE.
WESTMINSTER• CALIFORNIA 02683- 1260
Q
c IV,, n '� January 23 , 1987 714E9TELEPHONE3549
(714J 873-Sa91
P:0.
gea
NON
yO�"ity of Huntington Beach
Planning Dept.
P.-O.-Box 190
. Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Attention: James W. Palin, Director
Development Services
Subject : E.I .R. - 2 . 7 acres , Gothard & Center Dr .
Land Use Amendment
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
outages to major sources .of electrical supply, we expect to
meet our electrical requirements for the next several years.
Our total system demand is expected to continue to increase
annually; however, excluding any unforeseen problems , our
plans for new generation resources indicate that our ability
to serve new loads during peak demand ,periods will be
adequate during the decade of the 180s .
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 ,
Stave Rupe
Service Planner
SPR:da
DISTRICT OFFICE SERVING: CORONA DEL MAR •COSTA MESA • FOUNTAIN VALLEY •HUNTINGTON BEACH
MIDWAY CITY •NEWPORT BEACH • ROSSM OOR •SEAL BEACH • SUNSET BEACH •WESTMINSTER
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA gas COM
"
ORANGE COUNTY DIVISION P Q BOX 3334. ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA 92W3-3334
Jan. 20, 1987
City of Huntington Beach
Dept. of Development Services
P.O. Box 190
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 �}i"�"' `="�' U,
Attn: Janes W. Palin, Director
Subject: General Plan Amandzri_�nt No. 87--2, Gothard & Center Dr.
Huntington Beach
This letter is .not to be interpreted as a contractual cominitmrnt
to serve the proposed project but only as an information service. its
intent is to notify you that the Southern California Gas Company has
facilities in the area where the above-nod project is proposed. Gas
service to the project could be served by an existing main as
shown on the attached atlas sheet without any significant impact on
the environment. The service would be in accordance with the Company's
policies and extension rules on file with the California Public
Utilities Commission at the time contractual arrangements are made.
The availability of natural gas service, as set forth in this letter,
.is based upon present conditions of gas supply and regulatory
policies. As a public utility, the Southern California Gas Company is
under the jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Carnnission.
We can also be affected by actions of gas supply or the condition
Under which service is available, gas service will be provided in
accordance with revised conditions.
Estimates of gas usage for non-residential projects are developed on
an individual basis and are obtained from the C�ercial-Industrial
Market Services Staff by calling (714) 634-3173.
We have developed several programs which are available, upon request,
to provide assistance in selecting the most effective applications of
energy conservation'tachniques for a- particular project. If .you
desire further information on any of our energy ,conservation yioq ams,
please contact this off ice for assistance.
Sincerely,
D. C. Moore
Technical Supervisor
IA:du
attachmpi&
ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT
May 14, 1987
Ms. Catherine O'Hara
City of Huntington Beach
P.O. Box. 190
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Dear Ms. O'Hara:
SUBJECT: LAND USE,AMENDMENT 87-2JDEIR 87-2
We have reviewed this document and appreciate City staff's efforts in
producing this thorough report. We concur with the information provided
in the report but are concerned that the staff recommendation (page 56) ,
supporting alternative 2, may restrict the development potential of the
site. While the ClAy's concerns regarding potential traffic impacts on
Gothard Street .are valid, we believe that the additional environmental
evaluation that would be necessary for the mixed-use development would
adequately address the traffic impacts issue.
We would like to request that the final EIR be modified in the following
way to provide for consideration of the maximum development potential for
the site. The City staff recommendation on page! 56 could be revised. to
the more general language shown in the executive summary:
"Staff recommends that the land used designation be
changed to mixed use but that prior to the granting of
any entitlements, further traffic analysis be conducted
to address the circulation concerns identified in
section 2.2.2.5 of this report."
Again, we appreciate the City staff's effort in preparing the material
for the General Plan Amendment. If you have any questions, or require
additional information, please call me or Christine Huard-Spencer at
(714) 971-4343.
Sincerely,
e ey Ordway
Manager of Planning
JPO:PLN--21 CDG
11222 ACACIA PARKWAY P.Q. 9OX 3005 GARDEN GROVE, CALIFQRNIA 92642 (714) 971-6200
i
CNTV OF HUNTING TONBEACH
- INTER ION
�. +axnwcxw saxrr j
a Douglas N. La Bel
To James W. Patin From Deputy City Adm razor/
Director of Development Services Redevelopment
GPA 87-2 REVIEW - 2.2 NORTHWEST Date April 10, 1987 .
Subject CORNER OF GOTHARD STREET AND
CENTER DRIVE
The purpose of this memo is to provide response to your memo of April 3, 1987
requesting input for the GPA 87-2 review. The OCTD Transportation Center/Office
Development, Area 2.2 is within the Huntington Center Commercial District
.Redevelopment Project. The comments in this memo relate io GPA 87-2, Area 2.2.
We have reviewed the GPA 87-2,. Area 2.2 report and provide the following comments:
1. Redevelopment does concur with the recornmended General Plan Amendment 87-2,
Area 2.2 which changes the land use designation ifrom Public, Quasi-Public,
Institutional to Mixed Development and the Zone Change 87-2 from CF-E (R--1},
Community Facilities - Education with a base zore of'= Low Density Residential to
C-4.-MS, Commercial District with a Multi-Story Suffix
2. It does appear that OCTD shouic ')e required to update their 1985 Greer Traffic
Study to evaluate traffic impac%, ,:end ,o. respond specifically to staff .concerns _
about traffic circulation and to p, ovide traffic circulation mitigation measures
relative to the development proposed at the time eniitlerner�t is requested. It `is
understood that staff would make the determination rIelative to acceptable traffic
analysis in relation to the size of the proposed develop ent.
It may be premature to decide on the acceptable size of a- possible development
without first having a more detailed traffic circulation analysis.
3'. It may be worth noting in the c eport that the City Council has approved the
realignment of Gothard Street between McFadden Avenue and Center Drive by
Resolution No. 5647 and Ordinance No. 2827.
DLB/TA:sar
xc: Paul Cook, Director of,Public Works
1332r
A •
° .a
�.i+�
AK
Ay
�"4�
t ! ;M CITY aF TiC�N_ H UNTING BEACH
INTER DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION
/FAGS �. m 1
To _ CatheringV M. 0'Harm. From Stanley Farber,
Assistant Planner". Civil. Engineering Assi`st:ant
Subject r GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT Date April µ 29, 1987 _ .
No. 87-2 .
Boyle Engineering has been selected to prepare a Master Plan for
the City of Huntington Beach Water System; itherefore, at this time
it would not be prudent of us to state what the impact would be
on our system.
Attached is a copy of a portion of WFM (Water Facility Map) No. 241
which shows the location and sizes of the ;watermains at the inter-
section in question - Center Drive and Gothard Street.'. Center Drive
is supplied with water by a 12" asbestos-cement watermain. Gothard
Street is supplied with an 8" asbestos-cement watermain.
1.f you have any questions , please feel free to contact Mr. Stanley
Farber at 536--5528.
Thank you.
SF: bb
Enclosure (1 ) .
70
ilk
. 1"v
S
i
i
y�
l `
1
STATE OF CALIFORNIA--OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR j GEORGE DEUKMtj1Aw, c,ov�mor
OFFLKRC OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH
IA00 TENTH STREET s
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814
Hal Simmons June 5, 1987
City of Huntington Beach
2000.t.lai n Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 --
Ssbier- ; General Pl ar, Amendment 487-2
SCH# 86031206
Dear Mr. Simmons:
The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named draft Environmental Impact
Report (EiR) to selected state agencies for review. The review period is
closed and the coments`of the individual agency(ies) is(are) enclosed..
Also, on the enclosed Notice of C..ompletion, the Clearinghouse has checked
which agencies have ccn7nented. Please review the Notice of Completion to
ensure that your comment package is completej. If the package is not in
order, please notify the State Clearinghouse immediately. Your eight digit.
State Clearinghouse number should be used so that we may reply promptly.
Please note that recent legislation requires that a responsible agency or
other public agency shall only n1ike substantive) carments on. a project which
ile within the area of the agency' s expertise or which relate to actin .Tries
which that agency must carry out or approve. (AB 2563, Ch. 1514, ' {rats.
These commen•�s are forwarded for your. use in preparing your final EIR. If
you .need more information or clarification, we suggest you contact the
cannenting agency at your earliest convenience. 1
Please contact Glenn Stober at 916/445-06131if you have any questions
regarding the' environmental review process.
Sincerely,
David' C., Nunenk%mp
Chief
Office of Permit Assistance
Enclosures
cc: Resources Agency
. f
y
'. orandum
To Dr. Gordon F. Snow Date: May 27, 1987
The Resources Agency
r, .,
Nancy A. Olson
From CS r�fii' a�'R�II I�If r EUWZf Mrol Board-Santa Ana Reg on
6809 INDIANA AVENUE. SUITE 200, RIVERSIDE, GA 92506 (ATss) 632-4130
5ubject: DEIR: ' GEFTERAL PLLq,AMENDMENT #87-2, SCH #86031206
We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for this
project.
The DEIR stated on page 38, that an underground fuel storage tank is
located within the project site. The proponent should be advised that
the Orange County Health Care Agency is the appropriate agency involved
with the removal of underground storage tanks in. t.h s area.
I_n addition, .permits issued by this office will be needed under the
following c(onditions:
1 . The DEIR stated (p. 49) that washing and/or j repair r �
of buses may take place at the projec:.-,- site The 0 ��
DEIR did not- discuss whether the repair work wiz.
_ entail the use or generation of hazardous water*
Any hazardous materials must be properly handle
stored and/or disposed of according to state re "atQN a 1 S9�Tr'
If the proponent is proposing. to discharge wash
water to receiving waters, an NPDES permit will CLFARI,C__
required. L
2. if reclaimed waste water is used for landscape ir- o)
rigation at the project site (p. 59) ,
Water Reclama-
tion Requirements (WRRs) will be needed.
The proponent should note that processing an b"PDES permit may take up
to 180 days and 120 days for WRRs. Any questions pertaining to these
permits may be addressed to Hisam Baqai of our Regulations Section.
Enclosure: State Clearinghouse Form
NAO:eyp
STATE OF CALIFORP41A GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Go�
PUBLIC, l;TILITIES COMMISSION
557-9884
soy V,tiv NESS AVENUE T. S. J o e
SAN FRANCISCO. CA 94102
' E
June 3 , 1987 FILE : 183-30/EIR
Glen Stober
Office of Punning & Research
1400 Tenth Street , Room 121
Sacramento , CA 95814
Dear M'r . Stober :
This refers to the City of Huntington Beach ' ' draft Environmental
Impact Report for General Plan Amendment #87i2 , SCH #86031206.
The staff has reviewed this report and it does not appear that the
Commission 'will be involved . Thank you for giving us the opportunity
to review and comment on this matter . �
G
Very truly yours , .
r�
ROBERT W . STICH , Supervisor {
Rail Projects Section
Rail/Transit Projects an ! Planaing Branch '
Transportation Division f
cc : Catharine O ' Hara
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach , CA 92648
ro
4
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
State of California
Project Notification and Review System.
Office of the Governor
(916) 445-0613
HUNTIN1370N BEACH GPA 87-2
STATE CLEJVUNGHOUSE NUMBER: 86031206
REVIEW STARTS: 04/20/87
REVIEW ENDS: 06/05/87
001NTACT: GLFNN SIOBER
(RF.MW STARTS CN NEXT WORKING DAY WHEN
DOCI)MENT IS RECEIVED AFTER 10:00 A.M..)
r
Please use the State Clearinghouse Number on future correspondence with this office
and with agencies approving or reviewing your project.
j
This card does not verify compliance with environmental review requirements. A letter '
containing the State's comments or a letter confirming no Mate comments will be ,
forwarded to you after the review is complete.
i .
Rev. 8/82
REQ UER FOR CITY COUNCIRACTION
�ti
Date
0 \.
Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Submitted by:, Charles W. Thompson, City Administrator v
Prepared by: Doug LaBelle, Director, Community Developix �''
Subject: LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT 87 / �ENVI NMI L IMPACT
REPORT 87-2 (OCTD PROPERTY) '
Consistent with Council Policy? [ ] Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception
Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions, Attachments:
f
'STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
Transmitted for public hearing is Land Use Element Amendment 87-2a and Environmental
Impact Report 87-2. Staff transmitted LUE 87-2 to the Commission with areas of concern
2.1 and 2.2. The Commission voted to process the two areas separately. The Commission
acted on Area 2.2 and continued Area 2.1. Area 2.2 is transmitted here as LUE 87-2a.
Area 2.1 will be forwarded to the Council at a later date as LUE 87-2c. Land Use Element
Amendment 87-2a (Area 2.2) addresses a change in General Plan designation on a 2.7 acre
site located at the northeast 'corner of Gothard Street and Center Drive.
RECOMMENDATION:
Planning Commission action:
ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY PIERCE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF LAND USE ELEMENT
AMENDMENT NO. 87-2a - (AREA 2.2) AND CERTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT NO. 87-2 BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Silva, Schumacher, Higgins, Pierce, Leipzig, Summerell, Livengood
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the City Council approve by resolution Land Use Element .
Amendment 87-2a for a change in land use designation from Public, Quasi-public,
Institutional to Mixed Development after acting upon Environmental Impact Report 87-2.,
r
PIO 5/85
ANALYSIS:
LUE 87-2a (Area of concern 2.2) is a request by the City of Huntington Beach to.change the
General Plan land use designation on 2.7 acres of land which is owned by the Orange County
Transit District.
This general plan amendment request has been prepared pursuant to direction given to staff
by the Planning Commission in April, 1986. On April 15, 1986, the City Planning
Commission approved Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 85-69 for the OCTD'property to permit
the development of a transportation center on the site. The approved transportation center
is scheduled for development in late 1987. The present zoning and General Plan designation
on the subject property will allow the transportation center as proposed. However, a
condition of approval placed by the Planning Commission on CUP 86-69 was that "OCTD
shall reserve the 'air rights' above the subject site for possible future use (office structure
over parking compound)."
To address the condition placed on the CUP, OCTD is proposing a joint development
agreement for the site whereby a private developer will construct office use above the
approved transportation center and will lease the air rights from OCTD. The office .
facilities will be coordinated/integrated with the transportation center uses. EIR 87-2
analyzes two general development scenarios differing only in intensity for the proposed joint
venture project. Either scenario could be permitted under the recommended land use
designation.
In accordance with Planning Commission policy set in April, 1986, staff recommends
approval of General Plan Amendment 87-2a, Area 2.2. Due to some general circulation
concerns detailed in EIR 87-2, staff further recommends that prior to the granting of any
entitlements for development of the air space above the approved transportation center,
further traffic analysis be conducted. The Circulation concerns are outlined in Section
2.2.2.5 of EIR 87-2. The recommended detailed traffic study will provide conclusive
information to determine the maximum amount of commercial and office space that can be
accommodated on site.
Zone Change 87-2, a request to change the zone designation on the subject property from
Community Facilities, Education with a base zone of Low Density Residential, (CF-E [R-1])
to Commercial with a Multi-story suffix (C47MS), was prepared in conjunction with LUE
87-2a (Area 2.2) and EIR 87-2. If the land use element amendment request is approved,
zone change 87-2 will serve to implement the new land use designation by,permitting the .
development of office space in the air rights above the transportation center.
At their June 2, 1987 meeting, the Planning Commission voted to continue the zone change
item to their scheduled July 21, 1987 meeting. However, OCTD has requested that the zone
change be continued further to the August 18, 1987 scheduled Planning Commission
meeting. At that time, the Transit District will have a specific development proposal for
the Commission and Council to review. Consequently, the zone change request will not be
reviewed concurrently with LUE 87-2a (Area 2.2), but rather it will be transmitted to
Council at a later date.
I
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS:
Land Use Element Amendment No. 87-2a was prepared in conjunction with,and is covered
by, Environmental Impact Report No. 87-2. Environmental Impact Report No. 87-2 was
posted for a 45-day review period which ended on June 5, 1987.
1v
RCA - July 20, 1987 -2- (8568d)
i
FUNDING SOURCE:
Not applicable.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
1. Deny the land use element amendment request. This action will still allow development
of the OCTD bus facility, but will preclude office development in the air space.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Area Map
2. Resolution adopting Land Use Element Amendment No. 87-2a.
3. Planning Commission Minutes dated June 2, 1987.
4. Staff report dated June 2, 1986
5. Land Use Element 87-2a/Environmental Impact Report 87-2
DLB:CMO:gbm
" I
3
RCA - July 20, 1987 -3- (8568d)
al
�41ifY
new
w
a MUf+�T NGTON00,
EA M
y Z
Q ` .v
19 Aloclawkwr Aolf , ` o
•V � V
fUtNR
M cF.a d d<nCITY
co
a
mI
C F—ECENTER'"� �—
CL
L%`aTZ „ NL'.l T3r::i=iY 1...' Ka.i,tW
I
e
HUNTINGTON BEACH C&IFORNIh LAND.USE E jjr r AMENDMEM 87-20L.-
PLANNING DIVISION ENVIM022TIAL n-TACr FORT 87-2
AREA 2.2 e
i
RESOLUTION NO. `7 ✓��
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY- COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH APPROVING LAND
USE- ELEMENT AMENDMENT .TO THE GENERAL
PLAN NO. 87-2a, .CONCERNING REAL PROPERTY
NEAR GOTHARD STREET AND CENTER AVENUE
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. 87-2a to the General Plan was held ..by.' the Planning Commission
on June 2, 1987 ; and
Thereafter the City Council , after giving notice as
prescribed by Government Code Section 65355 , held at least one.
to consider Land 'Use Element mendment No. 2:a
public hear ing �:
an d .
At said .hear`i-ng before the City Couan.cil a-lI persons desir.i�no
t.o be .`heard on :sa-id amendment were heard,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
.City of Huntington Beach pursuant to pr.ovi'sions • of Title 7 ,
Chapter 3 , Article 6 of California. Government Code commencing with
Section 65350 , that Land Use Element Amendment No . 87-2a
consisting` of the following change is hereby adopted as-an
amendment to the Land Use Diagram therebf:
That approximately 2 .7 acres located on-the northeast
corner of Gothard Street and Center Drive be' redesignate,d
from Public, Quasi=Public, Institutional to Mixed
Development .
The real property affected by this change of . use is described
and depicted on Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated by
reference herein.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the day
of , 1987 .
Mayor
ATTEST : APPROVED AS TO;, FORM :
' City Cierk City Attorney
REVIEWED .AN.D APPROVED.: INITIATED AND APPROVED:
City Admini.str.ator, Director of Community
Development
2335E
dill
e T
S
011, rrw M
t
fc,rr t f ( t` eor.rai Aw
_
y ^� ��[fIs
O
e� ITH
r �+ t •
V
wue .v ..
MCFo.44e-1 CITY
ac
G F' CENTER
a
i
. I ` LVPTZ k to-.i�:iy1-'_iY `L= i !l`.i"71.,::!.. g9T'c: .1 �M: •'qr_•.�
0
i o
i
NSPMEr'r rY"r-r-r rTT
mx
EXHIBIT A
.r - - -
HUNTINGTON BEACH C4LIFORNIN IA ND USE ELEMEW AMMVEM 87-2,0-
NANNING "DIVISION ENWFaZ92nAL R-TACr IMMRT 87-2
The applicant, Dick Nerio, has `requested a 6 week continua a to
evaluate the sewer capacity problems on the subject pro ty with
the Orange County Sanitation District.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Continue Land Use Element Amendment 87-2(c) to special July 28,
1987 Planning Commission meeting.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED
Jack' Silva,= 16641 Kettler Lane, stated hat he feels the City should
s take 'a 'better look at where they are roposing development. He
feels the City .is being over-develo d and that traffic is
increasing dramatically.
Dean Albright, Environmental Bo rd, Member of the Ad Hoc Committee,
stated -that the committee fee that the environmental impact report
is inadequate and should not a used. He feels that the sewers and
septic tanks . in the area s uld `be further restudied.
A-11 other speakers. pres t stated that they would wait until 'the
July 28, 1987 special eting to speak and the public hearing was
.closed.
It was suggested b `the Commission that the item be re-notified and
that the notifica ion area be expanded to 1, 000 _feet in 1ead of 3.00
feet at the City s expense.
'A MOTION WAS E BY SILVA, SECOND BY LIVENGOOD, TO CONTINUE LAND
USE.•ELEMENT NDMENT 87-'2(c) TO" .THE SPECIAL JULY 28, 1987 PLANNING
COMMISSION ETING .WITH ,RE-NOTIFICATION_ TO 1,000 -FEET AT THE CITY' S
EXPENSE, THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Silva, Schumacher, Higgins, Pierce, Leipzig, Summerell,
,Livengood
:NOES: None
ABS T: None
AB AIN.: . None
I N PASSED
LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT 87-2(a) = AREA 2 .2 is a request initiated
by the City of Huntington Beach to redesignate 'a 2.7 acre parcel
located at .-the northeast corner of the intersection of Center Drive
and Gothard Street from Public, Quasi.-public, Institutional to Mixed
Development . Zone Change No. 87-2 is to change the zone
designation of the -site from Community Facilities Education with a
base zone of Low Density Residential (CF-E) (R-1) to Commercial with
a Multi-story suffix . (C4-MS) is being processed concurrently.
C4)
PC Minutes 6/2/87. -7- (8334d)
f
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Recommend to the City Council Council certification of Environmental
Impact Report No. 87-2 and adopt Resolution No. 1378 for
recommendations contained in Attachment 1 of the staff report.
Recommend to the City Council adoption of Zone Change 87-2 for a
change from CF-E, R1 to C4-MS.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS, OPENED
Jeff Ordway, OCTD, spoke in support of staff ' s recommendation. He
stated that with this certification and zone change that the transit
needs and further developments would be met.
There were no other persons present to speak for or against and the
public hearing was closed.
A discussion ensued among the Commission regarding the zone change.
They were not opposed to a mixed use concept however were concerned
with the possible magnitude of development. They suggested to staff
that more research be completed in the area and that bids received
from developers by OCTD be analyzed to see what development plans
were being initiated.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY PIERCE, .TO RECOMMEND TO
THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 87-.2
AND LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT 87-2(a)-(AREA. 2. 2) AS MODIFIED BY THE
FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Silv.a, Schumacher, Higgins, Pierce, Leipzig, Summerell,
Livengood
NOES None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None,
MOTION PASSED
RESOLUTION NO. 1378
A RESOLUTIN OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH., CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
ADOPTION OF LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT TO THE
GENERAL PLAN NO. 87-2
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington
Beach, California desires to update and refine the General Plan in
keeping with changing community needs and objectives; and
WHEREAS, amendments to the Land Use Element are necessary
to accomplish refinement ,of the General Plan; and
00
�-�
PC Minutes - 6/2/87 -8- (8334d)
RESOLUTION NO. 1378 (Continued)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommends the following
amendments to the Land Use Element:
1. _ That Area 2.2 consisting of 2.70 acres located on the
northeast corner of Gothard Street and Center Drive be
redesignated from Public., - Quasi-public Institutional
to Mixed Development.
WHEREAS, a public hearing on adoption of Land Use Element
Amendment to the General Plan No. 87-2 was held by the City Planning
Commission on June 2, 1987, in accordance with provisions of the
State Government Code;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning
Commission of the City of Huntington Beach, California, hereby
approved- said amendment to the General Plan of the City of
Huntington Beach.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said amendment_ to the General
Plan of the 'City of Huntington Beach is . recommended' for adoption by
the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City
of Huntington Beach, California, on the 2nd. day of June, 19'87.
A MOTION `WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY HIGGINS, °TO CONTINUE ZONE ` ,
CHANGE (AREA' 2._2) TO THE JULY 21, 1987 "PLANNING ,COMMISSION, BY THE
FOLLOWING VOTE: ~
AYES: Silva, Schumacher, Higgins, 'Pierce, Leipzig, Summerell,
Livengood
NOES: None
ABSENT: None ,
ABSTAIN: None
MOTION PASSED
LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT 87-2b - AREA 2 a request initiated
by the City of Huntington Beach to r ignate -a 10. 1 acre parcel
Located at the northwest corner llis Avenue and Goldenwest
Street from General Commerc' to Open Space-Recreation.
STAFF RECOMMENDATI
Recommend to a City Council certification of Environmental Impact
Report No 6-2 and adopt Resolution No. 1379 for approval of Land
Use E ent. Amendment No. 87-2b (for a change from General
-Co rcical' to Open Space Recreation) .
C1
•2 C�J
PC Minutes .- 6/2/87 -9- (8334d)
unting'ton beech developm services department
STAf f
_. EPOR
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Development Services
DATE: June 2, 1987
SUBJECT: LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 87-2/ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT NO. 87-2/ZONE CHANGE NO. 87-2 ZONE CHANGE
87-2
1..0 SUGGESTED ACTION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City
Council certification. of Environmental Impact Report No. 87-2 and .
adoption Resolution 1378 recommending to the City Council approval
of General Plan Land Use Element Amendment 87-2, with the .
recommendations contained in Attachment 1 Staff . further recommends'
adoption of Zone Change 8.7-2 for a . change from CF-E,. R1 to •C4-MS.
2i•0 BACKGROUND:
Land' Use Elemer . Amendment No. 87-2 addresses.•changes ift General
Plan desi:gnatkoTi"�F, 'o:n three sites (see Figure 1) . Two of these
sites, Areas 2:Y and 2 .2 are covered by the Environmental Impact
Report contained in the document . The third site; A.C. Marion ,will
be. addressed in a separate staff report . : .
3'. 0 ' ANALYSIS:
The following is a brief summary of Area 2. 1 and .2. 2 amendment
requests and .staff recommendation for each. A detailed analysis and.
explanation of recommendations for each area may be found in the LUE
°amendment/EIR document.
Area 2.1 - Meadowlark Airport
Area of Concern 2. 1 is a request by the Nerio family to redesignate
65 acres located on the north side of Warner Avenue, south side of
Heil Avenue and 600 'east of Bolsa Chica Street from Low Density
Residential to 3.0 acres of Medium Density- Residential (450 units.) ,
15 acres of Medium High Density (375 units) , 5 acres of Senior.
Citizen Residential (250 units) and 15 acres of Commercial (196,020
gross square- feet) . - The total,. proposed• number., of.m, units includes
density bonuses . Construction of the project . is proposed in "
phases -" The commercial center would be completed by 1991 and the
residenti-ai would be completed by 1,996. The app'licant.' s• request is
illustrated in Figure 2. . K4
f �
A FM-23A
- ,
W
,
4
Figure .1 M.
E: 87- AREAS OF COt�CER11
1' ebb
planning �ivit on
v,:�'+`".+. .fix 'r �� �...+t„k'��„P� -. 3,�•�. w a -ems� 'x � s� r.: � � - r� r�
a #
:: t..., .�..�'`t��',.s'`_`'-'_ •s£ „�'`._-���ia.... _Y� �. -.~. .,.� . .,,". .!,.��5, ._., .. - . ,.. ..xa�i.,a;.,..v.--» .�...�x:'.'rr.z'. ;�`'.�:T+':'r., ..F. ���;i
f
.............
• - `— �(:� � � i _•_ �,'�' .if
CF- CF'R �r .
/ rE 71Jf1 I 7ESi [dl _ L no'vim
]FXS:.Cr 1 32 a rta
SEIICIA
7E :i'\T:AL 1.. ir3 its r7
_
Ice 'nits 1 1
1 I i a•
aw
i
tee
� --�-rm�>���._ =t—�_:�� j,�` __ � - •.Lam' �=j=�- =r= "-_' -
ALiFR'JATiVE 5 IILT R�1 i IVY ;
Figure 2
ALTEIIATIVE Ln USE
CUICEPTS
on
huntin ton beach planning divisi
g S
Recently, concern has been -expressed over increased traffic in the .Y
area; sewage capacity at the Slater,- Pump Station, which serves
District 11 and parts of District 3; and, the City' s ability' to meet
future water demands due to 'normal growth and the development of
Bolsa Chica. Measures to mitigate these concerns are currently
being developed by the various agencies.
The applicant ' s proposal generated the following issues:
A. Traffic
Parsons, Brinckerhoff', Quade and Douglas prepared a-.traffic
study. for the Neri'o family. July 1986 data was used to analyze
existing 'traffic volumes >and future impacts„with and without
the project.
Currently, all arterials and intersections surrounding Area of , .
Concern ' 2 . 1 are operating 'at . level of service (LOS) "C" or
better except Warner Avenue which is nearing capacity and the
intersection of Bolsa Chica Street/Warner Avenue which is
operating„at LOS "D" and is nearing LOS "E" at peak hours. .
Traffic_ in the area is ,expected to increase. greatly due to ,
future development of the Bolsa Chica and growth in other parts
of the city. A projected 3 . 5% annual growth factor was
utilized in the analysis based on Public Works". estimate that
the annual growth rate over the past 6 years .has been 3-4%.
PBQ&D feels that this estimate may be conservative; considering,
expected .traffic from the- 'Bolsa Chica. Specific traffic
-volumes from the proposed Bolsa Chica development were not
included in the model . Kunzman Associates. is currently.
preparing such an analysis for the County of Orange Env.iron-`
mental Management ?agency and the City of Huntington Beach. The
results should beavailable . in the next few weeks and will be
based on the assumption that the area of concern is built out
at the existing low density land use.:,
The seven alternatives will generate the average daily •tr.ips
shown below:
TRIP GENERATION
Alternative Ave. Daily Trivs Commercial Trips
1 - 0
2. - 3, 897 0
3 10.;305 "6,000 r .
4' 11, 775 6',000
5 - 14,250 9, 000
1>'
6 13, 130 7,320
7 12,150 9,006
J 1
Staff Report - 6/2/87 4;_= ;, (8262d) ' a�
f F
a
According to Parsons, Quade, Brinckerhoff and. Douglas, the
applicant ' s request will generate 14,250 average daily trips by
1996. The study recommended access points at Warner Avenue/
Leslie Lane, Heil Avenue/Del Mar Lane and Pearce Street.
Various measures, outlined in page 32 of the Environmental
Impact Report 87-.2, will be required to mitigate the cumulative .
effects of all development in the area in order to- maintain
acceptable levels of service on surrounding arterials . and at
intersections : Mitigation measures required specifically by .
the project would include a separate westbound right turn land
at Bolsa Chica Street/Warner Avenue and signals at project
access points . The City Traffic Engineer agrees that all' the
recommended measures will eventually be needed, but may be
needed sooner than expected with the addition of project
traffic.
At the May 19, 1987 Planning Commission Study Session, the
following traffic concerns were raised:
1. What is the .impact of the project and future growth at the
intersection of. Heil Avenue and Graham Street?
Response': Intersection analysis "performed by PBQ&D has
shown that provided that the intersection i's signalized,
the intersection should remain at .LOS "A" , both near and
long' term.
2 . Which traffic model .was used?
Response: Parsons, Quade, Brinckerhoff and Douglas used
their own. Huntington Beach model. July, 1986 data was.used
for the analysis . A "Bolsa Chica Scenario" was not
included.
3 . Staff should look at the cumulative impacts of Meadowlark,
Bolsa Chica.. and other development in the area.
Response: Kunzman Associates is preparing an analysis of
Bolsa Chica impacts. When the results are available in a
few weeks, staff will have a better overview -of cumulative
impacts .
4 . Can Gibbs Park be accessed, through the Mormon church?
Response. There currently exists a partially dedicated
easement,. Graham Place, �which was originally intended to
provide park access. Parking could have been provided at
-,the end of , the roadway but no one wanted to 'limpinge on the
a
(`8262d�
Staff Report 6/2/87 _5_
According to Community Services, staff, .improvements to
Gibbs Park, scheduled for fiscal year 1990-1991, will
include a walkway design that will also serve as service
roads, some picnic areas `and vehicle parking on Graham. .
.Like other neighborhood parks in the City, Gibbs is too
small to contain on-site parking.
5. Did the traffic study utilize 1985 traffic volumes?
Response: No,. July 1986 volumes were used.
6. Will parking on the north side of Heil be eliminated?
Response:. No, but parking on portions of the south side
may be eliminated.
7. As requested,, Figure 3 contains the suggested internal
street system with adjacent existing streets .
B. -Sewage
Area of Concern- 2 . 1 is currently served by septic tanks on the
site. Sewage generated by the area of concern would flow into
City lines at Heil and Warner: According to' a study performed
by RMG Engineering, the City lines can accommodate the .sewage
.generated by all the alternatives, as shown below.
SEWAGE GF,4ERATION
Alternative Ave. . GPD Peak GPD
1 N.A. N.A.
2 131,300 328,250
3y 180, 600 451, 500
4 143,400 358, 500.
5 281,250 703, 125
6 273; 136' 682, 840
7 149,450 373, 625
gallons per day
The sewage would f.low, into the Sanitation District' s lines and
then into the Slater Pump Station. The Slater Pump Station
serves most .of District 1.1 and parts of District 3 . It
'contains five pumps, ''two of which are backups,., and has a
capacity of 20 million gallons- per day. According.to ,RMG
Engineering, who recently performed acapacity study at the
Slater Pump Station, the pump station is presently' operating at.
capacity:
41,
Staff Report - 6/2/87 _6_ m ,. (.826,2d)
a
•
1
1••rr•
iia
�rrrrrr� iesrrrrr•
�rrrrrrrrrarrrrrrr
mango rrrrllrr UH
�rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
�rrrrrrrrrrrrraerr �.
uuuruurrarru; � - •
uurnrsuruuu
:���::�arrrrrrrr�� •
14
MO
�rr�r�rrr
�• '�'••x:•+}:•:.:}:•}:. ...ti•:. ?}.:$...:v.��$$:�i$:::�x:}$:is`;:}:; :�>:$$i:$i:�: ;�l�>
;.} ;tiy;:;:;}:;$:; ;:.h:.;r..;t};;tit;:;+:;: :; $:ti;: :<::r::` :;: :r: :•:.}::: •:. :
�ti:?;:`;•?fix?u ::,,r.• �$• •:x•.��t:}`•.;:;:;:;:::� �, , a, � .4`�, °�c
C
•
•
1
The Sanitation District has indicated that only sewage
generated by current land' use designations. will be accepted,
The current, low density designation would generate 328,250.' peak
gallons per day. The applicant ' s proposal would generate
703, 125 peak gallons per day by 1996 . Therefore, 'any
construction would have to . be phased to coordinate with the
implementation of solutions to the capacity problem.
Three interim solutions have been considered The first solu-
tion would be to -construct an additional pump station which
would increase the capacity to 25 million gallons per day. The
extra pumps would provide enough capacity for development in
the area served by the Slater Pump. Station but could not accom-
modate proposed Holsa Chica development ., The cost would be
. $100-500, 000 . The Sanitation District states that the Slater
Pump Station and additional pumps, if constructed, would be
abandoned when the Coast Trunk Sewer System is m place. The
Sanitation District is waiting for the outcome of the discus-
sions between the City, County and Signal Landmark before they
decide whether or not to construct the additional pumps .
According to Tom Dawes, Director of Engineering for the
District, they will probably make their- final decision sometime
before April; 1988 .
Sanitation District staff is also exploring the possibility of
instituting a building moratorium for all areas served 'by the
Slater Pump Stati�o.n_ According to Tom Dawes, if such a =3
moratorium were ditpted, the District would probably accept
only the sewage that would be generated by-development which
already had building permits .
Finally, RMG Engineering conducted a sewage analysis for the
applicant which suggested that on or off.-site storage tanks
could be used to store sewage during peak .hours and pump the
sewage through Slater Pump Station during: ,low usage hours . The
Sanitation,,District . wil-1 not comment on the private use of such
tanks nor will they--own or operate them.
The ultimate solution is the construction of the Coast Trunk
Sewer System. It will cost -$12 - 15 million. District 11 does
not have the money to fund construction costs . Potentially,
Signal Landmark could loan the District the approximately
$7 1/2 million that they would pay in connection fees and
approximately $3. million that they would .pay in annexation
fees. Until negotiations between the City, .County and Signal
Landmark are completed, it is unclear what- the outcome of the
Coast Trunk Sewer System proposal will be
At the Planning Commission study session, the following , .
concerns were raised:
1. What are the boundaries of District 3 and 11 and what '
drainage area is served by the Slater Pump Station?
Staff Report -' ;6/2/87 -8 (8262d)
Response: A map which approximately delineates the above
areas is attached. See Figure 4 . Also,' a wall map is
being prepared by the Sanitation District and will be
available for the, Public Hearing. - .
2 . - .What is the potential sewage generation of all ,vacant areas .
of the city, which- would be, served ,by the Slater Pump
Station.
Response: SLATER PUMP STATION SERVICE AREA
' ' . Lana use AgprQx. Vacant Acreage Estimated Sewage Flow
Average _GPD** Peak GPD
Residential*
Estate 226. 80 226, 800 567,000
Low Density 86 . 11 173, 942 434, 855
Medium.Density 6. 17 23, 939 598,470
- Medium High Density 7. 56 43 ,999 109 , 997
Commercial 16 �75 54 , 103 135, 257
Industrial . 173 .34 520, 020 1,300, 050
Total 516 .73 1, 042-, 803 2, 607, 006
* gallons per day
C. Water
The Water'-Department is. concerned about their ability to meet future
. water "*demands in the City. Because of this concern, a Water System
Master Plan is currently in progress., completion is expected in
October 1987 .
At the present time, the Water Department does not have adequate_
data to identify existing water use by type of land use, i .e. ,
single family versus apartment, versus a commercial center. Thee
Master .Plan Study will identify current water need by type of land
use plus the following:
- Analyze existing distribution system
Evaluate current need
-Evaluate,,future need
Adequacy .of reservoir storage capabilities ,
- Adequacy of water transmission mains, sizes, etc.
Ability' to serve proposed Bolsa. Chica development
r
Includes Area 2. 1; Alternative 1. `
Lo-�
Staff Report - 6/2/87 ; 9 (8262d).
IOLIA
IDNM
DISTRI 11;
volmo
..... ........ SLA,a
IST�ICT 3
r .......... . _ ......
• � J SOKKiG'
-LEEl' \.
ADAMS
SLATER PU f SERVICE
AREA .., ._
' .......... IANAPOIIf
ND
CT:11
DISTRICT BOUNDARY ° ��
.\ ATLANTA -
0 -SLATER-PH STAT1.ON
NAMLTON
ILAMING
aaao awo raer �'-.. .
ORANGE COUNTRY SANITATION Figure 4
Atgbk DISTRICT BOUNDARIES
QCJ (-Qj
hUntington beach planning. departr�nent
_
4 -
- s
At the Planning. Commission study session, -concern was raised "
regarding specific information from the Wa"ter "Department regarding
servicing development on Area 2. 1. Further communication with' the
Water " Depa.rtment has resulted . in the above description of the Master
Plan Study and the comment that they will not be -able to report
specific information regarding development impacts from Area 2 . 1
unt.i.l the Study is completed in October. See Attachment 4, Water
Department Memo.
D. Market Analysis
. The -applicant ' s consultant, Levanthol & Howarth, prepared` a market -
analysis that supports the development of a commercial center on
Area 2. 1 consisting of 140, 000 square feet, containing , 114 , 620
square feet of. retail stores, phased over a three year development
period. _
At the Planning Commission Study Session questions were raised
regarding the viability of a new commercial center considering
existing marginal retail business relatively close to Area 2 . 1.
Response: The consultant relied on ;1980 Census data,- historical
market data and retail growth, and market analyses supplied .to them
by regional and national sources . The consultant did not visit the
City of Huntington .Beach and collect, and/or generate current data
on existing commercial development . Therefore, the marginal
condition of selected existing commercial retail business near Area
" > 2 . 1.- were not personally assessed by 'the consultant .
E:. Compatibility
Area, 2. 1 is adjacent to a variety of existing land uses, ranging
from single-family residential to a church-. Also, there. is
commercial development on the corners of Bolsa Chica and Warner and
Bolsa 'Chica . and Heil, with in a few hundred feet of Area 2. 1. ' This
variety of adjacent land uses, therefore, would be compatible. with a
mix of uses on the site such as commercial development adjacent to
Warner and . residential on the balance of the site.
Conclusions
Staff is recommending Alternative 7 because it would allow 15 '"acres
of . Commercial along Warner Avenue, but would retain the existing Low
Density Residential land use on the remaining 50 acres. This
alternative would reduce traffic,. sewage and water impacts and would.
increase compatibility with the surrounding area. The 14,250
average daily trips which would be..generated by the applicants
request would- be :reduced .to 12, 150 .- The retention 'of the low _
density zoning would minimize .trips on Heil and Pearce:
_ n
N
n
Staff Report - 6%2/87 -11- (8262d)
Yµ
Ma
The. '703, 125 peak gallons per " day:` of sewage that would be,.g.enerated`
by the app.licant'.s request would be. reduced to 373, 62.5- peak gallons
per day. The Sanitation District has.' stated that the slight
' increase of sewage over what would be generated by the existing land
use designation 'could be accommodated by the Slater Pump Station.,
Without the completion of the Water Department Master Plan Study,
staff is unable to determine area 2. 1 development impacts on 'the
City', s water system.'
Area 2.2 - Northeast Corner of Gothard 'Street and Center Drive
Area of concern 2 .2 (see. Figure 5) is a request by the City of
Huntington Beach to change therGeneral Plan land use designation on
2.7 ' acr.es of land (which is owned by the Orange County Transit'
District,_ CCTD) from Public, Quasi-public, Institutional to Mixed
Development. A request to change the zoning on. the subject property
from Community Facilities - Education (CF-E) with a base zone of Low
Density.- Residential (Rl) to Commercial with a Multi-story suffix
(C4-MS). .is being processed concurrently with Gene.ral .Plan Amendment '
87-2.
This general plan amendment request •has - been prepared pursuant to a
directive given to staff by the Planning Commission in April, 1986 .
On April 15, 1986, the City Planning Commission. approved Conditional
Use Permit (CUP). 85-69 for the OCTD property to permit the devel
opment of •a transportation center on the site. The- approved
transportation center is scheduled for development in late 1987,:,
The present zoning and General. Plan 'designation on the subject
property will allow the transportation center as.,proposed. Howe°per,
a condition of approval placed by .,the Planning Commission on CUP `
86-69 was that "OCTD •shall reserve the ' air rights ' above the
subject site for possible future use (office -structure over parking
„compound) . "
To address .the 'condition placed on the CUP, OCTD is proposing a
joint development agreement for the 'site whereby a private developer -
will : construct office use above .the `approved transportation center
and will lease the air rights -from OCTD. The office facilities will
-be coordinated/integrated with the transportation center uses. EIR
87-2 -analyzes :two specific development scenarios differing only in
. .intensity for the proposed joint venture project•. Either scenario
could ; be permitted under -the recommended land use designation. ' .
At .the study session heid _on May 19 , ' 1987, for GPA 87-2; the »
Planning Commission requested larger renderings of the proposed
transportation center and air rights development project.
Subsequent to the. meeting, - the Orange County Transit -District
forwarded. the» largest renderings available (ledger size) to City
staff. Copies of the conceptual renderings have been included with
this staff report for your review. Copies of the 'Request for
proposal that OCTD issued for the joint development project were
distributed .at the study session. If any commissioner wishes an
..additional .copy they should contact staff . Extra copies will also
be' -available at .the June 2, 1987 Planning Commission meeting. F`
Staff Report 6/2/87 12-: W 82"62d)
. w
I•I/�I
��• ®� �. � tj n�.,.� it 111110
=� �� //��,//�®���/1/� �•�j ♦ � �:..i /Ills/111
YF E,
1
� • �. -,• is � •�a •� •
a.
It should be noted. that at the Study Session and in. subsequent
telephone conversations with City staff,. OCTD staff indicated that
time is. of the- -essence with regard to coordinating the proposed' ` .
development of the air rights and the development or the approved
transportation center . Consequently, OCTD staff would not be in
support of the Planning Commission continung 'OCTD' s general plan
amendment and zone change requests .
If the Planning Commission chooses. to continue item 2. 1 of GPA 87-2,
(Meadowlark) ; staff recommends that items 2 . 1 and 2.2 be separated
and that the Planning Commission take action on item' 2 .2 (OCTD site)
on June 2, 1987.
In accordance with Planning Commission policy set in April, 19,86 ,
• staff recommends approval of General Plan Amendment 87-2, Area 2. 2.
Due .to some circulation concerns with the specific, proposals that
OCTD is considering (Alternatives 2 and 3) , staff further recommends
that prior to the granting of any entitlements for development of
the air space above the approved transportation center, further
traffic analysis be conducted. The 'Circulation concerns are out
lined in Section 2.2 .2 . 5 of EIR 87-2 . The recommended detailed
traffic study will provide conclusive information to determine the
maximum amount of commercial and office space that can be
accommodated on site.
Another potential concern for the proposed development of the air
'rights is water service-. During initial consult�'t.ion with the
-City' s Water. Department, staff indicated that dev.e`lopment . of the air
space above 'the approved Orange County Transportation Center could
be `•adequately .serviced. However, in light of the proposed Master
Plan Study, Water Department staff has indicated, aria a. memorandum
dated April 29, 1987 (attached) , that it may be premature to assess
the potential impacts of the proposed general plan amendment on the
City' s Water system. . This . is not 'to say, however, that the proposed
project cannot be serviced. When specific development plans have
been devised, the City' s Water Department Staff wi,.11 be consulted
further.
4 . 0 STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
AREA 2 . 1
Recommend to the City Council certification of Environmental Impact
Report' 87-2 and approval of General Plan Amendment 87-2, Area 2 . 1,
in 'order to change . the land use designation on 65 acres located on
the north side of Warner Avenue, south side of Heil Avenue and 600
.feet east of Holsa Chica Street from Low .Density Residential, to
General Commercial on the southerly 15 acres, therefore retaining
Low Density Residential on the remaining 50 acres.
Staff also recommends that, prior to the granting of any
entitlements,- further analysis be performed to ensure that any4 r
development of the site can be adequately provided with sewage and
water services
2 q
Staff Report 6/2/87 -14- (8262d)
Area 2 . 2'
Recommend to the. City- Council certification of Environmental Impact
Report 87-2 and approval of General Plan Amendment 87-2., Area 2 .2 in
order to change the land use designation on 2 . 2 acres located at- the
northeast -corner of the intersection of Gothard Streeet and Center
Drive from Public, Quasi-public, Institutional to, Mixed Development,
.and approve zone 'change 87-2 to change the zone designation on the
subject property from Community Facilities Education with abase
zone of Low Density Residential (CF-E) (R-1) to Commercial with aJ-
Multi-story suffix (C4-MS)
Staff 'also recommends: that prior. to=,the granting of any entitle-
ments, further traffic analysis .be conducted to address the circu-
lation concerns identified in Section 2 .2.2 .5 of. Environmental
Impact Report.. 87-2 .
ATTACHMENTS
1. Summary Requests Land Use Element 87-2 .
2 . Resolution No. 1378 Recommending Adoption of WE Amendment 87-2
3 . Ordinance, Zone Change 87.-2
4 . Water Department memo
5 . Area 2. 1 Revenue . Cosa Estimates Summary Table . including
Alternative 7.
6. Orange County Transit District letter regarding Area 2 .2 .
7 . Orange County .Transportation District Conceptual: Renderir ^rc .
8 . LUE/EIR 87-2
jWPLC:.gbm
0�
Staff:.Report 6/2/87 15 "(82:62d)
t
SUMMARY OF.REQUESTS :. .
LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT 87-2
REQUEST
ITEM/ ENVIRON-
' AREA OF MENTAL STAFF
CONCERN LOCATION ACREAGE APPLICANT REQUEST INFORMATION RECOMMENDATION'
2.1 North side 65.0 Dick Ne,rio Low Density EIR 87-2 General Commer—
of Warner Ave., Residential to cial and Low
south side of General Commercial Density
Heil Ave. .600 and Medium, Medium Residential
feet east of - High and Senior .
Bolsa Chica Residential
2:2 Northeast 2.70 Huntington Public, Quasi— EIR 87-2
corner of Beach public,Instituti"onal Public;-Quasi—
Gothard Street Development' to. Mixed Development public, Institu-
and Center Drive - Servi.ces t.ional, to- Mixed
Development`,
r
t c a,
RESOLUTION NO. 1378
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF .THE
CITY .OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
ADOPTION OF, LAND USE' ELEMENT AMENDMENT TO THE
GENERAL PLAN NO. 87-2
WHEREAS, the Planning ' Commission of the City of Huntington
Beach, California, de`si.res to update and refine the General Plan in. -
keeping with changing community needs and objectives; and
WHEREAS, amendments to the Land Use Element are necessary
to accomplish refinement of the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommends the following
amendments to the Land Use Element:
1. That Area 2 . 1 consisting of 65 . 0 -acres located on the
north side of Warner. Avenue, south side of Heil Avenue
and 600 feet east of Bolsa Chica. Street be redesignated
from Low Density Residential to. .General Commercial on
the .southerly 15 acres, retaining Low .Density
Residential on the remaining 50 acres .
2. That .Area 2 .2 cons.isting.. of 2. 70 acres located on the
n -'-heast ' corner of Gothard Street and Center Drive be
re =vignated from Public, Quasi-public Institutional :to.
Mixed Development ,
WHEREAS, a public hearing on adoption of Land Use Element
Amendment to the General Plan No . 87-2 was held by the City. Planning
Commission on June 2, 1987, in accordance with provisions of the
State Government Code;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the. Planning. Commission
of the City of Huntington Beach; California, hereby approved said
amendment to the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said - amendment to the General
Plan of the City of Huntington Beach is recommended for adoption by
the City- Council of -the City of Huntington Beach, California
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City
of Huntington. Beach, California, on the 2nd day o.f June; 1987., by
the following roll call vote:
.AYES
NOES
ABSENT. SIP�
ABSTAIN
ATTEST:,..
lop
James W. Palin, Secretary Planning Commission Chairman
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF ' THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ORDINANCE CODE BY
AMENDING SECTION 9061 THEREOF TO � PROVIDE FOR
CHANGE OF ' ZONING FROM COMMUNITY FACILITIES
EDUCATION (CF-E)- WITH A BASE ZONE OF LOW DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL (R-1) TO COMMERCIAL WITH A MULTI-STORY
SUFFIX (C4-MS) ON REAL PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED
ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF GOTHARD STREET AND
CENTER DRIVE (ZONE CASE 87-2)
WHEREAS, pursuant to the state Planning and Zoning Law, the Huntington Beach
Planning Commission and Huntington Beach City Council have had separate public hearings
relative to Zone Case No. 87-2 wherein both .bodies, have carefully considered.all infor-
mation presented at said hearings, and after due consideration of the findings and recom-
mendations- of the Planning Commission and all evidence presented to said :City Council,
..the City Council finds that such zone change is proper and consistent with,the general plan,
NOW, THEREFORE, the City.Council of the City of Iuntington Beach does ordain as
foiiows:
SECTION I.. The following described real property, generally located;at the north-
east. corner of Gothard Street and Center Drive, is hereby changed from Community
Facilities Education (CF-E) with a base zone of Low Density Residential to Commercial
with a Multi-story suffix (C4-MS):
That portion of the east one-half (E 1/2) of the northeast quarter (1/4) of the
southwest_ quarter (1/4) of Section 14, Township 5 south, range 11 west, in.the
Rancho La Bolsa Chica, City of Huntington Beach, County of Orange; State of
California, as shown on a map recorded in book 51, page 13 of Miscellaneous -
Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of said County.
Beginning at the southwest (S/W) corner of Parcel 1, as shown on a parcel map
filed in book 169, pages 45 and 46 of Parcel Maps in the office of the County
Recorder of said County,. said corner being the centerline intersection of
Gothard Street and Center Drive also being the beginning of a curve concave
southeasterly having a radius of 500.00 feet; thence northerly and eascr.rly
along said curve through a central angle of 45*00'00", an arc distance of 192.70
feet to a point of a'tangent line, .thence north 44020'07" east 94.24 feet along
said tangent line to a point on a tangent curve, said curve being concave to the,
d
northwest and having a radius of 500.00 feet; thence easterly and northerly
along said curve through a central angle of 38*01'01", an arc distance of 331.76
feet to a- point on a radial line; thence south 83'40'54" east 40.00 feet along
said radial line to a point on a. non-tangent line; thence south 0039135" east
709.49- feet along said non-tangent line to a point being the southeast (S7E)
corner of said parcel I; thence south 89°32'15" west 395.47 feet.along south line
of said parcel 1; to the true point of beginning.
SECTION 2. The Development Services Director is hereby directed to .amend Section
9061, District Map 15 (Sectional District_Map 14-5-11) to reflect Zone Case No. 87-2,
described in Section 1 hereof. A copy of said district map, as amended hereby is available
for inspection in'the office of the City Clerk.
SECTION 3. This ordinance.shall take effect thirty days after its adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a
regular meeting thereof held on the day of , 1987.
Mayor.
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City,Clerk City Attorney
REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED:
City Administrator Director of Development Services
a� y°` .
-z .(sl80d)
{
fi�y,, � .
�y
- . _. a .. s,. v.r.. .- .. m.....-• x .. .. ...a.a. ..... <.:. G r«.......• ...x... ...x„....L .....—-.. e ..}..ra� .t� .:.C.�-."..a"�tier`�j''`y.�..,....4':.t: ' r.
AREA 2.1
REVENUE COST ESTIMATES
REVENUE ITEM ALT. #1 ALT. #2 ALT. #3 ALT. #4 ALT. #5 ALT. #6 ALT. #7
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------
PROPERTY TAX 3354 156953 196163 253283 241488 241569 158928
. SALES TAX 0 133 179639 180015 269086 220602 279847
UTIL/FRAM. TAX . 0 47351 66186 94099 124949 111819 52672
BUS. LICENSE 180 0 938 938 1406 1125 1406
FFP - 0 16588 16674 19635 22982 22438 13613
CIGARETTE TAX 0 4029 4049 4769 5581 5449 3307
MOTOR VEHICLE 0 39700 39905 46992 55002 53700 32595
GAS TAX FUND 0 12253 12316 14504 13679 15150 10060
TOTAL: $3534 $277007 $515870 $614235 $734173 $671852 $552428 .
COST ITEM
GEN. ADMN. 0 42055 42055 42055 42055 42055 42055
POLICE 5551 24679 43948 66204 72784 71427 33005
FIRE 0 43212 44567 52281 61565 59809 37176
COMM. SERVICES 0 12546 12610 14850 17381 16970 10300
PUBLIC WORKS 0 3429 3589 4202 4965 4809 3029
TOTAL: $5551 $125921 $146769 $179592 $198750 $195070 $125565.
REVENUE - COST ($2017) $151086 $369101 $434643 $535423 $476782 $426863
' 1 REV./COST RATIO. 0.64 2.20 3.51 3.4 3.69 3.44 4.40
FILE NAME: END87-2.1
,.p 05/29/87
1 �� HUNTING TON
B H
C
INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION
oaJNT CWN WA01
To Cathering M. O'Hara From Stanley Farber
-Assistant, Planner Civil Engineering Assistant
Subject GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT Date April 2.9, 1987
No. 87-2
Boyle Engineeringg, has' been selected to prepare a -Master Plan for.
the City of Huntington Beach Water System; therefore, .at this time
it would not be prudent of us to state what the impact would be
on our system.
Attached is a copy of, a portion of WFM (Water Facility Map) No. 241
which shows the location and sizes of the watermains at the inter-
section in question - Center 'Drive and Gothard Street. . Center Drive
is. supplied with. water by a 12" asbestos-cement watermain. Gothar-d
Street is supplied with an .8" asbestos-cement watermain.
If you have any questions , please feel free to contact Mr. Stanley
Farber at 536-5528.
Thank you.
SF:bb
c�
_ -Enclosure ( 1 )
:;Z:
r: r 7-)
N
k
•
,
• ,. .
3
.,. n... .. .... J. ..._.. _ .....-.: • _. ;-.... .- _ .. ..^..<AR3."'.h,...a',:a.uv..w`. ``'. .....'. . .._.<-e.v 'f".`�:.
ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT
May 14,- ,1987
Ms. Catherine. O'Hara
City of Huntington,Beach
P.O. Box 190
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Dear Ms. O'Hara:
SUBJECT: LAND USE AMENDMENT 87-2-/DEIR 8,7-2
We have reviewed this document and appreciate . City staff's efforts in
producing this thoiough report.- We concur with the information provided
1n' the report .but are concerned that the staff recommendation (page -56) ,
supporting. alternative 2, may :restrict the development potential of the
site. While the .City's concerns regarding potential traffic impacts - on
Gothard Street are valid., we believe that the additional environmental
evaluation' that would be necessary for the ,,nixed-use development . would
adequately address the traffic impacts issue.
We would 'like to request that the final EIR be modified .in the following
way, to, provide for consideration. of the maximum development potential for.
the site. ' The City staff recommendation on pane. 56 could be revised to
the more general language shown in the executive summary:
"Staff recommends that the land use designation be
changed to mixed use but that prior to the granting of
any entitlements, further traffic analysis be conducted
to address the circulation concerns -identified in ;
section 2.2.2.5 of-this report."
Again, we appreciate the City staffs' effort in preparing the material
for the General Plan Amendment. If you have any questions, ' or require
additional information, please call me or Christine 'Huard-Spencer at
(714) 971-4343.
Sincerely,
of ey .. Ordway
Manager of Planning
JPO:PI:N-2ICDG
11222 ACACIA PARKWAY .P,O. BOX 3005•GARDEN GROVE. CALIFORNIA 92642•(714)971-6200 -
CITY OF HIINTINGTON BEACH
LOINTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION
HUNTINGTON TEACH
TO Diana 1;laisure From /
Je frey Renna
Assistant Planner Water Superintendent,
Subject WATER SYSTEM MASTER PLAN Date May 26 , 1987
Due to past and possible future development throughout the city,
the Water Division staff feels that it is imperative to
our existing pumping facilities , water storage and
import water supplies . The evaluations will include current needs
as well as future needs . We have enough information available to
know that the performance; of our existing facilities can' t last .
We feed that. we need to develop a new water system master plan.
We feel that this master plan will give us the needed information
to effectively plan and construct needed facilit.ies "for current. and
future use
I have attached a copy of the R. F. P. for the master plan for your.
information. As you can see , we ado have some concerns regarding
the existing facilities . We now have a consultant on board tr. do
the master plan s°tudy. This should be completed by
Once the master plan is completed, Water Division staff will review
it annually '',to make sure new facilities are being constructed
according to schedule. We will -have outside constultant review
of the master plan every three to five years .
If you have any questions or concerns regarding this matter.;.-p- lease
feel free to call me.
JR: EB:bb
s
y
i
July 7, 1987
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT 87-2a
AND
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 87-2
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Huntington Beach City Council will
hold a public hearing in the Council Chamber at the Huntington Beach
Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, on the
date and at the time indicated below to receive and consider the
statements of all persons who wish to be heard relative to the
application described below.
DATE July 20, 1987
TIME • 7 :00 p.m.
SUBJECT : General Plan Land Use Element Amendment 87-2a/
Environmental Impact Report 87-2
APPLICANT : City of Huntington Beach
LOCATION : Northeast Corner of Gothard Street and Center Drive
REQUEST : Change the General Plan land use designation on 2. 7
acres of land owned by the Orange County Transit
District from Public, Quasi-public, Institutional to
Mixed Development
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS : Draft Environmental Impact Report 87-2 has
been prepared for General Plan Amendment
87-2a and will also be presented for Council
consideration.
ON FILE : A copy of the proposed application is on file in the
City Clerk ' s office, 2000 Main Street, Huntington
Beach, California 92648, for inspection by the public. -
ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and
express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application
as outlined above . All applications, exhibits, and descriptions of j
this proposal are on file with the Office of the City Clerk, 2000
Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, for inspection by the
public.
I
HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL
I
By : Alicia M. Wentworth
City Clerk
Phone ( 714) 536-5405
CITY OF. HUNTINGTON BEACH
2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648
DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
BUILDING DIVISION(714)536-5241 PLANNING DIVISION(714) 536-5271
July 8, 1987
Dear Property Owner:
The City of Huntington Beach is considering an amendment to the Land Use Element of the
City's General Plan for Area 2.2 outlined'on the attached map. The proposed General Plan
amendment is a request by the City of Huntington Beach to change the General Plari1and
use designation on 2.7 acres of.land owned by the Orange County Transportation District.
The current land use designation on the property is Public, Quasi-public, Institutional. The
amendment request is for a-change to Mixed Development.
A public hearing on Land Use Element Amendment No. 87-2a/ Environmental Impact 1
Report No. 87-2 will be held before the City Council on June 20, 1987 at which time you
may address the Council and state your position concerning the amendment.and
Environmental Impact Report. The hearing will take place in the Civic Center Council
Chambers at 2000 Main Street, Huntington'Beach, California at 7:00 p.m.
Please contact-Catherine O'Hara of my staff at (714) 536-5271 if you have any questions
regarding the proposal. Copies of the proposed Land Use Element Amendment and
Environmental Impact Report are on file in the Department of Community Development
for inspection by the public.
Sin erely,.
DougT aBelle, Director,
Community Development
DLB:.CMO:gbm
•(7099&10)
r
s MiNST
y Ml.;4T N TON EA N i
DR. nArAr aK
J4 11,; � 4ir
VAMST cm.
— z
OPAM
.`
f OMII�M Avg
It
yl
fY.All AV
TER
McFa.ddc+� CITY s
• W � f.4f
F
h � \
CENTER MW
CL
I
I
C LEV;.Z N:.+1!•.i�:i1�iY R:t' I .i .... �.'Ir... I 9R•:...A'.�
s �
_ I
1 � i
r_n�►1(s E - e'r'+'rr�-r-ITT
HUNTINGTON .BEACH C4LIFORNIK LAND USE II'Jvr AP'lET DMENN r 87-2ck-
F PLANNING DIVISION ENvimzEwAL it-TACT REPORT 87-2
AREA 2.2
142-071-54
. Orange County Transit
11222 Acacia Pkwy.
v Garden Grove, CA 92646
CS e ..
�<<� 142-071-63
Jerwel Enterprises
7400 Center Ave- Suite 2
Huntington Beach, CA 92647
�✓lid -�z�
j 142-472-02
Seawind Village
P.O. Box 579
t' 'x
Dana Point, CA 92629
,...
142-472-03
Old World Owners Assn.
7561 Center Ave #60
' f �r Huntington Beach, CA 92647
?p,l`
142-072-01,02
Coast Community College
2701 Fairview Road
ter, , Costa Mesa, CA 92626
G� iE;j`��• z4 -
��. Goldenwest Community
uLt College
C" 15704 Goldenwest
Huntington Beach, CA
h 92647
`i,ATTN: Fred Garcia
J ,
Authorized to Publish Advertisements of all kinds including public
notices by Decree of the Superior Court of Orange County,
California, Number A-6214, dated 29 September. 1961. and
A-24831, dated 11 June, 1963.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of Orange Public Nolica Adrerue+np corored
or trio attldaat U mt in 7 point
with 10 pica Column width '
I am a Citizen of the United States and a resident of
the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen
years, and not a party to or interested in the below
entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of the Orange
Coast DAILY PILOT, with which is combined the
NEWS-PRESS, a newspaper of general circulation,
printed and published in the City.of Costa Mesa, PUBLIC NOTICE ' PUBLIC NOTICE y#h
County of Orange. State of California, and that a NOTICE OF )'for or against the application
PUBLIC HEARING as outlined above.All appli- `
Notice of g u b 1 ; S H e a r-i n ci I GENERAL PLAN cations, exhibits, and de-
LAND USE scriptions of this proposal a
ELEMENT AMENDMENT are on file with the Office of
87-2A/ENVIRONMENTAL Ahe City Clerk, 2000 Main
IMPACT REPORT 87-2 ' 'i Street, Huntington Beach,
NOTICE IS HEREBY lCalifornia, for inspection by
Of which copy attached hereto Is a true and complete GIVEN that the Huntington I the public. i
Beach City Council will hold HUNTINGTON BEACH
copy, was printed and published in the Costa Mesa, a public hearing in the Coun- iCITY COUNCIL, By: Alicia
cil Chamber at the Hunt- M.-Wentworth, City Clerk,
Newport Beach, Huntington Beach, Fountain Valley, ington Beach Civic Center, �$P one(714)536-5405
2000 Main Street, Hunt- f l Published Orange Coast
Irvine, the South Coast communities and Laguna ington Beach, Calfornia, on JDaily Pilot July 9, 1987
O h e time Ithe date and at the time in- Th864
Beach issues Of said newspaper for dicated below to receive and
Consider the statements of
consecutive weeks to wit the issue(s) of all persons who wish to be
heard relative to the-appli-
cation described'below.
DATE:July 20, 1987
TIME:7:00 p.m.
SUBJECT:,General Plan
July 9 7 Land Use Element Amend-
198 1 ment 87-2a/Environmental l
Impact Report 87-2
APPLICANT:City of Hunt-
) ington Beach .
-- 198 LOCATION: Northeast
Corner of Gothard 'Streetl
l and Center Drive
ri
198 REQUEST: Change the,
General Plan Land use des-;
ighation on 2.7 acres of land I
owned by the Orange Coun-
ty Transit District from Pub-!
198 i lic, Quasi-public, Institu-
I tional to Mixed Development'
ENVIRONMENTAL
STATUS:Draft Environmen 1
198 tal Impact Report 87-2 has
}been prepared for General'
Plan Amendment 87-2a and
will also be.presented for
Council consideration,
I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the proposed
Fosedd a apppp copy of the
lication is on '
foregoing is true and correct. file in the City Clerk's office,
2000 Main Street, Hunt- !
ington Beach, California
'92648,for inspection by the
public.
Executed on _.July 9 198 7 ALL INTERESTED PER-
SONS are invited to attend
at Cos Mesa, California. said hearing and express
('�� opinions or submit evidence
Signature
PR,00F OF PUBLICATION