Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Hearing - Appeal Denial by Planning Commision of GPA G L •1 City of Huntington Beach P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92649 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK October 2, .1979 DAON Corporation P. 0. Box 2770 Newport Beach, California 92660 Attention: W. A. Colton, III Vice President - Land Development Gentlemen: .The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at . its regular Meeting held Monday, October 1, 1979 denied the appeal filed by DAON Corporation to the Planning Commission's denial of General Plan Amendment No. 79-2. This is a. final decision. You are hereby notified that pursuant to provisions of Section 1094.E of. the Code of Civil Procedure of the State of California, you have ninety days from October. l, 1979 to. apply to the courts for judicial review. Sincerely, A;,1.-41f Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk AMW:js cc: David Neish Urban Assist, Inc. 610 Newport Center Drive Suite 645 Newport Beach, California 02660 1 ' , w IN THE Superior Court OF THE i STATE OF CALIFORNIA In and for the County of Orange /D - - -G _-. ....._. City Of Huntington Beach — PROOF OF PUBLICATION City Clerk Public Hearing on General Plan Amendment 79-2 State of California ) County of Orange )ss. Mary R. Fosnight That I am and at all times herein mentioned was a citizen of the United States,over the age of twenty-one years,and that I am not a party to,nor interested in the above entitled matter; that I am the principal clerk of the printer of the — NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Huntington Beach Independent Review APPEALTOPLAN COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF a newspaper of general circulation,published in the City of GENERAL.PLAN AMENDMENT79-2 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held by the City Huntington Beach Council of the City of Huntington Beach, in the Council Chamber of the Civic Cen- County of Orange and which newspaper is published for the ter, Huntington Beach at the hour of 7:30 P.M.,or as soon thereafter u poser disemination of local news and intelligence of a general charac- his,on Monday the 1st day of October, ter, and which newspaper at all times herein mentioned had 1979 for the purpose of considering an and still has a bona fide subscription list of paying subscribers, ;denial of the Planning 90 f General P P Y g rdeniai on August 21, 1979 of General and which newspaper has been established, printed and pub- I Plan Amendment No.79-1 General Plan lished at regular intervals in the said County of Orange fora Amendment No. 79.2 is a request to period exceeding that the notice, of which the amend the Land Use Element of the P g one year; i General Plan'on the 107-t_acre parcel of annexed is a printed copy, has been published in the regular land located at the northeast corner of. and entire issue of said newspaper,and not in any supplement Pacific Coast Highway and Beach Boule-j ..vard.This uwt is from Planning Re-; thereof,on the following dates,to wit: serve and Mum Density Residential to i Planned Community land use designs- tion. A legal description is on file in the Department of Development Services. All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and express their opinions September 13 19 7 9 for or against said appeal Further information may be obtained from the Office of the City Clerk,2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA. (714)536-5226. I! Dated:September 7,1979. f CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH I I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the forego- By:ALICIA M.WENTWORTH ing is true and correct. .t Clerk PA,Sep,13,1979 Garden Grove Hnnt.Beach Ind•Rev.#10642 Datedat................................................ California,this 13t h da ot$eptemb 79 y mb 9 Signature )57- Form No.CAF-6579 REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Submitted by James W. .Palin Department Development Services Date Prepared September 21 , 1979 Backup Material Attached X� Yes No Subject APPEAL: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 79-2 City Administrator's Comments Approve as recommended Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions: p�J STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Transmitted for consideration is an appeal filed by the Daon Corporation concerning the Planning Commission' s denial of General Plan Amendment 79-2 on August 21, 1979 . The proposed amendment addresses Daon' s request to redesignate approximately 107 acres located north of Pacific Coast Highway and east of Beach Boulevard from Medium Density Residential and Planning Reserve to Planned Community on the City ' s Land Use Element. Also transmitted is Environmental Impact Report 77--9, which addresses environmental impacts on the proposed amendment. RECOMMENDATION: . The Department of Development Services recommends that the City Council certify EIR 77'=9 as' bein'g adequate and in conformance with CEQA require- ments. The Department of Development Services also recommends that' the City Council sustain the .Planning coMmission' s action of August 21, 1979 and deny the applicant' s request. Should the City Council override the Planning Commission the Cite Attorney should be directed to prepare a resolutiori).adopting General Plan Amend- ment 79-1. The Planning Commission has recommended that if the requested amendment is adopted, the City Council also adopt an emergency interim ordinance establishing a moratorium on any change of zoning, entitlement for development, .or issuance of building permits on property within the 107-acre area of concern. Said moratorium would take effect upon adoption and run for a period of six months . A letter from the Daon Corporation agreeing to such a moratorium has also been attached. Staff concurs with the Planning Commission recommendation if the proposed amendment is adopted. Pio sne ACA-APPEAL GPA 79-2 September 21, 1979 Page 2 ANALYSIS : See attached Staff Report for analysis of issues. FUNDINr, SOURCE: None required ALTERNATIVES: The City Council may either uphold or override the Planning Commission's denial of General Plan Amendment 79-2 . If the appeal is granted, the City Council may adopt the proposed Planned Community designation. The City Council .may not adopt any other land use designations for the area of concern without referring the amendment back to the Planning Commission for a report. The Planning Commission would have forty days in which to report back to the City Council. Respectfully submitted, James W. Palin Director of Development Services Attachments: 1) Letter of appeal from the Daon Corporation 2) Staff Report 3) General Plan Amendment 79-2 4) EIR 77-9 5) EZR comments from U.S . Fish and wildlife Service and OCTD 6) Summary of Planning Commission actions .at August 2.1, 1979 meeting, 7) Letter from Daon Corporation agreeing to a moratorium JWP/BH/dc .cCTrt ti; yA�ay.� DAON SOUTHWEST A division of Doon Corporation 441F f 4041 MacARTHUR BOULEVARD D� POST OFFICE BOX 2770 NEWPORT BEACH,CALIFORNIA 92660 TELEPHONE(714)752-7855 August 27, 1979 City Clerk City of Huntington Beach P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648 Subject: Appeal General Plan Amendment 79-2, Daon Corporation The Daon Corporation hereby appeals the decision of the Huntington Beach Planning Commission regarding General Plan Amendment 79-2. At the Planning Commission hearing on August 21, 1979, the Planning Commission, by a vote of 4-1, denied the General Plan Amendment request of the Daon Corporation. The request was for a land use designation for the 107 acre area located north of Pacific Coast Highway and east of Beach Boulevard, to be changed from .Medium Density Residential and Planning Reserve to Planned Comamity. This amendment request was first considered as part of General Plan Amendment 78-1 in July, 1978. At that time, the Planning Commission voted to continue the request until the City had adopted its Local Coastal Plan, which at the time was scheduled for completion in May, 1979. Delays in the preparation of the LCP prompted Daon to request a reconsideration of the proposed amendment. On July 17, 1979, the Planning Commission voted to initiate a second amendment to the Land Use Element to consider our request. This request was then acted upon by the Planning Commission on August 21. We believe that there are more than reasonable grounds for an appeal of that Planning Commission decision: City Clerk -2- August 27, 1979 We continue to maintain that the requested Planned Community designation is the proper land use designation on the subject property. It is our belief that this land use category will be of benefit not only to the applicant but also the City in its ongoing Local Coastal Planning process. We further feel that public hearing testimony by City staff and members of the City's LCP Citizens Advisory Committee indicated for the first time that the LCP process may be at least one more year away from certification and not six (6) months as previously stated. As a result, a particular inequity is being forced onto us as we pursue proper land use planning in coordination with the City of Huntington Beach. And, lastly, it should be noted that on several votes under- taken at the August 21 hearing the Daon request appeared to have a majority (3-2) backing but not the required four votes for passage. We, therefore, request your consideration of our appeal of the August 21, 1979 Planning Commission decision to deny GPA 79-2. Please advise us of the hearing date and when information for that hearing will be available. Sincerely, DAON 00 I W. A. Co, to , II Vice President, Land Development WAC:cb cc: Mills Land and Water Urban Assist • CITY OF HunTInGTOn BEACH J� DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES BUILDING DIVISION (714)536-5241 PLANNING DIVISION (714)536-5271 }Q#� P.O. Box 190, HUNTINGTON BEACH,CALIFORNIA 92648 TO: Floyd G. Belsito, City Administrator FROM: James 11. Palin, .Director of Development Services DATE: October 1, 1979 SUBJECT: APPEAL: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 79-2 1: 0 BACKGROUND Before you tonight is an appeal to the Planning Commission' s denial of proposed General Plan Amendment No. 79-2 , a request filed by the Daon Corporation to redesignate approximately 107 acres of . land located north of Pacific Coast Highway and east of Beach Boulevard from Medium Density Resi-0!�.ntial. and Planning Reserve to Planned Community on the City' s Land Use Element. The Daon Corporation originally applied for an amendment to a mixture of Low, Mediumfand High Density Residential and Commercial uses on the subject property in September 1977. In June , 1978, the applicant amended the request to a Planned Community to allow planning of the project to occur simultaneously with the completion of the City is Local Coastal Program. The Planning Commission considered the amended request as part of General Plan Amendment 78-1 in August, 1978. After public hearings , the Planning Commission continued the request until the- City Council had adopted the LCP, with the applicant agreeing to monitor and provide input to the LCP , which at that time was scheduled for adoption in May, 1979. On :May .10, 1979 , the Staff received a letter from the applicant requesting that the Planning Commission reconsider the amendment request. The Planning Commission concurred and held another public hearing to consider the request on August 21, 1979 . Only five Planning Commissioners were Present at this meeting, and after it became evident that the four affirmative votes necessary for either approval or continuance were lacking the Commission voted 4 to 1 to deny the amendment request. The intent of the Commission' s action was to allow the applicant to appeal the action to the City Council. A summary of motions introduced and votes taken at the Planning Commission hearing has been attached for your review. Appeal-GPA 79-2 . r October l-1c7-9-7 Page 2 The applicant has proposed no specific land uses for the proposed Planned Community area at this time, but seeks approval of the amendment request as a sign of the City' s commitment to the eventual development of the area, allowing Daon to begin more detailed planning studies for the area in cooperation with the City' s LCP efforts. 2. 0 ISSUE'S The various land use, housing, fiscal, and environmental issues raised by the amendment request are analyzed in the attached documents : General Plan Amendment No. 79-2 and Environmental Impact Report 77-9 . In summary, the malor issues are: i The approval of any changes to the Land Use Element for areas in the Coastal Zone prior to adoption of the City's Local Coastal Program. California Coastal Act policies state that the use of private lands suitable for visitor- serving "commercial recreational facilities designed to enhance public opportunities for coastal recreation shall have priority over private residential, general .industrial, or general commercial development, but not over agriculture or coastal dependent industry (Section 30222), . While these policies do not preclude residential development in the area of concern, the demand for visitor-serving facilities must be met somewhere in the Coastal Zone; the LCP is currently analyzing potential locations for such facilities . The 107-acre project area comprises roughly four percent of all City land in the Coastal Zone. The 57 vacant acres within the area of concern represent approximat6ly 16 percent of all remaining vacant land in the- Coastal Zone and less than three percent of all vacant land in the City (the 132 acres approved for Seacliff Phase IV were not counted as vacant coastal land) . 2) The existence of 447 mobile homes which house nearly 70.0 predominantly elderly residents within the area of concern. The applicant has not indicated whether or not the mobile home parks will be allowed to remain or phased out over time. The City is currently revising its Housing Element, the draft of which includes policies aimed at main- taining the expanding housing opportunities for the elderly and persons and f_arlilies with low and moderate incomes . . Coastal Act Policies also address the housing issue ; the Regional Commission staff has indicated its intent to preserve existing mobile home parks in the Coastal Zone or require one-to-one replacement in the Coastal Zone for any units displaced. Residents of both mobile home parks have expressed great concern over the proposed amendment and I its impact on their community at recent Planning Commission hearings. Appeal-GPA 79-2 October 1,, 1979 Page 3 3) The existence of nearly fifty acres of identified wetlands areas covering the vacant portions of the area of concern. Comments on EIR 77-9 received from two agencies , the U.S . Fish and wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game , indicate that they would oppose any development proposed for the area that would result in the filling or destruction of wetlands unless the project were specifically designed to enhance the wetlandsE----- - Projects in wetlands areas are subject to approval of the U.S . Army Corps of Engineers; both agencies mentioned above have commenting authority to the Corps permit process and have indicated they would recommend denial of development of the alternatives presented in the EIR. Additionally, the wetlands portions of the area of concern have been identified as a habitat of the Belding' s Savannah Sparrow, listed as an endangered species by the State Department of Fish and (3ame. 4) The Planned Community land use designation is a very broad, loosely defined designation. According to the Consistency Matrix in the General Plan, all zoning districts are considered consistent with the planned Community designation. Until a more specific zoning or development plan is submitted by the applicant, the actual impacts of the land use amendment are impossible to determine. Of special interest are the fiscal impacts of any proposed development on the City' s revenues and ability to provide services . The City is currently developing a model to assess the fiscal impact of proposed new development, however, more specific land use data is needed before the impact can be measured. 5) Because any number of zoning districts and land uses are allowed under the existing definition of the Planned Community, and because of the pending completion of the Local Coastal Program, the Planning Commission has recommended that the City Council adopt an emergency ordinance establishing a six-month moratorium on any change of zoning, ;entitlement for development, or issuance of building_permits within_ . the area of concern should the Council uphold the applicant' s appeal and approve the land use amendment. The Daon Corporation has in good faith agreed to such a moratorium; a letter to this effect has been attached. 3. 0 ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS Environmental Impact Report 77-9 has been attached for your consideration in rendering a decision on the proposed amendment. The EIR, which was prepared in conjunction with Daon' s original amendment request, addresses the environmental impacts of the proposed land use designation and a number of alternatives. ,Appeal-GPA 79-2 ,�•, LOctober 1, 1979 Page 4 The alternatives, discussed on pages 6-18 of the EIR, were developed by the applicant and Staff in an attempt to evaluate the potential impacts of a range of intensitites of development upon the project site. Alternatives D and E reflect Coastal Act policy considerations through. the inclusion of 12 acres of Commercial recreation (recreational vehicle compground) in Alternative D and nearly 60 acres of public use and open space in Alternative E. It should be emphasized that these alternatives were prepared for illustrative purposes only for the EIR, and do not take into consideration potential constraints to development posed by environmental conditions and existing land uses within the area of concern. The Planning Commission has previously certified the EIR as being adequate and._in-- conformance with CEQA requirements . Copies of the final EIR were°-recently redistributed to all agencies and/or persons who originally commented on the draft EIR. Comments received during _ the second review period from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Orange County Transit District are included as attachment 5 of this packet.- Certification of EIR 77-9 is required if the City Council desires to amend the Land Use Element for the requested area.ri. -"-` Staff recommends that the City Council certify EIR 77-9 as being adequate and in conformance with CEQA regardless of the action taken on the Daon Corporation appeal. 4 . 0 RECOMMENDATION The Department of Development Services recommends that the .City Council uphold the. Planning Commission' s denial of General Plan Amendment 7972 . JWP/BH/dc, United States Department of the Interior ,Mond o FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE A3. ECOLOGICAL SERVICES 24000 Avila Road Laguna Niguel, CA 92677 August 20, 1979 HUNTINGTON BEACH Department of Development Services PLANNING DEPARTMENT Planning Division P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 17� Attention: Louisa Finn P', o, Box 190 Hu:an on gc3ch, C0111- 92643 Re: General Plan Amendment 78-1 and iVetlands within Federal Permit Authority Dear Planner: This constitutes the U.S. Fish and lVildlife Service (FWS) comments upon the FEIR 77-9 , General Plan Amendment 78-1 . This also replies to Ms. Finn's letter of 1 August 1979 which asked specific questions about the wetland area northeast of the intersection of Beach Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway. m+nsuel , You will find attached a copy of our previous letter of comment on r:••,.,: the draft EIR, dated 18 May 1978. That letter is still applicable. The final EIR fails to incorporate any mention of the requisite Federal' permit process. It is worth reiterating that much of the area within the bounds of the proposed General Plan Amendment (see attached map) is an "adjacent wetland of Waters of the United States" and is, therefore, subject to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit authority under the auspices of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1977. Salt marsh wetland vegetation found at the site includes Salicornia virginica, Suaeda californica, Frankenia grandiflora, Jaumea carnosa, Distichlis spi.cata, and Glaux maritima, with marginal beach strand including Atrip.lex spp. ,Gasoul nodiflorum, and Cakile maritima. Surface water salinities are usually high and were observed to be between 44 and 78 parts per thousand on 17 Augus,t 1979. Birds observed on this date included such water associated species as willets, dowitchers, sandpipers, avocets, gulls, black necked stilts , and the state listed endangered species, Belding's savannah sparrow. This wetland area is a remnant of a onc© extensive salt marsh and estuary complex. CONSERVE AMERICA'S ENERGY Save Energy and You Serve America! As stated in the previous letter, the FWS reviews the Federal permit application and makes recommendations to preclude losses to public fish and wildlife resources. The F{VS will op ose the issuance of an Federal permit which would allow the filling of the subject wetlands. We wouldr.�.M._ recommend that the subject wetlands be filled only if it were demonstrated that each of the following criteria are applicable and/or met: a) the project must be water dependent; b) all other feasible alternatives must be exhausted; c) all unavoidable biological losses must be compensated. Mitigation of adverse impacts is not acceptable. Since each of the proposals before us now include some destruction of wetland, either by .flood channel relocation or building construction, the FWS would likely oppose issuance of a Federal permit for any one of them. .4 The city should develop a habitat preservation and enhancement plan to include adequate buffers around the designated wetland. Buffers around the wetland can include distance and such measures as earthen berms, walls, fences, ditches, or vegetative screens. More stringent measures to prevent illegal dumping and motorcycle use would be particularly beneficial to much of this wetland area. Access by utility vehicles and the use of herbicides and/or dust controlling oil should be curtailed. • � r> If we can be of further assistance, contact Jack Fancher or myself at (714) 831-4270. Sincerely yours, WIZalpli C. Pisapia Field Supervisor JMF:rm Enclosures cc: South Coast Regional Coastal. Comm. , Long Beach, CA' CE, Navigation Branch, Los Angeles, CA CDFG, Region 5, Long Beach, CA ;:ccic~ical ;'Sr , irFa . 4 2 00 ?.vile i`aad Laguna Niguel , CL 92677 S` Iny 18 , 197t, James R. Farnes, _ ._.. Assistant Flanner Dept. of Planning & ,Environmental Resources P. 0. Fox 190 fluntin^ton Peach, CA. Dear '';r. Parnec: The Fish and Vil¢life. Service (F S) OF examined the draft EIR 77-9 , General Plan Amendment 78-1 , vhich considers changes to 100 plus acres northeast of the intersection of Reach nlvd . and Pacific Coast HiAway. The Service wishes to take this opportunity to advise the City that the included .salt march arcs it under 'Federal permit jurisdiction with � respect to any filli.n; activity. Under the ac7is of Section 400 of the F e&rzl Voter Pollution Control Act, the Army Corr: of Ennineers administers the permit prorram which, in part , reaulater discharge of fill materials into "waters cf, the United States" . Clearly, the salt cwarsh area within the Gcnerpl Flan Amendment area is an adjacent coastal wet.lar,d , i.e. part of the waters of the United Staten, as defined in the Federal Register Vol . 42 , No. 13f , July 19 , 1977 , "Section 23< .2 (c) The term Ketland " mFans those a_rcas that are inundated or saturated by surface or Fround water at a frequency and duration sufficient- to support, and that under r.•cr-al eircu^. Ftnnccv do s"Poor't , n Provo- lcnco of V07etaticn t• ll r• ......utr t for l.iH _.. ra Lr;_ted roil ct?r,.,lti n... Yetlnr, _n r . n_rn11v include :amc , mapanrs,, 07 end HOW area_ . (c) The term "Wacent" means horderinn, continuous, . or ncis.hborin.; Wet.ia.ndr separated from other raters ` of .he United States by ,fan-made dikes or barriers , nptyrnl riv=r tcr7n , rcvch dunes and the like are had jecnnt wetl"r.C.:." . iAMMMW Any application for a Federal permit will be reviewed by the Fish and Wildlife Service at that time. Our review and recommendations will be performed In compliance with Service policy and guidelines promulgated for such activities. In general, these policies require that encroachment into public .waters be permitted only for water-dependent works (not merely water-oriented) , that no feasible upland alternative ' exist, and that the extent of the encrcachment be minimized. All unavoidable impacts to fish and wildlife must be compensated. Even with theme strict policies, it must be realized that there could be certain projects with losses to fish and wildlife resources that the Service will consider unacceptable. These will warrant uncompromistng opposition. while they must be determined on a rase by case basis, an example of such unacceptable loss right be losses to endangered species or sienifieant incomp.ensable losses to important vetlands�resources. I If we can be of further assistance or can answer- questions regarding'. possible Serviee, posture towards specific proposals, please contact us at (714) 831-4270. Sincerely, James J. McRevitt Field Supervisor � I JMF.:gr cc: CE, Navigation Branch, Los. Angeles, .CA Bruce Eliason, . CDFG, Reg. .5 , Long Beach, CA bcc: AM, Sacramento, CA i I I I ,. J !/ter, i � •� -- i , :. . .....:..... 1 , FA! ,t�l I c.0 , IIrt� 1 � 1 I ID V 4""- HUNTINGTON ©EACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT rI 1g79 P. 0. Box 190 ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT August 10, 1979 i June W. Catalano Senior Planner f,ox 190 Department of Development Services �.,,t7tali tt� , �.n, CA 92648 City of Huntington Beach j P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 SUBJECT: Final EIR 77-9-General Plan Amendment 78-1 i Dear Ms. Catalano: i I The Orange County Transit District staff has reviewed your revised 1 EIR 77-9, and wishes to .submit the following comments. I i The. District supports the comment submitted by Mr. Ralph Leyva, j the City's Traffic Engineer, that bus stops on all four arterials be integrated into the design of the project. Along Pacific Coast Highway, it would be advisable if a turn-out, or bay was provided so that buses could stop out of the flow of traffic. I However, the comment by the Traffic Department that the area 1 northeast of Beach Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway may be I considered for a transportation center is no longer applicable, since this site has been eliminated from consideration by the District. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or Mr. Glen Campbell at .971-6409. Very truly yours, I � I i i Robert C. Hartwig Environmental Coordinator cc. Glen Campbell i I RCH:E I i 11222 ACACIA PARKWAY• P.O. BOX 3005• GARDEN GROVE,CALIFORNIA 92642• PHONE (714)971 6200 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 79-2 SUMMARY OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS AUGUST 21, 1979 A MOTION WAS MADE BY STERN TO TABLE =RAL PLAN AMENDMENT 79-2 TO ALLOW COMPLETION OF A PACKAM TO GENERAL PLAN AND PLANNED COMMUNITY. Motion failed for lack of second. A D".OTION TATAS MADE BY STERN AND SECONDED BY RUSSELL TO ACCEPT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO CONTINUE GPA 79-2 UNTIL COMPLETION AND CERTIFICATION OF THE LCP. AYES: Russell, Stern NOES: Higgins, 'Paone, Bazil ABSENT: Cohen, ABSTAIN: Drone THE MOTION FAILED A MOTION WAS MADE BY BAZIL TO. CONTINUE .GENERAL, PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 79-2 TO ALLOW SIX COMMISSION MEMBERS TO BE PRESENT TO VOTE ON THE AM U14ENT (WITH COHEN LISTENING TO THE TAPE OF THIS MEETING) . MOTION WAS SENCONDED BY STERN. VOTE: AYES: Stern, Bazil NOES: Higgins, Russell, Paone ABSENT: Cohen ABSTAIN: None THE MOTION FAILED A MOTION WAS MADE BY HIGGINS AND SECONDED BY PAONE TO DENY GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 79-2 FOR PURPOSES OF ALLOWING APPLICANT A CHANCE TO APPEAL THE AMENDMENT TO THE CITY COUNCIL. VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Russell, Paone,, Bazil NOES: Stern ABSENT: Cohen ABSTAIN: None GPA 79-2 Summary RESOLUTION N0. 1251 Resolution of the Planning Conrdssion reccnunending to the City Council a moratorium on the property located at the northeast corner of Beach Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway. A MOTION WAS MADE BY STERN AND SECONDED BY BAZIL THAT IF GENERAL PLAN AM Mt ENT NO. 79-2 IS APPEALED TO THE CITY COUNCIL, COMMISSION VOTED TO TRANSMIT RESOLUTION NO. 1251 TO THE CITY COUNCIL, RECOMMENDING A MORATORIUM. VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Russell, Stern, Paone, Bazil NOES: None ABSENT: Cohen ABSTAIN: None r-" Ir l RESOLUTION NO. 1251 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE TO PROHIBIT ANY CHANGE OF ZONING, ENTITLEMENT � J FOR DEVELOPMENT, OR THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING X PERMITS FOR THE 107-ACRE AREA LOCATED NORTH OF PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY AND EAST OF BEACH BOULEVARD. WHEREAS , the Planning Commission of the City of Hunt- ington Beach,' California, has adopted Resolution No. 1250 , * recommending approval of an amendment to the Land. Use Element of the General Plan from Medium Density Residential and Planning Reserve to Planned Community for the property generally located north of Pacific Coast Highway and east of Beach Boulevard,. and WHEREAS , the Planning Commission has identified several significant issues which could impact. future land uses and affect the orderly development of .the subject area, and WHEREAS , City staff is currently engaged in a number of special studies which, upon completion, will provide information necessary to mitigate and/or resolve said issues , and I WI-IE.REAS , these special studies are : The Local Coastal Plan, the Housing Element .of the General Plan, and a Fiscal Impact Model , NOW, THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Com- mission does hereby recommend to the City Council that an emergency ordinance be adopted, concurrently with the adoption of a resolution amending the General Plan on the subject property, to prohibit for a period of six (6) months any change of zoning , entitlement for development, or the issuance of building permits . PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach, California, on the 21st day of August, 1979 , by the following roll call vote: AYES : NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: James W. Pa1in, Secretary Tim Paone, Chairman *General Plan Amendment 79-2 was denied by the Planning Commission. This Resolution is transmitted to indicate the Commission' s support of a mordtorium .should the appeal be granted by the City Council. DAON SOUTHWEST A division of Doon Caporotion 4041 MocARTHUR BOULEVARD ; POST OFFICE BOX 2770 NEWPORT BEACH,CALIFORNIA 92660 TELEPHONE(714)752-7855 July 26, 1979 Planning Comnission City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Attn: Tim Paone Chairman Re: Mills Land and Water Company Property Huntington Beach Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission Please be advised that the Daon Corporation hereby agrees to a moratorium of plan .processing and or the securing of building permits on the noted site. It is my understanding that this imratorium will be for a duration of six months from the date that the city council actually approves the ordinance. The purpose of Daon agreeing to this moratorium is to demonstrate our good faith in anticipation of being able to cooperate with the City of Huntington Beach in the development of logical plans for the ultimate use of the site. Hopefully, the planning staff, the local coastal planning group and Daon can pool their talents in the near future in order to solve problems of the site in a mutually satisfactory way. Should there be any questions concerning our intent on this matter, please do not hesitate to call me personally. Sincerely, DAOi1 SOUTHWEST i-/ W. A." Colton," III Vice President Land Development WAC:eb cc: Jim Palin Urban Assist Inc. . .''.it•, ,;� ,,....u.,;'yt,7'% ti2�P•3+•y�u,�. +';-'tE`ry' � �-«?ft'Sf � u .'n" Sl+"`;� x et.:'r+a�" 9'd'+v` `",.•r'{\:x, i i., ..;Pia>.�i'� �S r�•�4 & '�tV',�,'S �i: a...'fl•' �#;�Y 'r' kit,° �o+t,:.,:�t.'E,: �`' .-;r `:,�r•N .,ts„ ih''�•,:!.�wu.`�.p.�-`'r:,Y""t ,�1.'F `+" .orb- 4 �,} .l' }�,_r.+'`�j''`iYr�Ari�'�:C; ,4,`r« R 1 h y � •. • t ♦. t., .. w�s..,�lf�a' ;'�.* • y',� ,.v:,`i.'P•'y+�� i a��� `�,$' �'�x�:e�''�il/S"' .. .`�3�;yF^ ' �'��•?: ��k,�...",.���` 1,jyrY��rr•N�`ti�>t��rSVV..,. "'T"' .,�a.,i"�._ � k.,r, yrt.::�i, i-� is•,r:�RV•ti. �^a�l�? S!�rr''r n,{ � fR# �; +5^ rS'�,,� ^e, et y�y}q,t',p ,�, - r�•+I'ct?�, "'Ov,.0'x;', ";ti> vrri fi•rj�a; q.. rye +r '`'P.;�1,.';fi'..�t;.;ti'nrk: N a,•jrr 't.,.* F' '•'9 't S`?4�'a t� '. „1,.;. ,)'HU�11TiN6T018 %tC�Id Al1V • t ; +rS 9j._7•,-a�,j�:W.}-t•T.i' u R, � .att' ��? ' fi5�7:13:,�' �•.ra .y�„`�s�, �Y' aG,�•�r1r' .-�, n{,���''� � � ;4a a,',. ': f ":§n�..,:�F:- '3r, ry f-, t r'-'i ��$; 4 t,.•.;,. :Y `Z,". 4 �'+�'�rti<;.�?*�'✓.'r"+�:v #'r`A'x1 ��v�;�'� ' •i:t.•)1u' tw .i:✓. .fi'�1:a ',,e'..�� Stag:'-.�f,i, crt. , ;t ,N,Sr' k�..5 ;+,.'ret ''•'` , '>' ��l', s:: �CI:Jf' ✓' p• dYTfiE'ASGIA,�"',Ir.'.;p.��y�ti,R � ,t ,��iy+}r�,,x��^'¢y�„t�k>�•.y�� £Itu�«•:r�.,�r k.' _ • I � '.la.P:�::•.',t.;r?�.jr..t'S:�r;;.:(.?.yr-. tx'Y;•t' , �.«. ,� ?t�4'i[,�y y�t!�•:xl�?y� ,�� :r-',�,....�,:{}xAa,!✓b'.i� .4. .,. .ri'i5�1:.i-� ��{r'-y.,i�'Snur•`t�',�y,. '•A S>t i.'�.s.Sr'i K•. k;..r.��,;'l'.v a�?,�}•;,r '�; . aS` 7 �d� .x S�r�r x.'" '", r' �;-" .r, . �:`��i'X;'-1a,„��yyf+,. "<�•Y j�j,.ti•,= st !. tr, #._.clJ;�a; •v'v'"• 1 sK . �R01,VI RMEROM'•;' ' Y;( kr lot ";:,rtw,...r ;,,:.ir"ti'>T.bh.c•~ .,t.. 2I. r .8..,,riit.rS ..+i, t a. fj;',? ,• f :'n,'. h.,Ji „r ✓! L. ::��`, t.;=,",+�, ` r, ,..2.*. s�i,�•:),'ecY'?` ' i��a4;,,.. j ::<,SAODiiESS:�, :✓;tC;'.�•t,�, .,f.��.�. ��;'. q;3.�'nY ,at1IR�:t 3" '•'^y'S.(e,�x�~ ;yr r' tu1�.` .,ti+'' «,�Ef}{4:; .;mac,-f;t`t: '• "'tz• ;2:. >kr<t: ;"1; •�*P :k•'ti ax��a;,.. t. =1t,.• ;�^, - x- ..: ... .:.' %. 6. %4' �"�)'fi;4.,n;3'',� ;� ,u,;,.� z, .:�#' r"' n ..;?'�*���gtt;'S+ ,4 •`�'!s�a., r`"� �•',«.••;[i,,;w l{" ff,,. �:#1'+N "tr'i ,y�'1 ,�i,+''•'ff'•i, '"` x,+• }�, i*:*�,�A�.�, 'd,,t ';l,°} >.+i i r�t1�°: -;c.�• :a cC,::•i.t,' �. j''i', •Ga`` F.t��pn,yt� „�;F� �[� �.}i�;}, �3,jj" r�p,�+ aSx`e{ .(� �{,yd .�(2.ua 5�•7p dr'�ea Ylf��F'�� ::�±:,:u � +:rF:,?{;..•.,4� .. '.P�r `i.� :1,f++ii`i 5,`,''� Y�?Gd�r Itx.. .4�11k.SIR- t.R�:� V 4e1�Y�' ;U.,+'�'"q �' jY"h}� �• 4'6,�'74.,i�v✓,e f. ,° *, .,�.,:,�"' ' r' ,I. 't..p..' ''L,'t;%xfir�s+�'y:+r,�'�: �;}' tY > �A„ r;�.�.,.r,{ J,�, •;"'•.� `r»,. �,�. yt,�i,t... '��'-,.'.:.n.:. ' QR ' ;< ''kR.,f E cie at „ ii,•i ,b '"t' .1'r',s Y.•t P: ,F .,, �:y°�ir' rFi ,,'r.. ,�V •,.t"'!!r r!'-. wr - :}p 27 iS,"i`S=tR r x ;l: ..fat• .r a•r.,'•..=�.tt` 1t ,m �:5• 'ii`3,` ''�•' .a�" .i=..� '✓n ter .r ~'L.`'�'�'p' .kr. :'r `'4r;1 ,,,f....l!;:a' ':',�`, f� x�-L� �!,'�.:"'� - ra.c">`�,.?�'�'`� 'r �'�..i•�,4r^,`•'r.�trt:.• '.1 y�,> , �.. .r. .,1`.. .,cs." },;,,,tzc' t�.'�ti:`.,<. a x., 1 y`T r�.d ?';-5 J',v*" ,,+,,v*� ):1a �• ''t�" li ,y°,r' 'sx :d:° �er. .?"rf-i.'_ ,ut` ��i.f'- ;� b'.••W,�v r ;`+:'Uj t'.>.'� .�.�•���►►�','f � . :,yt: •fiF. ;4�r.�...�..�s .'r y •a. r.. �:.A �'�,r,.. 'A.:W'��' {1 ,y,..y�,�.v, tr.�",�l�si'Y> ):•�� '7Rr'��. 1•''�V `"b sM �1. _ k rY1'��'y. ' •y��-". ��'r ..h'�'f,-:-�''k :4�' ;'.1'�' tit ±Sj, -•�,d.t >..� �1',, .,!`V '�i�t r.,r.'.4:, 3 .,;il` 77f . +•:f 'P'i a;,,r •,11.;-a.«w-r 9.�`i.f,5� ,•} (,�.�r .i-�Sox:�,ppG �u+l•. •1 d`5 %�!- � �i ',`t} :' ':�x'..j.:. ,,t .�'..,,�.. ;<, .6,.n.. ..✓, ,S1R'•'�t. .��_lr .,+il' J,�$ .t �. ,y„?4&"a 1� ... ,�'i,`•� �'�; e•.!' �'R,:1.'• ,^}, ;..�„u, >, j''•� F ,�1C,r •N�" ! G• ��,�, '`t h ��`, � c'. `'t.� ;e i:,t r. 'f. '� •.:.0':�;'q`^,'�T,i`�^!�''f` •�' P.� }�y 1'.j� "4 SR'' t.{' '� r •r: SSlttom.• '� t, ry' :r�. :+AM.OUNT;RE 1VED4'.�"; rv^.r"' ,� ci., r;`Jt".!' ;� ', >, a 't�txt , �.. '+Ji4�xF�, ,,�: ;,�1,+•�1�;�. t,1 r rd$� , x,x�4. :,4,ar,.^,5�:,��fi+�' ,# v',,.. �t. �FM.1.I`,��:�-�r44�'t: Y.�`m+.`f_D..rk;;b``•'§'`'�"72"` -x„_ti>w'•at�'g,?�.4P�, �41 I y� f � trt'1'�I.�.,�.i:`��i�',,'•�.?$,,:1t �}, •�.."' � c_.tr. -a, 1.� �i' �r'»!}� "i•i' �t'�'�,�;;?'k: yu�:1+ � It,},`?r'�+.,. etii,�'•t�' CASH,' CM ,Cfir "v,` '..a;. C';7 Y':.r.'d:"'�•ttr4 ry m ''k'C` 4 ���x 'red+'-'1,��� f,, ) R -Y1+k' �+, .ti,�- ' � �./;�+: :�il."tai`,eh 6i: .P• .}fP?.x„ '3,,-*,= - w?.r' ") �"S w5. r:" t,• I't�s.t. !,'•�';, ;.f .. �t, . t ?;��`'t s},.';1'"S v�¢ i��Y';'" J" •tdd 'F�� r� 1{���i:��! �.,�,r ,f+ '�� .7Yi.}�'. rl tyli 1} ry F,,', .. � � ..' ', .,.. � ,.,.lA``8'i'�f5t1S�,.� 1'_�fi��,4 n Aa .K�t.LL��T`a.�� xo •,p�r;,., xtr s :�� N�r �kS�n.t ii il.'• .`-S.pi�i:t�ii�{ Mw.4Y_tr .)x.rj.' L'✓X iHt 5 J-�' .{:>.i�iiv ,p�rG,`•`'�i'�!t✓h..,4�sv.�r'.,t.,,.,V� `�w '�k �• e?YF,i?!t r,'Jy'� '7 ,ti. .tr;' ,y, p .x`�•'� ., - a,.,;;iy .���.t.,:•.�,�.t,} t "i n.�, t '�> u.,�.�;a i!{S" '•,y'b4�,:'�,.:t,.¢,. �:T�,y,fir' �'^"�;;t�''` ��•+X' Cb.i r�u '�$.',.a,;ga.;L y�«j ��� �`" i >' k,•,!S�.xL Y»<lE`•i`. x"�'SV'r:, °'''` $!;1'y4i:�h fi , ..i�,,. ,�"�r'r:�'��''.�' i A�„� � ,t�•� ���r7,'t`i�i,', �ll ,,•t 4, ^�hY• �.:ii.,...' � ':'' ' RECEIV,ED�8Y:7'`-Str ' :•,,,ti ':;;r`;tx`�;{�'''E ylr•�,3t`:rt.t�!'tyy ;.3%lij' `.,y',iI a.5 ^'!" r�tr,• }.�,'.^ti,..rti..r°�•t:;tr`w''.:ew`v C ' ' "• . r 1 tit`� # dfit' rf zvRY r u{✓AIR � I xti tl, r�ittt�;� •a': ,.k � rw ♦1ry�.,rQat},:�°,� 5:5;11'S3' x;�y"�;%;� ;t'�',�1.�' c �fi�g„� �.�f��y ?I `fiH-'i�.,� 3 � ' 7, 1,,. +r;'F, vTr� 4',{{,, F`�. - .A` •'Y' :' '•a,+1!p 7'N u b ^t,:�,'A�...,^:: �+�%�Il''`�7r;.•'` �d'.�!'>it1� AL�++V��;SI,.j;li•:�`.1,1�`r�°IFtY�.'-"�,r''v.r:.��` .. �.f.i�'.r",✓, .rVi :,C;'r`!«h�,Yc+'a, .�5. '�'C 4,, + .,v q yti... r .,.,,..r.: .. t� ,i • �%Qt• ''tPr n�'+#i����✓� A',t ��"•„ A r,• rG�'Y"d .� � c� �1��-,v;r! �i",•"•-ua:i•>F,��•.!{'rj4"[l?�� i 'd.' , ,�t;:�.T. 1,�. J t't�t pp N� d^.;:!N Y�t,:i' ,t,y,•.�Z :.p:�' .T' �4c.i!''j ttt'E',,.�i,; �- ��:'' ,�,}'y ,,}r ;a4' ..,f:..'1ui S?7• a?`:td ;?'`N"3"L2�'��urx}r:�i u#>+'•,' �r�kv�. x,�',: a;�� ,l,x.:• a?„a r - e., j!'i• ,.w .P . ,•°a:a: �?t ;5, a ,'fo1�.'S'�;.p., .,�' ;"i�'6?:^t?, sr a'.Fj�;�'r%S^�,,'1.;, r,��, ., ,t•„ :k. 41r :,. Y " Lt +• �'•,t.+r > rx;�'.k4^ ,t„I=-,�''�{;f� tt"t,;;,dv'��'i�:�'°"r.. ..l,�i 4,:y1;, '✓ P•,,.: jE, 4- a s•1. ru t,.u.a,, •'!? ,.1-z: .y' '. , :t`,- ,.+3r.t.-��".`�i!t,^b.f;v}tgL4•:,t��*,' ! +(�"#'7•rr ^'e'`k,' �" r,' ` y " i ,, ,,�'_ ?y. �•,�,i.�..,,.' •'=+ •!^ ram' ''�+3"tt+ �' t..: � '� .. � - `S. '�T.':,�r' *;yt;��?g3u Uh„i Y+ ;' ?7•: .;:}':3 ';�'. ^m,•�.,Gx't Dv,�'• •n . I � � '.+'� ,i- rF',Nd spp;y,, is c�-�s: ��RR�� �, .�;.5., r' )� 7't t•:' , ','�t e,>;%;:..� :��'� N".1. x,F,,.:'sn•3t•.,N''t;�':Re �t',:�£• �r.',"t,�'Ttty�82•N.:,S;"{l�a r,�'�'1.;.„��' • �1.p,4� ��::a 1,,:�,:1:Y{'r 1,:�.tb`,{..�,�'�!P4'� U�,. nrt'•�.��iS;.;a.' "a s, t.r.z;t+,;4 *;y x.:'. ' ram':%r�' •xst•(l:,.�.yy, yr.�,g!`�,.,, '�'Ji,r"k.�;{+rl:".,�:+{��I'>3�if✓`��.�,��«;''�'� (:. j� ��'�'�'x •rf. + i.1' s Li.' 'c4,�t„�:°.Y4�''r�;'.�',M. Y�j� �,�»%'^Er.:•J' i� 1i,N t p�a�5:4�i� 'Y"''.;Y"'', gtLr. p "w L',i ,:!•,a .,, 7Yt�t. �'"4 t:'` fi; �'�Y,- ( �'U�''9 �' �1„•�� . .�,, rn,,� �i, •_° #' e.-3'[dt',''�:�'rt ���.tti.r.n..,�,'';w�'.1',:..NYs^• �y};n • "�k:•'i :.li :�r',l;:i�i'�,��.�;"+r;'�'.,,li.iYtx,;ttc„+;•:;w: ��r;P'•� ;}r,., t. �;� rR � 'n�..��-� .,.Etk';Ri.'. <,�.v.i��.,,n!t{::,,,;.t} r;q•'l;•e,l i.r`'Vc,R ,2 r„� 1,:?Y �`ii' . , t',',�. r i+id.a„'t'YFr,7 �� *r �J� .� ��r�•'1A' r Av,,YV' 1;.�.��tf .(j'7i',{.a �.' p'y�'�P'��,. _ ,a.', f"%a,T,": .h�. i✓F.ir.'ei;✓1. t`i t� rwli q 9,:' x' '..� ' + i''�t:,.:ri, S,>1 ,yy>�. hi.:?¢:nS,�.v 'f 54:.+.;, �G•)7,Y,-+.k,.,t'r;;.JFrs:U'i:aat:,,, k^i F;r,:,;�,.,1k.x.•. {�o-f.' ' •• yi i: „S"t E' "`b,�'E"•''%'i f'1"aa_ `.",.t:ry c,trty �f..r<'V'r 4ti i� }...X„', ',A�. • .. ..n�r'x! h �' t °4� .i<,_,U-{ a :.t„f,.,t?fii.t4i"'.•,.... ,:1,;.�1• .. .. . . t .. aY .` ,:{:1r;:.�E.r.-.�^ra�i':,t3�..4v' ,,#.1.✓.. �'.4}.�>',1.��.��`r:ifa�.5 z,3;,.;,�" C1��,-�. 7, ;,j,,p •{'� �, � ��� ��t� Z e6'. ,•7,.".; x 't r...At•�:,[P':iltit, :'4. s'U'''t.J`��'.}'.,' .:,i. , � :,�� .ti• �P r4}�i��ifli;tiir-Y oaL,1a555,,,,.. n e , - :b: .. � ' ... �:rff•;•.i�.j%�'�` `.'•it�,.:k�. 'i'ti.`�>:11",-?�,, .! 1'' -.raE•..+�„t,,;,�3p°,,%1 c� t i�t,;t a�"1•},t#' FF �+ 'xr�•'Y"'` k _ ;!„ •rl,j.•.1,4�i::•'`�-::`. rr`i;" ''.p ,. ..}.� .l:i.i •+Iix�YSi" St rt•,�•x�i5'6H �.'i�a e'�1�{�)��' ,.�n', ,.,P iY. ✓,'�4. 'i�i � : i ^���f' ,ti<ti�'�.j'ti' ''" '.��"..a%:?.,. .�u'D'vi.. �fr'-T; :"d. ..}".'✓' � ..P _ +' :f, ii� t ' , 'r ..l:ta:�t���(a�:1 ''ir`.x'V'i.�,..il-s., 'k^w'.'`v�i.,�r$3.J���tx,x`.��"N:.,s '7.,�..:.:.:-fir,.t.,.�,fw.>C W.59+Pu,rb:A.?�,;':?:'..#�:•,.!,t:rYti.'�rF.qH-4Y 'L�Kr.. MEMO,. roo ,Y vrt4xIJ , 't', .y,.%'1j;`Y:�i..J.i:..,;' ^'��.,: `f`� .8':�•'ywr {l..l;t,r,rs=�;,dyy:y,;.,t"�'j`� .'.;'1�'' '�' .. ' •' 1 4EI � . - -,�,t>'... �.�.' :)•S ,xy4�.R�74F,, ti° Rr'��,1 Yt�iC��uY. .1S��,r�s��'!� td�:�3 '`'r� � 1: � � ..�',.�. i•,7 T'.:,�y�.yP�F'iW,rit ;A � 1�'..'};�.k?,. ;,,:A.;�t r- ,;:P;°:' �>:Vai+.�7.;a ,� ..'v t(k.r' ��: � .. I � :4,, ,f '�rP.'. x:y�'ti},^�:�, �7ri1'�d c,: .�t.` =rsT':.ir;r����n?i•,�i"j".?'}':: �ri.x�,.},f^ r '�. "r:3r�i:.F�.G;r'?,`, r .. . �. .tyr:Sw. •'�;�+, - _ ''�G;^„'. .,k �f,:�..o'ti: ,'n,,,,,"� t;z%'t'i;..54x�.• -'I�t"l�'•�9•x.iA2�"'�� .. .O I,�i,`, t 4 Ai: -ii.;- 44`!•,t'• � R 1 y 4. �'Y'-Wt'tP.tyt;• �:: ,}'d,-r-'.ar, c�•i^''.' �y tx!8".'c"it,'7, I {j•�'�r{i{'krit.. -T..: e.i•,:i 'Ltl 'tL 1�th'ti xx. ,4*, a=:y 's;ty'.^.x=:{ F'p�.".':;l' ,,try >ti,;•n,�, � t .� i t•o.ux�;;7jrk;q,.'',°t..s'z'a;ya��+,lid;",�..,, 9, '� � ' ! •� '"',rF' 'C{'I::= }',E,%. '',tai• .F,b�,...��.�.t J m ;F�"�1 ;. ' } .r• �:.�` ,Vy. +t M+ l 1,4,x 1:°'-"3, t'. "'' trc ti �3 .i S" .t,,.,,w1�; j';`: v:x:1;r'.' tr.,��3�fe�.a•'+` `f' ,",I✓�ti::'>rS't.,:k;��;:;i' ;X;Z.•J ;.�,+x�,:,,i'• f, �QIir,F�•,°��. '� yrt.'Sry,�: ,a}q,'�I ,..t.'s :�+`'�{ti�.�r...+. qtr'+s`I; �s�S,SUiNG. • .. •• r+rv, .^r'�:. ,t.ry,x, ..Y*'"r7:9t;,rya•',.�v,!,'T'-{Taw-•Y a.., "ti�!fI7+Pe`�+t.e•�.ym.,,;,�t„o,�✓,{;�n,� . ' � � - ' City of Huntington Beach P.O. BOX 180 CALIFORNIA 82648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK September 4, 1979 Urban Assist, -Inc. 610 Newport Center Drive, Suite 645 Newport Beach, California 92660 i Attn: R. Steven Speck, Associate Gentlemen: Please be advised that the public .hearing on the appeal filed by Daon Corporation to the Planning Commission's decision on General Plan Amend- ment 'No.. 79-2 has been scheduled to be heard at the October 1 , 1979, Council meeting. Please contact our office if you have any questions regarding thin matter. Sincerely, Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk AIIW:CB:bt z - R �;5 fN if a — - - -— , e" Cl:�r4O September 4, 1979 ', �cs'9 Mr. Bill Holman Assistant Planner Department of Development Services 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 Dear Bill: ,Subject: APPEAL OF GPA 79-2, THE DAON CORPORATION As I stated in our telephone conversation of Friday, August 31, 1979, it is the Daon Corporation's request for the subject General Plan Amendment appeal to be placed on the Huntington Beach City Council agenda for October 1, 1979. We believe that the October 1 date, as opposed to September 17, will allow for both Daon and the City to make necessary preparations for this important public hearing. Thank you for your assistance with this regard. Sincerely,. R. Steven Speck , Associate RSS:rkc vy P, ': .. .�'., '��� �I% cc: Connie Brockway, City Clerk's office PLA v ':''"G DEPT. Chuck Colton, Daon Corporation Robert Moore, Mills Land and Water Co. 5F-p A. 191� James Palin P. ©. Box 190 URBAN A- S'SIST, LAC. 610 Newport Center Drive, Suite 645, Newport Beach, California 92660, (714) 640-ISS2 Publish 9/._.... rr ��� � R1P�l4a(�iftl@rK NOTICE OF PUBLIC NEARING . APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 79. 2 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held by the . City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, in . the Council Chamber of. the Civic Center, Huntingtont such, at the hour of �7:30_ P.M. , or as soon thereafter as poasible, on Monday. the lat . day of . .October.. , 197799 _, for the ptarpose of considering an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial on August 21 , 1979 of General Plan Amendment No. 79-2. General Plan Amendment No. 79-2 is a request to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan on the 107± acre parcel of land located at the northeast corner of Pacific Coast Highway and Beach Boulevard— This request is from Planning Reserve and Medium Density Residential to Planned Community land use designation. A legal description is on file in the Department of Development Services. All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and express their opinions for or against said . appeal Further. information may be obtained from the Office of the City Clerk , 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA. (714) 536-5226. DATED- September 7, 1979. CITY OF- HUNTINGTON BEACH By: ' Alicia .M.. Wentworth City clerk 1 t 1 I ' - _ ' I 24-281-%. ' 148-041-29 Huntington Seac h Or VWW Gwm al.Plan aft 78-1 ; kdre A Le Mbnii r Tax Division I June 30, 1978 0 I 21312 �r Laaaae 225 Hu"t.reeet $ � • �' - . - SM Pra nci,aai,Calif 94120 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 24-250-68 148-021-04 148-041-30 ' security ran amp Charles A i�r Jr Facifte� 1 21322 Cuper Lange Attns OM JOWIN HT Vjbon Beach, Calif u" lyre morthurt Blvd 82646 - - - - - - - - - - - - = - - - -,- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -'- - - - - - - - - - - - -.- - - Comma [+Ira, Ciw I 148-041-32 24-2Sa-66 Stanley k Oolanta Jr 32123 i I 21321 Ct t Lana Suits 206 ' ' Hmtirgtm Be each, Cal 6ldaat,]a�is VflLa", Calif 91361 i 1 92646 I 2�-234-54: - - - - - � 148-021-20 ' . - - - - - -- - _� 148-041-33 - - - - - - - --- - - - X-0 Mant�asr H Patel ` sc� OwfAmtal Petrol ult lA d i 21311 Q**r I.aane d la��.rat Carp 1 Htntit�gtan Beach, C&I4 P.O. Boot we 92646 - - - . - -- - 24-�SO-54 Hoazsbon, Taxw 148-041-34 - � • 77001 , Rudy Peary No t , 21301 cawLane Ant.ilgtan Beach Calif ' 926" 24-250-54 148-041-04 , w i 8 Bail3ers Inc Aloeley. P Qui nt et al 148-081-fl3 I�ea;l i,e L Jepsen Otilf Odle 8552.Sandy tiooit Dative 2217 S .PU&4m AM* � Domestic but Deept �fi, Calif 926"Ltd lNileaa, Calif 90064 , P.O. Baaac 54064 I _ _ 118-011-Ol ' -- -- - - - - - - - - - - - ; 148-081-04_ State .of Calif Dept of um &Voles, 'Cali f 90054 I Pieter Parfard A* PdAIc M cks I 8542 Sandy aiaok Drive In ' 0. spring Street Beach. Calif 926" Iw Angeles . Calif 00052 ' li@-011-02 *I" Land i Water Ompeiny � .H J!idi'a0aee .M Cagger Caivl G vim10062 Garfield Avm 8532 Sandy Hook drive 417 S Hill St Sta 924 92 ax*IrAgtcn Bondi, �'I 1 �6 �nq beach.. us Angeles, Calif 90013 ; 1 I M111a C 4trd 21331 aloft Ilan #Iltl . ' lesrtlegeon Beach, t�9 i! al oc ' 92646 ' I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -'- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - i ' 1 I 1 I I , ' I I CALPiAN_AMEM7lrM AROk-24'1- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -;- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - -- - - - - 930-S4-104 9c 930-S4-105 9C 930-54-106 9c Marla+cta M. Near. I Pattiaia IN smtd Cletswtoo mean 21131 YarmmAh Lane 8226 Pawbx omt Dr. 5281 E. 4th St. Rstttitgton Beads, Ca. 92646 Rmtinom Beech, Call 92646 Looq Beach, Ca. 90814 930-S4-107 9C 930-54-10 go 930-W109 9C Oonaw C. Neal Joeoph /lectiti Jio w T. Ciranna 8216 PaMbudost Dr. 8212 Pawbuk t Dr. ' 8206 Pawb=kaet Oc. 06adh, M. 92646 l8sttlageon smacks Ca. 92646 a ttingt+on Beach, Calif. 92646 - I - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - r - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- 930-S4-110 9C 93044-111 q0 ' 930-54-112 90 Jastems P. OQ7nhwo i ChorLa J. ; axe' M. Carter 1231 W. ncioass rt AW 0166 Daertiald Dr. 91% Ridgefield Dar: w"t Coovins, Ca. 91790 ; astimpm Beech, Ca. 92646 Nstt3ngrton Beach, Ca. 92646 - - - - - - -- - - - -I- ---- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - -... - - - -. - - -- - - - - -- - - - - - - - - 930-54-113 9c 930-54-114 ge i 930-54-115 9c AttdYep Qe7irie. C�eoa<+gs' Peclsr ' Cato1 L. M .)BrMDtt 8261� d&'jeftela Dr. . i 21462 Pacific Meet Highway , . 8211 Ri&pfield Dor. . ftrtti g I Basch, Ca. 92646 Hsttingban Beech, M. 92648 Hcsttingbcn Beach, Ca. 92646 ? 93Q-5W. 16 qc ' 930-54-117 9C 930-54-118. gc i Ud asd J. rro wart I Williatq L.,LlrxLey Jatm' Stasaiggs 9215 Ridgefield Oar. ' -8221 .Ridgefiald Or. ' 3910 New Ymt Ave. . f4 ntingt h Beech, Ca. 92646 ; Eksttiigt6n Beach, Ca. 92646 ; La Cresaenta, Calif. 91014 - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 930-54-119 4c ' 930-54-120 9C ' 930-54-121 9c 4og�ens 9a�enaea Vainon B. Pettey, Allen L. "del L50.Los abrft a 21462 Poe fic Most Hy. f120 5202 Pobin+ood Dar.. ;an ClAMente, Cs. 92672 ; Huntington Beach, Ce. 92646 Nintington Beach, Ca. 92649 � i - - -- ---- - - - - - - - - - - - - . - - 130-54-122 gc r030-54-123 9c. ; 930-54-124. Old rooelyn x. Aedee■o�t ' James P. (]rawer Sally Black 1206 Ridgefield Der. ; 100 Leiw=* Ad. ; 21346, Bay Crest Cir. � kintirgtan Beads, Ca. 92646 I A Ameda, Calif. 94501 Huntington Beach, Co. 92646 -- - -- - - - -- - =-- - - -- - - - - I 1 r - - - - - -- qc ' 930-54-126 gC 930-54-127 9C tUth A. Iltrranoe L. Clyde "mIPIAW Ndanc- J.. .Mougaon E. 11nde�raoo ' 11622 Wkrnw Davin W. Vbaburgh .0. Bads 268 ; P6.2iiian Valley, Calif. 92708 18672 Santa Yhey uritinJbon Beads, Ca. 92648 I Pbtst idn Val ley, Calif. 92708 I 30-.54-1?8 gc ; 930-Win, 9c ' 930-'54-13.0 9c rthur F. Sala Mtdalyrrt B. Ho rris . . � will iaen J. Kin if r 2203 toll a Aum M. : 6531 E. Pawl El Gi*w 8225 lbodsall Oar. 1 N ttoo Calif. 91732 iArahelu, Calif. 9VOIB »etingben Beach, Calif. 92646 I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -,- - - - - - - - = - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -- - I I I , I � I � I I � 930-S4-131 9c 930-WI32 9c 930-W133 qc Jayne M. C satza I YArneth J. NOMA ftvAnk R. Br+c�ocXXW 8221 Pb drall Or. 8235 Pksdiall Orr. 031 Iapmx h Cir. W Beac1 , Calif. 92646 Hartingban Basch, Cal I . 92646 ' gLx*Angtcn geed, Ca. 92646 I 930-W134 9C ; 930-54-135 . 9c 930-S4-136 9C Many 1. Booioer St a m E. Pllir ' easy T. S,ilman 820S,Ptadall Orr. MI Fod all Dr. i 1810 Alamo, Lane I notitgt,an.Beach, M. 92646 I Huntington Baaah, Calif. 92646 &z*lngtm Beech, Call 92648 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 930-S4-137' 9C ; 936-54-138 9C � 930�-54-139 9c R. R. .Skim! I Betty J.. Cyntlin ' Leal W 5232 Pbotall Or. 9226 Faihall Dr. I . 8222 Fcodlall Dro fltattiaigl�on ' , Ca. 92646 I Nowtingbm Beech, Calif; 92646 Sz*A qtm Beach, Ca. 92646 _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -- - - 936-t4-140 qC 930-54-141 qc 930-Sh142. 9c Feiy 19athis ' Don X. Ise Earneat Ttwelfallm d 8216 Pbrd�all Dr. 18161 Scyerrt or. ' 10310 t 81vd. i Beach, Calif. 92646 Mmtirgbm aesct., M. 926".. I Downey, Calif. 90241 930-S4-143 9C ; 930-54-141 9c '930-5:4-145 . qc Hal d Ptytterr J61M e. Raptbrak . , Betty Ma vp ett o 8202 ha ll Dz. $196-Piadrall Drr. I 21331 At:t•Jeboty Ciz. lifting!», Beach, Calif: 92646 I tkwtirygtcn 8!lech. Calif. 92646 ' Kmtingtcn Beach, Calif. 92646 1 - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - ---- -- -,- - - 930--54-146 9c . ' 930-54-147 qc ; 930-54-148 9c Atchley L. 9weatt DpMld J. Richards Nara M. 0 czady 21325 Attlet Cir. 21321 Attlretxao Cir. 21315 Attl� Lane f. mtingrtmh Reach, Calif. 92646 ; Mz*ingbon Beach, Calif. 92646 , av* ngtm Beads, Calif. 92646 - - - - - - - - -- 7 - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - J- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 930-Wl-49 9c 93 i . 4-54-151 9c 9C I 931k�54-150. W1:111an 4L 'I on . 118it:h R. ftd&W Patricia M. &rVdr 21311 At:tl.eboro• Cir. P.O. Boot 8312 21261 Chesterfield Lane Mmtiagdoa Beach, Calif. 92646 , Pl� ey►tain Vall , Calif. 92708 ' I�tiigton Beach, Calif. 92646 - --- - - - - -9C 930-54-152 gc ; 930-54-153 - - I 930-54-154 - - - -gc- - - Aogeir A.'- Wiliixr o Betty Armitage. ' Willinn w. Tosh 21255 Cheivt0rfield Lane 21.251 Chesterfield Lane 21215 ChestAwfield xarre Rz*lrkgtm Reach, Calif. 92646.; Mntingtm Banich, Calif. 92646 lbmtin#bn Beach, Calif. 92646 - - - 930-54-155 930-54-156 - - -- - 9'� - - -�- - 930-54-157 - - - - - - qc- - - toialtxr Iararn Irene M. P riseau Joe R. Agui less P.O. Btst 843 ' �,an, M.R. 8181 Criesamooc Dr.Rx*Arvftm B"ch, Calif. 9264� 6619 Via Os La taeirta ' Mmtingtm Beech, Calif. 92646 i safe wie Flay,Dco ns, Ca. 92003 I I I 6 I , I , ' - - - - - - - - - - * - - - - - - - - "- - - - - - - - - - - 930-54-158 9c 930-54-159 ge 930-54--160 qc Jape C. ftiv rem I Alfonso 8. Vane s. Th as 8175 Cirseftmw Dr. 9972 Vildwb mV .Or. 1 17649 Un Jardines Om m tinoM Basch, Ca. 92646 I Mx*l sgeon Beach* Odif. 92646 ft mtain Valley, Calif. 92708 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I 930-%-161, 9c .930-54-162 9c ; 930-54-163 9c Hoaren L. 8bdth ; Aumrt G. Camealalu Claw !. Harries 21242 Rwlingbcn Lase 21246 DwlinTton Iwo ; 21252 &wlirogt m Lane Mx*Jng+baes Beads, Calif. 92646 Hmtingt>m Beech, Calif. 92646 1 a=Urgtm Beach, Calif. '92646 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . - - - - T - - - . - - - - - - - - - -.- - - - - - - - -• I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- 930-54-164 " 9e ; ".19-54-165 9C ' 930-54-166 qe . Ft*. J.`Ab%u , ► lllll.iaa:R. 1lerees Jdm Stasain s . 5801..9e�lr3tid�s Arne. 3333 Call- Ls Meta 3910 Blew ib k Ave. :'i�eibp]a City, Calif. 91790 I San Clleaerste, Calif. 92672 ; . LA.Creooersta, C3alil. 91214 - -- L - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - •- - -"- - 930-54-167 lqC 936-54-168 9C i 930-54-169 '. 9C mn-Le 9. 0o11e ; Lennie L Hayes" An cvin it., Bnmfcrd 4 Mt. Iau+al Ct. 8182• B dwick Dir. , 6176 Buetwick Der. ammwell, Oxm. 06416 amtington Beach, Ca. 92646 Bead', Ca. 92646 I 930-54-170 9'c ; 930-54-171 gc 930-54-172 . qc Betty ;Ps-iese Bdna R:. Sevio= ; Michel D. Viaari. 8172 Busale+iok Dec. ; 8166 Enahwiok Orr. I 21312 Ast>Iturtan Cir. ti$stini� beach, Ca. 92646 I Hx*Am* m Beach, Ca. 92646 itssstingtm Beach, Ca. 92646 - - -'- - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - _ _ _- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I . 40 ' 930-54-174 . qc I 930-54-175 9C witiec J. IAreon ; B>utd H. 9Geptars mlt>er J. tarom 8141 T wicr.Ave. Y.JM Bailey i 8141 'Asylac Ave. au*ingtm Beads, Calif. 92648 1217 Mgleid St. ' Rx&ingtm Beads, Calif. 92648 930-54-176 9C ' 930-54-177 qe ; 930-54-178 - - - - - - - - gc - - Williaea"114. "Jdm DWAA W. ,,Haas 'lazy .R. :D. .'ibrroy 21332 Ad*u tcm Or. 8146 Fbidseill Dn ; 8142 Famtoll Dr. fountingtm Beads, Calif. 92646 1FluriiCirsgtion Beads, Cm. 92646 an*An9tion Beath, Ca/ 92646 1 - - -- -- -- - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -1 - - I .. - - - - - - - '-- - _' ._ 930-54-179 qc , 930-WlB0 : qc 930-54-181 , 0C jorwdm B. 'Pl*t* qw C. Lmwr ars ; ask X. wimis 1516 Dbi"t liy "Dr. 8132"Pbxhall Dr. I 19822 Brodd rst St. Flo ids City, Nov. 89005 I Htsstin bon Beat , Ca. 92646 t#sntingbon Beach, Ca: 92646 ' I , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I . 30-54-1.82 , qc 1930-54-182 qC ..;.; 930-54 9e C. E. Car�do tit ; Kaht m Pisroe Ralph M. c g 4041 W. Mx-*'a Ckisto Ave. 8811 Fry Cir. ;. 8112 Foxtall bi. Plnenix, Ariz. 85023 E4x*irgtm Beach, Ca. 92646 I >t mtinytm Beach, Calif. 92646 I ' _ .._ .. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I ' I I ' I , 1 I � 1 � 1 1 r,2341PiJ, VT N-J%IDVIV '-CAM- 1 - -2.1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - 930-WISS 9c ' 930-54-186 9c � 930-54-187 9c Joel A. NOIJa�s 'esNerly Beriscn Mary F. Prsrgaro 18791 Hmw#aradow Cir, • 9761_ MsUnde Car. , 813S.Poadsall Dr. Amtin goon Beecht Calif. 9264� Huntington Basch, Call - 92646 t x*Angbon Besets, Calif. 92646 •- ----.. - - -- - -- - - - - - - - - - - - J - .- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' 1 930!-54-188 qC ; 930-WUM 9c 930-54-190 piano Sbmwt ' Jays C. B. Dm*hmtt 1 Beverly M. Benson "11 Plisabelth Larne. ; 8125_PU dvdl or. ' . 9761 Melinda Cir. tthamjton Beach, Calif. 92646 Hmtirgbm Beech, Ca11f. 92646 Huntington Beach, CmIif. 92646 - - - =- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -'- - - - - 920-54-191 . 9c 930-54-192 qc 930-54-193 qc ammwly Bmrtisooei 1 Di4me F. Sburt ; Charles B. low 8115 Ptsdall W. ' 20611 Elizabeth Lane 1 24678 lblaclo Lrie Hmtingtm Reach, CsUf. 92646 ; Huntihot ah Beads, Cblif. 92646 al 7bro, Calif. 92630 - = - - -- - - _ -- - - - - - - - - ----- - - - - - - - -- - 1 930-54-194 go i 930-W. 195 qc ; 930-54-196 91d Jots F.•' BA- m Ux y 04rdis Donald L: alum 21216 C3*sterbatiok Dr. 21272 C2mtertxoak Lane . ; 8122 Ridgefield or. R=tington Beata, Ch. 92646 Mw*ingtm Beads, Cal. 92646 1 fivitington Beads, Ca. 92646 - i 930-54.197 gc ; 930-54-196 ge i 930-54-199 gc 31whdrrd Bearwiq iD*W & bpi inc,}er taeehen s 8126 Ridgefield Dr. 3502 Carfasatmmv 8136 Wit. Dr. Kattingbon Beach, Ca. 92646 Ianq Beach, if. 90806 ; Huntington Beach, CW J 92646 - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -r - - - - - - - - -- - -- - -- - ---- - - - - - - 930-54-200 qc � ,930-54-201 qc. 930-54-202' 9c Hesixy ,J�: Borj►an H'rs>vy A. ft7mEarl G. Jbnes . 8142 Ridgefield or. . 8142 Ridgefield Dr. , 8145 Ridgefield Dirt, MmUngton Beach, Cis. 92646 Huntington eeedaa Ca. 92646 Mz*Angbm Beach, Ca. 92646 - - ---- - - - - -- - - ---- - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - .... 1 930-54-203 gC 930-54-204 9C 930-54-205 9c Biwmrd M. 8riw Oaaasr ML Brer Y C. .Auqulta 8141 Ridgefield Dar. ' 8135 Ri,dgef field,Dr. 81.31. Rid+gef ie ld Dr. Rmtirgt6n Beads, Ca. 92646 , Mmtirgbon Beach, Ca. 92646 ' Huntingtran Beach, Ca. 92646 - - - - _ - - - - - - - -- i -- - -- - - -- - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - 930-54-206 , • qc . 930-54-207 gc 930�54-208% gc Cather ftn a Walls ; Ronald Savona Frank G. Tejay 8125 Ridgefield Dr. . §121.••Ridgefield. Dr. ; 20321'Adrian C,ir. Etmtingtcn Beach, Ca: 92646 'Ms*ingtr.>fs Beads, Ca. 92646 Hjhti xjtm Beach; 'C a. 92646 ; M-54-209 gc ; 930- ,54-210 . qc 930-54-211 9C 'k-am L.. .Ja bbbe Robert L. Van Zandt ; Steven D. Walter 111 Ridgefield ; 1512 Ben LmWio Dr. 8116 Pawtucket Dr. ntlncl on Basch, Co. 92646 Glrndale, 'Calif. 91202 Aritingtan Breach, Ca. 92646 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -. - - i - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 ' t' I I I I Ala t L' PLAO A''N.I"Wil' - AKtA 1 .1 I 930-54-212 9c ; 930-54-213 910 930-54-214 9c wi l lice H. Gregg Bruce W. Ouny Wilfred A. man 8122 Pawtucket Dr. 8126 Amobudoat Dr. 2041 N. Craig'Ave. Huntington Beach, Ca. 92646 I Huntirn;ton Beach, Cit. 92646 Altaidena, Calif. 91 1 • 930-54415 - - - - - qc- - - � - 93-0-54-216 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -I- - - q'c I 43b-S4=217- - - - - - 9FC- - - Melvin D. Ooker I Frank Bennett Jeannette rxx n D.O. Boa 597 8142.Pewtudiet Dr. I 8146 'Pawtuc ket Dr. Amt4be11A, Calif. 90640 Huntingdon Mach, Calif. 92646 ; hinting on Beads, Ca. 92.6" i I : ... ' 114-150-58 qc r 114-1% 41 114150- gC Mills. Land, i ataeer Co' Orange Oounty Flood Control , State.of C.alifccnia Carol GZergs. yra1 piatsiet ' Saicteeodnto, (alit. 417 Si. Hill St. I P.O. BdK 1078 ' I Los Angeles, Calif. 90013 Santa Ana, Calif. 92702 114-15046 qc 114.150-.72 gc I 114-150-25 - - - - 9c- - - - State of Cali fc&T a I Mills Lard WWtsr Cb, ' -City of Hmtingtoe Beex:h Dept.. of Public 4 rks IQWMl G. W/M I Dept. of Public Works into, Calif. ; 417 S. .Hill. St. Sta 924 1 IDS kmies, Ca. 90013 ' - - - _ _ -'- - - - - = =- - - - - - - - - - - 4- - -- - - - - - - - - - - 114-150-6i qc I 114-150-45 9C ' 114-150-66 9C Kan Br�w.. ' Auc3 W_D. Snq aoa GeorcTe E. 0irz Anghi tln 652 r. I]C� voec Ave. ; 2221 Baystme Dr.. 2521 Bay:�h are Dec. Zhang9i[alit. 92666 Na 4x t Beads, Ca. 92660 ; cies+poact Beach, Calif. 92660 1...- - - - - - - - -- - - - =_- -. - - - 24 150-69. ' 114-15b-14 - - Y - - -- = - - - - - - = - -- - -- - qc , gc , 114-150-70 9C Carl R. S�s I .Cbwrty Sanitation Dist. tb. 11 ' Byron M. Tarnuteeir 736 W. 17th St. I P.O. BcK 5175 ; P.O. Boot 2`6 czisfa Mesa,. Calif. 92627 ; 10844 Ellis Ave'. Costa Mew, Calif. 92627 Foo.mtain Valley. Ca. 92708 ' I - - = -,- ---- - - -- - - --- - - -- - - - - - - - i - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 114-150-31 ge , Dept. of. -. I ,nation . ' 0-mty Sanitation Oisi. f11 120 S. Spring St. P.-O.: Bmt 5175 ; Los Angeles, Calif. 90052 , 21-281-05 10844 F11is Ave. ' amtIngthn Beach OD' rmmtain.Valley, Calif. 92708 ; 225 Hush St. '• _ _ _ _ _ -. ._ ._ .. _ _ _ --_ _ --._ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - San Frwkci.soo, Cal. 94120 --- - -- - -- - -i- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I 1'46-00-.20 148-�386-22. Karl Stein Bells X. Reed 8531. Se+z�Icly Hook Dr. - ; 8522:Milne Dr. � pn Beers_C.a. 92646 NuntSrx�boss enacts, Cal. 92666 _. _ ... �_. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - 148-086-21 ' Aline S"ia 8521 Sandy Hook Dt. I ' eeac#s, Ca. 92646 Eti:actrrs� - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I , I ' I I ' , I E" GPA JQly 6, - - - - . _ ... _ _ . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 148-021-04 df, 114.LVAj-66 ar 8aneoc w• Fmwz Develcpeant Cb. Gbacgs E. Clmita fo, .et a& 11932 Vhll,ey View Street 2521 Bgp*me Drive Cesben (�oWe, C7► 92645 P�eMpoart Beech, ch 92M - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - -'- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - F - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 145-081-07 a U4-15 v df: Ms. Lilian Plyketuk OrYne A. Lsvia, etas lciae Brildm, et al ; 21851 Newland St. #223 8512 Sea * Book- Drive ' 652 ant Qilv4c Av� Huntington Beach, CA. 92646 Bt�ti:gCon eeech, Ca► 92646 I Graaw, C91 926" ' � I 146461-12 d!' 114-150-68 df ; Ray Guy 8aaw.b fteriaa,ff s SA ; Carl V. 'gtp, et al Action Boat Sales TO 83�.,4-Mif�!�201)1 I 738 Mrt 1' 9csseE 21622 Pacific Coast Hwy., P.o. Boot 328 � OoaaKd Meat Ch 92627 I Huntington Beach, CA. 92646 ftnta -Am, C R 92702 , _ ' 114-150-70 df ' Steve Coyle Obr en a. was BYVM K. Tablutsim Cabrillo Mobile Home. Park •531 Sn* Nook Drive P.O. Boic.246 I 21752 h• Ui�itirx�tdn Beach# CA 92646 I Ooata Mra, Ch 92627 ; Huntington Beach, CA. 92646 I I - -- - - - - - - - - df 024-250-54 df ; Thomas J. Masenga Aline M. Sctbsxn �. a .eaiild�cv:. . Thorpe,, Sullivan, Workman 9521 Sadly Hook Derive I 16" 9th.3tivet I Thorpe & Sullivan Heectt, 0► 92646 . Sanetta Monica, CA 90404 1800 Wilshire Blvd - 4th Floor _� _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ 1 ._ Los_An ess CA_ 90017 ,_ 14"86-22 df I df INW1 W. I1eed Sonth�,Caalit. ffiison Cb. OS22 [Milne Drive I Atbit Bi11.O=ptm �arttington Beach, CA92646 � 19171 1ln�i�alie ets+ret R mtington De ac h, CA 92646 ' I - - _ - - - - _ _ - - - � .. _ - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - 168-081�01 dt Mara O. Peck 8572 Sw*, Nock Drive R ntingtcn Beach, Ch 92646 I , - "- - - - - - 149-081-02 - - - df-i � . Olivier G. Blac* Jr. M362 Sandy Hoak Dlrive ' "tin# n Bosch, Ck 92646 - _ I ► D. Sa*9Cti'1 r @t al _ t521 Bayshom Dative wart Beale Ch 92660 I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - --- I I I , I I I , I I i I , 1 9t9Z6 Burl WI&RvK TLETZ ' MMUMM d - - . . . _ I - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 TZ-T"tT 9t9Z6 qs%wT W&TzuK TZETZ 1 eTu&wmva.C m" - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - = - - - -- - - --- _ _ _- - - - - - - - ... _ Ot-TOO-OT 9t9Z6 I TTTWO Vaunt I ' 8uv7 ' TZtTZ - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - � - -- - - - ' TT-Te"tti 9t9Z6 oft 1 ' etm'I u*r4w Ton TMauwr OT-TOO-�"T - - - - - - - - -- - r _ - - - - - - - - ' 9t9Z6 1 � our T' . rfwv TttTZ ' iTTFJ 'fie �R OAT2O VxH A8, LOSE ' =*�V H I -- - - - - - - - 1 9t9Z6 • 1 I L0-T�0-8tT - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - !. _ - - - - - ' I i 1 ' , 1 1 I "6 oft WQWPUIR - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' mvia wm APurs zm zwlM Ta=J SL6T Ot AM T-8L � �TT�J ,io MUM ON VEMP116W Wld TAD 310 alm" gvw 7p ia4 1 9-T90-"T I 1 ' I ' 1 I I • OFFICE MEMORANDUM To Alicia Wentworth Date 8/30/79 From Office of the City Attorney In Re Your request, dated 8/29/79 $, re : Notice of Appeal filed by Doan Corp. re Planning Commission denial of GPA 79-3 has been assigned to staff attorney James Georges _ Please communicate with him direct . DPH:ahb thank you! i i i i i WHITE-CITY ATTORNEY BLUE-CITY CLERK �' CITY OF HUNTINCiON BEACH No. GREEN-CITY ADMINISTRATOR CANARY-DEPARTMENTAL „uvuvc�ove.un REQUEST for ORDINANCE or RESOLUTION Date Request made by Department Septerbex 3.8,1979 Bill I?ol.rnM Davelcgumt Sexvioes INSTRUCTIONS: File request in the City Administrator's Office quickly as possible but not later than noon, one week prior to the Council Meeting at which it is to be introduced. Print or type facts necessary for City Attorney's use in preparation of ordinance. In a separate paragraph outline briefly reasons for the request of Council Action.Attach all papers pertinent to the subject.All appropriation requests must be cleared and approved by the Director of Finance before.submitting to City Administrator's Office. Preparation of an Ordinance or Resolution is hereby requested: Pleaue, prey a resolution adopting an em-a-cergency ire er i r:1 orris-..ance- to establish a 6 th rntoy'a oriar, on my mange aF zoning, ent:itl smmt for dsvelo nt, or the issuaroe of building p xs dts on pxo?^xty vithin tha 1 J7-F--re arn a: oonc em a-26rea d in Geriaral Plan 11=zn;�mn: 71.D,-2 per alet c hed, (Lafto 131earing i-:; scdne6uled for Octobex 1, 1979 f � Desired effective date Signed: Approved as to availability of funds October 1, 1979 4—t- a Director of Finance City Attorney— Please prepare and submit printed copies to this office by: i�� City Administrator a WHITE-CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF HUNTIN(�rON BEACH No. BLUE-CITY CLERK -+ c� GREEN-CITY"ADMINISTRATOR CANARY-DEPARTMENTAL , Huvn.•c,ove.0 REQUEST for ORDINANCE or RESOLUTION Date Request made by Department SeTotember 19,1.979 Bill Aolman Dewlo;xmrnt Sezvicazs INSTRUCTIONS: File request in the City Administrator's Office quickly as possible but not later than noon, one week prior to the Council Meeting at which it is to be introduced. Print or type facts necessary for City Attorney's use in preparation of ordinance. In a separate paragraph outline briefly reasons for the request of Council Action.Attach all papers pertinent to the subject.All appropriation requests must be cleared and approved by the Director of Finance before submitting to City Administrator's Office. Preparation of an Ordinance or Resolution is hereby requested: Please z reso1.ILi.on adopting Gerlelrral Plan n&mnt 79--2- per at't:.ta.C?l3d draft. Rearing on an meal to fine Play��ain�. n. `ssion°s. 6Mnial e" Gad nc�Snt UeSt is SChedul.ed for ocid er 1, 1979 Desired effective date Signed: Approved as to availability of funds Al October 1 . 1979 � ` � Director of Finance City Attorney— Please prepare and submit printed copies to this office by: � L� City Administrator a NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 79-2 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, in the Council Chamber of the Civic Center,Huntington Beach,at the hour of 7:30 p.m.,or as soon thereafter as possible,on Monday the 1st day of October,1979,for the purpose of considering an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial on August 21,1979 of General Plan Amendment No. 79-2.General Plan Amendment No.79.2 is a request to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan on the 107+acres of land located at the northeast corner of Pacific Coast Highway and Beach Boulevard.This request is from Planning Reserve and Medium Density Residential to Planned Community land use designation. A legal description is on file in the Department of Development Services. All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and express their opinions for or against said appeal. i Further information may be obtained from the Office of the City Clerk,2000 Main Street,Huntington Beach,CA.92648 (714)536-5226. Dated: September 7,1979 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH By:ALICIA M.WENTWORTH City Clerk Pub.9J13/79 Hunt.Beach Ind. I I OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 2000 Main Street � \itington Beach, California 92649 i hq w i J r • Y�i�� r• 9 ;= g September 28, 1979 i Mr. Floyd Belsito City Administrator 11 City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 _ __..._....._- ._.. Dear Mr. Belsito: Subject: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 79-2/THE DAON CORPORATION After considerable discussion and deliberation, the Daon Corporation has made the decision to request a continuance of the appeal of General Plan Amendment 79-2. It is Daon's position that considering the timing of the Local Coastal Program, a continuance of the General Plan Amendment request is warranted. For this reason we wish to concur with the staff report on this item and what we believe to be the opinion of a majority of those who have spoken at the various public hearings with this regard. Daon, therefore, requests a continuance of the appeal until the Council's first meeting in March, 1980, or until approval of a Local Coastal Program by the City of Huntington Beach, whichever occurs first. a' Sincerely, David B. Neish Principal cc: Chuck Colton, Daon Corporation ;Huntington Beach City Clerk Rob Moore, Mills Land & Water Company James Palin, City of Huntington Beach U 13.A, :;SSIS7' INC. 610 Neu-port Center Dr•iue, Suite 645, Aewport Beach, California 92660, (714) 640-1 82 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 79 2 LAND USE ELEMENT August ORIQINAL COPY for er F' M.(i NED CITY GLER huntington beach planning department TABLE OF CONTENTS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 79-2 SECTION PAGE 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1. Methodology 1 2.0 AREA OF CONCERN 3 2.1 Background 5 2.2 Analysis 9 2.3 Recommendation 24 2.4 Planning Commission Recommendation 24 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report concerns Amendment 79-2 to the Land Use Element of the Huntington Beach General Plan. The Land Use Element was adopted as a mandated element of the General Plan in December 1973; this is the thirteenth amendment to the Element since its original adoption. Planned land uses throughout the City are depicted on the Land Use Diagram shown in Figure I-I. 1.1 Methodology This amendment to the Land Use Element concerns a private request to change the land use designation on a large piece of property located inland of Pacific Coast Highway east of Beach Boulevard. The amendment request will be. analyzed in terms of the existing conditions on the site and impact on surrounding areas; land use, environmental, and other issues; and consistency with adopted City goals and policies. 1 i AMENDMENTS Land Use Categories PLANNING COMM. CITY COUNCIL ' DATE RESOLUTION DATE RESOLUTION 11-6-76 1187 12-6-76 4368 6-7-77 1196 8-1-77 4484 RESIDENTIAL 9-29-77 1202 11-7-77 4551 Estate <2 un/gac 12-6-77 1206 12-19-77 4572 8-1-78 1232 8-21-78 4660 Estate <_4 un/gac 10-17-78 1259 II-18-8 4696 708 1 , Low Density <_7 un/gac i II-6-79 1242 12-18-78 4728 \ _ Medium Density <_15 un/gac 3-6-79 1242 3-19-79 4728 aeco`. mawAr SA 4p, �High Density >15 un/gac COMMERCIAL General Office Professional ®Mixed Development M• d De o ................... a ® INDUSTRIAL n rat Ge e I ems, B E v'o PUBLIC USE -public, Public 6luasi-p 'c 1 ?�L - �.. en Space O ..................................................................... .5: ..................................... .' ::::::::::::::::::........ Planrn Reserve . .;.. .................... „ ,,:.,•, ® tanned Community p ................ 1:r` :: ,ram ...:I::::::::"• { ........... ......::::::::. OTHER \ •........... 3:r';��.� •......:.. .............: P ®Resource Production P. \ y.:rjrrri'u1'•G.,;, i1., �', r:tii U-' - .. - .. - ' ,, py/95is�y,I�,: - ��'a•7�y/„Exia. ..}:='(!T.f'-•r.•• a'_pC'd �<�1i7%�If;4�. Jir.•�/ems -a'"{s-u1.�' ':a' ... .. .. �4 r �(7;� N:'r„Z yr'""r u��'l�• p 5 ��•?iiii ' ........... 4: ............ ............ ............ F,- , �o a . . A , _ aS� _% e vo o^ 1 .. AY S C 22 C Z- f i IF VII .., ., ... ... ...�, .�>.e i.-,�F,. .,.,ram•_,. .,, ... .::: _- A ��v <rc r ''.��s;s•- ..�-�:-3''r ry._ .3b .•..•.. .e.r +x r v- G f 5 �rt y - -�'•.3" •--, '^_-� _ - - � -C oti,. .obi•�,' - :( �•5•(ii•. ./ �j - r'-:•�,.i�� -mac;C: �r.�. .�tt(;�1,i�5 d,. 1., ,,r N OCEO' biz� _ ✓�i'•.ii� e�4.��•::'::�:..�:.::.:::::•:":::�'::::�: ::.�.¢.'.O.b�.14ii i = owYo I 1 ® HUNfINGTON Bf�4CH, �EILIFORNIA GENERAL PLAN PONNING DEPARTME9 LAND USE DIAGRAM Adopted December 1976 Revised MAY 1979 C.M.T 1 2.0 AREA OF CONCERN General Plan Amendment 79-2 addresses one area of concern, located north of Pacific Coast Highway and east of Beach Boulevard (Figure 2-1). The amendment request being considered was filed by the Daon Corporation on September 30, 1977. The .applicant's original request was for redesignation of approximately 107 acres from Medium Density Residential and Planning Reserve to Low, Medium, and High Density Residential and Commercial. Due to the scope and nature of the amendment request, the City required the applicant to prepare an enviornmental impact report, which was completed in March, 1978. The Planning Commission first considered Doon's request, which was changed to a Planned Community designation,at a study session on June 22, 1978, and at public hearings on July 18 and August I, 1978 the Commission voted to continue the request until the City Council had adopted the City's Local Coastal Plan, which at the time was scheduled for adoption in May, 1979. On May 10, 1979, the staff received a letter from the applicant requesting that the amendment request be set for a public hearing before the Planning Commission. On July 17, 1979, the Planning Commission voted to initiate a second amendment to the Land Use Element for 1979 to reconsider the request. 3 MEDIUM DENSITY LOW DENSITY ..... .... :3 .. .. .... ..... . :'}': ............................. PLANNING ...... ... _ ::. ' •� �* �` RESERVE �.......... . ............: .......... ............... ...... .....: h•�91�.•ANitiY�;<"i•i•: :t:i'i:Y "'Y'A�Ops •3 tiff: P ........ ..._ L ANN IN G R E s E R V E INDUSTRIAL ... . . ........ .. ✓✓: :•J: :�L:' Y'.Lh '.4•:'••::':•.•. 6 ME DI UM D E NS IT Y > '. •ti. r,;.. ' :: ti' QUASI-PUBLIC AREA OF CONCERN 2.1 � 1 ; NORTH OF PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY & EAST OF BEACH BOULEVARD FIGURE. 2-1 O huntington beach"planning department 4 2.1 Background The area of concern encompasses a total of 106.9 acres located inland of Pacific Coast Highway and generally bounded by Beach Boulevard on the west, the extension of Hamilton Avenue and the Gulf Oil tank farm on the north, and Newland Street on the east. Property ownership within the area of concern is shown in Figure 2-2. Over half of the area, approximately 63 acres, is owned by the Mills Land and Water Company, who has out the Doon Corporation to pursue this amendment request. The remaining property is publicly owned: 33 acres by the California State Department of Transportation (Caltrans) as surplus freeway land, and I I acres by the Orange County Flood Control Districts, developed as an open channel for drainage and flood control purposes. Existing land uses within the area of concern include a small boat sales yard, a portion of the above mentioned Gulf Oil Tank Farm, and two mobile home parks (see Figure 2-3). The Huntington-By-The-Sea Mobile Home Village and Travel Trailer Area covers 32 acres' leased from the Mills Land and Water Company. The mobile home village contains 306 spaces for permanent occupants, while the travel trailer area has a total of 141 spaces, of which about 25 spaces are available on a daily, weekly, or monthly basis. The Cabrillo Mobile Home Park covers 5 acres of land owned by Caltrans and has 45 spaces. Nearly 700 persons reside in these mobile home parks. As mentioned above, County flood control channels occupy approximately II acres of the area of concern. The remainder of the area is vacant, portions of which have been identified as wetland areas in EIR 77-9. Adjacent uses include a vacant parking area and a mobile home park to the west across Beach Boulevard, vacant medium density land, condominiums, and the 'Gulf Oil tank farm to the north; small industrial uses and the Southern California Edison Company's Huntington Beach generating station to the east across Newland Street, and Huntington Beach State Park across Pacific Coast Highway. Zoning within the area of concern is shown in Figure 2-4 and summarized below: ZONING DISTRICT ACRES RA-0 Residential Agricultural 38.8 acres combined with oil production MI-A-O Restricted Manufacturing District 29.8 acres combined with oil production MH Mobile Home District 31.9 acres Not Zoned Flood Control Channel 6.4 acres Potential development within the area of concern is limited by the restrictive zoning on much of the property. The Caltrans property is zoned RA-O, a transitional zoning designation that has remained on the property since it was Aga& -- scow[ on HLLHE AD M m J 0 BU9WK o D(+eGti57tk DALi]i '7iTrttAotM _ I srcxsaLLD c mows — ..�. .a.1 D bltl( DR PTT *010 - �.. 1i _- -_ w ti - _ - .-_ • Co 14 4-1 GENERATING PLANT PROPERTY OWNERSHIP N, ® MILLS LAND AND WATER STATE - CALTRANS - - ® ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT E ?-DPwD =E FIGURE 2-2 huntington beach planning department 6 1 SCONE DR hiLHE AD l7i / w Z - 4. L7L ) � OrtY1N.]1 DP ! f Uj V _._ ff- -4- T _ o DOW-"TER DR p BU9I� K --III HO LN(as T ! JTO14I(� - n rAWS DR ^ Ns v OT6�. sArOr rtMw - Q w v ,9 v co s� ,T .m Y mesa■ l moan■was V n o.@ mammon nmNNns Noonan ■mmon■ �. ■momm mmmo ............ ............. / monsoon manowang #: ................ ■nmooam■ ............... ...... ................ \ Mason 00 ... ....................... ........ ■n■ ....... .... /y ■aooaoo■ / ■oo n a o■ � �E(�SON CO.. . > 2. . ... . ' .`a■■■■ . : : GENERATING l) ■N■ PUa1VT 4q v EXISTING LAND USE 1 �24 T TANK FARM ti v VACANT moo■ CABRILLO MOBILE PARK rim HUNTINGTON BY THE SEA MOBILE VILLAGE HUNTINGTON BY THE SEA TRAVEL TRAILER AREA ACTION BOAT SALES ® ORANGE , COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL FIGURE 2-3 O huntington beach planning department 7 ............... ............. ................ :..... RAC O` M1-A-P:- M1-A-O RA-0 :. .. M1 _ O MH ;11/ EXISTING ZONING 0 FIGURE 2-4 O huntington beach planning department acquired for the proposed Route I Freeway. While some uses are allowed under RA zoning, this designation is primarily a holding zone for property for which ultimate land uses have not been planned. To discourage development, the Ordinance Code states that no residential, commercial, or industrial subdivision shall take place prior to rezoning the property to conform to the adopted Land Use Element of the General Plan. While all zoning districts can be found consistent with the Planning Reserve designation, past practice has dictated that only zone changes to a lower intensity use are allowed on property under the Planning Reserve designation. Any request for a change of zone to allow more intense development would first require a general plan amendment to remove the Planning Reserve designation. Much of the area of concern is zoned M I-A-O, which is a restricted manufacturing district reflecting the existence of several oil storage facilities in the general area. No oil production or storage activity or facilities exist within the area of concern, with the exception of the portion of the Gulf Oil Tank Farm previously mentioned. The remaining MI-A-O property in the area is vacant at this time. Again, it has been a previous practice that only zone changes to a lesser intensity use be allowed under the Planning Reserve land use designation. Nearly 32 acres of the area of concern are designated Medium Density Residential and zoned MH for mobile homes. No uses other than mobile homes and related structures are allowed in the MH zone. Under the existing Land Use Element designation for the medium density area, no more than 480 units could be built on the 32 acres. If the mobile home park (447 units) is continued, no additional units could be built. The area of concern is located within the coastal zone boundary of the City of Huntington Beach, comprising approximately 4 percent of the total city area within the coastal zone and 23 percent of all vacant land in the coastal zone. Land use in the coastal zone is subject to the City's plans, policies, and ordinances and to the policies of the Coastal Act. Upon certification of the City's Local Coastal Program, the permit authority now exercised by the South Coast Regional and State Coastal Commissions will be delegated to the City of Huntington Beach. The Local Coastal Program land use plan for Huntington Beach is being prepared and is scheduled to be submitted for certification in January, 1980 . Land uses for the area of concern will be determined by the Local Coastal Program and included in the Coastal Plan. A full discussion of the analysis to be undertaken is contained in Section 3.2.9 of the "Major Tasks" portion of the Local Coastal Program - Work Program. 2.2 Analysis The Doon Corporation originally requested that property within the 107-acre area of concern be redesignated to a mixture of low, medium and high density residential and commercial uses. However, during the initial environmental 9 review period, issues affecting the development of the area of concern (specifically the identification of environmentally sensitive wetlands areas) were identified. In response to the new issues and their potential impact on the land uses as originally proposed, the applicant revised its amendment request on June 22, 1978. The revised request asks for a Planned Community designation for the entire 107-acre area to indicate to the applicant the City's commitment to development of the property while allowing the applicant to cooperate with City staff in developing specific land use proposals in concert with the Local Coastal Program planning effort. While no specific land use plan has been submitted, the conceptual plan shown in Figure 2-5 will be used for illustrative purposes in assessing the potential impacts of development within the area of concern. Because of the many issues involved in analyzing this amendment request, each will be addressed in a separate section, beginning with general land use issues. (1) Land Use The area of concern occupies a key location in the City at the intersection of two state highways and the entrance to Huntington Beach State Park and the City beach. The property is important in its potential complementary relationship to any revitalization plan for the downtown area and to other coastal development in the city. Because of the area's proximity to the beach and major transportation routes, a range of land uses could feasibly be developed, including residential, commercial, and public uses. The desirability of locating residential uses on the inland side of Pacific Coast Highway was identified as far back as 1965. In report to the City, a panel commissioned by the Urban Land Institute pointed out, among other recommendations that "In general, properties opposite the stretches of beach (with the exception of the Main Street business district) should be reserved for desirable, well-planned, attractive residential development - apartments, motels, hotels, and restaurants.111 Although they may not represent the optimum development of the property, the existing mobile home parks on the site have established a residential character for a portion of the area for some time. While increased residential use of the property would take advantage of the site's prime location, such uses would have to be carefully planned and designed to minimize the impacts of adjacent industrial uses, including the Gulf Oil Tank Farm and the Southern California Edison generating station. In its comments on EIR 77-9, Edison stated its opinion that the location of the project was unsatisfactory due to its proximity to the generating station. Gulf Oil Company also indicated concern for adjacent uses and compliance with the City's Fire Codes. Noise impacts from the Edison plant and high traffic volumes along Beach Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway should also be taken into consideration in planning uses for the area. Huntington Beach, Californ Iia:: A Report by an Urban Land Institute Panel, Urban Land Institute, Washington C., 1965, page 31. 10 Gulf Oil HIGH DENSITY Storage Facility qOO 2.0 AC O O O 00 14 AG + /: N. m PLa INED r aW IN Ua ITY ! f0 {RES} �. m . co.A�M i CIA . . . .......... . ... _ a .. ......... ......... .:.:...: . . .:...:...:.:.......:.. .........:.....:::...:. .::. .................. .......... . .. ........ .. . . ... ... .....- . . .. ....... . . ....... ...:... .. ......... .............. ... . . . ..... ....... .... ... . . ... . .. .......... ... .. . .......... ... .... .. .......... .. ... ......... 3 . .. .. ....... . ... . ................. .. .......... . .. ...... .. . . ..... ... . .. ... ..... ..... .... . ... .. . . .... .. ... . ........... . .... .... .... ........ . ... ........... . .. ... ... .. -........ .... . . ......... .... . ......... . ........... ... ...... . . . ........... . ........... PLANNED'.:.CO;V"MUNIT:Y: a� P�1AX,.DED�t$iT�t =1a00.'DU 0 a s f ..:...: ti 1- LAND USE CATEGORY ES UNITS POPI .. RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY MEDIUM DENSITY 1400 4207 HIGH DENSITY 92.9 COMMERCIAL GENERAL 200,000 ± SQ. FT. DAON CONCEPTUAL PUBLIC USE 14.0 ± PLAN 106.9 1400 4207 FIGURE 2-5 O huntington beach planning department 11 Any development plans initiated to implement . the proposed Planned Community designation should feature adequate huffering and construction techniques to minimize incompatibility. Given the demand for housing in the City and in Southern California in general, the attractiveness of the area of concern for residential development is probably only marginally affected by the surrounding industrial uses. . Because the City is nearly 90 percent developed at this time, there is a shortage of vacant, developable land for new housing. Notwithstanding environmental constraints, the area of concern represents a valuable opportunity for a well planned development due to single ownership of much of the property. Even though demand for and the feasibility of residential use at this location is high, the California Coastal Act of 1976 does not encourage residential uses where the demand for visitor serving commercial or - commercial recreational uses has not been satisfied. Section 30222 of the Coastal Act states "The use of private lands suitable for visitor-serving commercial recreational facilities designed to enhance public opportunities for coastal recreation shall have priority over private residential, general industrial, or general commercial development, but not over agriculture or coastal dependent industry." This requirement would not necessarily preclude residential use in the area of concern, but would necessitate that any demand for these types of facilities be satisfied elsewhere in the coastal zone. The City's Local Coastal Program effort is currently analyzing potential locations for visitor serving facilities. The applicant has tentatively proposed the development of 200,000 square feet of commercial uses on the property located at.the corner of Beach Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway. While the actual size of any proposed commercial facilities may vary based on information provided through the LCP effort, a general analysis of the feasibilty of various types of commercial uses is warranted. A commercial demand analysis prepared in conjunction with General Plan Amendment 78-1 indicated that because of the site's location and adequate existing shopping center's in the general area, neighborhood or convenience commercial uses are not desirable; in fact, some 20 acres of commercial property in the vicinity of Beach Boulevard and Atlanta Avenue were redesignated for residential use via General Plan Amendment 78-I. Specialty or tourist commercial uses, however, could take advantage of this desirable location. A potential does appear to exist for the development of a specialty shopping center of reasonable size in the vicinity of Beach Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway. This location is especially attractive for major restaurants, which would be desirable in the coastal area of Huntington Beach. The estimated demand for specialty uses may be partially satisfied by existing or approved specialty centers in the area. 12 The portion of this demand already satisfied is difficult to determine since the degree of competition between specialty centers is dependent upon the various themes that are used as well as the types of uses that locate in the centers. For instance, a portion of the estimated demand for specialty uses could be satisfied by Peter's Landing, a 60,000 square foot development featuring three restaurants and several specialty shops now under construction in Huntington Harbour. The development of a major specialty center at Beach Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway could have mixed effects on the City's efforts to revitalize the downtown area and Main Street business district. The proposed development will most likely be constructed before total revitalization of the downtown area occurs, and could draw potential demand for specialty uses away from that area. Such competition for business would not occur given the nature of the existing uses along Main Street, which for the most part cater to the local community and a more limited clientele. On the other hand, the development of a specialty center at Beach Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway and the potential customers it would attract from a regional area might positively affect the vitality of the downtown area, if complementary rather than competing uses are established through revitalization efforts. (2) Economic Considerations In General Plan Amendment 78-I, staff conducted a fiscal impact analysis of the land use request based upon the Planning Department's 1976 Revenue/Expenditure Analysis of Land Uses. The analysis revealed that a multiple use development project consistent with the planned community designation would generate a net fiscal deficit to the City ranging from $7,066- to $85,558 annually, depending on land use mix and intensity. However, the information derived from the 1976 Revenue/Expenditure Study is very limited in that it presents a one-time picture of fiscal conditions which is valid only for the time the data is collected. The study has never been updated and does not consider the impacts of Proposition 13. . Proposition 13 has significantly reduced property tax revenues accruing to local agencies. If the negative fiscal impacts derived from the GPA78-1 analysis are indicative of pre-Jarvis conditions, the deficits could reasonably be expected to increase from the conceptual planned community development in the post-Proposition 13 era. To what extent this is true depends upon a more thorough assessment of fiscal considerations, including the City's ability to effectively provide services to create a quality planned community. The City is presently working in cooperation with Ultrasystems, Inc. to prepare a Local Government Fiscal Impact Model. This model, which is expected to be operational within two months, will allow the City to evaluate the fiscal impact 13 of development proposals and land use plans in terms of anticipated revenues generated by, and expenditures necessary, to support such land uses. Given the applicant's request for a planned community designation, the model would be of considerable assistance in assessing alternative land uses and development intensities for the 107 acre area. Although the model will not be completed in time for consideration of GPA79-2, a fiscal- impact analysis should be .performed prior. to any zone change or development approvals on the site. (3) Housing The preservation of housing, and especially housing that is affordable to households with low and moderate incomes, is a policy contained in the City's General Plan as well as the California Coastal Act. As previously mentioned, mobile home parks located in the area of concern provide permanent residence for approximately 470 households and 700 persons. Data from the 1979 special census indicates that over half of the resident population of these mobile home parks is over 55 years old and the median household income is $9,675 per year. While residents own their mobile homes, the cost of renting spaces in these parks is fairly inexpensive, ranging from $1 15 to $214 per month. Both parks indicate there are no vacancies for permanent spaces at the present time. Residential development under the proposed Planned Community designation would most likely feature a range of housing types and densities to accommodate varying needs and demands. The construction of a planned development may or may not affect the existing mobile home parks on the site, depending on the zoning that is placed on the property to implement the proposed land use amendment. The Huntington-By-The-Sea Mobile Home Park is located on land leased from the Mills Land and Water Company through the year 2015. This property is zoned exclusively for a mobile home park, and would require a zone change to allow for any other type of development. New construction of conventional housing would reduce the City's supply of low cost housing unless an alternate site within the City were provided for relocation or an identical number of affordable new units were built. The removal of this portion of the City's affordable housing stock would also place additional burden on the City's housing programs. Any overall reduction in the number of low cost housing units would be contrary to the following General Plan policies: "insuring a wide distribution of low and moderate income housing throughout the City": and "conserving and expanding the housing stock especially for persons of low and moderate income" (Section 3.3.2.1, page 70, Huntington Beach General Plan) In addition, the Coastal Act states: "... housing opportunities for persons of low and moderate income shall be protected, encouraged, and, where feasible, provided." (Section 30213, California Coastal Act of 1976) The South Coast Regional Coastal Commission Staff has indicated that the Commission's intent is to preserve existing mobile home parks as existing low-moderate cost housing opportunities and displacement of those units would require one to one replacement units in the Coastal Zone. The City is currently preparing a state mandated revision to the Housing Element of the General Plan, which includes policies aimed at increasing housing opportunities for households with low and moderate incomes. The revised element may include provisions for consideration of an inclusionary zoning ordinance that could require a certain percentage of new residential developments to be affordable to lower income households. Adoption of such an ordinance could potentially require that between 150 and 350 of the applicant's proposed 1400 housing units to be available for these households. (The number of units may even be higher if existing units to be removed are taken into account). In the absence of a city inclusionary zoning ordinance, Coastal Act policies, whether enforced by the State Coastal Commission or by the City after the LCP is adopted, would require a percentage of new units built within the area of concern to be affordable to low and moderate income households. The Coastal Commission has placed such conditions on two projects now being constructed in the coastal zone in Huntington Beach. (4) Public Services and Facilities (a) Sewers The existing sewer lines located adjacent to or near the area of concern are operating at or near capacity, and the increased demand resulting from any intensification of land use could not be met. (Section 2.6.2, EIR 77-9, page 47) Sewers servicing the site will ultimately be connected to the proposed coast trunk sewer. This line will be constructed in Pacific Coast Highway by the County Sanitation District and will be capable of serving two-thirds of Huntington Beach. The Coastal Commission has so for approved the construction of Reaches I and 2, extending along Pacific Coast Highway from Brookhurst Street to Lake Street. The growth inducement issue has been considered by the Coastal Commission, and further extensions west of Lake Street are contingent upon the land uses designated by the Local Coastal Plan. The Orange County Sanitation District has indicated that the construction of Reaches I and 2 will begin in Fall, 1979. AM& 15 (b) Water Service Water will be available to the area of concern in an 8 inch line in Beach Boulevard and a 10 inch line in Pacific Coast Highway. The Department of Public Works, however, indicates -that a 12 inch main is planned to be installed in the eventual extension of Hamilton Avenue as part of the City's grid supply system. This line will be constructed over the channel and extend from Newland Street to Beach Boulevard. (c) Storm Drains and Flood Control Facilities As indicated in Final EIR 77-9, all portions of the study area would be subject to flooding during a standard project flood, as would much of Huntington Beach. The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers' records indicate that the site would have standing water 6 to 9 feet deep during such a flood. The major source of the flooding would be the Santa Ana River. The area of concern is traversed by an existing flood control channel, which is not, however, designed to handle the flow of a 100 year storm. The channel is subject to tidal flux and, due to partially opened valves in the channel allowing saline water to flow onto the site, is a significant contributor to the wetlands habitat. The Orange County Flood Control District plans to provide only minor improvements to the channel at this time. The applicant, however, has indicated a desire to relocate this channel to the northern portion of the site to provide a more contiguous area for development and additional buffering between the tank farm and the proposed residential uses. Flood .Control District officials indicate that such a realignment is feasible and the costs would be bom by the developer. The exact location of the realigned channel should also be determined in response to a specific development proposal at a later date. An additional concern with respect to the relocation of the flood control channel is the destruction of adjacent wetlands. The proposed channel realignment alternatives would affect designated wetland areas in the northeast portion of the site. Channel relocation would therefore require permit approval from the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. In order to accommodate the more localized flooding due to storm runoff, construction of a pump station in the northwest corner of the site would be required because the design level of the flood control channel is higher than the surrounding topography. A storm drain would also be required in vicinity of Pacific Coast Highway and Newland Street, as well as in Newland . Street north from AML 16 Pacific Coast Highway to, the flood control channel. Additionally, a bridge or box culvert will be required over the flood control) channel at Newland Street if a new channel, alignment or widening occurs. (d) Parks The area of concern is' located directly across Pacific Coast . Highway from Huntington State Beach, approximately one mile from Edison Community Park, No neighborhood parks are currently planned for the immediate area,, but these two facilities could be considered adequate to serve recreation and park needs generated by development within the study area. However, there is presently no adopted City policy which credits regional and community parks, and recreation. areas as serving neighborhood park needs. Development of the area of concern at the intensity suggested by the applicant's conceptual plans would result in a park dedication or fee liability of approximately 14 acres. To achieve consistency with Coastal Act pol.i.cies regarding new development (especially Section 30252, new development enhancement of public access to the coast) on-site recreation facilities should be provided that minimize the demand on coastal. .recreation areas such as the beaches. (e) Schools The study, area Js served by Kettler Elementary, Gisler Intermediate and Edison High School. Kettler Elementary and Gisler Intermediate have remaining capacities of approximately 250 and 150 students respectively. If the area of concern is developed at the maximum residential intensity being requested for the area, an increase of 219 elementary and 70 middle school students would result. While there is capacity to accommodate these students, the additional students generated by other developments already approved or pending (such as Coral Bay, 149 condominiums across Beach north of Atlanta Avenue) will overburden these schools. Expansion of these facilities or redistricting may be necessary. In general, the Huntington Beach Elementary School District is experiencing reduced enrollment and does have excess capacity in many of its schools. It should therefore be able to accommodate the projected enrollment generated by this and other projects in the area. The additional high school students generated, a maximum of 170, will further impact the already overcrowded conditions at Edison High School. However, the declining enrollment in the elementary and middle schools should result in a long-term decline in high school requirements. 17 (5) Traffic Circulation Access to the study area is presently taken via Reach Boulevard on the west, Pacific Coast Highway on the south and Newland Street on the east. Additional access to the northern edge of the site will be provided in the future with the extension of Hamilton Avenue. It is estimated that the traffic generated by the land uses proposed for the area will range between 19,500 and 22,120 vehicle trips per day. When the projected traffic volumes are compared with street_ capacities, all of the streets will have volumes less than their design capacity, with the exception of Pacific Coast Highway. Approximately 20 percent of the projected traffic will utilize Pacific Coast Highway, adding to the traffic on an already problem arterial. The City is currently in the initial stages of a preliminary engineering and feasibility study intended to identify the improvements necessary to solve the traffic problems on Pacific Coast Highway. Construction of the street improvements is tentatively scheduled for 1984. Beach Boulevard also experiences traffic congestion on peak summer days and the additional traffic generated will add to this problem. As was indicated earlier, a key access point to the area of concern will be the extension of Hamilton Avenue between Newland Street and Beach Boulevard. The City's Circulation Element depicts such an extension and designates the street as a primary arterial. As such, it will require 100 feet of right-of-way and will be constructed with an optimum design capacity of 30,000 vehicles per day. The circulation plan currently indicates that Hamilton Avenue will extend straight through to Beach Boulevard. However, the proximity of the resulting intersection with Pacific Coast Highway is considered too close to allow the construction of a safe, efficient intersection. Instead, the Hamilton Avenue extension should curve northward to approximately 1,000 feet north of Pacific Coast Highway. This will place the intersection approximately equidistant between Atlanta Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway at an existing median break in order to reduce intersection congestion. The land use pattern requested by the applicant reflects this realignment. The exact alignment should be determined through the precise plan of street alignment process and timed to coincide with the submittal of any specific development proposals. Although the extension of Hamilton Avenue is an adopted City policy, Federal regulations and Coastal Act policies governing fill operations and destruction of wetlands would also apply to the construction of Hamilton Avenue if fill is necessary to stabilize the road bed. As mentioned in Section 7(a) on page 19, essential transportation projects may be granted an exemption from the State Resources Agency Wetlands Preservation Policy opposing the destruction of wetlands. 18 (6) Scenic Highway and Landscape Corridor The Scenic Highways Element of the General Plan identifies Pacific Coast Highway as a scenic highway and Beach Boulevard from Adams Avenue to Pacific Coast Highway as a landscape corridor. The scenic highway designation for Pacific Coast Highway recognizes its importance as a visual resource along the City's coastline. The designation establishes City policy of preserving and enhancing these resources and establishes the framework to pursue an official State scenic highway designation. Regulatory programs must be established before this official State designation can occur. The City is currently pursuing this through its Local Coastal Program effort. The frontage of the study area along Pacific Coast Highway should be developed in conformance with the measures which are ultimately established. The landscape corridor designation for Beach Boulevard recognized the view potential of beach access routes, but also recognizes that these roads do not possess the unique scenic characteristics that would truly qualify them as "scenic routes." Developments fronting on a landscape corridor require special treatment but not to the extent of a designated scenic highway. Proposed programs for landscape corridors outlined in the Scenic Highways Element include: (1) landscaping treatment in accord with the City's Standard Plans, (2) landscaped medians, (3) regulation of the landscaping and arboricultural and landscape standards and specifications; treatments on private developments fronting on Beach Boulevard, (4) regulation of signs, (5) regulation of building height and setback. and (6) undergrounding of all utilities. Development proposed for the portions of the site adjacent to Beach Boulevard should reflect these policies. (7) Environmental Issues The environmental impacts of the land use designations proposed for the study area, as well as several alternatives, are discussed in EIR 77-9. The most significant of the identified impacts not previously mentioned are summarized below: (a) Wetlands During the review of EIR 77-9, written comments from two agencies, the U. S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and . the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers indicated that vacant portions of the area of concern meet the definition of a wetlands and come under the auspices of Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, Public Law 92-500. This act authorizes the Corps of Engineers to administer the 404 Permit Program which regulates, among other things, 19 . F dredging and filling in wetlands areas. As Section 232.2(c) of this act states: The term "wet lands" means those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at . a frequency and duration sufficient to, support and . that , under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence: of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands-generally include swamps, marshes, bog and similar areas. The Corps of Engineers wetland policy guidelines state: The purpose of a proposed structure-or work will be examined with a view toward avoiding siting in wetland areas: If that purpose is not dependent on waterfront access, or can be satisfied by .the use of an alternate site or by use of existing public facilities, the application will ordinarily not be granted. The applicant will be required to demonstrate that a feasible alternate site does not exist; the inability to finance or acquire an alternate site is not a factor in . the determination of feasibility. Unless the public interest requires otherwise, no permit shall be granted for work in wetlands identified as important . unless the District Engineer concludes, on the basis of the analysis required in . . . (the public review) that the benefits of the proposed alteration outweigh the damage to the wetlands resource and the proposed alteration is necessay to realize those benefits. (33 Code of Federal Regulations 209.120) Additionally, the California Department of Fish and Game indicated that the site has many characteristics of a salt marsh and pointed out that development of the area may be in conflict with the State Resources Agency Wetlands Preservation Policy which states: It is the basic policy of the Resources Agency that this Agency and its Departments, Boards, and Commissions will not authorize or approve projects that fill or otherwise harm or destroy coastal, estuarine, or inland wetlands. Exceptions to this policy may be granted if the proposed project is water dependent, an essential transportation, water conveyance, or utility project or there is no feasible, less environmentally damaging alternative location for the type of project being considered. 2-0.. As a salt marsh in the coastal zone, the vacant portions of the area of concern also meet the definition of a wetland contained in Section 30121 of the California Coastal Act of 1976, which states: Wetland means lands within the coastal zone which may be covered periodically or permanently with shallow water and include saltwater marshes, freshwater marshes, swamps, mudflats and fens. Historically, the site was .not identified as a wetland and would have been the location of the Route I/Route 39 freeway interchange. Caltrans officials indicated that the site was annually disced to control weed growth until about five years ago. In the intervening period, a significant growth of salicornia, a plant species characteristic of salt marshes, has established itself. The salicornia found on the site supports a significant wildlife community that includes the Belding's Savannah Sparrow and other species characteristic of salt marshes. The Belding's Savannah Sparrow is listed by the California Department of Fish and Game as endangered. This status results from their diminishing numbers due to the statewide destruction of their salt marsh habitat. Sixteen breeding pairs of Belding's Savannah Sparrow have been observed in the area of concern and have called attention to the significance of the site as a wetland resource. However, neither the City's Open Space Plan or the Coastal Commission's wetlands acquisition list include the area of concern. Although the wetland portions of the area of concern are not. . specifically identified for preservation in the City's Open Space and Conservation Plan, several General Plan policies do address such areas. Specifically, the Open Space and Conservation Element portion of the General Plan includes policies that seek: To achieve wise management and well-planned utilization of the area's water resources by... promoting the preservation of the area's marshes and lakes; (Section 2.1.2.2 Water Resources, page 11.) and To insure the continued existence of distinctive biological resources contained within the boundaries of the Huntington Beach sphere of influence by preserving significant vegetation and wildlife habitats now existing in the Planning Area. (Section 2.1.3.4 Biological Resources, page 12.) Additionally, the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan includes policies that seek: A92t& 21 To provide for the proper development, maintenance, improvement, preservation and use of the City's natural resources by (1) developing greenbelts and preserving natural areas of vegetation where possible; ...and (6) establishing sanctuaries and preserves for the protection of wildlife in its natural habitat. (Section 3.4.2.3 Natural Resources, page 75) As Sections 2.1.3 and 2.3.2.1 of EIR 77-9 indicate, a considerable amount of fill would be required to mitigate the soil conditions and flood hazard that impact the area of concern. As mentioned above, both the California Coastal Act and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 regulate these necessary filling operations. The Army Corps of Engineers permit program is usually exercised on a specific project basis. However, in response to the Doon amendment request and in coordination with the City's Local Coastal Program, the Corps of Engineers was asked to identify areas throughout the City that constitute wetlands where the Corps' permit authority would be invoked. In a letter dated August 2, 1979, the Corps of Engineers stated that it is their policy to react to development projects on a case by case basis. However, a preliminary determination was included with the letter which indicates that approximately the northern half of the Caltrans property and the vacant area north of the flood control channel are wetlands. Within the context of a Planned Community, these areas would likely be zoned for permanent open space, as the applicable Federal, State and City policies discourage any disruption of wetland areas. (b) Geotechnical The study area is considered highly sensitive from a geological perspective because of the presence of the Newport-Inglewood fault. Potential seismic activity presents the possiblity of liquefacation on the site; this will increase in severity as land uses are intensified. The clay . content of the soil and the high groundwater level will require substantial filling (approximately one million cubic yards) to mitigate these conditions and render the site suitable for development. (c) Noise Residential development adjacent to Pacific Coast Highway and a small portion of Beach Boulevard will be subjected to noise levels in excess of the normally acceptable levels for residential areas. Since the typical exterior treatments such as walls and berms may not be feasible, special mitigation measures would be required to reduce the Ldn 70 level to City standard of Ldn 60 for exterior and Ldn 45 for interior noise levels. 22 Areas adjacent to Beach Boulevard, Newland Street, and the proposed Hamilton Avenue extension would also be subject to noise levels that are in excess of City standards. However, it is feasible to mitigate the noise to an acceptable level through unit modifications, building placement, and barrier construction. (d) Air Quality Any uses that locate adjacent to the Edison generating plant may be subject to acid mist fallout. The Air Quality Management District receives an average of five complaints annually regarding fallout from the Edison plant. (e) Water Quality The study area, characteristic of coastal saltwater marshes, is underlain by a high groundwater table and the quality, is highly saline. Utility installation and general foundation work would require dewatering and use of materials which are not susceptible to saline corrosion. The presence of saline groundwater will adversely impact landscaping associated with any of the proposed land uses unless significant fill is placed over the site or extensive dewatering occurs. (8) Local Coastal Program The relationship of the General Plan amendment request to specific Coastal Act policies has been discussed in previous sections. However, it should also be noted that Section 30604(a) of the Coastal Act states "Prior to certification of the Local Coastal Program, a coastal development permit shall be issued if the issuing agency, or the commission on appeal, finds that the proposed development is in conformity with the .provisions of Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 30200) of this division and the permitted development will not prejudice the ability of the local government to prepare a Local Coastal Program that is in conformity with the provisions of Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 30200)." Approval of any project, even at the General Plan level, could limit planning options now open for the preparation of the Local Coastal Program, especially since the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan will become an element of the City's General Plan. Even though it may not be possible for every individual site within the coastal zone to implement each of the Coastal Act policies,. it is necessary that land use decisions made prior to certification of the Local Coastal Program not be in conflict with coastal policies. While the Coastal Act does allow some degree of flexibility for individual sites within the coastal zone, specific Coastal Act policies such as those pertaining to filling operations in wetland 23 areas, the preservation of significant wildlife habitat areas, the preservation of existing low-cost housing opportunities and controlling risks to life and property in hazard areas could limit the options available for this specific site. A commitment to the land use designations requested for the study area could require other areas of the coastal zone to be preserved for the implementation of Coastal Act policies. 2.3 Recommendation The applicant has requested a redesignation of the study area to Planned Community. The planned community designation will not in itself establish the relationship between land uses and does not establish a maximum on the intensity of development. These concerns are regulated by the zoning on the property. Since the existing zoning for the area of concern is RA-O, MH and Ml-A-0, no residential development intensities exist for much of the site. In order to determine the organization of the land uses as well as acceptable development intensities, either changes in zoning or preferably, the development of a specific plan for the Area of Concern would be required once the Planned Community designation was adopted. Designation of the area of concern to Planned Community would at this time be a statement of the City's commitment to the development of the area. This would allow the applicant and City to proceed with the preparation of a more specific development proposal. As indicated in the foregoing analysis, however, there are, several significant issues which impact the study area that appear to be unsolvable within the context of this General Plan amendment. Specifically, development of .the area as proposed creates conditions which may conflict with Coastal Act policies. Additionally, the key location and size of this parcel make its land use designation an important part of the Local Coastal Program land use plan. Until the Local Coastal Plan is completed and certified, compliance with Coastal Act policies would be difficult to assess. The _applicant's request and the information that has been generated can be considered in the formulation of the Local Coastal Program. Staff, therefore, recommends that the amendment request be continued until the Local Coastal Program is completed and that the land uses requested for the area be considered in the preparation of the Local Coastal Program land use plan. 2.4 Planning Commission Recommendation This amendment request was considered at a public hearing before the Planning Commission on August 21, 1979. At this meeting, the Planning Commission voted 4-1 to deny the applicant's request to redesignate the area of concern to Planned Community. 24 t. a i I WEST'EC Services, Inc.y_.I 1520 State Street • San Diego, California 9210.1 180 East Main Street • Tustin, California 92680 FINAL EIR 77-9 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 78-1 . Prepared for: The City of Huntington Beach Department of Planning and Environmental Resources Prepred by: WESTEC Services , Inc. 180 East Main Street, Suite 150 Tustin, California 92680 June, 1978 WESTEC Services, Inc. TABLE OF CONTENTS S ECT T ON PAGE Introduction 1 1 . 0 Project Description 3 1 . 1 Project Location/Site Characteristics 3 1 . 2 Proposed Actions/Study History 3 2 . 0 Environmental Analysis 19 2 . 1 Existing Conditions 19 2 . 2 Biological Resources 26 2 . 3 Hydrology 31 2 . 4 Noise 36 - 2 . 5 Public and Visual Access 41 2 . 6 Public Services/Utilities 4.3 �. 2 . 7 Archaeology/Paleontology 55 2 . 8 Land Use 56 2 . 9 Growth Inducement 59 2 . 10 Socio-Economic 61 2 . 11 Air Quality 64 2 . 12 Traffic/Circulation 68 2 . 13 Coastal Policies 7S 2 . 14 Revenue/Cost Analyses 83 - 3 . 0 Alternatives 89 _ 4 . 0 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 91 4 . 1 Land Use 91 --- 4 . 2 Circulation 91 4 . 3 Noise 91 4 . 4 Air Quality 91 � i TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) SECTION PAGE 4 . 5 Landform 92 4 . 6 Geology 92 _ 4 . 7 Hydrology/Water Quality 92 4 . 8 Municipal Services 92 4 . 9 Utilities 102 4 . 10 Energy 92 4 . 11 Socio-Economic Factors 92 _. 4 . 12 Biology 93 5 . 0 The Relationship Between Local Short-Term Uses and Long-Term Productivity of the Environment 9S 6 . 0 Certification of Accuracy and Qualifications 97 References/Persons Consulted 99 i i � TABLE OF TABLES PAGE r 1- 1 General Plan Amendment 78- 1 Alternate Land Uses Summary 17 2- 1 Seismic Data 22 2- 2 Noise Monitoring Results 37 r 2- 3 Daily Vehicular Emissions 66 2-4 Emissions Resulting From Power Generation 67 2- 5 Traffic Volumes 69 2-6 Project Volumes 73 2- 7 Revenue/Expenditure Relationship Summary 85 2- 8 Revenue/Expenditure Analyses-Alternate Land Uses 87 r- TABLE OF FIGURES PAGE 1-1 Vicinity/Topoaraphic Map 4 1- 2 Existing Zoning s - 1- 3 Alternate A 7 1-4 Alternate B 9 1- 5 Alternate C 11 1-6 Alternate D 13 1- 7 Alternate E 15 2-1 Geotechnical .Sensitivity 2 3 2- 2 Biological Sensitivity 29 2- 3 Existing Flood Hazards 34 2-4 1990 Noise Contours 39 r- (Ref. 2 , pg . VI-12) r r - iii APPENDICES SECTION TITLE PAGE I Constraint Study I -1 II Initial Study II -1 III Preliminary Geotechnical Work III - 1 IV Acid Mist Fallout IV- 1 V Letters of Correspondence V-1 VI Response to Comments on Draft EIR 77-9 GPA 78 -1 VI -1 iv r _ INTRODUCTION This document addresses the environmental impacts of - a pro- posed amendment to the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. It is designed to serve as an informational document for a series of decisions that must be made by governmental agencies regarding planning and ultimate land use of the property. Persons reviewing this document should keep in mind the fact that ,the material provided herein is , under State law, informa- tional in nature. It is intended to enable appropriate public r agencies to evaluate environmental impacts associated with the project as proposed. The responsible public agencies remain obligated to balance possible adverse effects against other public r - objectives , including economic and social factors , in determining whether the project is approved. This report is being submitted to the City of Huntington r Beach in accordance with their procedural guidelines for implemen- tation of CEQA and the State of California, Guidelines for the Preparation and Evaluation of Environmental Impact Reports under the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 , with recent amendments (1977) . r This EIR is partially based on an environmental constraint study which was prepared by WESTEC Services , Inc . for the City of Huntington Beach . Data depicted in that study was used in shaping r the various alternatives which are the subject of this EIR. r 1 A The Final EIR is composed of the Draft EIR as it was circulated for review, the comments received during the review period, and the . responses to the comments . The comments and responses are located _. at the back of `the report. Wherever possible, corrections have been made in the body of the Draft EIR in italicized printing and cross-referenced to the appropriate comment in the back of the report . -- A 2 _. SECTION 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1 . 1 PROJECT LOCATION/SITE CHARACTERISTICS The General Plan Amendment area is composed of roughly 107 - acres adjacent to the Huntington Beach State Park and bounded by Pacific Coast Highway, Beach Boulevard and Newland Street . b Presently, 50 percent of the site is occupied by a mobile home park, a commercial boat sales office and is disected by a flood control channel . An oil tank farm exists to the north of the project area and the Edison Generating Plant is to the east . Westerly of the project, the land is vacant and Huntington State Beach lies to the south (Figures 1- 1 and 1- 2) . The property is essentially flat, with only minor topographic variation. The site as shown in Figure 1- 3 is zoned Ml-A-0/RA-0, and is desig- nated in the General Plan as a Planning Reserve Area (General Plan, as amended, 1977) . The property presently supports a population of .approximately 400 persons . 1 . 2 PROPOSED ACTIONS/STUDY HISTORY The land in question was subjected to an initial environ- mental constraint study. This effort included extensive field �- survey and technical analyses . The final report (Appendix I) provided the applicant and project planners with a baseline of information showing high and moderate sensitivity areas . Included in the discussion were recommendations on how some adverse impacts could be designed out of the project . The data was then 3 Bit ,.�j.'• it -Ic_-�__I _-_-`_ - , CD 4 LANE a EACH ° u�-z-==c -• BLS J • o :.Oil Sump y / d TALBERT lAk - - - - _ 1f , —BUSHAR ,-- lz \`C IJ... „11� ,YJ rlfl . •i .�Jr L -1__ •• .. 111M,�ltG •... f .. �. i t. f i Z i" i i i SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP 13-6-II - NOtE -- CITY ®F �.��w...r,-.... YO/.t. wll°M /,If.O Lf�ENO Ammm QdLP3 !MIM SffiIIY otoo, HUNTII�GT®N BEACH ° •p ,.• • no ,.� ..� ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA °°' e" IM(NO(0 Br 20N( CAS(' 7•in• 1°•I C33mra.w,.o,.va.lcrl•. I>7,I]..all. 77].3.°.If.,7f°..°•,....K M].Mf.N-)),..W.mob-ft Flt Y•t.,YN(13.1), MFM '0 ) � e°-urnn.lnrt�..�x.,�a.rlo+,•c, 41 -t' t . 1 \ J1 1 ATLANTA II AVE II 'I,• t-- as as RI J RI RI RI RI RI,t •�ww°i..r m CT y a�Ra t - ry°]/• R2 WI RI ...ten..: no at 0 al as Ri . ° CF-E Rol S •c*r-]v RI U I —.�j 1 as NJ no R3 as RI - Ra w- RI C4 Ra Ra �; RI RI �I -Tn el — - Rs RI ^"-' •---� R• RI RI t RI RI RI CF—R RI L IRA-0 M I-A-O ....................... RI RI . R� V i < I W r m MI-A-O M I-A-0 .......... ....: /�`n c0 � .'I.•r 4 1 MH •; PROJECT SITE w� M2-0 a PACICIC OCEAN _ \ \ \ FIGURE 1�2 Existing Zoning 5 WESTEC Services. Inc. i used to prepare Five alternative General Plan Amendments . These amendments are seen as Figures 1-4 through 1-9 , . and generally reflect. the highest to lowest intensity of use in descending order. Alternatives A and B (Figure 1-4/1- 5) have been proposed by the applicant , the Daon Corporation, and reflect the most intense use . Alternatives C, D and E are derivations of the applicant ' s proposal , with E being the least intense . These were _ prepared by City staff.. All the alternatives propose some level of residential -- development, with commercial or commercial recreation use . Table 1-1 summarizes the land use and density by alternative. Alternatives Al B, C, and D all require relocation of the existing flood control channel . All of the proposals show the extension of Hamilton Avenue between Beach Boulevard and Newland Avenue . The most intense use would allow up to 1 , 400 units , plus commercial facilities (200 , 000 square feet) and a small industrial area next to the existing tank farm. The low intensity use _ proposes only 655 residential units and approximately 60 acres of open space/public park. Alternative A could generate a permanent t population of up to 4 , 200 persons with Alternative E about fifty percent less , at 2 , 000 individuals . The existing residents and land use will be displaced with implementation of any of the five alternatives . Alternative A differs from the other amendments in that it requests a "Planned Community" designation. According to staff, the "Planned Community" designation is intended to provide for 6 Gulf Oil HIGH DENSITY Storage Facility 00 2.0 AC 4 .......... O .f :.::::::::. m 0 - i >' �1 .. AM 0 I (No Scale) FIGURE 183 Alternate A 7 W ESTEC Services. Inc. Gulf Oil . Storage Facility IN®USTRIA C 0 O t :: o Flood n o Contro l Channel e Ali :>:.. is .���<`; .:: :::•::.; :.::::;-:::.>:.;:;.;:.;;:<•:;.::•;:; ::: f- ........... — w :<.;;:<;•;:.;:;.:.:....:;;:-::: art '4:i•}}i::4i: i:S!::::•::i::::•i::i:-i. •: ::::::!i::::iii::?::::.:::::�:•ii:::;i}'::?:::::i:.:;.; .': :i:::::'.:.,.; ::...::".'::: :.::.. :::.. .. 3 m o. >:::::::.: .... :::... :.:_:. ..::::...: o ` s r (No Scale) FIGURE 111:14 Alternate B W ESTEC Services. Inc Industrial Gulf Oil an High Densit•i Storage Facility 2.0AC � 4.SAC 0 : <:?;:?.>.<. Sian•.,., o00 34;^,r+4;:`:; :5:•::;;::>:•., RE 'tir.:::: :� x:•:•. Hamilton Ave. .err:•:: r.;�i::::C::: :r:}:$::i:}:}':'::ti:'r}} I `:�:wY:•.{y:$;•i•�( of 1 l0 ;::•:i ': :: ::::;:::;;::: :; m h e n n C. 2 .:•.:cr:.;•:;,•::•:�is•t• ::t:ri::;::;:::: Ki F (No Scale) FIGURE 10 5 Alternate C W ESTEC Services, Inc Oil HIGH DENSITY IN Gulf Storage e Facility — 4.7 AC 4.5 AC 00 v N: :>::.%�:k•}}.;.�{::::::.::•' ;:<;:tir;:.}•:::•. .> •.. Hamilton Ave. y�,y : •... y� .:�R ....... M OM v .{. :. 0 0 r.:.... q n r ::.:}....::•:.:::::: 1 C �v h n n m e d m �C <r:$4i:�::�?:'�iji:�iii:{:ii::�ti:i>S}iii: $:•i�:1:i�::•i}iii:,,q.� `v: ':':$:�':i ?•:i:_i':jyjC;:$:{y::.i:�$'':i'{:::}iY.i�i :^:ii'�:i>i'. i3.: :�i:`:i�:ii.`-??!':.::4i:i:.}i:'•:::;•;i:�^i:i?:4:;i•}:viii ':'{}':::':{•l.:}}ii:`l:•.{:tip�:r... � ip i.�'[-:<4:•:Ji:vr}?:•}1i>}i�•: li:..:: ii:��ii'ri;{: �„ ::.�'�:.`:i:i:�}:>'::::is �j'ri{j:SiL L�iii:• •i}:4� �i}:•:�}i;:;:}i.';.ii:i i>::':•':!�':i::•l:•:?'}i:�:tiv:::ti; '�?'.i:�'ri'iti?:ii}':;,. i:i i`�: ::!}'Ji:?�i n.A.. 0.0 Z I G' •••'4}:•:ti::}:{};•}:{vi7'{%::{j?::Y: :�:}'::i::jYi�:ir:�ii}'r7i$i:+:C'r}}:ti�.... . };:�::: ti:ii�}:};::}:{:iii}:i�ii.`iij}j.•..,���::vi?�>i$;:-:;'::ti:`l:v:ti�;}::`:�ij};:}�: e ' ; x :: r- (No Scale) . FIGURE 1•6 Alternate 13 __ W ESTEC Services. Inc. Hi h Densit Gulf Oil 9 2 0 ACy Storage Facility -- ;::mac.•::.} ••;:r 4 �:;:�y;�.:.}.. 2.... .... 00 '? Hamilton Ave. rf. ;} ,.; :}; '•:•::;F'•{t�' ::;'•,�:t•: •'}';,:.rr5•x::}:;}:�.. ..lf•+y++ -''':`:�. x.}ll,{.�..r..�. {•}7:{}}1•�{{f:.•:.:?:}•..}:l:•K. .:•}Y:?+•:V' (. 1y:}:�,}ti r• }�.::{;: •A;:;:r{}••1{•l••'.Y•.f 1.1{''J�:�}� L �}{~,•.: .�.•f.}•-?.:}}{f�::`f•r�{.• ••-'.G�:}!};� !.{rYJI:}�.f•'+•1:r� .. h� f Y•f�:Y 1hC {V(+ :..:¢:::{{•::::{{;::.::•::^•:::•: :•>. :? O.C. Flood Contrnl Channel 0. {�� �}::4:4Y:•}:•}y:-i:;:}: 4:4ii}}}i}i:?i•::•?}:-::•:.:::::�r:A:?�;:}"4:::::::::::::.�:w::::.w. ..T.T^.•:�:��:'.�:�:�'<�':�:�:�:i�::?:�:�::i:?�':7"-�'v:`::{:'}:i:�:�`::?';":`{`::::fin;:::;:�:�i:�:{:::r}:%`'::3 :.'::i'�'�:::.::;:�:��' ::i'?•`:�.i: ::Si::�ii'::�:::}'�'�:�:� r :: {�'::;:}::{:•�i:::�y:•� }:•: ii::::�}?}:::�ii:�:':�::"-i':�:�::::::::..:•'-::-i::.ii:i:-:::y;:;:;:-;7:;:}::::;>;::•.-�:�:::�:iiit�iyi:::�?:�:•i�:�i:�?i':�':: :�:;}<:::;:::(::i ::i.i�:�ri:� <2a :4•. '47 ••:! •':v1r r '•:}: ... 1�..{.....;;':; .ry•y '•}}:•}}::}:;.i:?:}••f.?'a;ti}? •>?:•: :•j+.+ :::.::•::7:::•:::?}:}?:•>:->::!:•:;i:.i:•}::.. .q....r:•�.,.;�.:.',*.-.;.:..•'ifr.:i•}?}::;�:=: .......... r 0 .... . • :}};: iS:i{:::i::::i$::tl�' $: i:J: {L::i:i•$: ??::: :?{::ii ??:{{?:}? ::y:':i :::r{:?':tiSi:-: L.. .......}:r:y. :Ok ; r \ (No Scale) FIGURE 1.7 Alternate E 15 W W ESTEC Services. Inc A the comprehensive , coordinated planning and development of an identifiable area of land. The purpose is to take advantage of . the benefits of large-scale community planning and will ultimately result in the creation of quality living environment. Develop- ment in minimum fifty (50) acre increments is required. Through the process of subdivision, site plan, and circulation plan review, developments will be regulated to conform with the policies _ of the General Plan. a The Planned Community designation will not , in itself, establish the relationship between land uses and does not establish --a a maximum on the intensity of development . These concerns are regulated by zoning . At this time , developments of different _ intensity would require designation by the appropriate zoning category. Adoption of a Planned Community designation at this time would only constitute a commitment to some type of develop- ment on the parcel . A proposed amendment to the City ' s zoning ordinance , incorporated in the ordinance rewrite and scheduled consideration by the Cite CounciZ (Ref. 4 for ap.t.;�atz later this year would, however, allow a multiple-use pg. V � I use zone to be established. Development, in this case , would be reflective of a development plan submitted and approved as a specific plan. This differs from the other four alternates in that they do not require phased increments of development and will have specific zoning applied. In the course of this analysis , an attempt has been made to ` discuss each alternative on an equal basis . In certain cases , 16 I . W f I TABLE 1-1 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 78-1 ALTERNATE LAND USES SUDUTARY A B* C U E Acres Units Acres Units Acres Units Acres Units Acres Units Residential Low Density 43.1 31.4 175 30.1 166 29.3 161 0 0 Medium Density 43.1 1400 47.4 593 29.8 373 26.2 218 41.5 S19 Iligh Density 2.0 13.6 299 16.2 3S6 16.1 3S4 6.2 136 TOTAL 88.2 1400 92.4 1067 76.1 89S 71.6 843 47.7 6SS Commercial General 4.7 13.4 10.1 8.6 0 Recreational**' 0 0 0 12.0 0 TOTA1, 4.7 13.4 10. 1 20.6 0 Industrial 0 1.1 4.5 4.5 0 Open Space 0 0 16.2 0 41.3 Public Use 14.0 0 0 10.2 17.9 TOTAL 106.9 1400 106.9 1067 106.9 895 106.9 843 106.9 bSS * Acreage includes flood control channel not included in others ** New G.P. classification or revision necessary the alternates are so similar as to not visibly display a r difference in impact . In those cases , a range of impact from high to low is discussed, rather than individual differences . w 18 _' SECTION 2 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS -- 2 . 1 GEOTECHNICAL 2 . 1 . 1 Existing Conditions The geotechnical characteristics of the site are j summarized from a Preliminary Soils and Geologic Investigation prepared by Irvine Soils Engineering (1977) . Soils Subsurface investigations have revealed the following : • Fill Fill is present in several areas across the site : 1 . In the mobile home park to a depth of one to two feet . This fill is poorly compacted. 2 . Beneath the oil tanks to a depth of five to six feet. Reports indicate this fill is properly compacted. 3 . In the boat storage/sales facility to a depth — of three to four feet . This fill is probably uncompacted. 4 . In the fill berms adjacent to the flood control channel and tank farm to heights of three to six feet . This fill is probably poorly compacted. 19 v With the exception of the soils beneath the oil tanks , the fills at the site must be considered essentially uncompacted. The fill soils consist primarily of clayey and silty sands and sandy silts . • Natural Ground 4 The surface natural soils consist of soft silty estuarine type clays to depths of 3 to 11 feet (average depth approximately five feet) . These soils contain minor amounts of peat and are characterized by low strengths , moderate to high compressibilities and a high expansion potential . p -A Underlying these upper clays are fine grained marine sands containing shells and minor lenses of silt , gravel and clay to the maximum depth explored of 31 feet . (Borings drilled by Dames and Moore for the tank farm confirm this profile to a depth of 93 feet . ) These soils are moderately dense to dense , have good strength and compressibility properties , but , as discussed later, are susceptible to liquefaction. ® Groundwater Groundwater was encountered in all borings at �J depths of 111 to 8 feet. These levels do not necessarily reflect the stabilized groundwater condition which appears to be at or close to the ground surface . Free-standing water can be seen in the northwest portion of the site and at adjacent ground level in the drainage channel . Water levels are tidal , and the water is - brackish. 20 ! E Geology Y Local Conditions The property is underlain by Cretaceous and Tertiary sedimentary rock overlain by Pleistocene and recent sediments with a total thickness of as much as 16 , 000 feet . These deposits are underlain by a pre- late Cretaceous basement ._ complex consisting of igneous and metamorphic rocks . During Pleistocene time , uplift along the Newport- Inglewood Structural Zone and general lowering of sea level resulted in increased erosion which produced the mesas and gaps along the coastal plain. Sea levels then rose rapidly and the gaps were filled with coarse grained sediments . About 9 ,000. years ago the rise in sea level slowed and conditions resembled — those present today. Within the last 9 , 000 years the Santa Ana River changed course from the Bolsa Gap to the Santa Ana Gap . During this period, peat deposits formed in the gaps and a barrier beach was formed, creating inland lagoons and marshes where fine sand, silt and clay were deposited. Seismicity Table 2-1 gives the names , distances and expected magnitudes and accelerations of the major active faults in the V- area. The site is located within the Newport- Inglewood Fault Zone . An active branch of the fault (South Branch Fault) has been mapped across the northeast portion of the site and several 1 other branches pass within a few miles (see Figure 2-1 ) . M 21 -- a r TABLE 2- 1 SEISMIC DATA Estimated l Estimated Distance Base Rock Maximum2 From Estimated Maximum Ground Fault Site Magnitude Acceleration Acceleration Newport- Inglewood 0- 3 6 . 6 0 . 65- 1 . 0_ - 0 . 95 Whittier 21- 6 . 8 0. 21 0 . 30 --� Elsinore 25- 7 . 2 0. 20 0 . 3S San Jacinto 50+ 7 . 5 0 . 10 0 . 18 San Andreas 53- 7. 7 0 . 10 0 . 20 Adapted from Seismic-Safety Element , Huntington Beach Planning Department, August, 1974 . _ 1 Schnable and Seed, 1972 . 2 Matthiesen, et. al . , 1972. 3 Geological Survey Circular 672 , 1972 . 22 _ Fault Gulf Oil Trace . � Storage Facility _. ®® V 90 r :<. Hamilton Ave. ®O O.C. Flood Control Channel . . . . . . . . ........ .......... .......... C x.. y m A 0 �r ti w •r V r� areas of unconsolidated fill (No Scale) FIGURE 2.1 Geotechnical Sensitivity 2- W ESTEC Services. Inc. r � i 2 . 1 . 2 Impacts The entire site is considered to be highly sensitive d from a geologic perspective . The presence of the Inglewood- Newport fault presents a very real possibility of liquefaction on the site . Also , clay layers under the surface are highly sus - ceptible to compression, and are unsuitable for direct support of buildings without some treatment . Finally, the high groundwater table is a factor because of its effects on underground construc- tion. Dewatering will be necessary for all excavations which extend below the groundwater table . The area underneath the existing mobile home park and the boundaries of the flood control -� channel are felt to have a potential impact because of the uncompacted nature of the fills . The potential geotechnical impacts basically, exist regardless of which alternative is chosen. The potential impact of liquefaction is more severe the more intense the use . Thus , Alternative A sustains a more adverse impact than does Alter- native E, which has a significantly lower density and large open space areas which would incur less damage from an earthquake . However, there is really very little difference in impact between Alternatives A, B, C and D, all of which propose fairly signifi- cant residential and commercial acreage . In terms of other geotechnical issues , the more develop- ment that occurs , the greater the impact in terms of dewatering , recompaction of fills , and surcharging . Again, there is a some- what less impact with Alternative E. Yet , it still proposes some 24 residential development, which will require mitigation of geo- technical impacts . 2 . 1 . 3 Mitigation The specific needs of the site will have to be deter- mined when more detailed development plans are available . However, on a preliminary basis , all five alternatives will require some mixture of the following : approximateZy 1. 0 million cubic yards of 1 . The site will require fill- n-g to avoid flooding Ref. 5, and to provide a landscaping base . Accordingly , a surcharging pg. VI-1) R (i . e . , waiting) period of at least six months after placing the fill , and prior to construction, would probably be necessary to reduce total and differential settlements to an acceptable level . W In addition, Irvine Soils Engineering (1977) recommends that buildings be supported on post-tensioned slabs to minimize the — effects of settlement, and that utilities be designed with flexible connections . If a waiting period must be avoided, an alter- native solution of removing the upper clay layer and replacing it with compacted fill may be possible . This alternative should be — seriously considered, especially if heavier commercial buildings are planned, as in Alternatives A and B , or in areas where the r clay layer is not thick. High groundwater and corresponding difficulty of excavation must, of course , be considered if this approach is taken. -- 2 . To help alleviate liquefaction potential , it is recommended that the fill consist of predominantly clayey soil. . 25 3 . Underground structures (pool , basements , etc . ) must be drained and/or designed to resist hydrostatic uplift . 4 . Underground conduits must be designed to withstand galvanic corrosion due to the saline groundwater. It is the opinion of Irvine Soils Engineering (1977) that the site can be mitigated to provide adequate public safety and sound structures . 2 . 2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 2 . 2 . 1 Environmental Setting A biological survey .of the site was conducted on October 5 , 1977 (between 9 : 00 a .m. and 2 : 00 p .m. ) and on October 28 , 1977 (between 10 : 00 a.m. and 12 : 00 p.m. ) . Weather conditions on both days were clear and warm with a slight on-shore breeze . • Vegetation The subject parcel has been disturbed through grading for flood control channels and construction of onsite improvements . Many of the open areas onsite contain vegetation characteristic of a salt marsh and are subject to tidal pressure which causes a "flushing" action as groundwater levels fluctuate . The apparent high soil salinity has created environmental condi- tions that have allowed a nearly homogeneous growth of pickleweed (Salicornia virginica) in areas of little vehicular disturbance . A ventitious growth of Russian thistle (Salsola kali) , Bermuda grass C nodon dactylon) , wild mustard (Brassica sp . ) , wild radish (Raphanus sp . ) and sunflower (Helianthus californicus) i 26 _.1 d�:., occur along the roadway. An area near the northwestern portion of the site contains brackish water (urban runoff) draining through a road culvert onto the site . This area contains marsh vegetation including tules Scir us sp . ) and a few cattails (Typha sp . ) . A small clump of bamboo (Phyllostachys sp. ) is in the southwestern corner of the site . -- • Wildlife The parcel serves as an open space wildlife habitat mainly for avifaunal species . Birds observed onsite during the brief field inspection were limited to the western meadowlarks , American avocet, and linnet. However, due to adequate cover, . onsite water source , and the proximity to the Coast, the site ! should be considered a habitat for both terrestrial and marine- associated avifauna. Mammal and reptile activity appears very low onsite . Mammalian species onsite may be limited to the house mouse and house rat. Reptilian species onsite is limited to the side-blotched lizard. • Rare and Endangered Species j In a recent survey. for the California Department of Fish and Game, Massey (1977) identified the project site as well as other Salifornia covered sites along the Huntington Beach �- strip as breeding habitat for the Beldings Savannah Sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis beldingi) . The Beldings Savannah Sparrow. is listed by the Department of Fish and Game (1977) as endangered. 27 The Belding ' s subspecies of Savannah Sparrow, an all-year resident of salt marshes , ranges from Goleta southward along the coast to El Rosario, Baja California. The subspecies is restricted to areas containing Salicornia. Numbers of the species have been declining over the years due to destruction of salt marsh habitat through land development and stream channeli- zation. The current census (Massey, 1977) estimated that approxi- mately 1 ,600 breeding pairs remain in the State . Massey (1977) found 16 breeding pairs on and in — the vicinity of the parcel . The birds were nesting within the low-growing Salicornia and apparently use the tips of the plant ! as food. The nesting population utilizing the site accounts for approximately 1 percent of the known species population. In addition, the survey concluded, if the habitat onsite were enhanced, a greater nesting population could be supported. 2 . 2 . 2 Impacts ! By far the greatest impact from development of the parcel will be the destruction of the nesting grounds for the endangered Belding' s Savannah Sparrow. Any proposed development that would reduce the extent of Salicornia onsite may be opposed by the California Department of Fish and Game . The level of impact is the greatest with Alternatives B and D. In these uses , the Salicornia habitat will be completely destroyed. Alternative A is less impacting , in that a portion of the site (14 acres) will be designated for open space , which -� could maintain the healthy habitats . Alternate C provides for 1 2R __' Gulf Oil Storage Facility o 0 :1 00 Hamilton Ave. Xi ...l: •.7A m '''ryjt/jr�'jir?•f•�.}tr:.1 :^t:.J'. ••1:?:....?:{:!}?v.y L•l.f.�y\•'J•'•'':•.. .XL' ??j':•: rJlRrr,:.•I:S7r.`•-.wrf t1::: '•}Y:?L .L}f:::f}}i•'L:?$:?•}:vi4:?y!Y•X}??•:?•:•L' .r...r.... t �7irlrifr ?rsr?t+•rri: •:�•::•:•:.:?•.�:•}}:is:::.?::. l0 sti... f:r:•f"• r.??f::rl�f,:J�i2r+%.-::•:c m t(uj .7%:7r7Is; 7r7r rr: O.C. Flood Control Channel m .•+.':u??t a lr li:'9 rr r.?.71:•r:t 7 tNt'f�i t:..::••t•:hr:l:'Ji:'ft(?.t: .%r,!t 1rt•t•f�l•tj�rs.:s l�.r„•.. !r.' fr7>��j. lli ef: !?fflft7%llltjf ?r jflf�'.'rftftr;rlftI:::f: 7f+ St��•�rr�7. rllf.?fj 7tt??{�ii77{t,�r?ji7� y C ' tt�• 'fu: Z. r71 •! 7..tfi.l•l�r:•%1?:If,:u!7 !0 f'j r•1!�'�7i rr r 1�j lf7f� '•Sllljfl.J... tttr�.'4i1+1 7t:+' R fio c oe �f tiwy Z K" 1111-1101111, Belding Sauanna Sparrow Habitats (No Scale) FIGURE 2.2 Biological Sensitivity-- 29 WESTEC Services. Inc even greater open space and possible resource protection with a marsh preserve area totaling about 16 . 2 acres . It is anticipated that this open space area would be enhanced, as recommended by Massey (1977) . Alternative E would impact the Savannah Sparrow to the least degree . Key habitat areas identified in the constraint study as being viable are retained in open space (approximately a 41 acres) . Also , the surrounding uses will possibly create fewer problems in terms of human interface and habitat maintenance . — 2 . 2 . 3 Mitigation The exact form of mitigation, assuming some level of development, will be the subject of intensive discussions with the California Department of Fish and Game . While various alternatives propose the preservation of the Salicornia habitat as open space , it is not clear if this is a viable proposal . In particular, Alternatives A and C may be hard to execute , in that experience has shown that small sensitive habitat areas , surrounded by intense urban land use , provide significant resource management problems . Also , with the relocation of the flood control channel , it will be difficult to keep construction acti- vities away from the resource . In that regard, Alternative E is , in fact , a form of mitigation, because it preserves an area large enough to properly manage and reduces construction activities by maintaining the existing control channel alignment . A further mitigation to the impact on the Savannah Sparrow would be to replace an equal amount of habitat acreage i 30 on a site more conducive to sensitive species , such as the Bolsa 1 _ Chica Preserve. 2 . 3 HYDROLOGY 2 . 3 . 1 Environmental Setting 2 . 3 . 1 . 1 Surface The entire site is presently subject to flooding during hundred year flood. t' f' 1' the-st—andar&-pTo-j- et--S- a rn--F�B-0-- ea ) . Records indicate that the . ._. pg. VI-46 site would have standing water A-9 feet deep during such a flood (Ref. pg. VI-46 (U. S . Corps of Engineers , 1973) . The major source of this problem is the Santa Ana River . _ The site does have atn �x stirs flood conjro� chajt el rah-4eh $ernes a ri u qry aznage area o t e nor of the site. This CnneZ uZtimate& empties into the Santa Ana River. running through itn However , accorYing to the Orange County (Ref. 1, pg. V1-46) Flood Control District (1977) , it is not designed to handle the flow from a 100 year storm. The channel was designed for a dis - charge of 475 cfs in 1959 and consists of an engineering earth trap channel with a base width of 40 feet and side slopes of 2 : 1 and an average height of 8 feet Mean Sea Level (MSL) . Near Newland Street the discharge in a 100-year flood would be approxi- mately 1400 cfs (McDonald, 1977) , hence the inadequacy to handle storm waters . The channel is subject to tidal flux and has a control elevation of 4 . 80 MSL to allow for the maximum predicted high tide (McDonald, 1977) . It is felt that if the channel did not exist that the site (average elevation 2 : 5 feet) would be P partially inundated during maximum high tides as water would back up through the channel opening at the Santa Ana River . As a 31 and the presence of the this Santa Ana River result of the inadequate capacity of -tho- channe the site is (Ref. 1, pg. VI-46 , zoned on the City' s Flood Hazard Map as API (special hazard area) . During field surveysl , there were observed two small areas of standing water. These areas were felt to be from urban runoff because of their close proximity to drainage culverts . Also, the presence of vegetation, which does not grow in highly saline environs , indicates that some fresh water dilution is occurring . Thus , there is no observable surface data to show that flushing of the site occurs except for the daily rise and fall of water in the flood channel . A recent study by CalTrans (1978) for portions of the - subject property indicates that valves associated with drainage facilities connecting to the flood channel do not close completely and that during high tides , backflow of saline water in the channel occurs onto the site . Thus , while not supported by V direct field observations , there may be some marginal "flushing" . r, The premise appears to be supported by a similar situation on the Edison property to the east (VTN, 1973) . 2 . 3 . 1 . 2 Subsurface The project site is underlain by a high groundwater table and the quality is highly saline (Irvine Soils , 1977 , Schmidt 1977) . A complete discussion of the groundwater charac- teristics of the area is included as Appendix II . However , a key point of that study is that " . . . the shallow sands appear to be - 1 Conducted prior to the recent rains 32 V hydraulically connected to the ocean and contain water similar to sea water in chemical quality. " Schmidt (1978) indicates that the flood channel and the ocean will exer_t. diurnal and seasonal tidal pressure on the groundwater, causing a semi-ebb and flow motion, although not to the degree of surface tidal movement . Also , the fact that the general flow' of the Talbert Aquifer is from MSL at the project site to approximately 40 feet below sea level at inland stations would serve to move water through the upper soil horizons in a quasi-flushing action (Schmidt , 1978) . 0_- 2 . 3 . 2 Environmental Impact 2 . 3 . 2 . 1 Surface All four alternatives will be adversely impacted from flood waters unless protective measures are taken. In the case of Alternatives A, B, C and D, there will be a realignment of the existing flood control channel . It is understood that the channel would be improved during the realignment and would be sized to handle the 100-year flood. In order to handle the volume (Ref. 1, go- e -food; the channel will require a depth of 10 feet, a pg. VI-46) width of 80 feet and an invert of 3 feet below Mean Sea Level (Price , 1978) . The design should not have sharp curves and flow should not exceed 3-4 feet per second. In Alternates A - D, the preliminary design appears adequate (Price , 1978) . Alternate B has the sharpest curves , but preliminary review with the Flood W Control District indicates that the design is adequate and the applicant ' s engineers indicate that the flow will not exceed 4 feet per second (Adams , 1978) . Alternate E proposes no improvements to the local flood channel and mould therefore be adversely impacted.. 33 (Ref. 3, pg. VI=47) Gulf Oil Storage Facility S ..:,..:........ m s c i A - 1 0 100 , year flooding (No Scale) FIGURE 2.3 Existing Flood Hazards 34 WESTEC Services. Inc. 1 J In addition, regardZess of the aZternate seZected, the site wiZZ be within the Z00 year flood pZain of the Santa Ana River. WhiZe pZans are underway s-t-r-&am---a-r-ea-s--wh9-s - eKW4ts--may-R04-b8--};-laa4i-"-w-i-tom to improve the Santa Ana ChanneZ to 75 year flood capacity; the site wiZZ stiZZ have up to nine (9) feet of water on it during the Z00 year storm. (Ref. �= pg. VI-41) 100 year Thus , the-standafa-ppe}eet flood will inundate the (Ref. 3, pg. VI-41) site . Areas designated for medium and high density residential will have to have a raised floor elevation which is one foot L above the 100 year flood if Federal Insurance Administration regulations are to be met. This would require raising the site elevation 4-6 feet . Finally, the amendment of the General Plan to one of the four alternates proposing realignment of the channel will require an expenditure of funds . Such an expenditure is not a budgeted item for the City of Huntington Beach or the Orange County Flood Control District. 10, 2 . 3 . 2 . 2 Subsurface The high groundwater will impact all five alternatives with relatively equal intensity. Utility installation and general foundation work will require dewatering and use of materials which are not susceptible to saline corrosion. The presence of saline groundwater will adversely impact landscaping r associated with any of the proposed land uses unless significant fill is placed over the site or extensive dewatering occurs . t 35 2 . 3 . 3 Mitigation As indicated above , Alternatives A , B , C and D mitigate ! ZoeaZ flood hazards through the improvement of the existing channel . Alternative E provides partial mitigation. by minimizing the impact of floodin by reducing the amount ofdeveloped acreage . r, A��ovelJUY'156vyearZ oo e�levationtm�yNie2C a Qf nZZRiveraise the site eZevcztior Grounwater impacts can be mitigated troug provision of fill (Re'.. 3, pg. VI-31) or inclusion of saline water bodies within the project area to keep water levels down. However , such mitigation must be dealt with at specific project levels . It is possible that the reloca- tion of the channel will , with improved construction techniques , reduce the amount of seepage . If, in particular, the channel is concrete lined, it will eliminate any tidal influences the channel has on the site . However, implementation of this mitigation may adversely impact the salt marsh communities . 2 . 4 NOISE 2 . 4 . 1 Environmental Setting The ambient noise levels around the site were measured during an initial survey in October, 1977 and confirmed with a - second survey in February , 1978 . The specific monitoring results can be seen in Table 2- 2 . High noise levels in Station l and 3 were from accel- erating traffic - especially diesel trucks . The power plant emitted noise levels at approximately 64±2 dB(A) at the curbside - of the trailer courts . These spot measurements concur with the / CNEL contours established for the site in the City' s noise 36 4 element as seen in Figure 2 - 4 , and with noise studies conducted as part of the Edison Plant Expansion EIR (VTN, 1973) . TABLE 2- 2 NOISE MONITORING RESULTS Station dBA (L10) Predominant Source 1 6S- 2 Traffic ! 2 65- 3 Traffic 3 60-1 Truck Traffic 4 60- 2 Traffic �r- 2 . 4 . 2 Impact The City of Huntington Beach Noise Element (1976) specifies that optimum noise levels for residential use of Ldn 60 for outdoors and Ldn 45 for indoors . 1 2 . 4 . 2 . 1 Construction _ In Alternates B - E , there is no distinct phasing , therefore on-site construction noise impacts should be minimal . Normal construction noise is approximately 80 dB (A) at SO feet . The nearest residential area is. roughly 800 feet away, which allowing for a normal dropoff of 6 dB(A) for every doubling of distance will put construction noise at 56 dB (A) . This noise r 1 There are a variety of noise measurement methodologies . CNEL and Ldn are so close so as to be essentially interchangeable . Measurements shown in Section 2 . 4 . 1 in dB (A) are spot measure- ments and are not directly correlated to the average Ldn and CNEL values . They do , however, provide a specific point reference for impact modeling . ! S7 will be short-term in nature , and if limited to daytime hours ,(7 : 00 a .m. to 5 : 00 p .m. ) , should not create significant impact . Alternate A, however, under the PC guidelines , calls for develop- ment in fifty acre increments . Consequently residences could be ~" Q occupied during construction of later increments . Construction noise will impact these residences . In addition to these impacts , all of the alternates will be impacted by the construction noise from expansion of the Edison Generating Plant . l The Edison EIR (VTN, 1973) does not specify construction noise levels . However, experience indicates that noise levels could reach 85 dB (A) at the Edison property line . This could sustain noise levels at the project site of 73- _. 79 dB (A) 100- 200 feet west of Newland. Again, while this is not , permanent noise , VTN (1973) has projected a 16- 30 month construc- tion schedule . 2 . 4 . 2 . 2 Vehicular v -- Noise contours for vehicle noise have been established using Wyle Laboratory' s methodology and the City noise element . These contours are shown in Figure 2-4 . They reflect ultimate roadway ADT' s and include the highest possible traffic generated of the five alternates (Alternate A) . It can be seen that Alternates A, B, C and D all propose residential use within the 70 CNEL contour . This is considered adverse in that standard construction techniques and A 1 Two alternative sites not located in Huntington Beach) are also undergoing environmental review. Based on that outcome, construction is estimated to begin in 1983 . 38 F Gulf Oil Storage Facility O O 00 Hamilton Ave. c _ Z w m >. O.C. Flood Control Channel of m AeoW 65 dBa 70 d8a . . . S°X<' K: Monitoring Stations (No Scale) FIGURE 2-4 1990 Noise Contours W ESTEC Services. In NN6N 39 typical exterior treatment such as walls and berms would not be effective in achieving the City standards of 60 Ldn for exterior and 45 Ldn for interior levels . Alternate E would be less impacted from noise in that uses proposed within the 70 CNEL contour, such as open space/public recreation, are within standards established in the City Noise Element. These uses serve to buffer proposed residential uses . All five alternatives propose residential 'use in the area between the 65 and 70 CNEL contour. This is considered to. be a moderately adverse impact, in that noise levels will be high, but can be more successfully mitigated. 2 . 4 . 2 . 3 Edison Operations The operation of the Edison Generating Plant , both now and after expansion, will produce a noise level of 54 dB(A) at 400 feet (VTN, 1973) . This noise is not considered adverse -- during the daytime , when vehicular activity will serve to "drown i out" the sound. However, the VTN (1973) study indicates that _ noise levels at Newland and Pacific Coast Highway could be as high as 63 dB (A) at 2- 3 a.m. While this is not an adverse level and can be mitigated, it is possible that due to reduced back- ground noise the 63 dB (A) will serve as an irritant to light sleepers , and may be a potential source of complaint. 2 . 4 . 3 Mitigation Solid block walls , earthern berms , grade differences , 40 — setbacks or a combination thereof may be used to effectively M ' - reduce exterior noise to more acceptable levels . If two-story residences are contemplated along Beach Boulevard or Pacific Coast Highway, consideration should be given to window placement away from this noise source. Interior noise levels for all alternatives can be brought within acceptable levels through standard construction practices if a setback out of the 70 CNEL zone is observed. If Alternate A is selected, buyers should be notified of the phased nature of the development to avoid con- struction noise complaints . 2 . 5 PUBLIC AND VISUAL ACCESS 2 . 5 . 1 Existing Conditions The site is partially developed with mobile homes and a commercial boat outlet. Portions of the site are open, however, t and presently support a salt marsh habitat as described in the section on biology. The public does have access to the site and the open areas are laced with trails indicating some use of the site . The general .aesthetic qualities of much of the site are _ poor, with trash and litter in the unoccupied areas and evidence of previous unauthorized dumping. e- The City' s General Plan designates Pacific Coast High- way as a scenic corridor and Beach Boulevard as a landscape corridor. A bike trail exists along Newland Street . The existing D development limits views onto the site from Pacific Coast Highway. There are some views from the north of the project as well as 41 -�a .from Beach Boulevard. The project site is within the Coastal Zone and the City' s Local Coastal Plan (LCP) work program identifies the site as a "valuable coastal resource" (see Section 2 . 13) . — 2 . 5 . 2 Impact Implementation of any of the five alternatives is not felt to be an adverse impact as the site does not presently —4 provide significant scenic relief, as discussed above. The development of the site and probable landscaping of Pacific Coast Highway will enhance the scenic corridor status of the road over _4 its presently degraded situation. The bike trails on Pacific Coast Highway and Newland will be maintained. To some degree , all five alternatives restrict public access on the site . However, Alternatives A and E provide for more "public" use than B and C . Under the Planned Community Alternate A there is a provision for approximately 14 acres for parks/recreation. Alternative D calls for approximately 12 acres —' of commercial recreation facilities which includes a recreational vehicle campground. Finally, Alternative E provides for almost 4 18 acres of public use (unspecified) . In this sense , the A, D and E proposals are more responsive to the access/recreation policies of the Coastal Plan. —� 2 . 5 . 3 Mitigations -- It is important that development plans maximize open space to preserve the sensitive biologic habitats and maintain 42 visual corridors through the site . The City should consider imposition of a 75- foot setback on Pacific Coast Highway because of its scenic highway status . Conditions of development should include landscape review of any proposed treatment of Pacific Coast Highway. Certain suggestions are proposed in the Scenic Resource Element , and are listed below. 1 . Improvement of the scenic corridor by dedication of a scenic easement to the City along the Pacific Coast Highway. 2 . Placement of screening trees along the project borders and between industrial , commercial and residential areas to provide visual buffers from opposing uses . 3 . Prohibit billboards or other advertising signs along the scenic corridor. 4 . Underground telephone and power poles which are along the scenic highway. 2 . 6 PUBLIC SERVICES/TJTILITIES 2 . 6 . 1 Existing. Conditions • Sewer There are four District #11 sewer trunks operated and maintained by County Sanitation District currently, bordering IF the project site. They all are operating at or near capacity. The Atlanta Interceptor runs east and west to the north of the site . The Newland-Delaware Trunk Sewer borders the eastern side of the site , while the Hamilton Avenue Pump Station 8 Force Main abuts that line. The Ocean Avenue Trunk Sewer extends south 43 along the Pacific Coast Highway, and then veers eastward to traverse the lower third of the site (Master Plan of Sewers , 1977) . o Schools The Huntington Beach City Elementary School District is responsible for elementary education in Huntington Beach . The District is experiencing declining enrollment and could easily serve additional students . Schools serving the project area are Kettler Elementary School (K- 5) and Gisler Intermediate School (6-8) . Both are operating well below capacity (Jones , 1978) . -- High school students in the area would attend Edison High School . All high schools in the Huntington Beach Union High School District are operating at or above design ^ capacity (Jones , 1977) . • Fire Two fire stations serve the project area, the Lake Station at Lake Street and Indianapolis Avenue and the Magnolia Station at Magnolia and Hamilton Avenues . The estimated response time is five minutes or less . At present , a potential fire protection problem exists at the northeast corner of the site with the oil and fuel operations which include underground transfer lines , storage tanks , and pump station (Ott , 1977) . • Police -The City of Huntington Beach has one police station — at 2000 Main Street , two miles northwest of the project site . , Patrol levels are currently maintained at 1 . 14 officers per one thousand population (Fickle , 1977) . 44 • Solid Waste Solid waste from the project area is deposited in the Coyote Canyon Disposal Station No . 24 . This landfill will — last until 1981 , when it will be replaced by a station about five miles further from the subject property. Because transfer service for southwestern Huntington Beach is operating at capacity, the _ local collector will be required to haul directly to the Coyote Canyon Station or to other landfill sites . • Natural Gas The Southern California Gas Company currently maintains gas lines in Newland Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway _ and will serve the development from these lines (Perkins , 1977) . • Water The City of Huntington Beach Water Department maintains an eight inch water line in Beach Boulevard and a ten inch line in Pacific Coast Highway. Both of these lines are operating well below capacity (Colburn, 1977) . • Electricity , The Southern California Edison Company maintains overhead electricity lines on Coast Highway and Beach Boulevard in the project area, with underground lines on the Coast Highway northwest of the project site . The Edison Company has stated that these lines can serve increased development (Coolidge , 1977) • Telephone The General Telephone Company currently provides 45 telephone service to the trailer park on the southwest portion of the subject property with service emanating from facilities at Newland Avenue . The major switching facility nearest the project site is located on Atlanta Avenue , and new service to the project - would emanate from Atlanta. • Parks and Recreation The subject property is located directly across Pacific Coast Highway from Huntington State Beach. The Orange County Masterplan of Countywide Bikeways shows one bikeway along the Coast Highway and one along Newland Avenue . The City of Huntington Beach ideally maintains 5 . 0 acres of park space per one thousand population (Morris , 1978) .No municipal parks are located within one mile of the subject property, although ten municipal parks exist within two miles of the site. l Of these, four parks are subject to heavy use and could be considered overcrowded, four are subject to moderate use , operating near design capacity, and only two parks experience a low level of use . Thus , there is little excess park capacity in the project area (Morris , 1977) . • Drainage As noted earlier, the average site elevation is 2 . S feet. There are presently no drainage facilities serving the _ site . Consequently, runoff from higher surrounding areas and the mobile home park flows onto the site , creating temporary flooding. east of [ The nearest pump station is i� Newland Avenue , just south of h�- HamiZton Avenue. (Patapoff, 1978).] (Ref. 2. _ z�l�-Z&rw--(.P4ta}za.££,--1a2 — pg. VI36) 1 This is excluding the many miles of State Beach located directly - across from the project site . , 46 2 . 6 . 2 Impacts • Sewer Since the aforementioned sewer lines are operating -- at or near capacity, the increased demand generated by the pro- posed development could not be met . The County will shortly submit an application for the construction of a new main trunk _ line along the Pacific Coast Highway. This line would be capable of serving two-thirds of Huntington Beach (Reid, 1978) . However, that project is contingent upon approval from the Coastal Commis- sion. The date and outcome of that decision may therefore serve to limit development or at least alter development scheduling . [A projection of sewage output under the five alternatives indicates that, at an anticipated peak flow rate of 1 150 (Renna, 1978) 1,M gallons of sewage per person per day, Alternative A would 630,000 generate gallons per day. Alternative E would incur the 294, 750 least increase , at 1-9-6-,448- gallons per day. As noted, the existing sewer lines cannot handle this flow . ] (Ref. 2, pg. VI-34) Orange County Sanitation District Plant #2 serves as the primary treatment plant for the project site , although #1 is utilized as needed (Keefe, 1978) . Because of continual upgrading and daily variations in flow, the concept of a "remaining capacity" is not valid (Keefe , 1978) . - Instead, bypasses are made as needed between the two plants , and the plants are operated in such a way as to ensure the accommodation of future development (Keefe , 1978) . The projected level of increased sewage from each of the five alternatives can be treated without a negative impact (Keefe , 1978) . 47 • Schools The Kettler Elementary and Gisler Middle Schools have a current enrollment of 471 and 949 students , respectively , and capacities of 720 and 1 , 100 students (Jones , 1978) . At a -- maximum intensity (Alternative A) , an increase of 219 elementary and 70 middle school students will result , while Alternative E (less intense) generates 92 elementary and 20 middle school students . It is apparent that implementation of Alternate A would bring these school facilities close to capacity. -- Single-Family Multi-Family Dwelling Dwelling Kettler Elementary School 0 . 24 student/DU 0 . 14 student/DU Gisler Middle School 0 . 15 student/DU 0 . 03 student/DU Edison .High School 0 . 23 student/DU 0 . 01 student/DU In terms of high school capacity , .ten portable classrooms are currently alleviating the overcrowded high school facilities . Plans are underway to relocate some of these class- rooms to areas of greatest need (Dysinger, 1978) . As of March 1 , 1978 , enrollment was 3 , 546 (design capacity of 3 , 000) . The highest intensity use (Alternative A) will _ generate 170 students , with the lower intensity use (Alternative E) increasing enrollment by 66 students . The increase will further impact the already overcrowded schools . However, the declining enrollment in the elementary and middle schools should result in a long-term drop in high school facility requirements (Dysinger, 1978) . 48 r • Fire �- None of the proposed alternatives is expected to adversely impact service levels . The Fire Marshal has indicated that proper coordination during the actual design stages should insure general safety. Depending upon final plans and densities , the fire flow requirement would range from 1 , 500 to 2 , 500 gallons per minute (Ott , 1978) . The construction of residential units adjacent to the tank farm as proposed by Alternative E is not considered an optimal location from a safety standpoint . Although no special. precautions would be called for, in terms of equipment or set- backs , the relative threat to life and property would be greater (Ott , 1978) . On the otherhand, the placement of the flood control channel and Hamilton Avenue as depicted in the other alternatives would provide extra protection in the event of a fire eruption. • Police '- A preliminary review of the five alternatives indicates that residential and commercial development would necessitate a maximum increase of 7 . 6 officers (Alternative A) . _ Police calls were projected to increase by 461 in response to the highest commercial development (Alternative B) , decreasing proportionately under Alternatives A, C and D. No commercial development is proposed under, Alternative E, therefore only 2 . 2 officers would be required to meet residential needs . Sergeant Field (1978) anticipates that no adverse impact will result from implementation of any of the five alternatives . 4 49 e Solid Waste The County has indicated that development of the subject area will generate approximately 7 . S pounds of refuse per person per day. Potential increases in waste from 31 , S53 tons - (Alternative A) to 14 , 760 tons (Alternative E) may cause the capacity of the Coyote Canyon Station to be reached prior to the predicted date of 1981 . However, the County has made plans for _ the development of other landfill sites to allow for disposal of solid waste generated in developing areas . • Natural Gas The Southern California Gas Company anticipates the ability to provide service in this area without any signifi- cantimpact upon the environment . Based upon an average comsump- tion ol . 75 therms per unit daily, the ranges between Alternatives A and E would be from a high of 2 , 450 therms to a low of 1 , 146 therms . However, the availability of any service will be depen- dent upon the total gas supply and future regulatory actions . e Water The maximum consumption of water (at 150 gallons/ day/person) will be with Alternate A at 0 . 63 MGD. Alternates B , C, D and E steadily reduce consumption from 0 . 48 MGD to 0 . 30 MGD. The City would experience a total demand increase of 1- 2 percent , which would not exceed its pumping capacity (Colburn, 1972) . • Electricity At an average of 450 KWH per unit per month (Coolidge, 1978) , between 630 , 000 (Alternative A) and 291 , 750 50 IL (Alternative E) KWH would be required. The Edison Company has stated that the additional demand can be met without an adverse impact if plans for new electrical generating facilities are implemented. • Telephone Telephone service can be provided in the area without difficulty. • Parks and Recreation Of the five plan alternates , Alternative A would incur a population increase of 4 , 207 , yet provides recreational uses or open space below City standards . Alternative B provides no open space for its 3 , 207 residents . Such an increase would place undue stress on existing facilities . The City park standard of 5 . 0 acres per 1 , 000 population would necessitate about twenty new acres of park area for Plan A and 15 for Plan B . Both Alternatives C and D supply recreational or open space above City standards (see Table 1- 1) . Alternative E advocates 41 . 3 acres of open space, more than double the other alternatives , in addition to 17 . 9 acres of undefined public service use . 2 . 6 . 3 Mitigation Measures 0 Sewer r In the event that plans for new facilities are not approved, the following options remain open: • Prohibit new development . -- • Separate industrial and residential waste into two systems . 51 [ mea�-t��e�- -s-----bey-€4ei-- e3��s- -- r�aerae�- ] (Ref. 3, pg. VI-34., • Developers can install parallel systems to increase existing capacity. o Schools Based upon current enrollment trends , the over- crowded high school conditions are only a temporary problem. If the situation should become more aggravated, in the short term, the City may find it advisable to assess fees or require provision of additional portable classrooms from the developer, based upon the impact of the actual development . • Fire The presence of oil operations in the northeast portion of the property present the greatest fire hazard. A �. reduced level of development, as well as careful site design, would lessen that risk. The following steps will serve to improve the overall safety of the area: 1) General compliance with building , safety and fire codes , including setbacks from the tank farm; 2) Well-designed circulation, allowing proper access by fire vehicles as well as adequate space for residential parking ; 52 3) Ample building spacing , permitting access and reducing radiative heat ; 4) Utilization of fire retardant building materials , especially, but not limited to , roofing ; 5) Planting of fire resistant plants in land 6) Proper maintenance of open areas , including removal of rubbish and clearance of volatile brush. 0 Police The following site and building design measures can act effectively to discourage crime : 1) Ample lighting in open areas ; - 2) Incorporation of deadbolt locks ; 3) Secure windows located away from doors , and the avoidance of louvered windows; 4) Adequate offstreet parking , in close proxi- mity to residences ; 5) Provision of garages rather than carports - where carports are used, provide additional lighting ; 6) Parking areas well lit , with walls or fences . s Solid Waste The following would reduce total waste disposal . != 1) Support development of solid waste as an energy source ; 2) Provide information to residents on centers 0 for recycling of glass , aluminum, tin and newspaper. 53 ® Natural Gas Conservation of this diminishing resource, natural --. gas , can be achieved initially in the design and construction of homes through improved insulation and the use of solar energy - systems where feasible. Building orientation to sunlight and landscaping can further reduce the overall need for heating and cooling systems . Following these steps , printed material on - energy-saving techniques should be supplied to home buyers in the project . • Water Wasteful use of water sources can be diminished by the following: 1) ' Installation of automatic systems , timed for , early morning and evening watering , reducing loss from evapora- tion; 2) Use of drip irrigation systems for landscaped 4 areas . — • Electricity Conservation of energy resources can be largely accomplished through structure and site design. When actual development plans are formulated, review at that time should be directed towards use of building materials , orientation to sun - � exposure and use of vegetation for shading . • Parks and Recreation Care must be given at development stages to include - 4 private and public recreation facilities to relieve present 54 overcrowding of Parks . The availability of the State Beach also _ mitigates certain recreation demands . Finally, with the excep- tion of Alternate B, the various plans themselves mitigate this impact in different degrees through provision of parks and open space . • Drainage A pump station (installed by the developer) will be required to lift runoff from any of the alternates into the flood t control channel . Raising the site elevation (roughly 8-10 feet) through filling could also mitigate drainage impacts . It should be �- noted that this would raise the site hi her than is necessary for flood��r tection (4-6 feet) and would require fill impor�atzon. (Re,fp 10, 2 . 7 ARCHAEOLOGY/PALEONTOLOGY pg. VI-2) 2 . 7 . 1 Existing Conditions The project site is within a region known for its archaeologic and paleontologic resources . An archaeologic records search was conducted and is included as Appendix II to this report . - It reveals the presence of four sites in the vicinity but no known sites within the project boundaries . In addition, archaeo - logic and paleontologic field surveys were conducted on the undeveloped portions of the site . In both cases , the survey results were negative , no resources were observed. 2 . 7 . 2 Impacts The lack of resources precludes significant impact . It is also unlikely that grading will uncover any resources . 55 2 . 7 . 3 Mitigation None is required. _41 2 . 8 LAND USE 2 . 8 . 1 Existing Conditions The project site is surrounded by a variety of land uses . To the east is the Edison Company generating plant and a large area of vacant land which could support light industrial activity under its Ml -A-0 zoning. North and northeast of the site are a mixture of residential uses . North of the site use is a mixture of multiple family (R- 3) , with some single family residences . Northeast of the site , the use is predominantly single family (R- 1) . Edison Community Park is one-half mile east of the site at Hamilton Avenue and Magnolia Street . Moving north along the western boundary of the site , there are commercial uses (C-4 zoning) . Huntington Beach State Park serves recreational , needs of the City and is to the south of the project across Pacific Coast Highway. Present zoning on the site is RA-0 and M1-A-0 (allowing residential agriculture and light manufacturing agriculture) . 2 . 8 . 2 Impact Several potential impacts may result from alteration of 4 the General Plan. As noted earlier, the site is within the Coastal Zone and any of the amendment alternatives may be met with resistance as a result of traffic , public access and housing issues , and the fact that the Local Coastal Program is not S6 _ completed. The industrial use to the east of the site is con- sidered to be potentially incompatible with an. extension of a mixture of uses similar to those found north of the site . Finally, the encroachment of residential land use on the existing tank farm is also felt to be highly sensitive in terms of com- patibility and safety. Alternatives A, B, C and D are all equally impacted by surrounding industrial use . The Alternative B , proposed align- ment of the flood control channel , provides a better safety buffer between residential uses and the petroleum tank farm. It also provides for less expansion of industrial land use , which is _ felt to be a positive impact. The total acreage of various uses within these four alternatives vary slightly. With the exception of the 12 acres of commercial recreation in Alternative D, they all propose the same basic residential , commercial and industrial use . These uses are generally compatible with surrounding use (except Edison) and provide a good balance of use on the site . Alternative E is also compatible with surrounding use `- and also interfaces well with State Beach facilities . The pro- posed high density residential area next to the tank farm is , however, considered adverse from a safety point of view. Also , or from an intensity point of view, this configuration puts less acreage into development than A, B , C and D, thereby mitigating `- certain traffic impacts . 0 The presence of the Edison generating plant to the east of the project site is basically incompatible with the extension 57 of residential land use . As depicted by each of the five general plan alternatives , dwelling units would abut the generating plant , separated only by Newland Street . The basic conflicts between these two land uses would be noise , visual and air quality (as discussed elsewhere) . The degree of impact would be reduced 1 as the number of housing units decreased, depending upon the alternative selected. Besides the negative impacts incurred by the existing plant, the Edison Company plans expansion of the facility on the southwest end of the present site . Due to the w distance from the proposed residential development, this expan- sion should not further impact development on this site . The relationship and compatability of any of the five alternates with the Coastal Act must be assessed as part of the City' s Local Coastal Program (LCP) . The LCP work program has -" designated the site as a valuable coastal resource primarily as a function of its location. There are potential coastal impacts with the various proposals in areas of reduction of public access , traffic generation and housing issues (see Section 2 . 13) . 2 . 8 . 3 Mitigation The proposed alternatives sustain different levels of impact and are, in fact, a form of mitigation, providing different levels of intensity and use . It is recommended, however , that if Alternative E is felt to be preferred, that consideration be given to relocating the high density residential use away from the tank farm. It is assumed that the City ' s LCP will serve to S8 mitigate and integrate the use of this site with existing coastal resources . The mitigation of the above generating plant impacts 9 upon surrounding residential areas is the primary responsibility of the Edison Company. The extent to which the aesthetics can be improved is limited due to the height of the generating plant D structures and transmission lines . If the developer of the pro- posed residential project and Edison provided extensive land- scaping and rolling berms , some relief would be achieved. The 0- reduction in noise and air pollutants will largely be the result of agency monitoring and control and incorporation of new tech- nological advances . 2 . 9 GROWTH INDUCEMENT 2 . 9 . 1 Existing Conditions The project site is situated in the beach area of Huntington Beach. In general , this area is experiencing signifi- cant development pressures . The City as a whole has been in a continuing state of growth since 1960 , and today has an estimated population of 163, 846 . A large portion of this growth has occurred within a one mile radius of the project. There are additional residential development proposals at Atlantic and Beach Boulevards which must be considered in terms of vicinity growth. 59 a 2 . 9 . 2 Impact The proposed site , when fully completed and occupied, could produce up to 1 , 400 dwelling units (4 , 207 residents) in the area. These new residents would increase demands for goods and services in the City of Huntington Beach. This potential economic growth may generate demand for additional facilities . The degree of impact would be highest for Alternative A and lowest for Alternative E . The proposed alternatives would require the extension of gas , water, and sewer mains and electrical lines to serve the ultimate development . Thus , there. would be an increase in capa- city for the area. This could represent an elimination of a potential constraint upon development while also possibly acting as a factor upon increased land values for remaining vacant parcels . The General Plan designates the area for eventual develop- ment , though it could be hastened by the availability of utilities . , 2 . 9 . 3 Mitigation T The amendment of the General Plan will serve as a notice to responsible agencies that planning will be necessary to allow for development . At specific development stages , phasing can be instituted to ensure the orderly extension of utilities and public services ._ Selection of less intense alternates can reduce the secondary impacts from increased population. 60 2 . 10 SOCIO-ECONOMIC 2 . 10 . 1 Existing Conditions A mobile home park, established sometime during the 1950 ' s , presently occupies a portion of the subject property. Spaces exist for 308 permanent units and 108 "daily" units . The "daily" spaces are generally leased for a period of one month or P more , as travel accommodations by retired couples . An unspeci- fied number of the permanent units serve as second homes . It is estimated that the other units are occupied by a fairly even mix of retired couples and families with some children (Dupree , 1978) . The higher density at the site , coupled with the age of the structures (over 20 years) and degraded condition of the �. property accounts for rents significantly below mobile home parks in surrounding areas . In turn, this and the availability of "daily" leases may be responsible for a 0% vacancy rate (Dupree , r 1978) . 2 . 10 . 2 Impact Development of the site , regardless of the alternative settled upon would necessitate relocation of the existing homes . Some hardship would undoubtedly be experienced by those residents �- who rely on the units as year-round residences . This would amount to 308 families or less . Unfortunately, the data available regarding the exact number of persons involved, their incomes and 1 ability to absorb added housing costs is very out of date (Barnes , 1978) . It is probably safe to assume , however, that some of the residents live on fixed incomes . P 61 The mobile home park is one of thirteen located within City limits . A survey by WESTEC Services of mobile home parks indicates that mobile homes sell for substantially less than other housing (four listed for under $2S ,000) . Lot rents typically include provision of water and gas and range between $90 - $200 . ` At these rent and sales rates , the mobile home parks can be con- sidered as part of the supply of low-moderate housing. According to the City Housing Element (1976) , there is a shortage of approximately S , 500 housing units for low- income families . The removal of the 308 permanent units at the project site would y further aggravate this problem. As such , project implementation would work contrary to the City policy of "conserving and expanding the housing stock, especially for persons of low and moderate income" and "insuring a wide distribution of low and moderate income housing throughout the City" (City of Huntington Beach, 1976) . 2 . 10 . 3 Mitigation The means with which to alleviate relocation problems are limited. For those families most directly affected, (i . e . , the year-round residents) who cannot afford other nearby lot leases , appropriate assistance should be administered by the local Housing Authority. Emergency relocation funds are not available from government sources . However , the City Housing and Community Development Department has indicated that the Housing Authority may 1 Based on a telephone survey of seven mobile home . p arks in the City of Huntington Beach 62 disperse Section 8 rent assistance monies which might be applied (Kohler, 1978) . However, it is felt that the number of eligible families would likely exceed the number of available units under Section 8 (Kohler, 1978) . In addition to the existing housing assistance program, construction of a new subsidized apartment complex is scheduled to begin in July of this year. The complex will provide 185 one- bedroom apartments for senior citizens (Kohler, 1978) . If imple- mentation of the preferred general, plan alternate were delayed until after completion of the Wycliffe Towers (.estimated comple- tion, April 1979) project, it is possible that more families �- would be eligible to use this housing , thereby reducing the ! low income housing impact . Space to accommodate any or all of the affected families is not guaranteed from either the rent assistance program "or the ! new housing project . Not only would several of these families be ineligible for assistance , but they would also be competing with other needy families . ! The ability of other mobile home or trailer parks located in the City to absorb the dislocated families is virtually nonexistent. The field survey revealed a 0% rent vacancy at all 1- parks . The only recourse would be to purchase one of the very few resales listed at these parks . As a last option, decision makers may wish to designate 1 an area within the City for development of a mobile home park . Although there is no legal basis to require this , it may prove to be the only means of providing such housing . 1 �- 63 2 . 11 AIR QUALITY 2 . 11 . 1 Existing Conditions - Ambient air quality in the project vicinity is relatively good due to the diurnal flushing of the area by ocean breezes . However, the Orange County Air Basin is , on occasion, in violation of State and Federal air standards . The representative monitoring station is in Costa Mesa, approximately 3-1/4 miles to the north- east . Carbon monoxide levels exceeded California State Ambient Air Quality Standards on 29 days in 1976 . Suspended particulate matter also exceeded 24 hour standard levels on 135 days in 1976 . For additional information regarding air quality levels , see Appendix I . 2 . 11 . 2 Impact Ultimate development of the project area will have both localized and regional impacts on air quality, dependent upon intensity of land use . 2 . 11 . 2 . 1 Localized Impact The predominant localized impact on air quality of the - project will be the introduction of dust and particulate matter from the construction process . The major contributor will be the earth moving and grading functions . These will introduce a potential for localized dust which will exist during road con- struction and the grading and preparation of individual building —" sites . This could create a situation wherein blowing dust will 64 4 occur during portions of the year when meteorological conditions produce high winds , if measures are not taken to prevent this from occurring. In addition to dust and particulate matter discussed above , the movement of construction vehicles over dirt roads within the construction site will create an additional source of localized dust and fumes . These localized impacts will occur periodically throughout the construction period. 2 . 11 . 2 . 2 Regional Impact P_ Regional air quality will be affected by the develop- ment primarily through emissions from the following types of sources : • Motor vehicles • Indirect sources - electrical energy use and space — and water heating The worst case in this analysis is that of highest intensity land use , under Alternative A. compared to that of least impact, Alternative E. As Table 2- 3 indicates , Alternative E, as compared to Alternative Al would produce nearly one-half less daily pollutants . However, it should be noted that any new vehicular activity constitutes only about 35 percent of the total r activity. Additionally, indirect emissions will increase regard- less of the alternative decided upon as a result of stationary sources providing residential energy. The impact of residential development will be negligible in comparison to that of the 65 i existing power generating plant . An analysis of pollutants discussed in the 1973 EIR for the Edison expansion found that the plant and expansion would contribute 66% of SOx (a 17% increase) and 10% of NOx emissions for Orange County. In addition, on-going studies indicate that acid mist fallout may be associated with fossil-fueled electricity generating stations and some other industrial areas . This pheno- menon causes discoloration and damage to cars , houses , sidewalks and plants usually limited to within one mile of a major potential source . A more detailed discussion of these impacts can be found in Appendix IV. A comparison of stationary pollutants produced by Alternatives A and E is detailed in Table 2-4 . TABLE 2- 3 d DAILY VEHICULAR EMISSIONS 1980 - Daily Emissions Under Proposed Alternatives l (Stated in Pounds) Pollutants Alt . A Alt . E Hydrocarbons 187 . 6 78 . 7 Carbon Monoxide 2864 . 8 1202 . 6 Nitrogen Oxides 324 . 0 130 . 0 Sulfur Oxides 17 . 0 7 . 2 Particulates 51 . 2 21 . 5 1 Based on emission factors developed by the South Coast Air _ 4 Quality Maintenance District and using the vehicle/truck mix established by the traffic analysis . 66 T TABLE 2-4 EMISSIONS RESULTING FROM POWER GENERATION Pollutants (Pounds/Year) Source Hydrocarbons Carbon Monoxide NOx SOx Particulates Natural Gas Alternative A (89 , 42S , 000 cu ft/yr) Negl . Negl . 10 , 373 Negl . 16 , 010 Alternative E ON (41 , 829 , 000 cu ft/yr) Negl . Negl . 4 , 8S2 Negl . 753 Electricity Alternative A (7 , S60 , 000 KWH/yr) 1 , 361 11512 17 , 288 40 . 068 3 ,032 Alternative E (3 , 401 ,000 KWH/yr) 630 700 8 , 052 18 , S55 1 ,404 SOURCE : South Coast Air Quality Maintenance District , Air Quality Handbook for Environmental Impact Reports .2 . 11 . 2 . 3 Mitigation. Measures ® Achieve maximum setback of homes from roadways ._ particularly where slow moving or waiting traffic burns fuels most inefficiently. • Use additional insulation to reduce energy consump- tion and therefore reduce energy related emissions . s Lay out residences to maximize the uses of the sun for heat and shade for cooling . • Use dust palliatives such as watering of graded _ surfaces , using sheepsfoot tampers , and planting of groundcover to , effectively modify the scope and magnitude of adverse air quality impacts sustained during grading . • The close proximity of commercial shopping facili- ties and recreation facilities will help to reduce total VMT, thereby reducing vehicular. emissions . 2 . 12 TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION 2 . 12 . 1 Existing Conditions Existing traffic volume data for the streets adjacent to the project were obtained from the City of Huntington Beach and the California Department of Transportation. The daily, two-way volumes are listed in Table 2-5 . —� The Huntington Beach Circulation Plan of ArteriaZ Streets and Highways �Y}e-�a g e--C-e t�•Yrl�•-Master-�Yt n-�f-A~rt�r.A.a-1--I�i gitwa y�- classifies Beach as a Major and Newland as a Secondary. AZthou h Pacific Coast �ee�rd. - Highway is classified as a Primary, it has the characteristics of a Major (inter- *I-t- ctx -fasrfi-e--Ee-&"-Higima -wry--ice- section spacing, access, speed, etc. ). The City of Huntington Beach uses maximum crcat�icrn;-i-t-has-the--ehara�teri-s-times---of-s--Maj�r-fzmrter-sre-c-tirnr daily capacity values of 45,000 for Majors, 30,000 for Primaries, and 20,000 for 68 -- Secondaries. Comparison of these capacities with the volumes in Table 2-5 -spacr'ng-,--ac cis.s.T-sped,-.e.tc_�.----Thy-O-r�g e- R#�--€Rv-�xsnu�ent a1� r indicates that all streets currently experience daily volumes less than their capacity. However, both Beach Boulevard and Pacific Coast Hig�way regularly -anc}--8--6�f}--to-�-BOO--fer-.�ceerrd-aria-s.---�-ompa�-i-�en--cif experience peak month and peak hour volumes which result in severe congestion 1 and traffic delays. -ham Q Opt- Cori.-.Hi9L"-) - (Ref. 12, -on- aic-geris- pg. VI-2) TABLE 2- 5 TRAFFIC VOLUMES Location Existing Volumes Newland - North of Hamilton 4 , 600 Newland - South of Hamilton 4 , 900 Beach - North of Pacific Coast 11 , 200 Highway (.18 , 200) * Pacific Coast Highway - 33 , 000 East and West of Beach (43 , 000) * * Denotes Peak Month Average Daily Volume i Hamilton Avenue is classified as a Primary on the MPAH. This indicates a projected high level of traffic service and f design criteria. The City of Huntington Beach will require a minimum curve radii of 1 , 000 feet and 90 degree intersections at Beach Boulevard and Newland Avenue . Public transportation is available one block north of the site on Beach Boulevard, and along Pacific Coast Highway. i 2 . 12 . 2 Impacts The traffic analysis has been conducted using the highest 69 level of intensity as a basis for trip generation. Table 2- G summarizes the two-way daily volumes . _.. The following distribution is based upon .the location of the site with respect to employment , shopping and other attrac- tions . It was estimated that 50 percent of the traffic would utilize Beach Boulevard, 30 percent Newland Street, and 10 percent north and 10 percent south on Pacific Coast Highway. - 41 • Street Capacities The impact from the traffic will vary with alternates, with AZternat_. - A being the most severe and AZternate 'E having the least impact. Generally, when the projected volumes are compared with capacities, all streets will have daily volumes Less than their capacities in the near term with the exception of Pacific Gust awe-e�are�-�a2fi�r-eagaeit�-e�;-���-s-�reet-s--u�i33-hair-e-�e�trmes--i-�s __ Highway. The additional traffic generated by the project will, however, contribute t-han-t-�re�r--c-Spat�-t}►-�-ir-t�°re--jtear-term--��it�r--the--exeep�-rerr�rf-f�acf f�-c- to congestion problems during peak periods. In the Long term, development of the r� Gast-��gh�ra-p---�mever;'-i+Fe-�tcrr Prisz-g-�e--mrd-�ssoci�teg--(-1-g���--rxve- project site and the surrounding vacant Land will result in cumulative impa-ts on the irn4ie-ated- -bf-tyre--Vrol e+-p•roje-c-t b•e---ab-1-e--to-- street system. Since reliable traffic projections at ultimate development are not w2r1-k- t $ a� F.I .+e-,mray-- presenty azTaiZlf6G�; 2't i�act'" �nr e "q�iQ � The extension of Hamilton Avenue as a primary arterial from from- zua-se �r-redtzci tire--effect-o-E--the--�-r -t-err- -- Newlar�d to Begch41i� be neeessar�r td" serve the ro�ect area. ��o,ject generated raf orb t z s, 'e'stz te_ at 8330 ADT. n aadiztzon, the extension of of siricam �lo on crosses `theana7i veriaoa osa llesaDistao �iZ`trr i _. used- - r t- ;---� } -- - - g -r is es�ifnate-�Z a fFb00 A7TIr Przng �, Z9 � w z z r e 'w2t`ii ;t ie-c ac��ty' of a primary.arteriaL. At the project stage, szgnalizatzon of the intersections at �i-e4-ate- rapwr.y-Wrth-g--+nttzre-p-mtee�-t-v -*aT--of-- Beach Boulevard and Newland"may e necessary. (Ref, 13, - 1- ,-9�4--FPri�rgie-,--�9��-}--- rrrimum-pri rr}*--�esigrr-capacities-are-- pg. VI-2) • Parking/Pedestrian Safety Alternates A, B, C and D include commercial uses at the corner of Beach Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway. This 4 use has several negative factors from a traffic viewpoint . It 70 IL would attract beach users , increasing the pedestrian volume crossing Pacific Coast Highway which could have safety and opera- tional impacts . The parking area would also attract beach users , creating both a parking and a policing problem. Alternates A, B, C and D indicate vehicular access to Pacific Coast Highway. For safety reasons , this should not be included in the design. In addition, the access would result in beach users parking within the development . This could create internal traffic , parking, and pedestrian safety problems . Alternate E has designated 17. 9 acres along Pacific Coast Highway for public use . It is anticipated that this may provide for some parking for beach areas and associated park R facilities . This would help to reduce parking congestion for beach users , but could produce substantial pedestrian flow across Pacific Coast Highway, which poses safety and operation impacts on the highway. i Access Specific discussion of access from the site will have to be deferred until specific development plans are avail- able. However, Weston Pringle and Associates have made the following preliminary statements , italicized material is from the j original constraint study. Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) Due to the heavy usage of this roadway, pedestrian, bicycZe (Ref. 16 I! and vehicular access should be restricted. In adddition to the congestion and pg. VI-10 safety considerations, an opening aZong PCH could attract beach users into the 71 development Looking for parking spaces. Pedestrian and bicycle access should be provided at both the Beach Boulevard and NewZand Avenue intersections to take advantage of the existing traffic signal installations. Alternate A gives no indication of taking access on Pacific Coast Highway. Alternates B , C and D all show possible access to Pacific Coast Highway. If the dotted lines in Figures 1-4 through 1-6 in fact become roads , there would be an adverse _. traffic impact. Alternate E does not appear to propose access to Pacific Coast Highway, but as noted earlier could attract signi- ficant pedestrian flow to the public uses and might have access -i to Pacific Coast Highway if part of the public use is parking . Beach Boulevard The extension of Hamiton Avenue will result in a new intersection on Beach Boulevard approximately Z000 feet north of Pacific Coast Highway. At _ present a median opening exists at the Location of the future intersection. Based upon discussions with CaZTrans, no additional median breaks will be permitted on Beach Boulevard. A right turn ingress and egress driveway could be provided between Hamilton and Pacific Coast Highway. All of the Alternates comply with these recommen- dations , and there would be no impact. Hamilton Avenue The distance along the proposed alignment between Newland and Beach is approximately 2700 feet. In order to facilitate traffic flow along this street, the major access should be located approximately midway on this segment of Hamilton. Secondary access points could be located at the quarter points. Future traffic volumes may warrant signalization of the major access point. — 72 TABLE 2- 6 PROJECT VOLUMES Existing and Project Location Project Volume Total i Newland - North of Hamilton 1 , 785 6 , 385 Newland - South of Hamilton 1 , 785 6 , 685 Beach Boulevard - North of 531950 17 , 150 Pacific Coast Highway (24 , 150) Pacific Coast Highway - East 1 , 190 34 , 190 _ of Beach Boulevard (44 , 1900 Pacific Coast Highway - West 1 , 190 34 , 190 of Beach Boulevard (44 , 190) TOTAL 11 , 900 ( ) Denotes peak month average daily volume 73 Generally , all the alternates indicate a possible access at the midway point on Hamilton. Secondary points vary , with Alternate B taking the most access . Alternate E would probably take the least amount of access to Hamilton. No adverse impact would appear to result . However , the schematic alignment shown in Alternate B would be unacceptable at the intersections of Beach Boulevard and Newland Street . The City recommends a 90 - r degree intersection with minimum curve radii of 1000 feet and this proposal would not achieve that criteria. Newland Avenue A second full access located approximateZy midway between Hamilton and Pacific Coast Highway is recommended for NewZand Avenue. Consi- deration shouZd be given to aZigning this access with the existing Edison access road. Alternate D appears to be the only one complying with the recommendation. Alternate E access may be acceptable , but as shown could be slightly adverse because of the proximity to Pacific Coast Highway. Likewise , Alternate C may be accept- able, but would require relocation slightly to the south. 2 . 12 . 3 Mitigation Measures All the alternates will generate traffic . The lower intensity alternates such as D and E serve to mitigate the potential ADT impacts . However, the preliminary study by Weston _- Pringle and Associates (1978) has indicated that the proximity of . the development to commercial facilities and the beach should help to reduce average daily trips . This , when combined with the 74 characteristic of travel away from congestion areas , should miti - Before deveZo ment of the -- ate itmpltementation f n of he �lter�atZ s . Ea- - -w3 �- a-� - ro ec i e occurs, a �z�rt�ie traff is s ,ud�z sou be Prepared u� Zc zncZugEs information re ardyng trip generation for the s ecific land usgs rp osed aistri- }�.�. �-ivC -mot- � 2�&3ii�- � bu767 o tr��z-f is o f t ie-street �ystermr�, and docw�►ente stimates ,of`}urtimate - y Cones ink ge adjacent sstree inc M ng through traffic on HamiZton Avenue. area �ioufa a�sbeiadc7resedZ °nst oecsins, and pedestrian access to the beach (Ref. 14, 2 . 13 COASTAL POLICIES Pg. VI-3) The project site lies within the coastal zone boundary of the City of Huntington Beach. This boundary defines the jurisdic- tion of the California Coastal Commission and the planning area of the Local Coastal Program. The policies applicable to projects in the coastal zone were legislated in the California Coastal Act of 1976 . The California Coastal Commission and the South Coast Regional Commission have the general responsibility for protecting the natural , scenic and other resources of the coastal zone in this area. Projects within the Huntington Beach Coastal Zone must apply for permits from the South Coast Regional Commission after receiving necessary City approvals , until such time as a Local Coastal Plan is certified. The Commission currently bases its decisions on Interpretive Guidelines (latest dated December 12 , 1977) , upon the research and mapped data of the California Coastal Plan, and the permitting experience of the previous Coastal Zone Conser- vation Commission. To issue a permit , the Commission makes the determination that a proposed project is in conformity with the Coastal Act policies beginning with Chapter 3 (Public Resources i Code , Section 30200) and that it will not prejudice the preparation of the Local Coastal Program. When the Huntington Beach Local 75 Coastal Plan with specific land use goals and designations is certified, this permitting process will become a City process . The Local Coastal land use plan for Huntington Beach is being prepared and is scheduled to be submitted for certification in March, 1979 . By law, it must be submitted by January 1 , 1980 at the latest . 2 . 13 . 1 Existing Conditions ^� The Major Tasks section of the Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program - Work Program, 3 . 2 . 9 , identifies the area in which the project site is located as a portion of a study area V� for which appropriate land use designations are required to be determined in the Land Use Phase of the Local Coastal Element . Coastal Act policies applicable to this project would be : a. Recreation and Visitor-Serving Facilities Sections 30212 . 5 , 30213 , 30220 through 30223 and _ 30250 (c) require the distribution of public facilites such as parking areas throughout a City ' s coastal area, the provision of lower cost visitor facilities , the protection of oceanfront areas for coastal recreation, the granting of priority to projects with commercial recreational facilities , the reservation of upland areas that are necessary to support coastal recreational uses , and the location of visitor-serving facilities at selected points throughout the City' s coastal area . b . Housing Section 30213 requires that low- and moderate- income housing be protected, encouraged, and where feasible , provided. 76 C . Diking , Dredging , Filling '. Sections 30233 and 30235 limit the diking and dredging or filling of all coastal waters to very specific circum- stances . Any spoils from such activity are required to be plannEd to avoid disruption to marine and wildlife habitats . d. Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas Section 30240 requires environmentally sensitive habitat areas be protected against significant disruption. Development adjacent to such habitat areas must be sited to pre- vent downgrading impacts on the quality of the habitat area. e. Hazard Areas _- Section 30253 aims to control risks to life and L property in areas of high geologic , flood and fire hazard, etc . �- New development must assure stability and structural integrity and neither create nor contribute to erosion, geologic instability or destruction of the site or surrounding area. f. Locating and Planning New Development Sections 30244 , 30250 , 30252 , and 50253 (3) and (4) require that mitigation measures be provided for development affecting archaeological and paleontological resources , the placement of new development in or near existing development centers , limiting land divisions outside developed areas , main- taining access to the coast by providing better non-auto transit and parking opportunities , and that new development be related to ! providing adequate local on-site recreation facilities . The Local Coastal Program Task 3 . 2 . 9 includes an area study for the M 77 general area including the project site . The result of the study will provide land use designations for the project site and surrounding areas in the Coastal Element. g. Public Works Section 30254 limits expansion of new public works facilities to those necessary to accommodate new development or uses permitted by the Coastal Act . Where choices are limited for public works facilities , priority must be given to coastal dependent land uses ; essential public services and basic industries vital to the economic health of the region, state , or nation; public recreation; commercial recreation and visitor-serving land uses before other development . h. Industrial and Energy Facilities Under Sections 302SS , 30260 , 30001 . 2 , and 30501 (c) T of the Coastal Act and Section 308 of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 , the City will be preparing a Coastal Energy Impact Program which will specifically, among other subjects , _ study the land uses adjacent to the Southern California Edison Facility and the impacts of Edison expansion. This study will be concurrent with Local Coastal Program preparation. 2 . 13 . 2 Impacts The impacts of the applicable coastal policy discussed in 2 . 13 . 1 are outlined below: a. Recreation and Visitor-Serving Facilities The location of the project at the intersection of two major highways makes it a highly- desirable location for 78 ! recreation and for visitor-serving facilities . Its location across from the only existing vehicular entrance to Huntington State Beach, as well as a City Beach entrance , also adds to this desirability. Each of the land use alternatives being considered includes at least portions of the site in a land use designation that allows visitor serving uses (i . e. , commercial and public facilities) . The key concern is that whatever actual commercial r uses are eventually included in the project is that they be oriented to serve beach users and that accessibility be insured. b . Housing Any development of the site that requires the removal of the mobile-homes would impact the supply of lower cost housing now available in the coastal zone . C. Diking, Dredging, Filling Section 30121 of the California Coastal Act of r 1976 defines a "wetland" as "lands within the coastal zone which may be covered periodically or permanently with shallow water and include saltwater marshes , fresh-water marshes , open or closed brackish water marshes , swamps , mudflats , and fens . " Section 30233 of the Coastal Act regulated development in wetlands areas as follows : "The diking, filling , or dredging of open coastal waters , y- wetlands , estuaries , and lakes shall be permitted in accordance with other applicable provisions of this division, where there is no feasible less environmentally damaging alternative and where feasible mitigation measures have been provided to minimize adverse effects . . . " . 79 -A If the marsh areas on the property are subject to tidal flushing , those portions of the site would be defined as a wetland and the above mentioned sections of the Coastal Act would apply. The filling of 4 to 6 foot depths as would be required to mitigate soils and flood hazard impacts would significantly impact the natural land form and may not be compatible with Coastal Act policies . d. Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas Several portions of the project site have been identified as the habitat area of Belding' s Savanna Sparrow and is documented in Section 2 . 2 . The part of the site which is owned by the Department of Transportation was identified during the development of the 1975 California Coastal Plan and proposed for restoration as a wetland, habitat area and, if appropriate , limited recreational uses . It was numbered as Site 142 and placed on the preliminary list of properties for State Acquisition by the Coastal Commission. This site was removed from the list at that time due to a request from the Department of Transportation, "because of litigation. " Such a listing may have affected the value of the property, recently released from freeway designation . The Coastal Commission Staff report indicated that the public ownership of the property was protecting it from endangering i development. A letter to Robert Datel of the Department of Bodovitz (Ref. 18 Transportation, dated August 2 , 1977 , from Joseph E . Bed t-z of Pg. VI- the State Coastal Commission outlined Coastal policies applicable 80 to CalTrans ' properties in Huntington Beach, including the applicability- applicability of Section 30240 . These were specifically set out in order to define the possible restriction of uses of such surplus property for the purchasers thereof. The project in all r its alternatives may have serious impacts on the natural habitats and species on the site . e. Hazard Areas r See Section 2 . 3 . 2 Flooding . f. Locating and Planning New Development If the project proceeds before the full area study of the Local Coastal Program discussed in 2 . 13 . 1 (g) of this report , the appropriateness of the development cannot be analyzed in terms of relationship to allow land uses proposed for the entire Coastal Zone . The key location of this site could have a prejudicial effect on the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan . g. Public Works See Section 2 . 6 Public Services/Utilities Impacts . h. Industrial and Energy Facilities �. The project site property is adjacent to the Southern California Edison Generating Plant and impacts that have -- addressed been identified to date area -dd-r-e c d in earlier sections of this (Ref. 19, pg. VI-1� report . Additional analysis is desired, especially regarding the proposed Edison Plant expansion, therefore , it is a major j topic of study for the City' s Local Coastal Program and Coastal Energy Impact Program. The focus of this analysis will be the 81 impacts that can be anticipated on surrounding land uses . This r study will not be completed until September , 1978 . 2 . 13 . 3 Mitigations The impacts of the project outlined in 2 . 13 . 2 may be mitigated as follows : a. Recreation and Visitor-Serving Facilities In order to comply with Coastal Act policies , the land use alternative selected should include provisions for open space/habitat preservation, low cost visitor serving facilities such as the R.V. campground proposed in Alternative B , visitor -� oriented commercial and preserve or provide replacement low cost housing . It may, however, be feasible to provide these facilities and uses at other locations in the Coastal Zone . b . Housing While the City does not have the obligation of relocating any mobile-home park residents displaced by the develop- ment, relocation of these residents could be assisted through the City ' s housing program or by the project developer. Additionally, a portion of the housing ultimately constructed could be low cost . C . Diking, Dreding, Filling Assuming the site is a wetland and therefore pro- tected by the Coastal Act , Alternative D or no project would provide the greatest mitigations . At the least , the portions of the site identified as natural habitat areas should be maintained in as natural a state as possible . 82 d. Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas The no-project alternative would have the least impact on the habitat areas of the site . A habitat protection and enhancement, or relocation plan should be developed as an 1 integral part of the final project approval . e . Hazard Areas Mitigation measures for the seismic, flood and hazard impacts identified are contained in Sections 2 . 1 and 2 . 3 . However, mitigation measures that require substantial alteration to the landform of the site do not appear compatible with Coastal Act policies and therefore it may not be possible to obtain the necessary approvals . 1 f . Locating and Planning New Development None determined at this time . g. Public Works 1, See Section 2 . 6 — h. Industrial and Energy Facilities See Sections 2 . 4 Noise and 2 . 11 Air Quality. R Additional mitigation measures are not yet determined. - 2 . 14 REVENUE/COST ANALYSES 1 2 . 14 . 1 Existing Conditions In its current configuration, the project site is estimated to have the following revenue/cost relationships , using F^ the City' s "1976 Revenue/Expenditure Analyses of Land Use" and its underlying assumptions as a basis for the calculation: 1 83 Current Approximate Net Annual Surplus/Deficit Land Use Acreage of Revenues over Expenditures Mobile Home Park 32 $ 8, 288 Vacant Landl 75 14 , 076 107 ($ 22 , 364) i In other words , given today' s uses on the site , annual expenditures by the City exceed the revenues generated by over $22 , 000 . If the project site were to be developed to its ultimate uses , as currently zoned, the following revenue/cost relationships would result : NET ANNUAL SURPLUS/DEFICIT OF REVENUES OVER EXPENDITURES Mobile Home Park Entire Site Land Use Acreage Retained Developed as Industrial Mobile Home Park 32 ($ 3 , 288) ($ 8 , 000) Industrial 75 ($ 18 , 750) ($ 18 , 750) ($ 27 ,038) ($ 26 , 750) Thus , even if the project site were fully developed as light industrial , or if the vacant portion were to be so developed and the existing mobile home park were to remain, the City would suffer a net loss (expenditures in excess of revenues) on the site --A of roughly $27 , 000 annually, versus today' s estimated loss of approximately $22 , 000 . 84 1 2 . 14 . 2 Impacts Table 2- 7 depicts the revenue/expenditure relationships which would exist if the property were to be developed under the alternate land uses previously presented in Table 1-1 of the draft EIR. Again, the City' s 1976 Revenue/Expenditure Analyses was used as a basis for the computations . A summary is offered below, which shows that all alternatives considered would result in a net annual loss to the City. TABLE 2- 7 i Land Usa Net Annual Surplus/ (Deficit) Alternate A ($ 55 , 052) r Alternate B ( 9 ,954) Alternate C ( 30 , 370) _. Alternate D ( 7 , 066) ! Alternate E ( 85 , 558) 2 . 14. 3 Mitigation Measures None. i i 85 1 TABLE 2-8 IREVENUE/EXPENDITURE ANALYSES --ALTERNATE LAND USES Alternate A Alternate B Alternate C Alternate D Alternate E Net Annual Net Annual Net Annual Net Annual Net Annual Land Use Acres Surplus/(Deficit) Acres Surplus/(Deficit) Acres Surplus/(Deficit) Acres Surplus/(Deficit) Acres Surplus/(Deficit) I 1 Residential Low Density 43.1 ($ 33,575) 31.4 ($ 24,461) 30.1 ($ 23,448) 29.3 ($ 22,825) 0 0 'medium Density 43.1 ( 10,042) 47.4 ( 11,044) 29.8 ( 6,943) 26.2 ( 6,105) 41.5 ($ 9,670) High Density 2.0 1,186 13.6 8,065 16.2 9,607 16.1 9,547 6.2 3,677 ICommercial General 4.7 6,195 13.4 17,661 10.1 13,312 8.6 11,335 0 0 Recreational 0 0 0 0 0 0 12.0 15,816 0 0 Industrial 0 0 1.1 ( 275) 4.5 ( 1,125) 4.5 ( 1,125) 0 0 Open Space 0 0 0 0 16.2 ( 21,773) 0 0 41.3 ( 55,507) Public Use 14.0 ( 18,816) 0 0 0 0 10.2 ( 13,709) 17.9 ( 24,058) TOTAL: 106.9 ($ 55,052) 106.9 ($ 10,054) 106.9 ($ 30,370) 106.9 ($ 7,066) 106.9 ($ 85,558) I 1 Assume Single-Family Detatched l Assumes Condominiums 3 Assumes Apartments 4 Assumes Community Commercial Uses 5 Assumes Light Industrial Uses I6 Applies Park Use Factor I SECTION 3 ALTERNATIVES The property has a series of proposed land use alternatives and configurations as described in the body of the report. One additional consideration is the "no project" alternative . The no _ project alternate could theoretically allow for development under the existing zoning. Specifically, the site could be used for expansion of the petroleum activities now operating to the north or for some other petroleum-related industry. Implementation of R such development would most likely sustain far more adverse impacts on air quality, coastal resources and aesthetics than the proposed land uses . However, while the zoning would allow such acitivity, the General Plan (1969) has designated the site as a Planning Reserve . Therefore , the no project or no general plan amendment would serve to maintain the site as it now exists . Implementation of this alternate would effectively eliminate all- adverse impacts discussed in Section 2 for at least the immediate short term. It is assumed that once the City' s LCP defines the long term goals for the Coastal Zone that development will occur on this site unless it is designated for purchase and preserva- tion by the State Coastal Commission or the California Department of Fish and Game . It may be helpful to the coastal planning process to consider the range of development proposed by the five alternates . -- 89 SECTION 4 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS __. 4 . 1 LAND USE Open space land will be converted to urban uses . More intensive use of the land will occur than is permissible under current planning and zoning. The 'intensity and type of use pro- posed by certain alternates may be incompatible with existing industrial and coastal resources . 4 . 2 CIRCULATION Traffic generated by the proposed project will constitute an increase in traffic on Pacific Coast Highway and Beach Boulevard which already experience adverse seasonal impacts . 4 . 3 NOISE Localized short-term impacts will occur during construction. Increases in vehicular activity will increase noise on surrounding arterials . 4 . 4 AIR QUALITY Construction activities will generate dust and fumes , causing a short-term, localized degradation of air quality. Mobile and stationary emission sources associated with the proposed project will contribute to regional air cell pollution. The residential land uses may be adversely impacted by air pollutants from the Edison Generating Facility. 91 4 . 5 LANDFORM The landform will be somewhat altered due to filling and flood channel realignment . The potential for erosion will exist on temporarily exposed. ground surfaces . 4 . 6 GEOLOGY The subject property will be subject to some degree of earthshaking in the future , as will most of Southern California. 4 . 7 HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY _ Urban runoff will increase, and portions of the site will require dewatering. High flood hazards exist with Alternate E . 4 . 8 MUNICIPAL SERVICES The demand for municipal services will increase . Schools and parks , operating near capacity , will be most heavily affected. 4 . 9 UTILITIES Utility demand will increase . Additional sewerage capacity will be necessary prior to implementation , regardless of the alternate selected. -� 4 . 10 ENERGY The completed project will result in a maximum annual consumption (Alternative A) of 7 , 560 , 000 KWH of electricity and 89 ,425 , 000 cubic feet of natural gas . 4 . 11 SOCIO-ECONOMIC FACTORS There is no indication that this project will respond to the 9 2 A need for low income housing in the coastal area of Orange County . 4 . 12 BIOLOGY The habitat of the Belding Savannah Sparrow may be destroyed, depending upon the alternate selected. 1 1 - 1 93 SECTION 5 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY OF THE ENVIRONMENT If the General Plan is amended to one of the five alternatives and resultant development implemented, a variety of short-term and long-term impacts will result . Because of its location in the Coastal Zone , the site is considered a valuable resource, therefore short- and long-term benefits and losses must be carefully weighed. Short-term effects go beyond the temporary disruptions asso- ciated with construction. Viewed in the context of the project ' s lifespan (approximately 20- 30 years) , adverse impacts will include an increase in traffic congestion, degradation of the regional air cell , noise , and the demand for public services and utilities . Short-term benefits to be realized would be an addition to the housing stock, increased municipal revenues from various tax sources , and the creation of new jobs through increased business and development of the commercial/industrial area (as provided in Alternatives A - E) . In the long run, once conversion of the land to these proposed 1 urban uses is completed, its benefit as a marshland habitat and as open space within the Coastal Zone may be lost . Although short-term economic gain may be realized through development, 1 future generations will not have access to what is now a rapidly diminishing resource . 9S 1 Final selection of one of the five alternatives described will determine the degree of impact . As previously discussed, Alternatives A and E would assure some protection and conservation of the present open space and marshland habitat . The planned community designation of Alternative A would allow greater flexi- bility than B, C, or D in development phasing, design and the use of open land. Alternative E , however , would result in the least disruption and greatest conservation of the present open space . In terms of resource preservation, Alternate E provides fewer — short - and long-term impacts , but also provides for less benefit over the short term. Alternates B , C and D seem to propose the implementation of short-term benefits at the expense of long-term coastal values . This is concluded, despite attempts to include resource preservation and beach oriented facilites , because there does not appear to be sufficient acreage in these areas to mitigate long-term losses . Alternate A may serve to balance short- and long-term productivity of the site , but will be highly reliant on _ design stages to achieve such goals . 96 SECTION 6 CERTIFICATION OF ACCURACY AND QUALIFICATIONS We hereby .affirm that, to the best of our knowledge and 0 belief, the statements and information herein contained are in all respects true and correct and that all known information _ concerning the potentially significant environmental effects of the project has been included and fully evaluated in this draft EIR. � C Michael W. Wright -- Principal-in-Charge Preparation Staff This report was prepared by. WESTEC Services , Inc . of Tustin., — California. Members of the WESTEC Services professional staff contributing to this report are listed below: Michael W. Wright, A. I .P. : M.A. , Geography _ John F. Westermeier: M.A. , Biology Fay 0. Round, Jr. : B.S. , Engineering Frank A. Kingery: M.A. , Geology, #3352 Sandra Genis : M. S. Candidate , Environmental Studies or William R. Foley, A. I .P . : B .S . , Political Science Hans Giroux: Ph.D. Candidate, Meteorology (Consultant to WESTEC Services) Nina Gruver: B .A. , Geography William H. Breece : M.A. , Archaeology Weston Pringle and Associates : Traffic and Transportation Engineer (Consultant to WESTEC Services) , John Fullerton: Student Interm - Social Ecology 97 REFERENCES/PERSONS CONSULTED City of Huntington Beach, 1976 . General Plan pp. 22- 25 , 38-44 , 56-68 , 69- 73 regarding land use , noise , seismic considera- tions , scenic highway and housing elements . City of Huntington Beach, 1976 . Preliminary Noise Element , prepared by Wyl.e Laboratories , pp . 39- 53 . City of Huntington Beach, 1974 . Seismic Safety Element , pp . 19- 53 . City of Huntington Beach, 1973 . Final Draft Environmental Impact Report, Southern. California Edison Huntington Beach Generating Station, Units 6- 11 . Prepared by Environmental Sciences . Colburn, Howard, 1977 , City of Huntington Beach Water Department . . Telephone conversation regarding water service , 11/7/77 . D- Coolidge , R.L. , 1977 . Southern California Edison Company. Letter regarding electric service , 11/9/77 . Telephone conversation 3/8/78 . Dupree , Gipp , 1978 , Coldwell Banker. Telephone conversation regarding existing mobile home park. Dysinger, Glen H. , 1977 , Huntington Beach Union High School District. Letter regarding high schools , 11/4/77 . Telephone conversation, 3/7/78 . Ferlida, Mr. , 1977 , General Telephone Company . Telephone conversa- tion regarding telephone service , 11/1/77 . Fickle , Robert E . , 1977 , Huntington Beach Police Department. Letters regarding police service , 10/25/77 , 3/78 . Irvine Soils Engineering , 1977 . Preliminary Soils and Geologic Investigation. Jones , Jackie , 1977 , Huntington Beach Union High School District . Telephone conversation regarding high schools , 11/7/77 . Jones , Laurie , 1977 , Huntington Beach City Elementary School. District. Telephone conversation regarding elementary schools , 11/7/77 . Keefe , Milo , 1978 , Orange County Sanitation District . Telephone conversation regarding capacity of sewage treatment plant . i Kohler, Steve , 1978 , Huntington Beach Planning Department , Community Housing and Development . Telephone conversation regarding government housing programs , 3/16/78 . 99 Lupe , Earl , 1978 , Wildlife Biologist , California Department of Fish and Game . Telephone conversation regarding tidal gates and salt marsh characteristics . Massey, 1977 , California Department of Fish and Game , Field Census data: Belding Savanna Sparrow, Long Beach, 1977 . McDonald, Jim, 1977 , Orange County Environmental Management Agency. Memo regarding Hyaraulic Study - Newland Street Crossing . Mobile Home Park Phone Survey, March 17 , 1978 : Manager, Beach View Mobile Park Manager, Brookfield Manor Manager, Huntington By-the-Sea Mobile Village Manager, Huntington Mobile Estates Manager, Huntington Valley Mobile Home Park Manager, Los Amigos Mobile Home Park Morris , Vic , 1977 , City of Huntington Beach Department of Parks and Recreation. Telephone conversation regarding parks , —4 11/8/77 , 3/22/78 . Ott, Mel , 1977 , Huntington Beach Fire Department . Letter regarding fire protection, 11/2/77 . Telephone conversation 3/8/78 . Patapoff , Bill , 1978 , City of Huntington Beach Public Works . 4 Telephone conversation regarding storm drainage , 3/2/78 . - Perkins , W. R. J. 1978 , Southern California Gas Company . Letter regarding gas service , 3/7/78 . Poer, Don, 1977 , Orange County General Services Agency , Solid Waste Management Division. Letter regarding solid waste disposal , 10/28/77 . Price , Marty, 1978 , Orange County Environmental Management Agency . Telephone conversation regarding flood control channel require- ments , 3/22/78 . Pringle , Weston, 1978 , Pringle and Associates . Telephone conver- sation regarding traffic , 3/23/78 . Reid, Dennis , 1977 , Orange County Sanitation District. Telephone conversation regarding sewer service , 10/29/77 and 3/8/78 . Letter 10/21/77 . Schmidt , Kenneth, 1978 . Telephone conversation regarding ground- water characteristics of the site , 3/22/78 . United States Army Corps of Engineers , 1973 . Flood Plain for Standard Project Flood, in the City of Huntington Beach Seismic Element. 100 VTN, 1073 . Southern California Edison Generating Plant Lxpansion EIR , prepared for the City of Huntington Beach . r r � r r r r r r 101 r r APPENDIX I CONSTRAINT STUDY r r r r r ! ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINT STUDY !_ HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT ! Prepared for: Department of Community Planning City -of Huntington Beach 2110 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Prepared by: - WESTEC Services , Inc. 180 East Main Street Suite 150 �- Tustin, CA 92680 March 29 , 1978 W ESTEC Services. Inc. WV% TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE A GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS I - 3 B BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES I - 8 C HYDROLOGY I - 12 D NOISE I- 17 E CIRCULATION I - 19 F PUBLIC AND VISUAL ACCESS I- 23 b_ G ARCHAEOLOGY/PALEONTOLOGY 1- 25 H LAND USE I - 25 -- I SEWER SERVICE I- 28 J SCHOOLS 1 - 29 K POLICE I - 29 L FIRE I - 30 M WATER I - 30 - N SOLID WASTE I- 31 0 NATURAL GAS I- 31 P TELEPHONE I - 32 Q ELECTRICITY 1- 32 R PARKS AND RECREATION I- 33 1 REFERENCES I - 35 APPENDICES A Archaeologic Records Search I - 37 1 B Correspondence I -41 C Water Quality Data I - 55 1 i HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT The General Plan Amendment area is composed of roughly 125 acres adjacent to the Huntington Beach State Park and e bounded by Pacific Coast Highway, Beach Boulevard and Newland Street . Presently 50 percent of the site is occupied by a mobile home park, a commercial boat sales office and is disected by a flood control channel . An oil tank farm exists to the north of the project area. The balance of the property is salt marsh. The site has an inherent set of �- environmental constraints which should be considered during the creation of any development plans for the site . Addition- ally, those areas not shown in the various figures as having P constraining influences may be interpreted as having unrestricted development opportunities . For purposes of this report , we have used two designations : _._. Highly Sensitive - denotes areas which , in the opinion of WESTEC Services : 1 . Contain one or more significant environ- mental constraints , or 2 . In our estimation , would require extensive and costly mitigation measures . � I- 1 Moderately Sensitive - denotes areas which : 1 . Contain only potentially significant or less significant environmental constraints than the highly sensitive category, or S 2 . In our opinion, would require mitigation of some sort , but neither as extensive nor as expensive as the previous designation . Figures 1 , 2 , 3, etc . depict the environmental constraints - existing on the site , and provide a view of all of the areas --r defined as highly or moderately sensitive . Where two designa- tions occur within the same area, the more restrictive , i .e . , highly sensitive , is applied. Additionally, we have offered in each section some general comments where they seemed appropriate , to describe conditions which may not fall into either of the previous catagories or which relate to the overall site . Finally, it is the purpose of this study to provide general parameters within which the City and the Applicant may determine what is the highest and best use for the property and thereby specify the land use elements of a General Plan Amendment . --i I- 2 A. GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS The geotechnical characteristics of the site and its potential development constraints are summarized. from a Preliminary Soils and Geologic Investigation prepared by Irvine Soils Engineering (1977) . 1 . ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING _._ Soils Subsurface investigations have revealed the following : • Fill Fill is present in several areas across the site : 1 . In the mobile home park to a depth of one to two feet . This fill is poorly — compacted. 2 . Beneath the oil tanks to a depth of five to six feet . Reports indicate this fill is properly compacted. 3 . In the boat marina to a depth of three to four feet . This fill is probably uncompacted. 4 . In the fill berms adjacent to the drainage channel and tank farm to heights of three to six feet . This fill is probably poorly compacted. __ I - 3 With the exception of the soils beneath the oil tanks , the fills at the site must be considered essen- tially uncompacted. The fill soils consist primarily of clayey and silty sands and sandy silts . • Natural Ground The surface natural soils consist of soft silty estuarine type clays to depths of 3 to 11 feet (average depth approximately five feet) . These soils contain minor amounts of peat and are characterized by low strengths , moderate to high compressibilities and a high expansion potential . Underlying these upper clays are fine grained marine sands containing shells and minor lenses of silt , gravel and clay to the maximum depth explored of 31 feet . (Borings drilled by Dames and Moore for the tank farm con- firm this profile to a depth of 93 feet. ) These soils are moderately dense to dense , have good strength and compress - ibility properties , but , as discussed later, are susceptible to liquefaction. - ® Groundwater ._. Groundwater was encountered in all borings at depths of 1 1/2 to 8 feet . These levels do not necessarily reflect the stabilized groundwater condition which appears to be at or close to the ground surface . Free-standing , I - 4 r water can be seen in the northwest portion of the site and at adjacent ground level in the drainage channel . Water levels are tidal and the water is brackish. (Neology r a Local Conditions The property is underlain by Cretaceous and Tertiary sedimentary rock overlain by Pleistocene and recent sed- iments with a total thickness of as much as 16 , 000 feet . These deposits are underlain by a pre- late Cretaceous base- ment complex consisting of igneous and metamorphic rocks . During Pleistocene time , uplift along the Newport- Inglewood Structural Zone and general lowering of sea level resulted in increased erosion which produced the mesas and r gaps. along the coastal plain. Sea levels then rose rapidly and the gaps were filled with coarse grained sediments . r About 9 , 000 years ago the rise in sea level slowed and conditions resembled those present today. Within the last 9 , 000 years the Santa Ana River changed course from the Bolsa Gap to the Santa Ana Gap . During this period peat deposits formed in the gaps and a barrier beach was formed , creating inland lagoons and marshes where fine ,sand, silt and clay were deposited. Seismicity The following list gives the names, distances and expected magnitudes and accelerations of the major active faults in the area : r T - 5 TABLE .l SEISMIC DATA Estimatedl Estimated Distance Base Rock Maximum2 From Estimated Maximum Ground Fault Site Magnitude Acceleration Acceleration Newport- Inglewood 0- 3 6. 6 0 . 6S- 1 . 03 Whittier 21- 6 . 8 0 . 21 0 . 30 Elsinore 25- 7 . 2 0 . 20 0 . 35 San Jacinto so- 7 . 5 0 . 10 0 . 18 San Andreas S3- 7 . 7 0 . 10 0 . 20 Adapted from Seismic-Safety Element , Huntington Beach Planning Department , August , 1974 . 1 Schnable and Seed, 1972 . 2 Matthiesen , et . al . , 1972 . 3 Geological Survey Circular 672 , 1972 . - The site is located within the Newport Inglewood Fault Zone . An active branch of the fault (South Branch Fault) has been mapped across the northeast portion of the site and several other branches pass within a few miles . _- 2 . CONSTRAINTS High Sensitivity 1 . The entire site is considered to be highly sensitive from a geologic perspective . The presence of the Inglewood-Newport fault presents a very real possibility of I -6 r liquefaction on the site . Also , clay layers under the sur- face are highly susceptible to compression , and are unsuitable for direct support of buildings without some treatment . FITI"11ty , r the high groundwater table is a factor because of its effects on underground construction. Dewatering will be necessary for all excavations which extend below the groundwater table . r Because the entire site is felt to be geotechnically sensitive , Figure 2 looks at only those areas of sensitivity which are not uniform over the entire site . The area underneath the r existing mobile home park and the boundaries of the flood con- trol channel are felt to be highly sensitive because of the ! uncompacted nature of the fills which will require excavation/ recompaction or surcharging of up to six months . Moderate Sensitivity i None . General Comments 1 . The site .will require filling to avoid flood hazards discussed later in this report . Accordingly , a sur- charging (i. e. , waiting) period of at least six months after placing the fill , and prior to construction, would probably be necessary to reduce total and differential settlements to an acceptable level . In addition , Irvine Soils Engineering recommends that buildings be supported on post-tensioned slabs to minimize the effects of settlement , and that utilities. be designed with flexible connections . r I - 7 If a waiting period must be avoided, an alter- native solution of removing the upper clay layer and replacing it with compacted fill may be possible . This alternative should be seriously considered, especially if heavier commercial buildings are planned, or in areas where the clay layer is not thick. High groundwater and corresponding 4 difficulty of excavation must , of course , be considered if this approach is taken. Further studies are needed to define areas most suitable for overexcavation and replace- ment. - 2 . To help alleviate liquefaction potential it is -A recommended that the fill consist of predominantly clayey soil . 3 . Underground structures (pool , basements , etc . ) _ must be drained and/or designed to resist hydrostatic uplift. 4 . Underground conduits must be designed to withstand galvanic corrosion due to the saline groundwater. B. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 1 . ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING A biological survey of the site was conducted on October 5 , 1977 (between 9 : 00 a.m. and 2 : 00 p . m. ) and on October 28 , 1977• (between 10 : 00 a.m. and 12 : 00 p .m. ) . Weather conditions on both days were clear and warm with a slight on-shore breeze . I - 8 0 Vegetation The subject parcel has been disturbed through grading for flood control channels and construction of onsite improve- ments . Many of the open areas onsite contain vegetation characteristic of a salt marsh and are subject to limited tidal flushing. The apparent high soil salinity has created environmental conditions that have allowed a nearly homogen- eous growth of pickleweed (Salicornia virginica) in areas of ! little vehicular disturbance . A ventitious growth of Russian thistle Salsola kali) , Bermuda grass C nodon dactylon) , wild mustard (Brassica sp. ) , wild radish (Raphanus sp . ) and sunflower (Helianthus californicus) occur along the __. roadway. An area near the northwestern portion of the site P. contains brackish water draining through a road culvert onto the site . This area contains marsh vegetation including tules (Scirpus sp . ) and a few cattails (Typha sp . ) . A small ! clump of bamboo (Phyllostachys sp . ) is in the southwestern - corner of the site . i Wildlife The parcel serves as an open space wildlife habitat mainly for avifaunal species . Birds observed onsite during 1 the brief field inspection were limited to the western meadowlarks , American avocet , and linnet . However , due to adequate cover, onsite water source , and the proximity to 1 the Coast , the site should be considered a habitat for both 1 I - 9 terrestrial and marine-associated avifauna . Mammal and reptile activity appears very low onsite . Mammalian species onsite may be limited to the house mouse and house rat . Reptilian species onsite is limited to the side-blotched lizard. • Rare and Endangered Species In a recent survey for the California Department of Fish and Game , Massey (1977) identified the project site as well as other Salicornia covered sites along the Huntington Beach strip as breeding habitat for the Beldings Savannah Sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis beldingi) . The Beldings ! Savannah Sparrow is listed by the Department of Fish and Game (1974) as endangered. The Belding ' s subspecies of Savannah Sparrow , an all- year resident of salt marshes , ranges from Goleta southward along the coast to E1 Rosario, Baja California . The sub - . ! species is restricted to areas containing Salicornia. Numbers of the species have been declining over the years due to destruction of salt marsh habitat through land devel - opment and stream channelization. The current census (Massey , 1977) estimated that approximately 1 , 600 breeding pairs remain in the State . Massey (1977) found 16 breeding pairs on and in the vicinity of the parcel . The birds were nesting within the low-growing Salicornia and apparently use the tips of the I - 10 plant as food. The nesting population utilizing the site accounts for approximately 1 percent of the known species population. In addition, the survey concluded if the habitat onsite were enhanced, a greater nesting population could be supported. 2. CONSTRAINTS High Sensitivity By far the greatest constraint to development of the parcel is the use of the site as a nesting ground for W- the endangered Belding ' s Savannah Sparrow. Any proposed development that would reduce the extent of Salicornia onsite may be opposed by the California Department of Fish and Game . It may be possible to mitigate impact upon the -- species through enhancement of a portion of the onsite area f- or through enhancement of a similar area offsite. Any attempt for mitigation should be worked out with the Depart- ment of Fish and Game prior to completion of project plans . p Moderate Sensitivity The area designated as moderately sensitive possesses many of the highly sensitive area attributes . However , it has been previously disturbed and is encroached upon by the boat sales business and the mobile home park. 1 ' 1 T l l C . HYDROLOGY 1 . ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The entire site is presently subject to flooding during the standard project storm (100 year) . Records indicate that the site would have standing water 6-9 feet deep during such a flood (U. S. Corps of Engineers , 1973) . The major source of this problem is the Santa Ana River. The site does have an existing flood control channel running through it . However , according to the Orange County Flood Control District , (1977) it is not designed to handle the flow from a 100 year storm. The site --, is therefore zoned on the City' s Flood Hazard Map as API (special hazard area) . In addition, as noted in an earlier section, the groundwater exists at the surface of the site . The water- bearing formations beneath the Santa Ana Gap are generally limited to marine deposits of late Pliocene and Pleistocene age and overlying continental deposits of Pleistocene and Recent age . The deposits older than Late Pleistocene have -- been greatly affected by uplift and lateral movement assoc- iated with faulting . The upper Pliocene Pico Formation is within 350 feet of the ground surface along Hamilton Avenue in the Santa Ana Gap. The upper part of this marine formation consists of partially cemented sand, silt , and clayey silt , with interbedded sand strata. The Pico Formation is over- lain by the Lower Pleistocene San Pedro Formation . This I -12 marine formation consists of clays , silts , sands , and gravels and is several hundred feet thick beneath the Santa Ana Gap near the coast . The San Pedro Formation inland from the project area contains several aquifers of importance . The Talbert aquifer is the most important source of groundwater in the Santa Ana Gap . The average thickness is about 70 feet and the top ranges from 50 to 100 feet below land surface beneath the gap . The aquifer has a permeability of about 2 , 000 to 2 , 500 gpdI per square foot and is overlain by fine-grained sediments of relatively low permeability. The northwest trending Newport- Inglewood structural system exerts a barrier effect within the lower Pleistocene aquifers beneath the gap . The Santa Ana Gap was historically the discharge area for groundwater flow from the Anaheim Basin. However , in the 1920 ' s pumping lowered water levels below sea level in the gap area . By 1930 discharge of fresh groundwater to the ocean had ceased and salt water began moving into the Talbert aquifer. A rapid water-level decline occurred after 1945 . However, recharge of imported water was begun in 1949 and by early 1960 ' s water levels had begun rising . In 1970 the Orange County Water District (O. C.W. D. ) began pumping a series of extraction wells along a line about one mile northeast of the project site as part of a 1 Gallons per day. I - 13 plan to limit seawater intrusion (Chandler , 1974) . A number of injection wells have been installed inland of the extraction wells along Ellis Avenue for recharge of a mixture of sewage , effluent and desalinated sea water . This recharge will tend to act as a barrier to seawater intrustion into the Anaheim Basin. Water- level contour maps for the Talbert aquifer for November 1976 indicate landward movement of groundwater from the coast toward the extraction wells and hence northwes - terly. Water-levels are near sea- level near the coast , but drop to more than 40 feet below sea level northwest of the project site. The Talbert aquifer occurs in the 85 to 135 foot depth interval . A number of sand strata are present in the San Pedro Formation beneath .the Talbert aquifer and are generally directly hydraulically connected to the ocean. Water levels in the Talbert aquifer were just below sea level near the project site in November 1976 . The - direction of groundwater movement was inland from the ocean toward the O .C .W.D. extraction wells . Groundwater levels in the recent deposits overlying the Talbert aquifer were measured at a number of well points by O. C.W.D. personnel in the 1960 ' s northeast of the project site. Water levels in the B and C sands were measured at well points 13-5A and 5B , north of the site. Water levels in the B-sand were about one to two feet above those in the C-sand at this site , indicating a tendency for downward movement of groundwater from the B-sand to the C-sand. A similar situation occurred at well points 13-A and 3-B . I - 14 Observations during the exploratory borings at the project site ( Irvine Soils Engineering , 1977) indicated that seepage was generally present from A-sand. It was indicated that the deposits below several feet depth were generally saturated. Standing water levels were generally observed �( several feet below the level of seepage. Water levels in d the B-sand were substantially lower than those of the A- t' sand. The direction of groundwater flow in the shallow sand layers is downward. Sufficient data are not available to determine the horizontal direction of movement . The ground- water elevations in the shallow sands appear to be near or just below sea level , similar to those in the Talbert aquifer. 2 . CONSTRAINTS High Sensitivity The fact that the site is subject to flooding is the reason for a high sensitivity classification. The commit- tant need to raise the site elevation 4 to 6 feet and/or P improve the flood control facilities are felt to be restrictive to development . The high groundwater table is also highly con- straining and will require specialized mitigation. Espec- ially sensitive are those areas indicated on Figure 4 where there is standing water. These appear to be subject to daily flushing from tidal activity. The quality of the 1 I - is - a water is not considered a constraint in that groundwater would not be used as a source of potable water. While saline r in nature , it is not hazardous to health. General 1 1 . The site elevation, regardless of use , will have to be at least one foot above project flood elevations if the Federal Insurance Administration Regulations are to be met . 2 . Improvements to the existing flood control channel are possible and would protect the site . However, concern is _ expressed for areas downstream of the site which could be sub- jected to increased velocities during times of flooding. _ 3 . Regional solutions to the flood problem of the -- Santa Ana River are presently being pursued. However, until they are achieved the site will be subject to flooding and if developed without proper controls could burden the City with emergency service costs . 4 . The high groundwater will require specialized foundation mitigation. The saline nature of the water will — cause utilities to be installed with non-corrosive protection. A partial solution to the problem is to excavate and use french wells to pump water to the surface , thereby creating water areas within the project site for aesthetic or recreation purposes . 1 S . The saline characteristics of the water may lead to specialized treatment of landscaping to prevent loss of plant life . 1 I - 16 D. NOISE 1 . . ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The project site was subjected to noise survey work on October 21 , 1977 between the hours of 9 : 00 - noon. The noise monitoring stations can be seen on Figure S . The y results of the monitoring can be seen in Table 2 . TABLE 2 Noise Monitoring Results Station dBA (L10) Predominant Source 1 65-2 Traffic 2 61- 3 Traffic 3 69- 1 Truck Traffic 4 60- 2 Traffic i -- high noise levels in Station 1 and 3 were from accel- erating traffic - especially diesel trucks . The power plant S emitted noise levels at approximately 64±2 dB(A) at the curbside of the trailer courts . These spot measurements concur generally with the CNEL contours established for the site in the City' s noise element . 1 _._ I- 17 _V. 2 . CONSTRAINTS High Sensitivity Figure 5 indicates that the area between Pacific Coast Highway, Beach Boulevard and the 70 CNEL contour are highly sensitive . Residential structures should not be placed in this area without noise attenuation. mitigation . It does not appear that standard construction techniques would be effective in reducing noise to acceptable levels within this zone . _ Moderate Sensitivity The area between the 70 and 65 CNEL contours is moderately sensitive because noise levels are high but they are within a range that can probably be mitigated with standard construction practices . The CNEL 60 contour is provided for information only. General _ 1 . Although the EPA has identified an outdoor noise e level of 55 Ldn as that required to protect public health and welfare , 65 Ldn is generally considered compatible with unrestricted residential usage in urbanized areas . (1) 2 . The 65 Ldn level is the maximum outdoor level which may be attenuated through standard construction methods (15- 20 dB reduction) to an acceptable interior level . 1 Ldn is an averaged measurement similar to CNEL which usually is within 1 dBA of a CNEL level. I- 18 3 . Solid block walls , earthern berms , grade differences , or a combination thereof may be used to effec- tively reduce exterior noise to more acceptable levels . 4 . If two-story residences are contemplated along Beach Boulevard or Pacific Coast Highway, consider- ation should be given to window placement away from this noise source. 5 . Little or no adverse acoustical impacts appear to affect the site from the power plant . E. CIRCULATION E The following is a summary of a preliminary .traffic study prepared by Weston S. Pringle and Associates . 1 . ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Since land use data have not been developed to a level where trip generation estimates can be made., the analysis was completed in general terms . 1 Pacific Coast. Highway is heavily traveled and experiences congestion especially during periods of high beach use. The proposed - extension of Hamilton Avenue would help to mitigate this problem. Beach Boulevard is also heavily traveled both on weekdays and weekends . Newland Avenue is a secondary arterial and provides a connection between local . collectors and higher level arterials . In general , these streets would be able to accommodate traffic from the proposed development , -. 1 Assuming roughly 1200 units plus commercial use with an estimate of 12- 14 , 000 ADT. 1 T - 19 although seasonal problems will exist . As noted above , in addition to the existing streets , the City proposes that Hamilton Avenue be extended through the site from Newland Avenue to Beach Boulevard. This extension has been shown on the Applicant ' s general site plan map in conformance with the alignment preferred by the City. Hamilton Avenue would have a 100 foot right-of-way and would serve as a new arterial highway parallel to Pacific Coast Highway. 2 . CONSTRAINTS Review of existing and planned conditions and dis- cussions with City and Caltrans staff members have resulted in the development of access constraints for the site . These constraints are discussed in the following paragraphs : High Sensitivity • Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) Due to the heavy usage of this roadway , pedestrian , bicycle and vehicular access should be restricted. In addition to the congestion and safety considerations , an opening along PCH could attract beach users into the devel- opment looking for parking spaces . Pedestrian and bicycle access should be provided at both the Beach Boulevard and Newland Avenue intersections to take advantage of the existing traffic signal installations . i I- 20 e Beach boulevard The extension of Hamilton Avenue will result in a new intersection on Beach Boulevard approximately 1000 feet north of Pacific Coast Highway. At present , a median opening exists at the location of the future intersection. ! Based upon discussions with Caltrans , no additional median breaks will be permitted on Beach Boulevard. A right turn ingress and egress driveway could be provided between Hamilton ! and Pacific Coast Highway. Northerly of the site , a frontage road par- i` allels Beach Boulevard. The City is considering closing this frontage road at Atlanta Avenue and providing an opening to - Beach Boulevard between Atlanta and the future Hamilton Avenue. If this occurs , the frontage road could be extended to the northern site boundary for additional access . It should not be extended to Hamilton Avenue as this would result in an unacceptable intersection . • Hamilton Avenue W The proposed 3 . 8 acre multiple family site on the southwest corner of Hamilton and Newland would not be allowed a full access to Hamilton due to the short frontage d and proximity of the Newland intersection. A right turn only access could be provided on both Hamilton and Newland. � I - 21 ! General Land Use Considerations In addition to the access constraints , consid- eration was given to the location of various land uses on the site as they relate to traffic operations and safety . The location of the commercial use was of specific concern. Several factors indicate that the proposed commercial use at the corner of Beach Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway would not be desirable. Access from Pacific Coast Highway would not be permitted and access from Beach Boulevard is restricted. The site could attract beach users which would increase pedestrian activity at the Beach Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway intersection. This is undesirable from both an operational and safety viewpoint . Problems would be anticipated with beach users parking in the commer- cial parking facilities . This would cause a policing prob- lem for the parking area - and detract from the use of the facility by customers . Moderate Sensitivity s Hamilton Avenue The distance along the proposed alignment between Newland and Beach is approximately 2700 feet . In order to facilitate traffic flow along this street , the -a major access should be located approximately midway on this segment of Hamilton. Secondary access points could be located at the quarter points . Future traffic volumes may warrant signalization of the major access point . I - 22 ! ® Newland Avenue M A single full access located approximately midway between Hamilton and Pacific Coast Highway is recommended for Newland Avenue. Consideration should be given to aligning this access with the existing Edison access road. Access to the single family site on the south- west corner of Hamilton and Newland can be provided from Newland Avenue . It would appear that a full access driveway could be allowed on Newland for this development . - A minimum of 400 feet southerly of Hamilton would be required for full access . F. PUBLIC AND VISUAL ACCESS 1 . Environmental Setting The site is partially developed with mobile homes _. and a commercial boat outlet . Portions of the site are open however, and presently support a marsh-like habitat as -- described in the section on biology. The public does have access to the site and the open areas are laced with trails indicating some use of the site . The City' s General Plan designates that Pacific Coast Highway is a scenic corridor and Beach Boulevard as a landscape corridor. A bike trail exists along Newland Street (see Figure 7) . The existing development limits views onto the site from Pacific Coast Highway . There are D 1 -23 some views from the north of the project as well as from Beach Boulevard . The project site is within the Coastal Zone and the City' s Local Coastal Plan (LCP) work program t identifies the site as a "valuable coastal resource" . 2 . CONSTRAINTS High Sensitivity The location of the site within the Coastal Zone is seen as a constraint in light of the policies and objectives of the Coastal Plan. There is some question as _ to the ability of the project to successfully provide public access and recreation facilities , limit traffic impacts and -� provide low-moderate income housing . General 1 . The viewshed within the project is not con- sidered to be particularly sensitive . Views are somewhat 1 limited as a result of site elevation and design of surround- ing residences . Further the area is felt to be somewhat degraded by existing development and the oil tank farm. -- 2 . The median along Beach Boulevard will have to be landscaped but this should not constrain development . 3 . The scenic corridor may be enhanced through project development and associated landscaping . Without specific design criteria however , it is difficult to assess the sensitivity of this issue. I - 24 4 . The bike trail will be maintained. G. ARCHAEOLOGY/PALEONTOLOGY 1 . ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The project site is within a region known for its r archaeologic and paleontologic resources . An archaeologic records search was conducted and is included as Appendix I - to this report . It reveals the presence of four sites in the vicinity but no known sites with the project boundaries . In addition, archaeologic and paleontologic field surveys Cr were conducted on the undeveloped portions of the site . In both cases , the survey results were ;negative , no resources were observed. i 2 . CONSTRAINTS None. H. LAND USE 1 . ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING D The project site is surrounded by a variety of land uses . To the east is the Edison Company generating plant and a large area of vacant land which could support light industrial activity under its M1-A-0 zoning . North and northeast of the site are a mixture of residential uses . North of the site use is a mixture of multiple family (R- 3) R I -2S with some single family residences . Northeast of the site , the use is predominantly single family (R- 1) . Edison Commun- ity Park is one half mile east of the site at Hamilton Avenue and Magnolia Street . Moving north along the western boundary of the site there are commercial uses (C-4 zoning) . Huntington Beach State Park serves recreational needs of the , City and is to the south of the project across Pacific Coast Highway. Present zoning on the site is RA-0 and Ml-A-O (allowing residential agriculture and light manufacturing agriculture) . _e 2 . CONSTRAINTS High Sensitivity As noted earlier, the site is within the Coastal Zone and specific development proposals may be met with i resistance as a result of traffic , public access and housing — issues . The industrial_ use to the east of the site is con- sidered to be potentially incompatible with an extension of a mixture of uses similar to those found north of the site. The encroachment of residential land use on the existing tank farm is also felt to be highly sensitive in terms of — compatibility and safety. General While certain constraints exist , the extension of a mixture of commercial , multiple family and single family — use onto the project site from the north seems a reasonable . approach and maintains continuity. The area to the east , — I - 26 while zoned for industrial development , would most likely not be developed with such a use due to the traffic limitations and the high demand for residential/recreational facilities within the Coastal Zone . Also various Coastal Zone policies encourage discussion of potential land uses within the area which include .some high density residential , thereby providing moderate income housing. While this conflicts with policies encouraging reduction in - traffic and public access , it remains a potential constraint . Several comments have been made in Section E regarding the location of commercial land uses . In summary, assuming that other constraints can be mitigated, the commercial , multi/single family residential uses seem to be a reasonable change in use . Pursuing presently allowed uses or amendment of use to recreation would potentially create impacts in excess of what may occur from a mixed commercial 1 residential use . On the other hand, maintenance of the site in open space would reduce impacts but would not seem reasonable, from the Applicant' s point of view. 1 The ultimate density of the General Plan amendment should be carefully reviewed. As seen in the Applicant ' s proposed amendment, a potential for approximately 1200 units exists 1 along with commercial facilities which will impact the surrounding environs . 1 I --2 7 I . SEWER SERVICE 1 . ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING At present , no city or county sewer lines exist in Beach Boulevard or Pacific Coast Highway in the project area. The nearest sewer lines are located on Atlanta Avenue and at Newland Street and Hamilton Avenue . The sewer on Atlanta Avenue is operating near capacity, and although the Newland/Hamilton line could serve the project site on a temporary basis , this is not feasible over the long term. Plans are now underway for the construction of a City —� sewer main in Beach Boulevard which will connect onto a County trunk to be constructed in Pacific Coast Highway (Reid, 1977) . 2 . CONSTRAINTS _ Although the construction of sewers in Beach Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway has been planned, Coastal Commission approval for these projects has not yet been obtained. Thus , project development timing and public works scheduling may — not coincide . Hook-up availability may therefore serve to limit development or at least alter scheduling. I- 28 T . SCHOOLS 1 . ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The Huntington Beach City Elementary School District , -- is responsible for elementary education in Huntington Beach. The District is experiencing declining enrollment and could easily serve additional students . Schools serving the project area are Kettler Elementary School (K- 5) and Gisler Intermediate School (6- 8) , (Jones , 1977) . -- High school students in the area would attend Edison High School . All high schools in the Huntington Beach Union t High School District are operating at or above design capacity (Jones , 1977) . 2 . CONSTRAINTS Any increase in populations of high school students in the project area will create serious problems for the Hunting- ton Beach Union High School District . Based on preliminary estimates , residential development with a mixture of density could generate 120- 150 high school students . The developer may be required to provide fees to help offset the costs for increases in temporary facilities . K. POLICE 1 . ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The City of Huntington Leach has one police station at 2000 Main Street , two miles northwest of the project site . 1 I - 29 Patrol levels are currently maintained at 1 . 14 officers per one thousand population (Fickle , 1977) . 2 . CONSTRAINTS None . L. FIRE 1 . ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Two fire stations serve the project area, the Lake Station at Lake Street and Indianapolis Avenue and the -- Magnolia Station at Magnolia and Hamilton Avenues . The estimated response time is five minutes or less . —� At present , a potential fire protection problem exists with the oil and fuel operations at the northeast which include underground transfer lines , storage tanks , and -� pump station (Ott , 1977) . 2 . CONSTRAINTS No constraints exist at a general plan level but site design will have to take into account setbacks from the — tank farm as well as sufficient emergency access . M. WATER 1 . ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The City of Huntington Beach Water Department maintains an eight inch water line in Beach Boulevard and a I - 30 ten inch line in Pacific Coast Highway. Both of these lines are operating well below capacity (Colburn, 1977) . 2 . CONSTRAINTS None. N. SOLID WASTE 1 . ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Solid waste from the project area is deposited in the Coyote Canyon Disposal Station No . 24 . This landfill will last until 1981 , when it will be replaced by a station about five miles further from the subject property. Because - transfer service for southwestern Huntington Beach is oper- ating at capacity, the local collector will be required to haul directly to the Coyote Canyon Station or to other landfill sites . 2 . CONSTRAINTS None. 0. NATURAL GAS 1 . ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The Southern California Gas Company currently maintains gas lines in Newland Avenue ,and Pacific Coast Highway and will be able to serve a development on the subject property. __ I - 31 2 . CONSTRAINTS None . P . TELEPHONE 1 . ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The General Telephone Company currently provides telephone service to the trailer park on the southwest portion of the subject property with service emanating from facilities at Newland Avenue . The major switching facility nearest the project site is located on Atlanta Avenue , and new service to the project would emanate from Atlanta. Under Tariff Rule 341, the developer will be required to share in the costs of undergrounding new facilities . Although developers will be reimbursed for costs sustained in residential developments , in commercial developments developers will sustain the burden of providing an under- ground substructure (Ferlida, 1977) . 2 . CONSTRAINTS None . Q. ELECTRICITY 1 . ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The Southern California Edison Company maintains overhead electricity lines on Coast Highway and Beach Boulevard in the project area , with underground lines on the Coast I - 32 Highway northwest of the project site . The Edison Company has stated that these lines can serve increased development (Comption , 1977) . 2 . CONSTRAINTS None. R. PARKS AND RECREATION 1 . ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING - The subject property is located directly across Pacific Coast Highway from Huntington State Beach. The t Orange County Masterplan of Countywide Bikeways shows one _._ bikeway along the Coast Highway and one along Newland Avenue . The City of Huntington Beach ideally maintains 3. 4 acres of park space per one thousand population. No munic- ipal parks are located within one mile of the subject prop- erty, although ten municipal parks exist within two miles of ---. the site. Of these , four parks are subject to heavy use and could be considered overcrowded, four are subject to moderate 0 use , operating near design capacity , and only two parks experience a low level of use . Thus , there is little excess park capacity in the project area (Morris , 1977) . 2 . CONSTRAINTS Existing parks have limited capacity to serve increased populations . 1-:33 REFERENCES City of Huntington Beach, 1976 . General Plan pp . 22-25 , 38-44 , regarding land use , noise , seismic considerations-. City of Huntington Beach, 1975 . Preliminary Noise Element . Prepared by Wyle Laboratories , pp . 39-53 . City of Huntington Beach, 1974 . Seismic Safety Element , pp. 19- 53. Colburn, Howard, 1977 , City of Huntington Beach Water Department . Telephone conversation regarding water service , 11/7/77 . Dysinger, Glen H. , 1977 , Huntington Beach Union High School District . Letter regarding high schools , 11/4/77 . Ferlida, Mr. ,' 1977 , General Telephone Company. Telephone conversation regarding telephone service , 11/1/77 . Fickle , Robert E. , 1977, Huntington Beach Police Department . Letter regarding police service , 10/25/77. Jones , Jackie , 1977 , Huntington Beach Union High School District . Telephone conversation regarding high schools , 11/7/77 . - Jones , Laurie , 1977 , Huntington Beach City Elementary School District . Telephone conversation regarding elementary schools , 11/7/77 . Massey , 1977 , California Department of Fish and Game , Field Census data : Belding Savanna Sparrow, Long Beach , 1977 . Morris , Vic , 1977 , City of Huntington Beach Department of Parks and Recreation. Telephone conversation regarding parks , 11/8/77 . b Ott , Mel , 1977 , Huntington Beach Fire Department . Letter regarding fire protection, 11/2/77 . Perkins , W.R. , 1977 , Southern California Gas Company. Letter regarding gas service, 10/26/77 . 0 Poer, Don, 1977 , Orange County General Services Agency, Solid Waste Management Division. Letter regarding solid waste disposal , 10/28/77 . Reid, Dennis , 1977 , Orange County Sanitation Districts . Telephone conversation regarding sewer service , 10/29/77 . Letter 10/21/77 . United States Army Corp of Engineers , 1973 . Flood Plain for Standard Project Flood, in the City of Huntington Beach Seismic Element . I - 3S APPENDIX A ARCHAEOLOGIC RECORDS SEARCH I - 37 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES r• BERXELEY DAVIS IRVINE LOS ANCXI ES RIVERSIDE SAN DISCO SAN FRANCISCO a SANTA BARBARA•SA\TA CRUZ • = r THE INSTITUTE OF ARCHAEOLOGY . LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90024 17 October 1977 Mr. Richard L. Carrico WESTEC Services, Inc. 1520 State Street San Diego, California 92101 RE: Archaeological Records Search neon/Huntington BeAch Project In accordance with your letter (n.d.) the staff of the UCLA Archaeological Survey has conducted the following archival search to determine the extent of known archaeological resources in the above mentioned area. The enclosed map shows the :Tour archaeological sites located within one mile of the project area. No sites have been found within the study area. According to our records the entire region has been surveyed by Archaeological. Resea_ch, lac. We have no report for this survey and therefore cannot ascertain when it was done, for what purpose, or the ccmpetency of the work. - The sites have been described as: Ora-149: was recorded by A. 'McXiaaey is 19..64, and contains chipping waste, local chart, basalt, obsidian and quartz flakes, few points and a = slate arti:aet with incised decoration has been found at the site. Described as lato• Cenelino culture type; the PCAS 'up-date states that the site is still extant. _ Ora-133: recorded by McKj-mosey in April 1966, heavy shell midden on bluff above Santa Ana River Basin; manos, metates, mortars, hammers; choppers, cogstone, and alot of chipping waste found -at the site. Site has been excavated .by .a'2a (:Newland report 1937) and a report on the shell has appeared in -thz PCAS quarterly (V. Chamberlain-Vol. 14, No. 2) . Ora-275: recorded-by A. McKinney in August 1969, site was destroyed 25 years ago, the artifacts collected by Mrs. Perry Huddle were given to McKinney who gave them to the Bowers Museum. Artifacts include manos, grinding slab, metate and two points (other artifacts in the collection were given away by the collector at an earlier date) . Ora-358: recorded by Elliot and Marquette in Aug. 1972 (ARI personnel) ; describe( as an open air surface scatter of artifacts, numerous flakes and core fragments, slight shell, choppers and possible scraper. Site has been severely destroyed according to the May 1976 PCAS up-date on Orange County sites. Should you have any further questions or comments regarding this project, please feel free to contact me at the Survey. Si .1 - 39 Martin D. Rosen ti ...... -ArchaeQ.2zlc__Survey It:1910i 11 P I,e.<�. (�1•'••i 11�{I��''••t�t u /� lli u �_ •� � v •� •',__ �1 / /ram+CS.1�'Cldi • •. �, .tr' :tt, ► p! ` :�:••( - =*.a�l',{ akrtivn E y. I ,�� . sr271t•` t ' qWTJI . A Iluv :�,�� _� ,• '. 1 1'.. (\�C�. _ i 4.__.. _ II �/ v. �__s_ _ Sh..[.• -`1�n 1, ,} t I .r Z ('�: I •� . \�',r Ncwlarulv►t{ �� (� I'�--z---- � _ T .. ( ''! II.'O �(t{f{al 1 ��`�: -i ; y.` .i.�: •}• .,/ St:h'lA� C 11'OPrllnw 3-_ ! �j ! ' %� �i!.1/Jl 'f_ Sol, •. I �I '�, Y.t -�'rr, 1' (� UT'V S K O Sr of 'w � 11}��• � _ _k. � _• t �.�(-- 1 o'. ,, r � �.� 0 2 a I 1r�".__� VE • Y : - _.+ -L' � +L:`'rs.-a:.c_:_,►'nr.3 •- I pi.o:•• 'I ° W; ° .1 . �I I'. __ - - 1•--_v.1r:dam.T-.^_::...r a:._ .-._ „ - -_.._1`,� p4� lot I I ., ro •., - `�_/ _�.-�_��-�.._.f= DAMS_..._ _soy._ _. - - - ... � r 1 1 --- `, i! I'' g rt f` silo _!I tg ,• u 1 _ �' �.n �., - ul1�: FAIHVIEW. �. "-�K t ��r 'b o oST o.i1�. � �`� � 1' 0 � •• II; �!•l' � I nt .:. NE✓ rr5' ' ^'C. } i �__ 1c1yr o I �• / �R o li � u �I.-. ,r r I � ! OY y.,•C 1 ' � 1 1'Y N,1:'�'._��L LI�I-ST _ �-�/ �- _ II J I. ,,�� l�l /� � '�/ 1 M4F ipI 1g� II _.-R-_il -_1L_.q�.. / 1 -MAL� T_Y OR c:.= nr - _ u f•) q- ,r � ----- -__-- -. - - - - AYL�)•�`�.-___-_.-..-_. - _ 1 A V C. � - I I REfLLr�OB 15,011�. r._H,., `--_ J' I� .1 p ---. r h ] • �i� .i,'II l V 1 .i_3�. _qa g ` L '�' 1� � wr S� R1.. 4t o•----==,:I !i � I�� f I•I r' m __P._.IL"'�r a. --o ; o-:I 't -- i '•h lim Y , / li --� F%.r T •1 ••C_. _ ' `atnYun �. T T•G TO y B A'C� U 1 �= "�� 0 I L \FIE Dr 5VOA NN �.:/A��., . • _,.7: _ __ .,.•�" _it N _ATLATA_ ri =.__.._-- �_._.__- - _ _ - ---`1 g;•.o -c 82 to ` - �uhst� :1 �' � �%. J7 Par ��,�-��-co c Es �'`" � �� 4 C {' .._ G �I-- � - - --- -- -_ CC=_•-Ct_LC_=:1 •:r .. 1 �i�l(tFJJ• ��r• � -- _—)L_. _: ��-' ��EI �� 'i o :n r-----'-----'- --- =j-cc- _ I .1 r r/ r `► /li''�S -G---- �O � � li_--_ :r-�- I ,�; SITC '�•,�` h�] 1 �_,�, -,r =� rll�;I (.fcroRr.3� \ ,��a`' Palk/� � © ��'• \�__- !,' � � ,/:�.)i'-��' -�•L(j, i 'ch 'L JJ" �i ) I `.�,,'✓ ` ® ••._ 13 _: -_-- _--`i a -- -'A AT7 I• .I'-"- - a--�1: � �r I �r .ii''~• ''�. `JI _,----p� �¢ , \�. t � S:z:•Ozx _�'+ I -�� ; �1 a: 0 1 f � •,t /. �:,—�. N , t(kGT yH t �1 1: D y •-�K II r .1 - S;i s�..eq^' � y_ -:I- � F•r:w l � 3 I! �. 1 i 1 I a..!' `'�_ fit li \'(}��: 'A'?(er _ F.AV _ ..� .aa J 23 Tanks \ _anrii_ g. g�i - -' o r �� i0. I:,— _I ::. (;' •i./_�. i 7e CSch .5 � 74'j�,r // 1 I , 1 .-��� .[l .i.L�. �Pi� .p •�� \�'hr+..r r N EW Po R.'T Qual r7 P�EAcN T1 __( --�_� ` �� I('/p \�� IR ` t3••1 \\D _I Il:t! CI .s /r'/'., '-�'• f7 ti' - ',• �,�•a , / / APPENDIX B 1 CORRESPONDENCE / / 1 1 1 1 a / I -41 ORANGE COUNTY DIVISION P. O. BOX 3334, ANAHEIM, CALIF. 92803 October 26, 1977 Mr. Michael W. Wright Regional Manager Westec Services, Inc. 180 East Main Street Tustin, California 92680 SUBJECT: Your Project No. 77-361T-2149 in the area of Beach Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway, Huntington Beach This letter is not to be interpreted as a contractual commitment to serve the proposed project, but only as an information service. , Its intent is to notify you that the Southern California Gas Company has facilities in the area where the above-named project is proposed. Gas service to the project could be pro- vided from an existing main as shown on the attached atlas sheet without any significant impact on the environment. The service would be in accordance with the Company's policies and extension rules on file with the California Public Utilities Commission at the time contractual arrangements are made. The availability of natural gas service, as set forth in this letter, is based - upon present conditions of gas supply and regulatory policies. As a public utility, the Southern California Gas Company is under the jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission. We can also be affected by actions of federal regulatory agencies. Should these agencies take any action which affects gas supply or the condition under which service is available, gas service will be provided in accordance with revised conditions. - Residential (System Area Average) Yearly Single Family 1095 Therms/year/dwelling unit Multi-Family 4 or less units 640 Therms/year/dwelling unit Multi-Family 5 or more units 580 Therms/year/dwelling unit These estimates are based on gas consumption in residential units served by Southern California Gas Company during 1975 and it should not be implied that any particular home, apartment or tract of homes will use these amounts of energy. This is particularly true due to the State's new insulation requirements and consumers' efforts toward energy conservation. - I -43 We have developed several programs which are available, upon request, to provide assistance in selecting the most effective applications of energy conservation techniques for a particular project. If you desire further information on any of our energy conservation programs, please contact this office for assistance. Sincerely, W. R. Perkins Distribution Planning Supervisor d Attach. I -44 POLICE DEPARTMENT City ®f Huntington each P.O.BOX 70 2000 MAIN STREET,HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA.92648 TEL, (714) 536-5311 EARLE ROBITAILLE Chief of Police October 25, 1977 WESTEC SERVICES, INC. 180 East Main Street Tustin, California 92680 Attention: Mr. Michael W. Wright Dear Mr. Wright: We have received your request for anticipated police protection for the development at Pacific Coast Highway and Beach Boulevard. We will attempt to answer your request, however, more information is necessary. Unfortunately, we do not make our projections based on land use alone. We utilize statistics such as expected increase in population, type of housing (and number of units) , and square footage for commercial units. If you can furnish this data, we will be glad to make the necessary projection. Sincerely, E. W. ROBITAILLE Chief of Police ROBERT E. FfC Lt; -Sdrgeant Special Operations Division EWR:REF:skd Address all com?n.-,n1.c.-,t1*ons to the Chief of'Police — 1 -45 ' TELEPHONES:. COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS 4��� AREA CODE 714 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA �S 9 6 2-2 9 1 9b2 1 ®_ � -2411 P. O. BOX 8127, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 10844 ELLIS AVENUE (EUCLID OFF-RAMP, SAN DIEG❑ FREEWAY) October 21, 1977 Westec Services , Inc. 180 East Main Street Tustin, CA 92680 - Attention: Mr. Michael W. Wright Subject: Proposed Development Northeast of Beach Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway There is planned capacity for the proposed project in the rt Sanitation District No. 11 Master Plan under current land use -- designation. The proposed project flows will be conveyed to the Districts ' Joint Works Facilities in Huntington Beach. If we can be of further assistance,., please feel free to call. Dennis M. Reid"_-` Senior Engineer DMR:hje I -46 Southern California Edison Company ' WESTMINSTER, CALIFORNIA 92683 November 9, 1977 WESTEC Services, Inc. 180 E. Main Street Tustin, CA 92680 Attention: Michael W. Wright i Subject: Area of 125 Acres Bounded by Beach Blvd. - Pacific Coast Hwy - _ Newland Ave. - Huntington Beach Flood Control Channel , City of Huntington Beach 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 elec- trical supply, we expect to meet our electrical load requirements for the next several years. Our total system demand is expected to continue to increase annually; and, 'if our plans to proceed with future construction of new generating facili- ties are delayed, our ability to serve all customer loads during peak demand periods could become marginal by 1981 . In addition, the major fuel used in Edison's generating facilities is low D sulfur fuel oil . We now believe that our low sulfur fuel oil inventory, together with our contractual commitments for delivery, and our customers' conservation efforts, will permit us to meet the forecasted demand for elec- tricity during 1977. It is our intention to continue to do everything that can reasonably be 0 accomplished to provide our customers with a continuous and sufficient supply of electricity. Very truly yours, ! R. L. Coolidge. .; Customer Service Planner RLC:da 0 I -47 Ja City ®f Huntington Beach 44 , CALIFORNIA 92649 P?. r� .O. BOX 190 FIRE DEPARTMENT November 2 , 1977 Westec Service Incorporated 180 East Main Street Tustin , California 92680 Attention : Michael W . Wright Sandra Gen is In review of the plan for development on the northeast corner of Beach Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway , I find two major -� items of concern . The first is the oil and fuel operations to the north and east , which include underground transfer lines , storage tanks, pump station , etc . The second will be traffic _. problems due to location . However, these can be dealt with effefctively with proper planning and design . In your analysis , the following information concerning fire protection will be of value. Two fire stations serve this area . The Lake Station located at Lake and Indianapolis and the Magnolia Fire Station located at Magnolia and Hamilton . Their collected manpower is ;thirteen ( 13 ) men and they man two (2 ) engine companies , a ladder company and a paramedic unit . The only immediate fire protection problems in the area are from underground oil transfer lines nearby oil storage operations which consist of a tank farm, maintenance facilities and pump station . The estimated response time to this area will be five ( 5 ) - minutes or less , ninety (90% ) percent of the time . Street design criteria must meet standard published Huntington Beach standards that should include adequate circulation to provide dual access to the area . Fire flow requirement would range from 1500 to 2500 gallons per minute depending on final construction plans , densities and separations . next page, please . I -48 Westec Service, Inc . -2- November 2 , 1977 The Department has the ability to provide adequate fire pro- tection in the near future . Our particular concern rests with the project designs and the avoidance of access, cir- culation and parking problems . The long term fire protection adequacy is dependent on final development in the area and the .City ' s ability to finance sufficient manpower and equipment commensurate with the fire problem. If further information is . required , please do not hesitate to call me at 536-5411 . Sincerely ,_ Mel Ott Deputy Fire Marshal MO : ps copy : Chief Gerspach r -- I -49 CITY OF -J U L". T S HG'9'0 W B E,(D�C EH. t INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION IIVNIINGION ULALH � I a To Michael Zambory From Ralph R . Lcyva i City Engineer Traffic Engineer 1 Subject PRD - Daon Development Date Septcinbcr 7 , 1977 Hamilton Ave . Extension . E t 4 The following comments are intended to be general in scope since the development plan is conceptual at this time . ' y 1 . In terms of access and circulation , Lhe high density' � attaclhecl zone (1. 1 . 1 acres) should probably L•-c near Bcaclh Blvd . and I(ami 1 ton Ave . , adjacent to the conunerc ial zo is . There should be vehicular and pedestrian circulation between the two zones . 2 . There should be vehicular and pedestrian access to the com- mercial zone from the single family zone . —� • 3 . Internal circulation between, single family zone and higli density attached should be separated . 4 . There should be no vehicular or pedestrian access to I'Cil . _ Street openings to PCH will attract beach goers to park in residential streets . S . Sufficient dedication along all arterial highways incltlding_� PC1( is liecess;iry for ultinlato development . 6 . Pedestrian and bicycle access to the belch should ho aL PCH and Newland (to tale advan talc o C thc: tra f 1 i c s i ii;i 1 i . Access bet-wccn Newland StrooL and Bcach Blvd . could be pro - vided by a pedestrain bridle across PCH . r 7 . Street openings to Hamilton Avenue should be at two or thrc locations . - ` S . Street openings to Newland Street should be at th'o locations . 9 . The number of driveways along; Beach Blvd . sihoulcl i0c hel.cl to i a nlininlunl . Should consider substiLuLing "strip conuncrcial" _.. with planned comrliercial dcvclopment . 1. 0 . l; ikeway along Newland Street should be o l"f- s trcct . w 11 . The area northeast of Beach Blvd . avid PCH lnziv be considerec:_ for Transportation Center by the O . C .T . D . -City Cooperative Study . 12 . Bus stops along all four arterial h i.ghways should` be `i'nLog . _ rated into the design of the project . --� 13 . Resiclerinal units closest to the Edison Steari Generat ink, Plant should be provided with special sound attenuat.i,lg iiiatcr La. and dcvd.ccs . - 14 . Dcsis n radii for Iamilton Ave . s houi.d be 1.000 foci (SO0 feet illlilllllulll) . ri tl• r C n _.. michacl. Zambory September 7 , 1977 Page 2 . . 15 . Exhibit 4 is the preferred alignment for Iiamilton Av,;nul. . Addi.tional comments and recollmcnclatlons can be provided as the dcvelop- �' ment plan advances in design stage . r Ralph R. Leyva Traffic LngllleCr V RRL : c k i j cc : Bruce Crosby Bill Patapoff i r ' 1 � i i i •I- Sl HUNTINGTON BEACH UNIO /�rank,l. 5201 Bolsa Ave. (714) 898-6711 HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICTuntington Beach,California 92647 Abbott, Ed. D. Superintendent of Schools HUNTINGTON BEACH•WE.STMINSTER•MARINA•FOUNTAIN VOLLEY•EDISON•WINTERSBURG•OCEAN VIEW•EVENING HIGH SCHOOL•ADULT SCHOOL•GUIDANCE CENTER S. x November 4, 1977 j Mr. Michael W. Wright Regional Manager WESTEC Services, Inc. 180 East Main Street Tustin, CA 92680 — Dear Mr. Wright: Regarding the land parcel , described in your letter of October 17, bounded by Beach, Pacific Coast Highway and Newland, please be advised as follows : The high school of attendance for this area would be Edison High School which, at this time, has 3,800 students attending a school which was originally designed for 3,000. Although the excess student attendance is being accommodated by ten relocatable classrooms, additional developments along Pacific Coast Highway, such as your -- described plan, will surely increase the current load. Our current yield factor from R-1's in this vicinity 7 is approximately .23 students per unit with condos and apartments dropping off to .1 high school student per unit. Sincerely, �. Glen H. Dysinger Assistant Superintendent Planning, Research & Evaluation I ' GHD/mnp x Board of Trustees ; Helen E. Ditte ■ Zita I. Wessa ■ Don MacASister ■ Doris Allen ■ John K. Hundley V".Pxca M-1 o•••^.,•...,• . - Orc N T.R. EGAN 'n 1 ®�� ��• _�� DIRECTOR GENERAL SERVICES AGENCY RONALD BATES / ASSIS'T'ANY DIRECTOR I SUPPORT SERVICES vrJ SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DIVISION DONALD G. POER, MANAGER 1300 SOUTH GRAND AVE. -- SANTA ANA, CA 92704 714 834-3466 r October 28, 1977 Ms. Sandra Genis Env. Analyst Westec Services Inc. -- 180 E. Main St. Tustin, Ca. 92680 Dear Ms. Genis: In response to your letter of inquiry dated October 19, 1977 be advised as follows: 1. The proposed project will generate refuse at approximately 7.5 lbs. per person per day. 2. Transfer service for the area is operating at capacity which will require the collector to haul directly to the disposal station. 3. The Coyote Canyon Disposal Station No. 24 which serves the area will close in 1981. It will be replaced by a station about five miles further away. 4. County disposal plans allow for ample capacity for disposal of refuse generated in developing areas.. ! Very truly yours , D. G. Poer, Manager DGP:kh ID I - S3 THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH -� Recreation, Parks & Human Services Department POST OFFICE BOX 190 • HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648 • TEL: (714) 536-3486 , OFFICE: 2000 MAIN STREET NORM WORTHY Director TOM BUSHARD Park Superintendent 1 VIVIAN BORNS November 7 , 1977 _ Superintendent Recreation& Human Services Mr. Michael Wright , Regional Manager WESTEC Services , Inc . 180 Fast Main Street — Tustin, California 92680 Dear Mr. Wright , Mr . Bushard referred your recent letter to me in which you requested any information we have in regard to future recreation services we con- template might constrain , limit or shape future development of the area v between Beach and Newland south of Hamilton. I have enclosed the data from last night ' s City Council meeting in. — which the property you describe was rezoned from Industrial designation to Planning Reserve . So this means a project such as DAON Corporation proposes for this area would now be possible provided the Planning Com- mission and City Council can be convinced it is the best use of the land . As Industrial property, we had no designations in the Huntington Beach General Plan that would require park or recreation facilities within this area; however , with the zoning opened up again to consider residential use we will have to study the potential population increase and plan public recreational facilities accordingly. If you need further information, I would suggest you contact Mr . Ed Selich, Planning Director , at this same address . -- Sincerely, orm t or"rhy , Di ector - Recreation, Par s f, Human Services NLW: cgs I - 54 RECREATION IS A FAMILY AFFAIR APPENDIX C WATER QUALITY DATA i i 1 T - 55 APPENDIX III r GROUNDWATER QUALITY Table 2-1 includes chemical analyses for groundwater near the project site . Samples were obtained in the 1960 ' s from two wells tapping the Talbert aquifer and one well tapping the C-sand near the project site. Well T68/RllW-14A1 (presently abandoned) , tapping the C-sand, is north of the project at Beach and Atlanta . A water sample was collected from a well tapping the Talbert aquifer near the project site in 1975 ; another sample was collected from the A-sand at the project — site in 1977 . C Samples from the Talbert aquifer are generally sodium or sodium-calcium chloride waters of high salinity. Two samples from the C-sand indicate superior water quality compared to that of other zones in the 1960 ' s . Such water is marginally — suitable for domestic or irrigation purposes . No water samples were available from the B-sand. Water in the A-sand is sodium r chloride in type , similar in chemical composition to sea water. The apparent superior quality of water in the C-sand may be related to recharge from storm runoff. r- r r I - 57 KENNETH D. SCHMIDT GROUNDWATER QUALITY CONSULTANT HYDROGEOLOGIC ASPECTS OF THE CORAL BAY PROJECT, HUNTINGTON BEACH The proposed Coral Bay Project is located at the southwest - corner of Huntington Beach Boulevard and Atlanta Avenue, in the NEa NE4 of section 14 , T6S/RllW; within one-half mile of the Pacific Ocean. EXISTING REGIONAL CONDITIONS The California Department of Water Resources (1966) dis- cussed groundwater conditions in the Santa Ana Gap area. Extensive _..� groundwater data has been developed, primarily because Qf the extensive sea-water intrusion which has occurred in the area. The Santa Ana Gap is an alluvial valley about two and one-half miles wide which lies between Huntington Beach and Newport Mesas . Annual precipitation at Huntington Beach averages about 12 inches . i Subsurface Geology Water-bearing formations beneath the Santa Ana Gap are generally limited to marine deposits of late Pliocene and Pleis- tocene age and overlying continental deposits of Pleistocene and Recent age. The deposits older than Late Pleistocene have been greatly affected by uplift and lateral movement associated with faulting. The upper Pliocene Pico Formation is within 350 feet of the ground surface along Hamilton Avenue in the Santa Ana Gap. The upper part of this marine formation consists of partially cemented I _ S4 KENNETH D. SCHMIDT GROUNDWATER QUALITY CONSULTANT sand, silt, and clayey silt, with interbedded sand strata . The Pico Formation is overlain by the Lower Pleistocene San Pedro Formation. This marine formation consists of clays, silts , sands, and gravels and is several hundred feet thick beneath the Santa Ana Gap near the coast. The San Pedro Formation contains several aquifers of importance inland from the project area. The upper Pleistocene Lakewood Formation sediments were deposited above deformed deposits of the San Pedro Formation. The marine-continental Lakewood Formation forms the surfaces of Huntington Beach Mesa and Newport Mesa, but the formation is not present beneath the southern half of Santa Ana Gap. This formation also contains several important aquifers inland of the project site. Recent continental deposits unconformably overlie both the San Pedro and Lakewood Formations between .the - two mesas . The lower part of these deposits are primarily sand and gravels known as the Talbert aquifer. Theiupper part of the Recent deposits are primarily clays, silts , organic silts , and peat interbedded with thin sand lenses. Water Levels and Groundwater Movement The Talbert aquifer is the most important ;,source of ground- water in the Santa Ana Gap. The average thickness is about 70 feet and the top ranges from 50 to 100 feet below land surface beneath the gap. The aquifer has a permeability of about 2, 000 to 2 , 500 gpd per square foot and is overlain by fine-grained sediments of relatively low permeability. The northwest trending I- S9 KENNETH D. SCHMIDT GROUNDWATER QUALITY CONSULTANT Newport-Inglewood structural system exerts a barrier effect within the lower Pleistocene aquifers beneath the gap. The Santa Ana Gap was historically the discharge area for _ groundwater flow from the Anaheim Basin. However, in the 1920 's pumping lowered water levels below sea level in the gap area. By 1930 discharge of fresh groundwater to the ocean had ceased and salt water began moving into the Talbert aquifer. A rapid water-level decline occurred after 1945. However, recharge of imported water was begun in 1949 and by the early 1960 ' s water levels had begun rising. In 1970 the Orange County Water District (O .C.W.D. ) began pumping a series of extraction wells along a line about one mile northeast of the project site as part of a plan to limit sea- water intrusion (Chandler, 1974) . A number of injection wells have been installed inland of the extraction wells along Ellis Avenue for recharge of a mixture of sewage effluent and desalinated sea water. This recharge will tend to act as a barrier to sea- water intrusion into the Anaheim Basin. --- Water-level contour maps for the Talbert aquifer for Novem- ber 1976 indicate landward movement of groundwater from the coast toward the extraction wells and thence northwesterly. Water-levels are near sea-level near the coast, but drop to more than 40 feet below sea level northwest of the project site. -- I - 60 KENNETH D. SCHMIDT GROUNDWATER QUALITY CONSULTANT Water Quality Chloride contents exceeding 5,000 mg/l were common in water from the Talbert aquifer south of Adams Avenue in 1963 and the situation still occurs. This high salinity is attributed pri- marily to sea-water intrusion. Past improper disposal of oil- field brines has also degraded groundwater, particularly near Huntington Mesa. However, past studies about one mile northeast of the project site indicated that fresh groundwater can occur near the coast in the upper part of the Talbert aquifer (Calif- ornia Department of Water Resources, 1966) . - EXISTING SITE-SPECIFIC CONDITIONS �- Soils and Subsurface Geology The subsurface geology near the project site has been illus- trated in several cross sections and maps by the California Department of Water Resources (1966) . The South Branch of the Newport-Inglewood Fault passes beneath the northern part of the project site. The Talbert aquifer occurs in the 85 to 135 foot depth interval . A number of sand strata are present in the San Pedro Formation beneath the Talbert aquifer south of the fault. Sands in the Talbert Aquifer are generally directly hydraulically connected to the ocean. Drillers logs are available for wells T6S/RllW-13D3, 14H1, 14H2 , and 14H3 . These wells are just east and south of the project site. All of the logs indicate a predominance of sand I761 KENNETH D. SCHMIDT. GROUNDWATER QUALITY CONSULTANT in the upper 300 to 400 feet of subsurface materials . H. V. Lawmaster & Co . , Inc. (1976) reported on drilling of thirty exploratory borings on the project site. The borings were nine to 20 feet in depth, and a supplementary boring was 60 feet deep. These borings in the upper part of the Recent deposits indicate the presence of at least three significant sand strata in the upper 60 feet. These sands generally occur in the following depth intervals at the project site: 5 to 10 feet, 15 to 20 - feet, and 30 to 60 feet. These sands are herein designated the A B-, and C-sands from upper to lower. The remaining material is usually silty clay. Water Levels and Groundwater Movement Water levels in the Talbert aquifer were just below sea level near the project site in November 1976 . The direction of -. groundwater movement was inland .from the ocean toward the O.C.W.D. extraction wells . Groundwater levels in the Recent deposits over- lying the Talbert aquifer were measured at a number of well points by O.C.W.D. personnel in the 1960 ' s east of the project site. Water levels in the B and C sands were measured at well points 13-5A and 5B, about 600 feet east of the project site. Water levels in the B-sand were about one to two feet above those in the C-sand at this site, indicating a tendency for downward movement of groundwater from the B-sand to the C-sand. A similar situation occurred at well points 13-3A and 3B, about one-quarter mile south of the project site. I - 62 KENNETH D. SCHMIDT GROUNDWATER QUALITY CONSULTANT Observations during the exploratory borings at the project site (H. V. Lawmaster & Co. , Inc. , 1976) indicated that seepage was generally present from the A-sand. It was indicated that the deposits below several feet depth were generally saturated. Standing water levels were generally observed several feet below the level of seepage. Water levels in the B-sand were substan- tially lower than those of the A-sand. The direction of ground- - water flow in the shallow sand layers is downward. Sufficient data are not available to determine the horizontal direction of movement. The groundwater elevations in the shallow sands appear to be near or just below sea level , similar to those in the Tal- bert aquifer. Water Quality Table 1 includes chemical analyses for groundwater near the project site. Samples were obtained in the early 1960 ' s from two wells tapping the Talbert aquifer and one well tapping the C-sand near the project site. Well T6S/RllW-14A1 (presently abandoned) , tapping the C-sand, is in the northeast part of the project site. A water sample was collected from a well tapping the Talbert aquifer near the project site in 1975; another sam- ple was collected from the A-sand at the project site in 1977 . Samples from the Talbert aquifer are generally sodium or sodium-calcium chloride waters of high salinity. Two samples from the C-sand indicate superior water quality compared to that of other zones in• the 1960 ' s . Such water is marginally suitable I -63 Table 1 - Chemical Quality of Groundwater near the Project Site (mg/1) T6S/R10W T6S/RllW 18E 13D1 13E 13F4 14A1 Project Site (OCWD 29) Calcium 53 1,122 861 1, 108 347 1, 315 Magnesium 19 552 620 301 67 1 , 788, Sodium 128 3 , 008 464 1, 324 112 16 , 900 Potassium 7 27 35 12 8 591 Carbonate 10 0 -- 0 0 0 Bicarbonate 205 18 217 221 122 772 Sulfate 27 706 700 62 66 3 , 480 Chloride 192 7 , 730 9 ,004 4 , 590 850 31, 100 Nitrate 0 7 - 9 3 7 F, Fluoride 0 .4 0 . 3 0 . 2 0 . 5 0 . 4 7 . 6 Boron 0 . 1 0 . 7 --- 0 . 6 0 . 1 --- pH 8 . 1 8 . 3 --- 7 . 1 7 . 6 6 . 8 Electrical Conductivity (micromhos/cm @ 250C) 1, 120 19 , 650 29 , 100 12 , 680 2 , 940 45 , 870 Total Dissolved Solids 580 14 , 270 ------ 8 , 520 1, 510 ------ Date 11/25/64 4/23/63 3/24/75 6/22/64 9/16/63 2/10/77 Lab DWR DWR O.C .W.D. DWR DWR Crosby Well Depth (feet) 70 160 145 200 40 7 . 5 Aquifer C-sand Talbert Talbert Talbert C-sand A-sand Data from California Department of Water Resources (1966) , City of Huntington Beach (1975) , and J. Harlan Glenn & Associates (1977) . A A A Alik A& i 1 KENNETH D. SCHMIDT GROUNDWATER QUALITY CONSULTANT 1 for domestic or irrigation purposes . No water samples were available from the B-sand. Water in the A-sand is sodium chloride in type, similar in chemical composition to sea water. The 1 apparent superior quality of water in the C-sand may be related to recharge from storm runoff. / IMPACTS Groundwater will be pumped from relatively shallow French drains or wells . to fill the five-acre lake. On an annual basis , 1 evaporation would consume about three feet of water other than rainfall. Percolation is expected to be small due to the clay beneath the lakes . At least one foot of clay material will be 1 left beneath each part of the lake. The water requirement for the lake is about 15 acre-feet of water per year, or an average of about 9 gpm. It is estimated that about 25 gpm would be 1 necessary to fill the lake initially. Groundwater in the A- and B-sands, in the upper 20 feet of materials, appears to be sufficient to supply this small demand. The shallow sands 1 appear to be hydraulically connected to the ocean and contain - water similar to sea water in chemical quality. Pumpage of this volume of water is insignificant in the regional sense. On a local scale, recharge from ocean water and possibly other sources would prevent excessive drawdowns . 1. 1 1 -6S KENNETH D. SCHMIDT GROUNDWATER QUALITY CONSULTANT REFERENCES California Department of Water Resources , 1966 , "Santa Ana Gap Salinity Barrier, Orange County" , Bulletin 147-1, 178 p. Chandler, C. R. , 1974 , "Water Factory 21" , excerpt from National Water Supply Improvement Association Journal, vol . 1, no. 1, July 1974 . City of Huntington Beach, 1975 , "Investigation on High Ground Water Problem on Surfside Association No. 1 Property" , Depart- ment of Public Works . H. V. Lawmaster & Co. , Inc. , 1976 , "Foundation Investigation, Proposed Condominium Building Complex, Southwest Corner Atlanta Avenue and Beach Boulevard, Huntington Beach, California" , pre- pared for W & B Builders , Inc. , Los Angeles , California, 14 p. J. Harlan Glenn & Associates , 1977 , "Lake Design and Criteria for Coral Bay, Huntington Beach" , letter to Frank Thompson, W & B Builders , Inc. I -66 APPENDIX II INITIAL STUDY WITH THE SITCRETARY Of STATE (Pursuant to Government Code Soctlon 11380.1) Appendix I is added to read: APPENDIX I ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM (To be completed by Lead Agency) I. BACKGROUND 1 . Name of Proponent Da on Cor oration 2 . Address and Phone Number of Proponent : 1400 Quail Street . Suite 235 Newport Beach , California 92860 3 . Date of Checklist Submitted 3/22/78 4 . Agency Requiring Checklist C�,y of Huntington Beach 5 . Name of Proposal, if applicable GPA 78-1 II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are reouir,7d W on attached sheets . ) a q YES MA` Tn NO z 1 . Earth . Will the proposal result in: W F 3 a . Unstable earth conditions or in o changes in geologic substructures? X z o b . Disruptions, displacements, com- paction or overcovering of the soil? __X_— c . Change in topography or ground surface relief features? 0 d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? X e . Any increase in wind or water 0 erosion of soils, either on or off the site? X f . Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion 1 which may modify the channel of j a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? X FOR FILING ADM IISTRATIVE REGULATIONS WITH THE SECRETARY OLD STATE (Pursuant to Government Code Section 11180.1) YES g . Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards .such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards'? X 2 . Air. Will the proposal result in: a . Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? X b . The creation of objectionable odors? X C . Alteration of air movement , moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? X 3 . Water . Will the proposal result in: Lj a . Changes in currents , or the course LA or direction of water movements , in � `" either marine or fresh waters'? x b . Changes in absorption rates, drainage pattersn, or the rate 3 and -amount of surface water rurioff`? X 0 a o c . Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters ? X d . Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? X - e . Discharge into surface .raters , or in any alteration of surface water - quality, including but not limited to termperature , dissolved oxygen or turbidity `? X f . Alteration of the d_L, JCt:ion or rate of flow of ground :vater,_ ? X _ Change in the quantity of.' i r ou�r.i ",jaters, either through direct additior.�: T or withdrawals , or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or e::cavations '? X II - 2 FOR FILING ADh1t ISTRATIVE REGULATIONS ` WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Pursuant to Government Cod* Sectlon 11780.1) 1 h . Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? X 1 1 . Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves ? X 4 . Plant Life . Will the proposal result n: 1 a . Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, microflora and aquatic plants) ? X 1 b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? X C . Introduction of new species of 1 plants co ttothe not n area, or in a barrier rmalreplenishmentof existing species? X d . Reduction in acreage of any 3 agricultural crop? X r Z 5. Animal Life. Will the o proposal -- result in: a . Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species 1 of animals (birds, land animals Including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic or anisms, insects or microfauna�? X b . Reduction of the numbers of any 1' unique, rare or endangered species of animals? X_ C . Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or r movement of animals? X d . Deterioration to existing fish i or wildlife habitat? X I r II - 3 . FOR FILING ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Pursuant to Government Code Section 11380.1) YES ivA YEE NO � 6. Noise . Will the proposal result in: a . Increases in existing noise X _. levels? 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 substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an ` area? X 9. Natural Resources . Will the A proposal result n: W a . Increase in the rate of use of < any natural resources? X a , m b . Substantial depletion of any z_ nonrenewable natural resource? X W 10. Risk of Upset . Does the proposal 3 i vn olve a risk of an explosion or 0 the release of hazardous substances o (including, but not limited to, oil, ° pesticides , chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? :C 11 . Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human popu- lation of an area? X 12 . Housing . lr,'ill the proposal affect exis ng housing, or create a demand for additional housing ? X 13 . Transportation/Circulation , vlill the proposal result in : -�` a . Generation of substantial addi- tional vehicular movement'? X __ ---- CONIMUMION SHUT FOR PILING ADJ9A MSTRATIVE REGULATIONS WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATZ (Pursuant to Oovernment Code Section 11380.1) YES hIP,YJEE NO b . Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? _X__ C . Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? X d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of � . people and/or goods? X e . Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? X f . Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? X 14 . Public Services . Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered govern- IL services in any of the following areas: W a . Fire protection? X b. Police protection? X o o c . Schools? X d . Parks or other recreational facilities? X e . Maintenance of public facili- ties, including roads? X f. Other governmental services? X 15 . Energy. Will the proposal result in: a . Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? X b . aubstantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? X II - 5 warn enc 4't;i(C(AKT ILIf 5T AIR (Pursuant to Government Code Section 11380.1) YES NIA`I'D NO 16. Utilities . Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities : a . Power or natural gas? x b . Communications systems? X c . Water? X d . Sewer or septic tanks? X e . Storm water drainage? X f . Solid waste and disposal? X - 17 . Human Health. Will the proposal result In: a . Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding N mental health) ? X b. Exposure of people to potential i health hazards? X. -- W F 3 18 . Aesthetics . Will the proposal result o in the obstruction of any scenic - o vista or view open to the p;.itilic , or o will the proposal result in the creation of an 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. Archeological/Historical , s1i11 the proposal result in an alteration of a significant archcological ov -A Historical site, structure, object or building? I T--' 6 Famw 400A CON1111UATION SHIRT FOR FILING ADM!'11STRATIVE REGULATIONS WITH THE StCRETARY OF STATE (Pursuant to Government Code Section 11]80.1) YES MAYL'T' r�0 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance . (a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species , cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining �. levels , threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? X b. Does the project have the poten- tial to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environ Ul mental goals? (A short-term impact 4 on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while z long-term impacts will endure W well into the future . ) X oc . Does the project have impacts Z which are individually limited, $ but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant . ) X d . Does the project have environ- mental effects which will cause . substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or Indirectly? X i III. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION tc w e:�r A CONT'NUATION SHEET FOR FILING ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Pursuant to Government Code Section 11380.1) IV. DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: Z7 I rind the proposed project COULD NOT -:ave a si�r�ificart effect on the environment, and a _ NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared . Z-7 I find that although the proposed project could �:Zvc a significant effect on the environment, there w-' li not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached - ieet have been added to the project . A NEGATIVE DEC LAR,",;r1Oi: WILL HE PREPARED. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant �ffec on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT i:F:POnT is required. a Da t c m .clgnatllr S H Z For City of Huntington Beach 3 0 z 0 0 i I i APPENDIX III PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL WORK PRELI:-1111 PARY SOILS AND GEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION PROPOSED RE_SIDE'NTIAL SITE NORTHEAST COR1;ER (�F BE iCH BOULEVARD AND PACIFIC rOAST .4 I Gf i';'AY WNTIMIGTON BEACH,, CALIFOR";IA i BY i IRVINfE SOILS FI'GINEERI"iG 17782 Si:Y PARK CIRCLE MINE, CALIFOR.MIA 1 P PREPARED FOR MON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 1400 QUAIL S1"FET, SUITE 255 i E14PORT BEACH, CALIFORI;I'At 1 SOB NO : 31 00 LOG i'0 : 5-1874 III -1 IRVINE SOILS ENGINEERING SOIL ENGINEERING & ENGINEERING GEOLOGY , July 22 , 1977 Daon Development Corporation Job No: 1311-00 1400 Quail Street Log No: 5-1874 Suite 255 Newport Beach, California 92660 Attention: Mr. Chuck Colton 7 SU3JF.CT: PRELIMINARY SOILS AMO GEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION Proposed Residential Site Northeast Corner of Beach boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen ^his report presents the results of our Preliminary Soils and Geologic .investigation at the subject site. Our investigation was performed in June and July, 1977 , and consisted of field exploration, laboratory testing, engineering analysis of- the field and laboratory data, review of pertinent geologic lic`rature and seismicity maps and the preparation of this report. DEgCPIPTION OF SITE - `I'iie site has an area of roaghly 130 acres and is located at the northeast corner of Beach Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway in Huntington Beach. The site is primarily a flat, marshy area at or slightly above sea level . However, as shown on the Plot Plan, Figlare 1, potions of the site have been developed or improved as folloi,-is : An oil tank farn► at the northeast corner of the site . This consists of a number of tanks founded on compacted fill , minor- operations buildings and associated pipelines . � The farm is surrounded by a fill berm three to four feet in height. III - 2 DIVISION OF EARTH TECHNOLOGY CONSULTANTS Daon Development Corporation Job No : 1311-00 July 22 , 1977 Log No : 5-1874 Page Two For our investigation, we were provided with a Foundation Investigation Report for the tank farm by Dames and Moore, dated March, 1956. ® A mobile home trailer. park in the southeast portion of the site. This development is supported on a poorly compacted sandy fill one to two feet in thickness and is almost entirely paved with concrete . There is a small wood frame and stucco office building located in the center of the trailer park. • A boat marina in the southwest corner of the site. The marina is located on an old fill, almost certainly uncompacted, three to four feet in thickness. a An unlined flood control channel and adjacent fill berms which cross the central portion of the site. Vegetation across the remainder of the site consists of marsh P type weeds . Standing water was observed in the northwest portion of the property. Miscellaneous debris and litter is scattered across the site. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Residential development is planned. No information has yet been generated with regard to changes in site grades ; it is assumed, however, that the site will be raised to bring it 1 above flood level and/or level with the adjacent streets . For the purposes of this investigation, we have assumed an average fill thickness across the site of four feet. 1 / III -3 Daon Development Corporation Job No : 1311-00 July 22 , 1977 Log No : 5-1874 Page Three FIELD EXPLORATION Subsurface conditions were explored by drilling nine borings to depths of 5 to 31 feet. The approximate locations of the borings are shown on the attached Plot Plan, Figure 1. The - borings were drilled using a rotary wash rig and hand auger. Drilling of the test borings was supervised by our field engineer who logged the soils and obtained bulk and undisturbed samples for laboratory testing. LABORATORY TESTING A. Classification Soils were classified visually according to the Unified Soil Classification System. Moisture content and dry density determinations were made for each undisturbed sample. Results of moisture-density determinations , together with classifica- tions, are shown on the Logs of Borings , included with this report. Also included in this report are copies of the boring logs by Dames and Moore . Atterberg limits tests were performed on two representative samples . The results of these tests are presented in Table 1. , Gradation tests were performed on several samples of the underlying sandy soils . The results of these tests are presented in Figure A-1. B. Expansion Expansion tests were performed on representative samples of the on-site surface soils remolded and tested under a III -4 1 Daon Development Corporation Job No : 1311-00 July 22 , 1977 Log No: 5-1874 Page Four surcharge of 144 pounds per square foot in accordance with. the Uniform Building Code Standard No. 29-2 . The test results are summarized in Table 2 . C. Consolidation Consolidation tests were performed on representative undisturbed samples of the underlying soils to help deter- mine the compressibility characteristics . In addition, . time-load consolidation tests were performed to determine the time-rate of consolidation. Results of these tests are presented in Figures A-2 through A-9 . D. Direct Shear Direct shear strength tests were performed on undisturbed samples of the on-site soils . To simulate possible adverse field conditions , the samples were saturated prior to shearing. A saturating device was used which permitted the samples to absorb moisture while preventing volume change . The test results are presented in Figures A-10 through A-12 . S SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Typical Subsurface Profile A typical profile of the subsurface conditions at the site is shown below: GIr // / POORLY �C01�1P C' 'eE FILL27% 0/.1 ' -3 ' (WHERE / PRESENT) SOFT, COMPRESSIBLE, SILTY, CLAY 3 ` -11 ' (AVE. 51) . ••. 14EDIUM• DENSE .TO •DENSE- S_AND WITH 9 0 ' + . • ' OCCASIONAL SILT, CLAY AND GRAVEL LENSES • , ; • • _ . III -5 Daon Development Corporation Job No : 1311-00 July 22 , 1977 Log No: 5-1874 Page Five The subsurface profile is discussed in greater detail as follows : ` ® Fill Fill is present in several areas across the site : r a) In the mobile home park to a depth of one to two feet. This fill is poorly compacted. b) Beneath the oil tanks to a depth of five to six feet. Reports indicate this fill is properly compacted. c) In the boat marina to a depth of three to four feet. This fill is probably uncompacted. , d) In the fill berms adjacent to the drainage channel and tank farm to heights of three to - six feet. This fill is probably poorly compacted. With the exception of the soils beneath the oil tanks , the fills at the site must be considered essentially uncompacted. The fill soils consist primarily of clayey and silty sands and sandy silts. • Natural Ground The surface natural soils consist of soft silty estuarine _. type clays to depths of 3 to 11 feet (average depth approximately five feet) . These soi-ls contain minor amounts of peat and are characterized by low strengths , moderate to high compressibilities and a high expansion potential . They are unsuitable for the direct support of buildings and, as discussed later, will undergo significant settlements beneath fill loads . III-6 Daon Development Corporation Job No : 1311-00 July 22 , 1977 Log No : 5-1874 Page Six Underlying these upper clays are fine grained marine sands containing shells and minor lenses of silt, gravel and clay to the maximum depth explored of 31 feet. (The borings drilled by Dames and Moore confirm this profile to a depth of 93 feet. ) These soils are moderately dense to dense, have good strength and compressibility e properties , but, as discussed later, are susceptible to .liquefaction. • Groundwater Groundwater was encountered in all borings at depths of 1� to 8 feet. Since the holes were backfilled immediately after drilling and drilling mud was used, these levels do not necessarily reflect the stabilized groundwater condition which appears to be at or close to the ground surface. Free-standing water can be seen in the northwest portion of the site and at adjacent ground level in the drainage channel. Water levels are tidal and the water ! is brackish. 1 1 1 III - 7 Daon Development Corporation Job No: 1311-00 July 22, 1977 Log No: 5-1874 Page Seven GEOLOGY A.. Regional Setting The site is located near the southern boundary of the Los Angeles Basin, a gently sloping coastal plain interrupted only occasionally by lines of low hills . The Los Angeles Basin has incurred relatively continuous deposition of marine sediments, resulting in an estimated accumulation of up to 30 , 000 feet of sedimentary rocks over the older crystalline basement rocks. The Los Angeles Basin is broken into three major crustal blocks by two northwest-trending active basement fault systems, the Newport-Inglewood and Whittier-Elsinore. Movement along these faults has occurred sporadically since the Middle Miocene Age, 15 million to 20 million years - ago. This movement is chiefly responsible for the downwarp- ing which formed the depression below the sediments accumulated in the Los Angeles Basin. i B. Local Conditions The property is underlain by Cretaceous and Tertiary sedimentary rock overlain by Pleistocene and recent sediments with a total thickness of as much as 16, 000 feet. These deposits are underlain by a pre-late Cretaceous basement complex consisting of igneous and metamorphic rocks. During Pleistocene time, uplift along the Newport-Inglewood Structural Zone and general lowering of sea level resulted in increased erosion which produced the mesas and gaps along the coastal plain. Sea levels then rose rapidly and the gaps were filled with coarse grained sediments . About 9 ,000 III -II � Daon Development Corporation Job No : 1311-00 July 22 , 1977 Log No: 5-1874 Page Eight years ago the rise in sea level slowed and conditions / resembled those present today. Within the last 9 , 000 years the Santa Ana River changed course from the Balsa Gap to the Santa Ana Gap. During this period peat deposits formed in the gaps and a barrier beach was formed, creating / inland lagoons and marshes where fine sand, silt and clay were deposited (refer to Geologic Map, Figure 2) . C. Seismicity 1 The following list gives the names , distances and expected magnitudes and accelerations of the major active faults in the area: / Estimated Estimated Distance Base Rock (1) Maximum (2) From Estimated Maximum Ground Fault Site Magnitude Acceleration Acceleration Newport-Inglewood 0-3 6 .6 0 .65± 1. 0 0 .9 (3) / Whittier 21± 6 . 8 0 . 21 0 . 30 Elsinore 25± 7. 2 0 .20 0 . 35 San Jacinto 50± 7. 5 0 . 10 0 . 18 San Andreas 53± 7. 7 0 . 10 0. 20 1 Adapted from Seismic-Safety Element, - Huntington Beach Planning Department August, 1974 1 (1) Schnable and Seed, 1972 (2) Matthiesen, et al , 1972 (3) Geological Survey Circular 672 , 1972 1 III - 9 Gaon Development Corporation Job NO: 1311-00 July 22 , 1977 Log No : 5-1374 Page Nine The site is located within the Newport Inglewood Fault Zone. An active branch of the fault (South Branch Fault) , has been mapped across the northeast portion of the site and several other branches pass within a few miles (refer to Geologic Map, Figure 2) . The Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone comprises the complex system of folds and faults present in the sedimentary bedrock of the Los Angeles-Orange County coastal plain. This folding and faulting is thought to be the result of movement on a deeper fault within the crystalline basement rocks. The Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone is characterized by the absence of a single continuous through-going fault. Stress relief is accomplished by movements on a number of short intertwined branch faults . This pattern of folding and faulting has developed because , of the weakness of the sedimentary rock sequence. within historic times , the rock sequence has apparently been able to absorb the stress placed upon it by folding and faulting at depth; as a result, the faults have not reached the surface. -� D. Past Earthquakes The historical record of earthquakes in the region is summarized on the attached Figures 3 and 4 . III - 10 � Da on Development Corporation Job No : 1311-00 July 22 , 1977 Log No: 5-1874 Page Ten EARTHQUAKE EFFECTS A. Fault Displacement The South Branch of the Newport-Inglewood Fault passes through the northeast corner of the site. This section of fault, while it must not be ignored, is outside the Alquist-Priolo special studies zone. It is buried beneath 50 to 200 feet or more of recent sediments. Surface rupture has apparently not occurred on these faults in the Huntinton Beach area, within the last 9 ,000 years (DWR, 1966, 1968) . Additionally, no ground rupture was associated with a moderate-sized historic earthquake (Magnitude 6 . 3, 1933) with subsurface rupture beneath Huntington Beach. Accordingly, while the potential for fault displacement exists at the ground surface we do not believe that- a zone of probable rupture can be defined, nor do we feel that the corresponding potential for rupture is any greater on this site than on adjacent or nearby properties. B. Ground Shaking (Modified Mercalli Intensity) For a. maximum probable earthquake having a Richter Magnitude of 6. 6 (refer to previous table) a Modified Mercalli Intensity of IX with a probable duration of 19 seconds is likely (refer to Modified Mercalli Scale, Figure 5) . 1 1 1 III - 11 Daon Development Corporation Job No : 1311-00 July 22 , 1977 Log No: 5-1874 Page Eleven C. Liquefaction Soils most susceptible to liquefaction during earthquakes are saturated, loose, fine grained sands with little or no fines. The sands under- lying the site are fine grained, and saturated. - However, they are not loose but rather are moderately dense to dense. Under more favorable seismic conditions, this would be enough to reduce the liquefaction potential to a low level. However, the immediate proximity of the site to an active fault with a probable maximum ground acceleration of 1. Og is enough to significantly - raise this level. On the other hand, the estimated duration of ground shaking of 19 seconds may not be sufficient to build up the excess hydrostatic pressures necessary to start the liquefaction process. Based on the above reasoning and our analyses using the simplified procedures for evaluating liquefaction developed by the University of California at Berkeley, we conclude that the potential for lique- faction at the site is moderate. Moreover, we believe the potential for damage due to liquefaction can be minimized. This is discussed in greater detail later in the report. III - I2 i r- Daon Development Corporation Job No: 1311-00 r July 22 , 1977 Log No: 5-1874 Page Twelve r d. Ground Lurching Ground lurching is the deformation of the ground surface due to loss of strength of the underlying soils. Because of the moderate potential for r liquefaction, there exists a corresponding potential for ground lurching. Factors minimizing the poten- tial for ground lurching, however, include the blanketing effect of the clay layer which overlies r the sands, and the additional confinement of the sands due to probable placement of a layer of compacted fill. Accordingly, we believe the potential for ground lurching is low. r e. Differential Compaction Differential compaction of the underlying sands r is not a problem due to the moderately dense to dense nature of these materials . The surface clays are compressible but unlikely to compact during short- term earthquake loading. Differential compaction of r compacted fill placed at the site is not a problem. f. Landsliding r Landsliding is not a problem because of the flat terrain. g. Tsunamis (Tidal Waves) r The likelihood of ocean tsunamis in excess of four feet high occurring along this section of coastline is remote. (Seismic Safety Element, Huntington Beach. ) r III-13 Daon Development Corporation Job No: 1311-00 July 22 , 1977 Log No: 5-1874 . Page Thirteen CONCLUSIONS AND RECOIM'IENDATIONS . A. Major Factors From a soils and geologic standpoint, we believe the site is suitable for the proposed development. However, there are factors which must be considered � in order to render the project viable, and which will require special attention during planning and construc- tion. These are: 1) the presence of uncompacted fill and the surface layer of soft, compressible clay, 2) the .__ 1 moderate potential for liquefaction of the on-site soils , and 3) the high groundwater table. Suggested methods for - minimizing the effects of these factors are presented below. 1. Compressible Clay Layer For the purposes of this report, we have assumed . that site grades will be raised an average of about four feet. This is a reasonable assumption in view of the low-lying nature of the property, its present potential for flooding and the level , of the adjacent streets. Filling the site to a depth of four feet will impose a load on the clay -- soils which, we estimate, will result in total settlements of three to five inches, depending on the actual thickness of the clay layer and its compressibility characteristics . About 65 percent of this settlement will occur in the first six months , and 75 percent in the first year following placement , of the fill. Residential building loads will cause ' an additional settlement of about one inch. III-14 L. Daon .Development Corporation Job No : 1311-00 July 22 , 1977 Log No: 5-1874 Page Fourteen Hence, if construction is allowed to proceed immedi- ately after grading is complete, buildings will undergo significant settlements due to the weight of the fill and building loads. Accordingly, a surcharging (i .e. , waiting) period of at least six months after placing the fill , and prior to construction, is necessary to reduce total and differential settlements to an acceptable level . ♦ In addition, we recommend that buildings be supported on post-tensioned slabs. to minimize the effects of settlement. Utilities should be designed with flexible connections. If a waiting period must be avoided, an alternative solution of removing the upper clay layer and replacing with compacted fill can be considered. This alternate should be seriously considered, especially if heavier buildings are planned, or in areas where the clay layer is not thick. High groundwater and corresponding difficulty of excavation must, of course, be considered if this approach is taken. Further studies are needed to define areas most suitable for overexcavation and replacement. Because of the reduction in settlement, post-tensioned slabs may not be required if this alternate is chosen. - Conventional footing and slab design may be acceptable, depending on the thickness of compacted fill support- ing the buildings . III-15 Daon Development Corporation Job No : 1311-00 July 22 , 1977 Log No : 5-1874 Page Fifteen Pre-loading of the site with excess quantities of fill, and then removing the fill prior to construc- tion, is also a means of reducing settlements and the delay time. This solution requires large quantities of fill or a phased movement of smaller amounts of fill across the site. These options , defined above , are demonstrated as follows : OPTION 1 A- /70V ' y e''" •< Fill. Wait at least � \yCOMPACTED FILL six months . Build. CLAY LAYER Post-tensioned slabs required. • + ' . . -SAND: , • , ' OPTION 2 Remove clay layer. (, 77 1A, Fill. Build structures without delay period. COMPACTED FILL Post-tensioned slabs may not be required. ' .• .SANtS : ' .• • . .' OPTION 3 A Fill to Level A. B Wait 2 to 3 months. COMPACTED FILL Remove rill to Level B. \y �� Build. Post-tensioned slab I CLAY LAYER required. • SAND : � . .• . .. =, . • • . . _ •• III -1�i � I-- Daon Development Corporation Job No: 1311-00 July 22 , 1977 Log No: 5-1874 Page Sixteen It should be stressed that the existing clay soils are unsuitable for the direct support of buildings without some treatment. It is our opinion that surcharging the site and waiting the prescribed period of time prior to construction will prove to be the most cost-effective approach. The final waiting period will depend on the actual thickness of fill placed at the site and the settlements obtained (by measurement) in the field. 2. Liquefaction The potential for liquefaction is real. This is evidenced by failures from recent earthquakes in Alaska and Japan. While the possibility of liquefaction damage cannot be ignored, there are measures which can be taken which will minimize the potential for damage (insofar as this can be accomplished anywhere in California) , and in a manner which will not be cost-prohibitive to the project. Since the site will be filled, we recommend that the fill consist of a predominantly clayey soil. Clay soils are not generally prone to liquefaction and a blanket of such material across the site will act as a confining layer to the underlying sands , and provide a resistance to ground lurching. As discussed previously, the presence of the upper clay soils already provides some protection in this regard. III-17 Daon Development Corporation Job No: 1311-00 July 22 , 1977 Log No: 5-1874 Page Seventeen Removal of these soils and replacement with compacted (clayey) fill would, if this option were chosen, provide an even greater resistance. -- In addition, we recommend that buildings be _. founded on post-tensioned slabs (unless the upper clay soils are removed, as discussed previously) . Post-tensioned slabs will further T reduce the potential for building damage due to liquefaction and ground lurching. Post-tensioned slabs will also resist differential settlements of the upper clays (as discussed previously) and are an effective means of designing against expansion forces. 3. High Groundwater Table The high groundwater table is a factor to be con- . sidered at the site primarily because of its effects on underground construction. Dewatering will be necessary for all excavations which extend below the groundwater table. This includes excava- tions for site grading and for utility and other pipeline trenches. Likewise, basements, swimming _. pools and other underground structures will require dewatering during excavation. Such structures, , where installed, must be properly drained or designed to resist hydrostatic uplift forces. Underground conduits must be designed to withstand galvanic corrosion due to the saline water. — III-18 Daon Development Corporation Job No: 1311-00 July 22, 1977 Log No: 5-1874 Page Eighteen _.. B. General Recommendations for Site Grading 1. Removal of Existing Fill With the exception of the fills beneath the oil tanks, all fills at the site should be assumed uncompacted and, consequently, unsuitable for the support of additional fill or structures. All existing fill should be removed down to natural ground or to a level predetermined by the Soils Engineer. L- 2 . Gravel Layer-Beneath Fill -� A layer of gravel or other suitable granular material approximately one foot in thickness should be spread on the natural ground prior to placing fill at the site. This layer will serve in the following capacities : a. act as a working surface which will allow traction of grading equipment and provide a firm base for compaction of fill. b. provide a drainage layer which will speed up the rate of consolidation of the underlying clay layer beneath the weight of the fill. c. provide a drainage layer which will allow dissipation of excess hydrostatic pressures due to liquefaction. Provided the gravel layer is placed as described above, no further ground preparation is necessary. III-19 Daon Development Corporation Job No : 1311-00 July 22, 1977 Log No: 5-1874 Page Nineteen 3. Grading Equipment Excavation of the upper clay soils will likely 1 necessitate the use of dragline equipment on account of the high groundwater. Light grading and compaction equipment will be necessary until a firm base is established. _. 4 . Material for Fill The upper clay soils are saturated and unsuitable for compaction unless mixed with dry material or allowed to dry by aeration. Excess quantities of peat or other organic material should be removed. Because of the saline nature of the groundwater, these materials are not suitable for use in landscape areas. The existing fills are predominately sandy and suitable for re-use as fill. Any large rubble or debris should be removed from the fill. . Import fill, as discussed previously, should be predominately clayey. The exception is the required one foot layer of gravel or equivalent to be placed directly on the natural soils . 5. Compaction All fill should be compacted in uniform lifts to a minimum relative compaction of 90% as determined by -� ASTM: D-1557-70 . III- 20 Daon Development Corporation Job No: 1311-00 July 22 , 1977 Log No: 5-1874 Page Twenty C. Preliminary Foundation Design Because of all the factors discussed in the previous sections of this report, we believe residential buildings can best be supported on post-tensioned slabs . Post- tensioned slabs provide an effective means of resisting stresses resulting from differential settlements . Slabs should be designed for a dead plus live load bearing pressure of 1,000 pounds per square foot. Slabs should be designed to withstand a differential settlement across �- the building of 1� inches or to span an unsupported length of ten feet. If post-tensioned slabs are used, no further design against expansion forces such as pre-soaking is required. If the upper existing clay layer is removed and replaced with compacted fill; conventional footing and slab design may possibly be used. This will depend primarily on the nature and thickness of the compacted fill layer. Detailed evaluation of this alternate would be necessary before we could justify conventional foundations. 1 1 1 1 III-21 Daon Development Corporation Job No: 1311-00 July 22 , 1977 Log No: 5-1874 Page Twenty-One D. Further Studies As more design information is generated, further soils studies will be required. Such studies will include more accurate prediction of settlements and time-rate _ of consolidation. Recommendations for dewatering and/or drainage can be presented should site excava- tions be planned. Detailed recommendations for site grading and building foundations will be provided as required. -� This opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you have any questions, please call. Very truly yours , IRVINE SOILS ENGINEERING Martin R. Ow _ , R.C.E. 23155 Senior gineer. Robert Stone, Ph.D. , R.E.G. 561 4 Principal Geologist 1 bLRO:RS:dc:jms Enclosures : Figures 1 through 6 and Logs of Boring Lab Data Tables 1 and 2 Distribution: (6) Submitted III - 22 ...................... er _HU: iEiliE it .:magi... iME mi g 1. • +i+=tom+: is::i;:+# tiF s: ra ........... i: .... ...n, + 0 • r*:: �... ..:I.iiil ''•°Sii9:i .. i w"a?! Fii:k. .u;[E';+(: S CAL L m vim !: 'Ri jjl: F.. 'iii "fa Il+ [j;:•a ''.iE+ ;•�"''.','r,.`�,•'n!• _}. k BZ 0' (D ,o------ Tank Form •PU pitb !i St i0o, \` B4• FLOOD COI"ITROL CHANN L o !.I O , ,, t+:E::. ....... 40 1,,:,,'fl is�,,::,,• ' 83 BOAT ` F 1� _ ,:3► :MARINA' 891 „ a S. ti01'k APPROXIMATE `' \ $7 m v -V � t SITE SOUNDAR A?a��•��''i- i Tanks :::.:.. ... f - .4 LE1,END B7 APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF TEST BORI"JIG S BY IRVINE 1 SOILS ENGINEERING FOR THIS REPORT. APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF BORINGS PREVIOUSLY DRILLED BY OTHERS. PLOT PLAN JC3 N0: / 1311-00 DATE ,7:;1.v 22 , 1977 F1G:R£,4a 1 - IRVINE SOILS ENGINEERING & TESTING LABORATORY ORECENT ALLUVIAL I ` TIDAL MARSH VENTS EMOLDER ALLUVIUM �'t ,^ ©HIGHEST SE6MC RISC (GREATEST SIMSACE RLPRJRE ®AREA POTENTIAL WITM E SHEAR —BURIED TRACE OF FAULT y4FP"P MITHN 4O0.ZONE) ©UNCERTA114TY AS TO EXISTENCE I ,\ OR EXTENSION OF FAULT oe ° •¢_ 'e_� i i 00 ' � O,°,ep°O.• �� ° per° '•°•gyp%s D �e o �'o po '� ♦v-'• oe •. � p D D..: aG� MC����� ♦ p. __ _ e.• o° .o w� - - -- — - - - - - - - -- _ __ __ - . �•a. a4. . , oD °i SITE SOLSA CH A SUNSET CAP BOLSA- gAp' ° --- MESA HUNTINGTON BEACH MESA SANTA ANA GAP ���• � n GEOLOGIC MAP IRVINE SOILS ENWICE ING 6 TESTIIIG LAIIOHIATONY ' 1311- U 1 T ADAPTED FROM: HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT, GEOTECHNICAL INPUTS, FEBRUARY 1974 _ 1II-25 9.0-9.5(1857) S,Q�y J A'o F � sAN q UC T BERNARO/N QLOS ANGELES �y 'T F� v 71 �O .;o VANrA ANA- f O�� 4.0�4.2 � 6.80 918) 4.505.50938) 200937) 02.0 6.30 933) 2.8 %"`31 T E C �1948O3S OOO PAC / F/ C O C E A N OCEANS/Oc 1 L F_ GEND Q Earthquake epicenter with magitute and date. 0 20 40 miles 1 •+��+"as Approximate location of fault. III -27 - FAULT LOCATION AND EARTHQUAKE EPICENTER MAP J08 NO: E. FIGURE N0: 1311-00 JULY 22 , 1977� � 3 IRVINE SOILS ENGINEERING S TESTING LABORATORY HISTORIC EARTHQUAKES POTENTIALLY DAMAGING -1'0 STRUCTURE,S IN THE ORANGE COUNTY AI:L:A (QUADWhNLL! Modified Mercalli Intensity Date Approximate Area of Origin Near Origin Magnitude 1769 , July 28 Not known but noted by Portola ? ? expedition near mouth of Santa Ana Canyon 1812 , December 8 Not known but severely damaged IX-X 7* Missions San Juan Capistrano and Santa Ynez 1857 , January 9 Fort Tejon region X-XI 8 . 0* 1892 , February Baja, California ? 7 .0* i : 1893, April 4 Newhall VIII-IX ? ) 1899 , December 25 San Jacinto-Hemet IX 7 . 0* 1918 , April 21 San Jacinto-Hemet IX 7 . 0* 1923 San Bernardino ? 6 . 0* 1933, March 10 Long Beach (offshore) IX 6 . 3* 1938 , May 31 Santa Ana Mountains VI 5 . 5 (Upper Trabuco Canyon) 1956, January 3 Glen Ivy (Riverside County) VI 4 . 7 *estimated magnitude Modified from C. D.M.G. SR112 FIGURE : 4 Job No : 1311-00 Log No : 5-1874 i i. f AL I M Ah I . I Alb I . I I •` • • i• a s fdf r PdOD,FIED MERCALLI SCALE OF EARTHQUAKE INTENSITIES THE MERCALLI INTENSITY SCALE (As modified by Charles F. 'Richter in 1956 and rearranged) � If most of these effects than the If most of them a frets thew the t are observed intensity it are observed kntewsity & Earthquake shaking not felt. But people may oh- Effect on peopir:Difficult to stand.Shaking noticed serve marginal effects of large distance earthquakes by auto drivers. without identifying these effects as earthquake- I Other effects: Waves on ponds; water turbid with caused. Among them: trees, structures, liquids, mud.Small slides and caving in along sand or gravel bodies of water sway slowly,or doors swing slowl)t banks. Large tells ring. Furniture broken. Hanging objects quiver. Meet on people. Shaking felt by those at rest. Structural effects: Masonry D'.heavity damaged; /// p especially if they are indoors,and by those on upper // Masonry C' damaged, partially collapses in some 1 Iloors. cases; some damage to Masonry 3% none to Masonry A'. Stucco and some masonry walls fall, r Effect on people. Felt by most people indoors. Chimneys, factory-stacks, monuments, towers, } -- Some can estimate duration of shaking. But many el:vated tanks twist(it fall. Frame houses moved on t may not recognize shaking of building as caused by /// foundations if not bolted down; louse panel walls an earthquake;the shaking is like that caused by the thrown out. Decayed piling broken of. passing of light trucks. $$ Effect an people.General fright. People thrown lot i Other effects: Hanging objects swing. ground. Structural effects: Windows or doors rattle. /y Other effects: Changes in now or temperature of Wooden walls and frames creak springs and wells.Cracks in wet ground and on sleep slopes. Steering of autos affected. Branches bn)ketr x 1 E/jrct on people:Felt by everyone indoors. Many from trees. estimate duration of shaking. But they still may not Structure!effects:Masonry D'destroyed.Masonry IX recognize it as caused by an earthquake.The shaking C' heavily damaged, sometimes with complete t' is like that caused by the passing of heavy trucks, collapse. Masonry B'is seriously damaged.General -- though :ometimes,instead,people may feel the sen- damage to foundations. France structures, if not ; sation of a jolt, as if a heavy ball had struck the V bolted, shifted off foundations. Frames racked. walls. Reservoirs seriously damaged. Underground piles Ocher effects: Hanging objects. swing. Standing broken. autos rock.Crockery clashes,dishes rattle or glasses clink. Effect on people: General Panic. t Structural effects:Doors close,open of swing.Win- Other effeav Conspicuous cracks in ground. In dews rattle, areas of soft ground, sand is ejected through holes and piles up into a small crater,and,in muddy areas, — Effect on people. Felt by everyone indoors and by water fountains are formed. q most people outdoors. Many now estimate not only Structural affects: Most masonry and frame struc- r the duration of shaking but also its direction and lures destroyed along with their foundations. Some e have no doubt as to its cause. Sleepers wakened. well-built wooden structures and bridges destroyed, i - Other effects• Hanging objects swing. Shutters or Serious damage to Jams, dikes and embankments. :. pictures move. Pendulum clocks stop,start or change y/ Railroads bent slightly. rate. Standing autos rock. Crockery clashes, dishes rattle or glasses clink. Liquids disturbed, some Effect on peraple: General panic. a spilled. Small unstable objects displaced or upset. Other effects: Large landslides. Water thrown on Strucnaval effects: Weak plaster and Masonry D' banks of canals,rivers,lakes,etc.Sand and mud shif- 1 crack. Windows break. Doors close,open or swing ted horizontally on beaches and flat land. X/ { Structural tffecu:General destruction of buildings- Effect on people. Fell by everyone. Many are Underground pipelines completely out of service. — frightened and run outdourt. People walk un- Railroads bent greatly. t steadily. Other eff4ets: Small church or school bells ring. Effect art penpla: General panic. Pictures thrown off walls,knieknacks and books off Other efecm Same as for Intensity X. ° ' shelves. Dishes or glasses broken. Furniture move) Structural effects: Damage nearly total, the ulti- or overturned.Trees,bushes shzken visibly,or heard Y// mate catastrophe. , to rustle. Other gffecar Large rock masses displaced.Lines of 4 Structural erects: Masonry D' damaged. some sight and level distorted. Objects thrown into air. cracks in Masonry C'. Weak chimneys break at roof Masonry ,: Good workmanship and mortar, rcinfr.rceJ - line. Plaster,louse bricks,stones,tiles,cornices,un- dcsiyncd in resiu latcrai forces, braced parapets and architectural ornaments 1`311, MYsionry K: Gig J workmanship and morlat, reinforced, r Concrete irrigation ditches damaged Mvsrrnry C: Gored workmanship and moms►, unrcinforved, i Masonry D: fhpor workmanship and mortar and weak materisk. like adoho. Job No: 1311-00 IRVINE SOILS ENGINEERING - Log No: 5-1874 FIGURE : 5 III - 29 __ I SELECTED REFERENCES California Department of Water Resources , 1966 , Santa Ana Gap Salinitv Barrier, Orange County: DWR Bull. 147-1. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1962 , Long beach Map Sheet, 1:250 ,000 . - , 1973, Geo-Environmental Maps of Orange County, CDMG P.R.15. Dames and Moore, 1956 , Foundation Investigation. -- Huntington Beach Planning Department, 1974, Seismic Safety -� Element. 1974 , Geotechnical Inputs. - Seed, H.B. , Idriss , A.M. , 1971, Simplified Procedure for Evaluating Soil Liquefaction Potential : Proceedings of ASCE, Journal of Soil_ Mechanics and Foundations Division. i ! Job No: 1311-00 III -30 FIGURE: 6 Log No: 5-1874 r r APPENDIX IV ACID MIST FALLOUT r- r r r r- r r APPENDIX Iv ACID MIST FALLOUT POTENTIAL AT THE HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERATING STATION Based upon the evidence of acid mist fallout around fossil- fueled electricity generating stations and a number of other industrial areas , similar corrosive particulate deposition may possibly be found around the Huntington Beach station. Although no evidence currently exists that directly implicates the Huntington Beach facility, the ubiquitous nature of the problem suggests that the proposed residential project may be exposed to isolated instances -- of acid "smut" . Similar problems have been noted around Southern California Edison ' s (SCE) Alamitos and Redondo Beach power plants , around the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power' s (LAD6vP) Haynes generating station, and San Diego Gas and Electric Company (SDG & E) has acknowledged an adverse acid mist deposition impact around its Encino station near Carlsbad. It is , therefore , reasonable to suspect that similar problems could exist near the Huntington Beach plant. Acid mist fallout is a phenomenon that occurs near industria- lized areas which causes discoloration and damage to cars , houses , sidewalks , plants , etc . Its cause is not well understood , but appears to be related to a combination of fuel combustion, plant operating mode and ambient meteorological conditions . The problem ' stems from the deposition of mist droplets sufficiently large to achieve an appreciable Stokers-Cunningham fall velocity (diameter 1 IV-1 30 microns) and is usually confined to within one (1) mile of any major potential source . Further understanding of the nature of the power plant-related deposition will be developed from studies currently in progress in Southern California. One of the terms and conditions of Order for Statement No . 2008 , adopted by the _ Hearing Board of the Southern California Air Pollution Control District (now Air Quality Maintenance District) was the SCE and -� LADWP commission a definitive study of the sources of particulate emissions near the Alamitos and Haynes power plants .- As results from that study become available , additional insight into the magnitude of possible similar problems at Huntington Beach may be obtained. Until the cause of the problem has been identified and -- corresponding operating and atmospheric conditions at Huntington ' Beach verified, any discussion of probable impacts at the proposed residential development is premature . If such problems do exist , and their cause substantiated, SCE will be ordered to abate such , emissions at Huntington Beach consistent with the AWMD' s authority _ to abate both nuisances and health hazards . Until such time as additional information is forthcoming , no viable conclusions on —� the acid mist fallout potential at the residential site- can be reached. IV- 2 i i ! APPENDIX V LETTERS OF CORRESPONDENCE • • • ! • Southern California Edison Company WESTMINSTER, CALIFORNIA 92BB3 March 10, 1978 WESTEC Services, Inc. 180 E. Main St. Tustin, CA 92680 Attention: John Fullerton Subject: E.I .R. - Alternative land use projects , area bordered by PCH-O.C. Flood Control Channel-Beach Blvd.-Newland St. , Huntington Beach �- 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 elec- trical supply, we expect to meet our electrical load requirements for the next several years. Our total system demand is expected to continue to increase annually; and, _ if our plans to proceed with future construction of new generating facili- ties are delayed, our ability to serve all customer loads during peak demand periods could become marginal by 1981 . In addition, the major fuel used in Edison's generating facilities is low sulfur fuel oil . We now believe that our low sulfur fuel oil inventory, together with our contractual commitments for delivery, and our customers' conservation efforts, will permit us to meet the forecasted demand for elec- tricity during 1978. It is our intention to continue to do everything that can reasonably be accomplished to provide our customers with a continuous and sufficient supply of electricity. Very truly yours , �L' oIolidge4c c Customer Service Planner RLC:da V- 1 fff"' ®U 9� -rN, ®� 6�AIVGE T.R. EGAN DIRECTOR GENERAL SERVICES AGENCY RONALD SATES - ASSISTANT DIRECTOR SUPPORT SERVICES SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DIVISION DONALD G. POER, MANAGER 1300 SOUTH GRAND AVE. _ SANTA ANA,CA 92705 714 834-3466 , March 9, 1978 Westec Services , Inc. 180 East Main Street Tustin, CA 92680 Gentlemen: In response to your letter of March 1, 1978 regarding alternative land use projects for the City of Huntington Beach, be advised that this office has jurisdiction over the collection of solid wastes in the unincorporated areas of the County of Orange and operates four sanitary landfills in the locations depicted on the attached map. All four of the sites are — Class II-2. The following information may be of some assistance in the preparation of your environmental impact analysis: 1. Orange County will have adequate landfill capacity to last beyond the year 2000. 2. Private collectors make collections in all areas of the county with exception of the City of Newport Beach, and the Sanitation District service in the Midway City, Westminster area. 3. The solid waste disposal systems are planned to accomodate continuing development within the County. - 4. The impacts of increased population include expanded collection service by the collectors and an increase in the amount of refuse to be dis- posed. The estimated generation is approximately 7.5 lbs. per person per day. The above information is considered sufficient to answer most questions —/ regarding solid waste management in Orange County. If there are questions V- 2 Page 2 regarding environmental planning,development or regulation, please contact the Environmental Management Agency, County of Orange, 811 North Broadway, Santa Ana, California 92702. Very truly yours, D. G. Poer, Manager GSA/Solid Waste Management DGP:WH:kh Attachment r V- 3 OIINDA 01201 ( Imperial Hwy. to Valencia, \ then North) Page 3* r \� • SANTIAGO CANYON (•175) (Chapman east to Santiago Canyon Road , then southeast) Page 46* \ • COYOTE CANYON Ik241 �\ (MacArthur Blvd South , South on Bonita Canyon , _ then South on Coyote Canyon) Page 32* COUNTY OF ORANGE O DISPOSAL STATIONS rRWAVJEW (Ortega hw,,A east To e� *Refers to page number in La Pata then south) Page 63* Thomas Bros Map 1978 Edition X%-4 �W � _ on^wuc coowr/ mvm/ow ` P. o oox uzw Aw^*E/w, CALIF. 9280 "arc'- T^ I?7�-' 'icstec �erviccu , Tcc. l�O Zu�t Street Tustin, California y2b�� ' SUBJECT: 7-7-P - Alternate Land Use Projects for the C��� of 8uotic:7tnn Feac� � This letter is not to be interpreted as a contractual commitment to serve the proposed project, but only as an information service. Its intent is to notify you that the Southern California Cuo Company has facilities in the area where the above-named project is proposed. Gas service to the project could be pro- vided from an existing main as shown on the attached atlas sheet without any significant impact on the eoviroumaot. 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 policieu. As u public -- utility, the Southern California Gas Company is under the jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities C000uiao1oo' We can also be affected by actions of federal regulatory agencies. Should these agencies take any action which affects -- gas supply or the condition under which service is available, gas service will be provided in accordance with revised conditions. � Residential (System Area Average) Yearly Single Family 1095 Therms/year/dwelling unit Multi-Family 4 or leas units 640 Therms/year/dwelling unit -- Multi-Family 5 or more units 580 Therms/year/dwelling unit � These estimates are based on Qua consumption in residential units served by -- Southern California Gas Company during 1975 and it should not be implied that any particular home, apartment or tract of homes will use these amounts of energy. This is particularly true due to the Stute`a new insulation requirements and consumers' efforts toward energy conservation. _ U� \/- S _ We have developed several programs which are available, upon request, to provide assistance in selecting the most effective applications of energy conservation techniques for a particular project. If you desire further - information on any of our energy conservation programs, please contact this office for assistance. Sincerely, W. R. Perkins Distribution Planning Supervisor d Attach. _ V-6 POLICE DEPARTMENT City of Huntington Beach P.O. BOX 70 2000 SLAIN STREET,HUNTINGTON BEACH.CA.92648 TEL: (714) 536-5311 EARLE ROBITAILLE �:lve/ ,j Police March 10, 1978 WESTEC SERVICES, INC. 180 East Main Street Tustin, California 92680 Dear Mr. Fullerton: The number of additional police personnel needed to patrol and service the planned commercial and residential development at Pacific Coast Highway and Beach Boulevard (north/east section) is forecasted to be approximately 3.6 and 2.9, totalling 6.5. This analysis is -based on the information supplied by Nina Gruver. _ 1977 Police Calls for Service = 65,765. Huntington Beach 1977 Population = 157,800. 1978 Population = 164,000 Estimate Population Percent Change = 40 In 1977 Huntington Beach had .1.13 sworn, personnel per 1,000 population. With an increase of 3,200 population in the planned development, the additional personnel needed is 3.6. The commercial development planned for the area is difficult to project because the only area similar to Beach commercial property are reporting districts 451 and 462. These districts have heavy requests for police services. In order to provide a reasonable forecast, we have used a previous study to find the approximate number of calls for service per commercial square foot, that is .00265 calls per square foot, development is planned 174,000 square feet x .00265 calls per square foot = 461 calls. -- In 1976 it took .00625 police personnel to handle each call for service. Using these figures, it is estimated that the minimum number of 2.9 additional personnel will be needed to provide sufficient protection. Total additional personnel recommended is 6.5 officers. Sincerely, EARLE IV. ROBITAILLE Chief of Police ROBERT E. rICKME7, Se geant EWR:REF:skd Special Operations Division 1'01' S ,1/! rent;;111;11'C(1t!o11S to thy' ('bte of Polk e — V- 7 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR 77-9 GPA 78-1 Prepared for: City of Huntington Beach Department of Planning and Environmental Resources Prepared by: WESTEC Services , Inc. - 180 East Main Street, Suite 150 Tustin, California 92680 June 1978 WESTEC Services. [nc. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR . Barnes , James , City of Huntington Beach , Department of Planning and Environmental Resources . Haydock, Irwin, City of Huntington Beach, Environmental Council . Colton, W. A. , III , Daon Corporation. Velez, Francisco E. , California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. Montgomery, Robert D. , State of California, Department of Fish and Game. Del Cioppo, Nicholas , State of California, Department of Parks and Recreation, Office of Historic Preservation. - Kash, Leslie, Southern California Association of Governments , Metropolitan Clearinghouse . �. Hsu, Dick, Orange County Transit District , Development Planning . Munsell , Richard G. , County of Orange, Environmental Management Agency. Renna, Jeff, City of Huntington Beach, Public Works Department . Kiser, Donald W. , City of Huntington Beach, Public Works Department. Booth, C. C. , Gulf Oil Company - U. S. , Santa Fe Refinery. Compton, H.W. , Southern California Edison Company. Patapoff, Bill , City of Huntington Beach, Public Works Department . McKevitt, James J. , United States Department of the .Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Arno , Norman, U .S. Army Corps of Engineers , Los Angeles District . Richardson, Nereus L. , Orange County Water District. Fo �i H. CITY OF HUI+I` INGTON BEACH �; � ' 't INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION . HUNrINGTON BEACH To File From James R. Barnes Assistant Planner Subject Draft EIR 77-9 Date May 15 , 1978 The Department of Planning and Environmental Resources has reviewed the draft Environmental Impact Report for the proposed General Plan Amendment (GPA 78-1) and offers the following comments: -(1) Section 1 .2 , Proposal Actions/Study History, P . 6 . The criteria for establishing the number of residential untis proposed under Alternative A should be stated. How was the density shown in Alternative A derived? (2) Figures 1-3 through 1-7. These pages are not numbered. In Figure 1-3 Hamilton Avenue and the Orange County Flood Control Channel should be labeled. (3) P. 16 , 3rd paragraph, loth line. The word adoption should be changed to consideration by the City Council. (4) Section 2 . 1.1 (Geotechnical) Existing Conditions Figure 2-1. This page is not numbered. A legend should be included to explain the shaded area of the map. (5) Section 2 .1 .3 (Geotechnical) Mitigation, P . 25 . In this section it is _ indicated that "some filling" will be required on the site. In the Preliminary Soils and Geologic Investigation contained in the Appendix (P. III -15) it is stated that the proposed development will require raising the site drades approximately 4 feet. In Section 2 . 3 . 2 .1 (p. 35) it is indicated that Federal Insurance Administration regulations could not be met unless the site elevation is raised 4-6 feet. In Section 2 . 6 .2 (p. 55) it is indicated that drainage impacts could be mitigated by _ raising the site elevation 8-10 feet. It may not be possible at this time to determine the exact amount of fill required to mitigate the impacts mentioned above. However, assuming the site elevation has to be raised 6 feet, approximately how many cubic yards of soil will have to be a- imported and where will this material be obtained. (6) Figure 2-2 . This page is not numbered. A legend should be .included to explain the shaded area of the map. (;) Section 2. 3 . 1. 2 (Hydrology Setting) Subsurface p. 32 . The Appendices in the back of the report do not appear to be numbered correctly. Water quality data indicated in this section as Appendix II is actually shown as Appendix C . (5) Section 2. 3. 2. 1 (Hydrology Impact) Subsurface. Figure 2-3 . This page is not numbered. A legend should be included to explain the shaded area of the map . VI -1 4 J File Draft EIR 77-9 Page 2 (9) Section 2 .4 .2 .2 (Noise Setting) Vehicular Figure 2-4 . This page is not numbered. (10) Section 2. 7.1 (Archaeology/Paleontology) Existing Conditions, p. 55 . Archaeological data indicated in this section as Appendix II is actually shown as Appendix A in the back of the report. (11) Section 2.11.1 (Air Quality) Existing Conditions, P . 64 . There is no Appendix I in the report. (12) Section 2 .12 .1 (Traffic/Circulation) Existing Conditions , P . 68 last paragraph. Change to read: "The Huntington Beach Circulation Plan of Arterial Streets and Highways classifies Beach as a Major and Newland as a Secondary. Although Pacific Coast Highway is classified as a Primary, it has the character- istics of a Major (intersection spacing, access, speed, etc. ) . The City of Huntington Beach uses maximum daily capacity values of 45 ,000 for Majors, 30,000 for Primaries, and 20 ,000 for Secondaries. Com- parison of these capacities with the volumes in Table 2-5 indicates that all streets currently experience daily volumes less than their capacity. However, both Beach Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway regularly experience peak month and peak hour volumes which result _ in severe congestion and traffic delays . " (13) P . 70 , Street Capacities . Change to read: "The impact from the traffic will vary with alternates , with Alternate A . being the most severe and Alternate E having the least impact. Generally, when the projected volumes are compared with capacities , all streets will have daily volumes less than their capacities in the near term with the exception of Pacific Coast Highway. The additional traffic generated by the project will , however, contribute to congestion problems during peak periods. In the long term, development of the project site afi the surrounding vacant land will result in cumulative impacts on the street system. Since reliable traffic projections at ultimate developmen are not presently available, this impact cannot be quanitified at this time. "The extension of Hamilton Avenue as a primary arterial from Newland to Beach will be necessary to serve the project area. Project generated traffic on this link is estimated at 8330 ADT. In addition, the extension of Hamilton will be used by through traffic as an alternative to PCH, particularly since Hamilton crosses the Santa Ana River into Costa Mesa. This through traffic is estimated at 15 , 000 ADT (Pringle 1978) , which is well within the capacity of a primary arterial . At the project stage , signalization of the intersections at Beach Boulevard and Newland may be necessary. " VI_ 2 File DraftDraft EIR 77-9 r Page 3 14) Section 2 . 12 . 3 (Traffic/Circulation) Mitigation, P. 74 . The following paragraph should be added: r "Before development of the project site occurs, a further traffic study should be prepared which includes information regarding trip generation for the specific land uses proposed, distribution of traffic on the street system, and documented estimates of ultimate volumes on the adjacent streets including through traffic on Hamilton r Avenue. Need for signalization at various locations, and pedestrian access to the beach area should also be addressed in the study. " JRB/s I- r r r r 1- r VI- 3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Subject : Multiple subjects Author : James R. Barnes , Assistant Planner - Department of Planning and Environmental Resources Response 1 . The data used in depiction of Alternate A was supplied by the City of Huntington Beach. It is our understanding that it reflects discussions with the applicant . 2 , 3 , 4 . The text has been changed as noted. 5 . The need for importing fills to the site varied with each - alternate. If the proposed improvements to the Santa Ana River are completed, there may be a variance in the specific elevation needs of the site . The amount of open space and recreation facilities also affects fill requirements . Therefore , to quantify in cubic yards the, amount of fill needed is somewhat speculative . It should be noted, however, that the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (1973) has set the flood elevation at nine (9) feet for the site . Thus any structures would have to be one foot above that elevation. The average site elevation is 2 . 5 feet mean sea level (MSL) , so approxi- mately 1 . 0 million cubic yards of fill would be required. _ 6 . The text has been changed as noted. 7 . Some confusion has resulted because the entire Constraint Study for the site was included as Appendix I . The Constraint Study had its own set of appendices which are numbered differently from this EIR. The hydrology report is in Appendix I of the EIR, page I- 55 , and is actually Appendix C of the Constraint Study. VI-4 8 , 9 . The text has been changed as noted. 10 . See Comment 7 . Archaeology Records data is on Page I-37 . 11 . Please see Appendix IV, page IV-1 . 12 , 13 , 14 . The text has been changed as noted. i ®, Environmental eouncil CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH HUNTINGTON BEACH Post Office Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648 • TO : James R. Barnes, Environmental Resources Section FROM: Environmental Council v DATE: May 15 , 1978 RE: EIR 77-9 Daon Corp. This EIR on a complex series of alternatives for a very prominent and very sensitive area of our community does a good job of addressing the issues of the land and the project. Many excellent mitigating measures are presented which should be included in the event the project is approved. Comments on specific areas of concern: Biological Resources 241 (1) 1. With evidence of a significant resident population of Belding ' s Savannah Sparrow, an endangered species that depends on the habitat on this site, it is imperative that protection be provided in the best way and in the best locations as designated by the ornithologists most familiar with this species. 41 2 . Alternative E would appear, from the information given, to be . the most considerate of the salicornia and less disturbed habitat. However, are the birds presently in that northeast sector of the property, or if not, would they likely move to it? Service (2) 1. With all sewer services in the area at or near capacity, wouldn' t it be appropriate to consider delaying action on this project until such services are approved by the necessary agencies -- including the Coastal Commission, and are installed, to avoid r expense and inconvenience of later construction. Miscellaneous (3) 1. A bicycle trail exists and is on the Master Plan for the future. Hence, planning on Newland Street for this is essential , - � preferably off-road. Could this be incorporated into the project designed for safety of bicyclists , visibility etc? (4) 2 . An active fault zone traverses the project (p. 21) . Shouldn ' t mitigation measures include consideration of the type of construction proposed in the area - such as less intense use, not high density as shown in ALL alternatives? (5) 3 . It appears (Fig. 2-4) that all alternatives show residential land use within the 70 CNEL contours . While some standard mitigation measures are proposed, shouldn ' t others also be considered such as VI -6 special noise attentuating doors , windows, etc? Coastal Policies (6) 1. Shouldn't the mixed land uses here be delayed for consideration until after the Local Coastal Program is developed and approved by the City and the Coastal Commission, so that reasonable . _ - land use planning for the sensitive prominent coastal zone could be provided? Economic (7) 1. Do the economic impacts (pg. 85) include the public costs of the various modifications to the flood control channel required in all but Alternative 5? Alternatives (8) 1 . The EIR should include the No Project alternative. Respectfully submitted, _ Irwin Haydock' Chairman IH:CM: s VI - 7 Subject : Multiple subjects Author : Environmental Council , City of Huntington Beach Response 1 . The endangered species and the Salicornia habitat will receive detailed study prior to a decision on a mitigation approach. The normal procedure is to have qualified experts prepare a resource -" management program. Such a program will specifically map the resources and establish conditions to protect the resource . The habitat areas are shown in Figure 2- 2 . These generally correspond to open space areas of alternates A, C and E . 2 . The action under consideration is a General Plan Amend- d ment. The Amendment in and of itself will not burden sewer systems . However, a delay in approval of a specific development plan may be a viable mitigation if sewer capacity is still not available at 41 the time of submittal or at least projected for availability in the immediate future . 3 . The applicant could be requested to consider off road bicycle trails at a project design stage. It would not be an applicable request at this time . 4 . The report indicates that the lower intensity Alternate E would subject fewer structures (and most likely people) to damage than some of the higher intensity plans . It is also noted that Irvine Soils feels that the site can be safely mitigated to allow development at any of the densities proposed. S . First , Alternate E proposes public use in the 70 CNEL `y zone . Also , the report recommends that structures be placed out VI - 8 41 of this zone in addition to incorporation of standard mitigation �,- (berms , walls , window placement , etc . ) . A detailed acoustic study will be performed at the project design level to determine if additional mitigation is required. 6 . No comment is required. 7 . The analysis assumed that the cost of relocation of the channel would be borne by the developer and .not the City. i VI- 9 DAM 1,100 Quail Strevl, Suite 255, Newport Beach. California 'J266U Ti!Irfilum!; (714) 752-7855 . May 11 , 1978 Mr. Edward D. Selich , Director Planning and Environmental Resources City of Huntington Beach - 2000 Main Street P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 _ SUBJECT: COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR 77-9 Gentlemen : I have reviewed Draft EIR 77-9 and have a number of comments to make concerning its contents . Daon ' s specific comments are con- tained in the attachment to this letter . Additionally , there are several general observations concerning the Draft EIR which serve to preface our comments . Generally, I feel that Draft EIR 77-9 attempts to pursue several issues , notably concerns for wetlands , endangered species , and compatibility with the Coastal Act of 1976 beyond the point that is practically possible. The level of specificity now available in generalized development concepts for the property does not allow the specific problems mentioned to be solved. During the approval process , we believe that the Draft EIR will draw readers to conclusions concerning potential impacts of the project that are not supportable given the site planning flexibility available with a site of the size in question and the range of possible _. mitigations that can be applied to the project at subsequent , more refined stages of the planning and development review process . Consequently , I feel the report , as it now stands , prematurely and unnecessarily biases reviewers against the possibility of residential use of all .or a part of this site without providing the opportunity to allow demonstration , through the site plan development process , how the various constraints and impacts can be addressed and mitigated. I believe it is particularly pertinent to note that , currently, all that Daon is requesting is an amendment to the City General Plan that would permit development of a specific land use plan for the property, taking into account the various constraints (environ- mental and otherwise) of the site . Subsequent to development of appropriate site plans , further approvals including zoning, tentative tract map , and eventually a Coastal Permit will be made . VI - 10 DAON CORPORATION Mr. Edward D. Selich, Director City of Huntington Beach May 10, 1978 -._ Page Two At these more precise levels of the planning process , I anticipate that equally more precise environmental evaluation can take place and any significant unmitigated impacts identified. More specific environmental analysis would be - appropriate at that time, when site plans are available for evaluation. In summary, I believe that before it is finalized, Draft EIR 77-9 should be rewritten to reflect our concern that the level of specificity be commensurate with the level of detail now available concerning the projected use of the site. At present , without a ` detailed site plan and use program, analysis of impacts on wetlands , endangered species, and the Coastal Act is simply too speculative to allow accurate evaluation . Sincerely, DAON CORPORATION W. A. Colton, III General Manager WAC :cb Enclosure : Comments on Draft EIR 77-9 1� 1 VI-11 1 ATTACHMENT 1 DAON LETTER OF SUMMARY OF SPECIFIC COMMENTS 1 . Page ii . The last entry in the Table of Contents appears to be in error. 2. Page iii . The Table of Figures has been omitted in our report - copy . 3 . Page following Page 6 . The industrial land use area should be _ labeled. "Maximum Density = 1 ,400 DU" on the figure is incorrectly designated and should read "Maximum DU = 1 , 400. " 4. Pages 12 through 16. These pages appear to be missing on page numbering is incorrect (Figures 1-1 through 1-5) . 5. Page 22 , Table 2-1 . The "Estimated Base Rock Maximum Acceleration. data shown for the Newport Inglewood Fault (a branch of which passes along the northerly edge of the site) is questionable . Reference to the Rock Acceleration versus Fault Distance and Earthquake Magnitude table in the source document cited (Schnable and Seed , 1972) , in- dicates that ground acceleration levels for faults less and 2 miles from a given site cannot be estimated. Theoretical calculations must be used as no actual data have been obtained at such short distances - for large earthquakes . 6. Page 23. What does the shading represent on the geotechnical �+ sensitivity figure? 7. Page 24. The discussion of liquifaction potential appears to be confusing and misleading , particularly when it is the conclusion of - Irvine Soils Engineering (page 26 and Appendix) that the site can be adequately mitigated. 8 . Page 29, Figure 2-2 . What does the shading designate . 9. Page 30 - Mitigation . The conclusion that "alternatives A and C may be hard to execute" and the reasoning that supports this state- ment should be explained. Further , we maintain that this is an example of the overall concern we have with the Draft EIR - that it tends to draw conclusions that , when subjected to critical review may not be supportable in view of the flexibility that could be exercised as site planning and zoning stages of the development review and approval process are reached . 10. Page 33 - Surface. Would flood control improvements on this site result in removal of the flood plain designation at other off- site locations? 11 . Page 36 - Noise. Since the spot measurements represent single , event noise levels , and the CNEL contours of the City represent time integrated average noise levels , how can it be said that the spot measurements concur with the CNEL contours established for the site in the City' s noise element . VI - 12 2 - 12. Page 38 , Figure 2-4 . Should the "dBA" designations on figure 2-4 be "dBA CNEL. " 13 . Page 37 - Vehicular. What is the Wyle Laboratories methodology? Is it similar to the National Highways Research Board ' s traffic noise prediction model normally utilized in computing traffic noise ex- posures? 14 . Page 37, Last Paragraph. Alternatives A, B, C, and D do not propose residential uses within the 70 CNEL contour , they would only permit a residential use designation which would permit site planning to proceed. Without site plans and noise mitigation design details , the following conclusion appears to be unsupportable , Our preliminary evaluation is that through a combination of site planning, landscape, and architectural treatments , noise exposure standards for residential uses of the site can be met . Essentially , we view the identified noise levels as a problem which must be dealt with to meet established standards and regulations , but a problem that is primarily economic , rather than technical . The economic problem is : Do land values offset the cost of mitigation , This is a question which can be addressed at subsequent stages of the planning process when site plans are available for evaluation . 15. Page 48 - Schools . In view of declining enrollment in the school system, will high school enrollments by say 1980 , when this project could conceivably be generating students be within facility cap- acities? 16. Page 71 . Spelling typographic error next to last line . 17. Pages 75-83, Coastal Act Policies Discussion , The evaluation of conformance of the proposed use concepts is presented in detail on these pages. As noted in our cover letter , the level of detail pre- sented is too great especially considering the lack of detail avail- able for the concept use alternatives. In general , after reviewing the coastal policy requirements as they relate to this area (Section 2. 13. 1 ) , we believe there is considerable flexibility in .the site to satisfy many of these requirements . Further , the LCP that the City is developing in response to the coastal act requirements will deal with specific policies in the context of the City ' s entire Coastal Zone, In essence , this site is but a small part of this broader zone. We feel it is unfair, at this early point in the planning process , to evaluate this project proposal in such detail , �- in light of the coastal act policies , out of context of the entire coastal zone. Obviously, decisions made during the approval of this project will have some effect on the City ' s LCP, Conversely we feel the opposite is also true, i . e. , that development of the LCP will affect our site planning. Further, we believe that both processes can occur simultaneously with mutual benefit , VI- 13 3 - 18 . Page 80 . Next to last line , Mr. Bodovitz' s name is misspelled . 19 . Page 81 . Six lines from bottom of page "addressed" is mis- spelled. VI-14 Subject : EIR Scope Author : W. A. Colton III , General Manager, Daon Corporation Response : The CEQA specifies (among other things) that environmental impact reports are to be informational in nature and unbiased. These two principles were adhered. to in the preparation of this document . In fact, a conscientious effort was made to display each alternate fairly and on equal footing with each other, as opposed to designating a "project" and then investigating alternates . We .feel confident in saying that nowhere in the document does WESTEC Services recommend against the possibility of residential use on the site . In fact, in several instances the report suggests that one or more of the Alternates could be compatible on the site . �- In specific reference to the issues of wetlands , endangered species and Coastal Policies , it is felt that the document merely informs the reader with the best available data. The discussion of Fish and Game attitudes towards wildlife habitat destruction were expressed to WESTEC Services by Earl Lupe of the Department of Fish and Game and were supported in writing by the Director of the Department on May 4 , 1978 . It is our feeling that the attitudes of responsible agencies towards total preservation were important, especially in regard to Alternates B and D which make no visible effort to preserve these resources . On the other hand, the EIR does indicate that discus- sions with Fish and Game could work out acceptable mitigation to allow for development . The document specifically indicates that VI- 15 Alternate E will mitigate the potential impacts because of the large amounts of proposed open space and the reduced construction impacts from channel realignment . In addition, it indicates that a possi- bility exists to preserve the habitats in open space with surrounding - urbanized land use. It is stated that such a procedure may be difficult, however that is not to say that it is not possible and development should be stopped. In the case of the concept of the property being a wetlands , an attempt was made to display the many different opinions as to the _ wetlands status of the property. These types of definitions are open to a wide range of opinion because they are vague . The infor- mation displayed in no way precludes pursuing any of the Alternates discussed. It should infer, however, that additional investigation into the wetlands status may be warranted at the project level . In regard to the Coastal Policies section, this section was prepared by the City and they have responded accordingly. In conclusion, it is felt by {NESTEC Services that the Applicant is correct in stating that many of the impacts of the alternate land uses can be mitigated at design stages and we have so stated in several portions of the EIR (pages 25 , 36 , 40 , 42 , 59 , etc . ) . In many cases, the EIR notes that there is little difference between _ the Alternates , and that mitigation can resolve geotechnical con- cerns for any of the configurations . —� VI - 16 _ Subject : Multiple subjects - Author: Daon Corporation Response 1, 2 , 3 The text has been changed as noted. 4 . The report is numbered for front-to-back printing . The project description text was not long enough to print it on the backs of figures , hence the blank pages . The numbering is correct . Figures were not page-numbered because they were printed separately ` and prior to the text . S . The "Estimated Base Rock. Maximum Acceleration" data is taken from the applicant ' s soils report by Irvine Soils (page S) . That report was a preliminary review and was signed by two registered geologists . It is assumed that the data is accurate , and that theoretical calculations were used. 6 . The shading on the diagram represents areas of uncon- solidated fill which will require special treatment during develop- ment. 7 . The Irvine Soils report states that the site has a moderate liquefaction potential (Appendix III , page 12) . Based on that statement, the impact on the various levels of intensity of the alternates was discussed. The Irvine Soils report indicates that the liquefaction can be minimized (not eliminated) with certain mitigation procedures . The mitigation section of the EIR specifies some of the mitigation and notes that Irvine Soils feels that the site can be designed to provide adequate public safety. As a result of the potential mitigation, liquefaction impacts are not listed in Section 4 as unavoidable and adverse. VI -17 8 . The shading represents the 100 year flood plain. 9 . The statement is based on WESTEC Services past experience in preparation of marshland management studies . Research for these studies has indicated that marsh pressures within urbanized areas require careful control to prevent the entrance of pets , humans , urban runoff, etc . It is not impossible to provide such control , but it is sometimes difficult. While project design may resolve some of these issues , it is important for decision makers to he aware of the difficulties involved. 10 . The flood impact that this project will have on offsite locations will be dependent on the phasing of this project with other ongoing flood control projects downstream. 11 . The spot measurements were not shown to validate the CNEL projections , but rather as a simple check point reference . CNEL contours are based on a series of numerous L10 measurements taken on a 24-hour basis . The CNEL values are valid, however, and have been verified using Wyle Laboratory traffic models . 12 . No , those are results of the monitoring and are L10 values . 13 . The Wyle Laboratory methodology is widely accepted in assessing traffic related noise . Their procedure was developed for HUD and is generally felt to be more easily understood and applied than the National Highways Research Board approach. 14 . On page 37 , the discussion of specific impacts on resi- dential areas from construction noise is not in reference to pro- posed homes . The residential areas noted are the existing units to VI - 18 the north and northeast of the site . On page 38 , the vehicular noise impact is reviewed in relationship to the Alternates . The intent was to indicate that residential land use was designated within the 70 CNEL contour. If houses were constructed, it was felt that adverse impacts would occur. That is why it was suggested that a setback of the use if not the structures themselves would be appropriate to avoid impacts . We agree that design stages can better address the specific impacts . It is not felt that the applicant ' s interpretation that the conclusions are unfounded is justified in light of the above discussion. V 15 . As noted on the bottom of page 48 of the draft EIR, the declining enrollments should help relieve the high school over- crowding. It is likely that some relief may be visible by 1980 . 16 . The text has been changed as noted. 17. The following reply to this question has been prepared by the City of Huntington Beach, Department of Planning and Environ- mental Resources . Section 30605 (a) of the Coastal Act states "Prior to certification of the Local Coastal Program, a Coastal Development Permit shall be issued if the issuing agency, or the commission on appeal, finds that the proposed development is in conformity with the pro- visions of Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 20300) of this division and the permitted development will not prejudice the ability of the local government to prepare a Local Coastal Program that is in conformity with the provisions of Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 30200) . " Approval of literally any project , even at the General Plan level , could limit planning options now open for the preparation of the Local Coastal Program. VI- 19 i '['his is especially true since the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan will become an element of the City' s General Plan. However, a logical assessment of any specific develop- ment proposal or site within the coastal zone must also be considered as has been done in draft EIR 77-9 . The evaluation of Coastal Act policies included in EIR 77-9 is presented in the detail required to indicate those policies that potentially apply to this site based on the physical charac- teristics present . Reference made to specific land use alternatives are intended to be illus- trative in nature and are not intended to recommend or prejudice the outcome of the General Plan analysis . Even though it may not be possible for individual sites within the coastal zone to implement each of the Coastal Act policies , it is clearly necessary to point out where potential developments either con- flict with or reinforce Coastal Act provisions in order to facilitate a reasonable decision in advance of the LCP certification. While the Coastal Act does allow some degree of flexibility for individual sites within the Coastal Zone , specific Coastal Act policies such as those pertaining to filling operations in wetland areas , the preservation of signi- ficant wildlife habitat areas , the preserva- tion of existing low cost housing opportunities , and controlling risks to life and property in hazard areas , could limit the options avail- _ able. for this specific site . 18 , 19 . The text has been changed as noted. V I - 2 0 -- STATE OF CALIFORNIA—RESOURCES AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN 1R., Governor CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD- SANTA ANA REGION 6833 INDIANA AVENUE, SUITE 1 RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92506 PHONE: (714) 684-9330 April 21 , 1978 Mr. L. Frank Goodson Projects Coordinator Resources Agency Resources Building, 13th Floor City of Huntington Beach Department of Planning and Environmental Resources -- 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Gentlemen: Draft EIR - General Plan Amendment SCH # 78041157 The. Board staff has reviewed this report and has the following comments: 1 . This EIR states that the four District No. 11 sewer trunks bordering the project site are operating at or near capacity. This project as proposed, therefore, could adversely affect water quality through raw sewage spills and/or overflows unless measures are taken to provide for adequate sewer capacity. r 2. The proponent should be aware that prior to any construction - activity, an erosion/siltation control plan should be submitted to this office. Please do not hesitate to call if you have any questions. Sincerely, Francisco E. Velez V Staff Engineer FEV/cl cc: State Water Resources Control Board Division of Planning and Research Environmental Analysis Unit VI - 21 A Subject : Sewerage Capacities Author: Francisco Velez Engineer, Regional Water g g Quality Control ^_ Board Response - The issues raised were clearly identified in the draft EIR (page 47) . We agree that water quality will be impaired unless mitigation is incorporated. VI - 22 State of California I `/The Resources Agency Memorandum TO 1 . L. Frank Goodson, Projects Coordinator Date: May 4, 1978 Resources Agency 2 . City of Huntington Beach Department of Planning and Environmental Resources P. 0. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 ATTN: Mr. Jim Barnes From Department of Fish and Game _-_ subject: SCH 78041157 Draft EIR 77-9 , General Plan Amendment 78-1 We have reviewed the DEIR for General Plan Amendment 78-1 and find that we have two basic areas of concern which force us to strongly oppose the proposed development plans . L The first and most basic area of concern is the destruction of wild- life habitat that supports breeding populations of Belding's savannah sparrow. Any further loss of habitat that is capable of support of this endangered species is unacceptable. The DEIR suggests develop- ing part of Bolsa Chica Preserve to support an equivalently sized population, but the Belding's savannah sparrow already resides within the preserve at maximum carrying capacity. Additional areas could not be developed without displacing other species . Section 30240 of the Coastal Act of 1976 would seem to be in direct conflict with development of this area, since any development as planned. would mean the loss of another population of an endangered species . We do agree, however, that the ultimate solution for the preservation of this a habitat is the acquisition of the area by a public agency. The second area of contention over the DEIR is the timeliness of this amendment with regard to the completion of the Local Coastal Plan. We do not know how this amendment fits into the LCP or how the plans for this area can be meshed with plans for other publicly owned open 0 space in the Huntington Beach area. We must withhold any further comments on this DEIR until we have the opportunity to review the LCP . Since the planning area contains surface pools and has many of the characteristics of a salt marsh (including saline groundwater with tidal fluctuations) , plans for developing the area may be in . conflict i- with the Resources Agency Wetlands Preservation Policy. This policy supports the full preservation of wetlands resource values within the state. If you have any questions concerning our remarks , please contact Robert D. Montgomery, Regional Manager of Region 5 at 350 Golden Shore, Long Beach, California, 90802. The telephone number is (213) 590-5113 . ir�ector a Subject : Wildlife Preservation Author: Department of Fish and Game Response : No response is required. -. a a a a a VI - 24 a r_ State of California Sfis Rasowces Agom7 of California Memorandum Date P4'AY 51978 To Mr. L. Frank Goodson City of Huntington Beach Projects Coordinator Department of Planning and Resources Agency Environmental Resources City Hall r Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Fmm : Department of Parks and Recreation Subject: DEIR-SCH78014115 x, General Plan Amendment 78-1 , Orange County r The Office of Historic Preservation has received the subject Draft EIR, but is unable to complete our review process. Page 55 of the subject document states that an Archeological Investigative r Report is "included as Appendix II" of the subject document. However, our copy of the document contained no archeological study. We request that a copy of the cited report be submitted to this Office for review. If we can be of assistance please feel free to contact Nicholas Del Cioppo at (916) 322-8703. r �nwLc G2t�� -- Dr. Knox Mellon State Historic Preservation Officer Of ice of Historic Preservation James P. Tryner, Chief Resource Preservation and Interpretation Division f F-7178A cc: Mr. Mike Wright WESTEC Services, Incorporated 180 East Main Street Tustin, CA 92680 VI- 25 r CY ---2 Lln � Subject : Archaeology Studies Author : Department of Parks and Recreation, Office of Historic Preservation Response The study in question was mislabeled, but is in the draft EIR. The records search is shown as Appendix A of the Constraint Study which is Appendix I to the whole draft document. i VI- 26 hl'« 1> fOUTHERR CALIFORAIA ! ,. AffOC1AT1O(I OF COVERnMEW ' 600 Jouth Commonwealth.Avenue •Juite 1000•Los Angeles•California •90005.213/385-1000 DATE: May 8, 1978 TO: James R. Barnes Assistant Planner City of Huntington Beach Dept. of Planning & Environmental Resources P. 0. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 FROM: Metropolitan Clearinghouse RE: General Plan Amendment 78-1 SCAG File Number: OR-7701-ED In accordance with procedures developed to comply with the clearinghouse guidelines for the review of voluntarily submitted environmental impact reports, we have disseminated information regarding the referenced environ- mental document-to cities, counties and some special agencies which may be 10 affected by, or interested in the project or the results of the environmental assessment. Additionally, the environmental document has been reviewed by SCAG staff to determine the relationship of the proposal. (and possible environmental impacts resulting from them) to adopted regional policies, plans or programs. Staff-to-staff advisory comments generated through this environmental review process are listed below and are transmitted for your consideration. — The SCAG staff review of the proposed development found that it: 1. is primarily local in nature; 2. does not conflict with adopted regional plans; and 3. is consistent with adopted regional policies. i Clearinghouse Official LK:RM:mdc V I -2 7 490M n4 ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT April 11 , 1978 Mr. James R. Barnes Department of Planning _ & Environmental Resources City of Huntington Beach P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mr. Barnes: The OCTD staff has reviewed the General Plan Amendment 78-1 Draft Environmental Impact' Report, and has the following comments: General Plan Amendment 78-1 concerns the development of 107 acres at the northeast corner of the intersection of Beach Boulevard and Pa- cific Coast Highway in Huntington Beach. Of the five alternative development plans, Alternative A would create the largest population increase, one of approximately 3800 residents , plus some commercial and park activity. OCTD currently has two routes serving the location. Route 1 pro- vides service along Pacific Coast Highway from Long Beach to San Clemente, every half hour, seven days a week. Route 25 runs within approximately three-eighths of a mile north of the location, on Atlanta, and provides service every half hour to Edison High School, Goldenwest College, Huntington Beach Civic Center, Westminster Mall , and cities to the north via Goldenwest. Existing OCTD services will be sufficient to provide transit oppor- tunities for the increase in population, caused by the proposed development. The District will be working closely with the city in -� monitoring the actual growth of traffic and transit demands result- ing from this development. 1200 NORTH MAIN STREET • P.O.BOX 688 • SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92702 PHONE (714)834-6190 VI- 28 Mr. James R. Burns . Page two April 11 , 1978 Please call me at 834-6190 if you have any further questions regard- ing this matter. Sincerely, Dick su Section Chief, Development Planning DH:CSR VI - 29 Subject : Regional Planning , Transportation Authors : Southern California Association of Governments and the Orange County Transit District Response : No response is required. VI- 30 - U U o ^NCI E I ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY TELEPHONE: 834-4643 ADVANCE PLANNING DIVISION AREA CODE 7+4 BII NORTH BROADWAY MAILING A00RESS' SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA P.O. sox 4108 SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92702 May 17, 1978 DIRECTOR FILE H. ORNE GSR8NO21 RICHARD G. MUNSELL ASSISTANT DIRECTOR ADVANCE PLANNING Mr. James R. Barnes Assistant Planner City of Huntington Beach P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648 Subject: Draft EIR 77-9 City of Huntington Beach General Plan Amendment (GPA78-1) Dear Mr. Barnes: This is in response to your letter dated 13 April 1978 that accompanied the subject document requesting review and comments by 15 May 1978. The document has been reviewed and our concerns are noted in the following comments: (1) (Sec. 2.3.1.1) Hydrology Surface, first paragraph A statement, ". ..Records indicate that the site would have water 6-9 feet deep. . ." is made and later on page I-15 under the subject of Constraints, High Sensitivity the statement, ". . .The committant need to raise the site elevation 4 to 6 feet and/or improve the flood control facilities. . ." appear to be inconsistent. (2� Page I-16 paragraph 2 under General Are the requirements of the Federal Insurance Administration Regulations to become conditions of approval for development? If so, this should be stated in. the findings and included as a mitigation measure. (3) (Sec. 2.3.2.1) Hydology; p. 35, first paragraph _. In this section the statement is made, . .."improvement of the channel may adversely impact down stream areas whose improvements may not be phased with this project". . . This impact should be addressed as being a signifi- cant impact and appropriate mitigation measures should be included. Exhibits showing design alternatives of the flood control channel should also be included and meet the design standards of the Orange County EP;A. VI- 31 May 17, 1978 Mr. James R. Barnes Page 2 (4) (Sec. 2.6.3) Mitigation Measures, Drainage This mitigation measure fails to indicate who will be responsible for the maintenance of the station. (5) (Sec. 2.10.2) Socio—Economic, Impact; p. 61 , first paragraph Data on relocation which has been indicated as not available should be developed to enable a more thorough assessment of the socio—economic impacts of the project. (6) p. 62, first paragraph _ This statement, . . ."project implementation would work contrary to the City policy of 'conserving and expanding the housing stock, especially for persons of low and moderate income' and 'insuring a wide distribution of ].ow and moderate income housing through out the city'". . should be of paramount importance to the decision makers and brought forth in the formal findings in this document. (7) (Sec. 2.10.3) Mitigation, p. 62 The federal assistance proposed by the developer is really not implementable and possibly the developer should bear the financial responsibility for relocation of the residents if the proposal is approved. (8) (Sec. 2.12.2) Impacts, Access Limited or no access to or from Pacific Coast Highway would be the most desirable alternative in respect to safety and traffic congestion. Some delay has been encountered in review of this document because it was addressed to a county department that has been absorbed into the Orange County Environmental Management Agency. It would be appreciated if all future sub— mittals of environmental document for review by the County of Orange be sent to the following address: Environmental Services Division Environmental Management Agency P.O. Box 4108 Suite 201 Santa Ana, California 92702 We would appreciate a copy of the final EIR when certified so as to complete _ our files and expedite any future actions by the County as a responsible agency. Thank your for the opportunity of reviewing and responding to your Draft EIR. Very truly yours, Richard G. Munsell, Assistant Director Advance Planning DD:db302a(4) VI - 32 Subject: Multiple Subjects Author: Environmental Management Agency, County of Orange Response.: I . . The variance in the estimated flood depth and the need for raising site elevation is a function of the variables on flood channel design. Various combinations of fill and flood channel improvements will be reviewed at project design stages and specific recommendations made. 2 . If the design plans indicate residents in the flood plain, then the requirements of the FIAR will apply. However, this is not �- an applicable mitigation at a General Plan level . The Corps has designated the site as subject to nine (9) feet of flood heights . 3 , 4 . This is not a design document EIR, it is a General Plan Amendment. At a later stage, a subsequent EIR will address the design impacts , secondary impacts and appropriate mitigation. S . The study used to our knowledge the best available infor- mation. The City staff is preparing additional base level data which could update the conclusions during the more specific design stage EIR. However, because in some cases the data is considered proprietary, it is possible that it will just not be available . 6 , 7 . No response is necessary. 8 . The report stresses that no direct access to PCH should be available . VI -33 J. . CATTY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH _. INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH To Mike Zambory From Jeff Renna Subject Draft EIR 77-9 Date April 11, 1978 General Plan Amendment 78-1 The following are my comments on the subject document in regards to sewerage: 1. The fact that the proposed CSD No. 11 Coastal Trunk Sewer must be constructed for this project to be serviced should be stressed more in the report. _.. 2. The peak sewage generation coefficient (page 47) of 100 gallons per day per capita is not correct. 150 gallons per day per capita _! should be used. 3. The listed mitigation measures (pp. 51-52) should be explained and discussed in more detail. Some seem to be very impractical. - 4.. Reference to a sewer main to be constructed in Beach Boulevard (page I-28) has no significance in regards to this project. At _ the present time this main is not planned to service the proposed development. 5. Other minor comments regarding sewerage are noted within the applicable -' sections of the document. i J ma Cate cc: Ron Lacher `! Al ! VI-34 -- Sub j ec t : Sewer- Capacity Author: Jeff Renna, Engineer, City of Huntington Beach Response : 1 . It is stated on page 47 that this project is in need of ! sewer capacity and that the coastal trunk sewer is subject to Coastal Commission approval . The text goes on to state that this project will be impacted in terms of intensity and/or phasing as a ! result of the approval . 2 . Using a rate of 150 gallons per capita , you get a new generation for Alternate A of 630 , 000 GPC and 294 , 750 GPC for ! Alternate E. 3 . The conservation measurements do not belong in this section but under water conservation. The only realistic mitigation ! is to prohibit new development unless the developer wishes to install a parallel system. However, because there is at least two - years involved before any structures would be in place demanding i service , it is possible that the coastal trunk will be in place , substantially mitigating this problem. 4 . The data in I - 28 is superceded by the data in the EIR. ! VI- 35 ! �• CITY OF HUN'TINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH . To MIKE ZAMBORY From DONALD W. KISER CITY ENGINEER DIVISION ENGINEER Subject DRAFT EIR 77-9 Date APRIL 6 , 1978 Please be advised that I have reviewed the subject EIR for General Plan Amendment 78-1, and offer the following comments for consideration in the preparation of the final document. (1) On Page 46 , the location of the Newland Pump Station is incorrect; and should be listed as being East of Newland and South of Hamilton. (2) Regarding Page 51, Sewer Mitigation, there should te some mention that the existing trunk that traverses the i site will need to be removed or protected in place. I trust these items are of use in your final Public [corks ' report to the Planning Department. Very truly yours , i Donald W. Kiser Division Engineer i VI- 36 ~ s i Subject : Sewer Facilities i author : Donald [riser, Division Engineer , City of Huntington Beach Response : 1 , 2 . The text has been changed as noted. i f i i i i i VI- 37 i LP SANTA FE SPRINGS REFINERY P O.80,.2487 •- Sente Pe 9Prinp e.CA H9•:70 April 26, 1978 Mr. James R. Barnes Assistant Planner _- City of Huntington Beach P. 0. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 DRAFT EIR 77-9 Dear Mr. Barnes : We have reviewed the subject matter as prepared by West Tex Services as it interfaces with our operation at Huntington Beach. Alternates . A, B, C, D, and E reflect major reductions in the area we now lease involving the west side of our tank farm at Huntington Beach. As covered in my letter of March 7th we have had discussions with Daon Corp. but as yet no agreement has been reached to release this prop- - erty. The drawings have no scale. Therefore, we are not able to ascertain that the planned development, zone changes and relocating as shown still allow our terminal to be in compliance with the National and Huntington Beach Fire Codes. Before changes should be considered that have a major bearing on our continued operation this must be - clarified as well as the reduction of our terminal plot as shown. The refinery has 3 pipelines that currently cross this property _. and our rights-of-way as granted by the City of Huntington Beach for these lines must be considered in any plan .development. We would hope that in the final planning stages .rights-of-way or easements through the streets be granted as. an alternate to having pipelines running through residential areas. We do not want by any means 'to s tand :i n the. way' of. the development of the City of Huntington Beach. We have always tried to be good neighbors to those residents living adjacent and will continue to operate in the same mode with whoever is involved when and if these proposed changes materialize. However, the problems as outlined above, we feel must be considered before final plans can be approved. Very truly yours, C. C. Booth CCB/ca Manager - Engineering Gulf V1 38 A OIV131ON OF GULF OIL CORPORATION Southern California Edison Company 19171 MAGNOLIA AVF_NUI; HUNTINGTON BFACI'1 CAl_1I7U1'11JIA 92646 H W. COMPTON MANA.LN, HUNtiNGTON BEACH May 15, 1978 Mr. Edward D. Sel ich a Planning Director City of Huntington Beach Post Office Box 190 Huntington,, Beach, California 92648 Dear Mr. Selich: Subject: Draft E. I.R. 77-9 Proposed General Plan Amendment GPA 78-1 We have reviewed the subject draft E. I.R. and after careful consid- eration, it is our opinion that the proposed location of the project is unsatisfactory due to its proximity to Edison's Huntington Beach Generating Station. The Station has been in existence for many years and was sited in compliance with all the rules, regulations and laws in effect at the time of construction. To change the zoning of property adjacent to the Generating Station and conclude that Edison must bear the burden of the change, and not the proponents of the change, is incomprehensible to Edison. We hereby oppose any change of zoning which would make the project incompatible with existing industrial uses. 'In the event that a zone change is allowed, it should contain conditions that call for adequate buffering between the proposed project and the existing Generating Station and specify that adequate noise control construction be used in the construction of residences within the project. Should you wish further i.nforma.t'i,on, :r.egard;ing this subject, please do not hesitate to call me at �(171.4),. 835=3833._, Very truly yours , H. W. Compton, Manager Huntington Beach. i HWC/ngl Subject : Position on Project Authors : C . C. Booth, Manager , Gulf Oil Company ! H. W. Compton, Manager , Southern California Edison Response : No response is required. ! d i VI - 40 J.nit CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINUCIN BEACH To Mike Zambory From Bill Patapoff Subject EIR 77-9 Daon Property Date April. 6, 1978 I have the following comments to the Subject EIR: U 1. Pg. 32 1st. par. The site is zoned as a flood hazard area on the City' s Flood Hazard Map because of the flooding from the Santa Ana River not the local channels . 2. Pg. 35 lst par. Explain how the channel improvements will impact downstream areas. `. 3. Pg. 36 lst. par. This area will still be susceptible to the 100 yr. flooding of the Santa Ana River. 4. Pg. 46 last par. Mentioning the nearest pump station to the project site is irrelevant, since it does not have the capacity to serve the project area. 5. Pg. 47 1st. par. Who does the County have to submit an application to? 2nd par. Use 150 gal/person/day in sewage cales. 6. Pg. 55 2nd par. The pump station shall also be. sized for all surrounding tributary area. 7. Pg. 90 3rd par. All Alternatives will remain in the flood hazard area due to the possible flooding of the Santa Ana River. 8. Pg. I-28 There is an existing County sewer that crosses the project site from Beach Blvd. to Newland St. . N Bill Patapoff WAP: jj NI- 41 Sub j ect : 1h,drolo(Ty Author: Bill Fatapoff , City of11untington Beach Response 1 . We concur that the Santa Ana River is the major flood hazard. Upstream drainage does move through the existing channel , � however, and this does add to flooding on the site . 2 . The channel improvements will be analyzed during the EIR for the development plan. Channel design will not be completed -� before that time . 3 . The lower reach of the Santa Ana River is slated for improvement to handle a 75-year storm (40 , 000 cubic feet per Al second) . However, it is not anticipated that the river will be brought up to 100-year flood status . Therefore , the site will be — subject to flooding if the site elevation is not raised. , 4 . The existing pump station is relevent because CEQA requires a discussion of the existing setting.. In addition, you have to mention the existing facility and the fact it is over capacity to make a finding that there would be an impact. S . The County has to submit its application to the South Coast Regional Coastal Commission. 6 . Specifics of the sizing of the pump station should await submittal of the development plan and associated EIR. 7 . This is true , and the text has been changed to reflect this data. 8 . The data in Appendix I , page 28 has been superseded by the draft EIR. . VI -42 ,�ENI Oo -` United States Department of the Interior r ]FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE HUNTINGTON BEACH Ecological Services PLANNING DEPT. 24000 Avila Road MAY 19 'y;8 Laguna Niguel, CA 92677 P. 0. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 May 18 , 1978 James R. Barnes, Assistant Planner Dept. of Planning Environmental Resources P. 0. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA Dear Mr. Barnes: The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has examined the draft EIR 77-9, General Plan Amendment 78-1 , which considers changes to 100 plus acres northeast of the intersection of Beach Blvd. and Pacific Coast Highway. The Service wishes to take this opportunity to advise the City that the included salt marsh area is under Federal permit jurisdiction with respect to any filling activity. Under the aegis of Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the Army Corps of Engineers administers the permit program which, in part, regulates discharge of fill materials into "waters of the United States". Clearly, the salt marsh area within the General Plan Amendment area is an adjacent coastal wetland, i.e. part of the waters of the United States, as defined in the Federal Register Vol. 42, No. 138, July 19 , 1977: °Section 232.2 (c) The term "wetlands" means those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances' do ^su'ppor't, a preva- lence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. ' Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bog and similar areas. (c) The term "adjacent" means bordering, contiguous, or neighboring. Wetlands separated from other waters of the United States by man-made dikes or barriers, natural river berms, beach dunes and the like are "adjacent wetlands". CONSERVE AMERICA'S ENERGY �J � VI-43 i Save Energy and You Serve America' Any application for a Federal permit will be reviewed by the Fish and Wildlife Service at that time. Our review and recommendations will be performed in compliance with Service policy and guidelines oromuigated for such activities. In general, these policies require that encroachment into public waters be permitted only for water-dependent works (not merely water-oriented) , that no feasible upland alternative exist, and that the extent of the encroachment be minimized. All unavoidable impacts to fish and wildlife must be compensated. Even with these strict policies, it must be realized that there could be certain projects with losses to fish and wildlife resources that the Service will consider unacceptable. These will warrant uncompromising opposition. While they must be determined on a case by case basis, an example of such unacceptable loss might be losses to endangered species or sizr.ificant incompensable losses to important wetlands resources. r If we can be of further assistance or can answer questions regarding possible Service posture towards specific proposals, please contect us at Y (714) 831-4270. Sincerely, -� James J. Mc{evitt Field Supervisor JMF :gr cc: CE, Navigation Branch, Los Angeles, CA . Bruce Eliason, CDFG, Reg. 5 , Lone Beach, CA 2 - - VI -44 Sweet : Wetlands Status of Site Author : .James McKevitt , Supervisor , United States Fish and Wildlife Service Response : The issue of wetland status of the property is the subject of an ongoing review with the Applicant and the City which is not complete at this time . Therefore , no comment is offered on the i position established by the U.S . Fish and Wildlife Service . �fT- 45 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY LOS ANGELES DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS P. O. BOX 2711 LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90083 . SPLED-E 12 May 1978 Mr. James R. Barnes, Assistant Planner City of Huntington Beach Dept. of Planning and Environmental Resources P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648 Dear Mr. Barnes: This is in response to a letter from your office dated 30 March 1978 which requested review and comments on the draft environmental impact Y" report for the General Plan Amendment 78-1, Draft EIR 77-9. We offer the following comments: (1) a. In Section 2.3.1.1, page 31, the Standard Project Flood (SPF) y and the 100-year flood are mistakenly equated. The Corps of Engineers defines the SPF as the flood that may be expected from the most severe combination of meteorologic and hydrologic conditions that i� considered reasonably characteristic of the geographic area in which the drainage basin is located, excluding extremely rare combinations. Peak discharge is derived from a rainfall-runoff approach rather than a statistical — approach. Frequency of the Santa Ana River SPF is about 200 years. The 100-year flood peak discharge is derived from a statistical analysis and represents that discharge having a 1 percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. i (2) b. Our most recent studies show that the 100-year flood occurring on the Santa Ana River will produce a water surface elevation of 9 feet, -- M.S.L. at the site. Because of unique local hydraulic conditions, the SPF produces the same water surface elevation. We recommend that the first floor levels of all buildings be above 100-year flood elevation. -r! The Corps of Engineers is currently under contract with the Federal Insurance Administration to redefine the Santa Ana River 100-year overflow limits and depths. The intent of the study is to account for recent channel improvements to the river. The study is scheduled for completion in February 1979 and may yield different water surface elevations. VI -46 � SPLED-E 12 May 1978 Mr. James R. Barnes (3) c. In Section 2.3.2.1, page 33, improvements to achieve 100-year flood protection in the Huntington Beach Channel are presented. Such improvements will not yield protection from Santa Ana River overflows and the 9 feet elevation criteria should be adhered to regardless of improvement to the Huntington Beach Channel. (4) d. We recommend that any development plans account for local runoff produced from rain falling directly on the site. ! (5) e. The statement in paragraph General 1, page I-16, should be amended to note that Federal Insurance Regulations are based upon the 100-year flood rather than the SPF as cited. (6) f. Should you have any questions regarding flood protection, etc. , please feel free to contact Mr. Andrew Sienkiewich, Flood Plain Management- Section, telephone (213) 688-5454. (7) g. The description of vegetation as contained in Section 2.2.1, pages 26 and 27, indicates that the project area is a wetland and would come under permit jurisdiction of the Corps of Engineers as set forth in Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of i 1972, Public Law 92-500. It is also apparent that the wetland serves at least one important biological function by providing breeding habitat for the Beldings Savannah Sparrow which is listed as endangered by the State of California. Federal regulations do not allow the filling in - of wetlands unless the activity associated with the fill must have direct access or proximity to the water resource, or that alternative sites R are not practicable. Additionally, the proposed fill and activity must not cause permanent unacceptable disruption to beneficial water quality uses of the affected aquatic ecosystem. Please feel free to contact Mr. Craig Holland, Chief, Environmental Quality Section, telephone (213) 688-2934, regarding Section 404 permit requirements, etc. Sincerely yours, NORMAN ARNO ! Chief, Engineering Division i VI - 47 2 Subject : Hydrology Author : Norman Arno , Chief , Engineering Division Los Angeles District , Corps of Engineers Response : The comments revising the flood hazard discussion have been incorporated into the draft EIR, pp . 31- 3S . No further comment is - offered here . Please see the previous response to the Fish and Wildlife Service in regard to the wetlands status of the site . y! i VI -48 !r Directors + Ur/,rer.s PRESTQPI K. ALLEN � PI?ESTON k.A!.LEN "— ROBERT L.CLARK President JOHN V. FONLEY ROBERT L.CLARK JOHN GARTHE First Vice Pres.lenr LAWRFNCE P. KRAEMER,JR. NOBLE J.WA.TE TT LACY ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Second Vice Pre;;bent AUGUST F.. LENAIN r E.RAY QUIGLEY,JR. 10500 ELLIS AVENUE - P.O. BOX 8300 — HENRY 1'.SEGERSTROM FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 NEIL M.CLINE NOBLE J. WAITE TELEPHONE (714) 963-5661 / 556-8260 Secretary Nlan:;yer Play 24 , 1978 Mr. James R. Barnes Assistant Planner City of Huntington Beach Department of Planning and Environmental Resources ` P.Q. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mr. Barnes: General Plan Amendment 78-1 (Dann Property) D Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR 77-9) This is in response to your letter dated April 12 , 1978 requesting comments on the subject report. The report gives no detail on water supplied to the project, however it is noted on page I-65 and on II-2 that reference is made to the use of pumped groundwater, for some aspects of the project. _ We have no objections to the project or to the use of groundwater, however it should be brought to the developer' s attention that any wells drilled must be registered with the Orange County Water District. All water pumped from the groundwater basin is subject to a replenishment assessment, however in, the case of this project, a shallow well may produce brackish or saline water which might be eligible for an exemption from replenishment assessments . The determination of exemption is a matter which must be determined by the Board after the well is registered with the District. Very truly yours, P -- Nereus L. Richardson District Engineer - 49 �n !,;. utiNTTN(' BX THE 'd � SEA ' TJ TRAILER PARK '� �; �+ : i ?.i 3)] •I'IFt'. )t .HUNTINGRON BEECH CAL. 1 CIL IN TOTAL U.^:3T.1T?G . THAT THE, MAY49R AND ,IPY �k ?"; `TC.i'E idG! ON THE GENERAL PLAN AMFNDbt-NT Yf7�•�• AS WE COi�MIDI R TH i A!:9is'NW-IENT A THREAT TO OUR HOMES. AI arie ! /D - 113 7 IT xq 9W ,8 66 . ._ .��' Y11r�a. d�.�• . et. a 't. 50 . 24A • , _ _ ,..;�,K..�'-"g�*;1.*�•:p+t9,r;y', 4„,,r�rymn:�'ra-�"a +Y9i'SSUa�trrWrlr+P 4�raF5�+ +��4:rY�... ..a,.� >ein>•, •.,���. We. the undersigned, residents of Huntington-By'-'The-Sea Mobile Village, 21851 Newland St . , Huntington Beach. Calif, and other mobile .home parks, request that General Plan Amendment 79-2 be denied. We feel the passage or continuation of this amendment would result in the loss of our mobile homes. N me Space # Park Name S. 154 ( 1 I / P r.•- Y 274 IaZ w Z 4 z /o G /0 6 �, r O WW �a� r%i tee► .. :..��.-�- - • - ;,.--- �, --�- rim f err � •• - `/ . • �_• , n �®��'' � v-i- ems•- - � -' / lqq J L j 12 t_ 5 LAIN Ij t ' �■. .. .� . ■ ' We, :the a og NoGite U.i aq,e, 21851 Newtand, 1durvtb*&n 6eaeh, and otJw✓i rsobVe honte pc&kd. 4eG,4+, At V-uA gc4w� / tan r`lrw: wwt 79 - 2 be cleni,ed. We �evt! tlw- pa44w,--- opt wntinuati.on of thi i arus.+A-wL nt would w� .t.n tAe tom. Name p ace # Pa tk nw,,w- '94 4 .4 1(o / 2Q4, . 33 19-7 ©4ell r r a.•�. ..i „ii! i ii/ ��_ .ram. .�� - - .� s .! T/ ... . ... . . ..... i i �� ( � �_ � -- ...r. /. ,� i.� Yam: ► � l � '` _ f OR YAW -.. �.�� fide►'' / ' � ��i�' �J ► -- RA WROM IiL! ,1 - -- Wimp � � INN= r� 1