HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Hearing - General Plan Amendment 96-1 - Local Coastal Council/Agency Meeting Held: 3,27
Deferred/Continued to:
0 Approved 2'Conditi y Approved ❑ D nie ity Clerk's Signa e
Council Meeting Date: March 17, 1997 Department ID Number: CD97-12
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
Q7
SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS #.,rn
v.-n M
---------------
:Q.
SUBMITTED BY: MICHAEL T. UBERUAGA, City Adminis rator
PREPARED BY: MELANIE S. FALLON, Community Development Directorl�4Ad�y
SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment No. 96-1/Zoning Map Amendment
No. 96-1/Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 96-
1/Negative Declaration No. 96-2 (21 st and 22nd Street
General Plan Amendment and Zone Change)
Statement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachment(s)'
Statement of Issue:
Transmitted for the City Council's consideration is a request to approve General Plan
Amendment No. 96-1, Zoning Map Amendment No. 96-1, Local Coastal Program
Amendment No. 96-1 and Negative Declaration No. 96-2, submitted by Mike Adams on
behalf of eleven (11) property owners, to redesignate ten (10) lots on .88 net acres from
mixed use and Visitor-Serving Commercial to residential. The change in land use
designation would allow one (1) single family dwelling on each lot or a maximum number of
26 multi-family units, if all of the lots were merged. This project was approved by the
Planning Commission on January 14, 1997, and staff is also recommending approval. If the
Council chooses to approve the request the following actions should be taken:
(Recommended Action A) - "Approve Negative Declaration No. 96-2 with Mitigation
Measures and add the following mitigation measure: `Any application for future residential
projects will require a uniform 25 foot wide landscape buffer along Pacific Coast Highway on
each lot';" and
(Recommended Action B) - "Approve General Plan Amendment No. 96-1 and Local
Coastal Program Amendment No. 96-1 by adopting Resolution No.±LE;" and
R
(Recommended Action C) - "Approve Zoning Map Amendment No. 96-1 with Findings by
adopting Ordinance No. 3351 -" and
Recommended Action D) "Approve Resolution No. 97-19requesting Certification from the
California Coastal Commission of Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 96-1."
i
(5) 03/17/97-Council/Age4pgenda-Page 5
D-2. (City Council) Public Hearing-Resolution No.97-17-General Plan Amendment No.96-1 -
Local Coastal Program No.96-1 -Negative Declaration No. 96-2 -Introduction Of
Ordinance No. 3351 -Zoning Map Amendment No. 96-1 -Resolution No.97-18 -
Certification From California Coastal Commission Of Local Coastal Program No. 96-1 -
n/PCH -s/o Walnut St. -Alley Between 21st& 22nd Sts. (440.50)
Public Hearing to consider the following:
A lican : Mike Adams
Reques : To redesignate ten (10) lots on .88 net acres from Mixed Use and Visitor-Serving
Commercial to High Density Residential.
Location: North Pacific Coast Highway, south of Walnut Street and the alley, between
21st and 22nd Streets.
** Communication received from Eileen Murphy dated March 11, 1997, in opposition to approval of
General Plan Amendment No. 96-1 rezoning 10 lots to high density residential
Recommended Action: Planning Commission And Staff Recommendation:
Motion to:
A. Approve Negative Declaration No. 96-2 with Mitigation Measures (contained in Attachment
No. 4 to the Request for Council Action dated March 17, 1997) and add the following
mitigation measure: "Any application for future residential projects will require a uniform 25
foot wide landscape buffer along Pacific Coast Highway on each lot".
[Adopted as amended to require recorded covenant for ensuring single family development-- 7-0]
AND
B. Approve General Plan Amendment No. 96-1 and Local Coastal Program Amendment
No. 96-1 by adopting Resolution No. 97-17 (Attachment No. 1 to the Request For Council
Action dated March 17, 1997)-"A Resolution Of The City Council Of The City Of Huntington
Beach, California, Approving General Plan Amendment No. 96-1, Local Coastal Program
Amendment No. 96-1, And Negative Declaration No. 96-2."
[Adopted 7-0]
AND
C. Approve Zoning Map Amendment No.96-1 with Findings by approving Introduction of
Ordinance No. 3351 (Attachment No. 2 to the Request for Council Action dated March 17,
1997) - An Ordinance Of The City Of Huntington Beach Amending The Downtown Specific
Plan To Redesignate The Real Property Generally Located Between Pacific Coast Highway
And Walnut Avenue, And Between 21st and 22nd Streets From Downtown Specific Plan District
1 (Visitor Serving Commercial) To Downtown Specific Plan District 2(Residential)."
[Approved Introduction of Ord 3351 -- 7-0-- to be presented for Adoption 417197]
AND
D. Adopt Resolution No.97-18 requesting Certification from the California Coastal Commission
of Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 96-1 (Attachment No. 3 to the Request for
Council Action dated March 17, 1997) - "A Resolution Of The City Council Of The City Of
Huntington Beach Adopting Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 96-1 (General Plan
Amendment No. 96-1;Zoning Map Amendment No. 96-1; Negative Declaration No. 96-2)And
Requesting Its Certification By The California Coastal Commission."
[Adopted 7-0]
(5)
RORUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTIOI
MEETING DATE: March 17, 1997 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD97-12
Funding Source: Not applicable.
Recommended Action:
Planning Commission and Staff Recommendation:
Motion to:
A. "Approve Negative Declaration No. 96-2 with Mitigation Measures (contained in
Attachment No. 4) and add the following mitigation measure: 'Any application for future
residential projects will require a uniform 25 foot wide landscape buffer along Pacific
Coast Highway on each lot';" and
B. "Approve General Plan Amendment No. 96-1 and Local Coastal Program Amendment
No. 96-1 by adopting Resolution No. q7-17 (Attachment No. 1);" and
C. "Approve Zoning Map Amendment No. 96-1 with Findings by adopting Ordinance No.
(Attachment No. 2);" and
D. "Approve Resolution No. 9-7-1 requesting Certification from the California coastal
Commission of Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 96-1 (Attachment No. 3)."
Planning Commission Action on January 14, 1997:
A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY BIDDLE TO APPROVE
NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 96-2, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 96-1, ZONING
MAP AMENDMENT NO. 96-1, LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 96-1
WITH FINDINGS AND TO ADD THE FOLLOWING MITIGATION MEASURE TO NEGATIVE
DECLARATION NO. 96-2: : "ANY APPLICATION FOR FUTURE RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS
WILL REQUIRE A UNIFORM 25 FOOT WIDE LANDSCAPE BUFFER ALONG PACIFIC
COAST HIGHWAY ON EACH LOT", BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Holden, Livengood, Kerins, Biddle, Gorman, Tillotson
NOES: None
ABSENT: Speaker (out of the room)
ABSTAIN: None
MOTION PASSED
Alternative Action(s):
The City Council may make one of the following alternative motions:
1. "Deny General Plan Amendment No. 96-1, Zoning Map Amendment No. 96-1, Local
Coastal Program Amendment No. 96-1 and Negative Declaration No. 96-2 with
findings; " or
2. "Continue General Plan Amendment No. 96-1, Zoning Map Amendment No. 96-1,
Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 96-1, Negative Declaration No. 96-2 and direct
staff accordingly."
CD97-12.DOC -2- 02/24/97 9:59 AM
RAUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: March 17, 1997 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD97-12
Analysis:
A. Proiect Proposal
Applicant: Mike Adams (property owners' representative), 19771 Sea Canyon Circle,
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Property
Owners: Various (Attachment No. 8)
Location: North of Pacific Coast Highway, south of Walnut and south of the alley,
between 21 st and 22nd Streets
General Plan Amendment No. 96-1 is a request to amend the General Plan Land Use Map
and Figure LU-6 (Huntington Beach Sub-Area Map, Sub-Area 3C) of the Land Use Element
of the General Plan from MV (Mixed Use - Vertically Integrated Housing) to RH-30 (High
Density Residential - 30 units per acre). This would change the allowable uses on the ten
(10) lots from commercial (or commercial incorporated with residential) to high density
residential.
Zoning Map Amendment No. 96-1 is a request to change the zoning map from Downtown
Specific Plan District One (Visitor-Serving Commercial) to Downtown Specific Plan District
Two (Residential). This would change the permitted uses on the ten (10) lots from
commercial or commercial developed with residential (mixed-use) to residential.
Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 96-1 is a request to transmit changes in the City's
Local Coastal Program (i.e., the General Plan Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment) to
the Coastal Commission for approval subsequent to the City's action on these two
applications.
Negative Declaration No. 96-2 was prepared pursuant to section 240.04 of the HBZSO and
the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. Staff reviewed the environmental
assessment and determined that no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of the
proposed project that could not be mitigated to a level of insignificance.
B. Planning Commission Meeting
On January 14, 1997, the Planning Commission acted to recommend approval of the subject
request (Attachment No. 6), with the motion to include the following statement in draft
Negative Declaration No. 96-2: "Any application for future residential projects will require a
uniform 25 foot wide landscape buffer along Pacific Coast Highway on each lot."
CD97-12.DOC -3- 02/24/97 9:59 AM
RORUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTIOR
MEETING DATE: March 17, 1997 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD97-12
Two (2) people spoke at the public hearing. The first speaker was a City resident who
spoke in support of staffs recommendation to approve this project. The other speaker was
Mike Adams, the applicants' representative. Mr. Adams told the Planning commission that it
is the applicants' intent to build detached single-family dwellings and not multi-family
residential units on the site. He gave a brief summary of the fiscal impact of this project (see
Attachment No. 9).
C. Staff Analysis
1) Site History
The subject site consists of ten (10) lots which are owned by various property
owners. Each of the ten (10) lots is twenty-five (25) feet wide and approximately 156
feet long. If the lots were combined, the project site would have a net acreage of
.88 (38,250 sq. feet). The applicant has stated that it is the intent of the property
owners to develop one (1) single family dwelling on each of the lots, however, no
development is proposed with this application.
2) General Plan Conformance:
The General Plan Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment would change the Land
Use designation on the ten (10) lots from Mixed Use-Vertically Integrated Housing
(Commercial or Commercial developed with Residential) to High Density
Residential (30 units per acre) and the Zoning from Downtown Specific Plan District
1 (Visitor-Serving Commercial) to Downtown Specific Plan District 2 (Residential).
The proposed project is consistent with the following goals, objectives and policies
of the City's General Plan:
General Plan Amendment/Zoning Map Amendment
Land Use Element
• Land Use 8.1.1 (d) Intensify residential uses in proximity to key commercial or
mixed-use districts to promote accessibility and reduce vehicular use.
The properties that are located west of the subject site and which front on Pacific
Coast Highway from Golden West to Seapoint have a Mixed Use land use
designation. This represents over 235 acres with a Mixed Use land use designation
that will be in close proximity to the future residential development on this site.
• Land Use 9 Achieve the development of a range of housing units that provides for
the diverse economic, physical, and social needs of existing and future residents of
Huntington Beach.
CD97-12.DOC -4- 02/24/97 9:59 AM
RRUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTIO�
MEETING DATE: March 17, 1997 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD97-12
Although no development is proposed with this application, the applicant has stated
that it is the intent of the property owners to develop one (1) single family dwelling
on each of the ten (10) lots. If all of the lots were merged, however, a maximum of
26 multi-family residential units could be built, such as townhomes, garden
apartments and apartments.
• Land Use 9.1 Provide for the development of single and multi-family residential
neighborhoods.
The subject site would expand the existing residential neighborhood, which is
located to the east (across 21 st Street) and to the north (between the alley and
Walnut), by .88 net acres.
• Housing Element 2.0 Encourage the provision and continued availability of a range
of housing types throughout the community, with a variety in the number of rooms
and availability of amenities.
Since the project would permit the development of either single family dwelling units
on each of the 10 lots, or up to 26 multi-family residential units by merging the
existing lots, adequate provision for a range of housing types is being encouraged.
• Housing Element 3.0 Housing sites should be located with convenient access to
arterial highways and public transportation, schools, parks and recreational facilities,
shopping areas, and employment opportunities; adequately served by public
facilities, services, and utilities; and compatible with surrounding land uses.
The subject site has 250 feet of frontage along Pacific Coast Highway, a major
arterial highway. Pacific Coast Highway is also serviced by public transportation
and has a Class 1 Trail bicycle route designation. The subject site is across the
street from the City Beach and Bluff Top Park and a few blocks from the Pier. It is
also served by Dwyer Middle School and Huntington Beach High School.
3) Zoning Compliance:
The proposal is to change the zoning designation of ten (10) lots from Downtown Specific
Plan District 1 (Visitor-Serving Commercial) to Downtown Specific Plan District 2
(Residential). Downtown Specific Plan District 1 allows the development of a commercial
project or the development of a commercial project in conjunction with a residential
component. Downtown Specific Plan District 2 allows the exclusive development of
residential units, either multi-family or single family. The following is a zoning
conformance matrix which compares the minimum parcel size requirements for District 1
and District 2 and the actual lot sizes of each of the ten (10) lots.
C097-12.DOC -5- 02/24/97 9:59 AM
RIUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTIONO
MEETING DATE: March 17, 1997 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD97-12
Issue Downtown Downtown Specific Subject Lots
Specific Plan Plan District 2
District 1 (Visitor- (Residential)
Serving
Commercial
Min. Lot 100 feet of 25 feet 25 feet
Width I frontage
Min. Lot Size 1 10,000 square feet 1 2,500 square feet 13900
As the matrix shows, the subject lots conform to the minimum lot size requirements for
Downtown Specific Plan District 2. The proposed zone change to Downtown Specific Plan
District 2 would allow the property owners to develop their properties within the specific
standards for 25 foot wide lots.
3. Coastal Status:
The primary coastal issue of this project is the loss of land designated for visitor-serving
commercial uses within the coastal zone. This loss has been offset by the recent General
Plan update which redesignated 235.77 acres west of the project site (between Golden
West and Seapoint and Palm Avenue) from oil production to mixed use. Commercial uses
will be restricted to areas which front Pacific Coast Highway, thereby ensuring that
commercial uses within the coastal zone are preserved.
4. Compatibility
The proposed General Plan Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment from Mixed Use to
High Density Residential will be compatible with existing and planned uses in the vicinity.
The areas immediately north and east of the subject site have a residential land use
designation which allow multi-family or single family residential units. Since the subject
site consists of ten (10) 25 foot wide lots, the property owners have stated that it is their
intent to build one single family home on each lot, however, the proposed zoning
designation would allow a maximum development of 26 units if all of the lots were merged.
Although there is no development proposed with this application, impacts as a result of
future residential development have been addressed in Negative Declaration No. 96-2 and
mitigation measures have been recommended. In addition, the Planning Commission
recommended that the following mitigation measure be added: "Any application for future
residential projects will require a uniform 25 foot wide landscape buffer along Pacific Coast
Highway on each lot."
5. Coastal Element
The project is inconsistent with the policies of the Coastal Element, which places a high
priority on retaining and developing areas designated for visitor-serving commercial uses.
CD97-12.DOC -6- 02/24/97 9:59 AM
RLRUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTIONO
MEETING DATE: March 17, 1997 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD97-12
It is staffs position, however, that the recent General Plan update, which increased the
acreage of land reserved for mixed uses (and which allows commercial uses) by over 200
acres, more than offsets the loss of .88 net acres designated for visitor-serving commercial
uses on the subject site. Thus, the General Plan update has implemented and preserved
the policies of the Coastal Element. The proposed land use designation would implement
the following policies of the Coastal Element of the General Plan:
Policy 6: Preserve and enhance visual resources within the coastal zone.
The subject site has been zoned commercial for over twenty years yet it still remains
vacant. By changing the land use designation on the ten (10) lots from commercial to
residential, it would allow the property owners to develop single family or multi-family units
on the property, thereby enhancing the appearance of the subject site.
Policy 6a: Ensure new development within the coastal zone includes the features listed
below and establish review procedures for implementation.
- Preservation of public views... to the shoreline and ocean
-Adequate landscaping and vegetation.
- Evaluation of project design regarding visual impact.
The subject site has frontage on Pacific Coast Highway and is located across the street
from the City Beach and Bluff Top Park. Because of its proximity to the coast, it is
important that at the time of development review, the above features be incorporated into
the proposed residential development, or that the project be conditioned to require
conformance with the above policy.
6. Economic
The applicant has prepared a fiscal impact analysis (Attachment No. 9) which briefly
discusses the benefits a residential project would have over a commercial development.
According to the applicant, there are three (3) benefits to this proposal: First, the City
would receive more tax revenues from high-value single family homes that may be
appraised over $500,000, than what it is currently receiving from the vacant land. Second,
a residential project would allow for more site development and coverage than a
commercial project which would be limited to about 20,000 square feet. Third, developing
high-value single family homes is a better land use than developing a strip commercial
shopping center.
7. Traffic
Existing roadway segments in the area are currently operating at a level of service (LOS)
of E or better (Pacific Coast Highway to Brookhurst Street). The signalized intersection at
Pacific Coast Highway and Golden West Street has an AM peak hour of LOS C or better.
The proposed residential land use designation would allow a maximum development of 26
CD97-12.DOC -7- 02/24/97 9:59 AM
RAUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION'
MEETING DATE: March 17, 1997 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD97-12
multi-family units which is projected to generate approximately 224 trips/day. On the other
hand, the existing commercial land use designation allows a 38,250 sq. foot commercial
development which would generate an average of approximately 1,338.75 vehicle
trips/day (based upon the strip commercial designation of the Santa Ana River Area
(SARA) Trip Generation Rates). Thus, the projected trip generation for a residential
development is lower than the projected trip generation for a commercial development and
constitutes less than 62% of the existing traffic in the area. The slight increase in traffic
would not be considered significant and could generally be accommodated by the City's
traffic/circulation system.
Due to the demand for parking along Pacific Coast Highway, future residential
development would be required to provide all parking on site and comply with the vehicular
access requirements of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Code
and Downtown Specific Plan. The Downtown Specific Plan requires 2 enclosed spaces for
each dwelling unit with up to 3 bedrooms and 1 space for each additional bedroom.
8. Noise
Future residential development will be exposed to significant noise levels which is
generated by traffic on Pacific Coast Highway. Since the project site is located in the 60
CNEL noise contour, noise mitigation measures will be required for future residential
developments in order to reduce the interior noise levels to the 45 dB(A) level (Noise
Element 1.2.3). Mitigation measures such as double paned windows and insulation will be
required, as well as compliance with the noise standards of the City of Huntington Beach
Municipal Code.
Environmental Status:
Negative Declaration No. 96-2 (Attachment No. 4) was prepared pursuant to section
240.04 of the HBZSO and the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. Staff
has reviewed the environmental assessment and determined that no significant impacts
are anticipated as a result of the proposed project that could not be mitigated to a level of
insignificance. The potentially significant impacts which require mitigation are in the areas
of water, transportation and circulation, hazards, noise and public services.
Water
The project site is currently vacant. Future development under the proposed residential
designation will result in the introduction of new impervious surfaces on the site and may
affect runoff and drainage patterns on the site. Subsequent development of the site will be
required to submit a grading plan for review and approval by the Public Works department
to determine that the runoff generated by the proposed project will not adversely impact
existing drainage systems and adjacent properties.
CD97-12.DOC -8- 02/24/97 9:59 AM
RAUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTI010
MEETING DATE: March 17, 1997 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD97-12
In order to ensure that drainage from the site does not create the potential for pollutants,
future construction will be required to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) Industrial Stormwater Permit from the Regional Water Quality Control
Board. The following mitigation measure is included in the draft Negative Declaration and
the suggested conditions of approval:
"In order to ensure that drainage from the site does not create the potential for
pollutants, future construction will be required to obtain a National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Industrial Stormwater Permit from the
Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to issuance of a building permit."
Transportation and Circulation
Any future residential development would be required to provide access from the adjacent
alley or numbered streets. This would eliminate multiple driveways on Pacific Coast
Highway and help maintain the level of service as well as reduce the potential for
accidents.
Hazards
The project site has a history of oil production. The site was recently cleaned to City Fire
Department specifications to remediate potential soil contamination from these oil
operations. The site is located within the methane district. Construction that results from
this request will be required to address potential methane impacts per Fire Department
specifications.
Public Services
The project site is located within the Huntington Beach City School District and Huntington
Beach Union High School District. Both school districts have commented on Negative
Declaration No. 96-2 regarding the potential impact this project would have on their
schools. Their comments are discussed below in the following section entitled
"Comments."
Comments
The Department of Community Development advertised draft Negative Declaration No. 96-
2 for thirty (30) days commencing on July 19, 1996 and ending on August 15, 1996.
Comments addressing environmental concerns were received from the Huntington Beach
City School District, Huntington Beach Union High School District, and the California
Coastal Commission.
The Huntington Beach City School District submitted four (4) comments relating to the
issue of school impact fees. At the Planning Commission meeting on January 14, 1997,
CD97-12.DOC -9- 02/24/97 9:59 AM
RAUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTI011
MEETING DATE: March 17, 1997 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD97-12
staff was informed that the school districts would not request additional school impact fees
for the development of one (1) single family home on individual lots. The applicants'
representative has sent letters to the school districts requesting them to write a letter to the
City stating this information, however, no written documentation has been received thus
far. School impact fees are collected prior to issuance of building permits. The California
Coastal Commission's comments focused on the project's inconsistency with Section 3 of
the Coastal Element, which places an emphasis on retaining and developing areas
designated for Visitor-Serving Commercial uses within the Coastal Zone. The stated:
"Both the Coastal Act and the City's certified LUP place a higher priority on Visitor-serving
Commercial uses than on residential uses. Section 3023 of the Coastal Act states , in
part: Lower cost visitor and recreational facilities shall be protected, encouraged and
where feasible, provided. Section 30222 of the Coastal Act stated: 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."
Staffs response to the California Coastal Commission's comments is that the elimination
of the Visitor-Serving Commercial designation on the ten (10) lots would be offset by the
recent General Plan update which redesignated 235.77 acres one block west of the project
site (between Goldenwest and Seapoint and Palm Avenue) from oil production to mixed
use (MH-Mixed-Use, Horizontally Integrated Housing). The mixed use (MH) designation
allows commercial uses, as well as multi-family residential. In this case, commercial
development will be allowed only on properties which front Pacific Coast Highway, which is
approximately 6,250 feet in length from Goldenwest to Seapoint. Furthermore, the loss
would be offset by General Plan amendment No. 94-1, which changed the zoning between
6th Street along Pacific Coast Highway, from Downtown Specific Plan District 2
(Residential) to Downtown Specific Plan District 1 (Visitor-Serving Commercial).
In addition, the project site has had a commercial designation for over 20 years yet it still
remains vacant. One of the reasons for this is due to the site's relatively small size. If all
of the lots were combined, the project site would only have a net acreage of .88 which
greatly limits the type of commercial development that could be developed. Thus, by
allowing the land use designation to change from commercial to residential, it would
encourage development on the site because each of the ten (10) lots could accommodate
a single family residence. Furthermore, the subject site has limited access and a
commercial development could generate significant traffic and circulation problems for
Pacific coast Highway, a major arterial highway.
Prior to any action on the subject entitlements, it is necessary for the City Council to
review and act on Negative Declaration No. 96-2. Staff is recommending that the negative
declaration be approved with mitigation measures and that the following mitigation
CD97-12.DOC -10- 02/24/97 9:59 AM
RAUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTI011
MEETING DATE: March 17, 1997 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD97-12
measure be added: "Any application for future residential projects will require a uniform
25 foot wide landscape buffer along Pacific Coast Highway on each lot."
SUMMARY:
The Planning Commission (and staff) are recommending approval of the project for the
following reasons:
The proposed General Plan Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment to redesignate
ten (10) lots from Mixed Use to High Density Residential is consistent with the existing
General Plan Land Use designation and Zoning on the property to the east, north and
subject site which allow single family or multi-family residential units.
• Each of the ten (10) 25 feet wide and 156 feet long lots is consistent with the minimum
parcel size requirements for the proposed zoning.
The loss of .88 net acres designated for mixed use development has been offset by the
recent General Plan update which redesignated 235.77 acres one block west of the
project site (between Goldenwest and Seapoint and Palm Ave) from oil production to
mixed use, which would allow commercial development along Pacific Coast Highway.
Furthermore, the loss would be offset by GPA No. 94-1, which changed the zoning
between 6th Street and 8th Street along Pacific Coast Highway, from Downtown
Specific Plan District 2 (Residential) to Downtown Specific Plan District 1 (Visitor-
Serving Commercial).
The project site is better suited for a residential development than a commercial
development because of the site's small size and its limited access.
CD97-12.DOC -11- 02/24/97 9:59 AM
AUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION'
MEETING DATE: March 17, 1997 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD97-12
Attachment(s):
Clerk'sCity Page . -
1 Resolution No. 4-7-17 adopting General Plan Amendment No.
96-1, Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 96-1 and Negative
Declaration No. 96-2 as approved by the Planning Commission
2 Ordinance No. 33si adopting Zoning Map Amendment No. 96-1
3 Resolution No.97-!,Prequesting certification from California
Coastal Commission of Local Coastal Program Amendment No.
96-1
4 Negative Declaration No. 96-2 (includes environmental checklist
[with supplemental reports], Mitigation Measures, Response to
Comments, Errata to the Negative Declaration and Comment
Letters from the Huntington Beach School District, Huntington
Beach Union High School District and California Coastal
Commission)
5 Planning Commission staff report dated January 14, 1997,
including Findings for Zoning Map Amendment No. 96-1 and
Applicant's Narrative
6 Planning Commission minutes dated January 14, 1997
7. Letters in Opposition and/or Support
$ Property Ownership List and Map
9 Fiscal Analysis prepared by Mike Adams
CD97-12.DOC -12- 02/24/97 9:59 AM
I61I0 NOTICES PUBLIC NnTUS PUBIC NOTICES PLri LIC WTICES
NOTICE OF
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL.OF THE
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on March 17, 1997,at 7:00 PM in the City Council
Chambers,2000 Main Street,Huntington Beach,the City Council will hold a public hearing on
the following planning and zoning item:
(YENERAL PLAN—AUBINDMENT 96-IIZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO,96-
IINi DATIVE DECI,Agg. JQti Nq,96-2;LO�; COASTAL PROGRAM
AMENDMENT NO,96-1: ,ApTilis= IN ice Adarrs ,°i;Qu,-s: To redesignate ten(10)
lots on.88 net acres from Mixed Use and Visitor-Serving Commercial to High Density
Residential. Locate: North of Pacific Coast Highway,south of R•'a r:ut and the alley,
between 21 st and 22nd Streets(see attached map). Project Plann I: Hannan Brondial
Bowen
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that initial environmental assessments for the above item was
processed and completed in accordance with the California Quality Act. It was determined that
the above item,with mitigation,would not have any significant environmental effects and that a
mitigated negative declaration,is warranted. Prior to acting on the project,the City Council must
review and act on the negative declaration. These environmental assessments z--on file at the
City of Huntington Beach Community Development Department,2000 Main Stre:,,and are
available for public inspection and comment by contacting the Community Development
Department,or by telephoning(714)536-5271.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Local Coastal Program No.96-1 will be forwarded to the
California Coastal Commission for final action.
9N-MF,: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the City Clerk's Office,2000 Main Strect,
Huntington Beach,California 92648,for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report will
be available to interested parties at the City Clerk's Office after March 13, 1997.
ALL IN:ERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or suhmi'
evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If you challenge th^City COU116l'S
action in court,you may be limited to rais:rg or_'.y tl.ose*issues you or soineorn ._ .raised t,,the
public hearing described in this notice,or in written correspondence delivered to tl:e (lit} at,or
prior to,the public hearing. ;f there are any further questions please call the Planning Divi3ion at
536-527_ and refer to the above item. Direct your a7itten communications to the City:aerk.
Connie Brockway,City Clerk
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street,2nd Floor
Huntington Beach,California 9264E
1714)536-5227
PROJECT
a
-. W Cr. OLIVE _
a - - i Z
WALNUT
f III WAE11_5 f-1 !_
.
l .
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
) SS.
County of Orange )
I am a Citizen of the United States and a
resident of the County aforesaid; I am
over the age of eighteen years, and not a
party to or interested in the below
entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of
the HUNTINGTON BEACH INDEPENDENT, a
newspaper of general circulation, printed
and published in the City of Huntington
Beach, County of Orange, State of
California, and that attached Notice is a
true and complete copy as was printed
and published in the Huntington Beach
and Fountain Valley issues of said
newspaper to wit the issue(s) of:
March 6 , 1997
I declare, under penalty of perjury, that
the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on March 6 , 1997
at Costa Mesa, California.
Signature
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
VOLUME II:
IMPLIMENTING ORDINANCES
CERTIFIED MARCH 1992
AMENDED MAY 1992
AND
FEBRUARY 1994
�L�omp/eke /e in � y /ergs D� ;ee�
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
VOLUME II: IMPLIMENTING ORDINANCES
Certified March 1985
Amended May 1992
and
February 1994
Approved by the Huntington Beach
Planning Commission October 16, 1990
Approved by the Huntington Beach
City Council November 19, 1990
Approved by the California
Coastal Commission December 1321991
Prepared by
The city of Huntington Beach
Department of Communtiy Development
O.ie pale P;4 .
(6alb/e,e -,4 k i11 &
•
i
ono
CO
ASTA L
ELEMEN -
LCP CERTIFIED MARCH 1985
Amended through October 1992
lei
oil 14 fflf
I
A
1
0
O
0 00 [Basch
O ' VOLUME I LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
Owe �oa�e �ri�•
��onpp,�� .-�;% is �i�y G��e�,�.� a�-�/ce•� ��,
RESOLUTION NO. 97-17
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA,APPROVING GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT NO. 96-1, LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 96-1,
AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 96-2
WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment No. 96-1 is a request to amend the Land Use
Element and the Coastal Element of the City's General Plan to incorporate a redesignation of
approximately .88 net acres of real property generally located between Pacific Coast Highway
and Walnut Avenue, and between 21 st and 22nd Streets in the City of Huntington Beach from
Mixed Use-Vertically Integrated housing to Residential High Density-30 units per acre; and
Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 96-1 is a request to revise pertinent maps in the
Coastal Element of the General Plan; and
Pursuant to the California Government Code,the Planning Commission of the City of
Huntington Beach, after notice duly given, held a public hearing to consider General Plan
Amendment 96-1, Local Coastal Program Amendment 96-1 and Negative Declaration No. 96-2
and recommended their approval to the City Council; and
Pursuant to the California Government Code, the City Council of the City of Huntington
Beach, after notice duly given, held a public hearing to consider General Plan Amendment 96-1,
Local Coastal Program Amendment 96-1 and Negative Declaration No. 96-2; and
The City Council finds that General Plan Amendment No. 96-1 and Local Coastal
Program Amendment No. 96-1 are necessary for the changing needs and orderly development of
the community, and are necessary to accomplish the goals and objectives of the General Plan and
are consistent with the other elements of the General Plan; and
The City Council finds that Negative Declaration No. 96-2 addresses the environmental
issues pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby
resolve as follows:
SECTION 1: That the real property that is the subject of this Resolution (hereinafter
referred to as the "Subject Property") is generally located between Pacific Coast Highway and
Walnut Avenue, and between 21 st and 22nd Streets in the City of Huntington Beach, and is more
particularly described in the legal description and sketch attached hereto as Exhibits A-1 and A-
2, respectively, and incorporated by this reference as though fully set forth herein.
SECTION 2: That General Plan Amendment No. 96-1, which amends the General Plan
Designation for the Subject Property from Mixed Use-Vertically Integrated Housing to
Residential High Density-30 units per acre is hereby approved, and the Land Use Plan in the
1
4:PCD:Resol ution:gpa96-1
ris N 96-947
Land Use Element of the General Plan, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B, is hereby
amended to implement General Plan Amendment No. 96-1.
SECTION 3: That Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 96-1, which revises the
pertinent maps in the Coastal Element of the General Plan, is hereby approved, and the Coastal
Element of the General Plan, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit C, is hereby amended
to implement Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 96-1.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a
regular meeting held on the 17th day of March , 1997.
A&�g A4�u�-
Mayor
ATTEST: ARTOVED AS TO FORM:
City Clerk Attorney PLC- q ?
9_
REVIEWED APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED:
City Administrator Director of Community Development
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A-1: Legal Description
Exhibit A-2: Property Sketch
— Exhibit B: Land,Use Plan
— Exhibit C: Coastal Element
2
4:PCD:Rcsolutim pa96-1
ris 4 96-947
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Beginning at the most northerly corner of Lot 10, Block 121 of the Huntington Beach
Seventeenth Street Section Tract, as recorded in Book 4, page 10 of Miscellaneous
Maps, records of Orange County, State of California; thence northerly 37.5 feet
approximately to a point, said point being the Intersection of the centerlines of 22nd
Street and the public alley (between Walnut Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway); said
point also being the true point of beginning; thence southwesterly along the centerline
of 22nd Street and its prolongation approximately 215 feet to the centerline of Pacific
Coast Highway; thence southeasterly approximately 325 feet to an extension of the
centerline of 21 st Street; thence northerly along the centerline of 21 st Street to an
extension of the centerline of the alley, between Pacific Coast Highway and Walnut
Avenue, approximately 215 feet; thence northwesterly along the alley centerline
approximately 325 feet to the true point of beginning.
i
L.� 20 1
22 37 32 18 17 25 h 22 17.s 19
r8 7 18 17 117.50-
2 0 16 15 36 33 16 15 = 17 _. n.__ 4 1 16 20' 15 = 10 1>s-
BLK. 19 14 1 35 221 • 27 1a 20' rJ „s' BLK. 1,5• ra 13 N 219
5 n 12 20' 1r 11 'BLK.30 12 � 11 N 220 5 12 5- 11 11
w - 13 L :,
a PAR.2 r0 w 9 12 31 f0 _j 9 6 10 —I 9 12 n
P.M. 191-39` ,8 `� 7 RS 29 115?-15. „— 16 ^ 8 Q 7 35 h 117,50 27 8 1� 7 n ,u
eo — — 117,50• — — 115' •-- — ———
a PART 33 n 6 7. 5 28 „7.so " 34 h 28
us 6 7• 0.50 115• 26 6 20 5
I U' Lof,
Its 117.50.
„5 24 a 3 17 ,» 7 _ 4 3 39 N 24 4 -29
o•a 25 ? 20. 1 18 20• 9s 2 20 1 ,00 38 tl uR- ,nso 25 2 a.s 1 2p e
A VENUE •
W.50' 15• 117.'W 95• 17.5 117.50' 20' 95•
10 22 1 ,^, 26 n ° 7► 11 22 21 17 n os _�22 2114�1 _-- a
II7S0 I15' 1
I g .20 19 ' _ r 16 20 17.s f9 21 ' 20 19 _
N 2 r,3 ,7 25 OLK. 15 re � 17 12020 _ 1817
—i
BL K. 3 r 1s 2 4 121 ^►2.so. 2 16 Q 15 19 115• BL K.� 16 Q 15 119_
12 H 14 23 `" — „ — 14 7,5 13 n7.50• 10 it 20 13 '
l2 1 ,z so r 3 12 20' it 9 1n n —— ;, 12 1 ;, ———
n7. ^ v so ur us 115• ^ ^ ns'
ALL n 137 ALLEYS• "- r 13H ALLEY
10 9 8 7 4 J 2 1 250 05 101 9 200 05-
6 5 25• 25•
25' i • • 25• TRA C T i TRA C T
( PROJECT 9J7-16-429-470 I PROJECT 9J7-16-561-586
14 15 16 17 18 21 19 LOT 14 1 8 Z ( LOTs1 8
13 ( 2 0 0.936 AC. O — 15 0.722 AC. ~
I N �
14
TE T -! T N0. 1300. ( NO. 12947, 75.
7 5 25• 0 5• 5' 7 11.P 21107• �� N 75• 10. 17 08'
� e
(OCEAN AVE.) HIGHWA Y
ENTEENTH ST. SEC. M.M. 4-10 17 NOTE - ASSESSOR'S BLOCK 6 ASSESSOR'S MAP
M.M. 585-48,49,50
PARCEL NUMBERS Y BOOK 23 PAGE 13
M. 598-49,50 CWtI1AlAl 1n1 -1 Fc r 0IINTY OF 17pANr,F
i
b� ��i;, t `• / :b3 6G /�� IAA � •tt�' .
AG
as
�G ea-• is
/\
.c eA. ee— _ _
l = _ "
So G ea ••` e � •
`aa 7L =l0= _ •` a�
. �J
-- !G�
ee— �• •
-_tDMa-
�G
\ r eE
• \j///� eM—� as � �tip
/ 4G— / — — 7e �\is \ O
tl
to ..•. ... _1f- aG
^�••�:.•,•t. •;w �j 45 •� . `.'... Ppclfic Ocean
;NO �•I �41 41 i
r City Boundary i Old Town Beach Boulevard K •
Downtown PCH Coastal Corridor 77 CNIc Center Node
Pier Regbnat Commercial Nodes Industrial Nodes
Co mmercial Core
7INGTON BEACH
-AREA MAP o zs s
of Huntington Beach General Plan I
LU-61
• a
II-64
• .t. .f, i; c .�i-v „•.yyy(�. '• •. �•. . �,.��,j�`. 'e.:'1';� ni^ •ti[.�. •„s. �. .i s�i�;a::.•':.� ..• .,�• � l LYE '•ko
w .��tl.viA:3i�`Y.'3�.�.•n r�kL;:��:�T �-1•ri�l• .ri• � t.., f,`.
•
HUNTINGTON BEACH
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
GENERAL PLAN
As Adopted by City Council May 13, 1996
•
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CILAPTER
LAAID USE ELEMENT
STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS
State of California law requires that a land use element be prepared as a part of a City's General Plan, as
follows:
Government Code Section 65302(a): A land use element which designates the proposed
general distribution and general location and extent of uses of the land for housing,
business, industry, open space, including agriculture, natural resources, recreation, and
enjoyment of scenic beauty, education, public buildings and grounds, solid waste disposal
facilities, and other categories of public and private uses of land. The land use element
shall include a statement of the standards of population density and building intensity
recommended for the various districts and other territory covered by the plan.I
Of the General Plan elements required by the State,the Land Use Element has the broadest scope. Since it
governs how land is to be utilized, many of the issues and policies contained in other plan elements are
influenced by or influence this element. For example, the Circulation Element defines policies for the
accommodation of vehicular and other trips generated by the population and uses permitted by the Land
Use Element. Similarly, the location and density of uses prescribed by this Element are influenced by
policies for the protection of environmental resources prescribed by the Environmental
Resources/Conservation Element.
TECHNICAL SYNOPSIS
A. DISTRIBUTION OF EXISTING LAND USES
The City of Huntington Beach contains approximately 17,730 acres, or 27.7 square miles. Ninety-eight
percent of the City is developed with residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, public uses, and
streets/highways (Figure LU-1). The remaining two percent of the land within city boundaries is vacant.
Table LU-1 identifies the various amounts of each type of existing land uses as surveyed in 1991.
As the table indicates, residential use is the largest single land use in Huntington Beach, of which, single
family units represents the majority of all housing. The residential neighborhoods are structured as large
"super blocks" throughout the City, generally defined by a one-mile arterial grid and often focusing on a
school and/or park. The City's major commercial areas are generally located along the major streets, such
as Beach Boulevard and Edinger Avenue, at major intersections, and in the downtown area on Pacific Coast
Highway and Main Street. Industrial uses are generally developed in large centers in the northwest, as a
linear corridor along Gothard Street, and adjacent to the coastal frontage in the southeast and southwest.
Residential development comprises 41% of the land area of the City. Single family units are characterized
by densities up to 7.9 dwelling units per acre2. Multi-family housing units, at medium density (8.0-19.9
units per acre) and high density (20.0 units per acre and above), are generally concentrated in four areas:
Huntington Harbour, Downtown, Warner Avenue between Golden West Street and Springdale Street, and
along Beach Boulevard. There are also 21 mobile home parks scattered throughout the City.
I The Government Code also requires that a Land Use Element identify areas that are subject to flooding. This has been incorporated in the
Hazards Chapter of this plan.
2 The density range was established on the residential unit type found within the City at the time of the land use survey, Fall, 1992. The
density categories do not reflect City density categories as stated in the existing General Plan and Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance.
THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN
I I-LU-1 �—
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
VOLUME II:
IMPLIMENTING ORDINANCES
CERTIFIED MARCH 1992
AMENDED MAY 1992
AND
FEBRUARY 1994
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
VOLUME II: IMPLIMENTING ORDINANCES
Certified March 1985
Amended May 1992
and
February 1994
Approved by the Huntington Beach
Planning Commission October 16, 1990
Approved by the Huntington Beach
City Council November 19, 1990
Approved by the California
Coastal Commission December 13, 1991
Prepared by
The city of Huntington Beach
Department of Communtiy Development
.COASTAL o-v
o�
ELEMEN
LCP CERTIFIED MARCH 1985
Amended through October 1992
Rai',
I
I
ad elull I
FLJI
0
a
o
Lnu 0 0 an
VOLUME I LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
Res. No. 97-17
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss:
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH )
I, CONNIE BROCKWAY,the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of
the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City,
do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City
of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted
by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council
at an adjourned regular meeting thereof held on the 17th day of March, 1997 by
the following vote:
AYES: Julien, Harman, Dettloff, Bauer, Sullivan, Green, Garofalo
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the
City Council of the City of Huntington
Beach, California
G/resol uti/resbkpg/97-2 A
RESOLUTION NO. 9 7-18
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
ADOPTING LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 96-1
(GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 96-1; ZONING MAP
AMENDMENT NO. 96-1; NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 96-2)
AND REQUESTING ITS CERTIFICATION BY THE
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
WHEREAS, after notice duly given pursuant to Government Code Section 65090
and Public Resources Code Sections 30503 and 30510, the Planning Commission of the
City of Huntington Beach held a public hearing to consider the adoption of the
Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 96-1, which is a request to
revise pertinent maps in the Coastal Element, as well as to delete certain language in the
Coastal Element relating to High Density Residential Development and Affordable
Housing on the site; and amend the zoning map in the implementing ordinances section
of the Local Coastal Program; and
Such amendment was recommended to the City Council for adoption; and
The City Council, after giving notice as prescribed by law, held at least one public
hearing on the proposed Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 96-1,
and the City Council finds that the proposed amendment is consistent with the Certified
Huntington Beach Coastal Land Use Plan and Chapter 6 of the California Coastal Act;
and
The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach intends to implement the Local
Coastal Program in a manner fully consistent with the California Coastal Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does
hereby resolve as follows:
SECTION 1. That the Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program Amendment
96 -1, consisting of General Plan Amendment No. 96-1, Zoning Map Amendment
No. 96-1 and Negative Declaration No. 96-2, collectively attached hereto as Exhibits A,
B, and C, is hereby approved.
SECTION 2. That the California Coastal Commission is hereby requested to
consider, approve and certify Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program Amendment No.
96-1.
4/s:PCD:CPA96-1
RLS 96-947
SECTION 3. That pursuant to Section 13551(b) of the Coastal Commission
Regulation, Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 96-1 will take
effect automatically upon Coastal Commission approval, as provided in Public Resources
Code Sections 30512, 30513, and 30519.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach
at a regular meeting thereof held on the 17th day of March , 1997.
A#� Agzu-&-ol
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Clerk G �Ay Attorney y
REVIEWS AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED:
JA12�-e-e
Ci y Administrator Director of Communi y Development
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A: Resolution No. 9 7_17approving General Plan Amendment No. 96-1 and
Negative Declaration No. 96-2
— Exhibit B: Coastal Land Use Plan
Exhibit C: Ordinance No3351 Zoning Map Amendment 96-1 (Includes Legal
Description of Subject Property)
4/s:PCD:CPA96-1
RLS 96-947
I
RESOLUTION NO. 97-17
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA,APPROVING GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT NO. 96-1, LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 96-1,
AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 96-2
WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment No. 96-1 is a request to amend the Land Use
Element and the Coastal Element of the City's General Plan to incorporate a redesignation of
approximately .88 net acres of real property generally located between Pacific Coast Highway
and Walnut Avenue, and between 21 st and 22nd Streets in the City of Huntington Beach from
Mixed Use-Vertically Integrated housing to Residential High Density-30 units per acre; and
Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 96-1 is a request to revise pertinent maps in the
Coastal Element of the General Plan; and
Pursuant to the California Government Code,the PIanning Commission of the City of
Huntington Beach, after notice duly given, held a public hearing to consider General Plan
Amendment 96-1, Local Coastal Program Amendment 96-1 and Negative Declaration No. 96-2
and recommended their approval to the City Council; and
Pursuant to the California Government Code, the City Council of the City of Huntington
Beach, after notice duly given, held a public hearing to consider General Plan Amendment 96-1,
Local Coastal Program Amendment 96-1 and Negative Declaration No. 96-2; and
The City Council finds that General Plan Amendment No. 96-1 and Local Coastal
Program Amendment No. 96-1 are necessary for the changing needs and orderly development of
the community, and are necessary to accomplish the goals and objectives of the General Plan and
are consistent with the other elements of the General Plan; and
The City Council finds that Negative Declaration No. 96-2 addresses the environmental
issues pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby
resolve as follows:
SECTION 1: That the real property that is the subject of this Resolution (hereinafter
referred to as the "Subject Property") is generally located between Pacific Coast Highway and
Walnut Avenue, and between 21 st and 22nd Streets in the City of Huntington Beach, and is more
particularly described in the legal description and sketch attached hereto as Exhibits A-1 and A-
2, respectively, and incorporated by this reference as though fully set forth herein.
SECTION 2: That General Plan Amendment No. 96-1, which amends the General Plan
Designation for the Subject Property from Mixed Use-Vertically Integrated Housing to
Residential High Density-30 units per acre is hereby approved, and the Land Use Plan in the
1
4.PCD_Resolution-gpa96-1
rls#96-947 l 1
j i. -
Land Use Element of the General Plan, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B, is hereby
amended to implement General Plan Amendment No. 96-1.
SECTION 3: That Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 96-1, which revises the
pertinent maps in the Coastal Element of the General Plan, is hereby approved, and the Coastal
Element of the General Plan, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit C, is hereby amended
to implement Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 96-1.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a
regular meeting held.on the 17th day of March , 1997.
A#4
Mayor
ATTEST: APTOVED AS TO FORM:
City Clerk Attorney
REVIEWED APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED:
City Administrator Director of Community Development
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A-1: Legal Description
Exhibit A-2: Property Sketch
Exhibit B: Land Use Plan
— Exhibit C: Coastal Element
2
4:PCD:Rcsolut ion:gpa96-1
rls 4 96-947
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Beginning at the most northerly corner of Lot 10, Block 121 of the Huntington Beach
Seventeenth Street Section Tract, as recorded In Book 4, page 10 of Miscellaneous
Maps, records of Orange County, State of California; thence northerly 37.5 feet
approximately to a point, said point being the Intersection of the centerlines of 22nd
Street and the public alley (between Walnut Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway); said
point also being the true point of beginning; thence southwesterly along the centerline
of 22nd Street and its prolongation approximately 215 feet to the centerline of Pacific
Coast Highway; thence southeasterly approximately 325 feet to an extension of the '
centerline of 21 st Street; thence northerly along the centerline of 21 st Street to an
extension of the centerline of the alley, between Pacific Coast Highway and Walnut
Avenue, approximately 215 feet; thence northwesterly along the alley centerline
approximately 325 feet to the true point of beginning.
i
`R ti
/-f 22 18 7 37 vJ 32 18 17 25 r 22 18 ,7.s 17 19 1,7.50'
2 0 16 15 36 33 is 15 ^"_ i7 _�` __ 4 _�s 20' J5
NBLK. 19 14 , 3s 221 • 27 14 20 BLK. 11,' - 14 13 219
7. 117 50' 1,7.50' -
s' 12 2°. 11 11 •BL K.3 0 12 >. 11 N 220 5 12
-- > w
12 31 10Jy 13 —� 6 10 � 9 12
PAR.? 3.4 � 10 9 '
Q Q
Q 7 R.s. 2g ,�;2-15. „— 35 27
_P.M. 191-39 8 16 8 7 117.s0 8 17.5 7
b n7.so —
PAR.1 33 6 7. 5 28 ,nso us n 6 7. 34 n7so ns 26 6 20 5 28
,17 115• 117.50'
" 115' 24 4 3 17 IIS' " „ 7 4 J 39 " 24 ,� 3 " n
0 a9s, 25 ? 20 1 18 9,•�0' 20•SR es n. 2 20 1 100 38 �� 1577' m so 25 2 17.5 1 ^ R
A VENUE40
117.50' 15• 117.50, n °,N 9s' 17.5 117.50• 0'R n 20 n 95 20' R
10 1 n 2 6 " 11 22 21 17 " _,. :22 21 .�
9 11750 17.5 115' 0 1 —
1 20 19 _ _—r 16 2p 19 21 20 19 — — ——
�. >` .
18 17 2 s �BL K. 15 18 � 17 122�0 � _ _ 18 �
2 17
0
• BL K. 3 1 15 2 4 121 ^12.50 2 rlL- 16 1s 19 „s BL K. 9 16 1s 119
M1
117. —7. 15• Iq,50• ——— —
12 14 i5.1 23 EOJ
11 14 7.5 17 10 117.50 10 _ 14 2012. 3 12 ?0' 11 9 �n' r ;, 12 17 50• .� 5, '�' ,IS• " 115• '�' "' 115'
c ALLEY 137 ALLEY,. 138 ALLEY i>
10 9 8 7 [18
3 2 1 ^ " 250.05• 101 9 2oo.us
5 25• 2s•
61 ' • 25. TRACT I TRACT
I I
PROJECT 937-16-429-470 I PROJECT 937-16-561-586
p 14 15 Z161117C21 19 LOT 14 1 8 I = LOT 15 1 8
13 I 20 0.936 AC. p 15 N 0.722 AC. ~
I
TE T� T 7 - p N0. 13 014 75 i NO. 1294 7�. 75'
7 , 1S' ?S• 0' S• S' 11 211 07• k 0• 17 08• 1�
.V.0
� �
(OCEAN AVE.) HIGH WA Y � r�
t
'VENTEENTH ST. SEC. M.M. 4-10 17 NOTE — ASSESSOR'S BLOCK d ASSESSOR'S MAP
M.M. 585-48,49,50 PARCEL NUMBERS _ BOOK 23 PAGE 13
�� 598-49,50 Cc4ninin/ IN 11 PC r011NTY OF npANrF
S-V
, %.
All
AG 44
e �
Ie -
-Ir --
Ac
Ae -=7D= ;o f ee °°
_ 10 SAG
bo
AG30.
IAA
e/ ...•.3e.:.:.:.: lA
11 (/ :It: —
Ad
•�r+A/r=oul NiFAw•a� • :K: .:K. '•�, , .N Ocean
:GEND CAI \AI Ai i
,7 Chy Boundary I Old Town �E Beach Boulevard
K If
_ Downtown • PCH Coastal Corridor Clvlc Center Node
■ Pier 1TiTT Regional Commerclal Nodes Industrial Nodes
t 11 t t Commercial Core
UNTINGTON BEACH
UB•AREA MAP .o n s 0 .1LU-61 Ily of Ilunlinglon Beech Gener/l PIIn
II.64
J
.a �. •. .. 'r..'. r h''r rii'. 'y.� +'•r�i l R •'x'i•..rlV ,Q '1' avi ./. R i:y7�5 }�
. � •:t: •` AFIw\mp0'=BTkAVffiCSh7 N,:�311�+QA. '` � ,
N a :OIYI
•
HUNTINGTON BEACH
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
GENERAL PLAN
As Adopted by City Council May 13 , 1996
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER
LAND USE ELEMENT
STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS
State of California law requires that a land use element be prepared as a part of a City's General Plan, as
follows:
Government Code Section 65302(a): A land use element ivhich designates the proposed
general distribution and general location and extent of uses of the land for housing,
business, industry, open space, including agriculture, natural resources, recreation, and
enjoyment of scenic beauty, education, public buildings and grounds, solid waste disposal
facilities, and other categories of public and private uses of land. The land use element
shall include a statement of the standards of population density and building intensity
recommended for the various districts and other territory covered by the plan.I
Of the General Plan elements required by the State,the Land Use Element has the broadest scope. Since it
governs how land is to be utilized, many of the issues and policies contained in other plan elements are
influenced by or influence this element. For example, the Circulation Element defines policies for the
accommodation of vehicular and other trips generated by the population and uses permitted by the Land
Use Element. Similarly, the location and density of uses prescribed by this Element are influenced by
policies for the protection of environmental resources prescribed by the Environmental
Resources/Conservation Element.
TECHNICAL SYNOPSIS
A. DISTRIBUTION OF EXISTING LAND USES
The City of Huntington Beach contains approximately 17,730 acres, or 27.7 square miles. Ninety-eight
percent of the City is developed with residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, public uses, and
streets/highways (Figure LU-1). The remaining two percent of the land within city boundaries is vacant.
Table LU-1 identifies the various amounts of each type of existing land uses as surveyed in 1991.
As the table indicates, residential use is the largest single land use in Huntington Beach, of which, single
family units represents the majority of all housing. The residential neighborhoods are structured as large
"super blocks" throughout the City, generally defined by a one-mile arterial grid and often focusing on a
school and/or park. The City's major commercial areas are generally located along the major streets, such
as Beach Boulevard and Edinger Avenue, at major intersections, and in the downtown area on Pacific Coast
Highway and Main Street. Industrial uses are generally developed in large centers in the northwest, as a
linear corridor along Gothard Street,and adjacent to the coastal frontage in the southeast and southwest.
Residential development comprises 41% of the land area of the City. Single family units are characterized
by densities up to 7.9 dwelling units per acre2. Multi-family housing units, at medium density (8.0-19.9
units per acre) and high density (20.0 units per acre and above), are generally concentrated in four areas:
Huntington Harbour, Downtown, Warner Avenue between Golden West Street and Springdale Street, and
along Beach Boulevard. There are also 21 mobile home parks scattered throughout the City.
1 The Government Code also requires that a Land Use Element identify areas that are subject to flooding. This has been incorporated in the
Hazards Chapter of this plan.
2 The density range%%as established on the residential unit t%pe found within the City at the time of the land use survey, Fall, 1992. The
density categories do not reflect City density categories as stated in the existing General Plan and Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance.
THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN
lI-LU-1 �—
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
VOLUME II:
IMPLIMENTING ORDINANCES
CERTIFIED MARCH 1992
AMENDED MAY 1992
AND
FEBRUARY 1994
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
VOLUME II: IMPLIMENTING ORDINANCES
Certified March 1985
Amended May 1992
and
February 1994
Approved by the Huntington Beach
Planning Commission October 16, 1990
Approved by the Huntington Beach
City Council November 19, 1990
Approved by the California
Coastal Commission December 13, 1991
Prepared by
The city of Huntington Beach
Department of Communtiy Development
C � �
.COASTAL
ELEMENT
LCP CERTIFIED MARCH 1985
Amended through October . .
O
• LIg
un �n on
VOLUME I LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
eac
i
Res. No. 97-17
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss:
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH )
I, CONNIE BROCKWAY, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of
the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-off cio Clerk of the City Council of said City,
do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City
of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted
by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council
at an adjourned regular meeting thereof held on the 17th day of March, 1997 by
the following vote:
AYES: Julien, Harman, Dettloff, Bauer, Sullivan, Green, Garofalo
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the
City Council of the City of Huntington
Beach, California
G/resolui i/reft pg/97-28
boo
..COASTAL
?�
ELEMEN -
LCP CERTIFIED MARCH 1985
Amended through October 1992
I i
I
UPI! I
0 I •
(C
0
0 0
FL fl ffl n1ma F-51 ff
Ufl(o OLP)SHC
eVOLUME I LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
O•�e dye y', ice
ORDINANCE NO. 3351
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE
DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN TO REDESIGNATE THE REAL PROPERTY
GENERALLY LOCATED BETWEEN PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY AND WALNUT
AVENUE, AND BETWEEN 21ST AND 22ND STREETS FROM DOWNTOWN
SPECIFIC PLAN DISTRICT 1 (VISITOR SERVING COMMERCIAL) TO
DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN DISTRICT 2 (RESIDENTIAL)
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California State Planning and Zoning Law, the Huntington
Beach Planning Commission and Huntington Beach City Council have held separate, duly
noticed public hearings to consider Zone Change No. 96-1, which redesignates the property
generally located between Pacific Coast Highway and Walnut Avenue, and between 21 st and
22nd Streets, from Downtown Specific Plan District 1 (Visitor Serving Commercial) to
Downtown Specific Plan District 2 (Residential); and
After due consideration of the findings and recommendations of the Planning
Commission and all other evidence presented,the City Council finds that the aforesaid
amendment is proper and consistent with the General Plan,
i
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby
ordain as follows:
SECTION I. That the real property that is the subject of this Ordinance (hereinafter
referred to as the "Subject Property") is generally located between Pacific Coast Highway and
Walnut Avenue, and between 21 st and 22nd Streets in the City of Huntington Beach, and is more
particularly described in the legal description and sketch attached hereto as Exhibits A-1 and A-
2, respectively, and incorporated by this reference as though fully set forth herein.
1
g:4:97ordinances:ich96-1
rls#96-947
. • 3351
SECTION 2. That the zoning designation of the Subject Property is hereby changed from
Downtown Specific PIan District I (Visitor Serving Commercial) to Downtown Specific Plan
District 2 (Residential).
SECTION 3. That the Downtown Specific Plan, a copy of which is attached hereto as
Exhibit B, is hereby amended to reflect Zone Change No. 96-1 as described herein. The Director
of Community Development is hereby directed to prepare and file amended maps for District I
and District 2 of the Downtown Specific Plan. A copy of said District Maps, as amended, shall
be available for inspection in the Office of the City Clerk.
SECTION 4. This ordinance shall take effect thirty days after passage.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a
regular meeting thereof held on the 7t-h day ofAprj_l�997.
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Clerk �— City Attorney P�
D AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED:
City Administrator Director of Community Development
ATTACHMENTS
I
Exhibit A-1: Legal Description
Exhibit A-2: Sketch
Exhibit B: Downtown Specific Plan
2
&4:97ordinances zch96-1
r1s N 96-947
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Beginning at the most northerly corner of Lot 10, Block 121 of the Huntington Beach
Seventeenth Street Section Tract, as recorded in Book 4, page 10 of Miscellaneous
Maps, records of Orange County, State of California; thence northerly 37.5 feet
approximately to a point, said point being the Intersection of the centerlines of 22nd
Street and the public alley (between Walnut Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway); said
point also being the true point of beginning; thence southwesterly along the centerline
of 22nd Street and its prolongation approximately 215 feet to the centerline of Pacific
Coast Highway; thence southeasterly approximately 325 feet to an extension of the
centerline of 21 st Street; thence northerly along the centerline of 21 st Street to an
extension of the centerllne of the alley, between Pacific Coast Highway and Walnut
Avenue, approximately 215 feet; thence northwesterly along the alley centerline
approximately 325 feet to the true point of beginning.
iQ H 22 W�14
32 18 17 25 h h 22 18 17.s 17 19 „7so
us
20 1 •' 33 16 15 17 _ _ n __ 4 _ 16 2°' 15 = 10
BL K. 19221 • 2 7 f4 2 13 „s BLK. i,s ry 14 13 ^ 219
7. 117 SO' I17.50'
_ _ s •BLK.30 12 �. 11 220 5 w
aPAR.210 � 9 12 31 10J9 13 - --^ 6 f0 �
_ 9 t2
Q
` , Q R.S. '29 112-15, 16 `•' 8 Q 7 35 n 117.50' 27 8�20.17,5 7 = 115� —
11).50• I U'
PAR.1 33 n 7. 28 Its s 34 n7.so „s 26 65 28
6 5 n7.50 7.
IIS• 115. ;� 117.50• _
0
^ 115 24 4 3 17 ns ti �_ _ 7 _ 4 3 39 h 24 4 3 _29 _ n
18 vs �0' 20 a 9s 2 20' 1 1o0 38 11 rsR— ,17so'25 2 17.s I ^ 20 A
• A VENUE d
0
i
^ 10 It7.s0' IS' II7.s0. 26 '^ 0.R 97 ,7.5 ,17.50' r 0'R 20 ^ 95 20'
11 22 21 17 1t C`b
1 ,. h S• "22 21
II730 17.5 115' o0I• 9 .20 19 ' r ^ 16 20 , 19 21 ' ^ 1 ' 20 >. 19 _-----
2 18 >~17 25 �BLK. 15 18 -1 17 120 20 _ _ • 18 17
J _ J --
'2� • BLK. 3 1 15 24 121 "Iao�n72 16 Q 15 19 its* BLK. 9 16 15 --- 119_
,S• 1 0 117.50' ——
12 14 23 h n • 14 7.5 13 n7so 10 14 )0 13 _
1s e— — -- — -----
12 1 ^ 1250 3 r 12 20' 11 9 ,n r
117, 17,50' ^ n Its* `� 115' �' 115• `�' 11s•
ALLEY 137 ALLEYS. ^ 138 ALLEY n
11 f0 9 8 7 4 J 2 1 ^ 25005 101 9 200.0.
6 5 25' 25'
25' . 25• TRA C T i TRA C T
PROJECT 9J7-16-429-470 I PROJECT 937-16-561-586
S
n 14 C15 i6 17 18 21 19 LOT 14 1 8 I LOT 15 I 6 Z
I 13 I 2 0 0.936 AC. p 15 0.722 AC.
N
IJTE TI T P NO. 13014 i NO. 12947P 75'
S• 2 . 25' S S i1 71107' q 75'
s� e
(OCEAN AVE.) HIGHWAY 3- 1
SEVENTEENTH ST. SEC. M.M. 4-10 17 NOTE — ASSESSOR'S BLOCK d ASSESSOR'S MAP
M.M. 585-48,49,50 PARCEL NUMBERS BOOK 23 PAGE 13
M. 598-49,50- . Clad WAI IA►' '1 Fc r 0lINTY nF nAANr;F
i
DOWNTOWN
SPECIFIC PLAN
"VILLAGE CONCEPT"
... ..ff
• EFFECTIVE DUNE 191995
• ORDINANCE NO. 3280
• ADOPTED APRIL 17, 1995
C1=s4S
14o So
I
1 -
' Ord. No. 3351
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss:
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH )
I, CONNIE BROCKWAY, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the
City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do
hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of
Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing ordinance was read to said City Council
at a re ular meeting thereof held on the 18th of March, 1997, and was again read to
said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 7th of April, 1997, and was
passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of
said City Council.
AYES: Harman, Dettloff, Bauer, Sullivan, Green, Garofalo
NOES: None
ABSENT: Julien
ABSTAIN: None
1,Connie Brockway CITY CLERK of the City of
Huntington Beach and ex-officio Clerk of the City
Council,do hereby certify that a synopsis of this
ordinance has been published in the Independent on L� •
19
7_ City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk
In accordance%%ith the City Charter of said City of the City Council of the City
Connie Brockway Ci1y Clerk of Huntington Beach, California
���d�ixvJ h -1 Deputy City Clerk
G/ordinanc/ordbkpg
4/25/97
I
Res. No. 97-18
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss:
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH )
I, CONNIE BROCKWAY, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of
the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City,
do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City
of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted
by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council
at a regular meeting thereof held on the 17th day of March, 1997 by the following
vote:
AYES: Julien, Harman, Dettloff, Bauer, Sullivan, Green, Garofalo
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the
City Council of the City of Huntington
Beach, California
G/resoluti/resUpg/97-1 I
ORDINANCE NO. 3351
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE
DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN TO REDESIGNATE THE REAL PROPERTY
GENERALLY LOCATED BETWEEN PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY AND WALNUT
AVENUE, AND BETWEEN 21ST AND 22ND STREETS FROM DOWNTOWN
SPECIFIC PLAN DISTRICT 1 (VISITOR SERVING COMMERCIAL) TO
DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN DISTRICT 2 (RESIDENTIAL)
WHEREAS,pursuant to the California State Planning and Zoning Law, the Huntington
Beach Planning Commission and Huntington Beach City Council have held separate, duly
noticed public hearings to consider Zone Change No. 96-1, which redesignates the property
generally located between Pacific Coast Highway and Walnut Avenue, and between 21 st and
22nd Streets, from Downtown Specific Plan District 1 (Visitor Serving Commercial)to
Downtown Specific flan District 2 (Residential); and
After due consideration of the findings and recommendations of the Planning
Commission and all other evidence presented, the City Council finds that the aforesaid
amendment is proper and consistent with the General Plan,
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby
ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. That the real property that is the subject of this Ordinance (hereinafter
referred to as the "Subject Property") is generally located between Pacific Coast Highway and
Walnut Avenue, and between 21 st and 22nd Streets in the City of Huntington Beach, and is more
particularly described in the legal description and sketch attached hereto as Exhibits A-1 and A-
2, respectively, and incorporated by this reference as though fully set forth herein.
1 . 1
g:4:97ordinances:zch96-1
ris N 96-947
3351
SECTION 2. That the zoning designation of the Subject Property is hereby changed from
Downtown Specific Plan District 1 (Visitor Serving Commercial) to Downtown Specific Plan
District 2 (Residential).
SECTION 3. That the Downtown Specific Plan, a copy of which is attached hereto as
Exhibit B, is hereby amended to reflect Zone Change No. 96-1 as described herein. The Director
of Community Development is hereby directed to prepare and file amended maps for District 1
and District 2 of the Downtown Specific Plan. A copy of said District Maps, as amended, shall
be available for inspection in the Office of the City Clerk.
SECTION 4. This ordinance shall take effect thirty days after passage.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a
regular meeting thereof held on the 7th day of ri 1 J997.
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Clerk City Attorney P�
D AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED:
City Administrator Director of Community Development
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit A-1: Legal Description
Exhibit A-2: Sketch
Exhibit B: Downtown Specific Plan
2
g:4:97ordinances:zch96-1
r1s#96-947
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Beginning at the most northerly corner of Lot 10, Block 121 of the Huntington Beach
Seventeenth Street Section Tract, as recorded in Book 4, page 10 of Miscellaneous
Maps, records of Orange County, State of California; thence northerly 37.5 feet
approximately to a point, said point being the Intersection of the centerlines of 22nd
Street and the public alley (between Walnut Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway); said
point also being'the true point of beginning; thence southwesterly along the centerline
of 22nd Street and its prolongation approximately 215 feet to the centerline of Pacific ,
Coast Highway; thence southeasterly approximately 325 feet to an extension of the
centerline of 21 st Street; thence northerly along the centerline of 21 st Street to an f
extension of the centerline of the alley, between Pacific Coast Highway and Walnut
Avenue, approximately 215 feet; thence northwesterly along the alley centerline
approximately 325 feet to the true point of beginning,
-,q CH 22 V 37 -62T 18 3 317 25 22 18 17.s 17 19 10750• ^ y
20 16 15 36 33 16 15 17 _�" �__ 4 � 16 20' I5 = 10 _
ry BLK. 19 14 , 35 221 • 27 14 = 13 115• BLK. Its* 14 13 219
•'• �. 117 S0' 117.50'
I2 10' 11 11 'BLK 3 0 12 11 220 „ H12
a PAR.2 10 W 9 12 31 10 -j 9 n i3 n6f09
Q R. 29 112-15. Q 35 27 Q its,
P.M. 191-39— 8 7 ns• — 16 8 7 117s0 8 17.5 7
1v.so lu
a PAR.1 33 wl 7. 28 n 34 � 26b) 620• 28
6 5 n7.50' ns 6 7• 117.50• 115• 5
iiS• 0 11S• �, 117.50,n24 4 3 17 4 3 39 24 30•a 25 ? 20, 1 18 �o =o R ? so 1 100 38 1sR 25115* u.s so•R M
• 9Y 9S• II7 S0' M �
• A VENUE Q11
0
i
u7.S0' IS' 9S' M22 .0
117.50' 95•
117.50' °,R �n 0•R :n =0 ;� 20•R
10 N 1 n 26 11 17 _s. 22 21 =———-�
— ^ 117.50 1621 I1S• . n 19 .20 19 r 0 19 2 1817 25 �BLK. 15 2020 _ 18 � 17 —14
__ _'2� • BLK. 3 , 15 121 '=s° 2 19 ,1s BLK. 91s 1s _ 119_12 14 23 11 10 117.50• 1O 14 20. 1312 1 12.so 3 9 IIS• �,t15' ^'ZALEY r n LEYS. 138 ALLEY ry
1 10 9 3 2 1 ^ 270 05• 2 o 1 29 2oo.cn
2S 2s' 2s' TRACT TRACT
PROJECT 937-16-429-470PROJECT 937-16-561-586
14 21 lg cor 14 1 Z cor i5 r
13 2 0 0.936 AC. p 15 0.722 AC. p~j
TE T I T. NO. 13014 `�' I
7 P ,� N0. 1294 7P 75'
I 7 S S S. S. 11. =1107 R 75• 1 0' 17
�v e
(OCEAN AVE.) H/GHWA Y
SEVENTEENTH ST. SEC. M.M. 4-10 17 NOTE — ASSESSOR'S BLOCK d ASSESSOR'S MAP
M.M. 585-48,49,50 PARCEL NUMBERS BOOK 23 PAGE 13
','M. 598-49,50- _ CIWI)MiAI JAI ,)rc r' INTY nr nAAMrF*
��i l cl(/
IJ
II
DOWNTOWN
SPECIFIC PLAN
"VILLAGE CONCEPT"
........ ........ .................v
• EFFECTIVE DUNE 1, 1995
• ORDINANCE NO. 3280
• ADOPTED APRIL 17, 1995
', � � k1:1� � ' �n r, Ib In Clerks
Ord. No. 3351
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss:
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH )
I, CONNIE BROCKWAY,the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the
City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do
hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of
Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing ordinance was read to said City Council
at a regular meeting thereof held on the 18th of March, 1997, and was again read to
said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 7th of April, 1997, and was
passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of
said City Council.
AYES: Harman, Dettloff, Bauer, Sullivan, Green, Garofalo
NOES: None
ABSENT: Julien
ABSTAIN: None
1,Connie Brockway CITY CLERK of the City of
Huntington Beach and ex-officio Clerk of the City
Council,do hereby certify that a synopsis of this
ordinance has been published in the Independent on •
�( oZ 19
_'77 City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk
In accordance with the City Charter of said City of the City Council of the City
Connie Brockway City Clerk of Huntington Beach, California
—W&aaa�J t�nputy City Clerk
611
G/ordinanc/ordbkpg
4/25/97
311 7 11:09:53 0 Date:3111/97 Time: 11:09:54 • Page 2 of 2
a
City Clerk- regarding item on March 17th Agenda.
Mayor Batter and City Council
I ani Nvrititig about the Naming and Zoning item:
"General Plan Amendment 96-1 Zoning map .-ktnendment NO.96-1 Negative Declaration
NO 92-2/1-ocal Coastal Program.
The Applicant is a fonner City employee . Mike Adams. who is asking you to redesignate
10 lots on .88 net acres from Mixed Use and Visitor-Serving Commercial to High
Density Residential.
Have any of yott looked at the proposed 16.000 homes already platuied for H.B. and can
say vve need more high density residential
I hope you \vill deny Mr. Adams his request. The rest of the block is single family.
.If he wants the zoning chanp-ed let liirn have sinp-le family- residential like the rest of the
block.
Thant: vou.
Eileen Murpliy
201 21 st Street
H.B. CA 92648
3/11/97 11-09:04 Date:3/11/97 Time: 11:09:04 Page 1 of 2
44
FAX MEMO
SUBJECT:
Connie
I received a letter on March loth in the 4 o'clock delive y
about this Public Hearing item.
I don't know the # of this Agenda item.
Thanks
Eileen
To: Connie Brockway From : Eileen Murphy
=,—, 1-1—mMfirNn Call' At:
GO 96-1/ZMP 96-1/ND 96-2/LCP 90
General Plan Amendment No 96-1
Zoning Map Amendment No. 96-1
Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 96-1
Negative Declaration No. 96-2
(Property located between 21st and 22nd Street
and bounded by PCH and the north/south alley)
Jam
wf•
:;:::::r:!:;''ter';: •,^>
............
REQUEST
♦ Amend the General Plan Land Use
Designation from MV (Mixed Use
Vertically Integrated Housing) to RH-30
(High Density Residential - 30 units per
acre)
Z
♦ Amend Zoning Map from DTSP District 1 1,
(Visitor-Serving Commercial) to DTSP xl
District 2 (Residential)
4: •^�rry
-2-
1d �
3/17/97 � _
GO 96-1/ZMP 96-1/ND 96-2/LCP 9
REQUEST (con't.)
♦ Transmit these changes in the City's
LCP to the California Coastal
Commission for approval
♦ Approve Negative Declaration No. 96-
2 with added Mitigation Measure:
"Any application for future residential
projects will require a uniform 25' wide
landscape buffer along PCH on each
lot."
-3-
PRIOR ACTIONS
♦ On 1/14/97 Planning Commission
recommended approval of project with
added mitigation measure to Negative
Declaration No. 96=2 in conformance
with Downtown Specific Plan
requirement for 25 foot landscape
buffer on PCH
-a-
3/17/97
GO 96-1/ZMP 96-1/ND 96-2/LCP 90
ANALYSIS
♦ Project site consists of ten (10) lots
approx. 25 feet wide and 156 feet deep
♦Lots owned by eleven (11) property
owners
♦Net project area is .88 acres
♦ Owners' intent: To build one single-
family dwelling on each lot
-s-
ANALYSIS (con't.)
♦ Project is in conformance with the goals
and policies of the Land Use and Housing
Elements of the General Plan
♦ Subject lots conform to the minimum lot
size requirements for the proposed zoning
(DTSP Dist. 2 - Residential) but not the
existing zoning (DTSP Dist. 1 - Visitor-
Serving Commercial)
♦Project is compatible with surrounding
residential uses to the north and east
-6-
3/17/97
G*96-1/ZMP 96-1/ND 96-2/LCP 9
Analysis con't.)
♦ Fiscal analysis identified that revenues
would be higher for quality single-family
homes than a strip commercial shopping
center at this site
♦ Projected trip generation for a residential
development is lower than the projected
trip generation for a commercial
development
-7-
Analysis (con t.)
♦ Project is inconsistent with the policies of the
Coastal Element because of the loss of.88
net acres currently designated for visitor
serving commercial uses
♦However: Loss has been offset by recent
General Plan update
❖General Plan update redesignated 235.77
acres from oil production to mixed use
(btw. Goldenwest, Seapoint & Palm Ave)
❖Mixed use allows visitor serving and
commercial uses along PCH -s-
3/17/97
+/a J
A 96-1/ZMP 96-1/ND 96-2/LCP 9�
PLANNING COMMISSION
& STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
♦ Approve GPA No. 96-1
♦ Approve Zoning Map Amend. 96-1
♦ Approve ND No. 96-2 with the added
Mitigation Measure "Any application for
future residential projects will require a
uniform 25' wide landscape buffer along
Pacific Coast Highway"
♦ Approve LCP No. 96-1
-9-
(G:adnu✓31797 ppt)
10-
3/17/97
UAYLVAcAIYI�
Q c_ _ Q.� w Vl��/y✓l�/Y1-� _� t }
�� �Cj
OO�U
¢4LuUw _
us119
e z _ �
;;F.5 I
all
__l1 �arJ• —`�'�/� •� 1'r Y• V i'VGA
x �
1
a
i
i
}
x
1
YI
#
#
i
DauL c--4oz9an
207 211t eStzest
Jiuntin9ton EFac i, Caft forma 92648
(714)536-9792
March 13, 1997
Connie Brockway, City Clerk
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Second Floor
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Re : General Plan Amendment 96-1 / Zoning Map Amendment
No. 96-1 ; Negative Declaration No. 96-2 ; Local
Coastal Program Amendment 96-1 .
Dear Ms . Brockway:
Please place this correspondence in the file relative
to the above.
Unless the project applicant can demonstrate that a
significant public interest will be served by the
proposed General Plan Amendment, the application for
the amendment should be denied.
One of the last things which the City of Huntington
Beach needs is more high density housing.
V truly yours,
Paul organ
L6, Wd th ZI LI 119
��1n3 qM3 n 4019N11"R14
3C Alit � �-
03�1��3�'
3/17/97
To: City Council �l�ss
RECEIVED FROM
AND MADE A PART OF THE R�000 T T IE
COUNCIL MEETING OF ��_9
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
CONNIE BROCKWAY,CITY CLERK
From : Flossie Horgan
Regarding Agenda item D2
Dear City Council
The proposal before you to allow for an increase in density of up to 26 housing units on
.88 of an acre at PCH and 21 st streets should be rejected. Traffic, congestion, noise,
empty condos and increase use of services by this proposed development will clearly be a
negative impact on the neighborhood. Single family housing on the proposed site is the
only appropriate request . Single family homes will be consistent with the neighborhood .
The introduction of yet another large condominium complex on PCH adds just another
big rental to the already"over rental" areas of this city.
Thank you for your consideration of my concerns.
20 _7 a � ,� .
y
T
f
GYT`lx? Q I I7I T TO SAC
- - .-- ...:. .-..v...... •.T:T.::.::::- Y
: .A I rsro
NIA v
ESSE
NIRQNVII 'A�.
'ASS
_::•._:?TiYti^T:i:- ..:::.v:..:.v:r^:-T'�T:,:;:;:::;�:• .....:: .:•.. -•-v:::v-:::::••:
......:........ ...... n. ..:- --..:.. -....:r...:::::•.:,v v.J:CTT::Tii:??:•:vTT:•.:..,: .-Tii•:•ii:i}v.
........,...:.. :.:: i:::nv:::.........................•:rT�:::::w::v:::vw::::.-:..:•....::....t..........n.....v:::::. ........-...:.::::--::..::....:.... nn..,:....v:;.v:...fir.:....v...
1. PROJECT TITLE: 21st and 22nd Street Residential General Plan
Amendment and Zone Change
Concurrent Entitlements: General Plan Amendment No. 96-1/Zone Change No. 96-I/Local
Coastal Plan Amendment No. 96-1
2. LEAD AGENCY: City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 k
i
Contact: Brian James,Assistant Planner '!
Phone: (714) 536-5271 ;
3. PROJECT LOCATION: North side of Pacific Coast Highway between 21st and 22nd Street
4., PROJECT PROPONENT: Mike Adams
19771 Sea Canyon Circle
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Phone: (714) 833-9193
5. EXISTING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Mixed Use - Vertically Integrated (Commercial or
commercial with residential units above)
6. EXISTING: Specific Plan 5 (Downtown Specific Plan district 1- Visitor Serving Commercial)
7. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: To change the existing General Plan and Zoning designation on .88 acres
(ten 25 foot wide lots) from commercial to residential. The specific request is to change the General
Plan designation from the existing designation of Mixed Use Vertically Integration to Residential
High (30 units per acre) and to change the existing zoning from Downtown Specific Plan District
One (Visitor Serving Commercial) to Downtown Specific Plan District Two (Residential). The
existing land use designations allows either the exclusive development of a commercial project or the
development of a commercial project in conjunction with a residential component. It is the intent of
the application to allow for the exclusive development of residential uses on the site.
Based upon t4ie density standards of Downtown Specific Plan District Two,the requested change in
land use designations would allow the maximum development of 26 residential units. The density
standards (FAR 1.0) of the existing visitor serving commercial classification would allow a
development with a maximum of 38,250 square feet. The applicant has indicated that the intent of
this application is to allow for the future development of ten (10) single family residences;however
there is no development proposed in conjunction with the request. Therefore,for the purposes of
assessing the worst case environmental impacts that may be generated as a result of this request,the
maximum development'of 26 residential units has been used.
OTHER AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (AND PERMITS NEEDED) California
Coastal Commission
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving
at least one impact that is a"Potentially Significant Impact" or is"Potentially Significant Unless
Mitigated," as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
❑ Land Use&Planning 0 Transportation/Circulation Public Services
❑ Population &Housing ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Utilities &Service Systems
❑ Geological Problems ❑ Energy&Mineral Resources ❑ Aesthetics
❑ Water Z Hazards ❑ Cultural Resources
❑ Air Quality 0 Noise ❑ Recreation
❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance „
f
y
DETERMINATION
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION%vill be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there-,,,ill not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an
attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment,and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s)on the environment but at
least one effect(1)has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable ---
legal standards, and(2)has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis
• as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a"potentially significant impact"or is
"potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is
required,but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. "
- -- - - -.. .- -- - ,- . -
?/>>19 I.
Date Signature
-
Printed Name Title
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except"No Impact" answers that are adequately
supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each .
question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources
show that the impact simply does not apply to the project. A "No Impact"answer should be
explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved. Answers should address off-site as
well as on-site,cumulative as well as project-level,indirect as well as direct,and construction as
well as operational impacts.
S. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate,if an effect is significant or potentially significant,
or if the lead agency lacks information to make a finding of insignificance. If there are one or
more "Potentially Significant Impact"entries when the determination is made,preparation of an
Environmental Impact Report is warranted.
4. Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigated"applies where the incorporation of mitigation
measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant
Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures,and briefly explain how they
reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII,"Earlier '
Analyses;" may be cross-referenced).
JJ
5. Earlier analyses may be used where,pursuant to the tiering,program EIR,or other CEQA process,
an effect has been adequately analyzed in an garlier EIR or negative declaration. Section
1500(c)(3)(D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section XVII at the end of the checklist.
G. References to information sources for potential impacts (e.g.,general plans,zoning ordinances)
have been incorporated into the checklist. A source list has been provided in Section XVII. Other
sources used or individuals contacted have been cited in the respective discussions.
7. The following checklist has been formatted after Appendix I of Chapter 3,Title 14,California Code
of Regulations,but has been augmented to reflect the City of Huntington Beach's requirements.
(Note: Standard Conditions of Approval -The City imposes standard conditions of approval on projects
which are considered to be components of or modifications to the project;some of these standard
conditions also result in reducing or minimizing environmental impacts to a level of insignificance.
However,because they are considered part of the project,they have not been identified as mitigation
measures. For the reader's information,a list of applicable standard conditions identified in the
discussions has been provided as Attachment No. 3.
SAMPLE QUESTION.
Potentially
Sign/ficant
- Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
ISSUES(and supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Imp a,
Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts
involving:
Landslides orMudflows? (Sources: 1, 6) Q Q Q
Discussion: The attached source list explains that 1 is the Huntington
Beach General Plan and 6 is a topographical map of the area which
show that the area is located in a flat area. (Xote: This response
probably would not require further explanation).
- - - - - - - -
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the Proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ❑ ❑ ❑
(Sources:3,6,8, 18)
b) Conflict frith applicable environmental plans or policies ❑ ❑ ❑
adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project?
(Sources:3)
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑
(Sources: 1,3,6,8, 18)
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations(e.g.,impacts to ❑ ❑ ❑ 0
soils or farmlands,or impacts from incompatible uses)?
r�
(Sources: 3,7)
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established ❑ ❑ ❑ 0
community(including a low-income or minority
community)? (Sources: 1,2, 3)
Discussion: The project site consists of an amendment to the land use and zoning designations on the subject property to
allow for the development of a residential project(as explained in greater detail in the Project Description)and,therefore is
not consistent with the existing Gencral Plan dcsignation and Zoning on the property.
The proposed change in designations would eliminate the possibility to develop a maximum of approximately 38,250 square
feet of commercial which would be allowed under the existing commercial General Plan and Zoning designations. The
proposed zoning(DTSP-2)would allow for a maximum of 26 multifamily units on the site(or 10 single family detached
units). This would allow for additional residential units which could assist the City in attaining its Housing Element goals.
If approved the proposed project mill result in the loss of commercial land in the City;however,the proposed designation is
compatible«ith existing residential zoning and development immediately surrounding the site. The property to the south
(across PCH)is the bluff top park and Pacific Ocean;the property to the north is vacant property zoned and general planed
for residential development(DTSP Dist. 2 and Res.High);the property to the east is developed with a multi-family
residential development and single family residential. The property to the west(across 22nd St.)is vacant mixed use-
vertical integration which allows commercial development or residential development in conjunction with commercial
development. There are potential noise,traffic,odor,and light and glare impacts commonly associated with commercial
uses. Under the proposed land use designation, a residential development on the site could eliminate the possibility of these
types of impacts locating adjacent to residential uses. Compatibility of the proposed changes will be analyzed in further
detail in the remaining sections of this document.
There are no agricultural resources or active operations on the project site or in the vicinity that would be affected by the
project. As previously mentioned, the proposed project is consistent with the surrounding residential uses and,therefore, is
not expected to disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of the surrounding community.
- -Environmental Assessment#96-2 _ . _ .--. _ 1 6119196::
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population ❑ ❑ Q ❑
projections? (Sources: 3,5,20)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or ❑ ❑ a ❑
indirectly(e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or
extension of major infrastructure)? (Sources:3,5,20)
c) Displace existing housing,especially affordable housing? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0
(Sources: 3,8)
Discussion: The proposed project will allow for additional new residential development in the Downtowrt Specific Plan area
and tiNzll create potential opportunities for affordable housing. Under the proposed General Plan and Zoning designations, "
10 single family or a maximum of 26 multifamily residential units could be built on the site. Based upon the City's average
u population per nit of 2.62,the project would generate a population increase of approximately 68 people(if developed as
multifamily). The addition of 68 people is less than 0.03%of the existing population(188,990)and is considered :-
negligible. Development of a maximum of 26 additional units constitutes less than 0.03%of the City's existing housing
units(74,665)and also is not considered significant.
i
III.GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in
or expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture?(Sources: 7,9) ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑X
b) Seismic ground shaking?(Sources:7, 9) ❑ ❑ ❑X ❑
c) Seismic ground failure,including liquefaction? (Sources:7, ❑ ❑ 0 ❑
9)
d) Seiche,tsunami,or volcanic hazard? (Sources: 7,9) _. . ..❑ ❑ Q ❑
e) Landslides or Mudflows? (Sources:7,9) ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑X
f) Erosion,changes in topography or unstable soil conditions ❑ S❑ ❑ •❑X .
from excavation,grading,or fill? (Sources:2,7,8,9)
g) Subsidence of the land? (Sources:7,9) ❑ ❑ ❑X ❑
h) Expansive soils? (Sources:7, 9)" ❑ ❑ ❑X ❑
i) Unique geologic or physical features? (Sources: 7,8,9) ❑ ❑ ❑ 0
Environmental Assessment#96-2 -- ------------._ 2: ._.. _-- -------- — ------- - . -__ 6/19/96
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
Discussion: The project consists of an amendment to the land use and zoning designation and does not include any
development at this time; the project,will allow for residential development of the site.
The project site is not located within the Earthquake Hazard Special Study Zone(previously known as Alquist-Priolo Zone)
but is located within one mile of the Newport-Inglewood fault zone. The South Branch Fault is believed to lie parallel and
slightly south of Palm Avenue. In the event of an earthquake in the Huntington Beach area,the site is likely to experience
ground shaking.Future residential structures will be required to comply with standards set forth in the Uniform Building
Code established to minimize impacts to structures from ground shaking and will be subject to provisions requiring
preparation of a soils study and implementation of structural recommendations contained therein. Currently,the site has
ground water depths of approximately three to five feet,and soils consists of older alluvial material. This material
predominantly consists of marina sandy loam which is prone to liquefaction.However,common engineering techniques can
adjust for this potential hazard and reduce the risk to a less than significant level and will be required of subsequent
development of the site. Despite past oil extraction activities on the property,land subsidence in Huntington Beach is not
expected to occur in the area of the proposed project due to the current practice of injecting water into oil wells and the
reduction in oil extraction operations in the area.
The site is located in an area in which expansive soils are generally present. These geological problems do not preclude
construction of future residential units because any soils impacts can be addressed by soils studies required(which will be
required through plan check or entitlement processes for future development)and the structural recommendations generally
contained therein. Foundation designs of future development will be required to incorporate recommendations of the soils
study to minimize any potential impacts and reduce the risk to a less than significant level. No significant impacts are
anticipated.
The project site is currently vacant. The site was graded as part of recent soils remediation activities(associated with the
removal of oil operations from the site). The site is primarily flat and does not contain any unique geologic or physical
features. Future residential development of the site is expected to require minor grading of the site to level the site for
development. Future construction activities may result in short term wind and water erosion impacts,but will be subject to
compliance with Air Quality Management District and Regional Water Quality Control Board regulations requiring
implementation of dust control measures and construction runoff control measures(which would be required for site
development regardless of the proposed land use or zoning designation).
Tsunamis are seismic induced sea waves and arc a potential threat to all low-lying coastal areas of California. However,as
stated in EIR 82-2 for the Downtown Specific Plan,research indicated that no known significant tsunamis have caused-
damage in the Huntington Beach area with the recorded history of California and concluded that the impact of tsunami was
not significant.
•
Environmental Assessment 996-2 3 - - _ -- _=6119196 --.-
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
IV.NVATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates,drainage patterns,or the rate El
and amount of surface runoff? (Sources: 2)
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such a
as flooding? (Sources: 7, 10)
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface El
water quality(e.g., temperature,dissolved oxygen or
turbidity)? (Sources: 1,2)
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? El El El
(Sources: 1, 2) 0
e) Changes in currents, or the course or dircction of water El
movement? (Sources: 1, 2)
f) Change in the quantity of ground waters.either throughEl El
direct additions or withdrawals,or through interception of an
aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of
groundwater recharge capability? (Sources: 2, 7,22)
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of ground%yater? (Sources: El N
2,7)
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (Sources: 2,7) El
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater El
otherwise available for public water supplies? (Sources: 5,7)
Discussion% The project site is currently vacant. The project consists of an amendment to the land use and zoning
designation and does not include any development at this time. Subsequent development under the proposed residential
designation will result in the introduction of new impervious surfaces on the site and may effect runoff and drainage patterns
on the site. Subsequent development of the site will be required to submit a grading plan for review and approval by the
Public Works Department to determine that the runoff generated by the proposed project gill not adversely impact existing
drainage systems and adjacent properties. In order to ensure that drainage from the site does not create the potential for
• pollutants,future construction will be required to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES)
Industrial Stormwater Permit from the Regional Water Quality Control Board.'
The site is located approximately 500 feet from the Pacific Ocean which may produce flood activity from wave action.
However,the project site is located in Flood Zone X,an area not subject to floodplai.n regulations. Flood waters created by
wave action are not anticipated to occur at the subject location because research conducted for EIR 82-2 for the Downtown
In order to ensure that drainage from the site does not create the potential for pollutants,future construction will be required to
obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES)Industrial Stormwater Permit from the Regional Water Quality
Control Board prior to issuance of a building permit. (Water)
.
Environmental Assessment #96-2 : :-- -- . .4 -, , -- - _._-- ---._-T= 6/19/96 _-: -
0
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
Specific Plan indicated that no known significant tsunamis have caused damage in the Huntington Beach area within the
recorded history of California.
Under the existing land use and zoning, a maximum of approximately 38,300 square feet of commercial uses could be
developed on the site. This level of commercial development is projected to generate water usage of approximately 1.14
gallons/minute. The proposed residential designations would allow for a maximum of approximately 26 multi-family
residential units which are projected to generate eater usage of approximately 2.38 gallonstminute. Although this is an
increase in water usage,the Water Department has reviewed the proposed amendment and determined that the increase is
not considered significant and can generally be accommodated by the City's water system(although depending on the
actual number of units developed additional,project specific,water improvements may be needed to provide water service to
the site).
Subsequent development of the site will be subject to compliance with Title 24 conservation measures such as low flow
fixtures and use of drought tolerant plant species and drip irrigation(which will help to minimize the development's water
usage). The site does not drain directly into any natural body of water. No significant adverse impacts to the existing water r'
supply are anticipated. 1
y
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing El Q 0
or projected air quality violation? (Sources: 11) _
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (Sources: 1,7) 11Q El
c) Alter air movement, moisture,or temperature'' (Sources:6) 0
d) Create objectionable odors? (Sources: 2,6) 0 11 11Q
Discussion: The project consists of an amendment to the land use and zoning designation and does not include any
development at this time; the project,will allow for residential development of the site.Under the existing land use and
zoning designations, a maximum of approximatcly 38,300 square feet of commercial could be developed on site. This level
of development exceeds the commercial development threshold for potentially significant air quality impacts(as established
by the South Coast Air Quality Management District). In comparison,the proposed residential designations would allow for
a maximum of approximately 26 multi-family residential units which is more than 90%below the air quality impact
threshold for residential development. No significant adverse air quality impacts are anticipated.
Subsequent development of the site is expected to contribute to short-term deterioration of local ambient air quality
construction due to construction equipment emissions and dust. Emissions are expected from gasoline and diesel-powered
grading and paving equipment and fugitive dust generation associated with construction activities. However,as mentioned
in earlier sections,construction activities will be required to comply with the rules,regulations and standards of the. ._
SCAQMD which will minimize construction dust and emissions. No significant adverse air quality impacts are anticipated..____-_
- Environmental Assessment #96-2_ 5 -
I
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
SSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
VI.TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Wouldthe
proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (Sources:7, 12)
b) Hazards to safety from design features(e.g.,sharp curves or El El
dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses(e.g.,farm
equipment)? (Sources: 2.6)
c) Inadequate emergency access or inadequate access to nearbyEl El 0
uses? (Sources: 1,2, 7, 8)
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (Sources:2, El
,!
4, 8)
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (Sources:2) Q El
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative 0
transportation(e.g.,bus turnouts,bicycle racks)? (Sources:
2)
g) Rail,waterborne or air traffic impacts? (Sources: 1,7) 0
Discussion%The project consists of an amendment to the land use and zoning designation and does not include any
development at this time; the project,will allow for residential development of the site.
Existing roadway segments in the area are currently operating at a level of service(LOS)of E or better(Pacific Coast
Highway to Brookhurst Streel). The signalized intersection at Pacific Coast Highway and Golden West Street has an AM
peak hour LOS C or better.
Under the existing land use and zoning designations,a maximum of approximately 38,250 square feet of commercial uses
could be developed on the site. This level of commercial development is projected to generate an average of approximately
1,338.75 vehicle trips/day(based upon the strip commercial designation of the SARA Trip Generation Rates). The proposed
residential designations would allow for a maximum of approximately 26 multi-family residential units which are projected
to generate approximately 224 trips/day. The projected trip generation associated with the proposed amendment is lower
than anticipated under the commercial designation and constitutes less than 0.62%of the existing traffic in the area. The
increase is not considered significant and can generally be accommodated by the City's trafficleirculation system. The
projects minor traffic impacts can be off-set by the project's fair share contribution toward traffic improvements through the
payment of traffic impact fees(required at time of development).
Any future residential development would be required to provide access from the adjacent alley or numbered streets. This
would eliminate multiple driveways on Pacific Coast Highway and help maintain the level of service as well as reduce the _
potential for accidents.
Environmental Assessment f,96=2-- _ -- 6 ter- ---._ =- - =-.6/19/96_� . -
t Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
Due to the demand for parking adjacent to Pacific Coast Highway,there is a potential parking impact upon future residential
development. It is recommended that a mitigation measurO requiring that subsequent development of the site provide all
parking on-site or comply with the parking and access requirements of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision
Ordinance Code and Downtown Specific Plan,whichever is more restrictive. The project will not effect any rail or
waterborne traffic, since such facilities do not occur in the project vicinity.
V11XIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal
result in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (�
(including but not limited to: plants,fish,insects,animals,
and birds)? (Sources: 3, 5,7, 19)
b) Locally designated species(e.g.,heritage trees)? (Sources:3, 0
7, 19)
c) Locally designated natural communities(e.g..oak forest, 0
coastal habitat,etc.)? (Sources: 3, 5,7, 19)
d) Wetland habitat(e.g., marsh, riparian and venial pool)? 0
(Sources: 3,5, 7, 19)
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (Sources: 3,5,7, El 110
19)
Discussion: The project site is located in a highly urbanized area along PCH and has been disturbed by a history of oil operations.
The subject site was recently graded and cleared to remediate soil contamination resulting from these oil operations. The subject
site does not contain any habitat or other biological resources.
VM.ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. would
the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (Sources: El El �]X
3) -
b) Use non-renewable resource in a wasteful and inefficient IJ
manner? (Sources:3,5,7)
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource [] []X
that would be of future value to the region and the residents
of the State? (Sources: 3, 5, 7)
Discussion: The project will result in increases or fuel/energy usage in the City,however,anticipated energy demands
2 Due to the demand for parking near the beach,all parking shall either be located entirely on-site or shall comply with the parking
and access requirements of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and Downtown Specific Plan,whichever is
more restrictive.
Environmental Assessment 496-2 7 - -- -- -- ---- -- _ _: _;-_6/19/96_ -
- ..__.
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
created by the project are within parameters of overall projected demand which is planning to be met for the area. Existing
facilities are adequate to accommodate the development. No significant adverse impacts to natural resources are anticipated.
IX.HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances(including,but not limited to: oil,pesticides, El El
chemicals or radiation)? (Sources:6,7, 14)
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or El0
emergency evacuation plan? (Sources:7)
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential hazards? 0El
(Sources: 6, 7, 14) '
d) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,grass, QEl
or trees? (Sources: 2)
Discussion: The proposed project site has a history of oil production.The site was recently cleaned to City Fire Department
specifications to remediate potential soil.contamination from these oil operations. The site is located within the methane
district. Construction that results from this request will be required to address potential methane impacts per Fire
Department specifications'.
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (Sources: 6,7, 14) ElQ
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (Sources:6,7, 14) 0
Discussion: The proposed change in land use designation from commercial to residential does not directly involve
construction so no noise impacts will occur. A temporary increase in noise levels would occur as a result of future -
construction,but would only be temporary in nature. The proposed change from commercial to residential would eliminate
the potential for noise generating commercial uses,such as a restaurant or market,to be developed adjacent to residential.
The residential designation would allow the development of a compatible land use that generates less noise.than commercial
uses.
The project site is located in the 60 CNEL noise contour generated by traffic along Pacific Coast Highway. Future 1
residential development will be exposed to significant noise levels. To reduce noise impacts to a less than significant level,
future residential development%ill be required to submit a noise study to identify the appropriate noise attenuation -
measures,such as double pained windows and insulation,which will be implemented to comply with the noise standards of
s Due to the fact that the project site is located within the methane district,future construction shall be required to comply with the _
City of Huntington Beach Fire Department specifications. (Hazards)
Environmental Assessment 96-2 -- - --- -- - - ..- 8 - _ - _-._—.._— :: -— — 6ftW96.- - - -
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
the City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code'.
XI.PUBLIC SERVICES. would the proposal have an effect
upon,or result in a need for new or altered government services
in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? (Sources: Huntington Beach Fire Dept.)
b) Police Protection? (Sources: Huntington Beach Police Dept.) Q Q
c) Schools? (Sources: 15, 21) Q11 El
r
d) Maintenance of public facilities,including roads? (Sources: 11 El 11j}
City of Huntington Beach) .�
e) Other governmental services? (Sources: Cite of Huntington
Beach)
Discussion:The proposed change in land use designation from commercial to residential will not create the need for any
new or altered government sen•ices. Police, fire.and maintenance services are currently provided in the area. New
maintenance services will be required for future alley access. New alleys and infrastructure are required to be installed prior
to any development on the block,of which the project site is a part. However,future infrastructure maintenance is not
dependent upon the request to change the land use designation,but is required prior to any construction on the block The
appropriate park and recreation fees«ill be required in conjunction with building permits for residential construction and
will offset the project's share of impacts to the recreational facilities. This issue is discussed further in section XV.
The project site is located in the Huntington Beach City School and Huntington Beach Union High School Districts. Based
upon the districts student generation rates(General Plan EIR Response to Comments),the change in land use designations
could result in the generation of students:
HBUHSD
Grades 9-12-.200 x 26 units=5.2 students
HBCSD
Grades K-5-.3859 x 26 units= 10 students
6-8-.1989 x 26 units=5.17 students
Sp.Ed. -.0095 x 26 units=.247 students
The Huntington Beach Union High School District has reviewed the proposal and is concerned that an additional 5.2
students may impact the capacity of classrooms at the Huntington Beach High School. The School District estimates that
the potential cost of these five students to be$155,358.20. This cost mayor may not be offset by the school fees that are
required in conjunction«rich building permits for residential construction. The Huntington Beach City School District has
not comment at this time but will provide comments upon receipt of the Negative Declaration document. .The actual level of- -._...
`To reduce noise impacts to a less than significant level,future residential development shall be required to include noise mitigation
measures,such as double pained windows and insulation,to comply with the noise standards of the City of Huntington Beach `
Municipal Code. (Noise)
- .Environmental Assessment 996-2 - 9 ":_:=-=__.6119196=�_ =-:-
- Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
impacts is unknown until a development project has been identified and approved. The City is currently formulating a
policy to require developers to negotiate with school districts prior to submittal for development review;this policy is in
response to the recently adopted General Plan Policy LU 2.1.7. Any proposed development on the site will be required to
comply with this new policy,.
MUTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,or
substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? (Sources: 5, 7) El0
b) Communication systems? (Sources: 5,7) a
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? El El
aEl
(Sources: 5,7)
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (Sources: 5,7)
f) Solid waste disposal? (Sources: 5, 7) El El
g) Local or regional water supplies? (Sources: 5. 7) 11 119
El
Discussion:The proposed change in land use designation from commercial to residential will not create the need for new
utilities in the area.The proposed site is part of a larger vacant lot that is required to have new alleys,water,sewer,storm
drainage,electrical,gas,and communication infrastructure prior to any development on the block. The requirement for new
infrastructure improvements is not dependent upon the current request to change the land use designation but are required
prior to any development on the block. These utilities required for the proposal are similar to utilities that would be required
of development under the existing commercial land use designation. The utilities services in the area are adequate to
accommodate potential residential development(For more discussion of water impacts,please see Section IV).
XIII.AESTRETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? (Sources: 1,3) El
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? (Sources: 1, 0
4, 8)
c) Create light or glare? (Sources:2,6,8) 11 -. 0 . .. : _.
Discussion:The site is located in an area with high visibility along a corridor designated as visually significant in the City's
In order to offset possible impacts to the school districts,any proposed development on the site shall be required-to comply with
General Plan Policy LU 2.1.7.(Public Services)
Environmental Assessment 496-2 - 10 - -" �' = 6/19/96
Porentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
General Plan. Future construction would be required to comply with the landscaping and development standards of the
zoning and Downtown Design Guidelines.The proposed change in land use designation from commercial to residential will
not result in any obstruction of public views or scenic vistas. The site is currently designated for commercial use which
could allow development of a similar height and bulk as the proposed residential designation. Future construction would be
required to comply with the height and setback requirements of the Downtown Specific Plan. The maximum height of both
the commercial and residential designations(DTSP Districts No. 1 and 2)is 35 feet,so no change would occur.
Subsequent development of the project will introduce some new light sources on the project site,including light transmitted
through the glass windows and potential street lighting,similar to that which is generated by existing residences in the area.
The surrounding area includes 2 to 3 story single family residences and a 3 story multi-family residential development. The
vacant property to the north would allow single family or multiple family residential development and the vacant property to
the west would allow commercial development. The incremental increase in ambient light due is expected to the negligible.
No adverse impacts are anticipated.
XIV.CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
y
a) Disturb paleontological resources? (Sources: 5, 7, 19) 11 El
b) Disturb archaeological resources? (Sources: 5, 16, 19)
c) Affect historical resources? (Sources: 5,7, 17, 19,City of
Huntington Beach)
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would
affect unique ethnic cultural values? (Sources: 2, 5,7, 19)
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potentialEl0
impact area? (Sources: 1)
Discussion: The site is currently vacant. No archaeological or cultural resources have been identified on the site.
Therefore,no significant impacts to cultural resources is expected.
WRECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or 0
other recreational facilities? (Sources: 1,5, 7)
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (Sources: 1,5,7) (� 0
Discussion: The project consists of an amendment to the land use and zoning designation and does not include any
development at this time. The project will not result in the loss of existing recreational facilities;however subsequent-- -
residential development of the site will contribute to an increase in demand for additional recreational facilitates to serve
future residents. In the immediate area,recreational facilities include the Bluff Top park,Huntington Beach City Beach,
Rodger's Senior Center,the City Gym and Pool,Farquhar Park,Lake Park,and the Worthy Community Park..These -
recreational facilities will be adequate to accommodate future residential development. Future residential development will _
be required to contribute to park and recreation fees that will off-set the project's share of impacts to recreational facilities.
Environmental Assessment#96-2 11 - - _ :'.-6/19/96=-:-
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
XVI.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of El
the emzronment,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? (Sources: 2, 7)
Discussion: See discussion of items no. I-XV above.
Si
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term,to El
the disadvantage of long-term cmzronmental goals? -
(Sources: 3)
Discussion: See discussion of items no. I-XV above.
c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, ❑ 0
but cumulatively considerable'' ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects
of past projects, the effects of other current projects,and the
effects of probable future projects.) (Sources:3)
Discussion: See discussion of items no. I-XV above.
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause 0
substantial adverse effects on human beings.either directly or
indirectly? (Sources: 2,6)
Discussion: See discussion of items no. I-XV above.
Environmental Assessment 996-2 --- 12 - -"_ ----- -- . -`, =- �:: ,�_;_ '6/19/96'--
Pocentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSIS
Earlier analyses may be used wltcre, pursuant to tiering,program EIR,or other CEQA process,one or more
effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c)(3)(1)).
Earlier Documents Prepared and Utilized in this Analysis
Reference # Documcnt Title Available for Review at:
I Project Vicinity Map See Attachment#1
2 Site Plan City of Huntington Beach Community
Development Dept.,Planning/Zoning
Information Counter,3rd Floor
2000 Main St.
Huntington Beach
3 City of I-luntington Beach General Plan City of Huntington Beach Community
Development Dept.,Planning/Zoning
Information Counter,3rd Floor f
2000 Main St.
Huntington Beach
4 City of Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision K -
Ordinance
5 City of Huntington Beach Environmental Impact K
Report for General Plan Update
6 Project Narrative K
7 City of 1-Iu111itigton Beach General Plan Technical K
Background Report for General Plan Update
8 Downtown Specific Plan K
9 Geotechnical Inputs K
for City of Huntington Beach
10 FEMA Flood Insurance Rate.Map (April 30, 1996)
• K
11 Air Quality Handbook, South Coast Air Quality
Management District
12 Department of Public Works,Traffic Engineering "
- Division
14 City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code City of Huntington Beach City Clerk
Office,2nd Floor
2000 Main St.
Huntington Beach
Environmental Assessment 496-2 - 13
Potentially
' Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
TSSIJES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
Reference # Document Title Available for Review at:
15 City of I-Iu titington Beach City of Huntington Beach Community
Development Dept.,Planning/Zoning
CI:QA Procedures Handbook Information Counter,3rd Floor
2000 Main St.
Huntington Beach
16 City of Hutititigton Beach Archaeological Site Vicinity "
Map
17 City of Huntington Beach Historic District Location "
Map
18 City of Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program "
" r
19 Environmental Impact Report 82-2 (Downtown x
Specific Plan)
20 1995 Department of Finance Projections "
21 Letter from Huntington Beach Union High School "
District dated June 14, 1996
22 Memo from Jeffrey Retina,Water Operations "
Manager, dated July 9, 1996
XVIH. Summary of Mitigation Measures
1. In order to ensure that draina- from the site does not create the potential for pollutants,future construction will be required
to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES)Industrial Stormwater Permit from the Regional
Water Quality Control Board prior to issuance of a building permit. (Water)
2. Due to the demand for parking near the beach,all parking shall either be located entirely on-site or shall comply with the
parking and access requirements of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Code and Downtown Specific
Plan,whichever is more restrictive. (Transportation and Circulation) -
3. Due to the fact that the project site is located within the methane district,future construction shall be required to comply
with the City of Huntington Beach Fire Department specifications. (Hazards)
4. To reduce noise impacts to a less than significant level,future residential development shall be required to include noise
mitigation measures,such as double pained windows and insulation,to comply with the noise standards of the City of
Huntington Beach Municipal Code. (Noise)
5. In order to offset possible impacts to the school districts,any proposed development on the site shall be required to comply
with General Plan Policy LU 2.1.7. (Public Services
Environmental Assessment 496-2 14 _.
Single-Family Res. Single-Family Res. Single-Family Res.
Gen.Plan.-Res. Med.High-25 Gen.Plan.-Res. Mcd.High-25 Gen.Plan.-Res. Med.High-25
•� du/ac. du/ac. du/ac.
QQ Zone-Res.Med.High-Small Lot Zone-Res.Med. High-Small Lot Zone-Res.Med. High-Small Lot
U Alleys to be dedicated and improved
ivy �o Waln:r!Ave.
iV0 NO t� 0 � M
'� ti to t+l M •� M
o �, Ix •� x tx
on
ECA
�y O !!��� N N t•GjqJ N N N N
' d ' N a I3+
t03 ;A tan'
ati" in q q in
iYri V. N GJU �Q�Q G4) �QQ •�
•
� 4
T (7 'CaN inC7 •oN (7 •bN � C7 'CyN [� C7K7N i;; 0 N '
b � b
d O ;�� 1t5"�J" 7Ui+bpi}t�up5p44�1
Vacant Property +,5�$ a���p �S�4�kl�y�� ���Ytt j"µ i'� r ��;; Multi-Family Res.
O t� t� tg Gen.Plan.-Mixed Use-Vertical � ;f t� � r�}'�` +,�,� � f���t� � 1 � �F+� Gen.Plan.-Rcs. Nigh-30 du/ac.
Zone-DTSP-1 (Vs. Serv. Comm.) Zone Zone-DTSP-2(Res.)
�rU Sf'�'�v �� is�����!;'I
Pacifrc Coast Highway
Bluff Top Park
Gen. Plan-Open Space-Shore Subject Property
Zone-DTSP-11 (Open Space) }existing Land Use Designation: •
Gen. Plan -Mixed Use, Vertical Integration
Zoning-Downtown Specific Plan Dist. l (Commercial)
Pacific Ocean Proposed Land Use Designation:
General Plan -Residential High -30 units per acre
• Zoning-Downtown Specific Plan Dist. 2 (Residential)
No Scale
- �� G'PA NO. 9'6-1/ZC NO* 96-1/
0
HUNTINGTON OEACH _ -
Responses to Comments
Neizative Declaration No. 96-2
I. INTRODUCTION
This document serves as the Response to Comments on the Negative Declaration No. 96-2. This
document contains all information available in the public record related to the Negative
Declaration as of Wednesday, August 21, 1996, and responds to comments in accordance with
Section 15088 of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) Guidelines.
This document contains six sections. In addition to this Introduction, these sections are Public
Participation and Review, Comments, Responses to Comments, Errata to Negative Declaration
No. 96-2-and Appendix.
n
The Public Participation section outlines the methods the City of Huntington Beach has used to
provide public review and solicit input on the Negative Declaration. The Comments section
contains those written comments received from agencies, groups, organizations, and individuals
as of Wednesday, August 21, 1996. The Response to Comments section contains individual
responses to each comment. The Errata to the Negative Declaration is provided to show
corrections of errors and inconsistencies in the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration.
It is the intent of the City of Huntington Beach to include this document in the official public
record related to the Negative Declaration. Based on the information contained in the public
record the decision makers will be provided with an accurate and complete record of all
information related to the environmental consequences of the project.
IX. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND REVIEW
The City of Huntington Beach notified all responsible and interested agencies and interested
groups, organizations, and individuals that a Negative Declaration had been prepared for the
proposed project. The City also used several methods to solicit input during the review period for
the preparation of the Negative Declaration. The following is a list of actions taken during the
preparation, distribution, and review of the Negative Declaration.
1. An official thirty(30) day public review period for the Negative Declaration was
established by the City. It began on Tuesday July 19, 1996, and ended on Thursday August 15, _
1996. Public comment letters were accepted by the City of Huntington Beach through
Wednesday, August 21, 1996.
2. Notice of the Negative Declaration was published in the Huntington Beach Independent--
on Thursday, July 18, 1996. Upon request, copies of the document were distributed to agencies,
groups, organizations, and individuals.
3. A copy of the cover letter and the distribution list is available for review and inspection at
the City of Huntington Beach, Planning Department, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach,
California 92648.
III. COMMENTS
Copies of all written comments received as of Wednesday, August 21, 1996, are contained in
appendix A of this document. All comments have been numbered and are listed on the following
pages. All comments from letters received have been retyped verbatim in a comment-response
format for clarity. Responses to Comments for each comment which raised an environmental
issue are contained in this document.
IV. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
The Negative Declaration No. 96-2 was distributed to responsible agencies, interested groups,
organizations, and individuals. The report was made available for public review and comment for '
a period of thirty (30) days. The public review period for the Negative Declaration established by i
the City commenced on July 17, 1996.
•` 4
Copies of all documents received as of Wednesday, August 21, 1996, are contained in appendix A
of this report. Comments have been numbered with responses correspondingly numbered.
Responses are presented for each comment which raised a significant environmental issue.
Several comments do not address the completeness or adequacy of the Negative Declaration, do
not raise significant environmental issues, or request additional information. A substantive
response to such comments is not appropriate within the context of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA). Such comments are responded to with a "comment acknowledged"
reference. This indicates that the comment will be forwarded to all appropriate decision makers
for their review and consideration.
V
Responses to Comments
Negative Declaration No. 96-2
21st and 22nd Street General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Huntington Beach City School District
HBCSD-1:
Comment:
The Huntington Beach City School District has had an opportunity to review the Draft
Negative Declaration Document and concurs with the finding that the impact of the project
has a significant impact and that General Plan Policy LU 2.1.7 must be complied with.
Response: �r
The response refers to General Plan Policy LU 2.1.7 which states, "Ensure that development }
shall not occur without providing for adequate school facilities." The policy was adopted to
ensure that developers discuss possible student generation with the impacted school districts.
Until the full extent of the project is determined, the actual impact will not be known. A
mitigation measure requiring compliance with this policy is included in the Negative
Declaration and will be suggested to be included as a condition of approval for future
development. No additional mitigation measures or analysis is required in Negative
Declaration No. 96-2.
HBCSD-2:
Comment:
The two schools serving this project would be the Smith Elementary and Dwyer Middle
School. Smith is currently at 120% capacity and is utilizing 6 portable classrooms to house
students. The impact of the current state legislation to reduce class size in grades 1-3 will
necessitate an additional 9 classrooms on the site. Based on the projection for the Holly
Seacliff development, the entire available capacity for Dwyer will be absorbed within 24
months.
The request to change the General Plan and zoning designation on the project adds 16 .
additional students for which there is no planned housing.
Response:
' The comment refers to the current population situation in the two impacted schools and the .
potential impact of additional students. Compliance with Policy LU 2.1.7 is suggested as a
mitigation measure and a condition of approval to help alleviate this potential impact.No
additional mitigation measures or analysis is required in Negative Declaration No. 96-2.
HBCSD-3:
Comment:
—
The cost to house these additional students is$560,000,which is far short of the statutory fee
of$1.12 per square foot concurrently being assessed.
Response-3•
The comment refers to the statutory school fee to offset the cost of providing for additional
students resulting from new developments. Until the actual development is proposed, the
potential student generation and amount of school fees is unknown. Therefore the actual
impact is unknown. All new residential development will be required to pay school fees in
conjunction with the issuance of the building permits. In addition, compliance with General
Plan Policy LU 2.1.7 will require discussions to offset any impacts beyond the required school
fees. No additional mitigation measures or analysis is required in Negative Declaration No.
96-2.
HBCSD-4:
Comment:
Compliance with General Plan Policy 2.1.7 will go a long way toward reducing the significant
impact.
Response:
It
The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decision makers for
consideration prior to action on the proposed General Plan and Zoning Amendment. See
response to HBCSD Comment Number 2.
Huntington Beach Union High School District
HBUHSD:
Comment:
On behalf of the Huntington Beach Union High School District I have received your letter
regarding General Plan Amendment No. 96-1 regarding a proposed 26 lot subdivision for
residential development between 21 st and 22nd Streets on Pacific Coast Highway. District
staff have analyzed the existing capacity of our schools and projected enrollment growth for
the next few years. We find that internal growth and approved development will absorb our
capacity and that enrollment generated by new development will impose a financial burden on
the District due to the need for additional classroom and auxiliary space. Our analysis shows
that the cost of adding permanent classroom space for new students is $31,071.64 per
student, which consists of$21,525.28 for construction and furnishings and an additional
$9,546.36 for the cost of land acquisition.
For this proposed development we agree on your projection of an increase of 5 students, or a
potential cost of$155,358.20. We cannot estimate what the homes will generate in developer
fees; however, our experience tells us that statutory developer fees are insuffibient to offset
the cost of new construction.
Response:
The comment refers to the current population situation and the potential impact of additional
students. The comment states that the statutory developer fee, enacted to offset the cost of
providing for additional students, may not be adequate to cover the cost incurred by the.-.
District. Until the actual development is proposed, the potential student generation and
amount of school fees is unknown. Therefore the actual impact is unknown. All new
residential development will be required to pay school fees in conjunction with the issuance of
• •
the building permits. In addition, compliance with General Plan Policy LU 2.1.7 will require
discussions to offset any impacts beyond the required school fees. No additional mitigation
measures or analysis is required in Negative Declaration No. 96-2.
HBUHSD-2:
Comment:
While we are sensitive to the burden that the cost of full mitigation place on a development,
we are also concerned about the need to ensure that adequate classroom space is provided for
the children of those home buyers. Further, the proposed'General Plan language sets out the
City's role in ensuring that new development bear its share of responsibility for school
impacts. Thereby, we request that, as your review proceeds, and prior to approval of a
tentative tract map, the City require the developer to enter into negotiations with the district
for mitigation of the impact of the proposed development on our schools.
Response:
The response refers to General Plan Policy LU 2.1.7 which states, "Ensure that development
shall not occur without providing for adequate school facilities." The policy was adopted to "
ensure that developers discuss possible student generation with the impacted school districts.
Until the full extent of the project is determined, the actual impact will not be known. A
mitigation measure requiring compliance with this policy is included in the Negative
Declaration and will be suggested to be included as a condition of approval for future
development. No additional mitigation measures or analysis is required in Negative
Declaration No. 96-2.
HBUHSD-3:
Comment:
I would be pleased to meet with representatives of the developer and the City to discuss this
matter further.
Response:
The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decision makers for
consideration prior to action on the proposed General Plan and Zoning Amendment.
California Coastal Commission
CCC-1:
Comment:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Negative Declaration No. 96-1. The negative
declaration describes a request to change the current land use designation and zoning from
commercial to residential along Pacific Coast Highway between Twenty-second and Twenty-
first Streets. The Negative Declaration states that the General Plan designation is Mixed Use
Vertical Integration. The land use designation in the certified Local Coastal Program Land
Use Plan for the subject site is Visitor Serving Commercial. The proposed change would
designate the site as Residential High Density(which allows up to 30 units per acre). The
zoning is proposed to be changed from Downtown Specific Plan Area 1 (Visitor Serving
Commercial)to Downtown Specific Plan Area 2 (Residential).
As noted in the Negative Declaration, the proposed land use designation and zone change
would require approval of a Local Coastal Program(LCP) amendment by the Coastal
Commission. The LCP amendment would effect both the Land Use Plan(LUP) and the
Implementation Plan(IP) portions of the LCP.
In evaluating an amendment to a certified Land Use Plan, the Commission's standard of
review is the Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act. The standard of review for an
Implementation Plan(zoning) amendment is the certified Land Use Plan. Following are
Commission staffs comments on the proposal.
Both the Coastal Act and the City's certified LUP place a higher priority on visitor service
commercial uses than on residential uses. Section 30213 of the Coastal Act states, in part:
Lower cost visitor and recreational facilities shall be protected, encouraged, and, where
feasible, provided. Developments providing public recreational opportunities are
preferred. r
Section 30222 of the Coastal Act states:
The use of private lands suitable for visitor-service 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.
And Section 30250(c) states:
Visitor-serving facilities that cannot feasibly be located in existing developed areas shall be
located in existing isolated developments or at selected points of attraction for visitors.
Each of these Coastal Act sections have been specifically incorporated into the City's certified
Land Use Plan. In addition, regarding Visitor Serving facilities, the City's certified Land Use
Plan policies 5 and 5a on page 138 state:
Additional support facilities are necessary in order to accommodate the large numbers-of_
visitors attracted to recreation areas in the coastal zone. The coastal land use plan is
designed to provide for sufficient areas strategically located to serve the needs of existing
and future levels of visitors. The intent of the following policies is to specifically
encourage adequate visitor accommodations.
5. Protect, encourage, and where feasible provide visitor serving facilities in the
coastal zone which are varied in type and price. -
5a. Encourage the provision of additional restaurants and hotel/motel
accommodations in keeping with the alternative chosen by the City
Council.
The certified LUP also states, on page 31:
Existing visitor-serving uses in the coastal zone provide a wide range of services.
However, the large numbers of visitors attracted to recreation areas in the coastal zone
justify the provision of additional support facilities, particularly overnight accommodations
and restaurants. The plan designates sufficient areas strategically located to serve the
needs of existing and future levels of visitors. The City's coastal policies further aim to
achieve the following objectives:
Provision of lower cost visitor-serving facilities.
Increased numbers of hotel/motel rooms and restaurants in the coastal zone.
Provision of additional areas for overnight recreational vehicle camping.
Although the LUP language above places emphasis on provision of restaurants and overnight }
facilities, many types of uses qualify as visitor-serving uses. Visitor serving uses recognized
by the LUP include theaters, museums, specialty and beach-related retail, and service uses.
Downtown Specific Plan Area 1 further expands on the numerous visitor serving uses
allowable at the site. In addition, residential use is not prohibited in the area under the current
land use and zoning designations, provided certain standards are met. For projects with less
than a half-block of frontage, the entire street level must be devoted to visitor-serving uses;
for projects with a half-block or more of frontage, either the entire street level, or at least one-
third (1/3) of the total floor area must be devoted to visitor-serving commercial uses. The
remainder of a project may then be residential.
The proposed redesignated area is part of a two-block visitor serving commercial node
identified in the LUP. The node is located at the intersection of Goldenwest Street and Pacific
Coast Highway, immediately inland of the beach. Regarding the subject area and two other
visitor serving commercial nodes the certified LUP states (on page 122):
These three nodes were selected to concentrate commercial development at specific
locations near existing and proposed traffic signals and beach accessways.
Goldenwest Street is a major arterial that connects directly with the 405 freeway.
• Consequently, it functions as a major beach access route. As a major beach access route,high
volumes of visitor traffic will travel by the node. In addition, being immediately inland of the
beach, visitor commercial uses providing snacks,beach items, etc. would attract beach goers
once they are at the beach. The intersection of Goldenwest Street and Pacific Coast Highway
is signalized and provides crosswalks, which allows safe pedestrian crossing. For these.__-..
reasons, the site is a logical location for visitor serving uses.
The certified land use designation and zoning reflect Coastal Act section 30250(c)'s
requirement that visitor serving facilities be located at selected points of attraction for visitors.
Further, the LUP language suggests that the City and Commission in certifying the land use
designation and zoning found that the subject site was strategically located to serve the needs
of existing and future levels of visitors. It appears that the current designation and zoning at
the site are appropriate and maximize the provision of visitor serving facilities in the coastal
zone as required by the certified LCP and Coastal Act.
For the reasons outlined above, Commission staff is concerned that the proposed changes may
not be consistent with the Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act and the City's certified Local
Coastal Program. This is staffs assessment of the proposal based on the information provided
and past Commission actions. The ultimate decision on an LCP amendment is, of course,
determined by the Coastal Commission through public hearing once a complete LCP
amendment request is submitted.
Again thank you for the opportunity to comment on Negative Declaration 96-1. Please do
not hesitate to contact me with any questions regarding these comments or a future LCP
amendment submittal for the land use designation and zone change described in Negative '
Declaration No. 96-1.
r
Resnonse-1• `` r
The response refers to provision of the California Coastal Act which place an emphasis on the
provision of Visitor Serving Commercial uses over Residential uses. The elimination of
Visitor Serving designated property*is offset by recent land use changes in the immediate area.
Specifically, in October 1994, 2.5 gross acres were redesignated from Residential Hig� -
Density to Visitor Serving Commercial between 8th Street and 6th Street along Pacific Coast
Highway. In addition, the recent General Plan update, redesignated 235.77 acres immediately
west of Golden West Street from Industrial Resource Production to Mixed Use(Residential
and Visitor Serving Commercial Uses). In this area, Visitor Serving Commercial uses are
required to be oriented along Pacific Coast Highway. Why the exact area of commercial is
not known, the frontage of the site is approximately 6,250 feet long. These two land use
designations should more than offset the loss of the Visitor Serving Commercial designation
on subject site.
Finally, the functionality of a commercial product on the subject site is questionable. The site
has been designated for commercial uses since 1960 but has been either been in oil production
or vacant since that time. This might be due to the location of the site. The subject-site is one
block east of the corner of Pacific Coast Highway and Golden West Street. Access to the
subject site is only from westbound traffic on Pacific Coast Highway.
The response refers to the land use change and does not refer to a specific environmental
impact. The analysis of the land use change willbe elaborated upon in the Local Coastal i
Program Amendment reviewed by the California Coastal Commission. Therefore, no
additional analysis or mitigation measures are required in the Negative Declaration..
County of Orange,Environmental Management Agency
O CEMA-1: _
Comment:
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the above referenced item. The County of
Orange has no comment at this time. However, we appreciate being informed of any further
developments.
Response:
The comment does not address any significant environmental issues. The comment is
acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decision makers for consideration
prior to action on the proposed General Plan and Zoning Amendment.
Department of Transportation, District 12
DOT-1:
Comment:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Negative Declaration for the
21 st and 22nd Street General Plan and Zone change from commercial to residential. Caltrans
District is responsible and has no comment at this time.
Please keep us informed of future developments which could potentially impact our State
Transportation Facilities. If you have any questions, or need to contact us, please call Aileen
Kennedy on (714) 724-2239. _
Response:
The comment does not address any significant environmental issues. The comment is
acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decision makers for consideration
prior to action on the proposed General Plan and Zoning Amendment.
City of Costa Mesa _
CM-1:
Comment:
The City of Costa Mesa has reviewed the Draft Negative Declaration for the project
referenced above. The project consists of a General Plan Amendment for a 0.88 acre area
along Pacific Coast Highway from commercial/residential designation to a high density
residential designation. According to the Negative Declaration, potential traffic generated by
the worst case, 26-unit residential project would be much less than the worst case commercial
project that could be built under the existing designation. There will be no impacts to the City
of Costa Mesa. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the environmental document.
If you have any questions, please call me at 754-5136.
Response:
The comment does not address any significant environmental issues. The comment is
acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decision makers for consideration
prior to action on the proposed General Plan and Zoning Amendment. - -
V. ERRATA TO NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 96-2
The following changes to Negative Declaration No. 93-13 and the Initial Study Checklist are as
noted below. The changes to the Negative Declaration as they relate to issues contained within
this errata sheet doe not affect the overall conclusions of the environmental document. The
changes are identified by the comment reference response.
f
'1
. 1
the building permits. In addition, compliance with General Plan Policy LU 2.1.7 will require
discussions to offset any impacts beyond the required school fees. No additional
mitigationmeasures or analysis is required in Negative Declaration No. 96-2.
HBUHSD-2:
Comment:
While we are sensitive to the burden that the cost of full mitigation place on a development,
wwe are also concerned about the need to ensure that adequate classroom space is provided
for the children of those home buyers. Further, the proposed General Plan language sets out
the City's role in ensuring that new development bear its share of respnonsitbility for school
impacts. Thereby, we request that, as your review proceeds, and prior to approval of a
tentative tract m ap, the City require the developer to enter into negotiations with the district
for mitigation of the impact of the proposed development on our schools.
Response:
The respose referes to General Plan Policy LU 2.1.7 which states, "Ensure that development
shall not occur without providing for adequate school facilities." The policy was adopted to
ensure that developers discuss possible student generation with the impacted school districts.
Untill the full extent of the project is determined, the actual impact will not be known. A
mitigation measure requiring compliance with this policy is included in the Negative
Declaration and will be suggested to be included as a condition of approval for future
development. No additional mitigationmeasures or analysis is required in Negative
Declaration No. 96-2.
HBUHSD-3:
Comment:
I would be pleased to meet with representatives of the developer and the City do discuss this
matter further.
Response:
The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decision makers for
consideration prior to action on the proposed General Plan and Zoning Amendment.
—�� California Coastal Coimmission
-tots CCC-1:
p`~Y Comment:
ut letter here. -
Response-1•
The response referes to provision of the Californai Coastal Act which place an emphais on the
provision of Visitor Serving Commercial uses over Residential uses. The elimination of
Visitor Serving designated property is offdset by recent land use changes in the immediate
area. Specifically, in October 1994, 2.5 gross acres were redesignated from Residential High
Density to Visitor Serving Commercial between 8th Street and 6th Street along Pacific Coast
Highway. In addition,the recent General Plan update, redesignated 235.77 acres immediately
west of Golden West Street from Industrial Resource Production to Mixed Use (Residnetail
and Visitor Serving Commercial Uses). In this area, Visitor Serving Commercial uses are
required to be orineted along Pacific Coast Highway. Why the exact area of commercial is
AUG-18-98 FRI 13,32 Y, U2
HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT-
0
20451 Craimer Lare - P.O.Box 71 Huntington Beach,Californla 926t8 (714)964-88e8
,
BOARD OF TRUSTEES August 16, 1996
Brtan E.RQchstelner
President
Brian Garland Mr.Brian James, Assistant Planner
Clerk Department of Community Development
Shirley Carey City of Huntington Beach
Member 2000 Main Street
Rcbert Mann,Ed.D. Huntington Beach CA 92648
Member
Catherine McGough RE: Draft Negative Declaration No.96-1 (21st&22nd Street-General Plan and rr
Member Zone Change from commercial to residential)
ADMINISTRATION DearBdan;
Duane A.Dishno,Ed.D. The Huntington Beach City School District has had an opportunity to review the Draft
SupcInlendcnt Negative Declaration Document and concurs with the finding that the impact of the
Alan Rasmussen.Ed.D. project has a significant impact and that General Plan Policy LU 2.1.7 must be,
Assistant Superintendent complied with,
Personnel/Educational
ServiCa4
Jerry Buchanan The two schools serving this project would be Smith Elementary and Dwyer Middle
Assistant Super;n endent School. Smith is currently at 120% capacity and is utilizing 6 portable classrooms to
Adminislrasv2 Services house students. Tlie impact of current state legislation to reduce class size in grades 1-3
will necessitate an additional 9 classrooms on the site. Dwyer currently has capacity,
however,the recent addition to the site was to add capacity to handle students from the
Holly Seacliff Development. Based on projections from the Holly Seacliff
Development, the entire available capacity for Dwyer will be absorbed within 24
montlis.
The request to change the General Plan and Zoning designation on the project adds 16
additional students for which there is no planned. housing. The cost to house these -
additional students is $560,000, which is far short of the statutory fee of $1.12 per
square foot currently Neing assessed.
Compliance with General Plan Policy LU 2.1.7 will go a long way toward reducing the
significant impact.
Sincerely
Jerry Buchanan . . _
Assistant Superintendent
Administrative Services
cc: Dr.Duane Dishno,Superintendent,HBCSD -
"We Are An Equal Opportunity Employee"
Board of Trustees:
eF HUNTINGTONBEACH UNION Bo ni`nie Bs c
trey
CW HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT Barbara Johnson
Curt Jones
* *i o 10251 Yorktown Avenue •Huntington Beach, California 92646-2999 Michael Simons
(714) 964-3339 FAx(714) 963-7684 David J. Hagen, Ed.D.,Superintendent of Schools
Qh SexO�'
Mr. Brian James ' 7 '`;" June 14, 1996
Department of Community Development
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach,,CA 92648
Dear M
r fries:
On behalf of the Huntington Beach Union High School District I have received your letter
regarding General Plan Amendment 96-1 regarding a proposed 26 lot subdivision for residential
development between 21st and 22nd Streets on Pacific Coast Highway. District staff have
analyzed the existing capacity of our schools and projected enrollment growth for the next few
years. We find that internal growth and approved development will absorb our capacity and that
enrollment generated by new development will impose a financial burden on the District due to
the need for additional classroom and auxiliary space. Our analysis shows that the cost of
adding permanent classroom space for new students is $31,071.64 per student, which consists
of$21,525.28 for construction and furnishings and an additional $9,546.36 for the cost of land
acquisition. Attached are details for these figures.
For this proposed development we agree on your projection of an increase of 5 students, or a
potential cost of $155,358.20. We cannot estimate what the homes will generate in developer
fees; however, our experience tells us that statutory developer fees are insufficient to offset the
cost of new construction.
While we are sensitive to the burden that the costs of full mitigation place on a development,
we are also concerned about the need to ensure that adequate classroom space is provided for
the children of those home buyers. Further, the proposed General Plan language sets out the
City's role in ensuring that new development bears its share of responsibility for school impacts.
Therefore, we request that, as your review proceeds, and prior to approval of a tentative tract
map, the City require the developer to enter negotiations with the District for mitigation of the
impact of the proposed development on our schools.
I would be pleased to meet with representatives of the developer and City staff to discuss this
matter further.
Sincerely,
Patricia Reid Koch, Ph.D.
Assistant Superintendent, Business Services
Attachment
The mission of the HBUHSD, responsive to our diverse communitytezpectations,is to educate all students by ensuring a relevant and
focused educational program which develops responsible,productive and creative individuals with a capacity for leadership.
Table 4-1
HBUHSD 9-12 Configuration
Cost Estimates Per Square Foot of Building Area
Typical High School
Site Statistics Statistic Adjustments Factor Descripticn
Acres 40.00 Geographic 1.00 a County
h:Oran
Land Sq.FL 1.742,400 Small Building £ '-N/A:No
Students 2.200 Index Adjustment `..':Lee Saylcr
Net Sq.Ft per Student 91 Urban
Gross S Student 94 Security q•FL per .' I�UANo
Net Building Sq.FL 200,200 Base Fixed Fee Building Costs $ 120.00
Gross Building Sq.Ft. 206.800 Structures-Stories 1
Cost Inflator 100.00% Building Class BID D
Category Factors Unit Cost Per Total Costs Total Cost Per Total
Sq.Ft. Student
..;:..^•:- n..,vH; .......�..�.......�:.,::.>::::.....:...:..:...:;.;:.:.::::::::w:•.v:••::�::^::w:n:.;..:::v:•v::::r::.:::..:::::•^w.,:,,•r:•:n•:n>:.::<.v:::nvv�+w•w:.:.:x.v:..i::•:v:..;..:::•:n•-.v.•:.::.,:,+.n•v::•nv:.:..;•>:•r}:^'._
:Hard'Co'sts ,xr., ..........
Building Costs Fixed $120.00 $24,024,000 $10.920.00
Adjustments Lee Saylor $0.00 $0 $0.00
On-Site Development-General 5.00% Of Building Costs $6.00 $1.201,200 $546.00
On-Site Development-General $15,000 Per Acre $3.00 $600,000 $272.73
On-Site Deve!opment-Services 15.00% Of Building Costs $18.00 $3,603,600 $1,638.00
Utility Services 2.50% Of Building Costs $3.00 $600,600 $273.00
Off-Site Improvements 7.50% Of Building Costs $9.00 $1.801,800 $819.00 }
Energy Management 15.00% Of Building Costs $18.00 $3,603,600 $1.638.00 ,r
Other Hard Costs 1.50% Of Building Costs $1.80 $360,360 $163.80
Hard Cost Sub-Total $178.80 . $35,795,160 $16,270.53
.N.:>....�;.,.:,>rT>a,;:::,w^�^ };�.:xt«:::.;•.,• ,_-_ •_ ::...:::..,::.•:_n,•rn,.�.,....:. .:..n,...,,,::}:++_ -_. •;.tttta..:.:..�:.,,:.:..}+}>:•,:}}:v:-•�:;}}vn:�;aa:�•a•>:}},,:or.�..a,:::n..::•:n:<
$014 Costs r } r " ✓< ti t v f
a.�....-v. ..-....drr,a..,a..^ <..:::..:. ....::.:.. ......... ..-.....-. -....-.r.r.r .,>.:. -- .. -. -.:xrt ♦.....ti:...-. -.... ,. .,...: ...-.:..r. .,..,-...v
ArchJEng.Fees 6.50% Of Hard Costs $11.62 $2,326.685 $1,057.58
Inpection/Tests 2.00% Of Hard Costs $3.58 $715,903 $325.41
Plan Check Fees 0.75% Of Hard Costs $1.34 $268,464 $122.03
UttTity Fees 0.25% Of Hard Costs $0.45 $89,488 $40.68
Environmental Documentation $30,000 Per Site $0.15 $30,000 $13.64
Archeaological Survey $5,000 Per Site $0.02 $5,000 $2.27
Soils Report $20,000 Per Site $0.10 $20,000 $9.09
Site Survey $15,000 Per Site $0.07 $15,000 $6.82
Appraisal&Escrow Costs $18,000 Per Site $0.09 $18,000 $8.18
Administrative Costs 3.00% Of Hard Costs $5.36 $1,073.855 $488.12
Relocation Costs $0.00 Per Site $0.00 $0 $0.00
Other Soft Costs 1.50% Of Hard Costs $2.68 $536,927 $244.06
Soft Cost Sub-Total $25.47 $5,099,322 $2,317.87
-."2Y' -.r.>l.. .t?}. ::: ?.:::•-..::::,•..•..: i7i:}r�?:rt,n,»:} _vv_ -w ^}_:?c>}��'S(.G:.,c:tw•�.x ri r
�F&E,•�&�TeChn,oio9Y.c.<%.., .:,,:..,. .n,.,...w... <`. ..<,n;..r.�,.,.n<,.,,.�..M:.,.t,,.,vr,.3.w..:�,,,,.<,,..� ,..'.r.c.'.�•...„,s,..:.�.'w:}»a,xtec�:.<o::a:.,.`,•.>.u..r:.�„:...°5::,�n a'.ti
Furniture&Equipment(FF&E) $7.00 Per Bldg.Sq.FL $7.00 $1,401,400 $637.00
Technology&Media $14.00 Per Bldg.Sq.FL $14.00 $2,802.800 $1.274.00
FF&E&Technology Sub-Total $21.00 $4,204,200 $1,911.00
Hard/Soft&FF&E Cost Sub Total $225.27 $45 098,682 $20,499 40
•.•..:;•-»• .:..,•:.:.:�.}}:.>;+}}+:?o:^xt:t,...:.;;.,�:n}�.,.-,•.,,.:^,.^.....,:.,:•...,...,:,•nw •.•..•_..,••,n,w:n•. :r..r•.:•o.....y,;;»xt.:,.;.v„r.:�.ro.t:n+:.,,s::.}:,x.}•;t,,,,.,.�.�.y,.: yv...+�....;},+
:.nt-::::%;::.....G:;%'r.:•::T?.rp::S:::T:..;,3..�x..-;.<�.tt.:.•,:... .:..Q:/':::.fiXC.::GAT•...?F:.'+.•.•.,f<.;r-::<�L%::$i�:;;:,,
•Construeuon;,Contmgency� - c,.T^_;,:;:;;;r : �'„ `"
,,...................... ^..;...r.: ,.?..-:,:...,�sw.... .^......:,,N:;::}�«::z;;>:,�, r..r n+.,...w... n,".::.,"rr•n•::.,
-°n.....,.,.M.>.va;::nw:•Y,..+„:..d:an.:v:.w:,:. a:.,'fix:.a.,w.'w,a..hla7:aa:Mecfi::N�:�•aarw.w....t•,
State Contingency 1.50% Of Sub-Total $3.38 $676.480 $307.49
State Contingency $2,000 Per School $0.01 $2,000 $0.91
District Contingency 3.50% Of Sub-Total $7.88 $1.578,454 $717.48
Construction Contingency Sub-Total $11.27 $Z256,934 $1,025.88 .
Hard/Soft,FF&E,&Contingency Sub-Total $236.54 $47,355,617 $21,525.28 $47,355,617 '
•t:,•, .yrr,.,. .,,..,,>x-++},...+::•T�},:, �.H.:..v,.,::o:^r},.,,<.:.,.:,,,w :„y,,,:y,,.,•.,.},w.. •tv,..,•v:.„... ,:::•:.,,•r:,•:n•:..}}::::";tvt...•n.,,.,•rr•.. .:,48:..- ,•.;'3:..: ,.t. ,.w, �,.. :.ro: +Y•:'%�o.' ..}:r.}
. ... ; ,�"` •^ro.h t}v:•ii-::i::�+hi::+/'rn:::.4i`:4i:t.:::v:...._}_1i.+-.,w:.:wnty�. ... ..Y.. • .\ �.L _\^::.;:}.
'`?'<"} Y..lk. ...4- wAYI.v: n.�. v.•Z•:: S...
- _...,::;;v;v.,.,V.VTO^i.i}±:X•.:n:.:::::.:.:n^::::::.t...•.... - ,..:...;;ti,vi. .:r.+v;::it.t
.Land . ._ ..-..,.�. .._:.................... ......n::,.:r;.:.n:...-:.n:::......._ :-:.::::-v:rr•T/:":;:.:::.,;..\..,.:�..•.,.:}.,.•v.:�:t�:'.a�r.^•:<a:::::�x•:;•::!r., r„j{:t?;.,. .,a;.,:••a4}�q:}•:+•::.��fi"�'i
.......r:}.w,,...,..:,nn:..:...:::}.}:::::.. .......h.ti.... ......:::...:.....,.f.:.•...... ...r .�:a:<,�.ray........,...w...r.M...}ucM,.,.utuaf<t�f�a.,.-.:,ab:::.,�..u.,:.�:C va.•a::..n:.::r.......w...>�a.-x:ti..l!: ..Q4rr:....ra..:....:6 xu t,:}T::r:C;:>:a.....caT...}.:aru:,..•>..x:•rhr::r.
Land $500,000 Per Acre $99.90 $20,000,000 $9,090.91
Land Cost Sub-Total $99.90 $20,000,000 $9,090.91
� •c•
.Land'ConUngeney , ix > ` � T r �-,f fi::•:t. >%'mot i c. �oa•::�.>5................•...... ..... ....-..... _....: - ,......vv.>.,.^...Y:.....-:,,3.x.---wn?.rw-.c,->:•.:.c•.w....r.,.+M;:a.........,,w...}w.....v....w.xn..a,n..::�:.«..+...w.w::1::w:.w.c,.....v..:.... .
State Contingency ^ 1.50% Of Sub•Total $1.50 $300,000 $136.36
State Contingency $2.000 Per School $0.01 $2,000 -- --$0.91 --- - -- -
District Contingency 3 50% Of Sub-Total $3.50 $700.000 $318.18 -
Land Contingency Sub-Total $5.00 $1,002.000 5455.45
Land &Contingency Sub-Total $104.91 $21.002.000 $9,546.36 -821,002,000
Total Construction/Land Cost per Sq.Ft. $341.45 $68.357,617 $31.071.64 :.$68,357,617
2!_'6'968:59 PM -.. ---HSLtNK.XLSSchocl Cost .
STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY• • PETE WILSON, Governor
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
SOUTH COAST AREA
t5 W. BROADWAY, STE. 380
O. BOX 1450
LONG BEACH, CA 90802.4416
s,
(310) 590.5071 August 5, 1996
AUG 06 1996
Brian James
Assistant Planner
Department of Community Development
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Re: Draft Negative Declaration No. 96-1
Twenty-first and Twenty-Second Street General Plan and Zone Change
Commercial to Residential
d
Dear Mr. James,
J
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Negative Declaration No. 96-1 .
The negative declaration describes a request to change the current land use
designation and zoning from commercial to residential along Pacific Coast
Highway between Twenty-second and Twenty-first Streets. The Negative
Declaration states that the General Plan designation is Mixed Use Vertical
Integration. The land use designation in the certified Local Coastal Program
Land Use Plan for the subject .site is Visitor Serving Commercial . The
proposed change would designate the site as Residential High Density (which
allows up to 30 units per acre). The zoning is proposed to be changed from
Downtown Specific Plan Area 1 (Visitor Serving Commercial) to Downtown
Specific Plan Area 2 (Residential) .
As noted in the Negative Declaration, the proposed land use designation and
zone change would require approval of a Local Coastal Program (LCP) amendment
by the Coastal Commission. The LCP amendment would effect both the Land Use
Plan (LUP) and the Implementation Plan UP) portions of the LCP.
In evaluating an amendment to a certified Land Use Plan, the Commission's
standard of review is the -Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act. The standard
of review for an Implementation Plan (zoning) amendment is the certified Land
Use Plan. Following are Commission staff's comments on the proposal .
Both the-Coastal Act and the City's certified 'LUP place a higher priority on
visitor serving commercial uses than on residential uses. Section 30213 of
.the Coastal Act states, in part: -
Lower cost visitor and recreational facilities shall be protected,-
encouraged, and,--where feasible,. provided: Developments -providing-public -
recreational' opportunities are preferred.
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.
Negative Declaratioie. 96-1
Page 3
The proposed redesignated area is part of a two-block visitor serving
commercial node identified in the LUP. The node is located at the
intersection of Goldenwest Street and Pacific Coast Highway, immediately
inland of the beach. Regarding the subject area and two other visitor serving
commercial nodes the certified LUP states (on page 122) :
These three nodes were selected to concentrate commercial development at
specific locations near existing and proposed traffic signals and beach
accessways.
Goldenwest Street is a major arterial that connects directly with the 405
freeway. Consequently it functions as a major beach access route. As a major
beach access route, high volumes of visitor traffic will travel by the node.
In addition, being immediately inland of the beach, visitor commercial uses
providing snacks, beach items, etc. would attract beach goers once they are at
the beach. The intersection of Goldenwest Street and Pacific Coast Highway is
signalized and provides crosswalks, which allows safe pedestrian crossing.
For these reasons, the site is a logical location for visitor serving uses.
The certified land use designation and zoning reflect Coastal Act section
30250(c) 's requirement that visitor serving facilities be located at selected
points of attraction for visitors. Further, the LUP language suggests that
the City and Commission in certifying the land use designation and zoning
found that the subject site was strategically located to serve the needs of
existing and future levels of visitors. It appears that the current
designation and zoning at the site are appropriate and maximize the provision
of visitor serving facilities in the coastal zone as required by the certified
LCP and Coastal Act.
For the reasons outlined above, Commission staff is concerned that the
proposed changes may not be consistent with the Chapter 3 policies of the
Coastal Act and the City's certified Local Coastal Program. This is staff's
assessment of the proposal based on the information provided and past
Commission actions. The ultimate decision on an LCP amendment is, of course,
determined by the Coastal Commission through public hearing once a complete
LCP amendment request is submitted.
Again thank you for the opportunity to comment on Negative Declaration 96-1 .
Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions regarding these
comments or a future LCP amendment submittal for the land use designation and
zone change described in Negative Declaration No. 96-1 .
Sincerely,
�IAv
Meg Vaughn
Staff Analyst
7454F
,
s uv>m~e
a
r<fa r
. .... ....... Hun.tYn.4 hDkbA ...... t :`....0. M....Uffi. .t.......
D..e..
velom'
.. ...
..........
... . .... ...
... ...........
......... .... ......... .........
.........
.. . ............ ...
.... ..... . . STAFF..
RV-
...... .. ..... .........
... ........... .
. ................ ................. ..........
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Howard Zelefsky, Planning Director
BY: Hannah L. Brondial Bowen, Planner
DATE: January 14, 1997
SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 96-1/ZONING MAP AMENDMENT
NO. 96-1/LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 96-
VNEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 96-2 (21ST AND 22ND STREET
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE)
LOCATION: North of Pacific Coast Highway, south of Walnut and south of the alley,between
21 st and 22nd Street. Assessor Parcel Numbers: 023-136-13, -14, -15, -16, -17, -18, -
19, -20, -21.
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
The applicant is requesting a General Plan Amendment, Zoning Map Amendment and Local Coastal
Program Amendment for the redesignation of ten (10) lots on .88 net acres from mixed use (MV-
Mixed Use, Vertically Integrated Housing) to residential (RH-30, Residential High Density - 30 units
per acre). The change in land use designation would allow one single family dwelling on each lot or a
maximum number of 26 multi-family units, if all of the lots were merged. The ten (10) lots are
currently owned by eleven(11)property owners.
Staff is recommending approval of the project for the following reasons:
* The proposed General Plan Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment to redesignate ten(10) lots
from Mixed Use to High Density Residential is consistent with the existing General Plan Land
Use designation and Zoning on the property to the east, north and subject site which allow single
family or multi-family residential units.
* Each of the ten (10) 25 feet wide and 156 feet long lots is consistent with the minimum parcel size
requirements for the proposed zoning.
* The loss of.88 net acres designated for mixed use development has been offset by the recent
General Plan update which redesignated 235.77 acres one block west of the project site (between
Goldenwest and Sea Pointe and Palm Ave) from oil production to mixed use, which would allow
commercial development along Pacific Coast Highway. Furthermore, the loss would be offset by
GPA No. 94-1, which changed the zoning between 6th Street and 8th Street along Pacific Coast
Highway, from Downtown Specific Plan District 2 (Residential) to Downtown Specific Plan
District I (Visitor-Serving Commercial).
* The project site is better suited for a residential development than a commercial development
because of the site's small size and its limited access.
>
o�
mcm Ex
• , SLJUWL
PROJECT
A
•tea
mumu
RAHMM
W -.
Z H
3 N W OLIVE
Z _ W —
W ---
J W - W W
O
WALNUT
fA'e,lfIC C MT ffwy
VICINITY MAP
•
GPA No. 96-1/LCP No. 96-1/
ZMA No. 96-1/NEG.DEC. No. 96-2
HUNTINGTON BEACH
HUN'ITNGTON BEACH PLANNING DMSION
RECOMMENDATION:
Motion to:
A. "Approve Negative Declaration No. 96-2 with mitigation measures";
B. "Approve General Plan Amendment No. 96-1 and Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 96-1
by adopting Resolution No. "; and forward to the City Council for adoption.
C. "Approve Zoning Map Amendment No. 96-1 with findings and forward Ordinance No. "to
the City Council for adoption.
GENERAL INFORMATION:
APPLICANT: Mike Adams (property owners' representative), 19771 Sea Canyon Circle,
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
PROPERTY
OWNERS: Various (Attachment No.5 ) '
REQUEST: To permit a General Plan Amendment, Zoning Map Amendment, and Local
Coastal Program Amendment to redesignate ten(10) lots on a .88 net acre site from
mixed use (commercial or commercial developed with residential)to residential.
DATE
ACCEPTED: April 24, 1996
SUBJECT PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING LAND USE, ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATIONS:
LOCATION GENERAL PLAN ZONING LAND USE
Subject Property: MV (Mixed Use - Downtown Specific Plan Vacant
(N.side of PCH between 21 st Vertically Integrated Dist. 1 (Visitor-Serving
and 22nd St.) Housing) Commercial)
North of Subject RH-30 (Residential Downtown Specific Plan Vacant
Property: High Density - 30 units Dist. 2 (Residential)
(across alley) per acre)
East of Subject Property: RH-30 (Residential Downtown Specific Plan Multi-family
(across 21 st Street) High Density- 30 units Dist. 2 (Residential) residential
per acre)
South of Subject OS-S (Open Space- Downtown Specific Plan Bluff-Top Park and
Property: (across PCH) Shoreline) Dist. 11 (Open Space) City Beach
West of Subject MV (Mixed Use - Downtown Specific Plan Vacant
Property: (across 22nd Vertically Integrated Dist. 1 (Visitor-Serving (Proposed gas
Street): Housing) Commercial) station)
Staff Report- 1/14/97 2 (97SR01)
PROJECT PROPOSAL:
This project includes the following proposed actions:
General Plan Amendment No. 96-1 is a request to amend the General Plan Land Use Map and
Figure LU-6 (Huntington Beach Sub-Area Map, Sub-Area 3C) of the Land Use Element of the
General Plan from MV (Mixed Use - Vertically Integrated Housing)to RH-30 (High Density
Residential - 30 units per acre). This would change the allowable uses on the ten(10) lots from
commercial (or commercial incorporated with residential)to high density residential.
Zoning Mag Amendment No. 96-1 is a request to change the zoning map from Downtown Specific
Plan District One (Visitor-Serving Commercial)to Downtown Specific Plan District Two
(Residential). This would change the permitted uses on the ten(10) lots from commercial or
commercial developed with residential (mixed-use)to residential.
Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 96-1 is a request to transmit changes in the City's Local
Coastal Program (i.e., the General Plan Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment)to the Coastal
Commission for approval subsequent to the City's action on these two applications.
ISSUES:
Site History
The subject site consists of ten(10) lots which are owned by various property owners. Each of the ten
(10) lots is twenty-five (25) feet wide and approximately 156 feet long. If the lots were combined, the
project site would have a net acreage of.88 (38,250 sq. feet). The applicant has stated that it is the
intent of the property owners to develop one (1) single family dwelling on each of the lots,however,
no development is proposed with this application.
General Plan Conformance:
The General Plan Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment would change the Land Use designation
on the ten(10) lots from Mixed Use-Vertically Integrated Housing (Commercial or Commercial
developed with Residential)to High Density Residential (30 units per acre) and the Zoning from
Downtown Specific Plan District 1 (Visitor-Serving Commercial)to Downtown Specific Plan District
2 (Residential). The proposed project is consistent with the following goals, objectives and policies of
the City's General Plan:
General Plan Amendment/Zoning Map Amendment
Land Use Element
• LU8.1.1 (d) Intensify residential uses in proximity to key commercial or mixed-use districts to
promote accessibility and reduce vehicular use.
Staff Report- 1/14/97 3 (97SR01)
-:r.
The properties that are located west of the subject site and which front on Pacific Coast Highway
from Golden West to Sea Pointe have a Mixed Use land use designation. This represents over 235
acres with a Mixed Use land use designation that will be in close proximity to the future
residential development on this site.
• L U 9 Achieve the development of a range of housing units that provides for the diverse economic,
physical, and social needs of existing and future residents of Huntington Beach.
Although no development is proposed with this application, the applicant has stated that it is the
intent of the property owners to develop one (1) single family dwelling on each of the ten (10) lots.
If all of the lots were merged, however, a maximum of 26 multi-family residential units could be
built, such as townhomes, garden apartments and apartments.
• LU 9.1 Provide for the development of single and multi family residential neighborhoods.
The subject site would expand the existing residential neighborhood, which is located to the east
(across 21st Street) and to the north(between the alley and Walnut), by .88 net acres.
• HE 2.0 Encourage the provision and continued availability of a range of housing types
throughout the community, with a variety in the number of rooms and availability of amenities.
Since the project would permit the development of either single family dwelling units on each of
the 10 lots, or up to 26 multi-family residential units by merging the existing lots, adequate
provision for a range of housing types is being encouraged.
• HE 3.0 Housing sites should be located with convenient access to arterial highways and public
transportation, schools,parks and recreational facilities, shopping areas, and employment
opportunities; adequately served by public facilities, services, and utilities; and compatible with
surrounding land uses.
The subject site has frontage along Pacific Coast Highway, a major arterial highway. Pacific
Coast Highway is also serviced by public transportation and has a Class 1 Trail bicycle route
designation. The subject site is across the street from the City Beach and Bluff Top Park and a
few blocks from the Pier. It is also located near Dwyer Middle School and Huntington Beach
High School.
Zoning Compliance:
The proposal is to change the zoning designation of ten(10) lots from Downtown Specific Plan
District 1 (Visitor-Serving Commercial) to Downtown Specific Plan District 2 (Residential).
Downtown Specific Plan District 1 allows the development of a commercial project or the
development of a commercial project in conjunction with a residential component. Downtown
Specific Plan District 2 allows the exclusive development of residential units, either multi-family or
Staff Report- 1/14/97 4 (97SR01)
single family. The following is a zoning conformance matrix which compares the minimum parcel
size requirements for District 1 and District 2 and the actual lot sizes of each of the ten(10) lots.
Issue Downtown Specific Downtown Specific Subject Lots
Plan District 1 Plan District 2
(Visitor-Serving (Residential)
Commercial)
Min. Lot 100 feet of frontage 25 feet 25 feet
Width
Min. Lot Size 1 10,000 square feet 12,500 square feet 1 3900
As the matrix shows,the subject lots conform to the minimum lot size requirements for Downtown
Specific Plan District 2. The proposed zone change to Downtown Specific Plan District 2 would
allow the property owners to develop their properties within the specific standards for 25 foot wide ,
lots.
Environmental Status:
Negative Declaration No. 96-2 (Attachment No. 7 )was prepared pursuant to section 240.04 of the
HBZSO and the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. Staff has reviewed the
environmental assessment and determined that no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of the
proposed project that could not be mitigated to a level of insignificance. The potentially significant
impacts which require mitigation are in the areas of water,transportation and circulation, hazards,
noise and public services.
Water
The project site is currently vacant. The project consists of an amendment to the land use and zoning
designation and does not include any development at this time. Future development under the
proposed residential designation will result in the introduction of new impervious surfaces on the site
and may affect runoff and drainage patterns on the site. Subsequent development of the site will be
required to submit a grading plan for review and approval by the Public Works department to
determine that the runoff generated by the proposed project will not adversely impact existing
drainage systems and adjacent properties.
In order to ensure that drainage from the site does not create the potential for pollutants, future
construction will be required to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
Industrial Stormwater Permit from the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The following
mitigation measure is included in the draft Negative Declaration and the suggested conditions of
approval:
"In order to ensure that drainage from the site does not create the potential for pollutants,
future construction will be required to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
Staff Report- 1/14/97 5 (97SR01)
System (NPDES) Industrial Stormwater Permit from the Regional Water Quality Control
Board prior to issuance of a building permit."
Transportation and Circulation
Any future residential development would be required to provide access from the adjacent alley or
numbered streets. This would eliminate multiple driveways on Pacific Coast Highway and help
maintain the level of service as well as reduce the potential for accidents.
Due to the demand for parking adjacent to Pacific Coast Highway,there is a potential parking impact
upon future residential development. It is recommended that a mitigation measure be included which
states that all parking must be provided on-site or that the development shall comply with the parking
and access requirements of the HBZSO and Downtown Specific plan, whichever is more restrictive.
Hazards ,
i
The project site has a history of oil production. The site was recently cleaned to City Fire Department
specifications to remediate potential soil contamination from these oil operations. The site is located
within the methane district. Construction that results from this request will be required to address
potential methane impacts per Fire Department specifications.
Public Services
The project site is located within the Huntington Beach City School District and Huntington Beach
Union High School District. Both school districts have commented on Negative Declaration No. 96-2
regarding the potential impact this project would have on their schools. Their comments are discussed
below in the following section entitled"Comments."
Comments
The Department of Community Development advertised draft Negative Declaration No. 96-2 for
thirty (30) days commencing on July 19, 1996 and ending on August 15, 1996. Comments addressing
environmental concerns were received from the Huntington Beach City School District, Huntington
Beach Union High School District, and the California Coastal Commission.
The Huntington Beach City School District submitted four(4) comments relating to the issue of
school impact fees. They estimated that the project would add sixteen(16)new students to their
schools, at a cost of$560,000 to accommodate these students. They also stated that the statutory
developer fee is insufficient to pay for these additional students, however, if General Plan Policy LU
2.1.7 is implemented, it would help reduce the significant impact this project would have on their
schools.
The Huntington Beach Union High School District submitted three(3) comments also relating to the
issue of school impact fees. They estimated that this project would add five (5)new students, which
translates to a cost of$155,358.20 to accommodate these students. They further stated that the
Staff Report- 1/14/97 6 (97SR01)
statutory developer fees are insufficient to offset the cost of housing these students, however,they
would be happy to meet with the developer to discuss this issue further. General Plan Policy LU 2.1.7,
"Ensure that development shall not occur without providing for adequate school facilities,"was
adopted so that developers would discuss mitigation measures with the school districts prior to City
action on proposed projects. The applicant's representative has been notified that discussions with the
school districts are necessary in order to implement this General Plan policy.
The California Coastal Commission's comments focused on the project's inconsistency with Section 3
of the Coastal Element, which places an emphasis on retaining and developing areas designated for
Visitor-Serving Commercial uses within the coastal zone. They stated:
"Both the Coastal Act and the City's certified LUP place a higher priority on visitor-serving
commercial uses than on residential uses. Section 3023 of the Coastal Act states, in part: Lower cost
visitor and recreational facilities shall be protected,encouraged and where feasible, provided...Section ,
30222 of the Coastal Act states: The use of private lands suitable for visitor-service 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."
Staff s response to the California Coastal Commission's comments is that the elimination of the
Visitor-Serving Commercial designation on the ten(10) lots would be offset by the recent General
Plan update which redesignated 235.77 acres one block west of the project site (between Goldenwest
and Sea Pointe and Palm Avenue) from oil production to mixed use (MH-Mixed Use, Horizontally
Integrated Housing). The mixed use (MH) designation allows commercial uses, as well as multi-
family residential. In this case, commercial development will be allowed only on properties which
front Pacific Coast Highway, which is approximately 6,250 feet in length from Goldenwest to Sea
Pointe. Furthermore,the loss would be offset by GPA No. 94-1, which changed the zoning between
6th Street and 8th Street along Pacific Coast Highway, from Downtown Specific Plan District 2
(Residential)to Downtown Specific Plan District 1 (Visitor-Serving Commercial).
In addition,the project site has had a commercial designation for over 20 years yet it still remains
vacant. One of the reasons for this is due to the site's relatively small size. If all of the lots were
combined,the project site would only have a net acreage of.88 which greatly limits the type of
commercial development that could be developed. Thus, by allowing the land use designation to
change from commercial to residential, it would encourage development on the site because each of
the ten(10) lots could accommodate a single family residence. Furthermore, the subject site has
limited access and a commercial development could generate significant traffic and circulation
problems for Pacific Coast Highway, a major arterial highway.
Prior to any action on the subject entitlements, it is necessary for the Planning Commission to review
and act on Negative Declaration No. 96-2. Staff, in its initial study of the project, is recommending
that the negative declaration be approved with mitigation measures.
Staff Report- 1/14/97 7 (97SR01)
Coastal Status:
The primary coastal issue of this project is the apparent loss of land designated for visitor-serving
commercial uses within the coastal zone. As discussed in the previous section, this loss has been
offset by the recent General Plan update which redesignated 235.77 acres west of the project site
(between Golden West and Sea Pointe and Palm Avenue) from oil production to mixed use.
Commercial uses will be restricted to areas which front Pacific Coast Highway, thereby ensuring that
commercial uses within the coastal zone are preserved.
Redevelopment Status: Not applicable.
Design Review Board:
Not applicable for this application. Any future development requires review and approval by the
Design Review Board.
Other Departments Concerns:
The Fire Department has indicated that prior to construction,two fire hydrants shall be installed. The
Building Division's response is that complete documents must be submitted for plan check. The Park,
Tree and Landscape Division has indicated that when the City reviews any application for future
residential projects, they will require a uniform 25 foot wide landscape buffer along Pacific Coast
Highway on each lot. Staff recommends that this be added as a mitigation measure to the Negative
Declaration as stated above: "Any application for future residential projects, they will require a
uniform 25 foot wide landscape buffer along Pacific Coast Highway on each lot"
The other departments responses are that they have no concerns at this time.
P blt is Notification
The proposed project was notified at a 300 foot radius from the perimeter of the site. A total of 92
notices were mailed on December 3, 1996.
ANALYSIS:
COMi2atibility
The proposed General Plan Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment from Mixed Use to High
Density Residential will be compatible with existing and planned uses in the vicinity. The areas
immediately north and east of the subject site have a residential land use designation which allow
multi-family or single family residential units. Since the subject site consists of ten(10) 25 foot wide
lots,the property owners have stated that it is their intent to build one single family home on each lot,
Staff Report- 1/14/97 8 (97SR01)
however,the proposed zoning designation would allow a maximum development of 26 units if all of
the lots were merged.
Although there is no development proposed with this application, impacts as a result of future
residential development have been addressed in Negative Declaration No. 96-2 and mitigation
measures have been recommended.
Coastal Element
As discussed in the "Environmental Status/Comments" section, the project appears to be inconsistent
with the policies of the Coastal Element, which places a high priority on retaining and developing
areas designated for visitor-serving commercial uses. It is staff s position, however,that the recent
General Plan update, which increased the acreage of land reserved for mixed uses (and which allows
commercial uses)by over 200 acres,more than offsets the loss of.88 net acres designated for visitor-
serving commercial uses on the subject site. Thus, the General Plan update has implemented and ,
preserved the policies of the Coastal Element. The proposed land use designation would implement
the following policies of the Coastal Element of the General Plan:
Policy 6: Preserve and enhance visual resources within the coastal zone.
The subject site has been zoned commercial for over twenty years yet it still remains vacant. By
changing the land use designation on the ten (10) lots from commercial to residential, it would allow
the property owners to develop single family or multi-family units on the property,thereby enhancing
the appearance of the subject site.
Policy 6a. Ensure new development within the coastal zone includes the features listed below and
establish review procedures for implementation.
-Preservation ofpublic views... to the shoreline and ocean
-Adequate landscaping and vegetation.
-Evaluation of project design regarding visual impact.
The subject site has frontage on Pacific Coast Highway and is located across the street from the City
Beach and Bluff Top Park. Because of its proximity to the coast, it is important that at the time of
development review, the above features be incorporated into the proposed residential development, or
that the project be conditioned to require conformance with the above policy. As previously noted,
staff recommends that the following mitigation measure be added to theNegative Declaration as
follows: "Any application for future residential projects, they will require a uniform 25 foot wide
landscape buffer along Pacific Coast Highway on each lot"
Staff Report- 1/14/97 9 (97SR01)
7. Improve the appearance of visually degraded areas.
The subject site has a history of oil production and has been vacant for over twenty years. The
proposed land use designation would permit the development of single family or multi-family units
which would improve the appearance of the subject site.
Economic
A fiscal impact analysis is being prepared by the applicant in order to study the economic benefits
and/or losses associated with the proposed change in land use designations. The analysis was not
completed in time to be analyzed and included in this staff report,however,the project will not be
forwarded to the City Council until the fiscal impact analysis is submitted and reviewed by staff. The
Planning commission may wish to see the fiscal impact analysis prior to forwarding the project to the
City Council. If so, staff recommends that the Commission open the public hearing and take public ,
testimony, and continue the public hearing open to an undetermined date to allow the applicant to
submit the fiscal analysis and for staff to review and comment.
Tzr rc
Existing roadway segments in the area are currently operating at a level of service (LOS) of E or better
(Pacific Coast Highway to Brookhurst Street). The signalized intersection at Pacific Coast Highway
and Golden West Street has an AM peak hour of LOS C or better. The proposed residential land use
designation would allow a maximum development of 26 multi-family units which is projected to
generate approximately 224 trips/day. On the other hand, the existing commercial land use
designation allows a 38,250 sq. foot commercial development which would generate an average of
approximately 1,338.75 vehicle trips/day (based upon the strip commercial designation of the SARA
Trip Generation Rates). Thus, the projected trip generation for a residential development is lower than
the projected trip generation for a commercial development and constitutes less than 62% of the
existing traffic in the area. The slight increase in traffic would not be considered significant and could
generally be accommodated by the City's traffic/circulation system.
Due to the demand for parking along Pacific Coast Highway, future residential development would be
required to provide all parking on site or comply with the parking and access requirements of the
Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Code and Downtown Specific Plan, whichever
is more restrictive. The Downtown Specific Plan require§ 2 enclosed spaces for each dwelling unit
with up to 3 bedrooms and 1 space for each additional bedroom.
Noise
Future residential development will be exposed to significant noise levels which is generated by traffic
on Pacific Coast Highway. Since the project site is located in the 60 CNEL noise contour,noise
mitigation measures will be required for future residential developments in order to reduce the noise
impacts to a less than significant level. Mitigation measures such as double paned windows and
Staff Report- 1/14/97 10 (97SR01)
insulation will be required, as well as compliance with the noise standards of the City of Huntington
Beach Municipal Code.
SUMMARY:
Staff is recommending approval of the project for the following reasons:
• The proposed General Plan Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment to redesignate ten (10) lots
from Mixed Use to High Density Residential is consistent with the existing General Plan Land
Use designation and Zoning on the property to the east, north and subject site which allow single
family or multi-family residential units.
• Each of the ten(10) 25 feet wide and 156 feet long lots is consistent with the minimum parcel size
requirements for the proposed zoning.
• The loss of.88 net acres designated for mixed use development has been offset by the recent ,
General Plan update which redesignated 235.77 acres one block west of the project site (between
Goldenwest and Sea Pointe and Palm Ave) from oil production to mixed use, which would allow
commercial development along Pacific Coast Highway. Furthermore, the loss would be offset by
GPA No. 94-1, which changed the zoning between 6th Street and 8th Street along Pacific Coast
Highway, from Downtown Specific Plan District 2 (Residential)to Downtown Specific Plan
District 1 (Visitor-Serving Commercial).
• The project site is better suited for a residential development than a commercial development
because of the site's small size and its limited access.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S):
The Planning Commission may take either of the following two (2) alternative actions:
A. Recommend to the City Council to deny General Plan Amendment No. 96-1, Zoning Map
Amendment No. 96-1, Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 96-1 and Negative Declaration No.
96-2 with findings for denial as set forth by the Planning Commission and direct staff accordingly.
B. Continue General Plan Amendment No. 96-1, Zoning Map Amendment No. 96-1, Local Coastal
Program Amendment No. 96-1,Negative Declaration No. 96-2 and direct staff accordingly.
C. Continue General Plan Amendment N'o. 96-1, Zoning Map Amendment No. 96-1, Local Coastal
Program Amendment No. 96-1,Negative Declaration No. 96-2 until the applicant submits the
Fiscal Impact Analysis to the City for review.
Staff Report- 1/14/97 11 (97SR01)
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Findings for Approval
2. Planning Commission Resolution- General Plan Amendment No. 96-1 and Local Coastal
Program Amendment No. 96-1
3. Draft Ordinance-Zone Change No. 96-1
4. Narrative
5. Property Ownership List and Map
6. Letters in Opposition and/or Support
7. Negative Declaration No. 96-2 (Includes Environmental Checklist [with supplemental reports],
Mitigation Measures, Response to Comments, Errata to the Negative Declaration, and Comment
Letters from the Huntington Beach School District, Huntington Beach Union High School District
and California Coastal Commission)
8. Figure LU-6, Huntington Beach Sub-Area Map ,
J
SH:LN:HBB:kjl
Staff Report- 1/14/97 12 (97SR01)
ATTACHMENT NO, I
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL
ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO, 96-1
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 96-1:
1. The proposed Zoning Map Amendment from Downtown Specific Plan District 1 (Visitor-Serving
Commercial) to Downtown Specific Plan District 2 (Residential) is consistent with the objectives,
policies, general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan, as setforth in Planning
Commission staff report dated January 14, 1997,and on file in the Huntington Beach Department
of Community Development.
2. A community need is demonstrated for the proposed change. The change in zoning designation !
from visitor-serving commercial to residential will allow the development of single-family or f
multi-family units along the coast, in accordance with market demand.
3. The adoption of the amendment will be in conformity with public convenience, general welfare
and good zoning practice. The project will not adversely affect surrounding properties. All
potential environmental impacts which could affect water, transportation and circulation, hazards
and public services, have been reduced to a level of insignificance by project design and as set
forth in the mitigation measures required in Negative Declaration No. 96-2.
INFORMATION ON SPECIFIC MITIGATION MEASURES AND SPECIFIC CODE
REQUIREMENTS :
1. In order to ensure that drainage from the site does not create the potential for pollutants, future
construction will be required to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) Industrial Stormwater Permit from the Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to
issuance of a building permit. (Water)
2. Due to the demand for parking near the beach, all parking shall either be located entirely on-site or
shall comply with the parking and access requirements of the Huntington Beach Zoning and
Subdivision Ordinance Code and Downtown Specific Plan, whichever is more restrictive.
(Transportation and Circulation)
3. Due to the fact that the project site is located within the methane district, future construction shall
be required to comply with the City of Huntington Beach Fire Department specifications.
(Hazards)
Attachment- 1/14/97 (97SR01-13)
4. To reduce noise impacts to a less than significant level, future residential development shall be
required to include noise mitigation measures, such as double pained windows and insulation, to
comply with the noise standards of the City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code. (Noise)
5. In order to offset possible impacts to the school districts, any proposed development on the site
shall be required to comply with General Plan Policy LU 2.1.7 (Public Services)
6. Any application for future residential projects, they will require a uniform 25 foot wide landscape
buffer along Pacific Coast Highway on each lot.
INFORMATION ON SPECIFIC CODE REQUIREMENTS:
1. All applicable Public Works fees shall be paid prior to issuance of building permits for
development of the lots.
2. Traffic Impact Fees shall be paid at the time of final inspection or issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy. (PV)
3. State-mandated school impact fees shall be paid prior to issuance of building permits.
Attachment- 1/14/97 (97SR01-14)
i •
B-2 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO 96-1/ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO 96-1/
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO 96-1/NEGATIVE DECLARATION
NO 96-2 (LOT REDESIGNATIONI (CONTINUED FROM THE DECEMBER 10, 1996,
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
APPLICANT: Mike Adams
LOCATION: North of Pacific Coast Highway, between 21 st Street and 2nd Street)
PROJECT
PLANNER: Hannah L. Brondial Bowen
The applicant is requesting a General Plan Amendment,Zoning Map Amendment and Local Coastal
Program Amendment for the redesignation of ten(10) lots on .88 net acres from mixed use (MV-Mixed
Use, Vertically Integrated Housing)to residential (RH-30, Residential High Density - 30 units per acre).:
The change in land use designation would allow one single family dwelling on each lot or a maximum
number of 26 multi-family units, if all of the lots were merged. The ten (10) lots are currently owned by
eleven(11) property owners.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending approval of the project for the following reasons:
The proposed General Plan Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment to redesignate ten (10) lots
from Mixed Use to High Density Residential is consistent with the existing General Plan Land Use
designation and Zoning on the property to the east, north and subject site which allow single family
or multi-family residential units.
• Each of the ten(10) 25 feet wide and 156 feet long lots is consistent with the minimum parcel size
requirements for the proposed zoning.
The loss of.88 net acres designated for mixed use development has been offset by the recent General
Plan update which redesignated 235.77 acres one block west of the project site (between Goldenwest
and Sea Pointe and Palm Ave) from oil production to mixed use, which would allow commercial
development along Pacific Coast Highway. Furthermore,the loss would be offset by GPA No. 94-1,
which changed the zoning between 6th Street and 8th Street along Pacific Coast Highway, from
Downtown Specific Plan District 2 (Residential)to Downtown Specific Plan District 1 (Visitor-
Serving Commercial).
• The project site is better suited for a residential development than a commercial development
because of the site's small size and its limited access.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED.
Charles Wolter, 206 Golden West Street, spoke in support of the request stating it would be in the best
interest of the community.
PC Minutes- 1/14/97 4 (97PCM114)
� s
Mike Erickson, 208 Golden West Street, spoke in support of the request.
Mike Adams, 19771 Sea Canyon, property owners' representative, gave a brief history of the project and
stated he was in concurrence with the staff recommendation.
THERE WERE NO OTHER PERSONS PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE
REQUEST AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
The Commission discussed the revision of the negative declaration's mitigation measures to include the
requirement for a 25 foot landscape buffer.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY INGLEE,TO APPROVE
NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 96-2 WITH REVISED MITIGATION MEASURES, BY THE
FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Holden,Biddle,Livengood,Kerins,Inglee,Tillotson, Speaker '
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
MOTION PASSED
A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD,SECONDED BY BIDDLE, TO APPROVE GENERAL
PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 96-1 AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 96-1 BY
ADOPTING RESOLUTION NO. 1521 AND FORWARD TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR
ADOPTION,BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Holden,Biddle,Livengood,Kerins, Inglee,Tillotson
NOES: None
ABSENT: Speaker(out of the room)
ABSTAIN: None
MOTION PASSED
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL- ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 96-1:
1. The proposed Zoning Map Amendment from Downtown Specific Plan District 1 (Visitor-Serving
Commercial) to Downtown Specific Plan District 2 (Residential) is consistent with the objectives,
policies, general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan, as setforth in Planning
Commission staff report dated January 14, 1997, and on file in the Huntington Beach Department of
Community Development.
PC Minutes- 1/14/97 5 (97PCM114)
2. A community need is demonstrated for the proposed change. The change in zoning designation from
visitor-serving commercial to residential will allow the development of single-family or multi-family
units along the coast, in accordance with market demand.
3. The adoption of the amendment will be in conformity with public convenience, general welfare and
good zoning practice. The project will not adversely affect surrounding properties. All potential
environmental impacts which could affect water, transportation and circulation, hazards and public
services, have been reduced to a level of insignificance by project design and as set forth in the
mitigation measures required in Negative Declaration No. 96-2.
INFORMATION ON SPECIFIC CODE REQUIREMENTS:
1. All applicable Public Works fees shall be paid.
2. Traffic Impact Fees shall be paid at the time of final inspection or issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy. (PV ) '
3. State-mandated school impact fees shall be paid prior to issuance of building permits.
B-3 CODE AMENDMENT NO, 96-2/LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENI
96-3 (HOLLY-SEACLIFF SPECIFIC PLAT 0:
PLC
LOCATIO The Holly-Seacliff Specific P1 ea is generally located south of Ellis
venue and north of Palm enue between Main Street and the City's
wes boundary.
PROJECT
PLANNER: Mary Beth oeren
PLC Land Co. requests an endment to the Holly Seacliff Sp ' is Plan (HSSP)to allow RL-3
development in RM (Re ' ential-Medium Density) and RMH (Resi tial-Medium High Density)
districts and to inclu Z-lot development in the list of permitted uses in districts. This would
basically allow fo mall lot, detached single family units in the RM and RM eas where they are
presently not itted. As a result of this request, staff recommends modification o the development
standards f residential development in areas designated for RL-1, RL-2 and RL-3 de opment. The
modific ons address balconies,bay windows and other architectural features in the rear front
yards atio covers in the side and rear yards, eaves setbacks in the side yards and three other c ges for
th -3 district pertaining to site coverage, open space and side yard setbacks. These changes are
ecommended because they relate to small lot development and are integral to the applicant's request.
PC Minutes- 1/14/97 6 (97PCM114)
i
October 4,1996
Mr. Bob Biddle
Chairperson Planning Commission
Planning Division
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main St.
CA 92648
Subject: Vacant lots located between Golden West-Walnut-Pacific Coast and 21st St.
Dear Mr. Biddle;
My residence is 111 -22nd St.,Huntington Beach 92648. I am surrounded by the
above three vacant lots. During the five years that I have lived at this location,the city has
intelligently proceeded to allow the building of residences in the areas from Palm, Golden
West to 17th St. and Pacific Coast Highway. It is now a basically a high density residential
area.. The city of Huntington Beach should take pride in what they have created. We are
not just Surf City.
Now,I understand that two of the vacant lots have been purchased by Morgan
Stanley Vickers located in Century City with he intent of building a 24 hours gas station
and a convenience store.Allowing Morgan Stanley to build such an eye sore,
environmentally dangerous business in a high density residential area makes no sense.
Additionally,it is a high risk business venture.
To summarize why it makes no sense to proceed with this project:
1. Huntington Beach tax base is more and more dependent on the residential
properties. Allowing these business on a prime view of the ocean location is going to
devalue the surrounding property and reduce the tax base.
2. Traffic and law enforcement will be increased along with administrative costs.
It is well known that convenience stores are prime spots for robberies and shootings.
There goes Huntington Beach safe city concept!
3. Who needs another gas station when there is a Chevron Station and Sea Cliff
shopping center a few blocks up Golden West.
4. Who will build a beautiful home near a gas station and convenience store.
Therefore,what will happen to all those open water view lots on 22nd and 21 st streets.
�vra.c7E >96 • 7
5. The lot that would have the gas station is presently going through its second
soil contamination clean up process. the first clean up process capped the wells but did
not pass subsequent core samplings. What were the Huntington Beach people who
supervised this process doing during the first clean up?Where does this kind of
malfeasance start and end?The lot in question still has an active production oil well.
The still active pipe line splits the lot then goes under Golden West to the refinery north of
the well. Assume that a gas station is located on this lot,what happens they need to either
cap the well,refurbish it or clean up after the well is capped?What kind of planning is
this?
Allowing this development is a bad idea and I know from my previous business
experience how difficult it is to kill a bad idea once it gets to a certain level or
consideration. Particularly if it is sponsored by a Morgan Stanley investment firm who has
no interest in what is good for Huntington Beach. (They are the Daddy Warbucks who
only wants to make a fast buck and the hell with the consequences.)
Please call me or write me on your availability to discuss this development.
Best re ards,
1
L�
Kenneth E.Walsh
111 -22nd St.
Huntington Beach,CA 92648
Te1JFax (714)969- 1738
cc: Scott Hess
Susan Pierce
Dave Sullivan,Mayor
Attention home owners . Did you -know a- gas statio-
with 3000ft minimart is coming to a vote in
November in the city , at PCH and Goldenwest St . .
If you want to protect your big investment in your
home , and you are against high traffic , noise ,
parking , loitering dtc . then you should call the
city speak write or s eak out at the meeting in November
d
It will come to a vote . If you do nothing , then-
the city will approve it . Remember , it ' s up to you .
Protect your investment , speak out , call , write ,
vote at the meeting .
T
> / e
"o:City Hall Planning Comm. From: Eileen Murphy 714-969-8344 12l2196 15:35:38 Page 1.
Dec.2,1996
I will be unable to attend the Dec.10, Tuesday hearing Re:General Plan Amendment
No.96-1Zoning Map Amendment 96-11Local Coiastal program Amendment NO-96-2 Lot
re designation. Changing it to residential on 10 lots. "This will allow for development of
(10) single family residences OR UP TO 26 ATULTI-FAMILY UNITS."
1-.4y question is why the choice? Leave the amendment the way it is now.single' family.
I have a question for the Planning Commission. When the multiunits all along PCH had to
be auctioned off because they didn't sell why are you even considering allowing 26 units
on 10 lots. I realize the developer makes more money on multi-units than single family.
is that the purpose of the Planning Commission to see that the developers make the most
money possible. VAThat about our quality of life.? Our streets are a disgrace, we have no
surplus water, our utilities have to be upgraded and you are considering allowin-more
units. Please, give us a break Say no to this change in the amendment.
There's a Cree saying" Not until the last tree is cut down or the last stream polluted will
we realize we can't eat money" Now's the time to say "NO".
Thank you,
Eileen Murphy
ZO 1 21 st street DeC
H.B. CA 92648 C��; :; ;.,�_• r996
: 7( 2•3 20 1 JO � ,y __ ev ,y - lit).
of
'A H 22 18 7 37 32 18 17 25 22 18 11750,
,7.s t7 19 n7.s .
ns•
f'o2 p 16 (13 15 36 33 16 15 17 _ n __ 4 16 20' 15 = 10
;. n C. BLK. 19 1a 1 35 221 ' 27 14 2 /3 115' BLK. 1& n 14 13 219
7,
117 SO• 117.50'
20. 11 11 •BLK 30 12 11 on220 ~ 5 12 11 11 n
r SPAR.2 � _ 10 � 9 12 r 31 10,—.1 n 13 6 f0 � 9 12 H
Q R.S. 29 112-15. Q 35 Q ,n
P.M. 191-39— 8 7 us r 16 8 7 ^ 117.50• 27 8 1'75 7
n7.so• —
a PAR.1 33 7. 28 34 26 20' n 28
6 5 n7so ns 6 �, n7so its* 6 5
115' c lls' ;� 117.50•
Its* 24 4 3 17 1,5. A —� 4 3 39 N 24 4 3 ^ —29 h
' n
sn —
J n °'a 25 ? xo 1 18 9s '0' x0 a 9s 2 xo 1 Ioo 38 aR^ .1 11750.25 2 17.s 1 �o'R
7
A VENUE •
1 117.s0' 9S' 7, W1,7550' • 95'
1 7.50' MS °. S . x0' .R10 1H 26 n 11 2? S. 2_2 21 --_11750 17. n •9 �20 19 ^ of
^ 16 20 t 20n 2 18L 17 25 �BLK. 15 18 � 18 J17 •72n a • BLK. 3 1 15 24 121 ^1x.5° 2 16 `` L . 1s 15 _ 119—v , - n12 to • 23 __/ 1, _is 7s 13 n7.so — 10 _ 1a xo 13 -—————
;, �—�, 12 i ^ 1x SO 3 n 12 20' it 9 In'
^• 117, 17.50• ' ri 115' 115 115, " °' Its*
r ALLEY 137 ALLEYS. ^ 138 ALLEY n
11 10 9 8 7 4 3 2 1 25005 101 9 xoo.os
6 1 xs' xs•
25 25 • i • 25 TRACT I TRACT
PROJECT 937-16-429-470 1 PROJECT 937-16-561-586
S
j n ia 14 C15 16 17 18 C2119 LOT 14 / a Z = Ip
s LOT 15 1 °
I ,13 I 2 p 0.936 AC. p 0.722 AC. p~j
I
N
. T T-I T. NO. 0 014 1 NO. 1294 74. ,,.
S' 0' S S' ' 11 P 21107' R 75' 1650, 173 08' 'tip
vp.1
(OCEAN A vE.) H/GHWA Y r�
SEVENTEENTH ST. SEC. M.M. 4-10 17 NOTE — ASSESSOR'S BLOCK 6 ASSESSOR'S MAP
M.M. 585-48,49,50
•'�M. 598-49,50 PARCEL NUMBERS BOOK 23 PAGE 13
l' _ c14/11A1A1 1n1 I1 Fc r01/NTY OF npANr
i
PCH PROPERTIES
Lot# NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE
1 TERRY CARMADELLA 16271 Sher Lane 841-4202
LAUREN H.B., CA 92647
2 RANDY HIGBY 8921 Breakers 546-2156 (W)
H.B., CA 92646 964-5881 (H) ;
FAX 546-5317
3 &4 WILLIAM K. VOGT 201 20th Streeet 969-0740
H.B., CA 92648
5 & 6 BART DEBOE AND P.O. Box 322 960-9630
TED MOORE H.B., CA 92648
7 TASHI G. ZOURAS 121 20th Street 969-8656
H.B., CA 92648
8 CRAIG SCHUB 326 18th Street 969-5854
MICHELLE GILLETTE H.B., CA 92648
9 DENNIS BEISO 22726 Ladeene Ave. 310-812-5244 (W)
DEBRA Torrance, CA 90505 310-375-5171 (H)
10 JOAN TEMPLETON 7291 Mast Drive 969-9945
H.B., CA 92648
FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
The cost for providing municipal residential services typically exceed the income
obtained from the taxes generated on residential development. However, higher
appraised value homes do generate tax dollars in excess of the cost to the City in
service demand. The threshold value of a home varies but is typically around
$400,000. The proposed homes on the subject property are anticipated to be
appraised in excess of $500,000, Therefore, generating Income In excess of service
demand, '
The subject site is currently vacant and generating only a small amount of tax income.
Alternative commercial development of the site will only yield approximately 20,000
square feet due to current development regulations. By comparison, approximately
38,250 square feet of high value residential uses can be accommodated. By any
estimation of construction and completed value a 2:1 ratio of activity indicates that
residential development will be a better value for the City.
A further analysis compares the type and category of land use. Ten high quality, high
value, single family homes or a strip commercial shopping center (maybe
convenience commercial, like fast food). High value residential (approximately
$500,000)will outperform convenience commercial. In addition, emergency response
to convenience commercial operations exceed that of high end single family
residential.
a
CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST
SUBJECT: 6PI-I 0 G/s/o-�, �,A NU. 6,, �Cl�l+ No- ��-/ , NIJ do
DEPARTMENT: G�"/)PqLi'✓L//`7 -l)&aL'&l wlo�- MEETING DATE: 3
V
CONTACT a�II�a b��i,�l�l�� �Z✓�/�-- PHONE:
: [I
' V
N/A YES NO
Is the notice attached?
v
O
Do the Heading and Closing of Notice reflect City Council(and/or
n''A Redevelopment Agency)hearing?
( ) (✓) ( ) Are the date, day and time of the public hearing correct?
If an appeal. is the aPP ellant's name included in the notice?
\ (✓� ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) If Coastal Development Permit,does the notice include appeal language?
Is there an Environmental Status to be approved by Council?
( ) ( ) uo Is a map attached for publication? 4444j._* r`
s a larger ad required? Size
Is the verification statement attached indicating the source and accuracy of the
mailing list?
( ) ( ) (,/) a the applicant's name and address part of the mailing labels?
e the appellant's name and address part of the mailing labels?
If astal Development Permit,is the Coastal Commission part of the mailing
label
If Coas Development Permit,are the resident labels attached?
( ( ) ( ) Is the Repo 33433 attached? (Economic Development Dept. items only)
Please complete the following:
1. Minimum days from publication to caring date
2. Number of times to be published
3. Number of days between publications
21
6(�
1
E O
MEETING DATE: March 17, 1997
DEPARTMENT SUBJECT:
REQUESTING:
Community Development General Plan Amendment 96-1, ZMA 96-1, LCPA 96 1,
Neg. De 96-1, N/O PCH S/O Walnut between 20r-
and Strgets. a '—
TODAY'S DATE 02/24/97 12:13 PM
VERIFIED BY ADMININSTRATION:
APPROVED BY: G� c� ,�•-r
Ray Silver
Assistant City Administrator
2/24/97 12:17 PM
-A J Xq J�
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on March 17, 1997, at 7:00 PM in the City Council
Chambers, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, the City Council will hold a public hearing on
the following planning and zoning item:
❑ GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 96-1/ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO, 96-
VNEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 96-2/LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
AMENDMENT NO. 96-1: Applicant: Mike Adams Request: To redesignate ten (10)
lots on .88 net acres from Mixed Use and Visitor-Serving Commercial to High Density
Residential. Location: North of Pacific Coast Highway, south of Walnut and the alley,
between 21 st and 22nd Streets (see attached map). Project Planner: Hannan Brondial
Bowen
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that initial environmental assessments for the above item was
processed and completed in accordance with the California Quality Act. It was determined that
the above item , with mitigation, would not have any significant environmental effects and that a
mitigated negative declaration is warranted. Prior to acting on the project, the City Council must
review and act on the negative declaration. These environmental assessments are on file at the
City of Huntington Beach Community Development Department, 2000 Main Street, and are
available for public inspection and comment by contacting the Community Development
Department, or by telephoning (714) 536-5271.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Local Coastal Program No. 96-1 will be forwarded to the
California Coastal Commission for final action.
ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the City Clerk's Office, 2000 Main Street,
Huntington Beach, California 92648, for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report will
be available to interested parties at the City Clerk's Office after March 13, 1997.
ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit
evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If you challenge the City Council's
action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the
public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or
prior to, the public hearing. If there are any further questions please call the Planning Division at
536-5271 and refer to the above item. Direct your written communications to the City Clerk.
Connie Brockway, City Clerk
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street, 2nd Floor
Huntington Beach, California 92648
(714) 536-5227
(97cc0317a)
a
a
e
o
AAQm
$ we„M IN
cnnTx
maCML
HML
MAA?®l
I
— — — •. SLAM
I
n TAR I
I.
I'YOI XM" j
: PROJECT
�ADAM
•IND
�XMAWA
'HAMnItH
_ mom
OZ _ N L /
OLIVE
W - 2
LL
>, - -
— w -
W
z 2
WALNUT
t
��t lc co sr HWY
VICINITY MAP
•
�' GPA No. 96-1/LCP No. 96-1/
ZMA No. 96-1/N EG.DEC. No. 96-2
HUNTINGTON BEACH
HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION
• CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEA04 ,W � L�✓� �fl
J� INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION
1
HUMING304- MACH
TO: Connie Brockway, City Clerk
a
FROM: Linda S. Niles, Senior Planner
DATE: April 25, 1997
SUBJECT: Public Notification City Council public hearing of March 17, 1997 for GPA
No. 96-1/ZMA No. 96-1/LCP No.96-1
I have reviewed our TRW list, the Assessor's roles on file, and the mailing labels that Hannah
Bowen forwarded to you for the City Council public hearing of March 17, 1997. I have found, to
my dismay, that even though Hannah indicated that she corrected the labels, she did not correctly
identify the new property owners for the new lots created in November. She simply hand
crossed out the old APN's on the labels and wrote in the new APN's that were created, but she
never corrected the labels by adding the new labels for the new owners of the newly created
parcels. This I find vary disappointing because we had the correct and updated TRW list as of
January 1997.
At this point we will update the labels correctly for the notification of the Coastal Commission
public hearing anticipated for August. In review,the Planning Commission public hearing was
noticed correctly since I have confirmed that the most current information re: property owners
was used at that time. In reviewing the incorrect labels as best as could be done, it appears, that
the notice is approximately 16% incorrect. Many of the previous owners remained owners of
some of the new lots, with approximately 10 new owners overall, and several previous owners
purchased a few more lots. It is my feeling that since the incorrect labels were those located in
the project block, that most of(if not all of) the new owners were aware of the hearing because
they were the applicants. Therefore, I respectfully submit that the written public notice mail out
was not accurate enough, however, the property owners in question were aware of the public
hearing because they are the project applicants, that the intent of the notification requirements
were met.
Please contact me if you have any questions, or need additional information. Thank you for your
diligence in this matter.
7!;Z 7 CA-, d",v Ua--�-�-t OZ,,Ie ", o
)41
,. g:\niles\cbnotice.doc
J.
inJNTINGTON BEACH
i
TO: Melanie Fallon, Community Development Director
Linda Niles, Senior Planner
FROM: Connie Brockway, City Clerk Cb
DATE: March 24, 1997
SUBJECT: Response From Planner Hannah Brondial Bowen Regarding Public
Notification for GPA No. 96-1/ZMA No. 96-1/LCP No. 96-1 (21st and
22nd Street)
Prior to the public hearing, the City Clerk's Office requested verification and was
advised that the property owner's mailing notification list was in compliance with State
Law.
State Law provides that the city may use TRW or other lists only if they are more
current than the assessor's rolls on file.
I am requesting clarification from your department regarding the adequacy of the
ownership list to State Law which requires that the city use the latest available
assessor's rolls, which according to Ms. Bowen has been available since last year but
not used.
I've directed this memo to Linda Niles, Senior Planner as she tried to assist this office
last week when the issue arose.
Attachments
cbmems/97-032tax rolls/jc
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION
HUWINGTON BEACH
TO: Connie Brockway, City Clerk yR�
FROM: Hannah Brondial Bowen, Planner (�` b
SUBJECT: Public Notification for GPA No. 96-1/ZMA No. 96-1/LCP No. 96-1
(21 st and 22nd Street)
DATE: March 21, 1997
The mailing labels for this project were updated on 11/27/96, taken from the November 1996
TRW compact disk.
According to Susan Pierce, when the County recorded the deeds for the new lots last November,
they did not immediately assign addresses to the new lots. So, although the County issued a new
assessor parcel map last November, the TRW list (which the City subscribes to) did not reflect the
most current ownership list. The TRW list now reflects the most current ownership lists.
I've attached for your reference two sets of items:
1) Three pages of Assessor Parcel Map 023-13, showing the map book changes from last
year to today.
2) The mailing labels from 11/27/96 with the new parcel numbers added. If you want, I can
run you a new ownership list.
cc: Linda Niles, Senior Planner
File
023-131-04
Richard Makimoto M. W. S enouda Theodore -N. Ross
501 22nd St . 216 Venice Ave . No. 3 2124 Sparrow Hill Lane
Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Lakewood CA 90712
023-131- 3 023-131-11 �--023-131-12
Richard & Lillia Pendleton James Ji Hu Wang Stuart I . Venook
P.O. Box 217 5762 Bellfield Lane 34 Deer Spg
Dana Point CA 92629 Huntington Bh CA 92648 Irvine CA 92604
023-131-13 vl' 023-131-14 ✓ 023-131-15
Thomas Madigan Peggy Coon Randolph D. Kemp
213 22nd St . 215 22nd St . 221 22nd St .
Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648
023-131-16 023-131-17 023-131-18
Carolin Seesing Chang S. Hong Michael R. Rauen
223 22nd St . 10077 Valley View St . 201 22nd St .
Huntington Bh CA 92648 Cypress CA 90630 Huntington Bh CA 92648
023-131-19 023-131-20 023-131-21
Jack Lane Vardiman James W. Burns Christian F. Kim
227 22nd St . 4270 Madison Ave. 226 Goldenwest St .
Huntington Bh CA 92648 Culver City CA 90232 Huntington Bh CA 92648
023-131-22 023-131-23 023-131-24
Arunas A. Sodonis John F. Goodnight Robert C. Maling
224 Goldenwest St . 222 Goldenwest St . 218 Goldenwest St .
Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648
023-131-25 023-131-26 023-131-27
John W. D'Angelo Felice C. MacCauley Robert Aldoroty
1422 Bella Vista Dr. 214 Goldenwest St . 212 Goldenwest St .
La Habra Hgts CA 90631 Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648
023-131-28 023-131-29 023-131-30
Michael A. Erickson Charles R. Wolter Yih S . Wu
208 Goldenwest St . 206 Goldenwest St . 204 Goldenwest St .
Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648
023-131-31 023-132-05 `� 023-132-11
Calvin D. Jones Wayne Saar Peter Peacock
202 Golden West St . 212 22nd St. 211 21st St .
Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648
023-132-12 ✓ 023-132-16 vl-� 023-132-17
Ursula A. Coffin Joan M. Meister Dale Frankhouse
12180 Santa Paula Rd. 1902 Lake St . 203 21st St .
Ojai CA 93023 Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648
L
023-133-26 023-133-27 023-133-30
William B. Lewis Mark Betance Charles J. Morrow
P.O. Box 363 214 21st St . 212 21st St .
Surfside CA 90743 Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648
023-133-31 023-133-32 023-133-33
Joseph S . Barrak Security Trust Company John P . Thompson
210 21st St . P.O. Box 1589 216 21st St .
Huntington Bh CA 92648 San Diego CA 92112 Huntington Bh CA 92648
023-133-34 023-133-35 023-135-02
Gregory Hook Hermann O. Huber Richard P. Kelter
205 20Th St . 207 20Th St . 18281 Gothard St . No. 2
Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648
023-135-04 023-135-05 023-135-06
MS Vickers II Llc MS Vickers II Llc Walter S. Halverson
1999 Avenue of The Stars 1999 Avenue of The Stars 117 22nd St .
Los Angeles CA 90067 Los Angeles CA 90067 Huntington Bh CA 92648
023-135-07 023-135-08 023-135-09
Robert D. Chatterton Timothy Roberts Kenneth E. Walsh
115 22nd St . 113 22nd St . 111 22nd St .
Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648
023-135-10 023-136- -Q-) -10 023-136-02 ✓
Plc Craig W. Larson Scott W. Goodman
12625 High Bluff Dr.. No. 3 312 Chicago Ave . No. B 17032 Palmdale St . No.
San Diego CA 92130 Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92647
023-136-03 ✓ 23-136- - �-�� 3-136-
Jerome Schreiber Ange o & J. 1975 Tru Dira Allison Naito
7825 6th St . 16304 Aurora Cast 203 20Th St .
Downey CA 90241 Whittier CA 90604 Huntington Bh CA 92648
*Lartmadella
121 -Z3 - - 3-1Sea Ridge Inc Ted R. Moore Terry
P.O. Box B 14385 Industry Cir 16271 Sher Lane
Huntington Bh CA 92648 La Mirada CA 90638 Huntington Bh CA 92647
023-137-02 023-137-03 023-137-04
Eldon Willard Bagstad Nguyen Van The William K. Vogt
901 Catalina Ave . 112 21st St. 407 19th St .
Seal Beach CA 90740 Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92E
023-137-04 023-137- 023-137-09
Sea Ridge Inc Tashi Zouras Nick D. Rives
P.O. Box B 121 20Th St. Ill 20Th St .
Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648
i
i
• •
023-132-18 023-132-19 023-132-20
Eileen A. Murphy Marian E. Beck Vernon D. Hall
201 21st St . 214 22nd St . 216 22nd St .
Huntington Bh CA 9'2648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648
023-132-22 023-132-23 023-132-24
James T. Rea James T. Rea Robert Charles Raban
222 22nd St . 222 22nd St . 204 22nd St .
Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648
023-132-25 023-132-26 023-132-27
Alan K. H. Lee Michael A. Crose James T. Rea
202 22nd St . 224 22nd St . 222 22nd St .
Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648
023-132-28 023-132-29 023-132-30
Eileen A. Murphy Paul Horgan John C. Bradley
201 21st St . 207 21st St . 227 21st St.
Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648
023-132-31 023-132-32 023-132-33
Gerald E. Carbone Christan L. Ayers Neil Mc Caffery
225 21st St . 223 21st St . 206 22nd St .
Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648
023-132-34 023-132-35 023-132-36
Edward J. Jarema Richard Marvin Wilbur Margaret Wright
208 22nd St . 213 21st St . 215 21st St.
Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648
023-133-07 023-133-13 023-133-14
Richard Makimoto Home Svgs of America FSB Daniel Santos
501 22nd St . P.O. Box 5300 808 Pecan Ave.
Huntington Bh CA 92648 Irwindale CA 91706 Huntington Beach CA 926•
023-133-15 023-133-15 023-133- 3 0j 3 9
Con Bliss William K. Vogt Con i s
201 20Th St . 407 19th St .
Huntington Beach CA 92648 Lincoln CA 95648
023-133-16 023-133-17 023-133-21
James Christopher Sampson Robert E. Freeman Kenneth Y. Silver
10093 La Quinta Cir 19541 Canberra Lane 220 21st St .
Fountain Vly CA 9270'8 Huntington Bh CA 92646 Huntington Bh CA 92648
023-133-23 023-133-24 023-133-25
Con Bliss Martin Benson Michael F. Grant
221 20Th St . 223 20Th St . 202 E. Hampton Dr.
Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 Pineville LA 71360
i
023-137-10 023-137-11 CO23-137-14
Glenn J. Bruning Kathleen M. Crawford
11811 Lampson Ave . 122 21st St .
Garden Grove CA 92840 Huntington Bh CA 92648
023-137-15 023-137-16 023-170-11
Tim C. Wimbish John A. Barkau State of California Dept
118 21st St . 6781 Warner Ave . 650 Howe Ave. No. C
Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92647 Sacramento CA 95825
MCrIr�L 5h¢•NoG��--
a 6 S o�o�Y1Gt. �•
9a� y�
My ,�
>. 6c 1 50 7E-
5 3 „PkR.1 33 h 6 7 5 It�4,50• Its E 7 J4 n7so ns •� 6 20•
0 063 17 0 2 4 7 ns n o 11s' +, 117 50' tl3 AC. tt n5, 4 3 . ^ —� n 439 " L 41 17 50• s 2 s— — n ' 13
_182 7� 1 so• so a N i i 36 1S s;17 50' 9S' r 95' 9s' 20 100' I.,SO 17 S `
WALNUT A VEN
BS SO' IS' I,•'So' 1;7 SO' 1S 117.50 95' 1I s 117 ST R 95 ^ 20
— — —.42 21 ^ n n "�! 1 " �� 21 « i
I,7 SO I1S'
r -yam`— - - - - - 1 - - - - -c n 16 ,7s
_ 2 Is Jy ��Jn7 50• "20 19 _ _ _� ZG 19 _Q
2Q18 >- 17 6 2 18 , 1.- - - -7 5 ryBLK. iS 1B 17 120 - - _ 18LLJ � r
�L K. JE �'15 122 3 Q 12 50 Q — Q
- - — — — —
BLK. 7 121 _� 2 16 75 " its, BLK.O 16 1
/ = 117 is 117 so'
1< 7 J3 '— — —� ""- 14 t5 13 — —.n / t1 _ 1-0 15 1J i0 117 SJ• n o
12 1 1 11 r —I 20 �—� —— is )o J
., g r t2 Sb' r 12 1 i g ry )t
117 0• " 117 50 n 115' IIS'
ALLEY ALLEY 9 i1I I I 5I 1 II 1+ " �37 ALLEYS. i
3E
. 4321 10' 9
5I 25005 23 25,
25 25 TRACT TRACT
! I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
PROJECT 937-16-429-470 PROJECT 9
'1.
I I 1 1 55 1 p �' 1 I 71 1 >Q 103 LOT 14 1 i = 10 1° L O T
I I I I I I I Z I I I I I I I 0.936 AC. ~ 15
I� I I 1 I I I N I I I I I I I I cV N o.
I I I I 1 1 Icip,l EN'TE�T� �T 5f'-C' 75. a N0. 13 014 1
i I I 7s• I t 1 0. ,S. I .
•P 100- 166' 68' 1 211.07' 'P .- 50• 1 .
COAST (OCEAN AlE.) HIGHW
HUNTINGTON BEACH, SEVENTEENTH ST. SEC. M.M. 4-10
7 NOTE — ASSESSOR'S BL OCK & ASSESSORS MAP
TRACT NO. 13014 M.M. 585-48,49,50 ' PARCEL NUMBERS aooK 23 -PAGE _13
TRACT NO. 12947 M.M. 598-49,50 -
TRACT NO. 13625 M.M. 681-48,49,50 SHOWN IN CIRCLES COUNTY OF ORANGE
PARCEL MAP P.M. 191-39
22 #1871 37 32 18 17 25 22 18 51 17
A 1 � „�.
20 165 36 33 16 15 17 4 � 1615BLK. 19 35 221 • 2 7 14 2° 13 „s BLK. ,,, h 14 13 ry 219
�• " 117.50• 117.50
'
7,
20' 11 11 •BL K 3 0 12 11 N 22 0 N 5 12 fl H12
R PAR.2 :, W :, 13 ---� :,10LQ
� 912 " 31 10Jy N 6 1oJ9 "
� _1 R.S. 112-15. Q � "s•
P.M. 191-39� 8 Q 7 29 ns r_ _ 1_6 8 7 35 n7so 27 8 175 7 N _
w so to —.-
8 ———
a PAR.1 33 N 7 2 ns 6 34 n7so N n5 26 6 zo 5 28
6 5 n7so 7.
ns us• r w so•
N N ,1 • 24 4 3 t7 1u iE]20'
7 39 24 4 329' 2 1zo 1 18 ?o• 1 , o. 38 137?- n7.50•25 17 s
9595,
• A VENUE
10 +17,50' 15' 117.50' 26 9S 7.S 117.50' 20• 95'
1 o R 11 22 21 17 os• _ft ;m 21 —__ 20- R
o ti n rr N N N N
9 117.50 16 17 5 21 'n' 1
,• �20 19 _ r N 20 19115 � f9 _-----
2 18 17 25 "BLK. 15 18 -j 17 120 20 0 18 -1 17 14 _—°
o --- J --
J
tz
'2- ' BLK. 3 1 15 24 121 t2.S0•} 2 16 Q 15 19 „5 BLK. 9 16 15 119
N \
ry 12 H 14 15'li ' 23 " - -r„ _L 7513 ,17,50' • -- 10 -i4 20'11 ------
12 1 1 12 50• 3 :, 12 z0' 11 9 „s r
N 11 t+7.50' N N 117 50' 2 2 N IIS' " Its,
;^ ALLEY 137 ALLEYS• 138 ALLEY
11 10 9 8 7 4 3 2 1 zso os i o l zs zoo.us
25' 25, ■ a . I S . n 25'
I I TRACT I TRACT
I I PROJECT 937-16-429-470 I PROJECT 937-16-561-586
I . O 14 15 16 17 18 21 19 LOT 14 1 2 = n � od
LOT 01
I N 13 I 2 0 0.936 AC. IS 0.722 AC. p~j
N0 13 014 I ..
T T�- T. SEC ,,. a . NO. 1294 7a
I 75' S' 25• 0' S' z1 2„07• a 'S 10• 17 08• 1�
(OCEAN AVE.) H/GHWA Y
ti
SEVENTEENTH ST. SEC. M.M. 4-10 17 NOTE — ASSESSOR'S BLOCK d ASSESSOR'S MAP
M.M. 5 -49,,4 PARCEL NUMBERS BOOK 23 PAGE 13
M.M. 598-49,50- c1.41)IA1A1 M1 /Y17rY Fc MINTY OF npANrF
Lai
a 2 9 , is W 27 22 21 16 W 2 21 LJ W 11750
S0 22 21
�.: 24 a 19HUNTINGTO N 23 20 1 38 21 r9 in
26 23 20 20. 19 18 „s.
�• too
tt7 S0'
20 r7 " �BEA H N 22 1 7 37 32 18 17 25 22 18 7.5 17 19 117.50•
15 , tr2 0 16 15 36 33 16 15 17 - - - - 4 16 20. 15 —&15.
-
�V ?.6 3 n7 so• ;� - - r
.'.:. s 13 n BLK 19 14 , 35 221 • 27 14 =°' 13 ,n BLK. 115• 14 13 219
13 10 so- n
115 7 1,7 50• 117.50'
' 27 rr BL K. 11 N s 12 20. 11 11 •BL K.3 0 12 > 11 220
5 1? 11 11
,. 5 20' --- — ? W r 13 - - -0 LAJ
v
?R g 22 12 S PAR. — 10 J 9 12 31 f 0 v 9 n 6 10 9 12 n
4 _, _ „ Q „ Q Its*
7 P.M. 197-39` 8 n5 ,n- _ ---- lt7so
its, — 28-
2 9 L m — — t17 so• — — — —• — —
3 W 33 a PAR 33 ?_ 5 28 nz5 1n 6 7-1534 lasso• ass. 26 6 =o' S r
0 5
2 Q 0.063 17. _ " 24. .. 17 115 ry ., 7 n ,n N 11750• N o
3 AC. ...n n , 4 .... 3 tU r']-2
3 39 24 4 -
2 1 7 s - rl7 so• s 2 1 s• 1 :+01 1$ - -: H 0•R 25 .. . 18 95•20. 20 a 9S 20, , 0' 38 11 t31p n u7.so•25 2 7,s r ?a
67.77' 117.50
- - W
WALNUT AVENUE I
ES S0 t5' 1175 O' u7 S0 t5' 1t7,50' 95' 7.S 11730' p, 2p• 9S'
10
-22 21 o a 11 2? 21 17 s n ?? 21 20, a
f. 117SO 17 S 115• O
-. 0 s' r9 2 u7so' - - -- --. '_.._ 9 �20 19 • r r 16 ?0 19 21 n 1 • 2 19
-_-_ - - - - -_- - - - - -
AJ
1 _ re 17 6 „s ry 2 re 17 2 5 :BLK. 15 18 17 12 0 2 ---—
�__ _ _ 18 -117 _ 14 h
o v
BLK. _ _ r6 �15 7 122� • BLK. 3 1 15 24 121 �t2so� 2 16 15 19 ,1s BLK. 9 16 15 _- - 119-
17 7 15• 10 It7 50- — -
- -- 14 Q 13 8 h 12 14 1 23 n - 14 7.513 t17so - o-- 10 _ 14 20. 13 -- - - --
7 s 11 „ r 12 1 r
r n 1 1 � � 12,50' 3 r 1? =p• 9 „S•
9 115' n n 11 t17 SO' n n tt7 S0' 2 2 115 n IIS' 1,5' n ,t5•
( 13hALLEY ALLEY N 137 ALLEYS• = = 138 ALLEY
91 81 1 41 31 211 10 9 8 7 4 3 2 1 25005 25' 25' loops'
1 I , 1 . 1 6I 5 . 1 . I „ I25• 25, . . 6I 5 25' TRACT i TRACT
cl I I I I I I I I PROJECT 937-16-429-470
l I I I 1 I I I 1 S PROJECT 937-16-561-586
In 1 l 5 121 'D 14 15 16 17 18 21 19 cor 14 1 B = I r for 15 r 8 =
! I I I 1 I I I 2 I 0.936 A C. C3 15 F
I I I N 13 2 0 C4 o.722 Ac.
I I I I I N I "' 014 N i
! 1 1 1 ► I I ► NO. 13 NO. 12947 p ,,,
S' Sn
9EIIENT S' T T S S 7S 11 Di 07 R 7S' I °. 17308. ►�
:s
COAST (OCEAN AVE.) HIGHWAY
HUNTING TON BEACH, SEVENTEENTH ST. SEC. M.M. 4-10 17 NOTE — ASSESSOR'S BLOCK & ASSESSOR'S MAP
TRACT NO. 13014 M.M. 585-48,49,50 PARCEL NUMBERS BOOK 23 PAGE 13
TRACT NO. 12947 M.M. 598-49,50
r^• — - 'N rIPrL FS COUNTY OF ORANGE 1 /C
Connie R ickway,City Clerk
�,ity of Huntington Beach ` '•W
Office of the City Clerk
P.O. Box 190 + x
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
023-133- -�
Con B V
201 OTh St .
MINGTpy � tington Beach CA 92648
OLL vJ. YCO`10JV VC 1MYJ VO/ 1 / / Y/
.. ,....,.. c=
FORWARD TIME EXP RTN TO SEND
O
BLISS' DOMINIOUIE M ST 14
�C '/� ►� �QQ HUNTTINGTONNBEACHTCAP92646-S620
pppN T Y cP�
LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING
��pa //
II/III of 111111111 11 6 111IIIII111111IIII 11 ofN 11III11III11/1IIII
•
0,;Z4-131-04 023-131-09 023-131-10
%fCil1ard Makimoto, M. W. Shenouda Theodore-N. Ross
.5Z1/ 22nd St . 10216 Venice Ave. No. 3 6124 Sparrow Hill Lane
�;lilfi4�gton Bh CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Lakewood CA 90712
i
da 3-131-10 023-131-11 023-131-12
Rib/lard & Lillia Pendleton James Ji Hu Wang Stuart I . Venook
��• . Box 217 5762 Bellfield Lane 34 Deer Spg
baR,GL Point CA 92629 Huntington Bh CA 92648 Irvine CA 92604
b�3`131-13 023-131-14 023-131-15
- d�nas Madigan Peggy Coon Randolph D. Kemp
0213 22nd St . 215 22nd St . 221 22nd St .
Wufltington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648
Oro)lin
3 --131-16 023-131-17 023-131-18
Seesing Chang S. Hong Michael R. Rauen
aa,3 22nd St . 10077 Valley View St . 201 22nd St .
¢/llO-tington Bh CA 92648 Cypress CA 90630 Huntington Bh CA 92648
I)g3-131-19 023-131-20 023-131-21
,Jd(!X Lane Vardiman James W. Burns Christian F. Kim
p�a7 22nd St . 4270 Madison Ave. 22.6 Goldenwest St .
ffu_*7fington Bh CA 92648 Culver City CA 90232 Huntington Bh CA 92648
pat 3-131-22 023-131-23 023-131-24
I-rat-Aas A. Sodonis John F. Goodnight Robert C. Maling
Goldenwest St . 222 Goldenwest St. 218 Goldenwest St .
Wu,,rtington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648
A�131-25 023-131-26 023-131-27
W. D'Angelo Felice C. MacCauley Robert Aldoroty
lo2aZ Bella Vista Dr. 214 Goldenwest St . 212 Goldenwest St .
Pabra Hgts CA 90631 Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648
,/�,�3--131-28 023-131-29 023-131-30
11116 jiael A. Erickson Charles R. Wolter Yih S. Wu
mad Goldenwest St . 206 Goldenwest St . 204 Goldenwest St .
//u/Itington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648
��� 131-31 023-132-05 023-132-11
vin D. Jones Wayne Saar Peter Peacock
ao,�z Golden West St . 212 22nd St. 211 21st St.
/ju/ltington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648
O,-2 3 -132-12 023-132-16 023-132-17
fljS ula A. Coffin Joan M. Meister Dale Frankhouse
/•o9-/ 80 Santa Paula Rd. 1902 Lake St . 203 21st St .
L1�GLi CA 93023 Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648
G-
023-133-26 023-133-27 023-133-30
William B. Lewis Mark Betance Charles J. Morrow
P.O. Box 363 214 21st St . 212 21st St .
Surfside CA 90743 Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 926/�r
023-133-31 023-133-32 023-133-33
Joseph S. Barrak Security Trust Company John P. Thompson
210 21st St. P.O. Box 1589 216 21st St .
Huntington Bh CA 926489 San Diego CA 92112 Huntington Bh CA 926ye
023-133-34 023-133-35 023-135-02
Gregory Hook Hermann O. Huber Richard P. Kelter
205 20Th St. 207 20Th St . 18281 Gothard St . Nc.00
Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92616
023-135-04 023-135-05 023-135-06
MS Vickers II Llc MS Vickers II Llc Walter S. Halverson
1999 Avenue of The Stars 1999 Avenue of The Stars 117 22nd St .
Los Angeles CA 90067 Los Angeles CA 90067 Huntington Bh CA 92641?
023-135-07 023-135-08 023-135-09
Robert D. Chatterton Timothy Roberts Kenneth E. Walsh
115 22nd St. 113 22nd St. 111 22nd St .
Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92fr-,9$
023-135-10 023-136-01 023-136-02
Plc Craig W. Larson Scott W. Goodman
12625 High Bluff Dr. No. 3 312 Chicago Ave. No. B 17032 Palmdale St. 10-C
San Diego CA 92130 Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 926`F7
023-136-03 023-136-04 023-136-05
Jerome Schreiber Angelo & J. 1975 Tru Dira Allison Naito
7825 6th St . 16304 Aurora Cast 203 20Th St .
Downey CA 90241 Whittier CA 90604 Huntington Bh CA 926,il
023-136-06 023-136-07 023-136-08
Sea Ridge Inc Ted R. Moore Terry L. Carmadella
P.O. Box B 14385 Industry Cir 16271 Sher Lane
Huntington Bh CA 92648 La Mirada CA 90638 Huntington Bh CA 92407
023-137-02 023-137-03 023-137-04
Eldon Willard Bagstad Nguyen Van The William K. Vogt
901 Catalina Ave . 112 21st St . 407 19th St .
Seal Beach CA 90740 Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA
023-137-04 023-137-04 023-137-09 -
Sea Ridge Inc Tashi Zouras Nick D. Rives
P.O. Box B 121 20Th St . 111 20Th St .
Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 920�6
023-132-.18 023-132-19 023-132-20
Eileen A. Murphy •Marian E. Beck . Vernon D. Hall _
201 21st St . 214 22nd St. 216 22nd St .
Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648
023-132-22 023-132-23 023-132-24
James T. Rea James T. Rea Robert Charles Raban
222 22nd St . 222 22nd St . 204 22nd St .
Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648
023-132-25 023-132-26 023-132-27
Alan K. H. Lee Michael A. Crose James T. Rea
202 22nd St . 224 22nd St . 222 22nd St .
Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648
023-132-28 023-132-29 023-132-30
Eileen A. Murphy Paul Horgan John C. Bradley
201 21st St . 207 21st St. 227 21st St .
Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648
023-132-31 023-132-32 023-132-33 -
Gerald E. Carbone Christan L. Ayers Neil Mc Caffery
225 21st St . 223 21st St. 206 22nd St .
Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648
023-132-34 023-132-35 023-132-36
Edward J. Jarema Richard Marvin Wilbur Margaret Wright
208 22nd St . 213 21st St . 215 21st St .
Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648
023-133-07 023-133-13 023-133-14
Richard Makimoto Home Svgs of America FSB Daniel Santos
501 22nd St . P.O. Box 5300 808 Pecan Ave.
Huntington Bh CA 92648 Irwindale CA 91706 Huntington Beach CA 9264
023-133-15 ✓ 023-133-15 023-133-15
Con Bliss William K. Vogt ` Con Bliss
201 20Th St . o201 o2C`�4-Z�• 407 19th St .
Huntington Beach CA 92648 thxVIF"L &A (aL13 Lincoln CA 95648
023-133-16 OQ3-133-17 023-133-21
James Christopher Sampson Robert E. Freeman Kenneth Y. Silver
10093 La Quinta Cir 19541 Canberra Lane 220 21st St .
Fountain Vly CA 92708 Huntington Bh CA 92646 Huntington Bh CA 92648
023-133-23 V111, 023-133-24 023-133-25
Con Bliss Martin Benson Michael F. Grant
221 20Th St . 223 20Th St . 202 E. Hampton Dr.
Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 Pineville LA 71360
02.3-137-10. 9023-137-11 *23-137-14
,
Glenn)J. Bruning Kathleen M. Crawford
11811 son Ave. 122 21st St. =
Garden rove 92840 Huntington Bh a
023-137-15 023-137- 023-170-11
Tim C. Wimbish John A. Barkau e of California Dept
118 21st 6781 Warner Ave. 650 Howe O. C
Hunt ' on Bh CA -92648 Huntington Bh CA 92647 Sacramento CA 95825
023-137-10 023-137-11 023-137-14
Glenn J. Bruning Kathleen M. Crawford
11811 Lampson Ave. 122 21st St.
Garden Grove CA 92840 Huntington Bh CA 92648
023-137-15 023-137-16 023-170-11
Tim C. Wimbish John A. Barkau State of California Dept
118 21st St . 6781 Warner Ave. 650 Howe Ave. No. C
Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92647 Sacramento CA 95825
Rork. sh&-nodo— M( V IVA41y) S
a o 5 �a►I C- --,�- -W- Can yr - n��L
U+
U 9a(0 �B
SZ8S6 quawp.zops Lt9Z6 VD LIS uojbuiqunH 8V9Z6 K o unH
D -oN •aAV a 9 •aAV aGuaPM T8L9 qS gsTZ 8TT
gdaQ 'eiuZOJTTPD 90 .aq'e-4S ..-V -u-gor tjszgwTM - -D wzs
TT-OLT-EZO 91- ZO - ST-LET-£ZO
9Z6 `dD LIS uo�b unH 0fii8Z6 �dD anozD uapzPD
'IS IsTZ ZZ •and uosdwvZ _TT8TT
_ paojmpaD •W uaatgqux buiunag •r uuaTD
VT-LET-EZO TT-LET-EZO QT-"LET-EZO
PUBAEARING NOTIFICATION CHECKLIST`0
i MAILING LABELS - 4/3/95
President Huntington Harbor 10 Edna Littlebury 17 1)
H.B.Chamber of Commerce P.O.Box 791 Golden St.Mob. Hm. Owners Leag.
2210 Main Street,Suite 200 Sunset i,CA 90742 11021 Magnolia Blvd.
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Garden Grove,CA 92642
Judy Legan Pacific Coast Archaeological 18
H.B./F.V.Board of Realtors Society,Inc.
8101 Slater Ave. P.O.Box 10
Huntington Beach,CA 92647 Cost a,CA 92627
Attn:Jane Gothold
President William D.Holman / 11 County of Oran 19
Amigos De Bolsa Chica PLC Michael ne�Dir.
P.O.Box 3748 23 Corporate Plaza,Suite 250 P.O. 4048
Huntington Beach,CA 92605 Newport Beach CA 92660-7912 Santa Ana,CA 92702-4048
Mr.Tom Zanic 12 Planning Departme 19
New Urban West Orange Cou
520 Broadway Ste. 100 P.O. 048
Santa Monica,CA 90401 Santa Ana,CA 92702-4048
President U Pres.,H.B.Hist.Society 13 County of Orange/EMA 19
Huntington Beach Tomorrow C/O Newland useum Thomas Mathew
411 6th St. 19820 B vd. P.O.Bo
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Hunti on Beach,CA 92648 Santa 71na,CA 92702-4048
Julie Vandermos 6 Chairperson 14 County of Orange/EMA 9
3 DC
Historical Resource Bob Fisher,Dir.
9 E ve Circle#100 Comm.Se ept. P.O.Box 4
I me Ca 92714-6734 2000 St. Santa a,CA 92702-4048
Huntington Beach,CA 92648
Richard�7th, 12thl`loor
7 Council on A ' 8'� 15 Planning Dir. 20
SCAG 1706 a Ave. City of Costa Mes
818 H gton Beach,CA 92648 P.O. Bo
Los Angeles,CA 90017 Cost esa,CA 92628-1200
E.T.I.Corral 100 ( 8 ) Dominick Tom ' 16 Planning Dir. 21
Mary Bell ��// Seacliff owners Assoc. City of Fountain V
20292 Eastwood Cir. 681 enic Bay Lane 10200 S ve.
Huntington Beach,CA 92646 H ntington Beach,CA 92648 Fo in Valley,CA 92708
Allen Macenski, 9 Seacliff HOA 16 Planning Director 22
Environmental Board Chain Jeff Metze City of We
20021 Lawson Lane 1939 ady Harbor Circle 8200 nster Blvd.
Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach CA 92648 W nster,CA 92683
g:1ab1es\phn1b1s
nning Director ► 23 mes Jones 0 OC County Harbors,Beach 35
y of Seal B Wean View Elementary _ �nd Parks Dept.
1 t. School district O. Box 4048
' i Beach,CA 90740 17200 Pinehurst Lane Santa Ana,CA 92702-4048
Huntington Beach CA 92647
Coastal Commission 24 Ron Frazier 31 Cheryle Browning 36
:resa Henry Westminster School District Meadowlark
5 W. Broadway,Ste 380 14121 Cedarwood Avenue 16771 sevelt Lane
ig Bch,CA 90802 Westminster CA 92683 Huntington Beach,CA 92649
(ifornia Coastal Commiss' 24 Patricia Koch 32 Sally Graham 6
ith District Of ' HB Union High School Disrict Meadowlark Area
5 W way No. 380 10251 Yorktown Avenue 5161 Geld' c e
Beach,CA 92802-4458 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntin on Beach,CA 92649
pert Joseph 0 David Hagen [)32
Caitrans District 12 HB Union High School distric Koll Company 37
' d5501 Pullman St. 10251 Yorktown 4343 Von Karman
SgjIta Ana,CA 92705 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Newport Beach,CA 92666
:ector 6 Huntington Beach Mall 33
-al Solid Waste gy. Attn:Pat Rogers-Laude
-7. Health e Agency 7777 Edinger Ave.#300
). 55 Huntington Beach CA 92647
ita Ana,CA 92702
New Growth Coordinator (2)7 CSA 33
P U sntington Beach Post Office 730 El Ca ay#200
(p-f71 Warner Ave. Tusti , A 9680
{�Untington Beach,CA 92647
M arc Ecker l� Goldenwest College 34
tvtAntain Valley Attn:Fred Ow
GI ementary School District 15744 enwest St.
1 +210 Oak Street Huntington Beach CA 92647
Fountain Valley CA 92708
N". Duane Dishno Country V' tates HOA 35 -
00 City Elementary School Dist. Ca omas
'PO Box 71 6642 Trotter Drive
[-Antington Beach,CA 92626 Huntington Beach CA 92648
Tery Buchanan 29 Country View Estates 35
40 City Elementary School Dist. Gerry Chapma
a 0451 Craimer Lane 6742 Shi we
}I'tAntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648
ibles\phnlbls
Connie BfOCk".,ay,City ClerkL5
City c; Huntington Beach
office of the City Clerk
P.O. Box 190
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 � ���%G✓' "
n /
023-133-14
Daniel Santos ;,. • . L1
C 808 Pecan Ave . .2264
HuncJ '
��� I Beach'" `
• _ � •r. .-.,"�
3
T.
b
TING
N �
O� MCUAP044
0
�DUNTY CP LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING
Connie Brockway, City Clerk
City of Huntington Beach -
Office of the City Clerk
P.O. Box 190
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
O"d
Q 135-10
P1C
G 12625 High Bluff Dr. (%
SINGTpy �' San Diego CA 92130 No 3
U
a 0 . .
9 = _
C0 NTY %
LEGAL NOTICE -PU, ,I
• nie Brock,"'
..,dy,City Clerk :C� �'���� AMEM
City n; Huntington Beach
office of the City Clerk
a� \ P.O. Box 190
3\ � Beach\ Huntington , CA 92648
\
11^ 133-14
Pe 023-
Daniel Santos
808 Pecan Ave . h. �. 264 �.
Hunti'Ygt°A, Beac rG
V 1•
\LA
_ 4
ZC�IQ 11 190 Q� -�• !
F `�`� ••ai~Y
C P
0(/
NTY
C
LEGAL N PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE -
�rL�4�'�faF.rZ 1111111 fill III!III I III III III 11I III I!I11111111111111I!11111l111
Connie Brockway,City Clerk '•
City of Huntington Beach
Office of the City Clerk
P.O. Box 190
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
1 1 •
O'd
023-135-10
Pl c
1 H'12625
p High Bluff Dr.
l� , 7�0 San Die NO 3 I N G Tpy _ 5° CA 92130
v � r!
�NTY
LEGAL NOTICE.-- PU ,LIC IEI
. '. �zF� ,� ����� �I�I1,��1�1111,"11II1„I,111I,1,11111II�I11,�I1i1�i1111,11111
Connie Brockway,City Clerk ■
City of Huntington Beach a1 -
✓ Office of the City Clerk x
P.O. Box 190 �\
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
i
0.U1\ Yih S . Wu d� 3-131-30 (�
204 Goldenwest St .
Huntington Bh CA 92648
NT I NGTpy�Fq . . • - � _
WU--204 926483008 1296 03/10/97 •
FORWARD TIME EXP RTN TO SEND
Q Wu ST 18
Z 19062 MESA DR
VILLA PARK CA 92667-3 215
cpNNTY �P`
LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING
ELF as-� 09,$+L -3 1
i
Connie Brockway,City Clerk
City of Huntington Beach
Office of the City Clerk I '�
P.O. Box 190
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 - -
0 3- 3-
C n rz
F�OUNTI P`\ LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING
T J -
Connie Brockway,City Clerk 23 TN
City of Huntington Beach
Office of the City Clerk
P.O. Box 190
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
3- \
3-170-11 �
'ate of
Ca
lifornia Dept
�MINGTp 650 Howe Ave. No. C
N O� s ac ra_NCORYOR���O d� mento CA 95825 t\?�� •
— Q
cFpp�NTY cP`�� LEGAL NOTICE TICE - PUBLIC HEARING �
1%1Ejv*r*67-3v, IIlItillIIIIIIIIIII lilt 1I1il 111111111111111111
- GEC
``.lam L iJ
.... .1 :. F.:HU: ::.::.:.:...:...:......:.:..............:.....:......::....: ::.:::::.....:..::: ::.::.:::::::::::::::::.::.:::.:::::.:.
...............:........:.:..:...:.......:...................:..........:........:........................::...............::.........:..
'��SIVI.R >.. .:. T. 0 ..9. ... ........ .
........:......................:..:......:.:.......:::.....:...............................:..:.:::::::::::::::.:_:......:.:..:..:::..:::.::::..:: .:::. ......:...::.::::::::::.:::.::.:.:.::.::.::.:::.:::.
1. PROJECT.TITLE: 21st and,22nd Street Residential General Plan
Amendment and Zone Change
Concurrent Entitlements: General Plan Amendment No. 96-1/Zone Change No. 96-1/Local
Coastal Plan Amendment No. 96-1
2. LEAD AGENCY: City of Huntington Beach
- 2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Contact: Brian James,Assistant Planner i
Phone: (714) 536-5271
3. PROJECT LOCATION: North side of Pacific Coast Highway between 21st and 22nd Street
4.. PROJECT PROPONENT: Mike Adams .
1977.1 Sea Canyon Circle
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Phone: (714)'83.3-9193
5. EXISTING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Mixed Use Vertically Integrated (Commercial or
commercial with residential units above)
i
6. EXISTING: Specific Plan 5 (Downtown Specific Plan district I- Visitor Serving Commercial)
7. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: To change the existing General Plan and Zoning designation on .88 acres
(ten 25 foot wide lots) from commercial to residential. The specific request is to change the General
Plan designation from the existing designation of Mixed Use Vertically Integration to Residential
High (30 units per acre) and to change the existing zoning from Downtown Specific Plan District
One (Visitor Serving Commercial) to Downtown Specific Plan District Two (Residential). The
existing land use designations allows either the exclusive development of a commercial project or the
development of a commercial project in conjunction with a residential component. It is the intent of
the application to allow for the exclusive development of residential uses on the site.
Based upon fine density standards of Downtown Specific Plan District Two,the requested change in
land use designations would allow the maximum development of 26 residential units. The density
standards (FAR 1.0) of the existing visitor serving commercial classification would allow a
development with a maximum of 38,250 square feet. The applicant has indicated that the intent of
this application is to allow for the future development of ten (10) single family residences;however
there is no development proposed in conjunction with the request. Therefore, for the purposes of ..-
assessing the.worst case environmental impacts that may be generated as a result of this request,the
maximum development of 26 residential units has been used.
OTHER AGENCIES WIIOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (AND PERMITS NEEDED) California
Coastal Commission
t
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving
at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or is"Potentially Significant Unless
Mitigated," as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
❑ Land Use &Planning 0 Transportation/Circulation Public Services
❑ Population &Housing ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Utilities &Service Systems
Cl Geological Problems ❑ Energy &Mineral Resources ❑ Aesthetics
❑ Water 0 Hazards ❑ Cultural Resources
❑ Air Quality 0 Noise ❑ Recreation
❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance
;t
DETERMINATION
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there«ill not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an
attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effects)on the environment,but at .
least one effect(1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable --
legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis
• as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a"potentially significant impact"or is
"potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is
required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
7�1i191,
Signature Date
1Ar,E5i
Printed Name Title
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMFNTAi, IMPACTS:
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately
supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each .
question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources
show that the impact simply does not apply to the project. A "No Impact"answer should be
explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved. Answers should address off-site as
well as on-site,cumulative as well as project-level,indirect as well as direct,and construction as
well as operational impacts.
S. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate,if an effect is significant or potentially significant,
or if the lead agency lacks information to make a finding of insignificance. If there are one or
more "Potentially Significant Impact"entries when the determination is made,preparation of an
Environmental Impact Report is warranted.
4. Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigated"applies where the incorporation of mitigation
measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant
Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures,and briefly explain how they
reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII,"Earlier
Analyses;" may be cross-referenced).
5. Earlier analyses may be used where,pursuant to the tiering,program EIR,or other CEQA process,
an effect has been adequately analyzed in an garlier EIR or negative declaration. Section
15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section XVII at the end of the checklist.
6. References to information sources for potential impacts (e.g.,general plans,zoning ordinances)
have been incorporated into the checklist. A source list has been provided in Section XVII. Other
sources used or individuals contacted have been cited in the respective discussions.
7. The following checklist has been formatted after Appendix I of Chapter 3,Title 14,California Code
of Regulations,but has been augmented to reflect the City of Huntington Beach's requirements.
(Note: Standard Conditions of Approval -The City imposes standard conditions of approval on projects
which are considered to be components of or modifications to the project;some of these standard
conditions also result in reducing or minimizing environmental impacts to a level of insignificance.
However,because they are considered part of the project,they have not been identified as mitigation
measures. For the reader's information,a list of applicable standard conditions identified in the
discussions has been provided as Attachment No. 3.
SAMPLE QUESTION.•
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
ISSUES(and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Imp a.
Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts
involving:
Landslides orMudflows? (Sources: 1, 6) Q Q Q
Discussion: The attached source list explains that 1 is the Huntington
Beach General Plan and 6 is a topographical map of the area which
show that the area is located in a flat area. (Note: This response
probably would not require further explanation).
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the Proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ❑ ❑ ❑
(Sources:-3,6,8, 18)
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies ❑ ❑ ❑
adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project?
" (Sources:3)
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? ❑ 0 ❑
(Sources: 1, 3,6, 8, 18)
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations(e.g., impacts to ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible uses)?
(Sources: 3, 7)
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established El
community(including a low-income or minority
community)? (Sources: 1, 2, 3)
Discussion: The project site consists of an amendment to the land use and zoning designations on the subject property to
allow for the development of a residential project(as explained in greater detail in the Project Description)and,therefore is
not consistent with the existing General Plan designation and Zoning on the property.
The proposed change in designations would eliminate the possibility to develop a maximum of approximately 38,250 square
feet of commercial which would be allowed under the existing commercial General Plan and Zoning designations. The
proposed zoning(DTSP-2)would allow for a maximum of 26 multifamily units on the site(or 10 single faruly detached
units). This would allow for additional residential units which could assist the City in attaining its Housing Element goals.
If approved the proposed project will result in the loss of commercial land in the City; however,the proposed designation is
compatible with existing residential zoning and development immediately surrounding the site. The property to the south
(across PCH)is the bluff top park and Pacific Ocean;the property to the north is vacant property zoned and general planed
for residential development(DTSP Dist.2 and Res.High);the property to the east is developed with a multi-family
residential development and single family residential. The property to the west(across 22nd St.)is vacant mixed use-
vertical integration which allows commercial development or residential development in conjunction with commercial
development. There are potential noise,traffic, odor,and light and glare impacts commonly associated w m ith commercial
uses. Under the proposed land use designation, a residential development on the site could eliminate the possibility of these
types of impacts locating adjacent to residential uses. Compatibility of the proposed changes will be analyzed in further
detail in the remaining sections of this document.
There are no agricultural resources or active operations on the project site or in the vicinity that would be affected by the
project. As previously mentioned,the proposed project is consistent with the surrounding residential uses and,therefore, is
not expected to disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of the surrounding community.
Environmental Assessment 996-2 1 6119196 _-
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than -
Significant Mitigation Significant
ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
II. POPULATION AND ROUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population ❑ ❑ ❑
projections? (Sources: 3, 5,20)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or ❑ ❑ ❑
indirectly(e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or
extension of major infrastructure)? (Sources: 3, 5,20)
c) Displace existing housing,especially affordable housing? ❑ ❑ ❑
(Sources: 3, 8)
Discussion: The proposed project will allow for additional new residential development in the Downtovvrt Specific Plan area
and Neill create potential opportunities for affordable housing. Under the proposed General Plan and Zoning designations,
10 single family or a maximum of 26 multifamily residential units could be built on the site. Based upon the City's average
population per unit of 2.62,the project would generate a population increase of approximately 68 people(if developed as
multifamily). The addition of 68 people is less than 0.03%of the existing population(188,990)and is considered
negligible. Development of a maximum of 26 additional units constitutes less than 0.03%of the City's existing housing
units(74,665)and also is not considered significant.
M.GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in
or expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture?(Sources: 7,9) ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑X
b) Seismic ground shaking?(Sources:7, 9) ❑ ❑ Q ❑
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (Sources:7, ❑ ❑ ❑
9)
d) Seiche,tsunami,or volcanic hazard? (Sources: 7,9) ❑ ❑ ❑
e) Landslides or Mudflows? (Sources: 7, 9) ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑X
f) Erosion,changes in topography or unstable soil conditions ❑ ❑ &
from excavation,grading,or fill? (Sources:2,7,8,9)
g) Subsidence of the land? (Sources: 7,9) ❑ ❑ 0 ❑
h) Expansive soils? (Sources: 7, 9) - ❑ ❑ [X] ❑
i) Unique geologic or physical features? (Sources: 7, 8,9) ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑X
Environmental Assessment 996-2 2 _ _.__. .
-- - _ ._ __ 6/19/96
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
Discussion: The project consists of an amendment to the land use and zoning designation and does not include any
development at this time; the project, will allow for residential development of the site.
The project site is not located within the Earthquake Hazard Special Study Zone(previously known as Alquist-Priolo Zone)
but is located within one mile of the Ne`vport-Inglc%vood fault zone. The South Branch Fault is believed to lie parallel and
slightly south of Palm Avenue. In the event of an earthquake in the Huntington Beach area, the site is likely to experience
ground shaking. Future residential structures will be required to comply iNith standards set forth in the Uniform Building
Code established to minimize impacts to structures from ground shaking and gill be subject to provisions requiring
preparation of a soils study and implementation of structural recommendations contained therein. Currently,the site has
ground water depths of approximately three to five feet, and soils consists of older alluvial material. This material
predominantly consists of marina sandy loam which is prone to liquefaction.However,common engineering techniques can
adjust for this potential hazard and reduce the risk to a less than significant level and will be required of subsequent
development of the site. Despite past oil extraction activities on the property, land subsidence in Huntington Beach is not
expected to occur in the area of the proposed project due to the current practice of injecting water into oil wells and the y
reduction in oil extraction operations in the area. 1_
The site is located in an area in which expansive soils are generally present. These geological problems do not preclude
construction of future residential units because any soils impacts can be addressed by soils studies required(which will be
required through plan check or entitlement processes for future development)and the structural recommendations generally
contained therein. Foundation designs of future-development will be required to incorporate recommendations of the soils
study to minimize any potential impacts and reduce the risk to a less than significant level. No significant impacts are
anticipated.
The project site is currently vacant. The site was graded as part of recent soils remediation activities(associated with the
removal of oil operations from the site). The site is primarily flat and does not contain any unique geologic or physical
features. Future residential development of the site is expected to require minor grading of the site to level the site for
development. Future construction activities may result in short term wind and water erosion impacts,but will be subject to
compliance with Air Quality Management District and Regional Water Quality Control Board regulations requiring
implementation of dust control measures and construction runoff control measures(which would be required for site
development regardless of the proposed land use or zoning designation).
Tsunamis are seismic induced sea waves and arc a potential threat to all low-lying coastal areas of California. However,as
stated in EIR 82-2 for the Downtown Specific Plan, research indicated that no known significant tsunamis have caused-
damage in the Huntington Beach area with the recorded history of California and concluded that the impact of tsunami was
not significant.
E
Environmental Assessment 996-2 3 _ __6/19/96_____
.ems..
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
IV.WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate
and amount of surface runoff? (Sources: 2)
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such El 0
as flooding? (Sources: 7, 10)
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface QEl
water quality(e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or
turbidity)? (Sources: 1, 2)
d) Changes in the amount of surface grater in any water body? El El0
(Sources: 1, 2)
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water El El 'r
movement? (Sources: 1, 2)
f) Change in the quantity of ground waters. either through El 1:1 El Q
direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an
aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of
groundwater recharge capability? (Sources: 2, 7,22)
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (Sources: (l (l (l 0
2,7)
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (Sources: 2, 7) ElQX
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater El El0
othernise available for public water supplies? (Sources: 5,7)
Discussion:. The project site is currently vacant. The project consists of an amendment to the land use and zoning
designation and does not include any development at this time. Subsequent development under the proposed residential
designation will result in the introduction of new impervious surfaces on the site and may effect runoff and drainage patterns
on the site. Subsequent development of the site will be required to submit a grading plan for review and approval by the
Public Works Department to determine that the runoff generated by the proposed project will not adversely impact existing
drainage systems and adjacent properties. In order to ensure that drainage from the site does not create the potential for
• pollutants,future construction will be required to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES)
Industrial Stormwater Permit from the Regional Water Quality Control Board.,
The site is located approximately 500 feet from the Pacific Ocean which may produce flood activity from wave action.
However, the project site is located in Flood Zone X,an area not subject to floodplain regulations. Flood waters created by
wave action are not anticipated to occur at the subject location because research conducted for EIR 82-2 for the Downtown
t In order to ensure that drainage from the site does not create the potential for pollutants,future construction will be required to
obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES)Industrial Stormwater Permit from the Regional Water Quality
Control Board prior to issuance of a building permit. (Water)
Environmental Assessment #96-2 - 4 - -- = -.--6/19/96
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
Specific Plan indicated that no known significant tsunamis have caused damage in the Huntington Beach area within the
recorded history of California.
Under the existing land use and zoning, a maximum of approximately 38,300 square feet of commercial uses could be
developed on the site. This level of commercial development is projected to generate water usage of approximately 1.14
gallons/minute. The proposed residential designations would allow for a maximum of approximately 26 multi-family
residential units which are projected to generate water usage of approximately 2.38 gallons/minute. Although this is an
increase in water usage, the Water Department has reviewed the proposed amendment and determined that the increase is
not considered significant and can generally be accommodated by the City's water system(although depending on the
actual number of units developed additional, project specific,water improvements may be needed to provide water service to
the site).
Subsequent development of the site will be subject to compliance with Title 24 conservation measures such as low flow
fixtures and use of drought tolerant plant species and drip irrigation(which will help to minimize the development's water
usage). The site does not drain directly into any natural body of tivater. No significant adverse impacts to the existing water }'
supply are anticipated. S;
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing El 0 0 El
or projected air quality violation? (Sources: 11)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (Sources: 1,7) El
c) Alter air movement, moisture,or temperature'.' (Sources:6) El El
d) Create objectionable odors? (Sources: 2,6) El El Z
Discussion: The project consists of an amendment to the land use and zoning designation and does not include any
development at this time; the project,will allow for residential development of the site.Under the existing land use and
zoning designations, a maximum of approximately 38,300 square feet of commercial could be developed on site. This level
of development exceeds the commercial development threshold for potentially significant air quality impacts(as established
by the South Coast Air Quality Management District). In comparison, the proposed residential designations would allow for
a maximum of approximately 26 multi-family residential units which is more than 90%below the air quality impact
threshold for residential development. No significant adverse air quality impacts are anticipated.
Subsequent development of the site is expected to contribute to short-term deterioration of local ambient air quality
construction due to construction equipment emissions and dust. Emissions are expected from gasoline and diesel-powered
grading and paving equipment and fugitive dust generation associated with construction activities. However,as mentioned
in earlier sections,construction activities will be required to comply with the rules,regulations and standards of the -
SCAQMD which will minimize construction.dust and emissions. No significant adverse air quality impacts are anticipated
- Environmental Assessment 996-2 5 _ 6119196 `== -
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
SSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
VI.TRA.NSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (Sources: 7, 12)
b) Hazards to safety from design features(e.g., sliarp curves orEl El El
dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses(e.g.,farm
equipment)? (Sources: 2. 6)
c) Inadequate emergency access or inadequate access to nearby Q El
uses? (Sources: 1, 2, 7, 8)
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (Sources: 2, El El
4, $)
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (Sources:2) El El0
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative Q
transportation(e.g., bus turnouts,bicycle racks)? (Sources:
2)
g) Rail,waterborne or air traffic impacts? (Sources: 1,7) ❑ Q
Discussion% The project consists of an amendment to the land use and zoning designation and does not include any
development at this time;the project,will allow for residential development of the site.
Existing roadway segments in the area are currently operating at a level of service(LOS)of E or better(Pacific Coast
Highway to Brookhurst Street). The signalized intersection at Pacific Coast Highway and Golden West Street has an AM
peak hour LOS C or better.
Under the existing land use and zoning designations,a maximum of approximately 38,250 square feet of commercial uses
could be developed on the site. This level of commercial development is projected to generate an average of approximately
1,338.75 vehicle trips/day(based upon the strip commercial designation of the SARA Trip Generation Rates). The proposed
residential designations would allow for a maximum of approximately 26 multi-family residential units which are projected
to generate approximately 224 trips/day. The projected trip generation associated with the proposed amendment is lower
than anticipated under the commercial designation and constitutes less than 0.62%of the existing traffic in the area. The
increase is not considered significant and can generally be accommodated by the City's traffic/circulation system. The
projects minor traffic impacts can be off-set by the project's fair share contribution toward traffic improvements through the
payment of t affic impact fees(required at time of development). _
Any future residential development would be required to provide access from the adjacent alley or numbered streets. This
would eliminate multiple driveways on Pacific Coast Highway and help maintain the level of service as well as reduce the__
potential for accidents.
Environmental Assessment 996-2 6 = ' - 6/19/96 _'=_-_
= Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
Due to the demand for parking adjacent to Pacific Coast Highway,there is a potential parking impact upon future residential
development. It is recommended that a mitigation measure requiring that subsequent development of the site provide all
parking on-site or comply with the parking and access requirements of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision
Ordinance Code and Downtown Specific Plan,whichever is more restrictive. The project will not effect any rail or
waterborne traffic,since such facilities do not occur in the project vicinity.
VILBIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal
result in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats ❑
(including but not limited to: plants,fish, insects,animals,
and birds)? (Sources: 3, 5, 7, 19)
b) Locally designated species(e.g.,heritage trees)? (Sources: 3, El
7, 19) �
c) Locally designated natural communities(e.g..oak forest, El El
coastal habitat,etc.)? (Sources: 3, 5,7, 19)
d) Wetland habitat(e.g., marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? El El
(Sources: 3, 5, 7, 19)
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (Sources: 3, 5,7,
19)
Discussion: The project site is located in a highly urbanized area along PCH and has been disturbed by a history of oil operations.
The subject site was recently graded and cleared to remediate soil contamination resulting from these oil operations. The subject
site does not contain any habitat or other biological resources.
VM.ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would
the proposal:
a) Conflict,.vzth adopted energy conservation plans? (Sources: El El El N
3)
b) Use non-renewable resource in a wasteful and inefficient El El0
manner? (Sources:3, 5, 7)
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource 11 El � Q
that would be of future value to the region and the residents
of the State? (Sources: 3, 5, 7)
Discussion: The project will result in increases of fuel/energy usage in the City however,anticipated energy demands
2 Due to the demand for parking near the beach,all parking shall either be located entirely on-site or shall comply with the parking
and access requirements of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and Downtown Specific Plan,whichever is
more restrictive.
Environmental Assessment P,96-2 7 - :___ . _::_ _:: . 6119196
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
created by the project are within parameters of o%-crall projected demand which is planning to be met for the area. Existing
facilities are adequate to accommodate the development. No significant adverse impacts to natural resources are anticipated.
IX.HA.ZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances(including,but not limited to: oil. pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)? (Sources: 6,7, 14)
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan orEl El El
emergency evacuation plan? (Sources: 7)
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential hazards? El 0
(Sources: 6, 7, 14)
I
d) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,grass, El 1:1 ElQ
or trees? (Sources: 2)
Discussion: The proposed project site has a history of oil production.The site was recently cleaned to City Fire Department
specifications to remediate potential soil contamination from these oil operations. The site is located within the methane
district. Construction that results from this request will be required to address potential methane impacts per Fire
Department specifications3.
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (Sources: 6,7, 14) El ❑X
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (Sources:6,7, 14) El 0 El
Discussion: The proposed change in land use designation from commercial to residential does not directly involve
construction so no noise impacts will occur. A temporary increase in noise levels would occur as a result of future _.._..
construction,but would only be temporary in nature. The proposed change from commercial to residential would eliminate
the potential for noise generating commercial uses, such as a restaurant or market,to be developed adjacent to residential.
The residential designation would allow the development of a compatible land use that generates less noise than commercial
uses.
The project site is located in the 60 CNEL noise contour generated by traffic along Pacific Coast Highway. Future
residential development will be exposed to significant noise levels. To reduce noise impacts to a less than significant level,
future residential development will be required to submit a noise study to identify the appropriate noise attenuation -
measures, such as double pained windows and insulation,which will be implemented to comply with the noise standards of
3 Due to the fact that the project site is located within the methane district,future construction shall be required to comply with the -.
City of Huntington Beach Fire Department specifications. (Hazards)
Environmental Assessment 996-2 -- - 8 _ _- _ - -__ _ _.- 6/19/96-_-_
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
the City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code'.
XI.PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
upon,or result in a need for nc%v or altered government services
in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? (Sources: Huntington Beach Fire Dept.) ❑ ❑ a ❑
b) Police Protection? (Sources: Huntington Beach Police Dept.) ❑ ❑ ❑
c) Schools? (Sources: 15, 21) ❑ 0 ❑ ❑
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? Sources:
( ❑ ❑ ❑ s
City of Hunting on Beach) Jw
e) Other governmental services? (Sources: Cite of Huntington ❑ ❑ Q
Beach)
Discussion:The proposed than-e in land use designation from commercial to residential will not create the need for any
new or altered government services. Police, fire.and maintenance services are currently provided in the area. New
maintenance services Nvill be required for future alley access. New alleys and infrastructure are required to be installed prior
to any development on the block, of which the project site is a part. However,future infrastructure maintenance is not
dependent upon the request to change the land use designation,but is required prior to any construction on the block The
appropriate park and recreation fees will be required in conjunction with building permits for residential construction and
will offset the project's share of impacts to the recrcational facilities. This issue is discussed further in section XV.
The project site is located in the Huntington Beach City School and Huntington Beach Union High School Districts. Based
upon the districts student generation rates(General Plan EIR Response to Comments),the change in land use designations
could result in the generation of students:
HBUHSD
Grades 9-12 -.200 x 26 units=5.2 students _.
HBCSD _ -- --.
Grades K-5 -.3359 x 26 units= 10 students
6-8 -.1989 x 26 units=5.17 students
Sp. Ed. -.0095 x 26 units=.247 studcnts
The Huntington Beach Union High School District has reviewed the proposal and is concerned that an additional 5.2
students may impact the capacity of classrooms at the Huntington Beach High School. The School District estimates that
the potential cost of these five studcnts to be S 155,358.20. This cost may or may not be offset by the school fees that are
required in conjunction with building permits for residential construction. The Huntington Beach City School District has
not comment at this time but will provide comments upon receipt of the Negative Declaration document. The actual level of . .._.._
4 To reduce noise impacts to a less than significant lc%-cl,future residential development shall be required to include noise mitigation
measures,such as double pained.%indoxvs and insulation,to comply with the noise standards of the City of Huntington Beach _
Municipal Code. (Noise) _
6119/96.
Environmental Assessment #96-2 9 _ _ :___
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
impacts is unknown until a development project has been identified and approved. The City is currently formulating a
policy to require developers to negotiate with school districts prior to submittal for development review;this policy is in
response to the recently adopted General Plan Policy LU 2.1.7. Any proposed development on the site will be required to
comply with this new policy,.
MaXTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEPNIS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new s%-stems or supplies,or
substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? (Sources: 5, 7) El El
b) Communication systems? (Sources: 5,7) 0 El El
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? El
'
(Sources: 5,7)
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (Sources: 5,7) El
f) Solid waste disposal? (Sources: 5, 7)
g) Local or regional water supplies? (Sources: 5. 7) El
Discussion:The proposed change in land use designation from commercial to residential will not create the need for new
utilities in the area. The proposed site is part of a larger vacant lot that is required to have new alleys,water,sewer,storm
drainage,electrical, gas, and communication infrastructure prior to any development on the block. The requirement for new
infrastructure improvements is not dependent upon the current request to change the land use designation but are required
prior to any development on the block. These utilities required for the proposal are similar to utilities that would be required
of development under the existing commercial land use designation. The utilities services in the area are adequate to
accommodate potential residential development(For more discussion of water impacts,please see Section IV).
XM.AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? (Sources: 1,3) 0
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? (Sources: 1,
4, 8)
c) Create light or glare? (Sources: 2,6,8) El El -- 0 .
Discussion:The site is located in an area with high visibility along a corridor designated as visually significant in the City's
S In order to offset possible impacts to the school districts,any proposed development on the site shall be requiied.to comply with
General Plan Policy LU 2.1.7. (Public Services) _
Environmental Assessment -996-2 10 - ' `6/19/96 *. .. -
• _ foccritially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
General Plan. Future construction would be required to comply«ith the landscaping and development standards of the
zoning and Doimtoivn Design Guidelines. The proposed change in land use designation from commercial to residential gill
not result in any obstruction of public views or scenic vistas. The site is currently designated for commercial use which
-%vould allow development of n similar height and bulk as the proposed residential designation. Future construction would be
required to comply with the height and setback requirements of the Downtown Specific Plan. The maximum height of both
the commercial and residential designations(DTSP Districts No. 1 and 2)is 35 feet, so no change would occur.
Subsequent development of the project will introduce some new light sources on the project site, including light transmitted
through the glass windows and potential street lighting,similar to that which is generated by existing residences in the area.
The surrounding area includes 2 to 3 story single family residences and a 3 story multi-family residential development. The
vacant property to the north would allow single family or multiple family residential development and the vacant property to
the west would allow commercial development. The incremental increase in ambient light due is expected to the negligible.
No adverse impacts are anticipated.
XMCULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
j!
a) Disturb paleontological resources? (Sources: 5, 7, 19) El ElQ
b) Disturb archaeological resources? (Sources: 5, 16, 19) El 11 ElQ
c) Affect historical resources? (Sources: 5,7, 17, 19,City of El El ElQ
Huntington Beach)
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would El El 11 0
affect unique ethnic cultural values? (Sources: 2,5,7, 19)
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential El El El Q
impact area? (Sources: 1)
Discussion: The site is currently vacant. No archaeological or cultural resources have been identified on the site.
Therefore,no significant impacts to cultural resources is expected.
XV.RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or Q
other recreational facilities? (Sources: 1,5, 7) '
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (Sources: 1,5,7) []X
Discussion: The project consists of an amendment to the land use and zoning designation and does not include any
development at this time. The project will not result in the loss of existing recreational facilities;however subsequent
residential development of the site will contribute to an increase in demand for additional recreational facilitates to serve
future residents. In the immediate area, recreational facilities include the Bluff Top park,Huntington Beach City Beach,
Rodger's Senior Center, the City Gym and Pool,Farquhar Park,Lake Park,and the Worthy Community Park. These _
recreational facilities will be adequate to accommodate future residential development. Future residential development will
be required to contribute to park and recreation fees that will off-set the project's share of impacts to recreational facilities.
Environmental Assessment 996-2
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
ISSUES (and Supporting Informatio�i Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
XVI.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of
the enzronment, 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? (Sources: 2, 7)
Discussion: See discussion of items no. I-XV above.
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term,to El 0
the disadvantage of long-term cnironmental goals?
(Sources: 3)
Discussion: See discussion of items no. I-XV above.
c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, El El0
but cumulatively considerable" ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project
are considerable when vic%ved in connection with the effects
of past projects, the effects of other current projects,and the
effects of probable future projects.) (Sources: 3)
Discussion: See discussion of items no. I-XV above.
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause El 11 9
substantial adverse effects on human beings.either directly or
indirectly? (Sources: 2, 6)
Discussion: See discussion of items no. I-XV above.
Environmental Assessment 496-2 12 6/19196 -
- - --- -
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact {
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSIS
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to tiering, program EIR,or other CEQA process, one or more
effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c)(3)(D).
Earlier Documents Prepared and Utilized in this Analysis
Reference # Documcnt Title Available for Review at:
1 Project Vicinity Map See Attachment#1
2 Site Plan City of Huntington Beach Community
Development Dept.,Planning/Zoning
Information Counter,3rd Floor
2000 Main St. �
Huntington Beach i
1
3 City of Huntington Beach General Plan City of Huntington Beach Communiq
Development Dept.,Planning/Zoning
Information Counter,3rd Floor
2000 Main St.
Huntington Beach
4 City of Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision "
Ordinance
5 City of Huntington Beach Environmental Impact "
Report for General Plan Update
6 Project Narrative "
7 City of Huntington Beach General Plan Technical "
Background Report for General Plan Update
8 Downtown Specific Plan "
9 Geotechnical Inputs "
for City of Huntington Beach
10 FEMA Flood Insurance Rate•Map (April 30, 1996) "
11 Air Quality Handbook, South Coast Air Quality
Management District
12 Department of Public Works,Traffic Engineering "
Division
14 City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code City of Huntington Beach City Clerk
Office,2nd Floor
2000 Main St.
Huntington Beach
Environmental Assessment 996-2 13
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
'SSIJES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
Reference # Document Title Available for Review at:
15 City of Huntington Beach City of Huntington Beach Community
CEQA Procedures Handbook Development Dept.,Planning/Zoning
Information Counter,3rd Floor
2000 Main St.
Huntington Beach
16 City of Huntington Beach Archaeological Site Vicinity "
Map
17 City of Huntington Beach Historic District Location "
Map
18 City of Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program "
u y
19 Environmental Impact Report 82-2 (Downtown x
Specific Plan)
20 1995 Department of finance Projections "
21 Letter from Huntington Beach Union High School "
District dated June 14, 1996
22 Memo from Jeffrey Renna, Water Operations "
Manager, dated July 9, 1996
XVIII. Summary of Mitigation Measures
1. In order to ensure that drainauc from the site does not create the potential for pollutants,future construction will be required
to obtain a National Pollutant Dischar-e Elimination System(NPDES)Industrial Stormwater Permit from the Regional
Water Quality Control Board prior to issuance of a building permit. (Water)
2. Due to the demand for parking near the beach,all parking shall either be located entirely on-site or shall comply with the
parking and access requirements of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Code and Downtown Specific
Plan,whichever is more restrictive. (Transportation and Circulation) -
3. Due to the fact that the project site is located within the methane district,future construction shall be required to comply
with the City of Huntington Beach Fire Department specifications. (Hazards)
4. To reduce noise impacts to a Icss than significant level,future residential development shall be required to include noise
mitigation measures,such as double pained windows and insulation,to comply with the noise standards of the City of
Huntington Beach Municipal Code. (Noise)
5. In order to offset possible impacts to the school districts,any proposed development on the site shall be required to comply
with General Plan Policy LU 2.1.7. (Public Services) . ....._ _.- -
Environmental Assessment 996-2 14
Single-Family Res. Single-Family Res. Single-Family Res.
Gen.Plan.-Res.Mcd.High-25 Gen.Plan.-Res. Mcd.High-25 Gen.Plan.-Res. Mcd.High-25
•u du/ac. du/ac. du/ac.
�qq Zone-Res.Med.High-Small Lot Zone-Res.Mcd. High-Small Lot Zane-Res.Mcd. High-Small Lot
U Meys to be dcdicalul and improved
V_ Walnut Ave.
10
:3 O O CA d O CA O iy
'H M •� `^ M M •� M •� M
43
.. 9f4V1 0v N cc
p �� �i <V N CA N N N N N N d N N N
5 �S u 9 a � 4) a � rx a � a � a
O L4 a> 04 ryCc CU
� ►;v�,�', ��u � � Qr N iCY i� � �
c7 Q cn C7 -a
^ G G �
Qa �
O '� [�J
� 9
43
�!;Yh :ti�a..f 4 ,ll�;, }. 'a'
Vacant Property �t��, a � ,��,��y f� � Rt. �. Multi_
+ Family Res.
i
i ..lf i ' ' °a4"*x ' i », � h-30 du/IC.
O t:� cg is Gen.Plan.-Mixed Use-Vertical ��;i � µyMy u.w Gen.Plan.-Rcs. High
Zone-DTSP-1 (Vs. Serv. Comm.) "•r 1 , ' 4T��, ., : �"j��" Zone-DTSP-2(Res.)
Pacific Coast Highway
BluffTop Park
Gen. Plan- Open Space-Shore Subject Property •
Zone-DTSP-11 (Open Space) Existing Land Use Designation:
Gen. Plan-Mixed Use, Vertical Integration
Zoning-Downtown Specific PIan Dist. 1 (Commercial)
Pacific Ocean Proposed Land Use Designation:
General Plan -Residential High - 30 units per acre
` Zoning-Downtown Specific Plan Dist. 2 (Residential)
No Scale
LMHUNOTINGTON
GPA NO. 9*6o1/ZC NOo 96-1/
LCPA NO. 96-1/EA NO. 96-2
Responses to Comments
Nel4ative Declaration No. 96-2
I. INTRODUCTION
This document serves as the Response to Comments on the Negative Declaration No. 96-2. This
document contains all information available in the public record related to the Negative
Declaration as of Wednesday, August 21, 1996, and responds to comments in accordance with
Section 15088 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.
This document contains six sections. In addition to this Introduction, these sections are Public
Participation and Review, Comments, Responses to Comments, Errata to Negative Declaration
No. 96-2.and Appendix.
n '
The Public Participation section outlines the methods the City of Huntington Beach has used to
provide public review and solicit input on the Negative Declaration. The Comments section
contains those written comments received from agencies, groups, organizations, and individuals
as of Wednesday, August 21, 1996. The Response to Comments section contains individual
responses to each comment. The Errata to the Negative Declaration is provided to show
corrections of errors and inconsistencies in the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration.
It is the intent of the City of Huntington Beach to include this document in the official public
record related to the Negative Declaration. Based on the information contained in the public
record the decision makers will be provided with an accurate and complete record of all
information related to the environmental consequences of the project.
H. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND REVIEW
The City of Huntington Beach notified all responsible and interested agencies and interested
groups, organizations, and individuals that a Negative Declaration had been prepared for the
proposed project. The City also used several methods to solicit input during the review period for
the preparation of the Negative Declaration. The following is a list of actions taken during the
preparation, distribution, and review of the Negative Declaration.
1. An official thirty (30) day public review period for the Negative Declaration was
established by the City. It began on Tuesday July 19, 1996, and ended on Thursday August 15,
1996. Public comment letters were accepted by the City of Huntington Beach through-
Wednesday, August 21, 1996.
2. Notice of the Negative Declaration was published in the Huntington Beach Independent--
on Thursday, July 18, 1996. Upon request, copies of the document were distributed to agencies,
groups, organizations, and individuals.
3. A copy of the cover letter and the distribution list is available for review and inspection at
the City of Huntington Beach, Planning Department, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach,
California 92648.
III. COMMENTS
Copies of all written comments received as of Wednesday, August 21, 1996, are contained in
appendix A of this document. All comments have been numbered and are listed on the following
pages. All comments from letters received have been retyped verbatim in a comment-response
format for clarity. Responses to Comments for each comment which raised an environmental
issue are contained in this document.
IV. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
The Negative Declaration No. 96-2 was distributed to responsible agencies, interested groups,
organizations, and individuals. The report was made available for public review and comment for '
a period of thirty (30) days. The public review period for the Negative Declaration established by i
the City commenced on July 17, 1996.
Copies of all documents received as of Wednesday, August 21, 1996, are contained in appendix A
of this report. Comments have been numbered with responses correspondingly numbered.
Responses are presented for each comment which raised a significant environmental issue.
Several comments do not address the completeness or adequacy of the Negative Declaration, do
not raise significant environmental issues, or request additional information. A substantive
response to such comments is not appropriate within the context of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA). Such comments are responded to with a "comment acknowledged"
reference. This indicates that the comment will be forwarded to all appropriate decision makers
for their review and consideration.
l
Responses to Comments
Negative Declaration No. 96-2
21st and 22nd Street General Plan Amendment and Zone ChanIze
Huntington Beach City School District
HBCSD-1:
Comment:
The Huntington Beach City School District has had an opportunity to review the Draft
Negative Declaration Document and concurs with the finding that the impact of the project
has a significant impact and that General Plan Policy LU 2.1.7 must be complied with.
Response:
The response refers to General Plan Policy LU 2.1.7 which states, "Ensure that development
shall not occur without providing for adequate school facilities." The policy was adopted to
ensure that developers discuss possible student generation with the impacted school districts.
Until the full extent of the project is determined, the actual impact will not be known. A
mitigation measure requiring compliance with this policy is included in the Negative
Declaration and will be suggested to be included as a condition of approval for future
development. No additional mitigation measures or analysis is required in Negative
Declaration No. 96-2.
HBCSD-2:
Comment:
The two schools serving this project would be the Smith Elementary and Dwyer Middle
School. Smith is currently at 120% capacity and is utilizing 6 portable classrooms to house
students. The impact of the current state legislation to reduce class size in grades 1-3 will
necessitate an additional 9 classrooms on the site. Based on the projection for the Holly
Seacliff development, the entire available capacity for Dwyer will be absorbed within 24
months.
The request to change the General Plan and zoning designation on the project adds 16 .
additional students for which there is no planned housing.
Response: ,
' The comment refers to the current population situation in the two impacted schools and the .
potential impact of additional students. Compliance with Policy LU 2.1.7 is suggested as a
mitigation measure and a condition of approval to help alleviate this potential impact. No
additional mitigation measures or analysis is required in Negative Declaration No. 96-2.
HBCSD-3:
Comment:
The cost to house these additional students is $560,000, which is far short of the statutory fee
of S1.12 per square foot concurrently being assessed.
Response-3•
The comment refers to the statutory school fee to offset the cost of providing for additional
students resulting from new developments. Until the actual development is proposed, the
potential student generation and amount of school fees is unknown. Therefore the actual
impact is unknown. All new residential development will be required to pay school fees in
conjunction with the issuance of the building permits. In addition,compliance with General
Plan Policy LU 2.1.7 will require discussions to offset any impacts beyond the required school
fees. No additional mitigation measures or analysis is required in Negative Declaration No.
96-2.
HBCSD-4:
Comment:
Compliance with General Plan Policy 2.1.7 will go a long way toward reducing the significant
impact.
Response:
The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decision makers for
consideration prior to action on the proposed General Plan and Zoning Amendment. See
response to HBCSD Comment Number 2.
Huntington Beach Union Hijzh School District
HBUHSD:
Comment:
On behalf of the Huntington Beach Union High School District I have received your letter
regarding General Plan Amendment No. 96-1 regarding a proposed 26 lot subdivision for
residential development between 21 st and 22nd Streets on Pacific Coast Highway. District
staff have analyzed the existing capacity of our schools and projected enrollment growth for
the next few years. We find that internal growth and approved development will absorb our
capacity and that enrollment generated by new development will impose a financial burden on
the District due to the need for additional classroom and auxiliary space. Our analysis shows
that the cost of adding permanent classroom space for new students is $31,071.64 per
student, which consists of$21,525.28 for construction and furnishings and an additional
$9,546.36 for the cost of land acquisition.
For this proposed development we agree on your projection of an increase of 5 students, or a
potential cost of$155,358.20. We cannot estimate what the homes will generate in developer
fees; however, our experience tells us that statutory developer fees are insufficient to offset
the cost of new construction.
Response:
The comment refers to the current population situation and the potential impact of additional.. _
students. The comment states that the statutory developer fee, enacted to offset the cost of
providing for additional students, may not be adequate to cover the cost incurred by the
District. Until the actual development is proposed, the potential student generation and
amount of school fees is unknown. Therefore the actual impact is unknown. All new
residential development will be required to pay school fees in conjunction with the issuance of
I
the building permits. In addition, compliance with General Plan Policy LU 2.1.7 will require
discussions to offset any impacts beyond the required school fees. No additional mitigation
measures or analysis is required in Negative Declaration No. 96-2.
HBUHSD-2:
Comment:
While we are sensitive to the burden that the cost of full mitigation place on a development,
we are also concerned about the need to ensure that adequate classroom space is provided for
the children of those home buyers. Further, the proposed'General Plan language sets out the
City's role in ensuring that new development bear its share of responsibility for school
impacts. Thereby, we request that, as your review proceeds, and prior to approval of a
tentative tract map, the City require the developer to enter into negotiations with the district
for mitigation of the impact of the proposed development on our schools.
Response:
The response refers to General Plan Policy LU 2.1.7 which states, "Ensure that development
shall not occur without providing for adequate school facilities." The policy was adopted to "
ensure that developers discuss possible student generation with the impacted school districts.
Until the full extent of the project is determined, the actual impact will not be known. A
mitigation measure requiring compliance with this policy is included in the Negative
Declaration and will be suggested to be included as a condition of approval for future
development. No additional mitigation measures or analysis is required in Negative
Declaration No. 96-2.
HBUHSD-3:
Comment:
I would be pleased to meet with representatives of the developer and the City to discuss this
matter further.
Response:
The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decision makers for
consideration prior to action on the proposed General Plan and Zoning Amendment.
California Coastal Commission
CCC-1:
Comment:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Negative Declaration No. 96-1. The negative
declaration describes a request to change the current land use designation and zoning from
commercial to residential along Pacific Coast Highway between Twenty-second and Twenty-
first Streets. The Negative Declaration states that the General Plan designation is Mixed Use
Vertical Integration. The land use designation in the certified Local Coastal Program Land
Use Plan for the subject site is Visitor Serving Commercial. The proposed change would
designate the site as Residential High Density(which allows up to 30 units per acre). The
zoning is proposed to be changed from Downtown Specific Plan Area 1 (Visitor Serving
Commercial)to Downtown Specific Plan Area 2 (Residential).
v
As noted in the Negative Declaration, the proposed land use designation and zone change
would require approval of a Local Coastal Program (LCP) amendment by the Coastal
Commission. The LCP amendment would effect both the Land Use Plan (LUP) and the
Implementation Plan (IP) portions of the LCP.
In evaluating an amendment to a certified Land Use Plan, the Commission's standard of
review is the Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act. The standard of review for an
Implementation Plan(zoning) amendment is the certified Land Use Plan. Following are
Commission staffs comments on the proposal.
Both the Coastal Act and the City's certified LUP place a higher priority on visitor service
commercial uses than on residential uses. Section 30213 of the Coastal Act states, in part:
Lower cost visitor and recreational facilities shall be protected, encouraged, and, where
feasible, provided. Developments providing public recreational opportunities are
preferred.
Section 30222 of the Coastal Act states:
The use of private lands suitable for visitor-service 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.
And Section 30250(c) states:
Visitor-serving facilities that cannot feasibly be located in existing developed areas shall be
located in existing isolated developments or at selected points of attraction for visitors.
Each of these Coastal Act sections have been specifically incorporated into the City's certified
Land Use Plan. In addition, regarding Visitor Serving facilities, the City's certified Land Use
Plan policies 5 and 5a on page 138 state:
Additional support facilities are necessary in order to accommodate the large numbers of
visitors attracted to recreation areas in the coastal zone. The coastal land use plan is
designed to provide for sufficient areas strategically located to serve the needs of existing
and future levels of visitors. The intent of the following policies is to specifically
encourage adequate visitor accommodations.
5. Protect, encourage, and where feasible provide visitor serving facilities in the
coastal zone which are varied in type and price.
5a. Encourage the provision of additional restaurants and hotel/motel
accommodations in keeping with the alternative chosen by the City
Council.
The certified LUP also states, on page 31:
Existing visitor-serving uses in the coastal zone provide a wide range of services.
However, the large numbers of visitors attracted to recreation areas in the coastal zone
justify the provision of additional support facilities, particularly overnight accommodations
and restaurants. The plan designates sufficient areas strategically located to serve the
needs of existing and future levels of visitors. The City's coastal policies further aim to
achieve the following objectives:
Provision of lower cost visitor-serving facilities.
Increased numbers of hotel/motel rooms and restaurants in the coastal zone.
Provision of additional areas for overnight recreational vehicle camping.
Although the LUP language above places emphasis on provision of restaurants and overnight '
facilities, many types of uses qualify as visitor-serving uses. Visitor serving uses recognized f'
by the LUP include theaters, museums, specialty and beach-related retail, and service uses.
Downtown Specific Plan Area 1 further expands on the numerous visitor serving uses
allowable at the site. In addition, residential use is not prohibited in the area under the current
land use and zoning designations, provided certain standards are met. For projects with less
than a half-block of frontage, the entire street level must be devoted to visitor-serving uses;
for projects with a half-block or more of frontage, either the entire street level, or at least one-
third (1/3) of the total floor area must be devoted to visitor-serving commercial uses. The
remainder of a project may then be residential.
The proposed redesignated area is part of a two-block visitor serving commercial node
identified in the LUP. The node is located at the intersection of Goldenwest Street and Pacific
Coast Highway, immediately inland of the beach. Regarding the subject area and two other
visitor serving commercial nodes the certified LUP states (on page 122):
These three nodes were selected to concentrate commercial development at specific
locations near existing and proposed traffic signals and beach accessways.
Goldenwest Street is a major arterial that connects directly with the 405 freeway. -
• Consequently, it functions as a major beach access route. As a major beach access route, high
volumes of visitor traffic will travel by the node. In addition, being immediately inland of the
beach, visitor commercial uses providing snacks, beach items, etc. would attract beach goers
once they are at the beach. The intersection of Goldenwest Street and Pacific Coast Highway
is signalized and provides crosswalks, which allows safe pedestrian crossing. For these.
reasons, the site is a logical location for visitor serving uses. -
The certified land use designation and zoning reflect Coastal Act section 30250(c)'s
requirement that visitor serving facilities be located at selected points of attraction for visitors.
Further, the LUP language suggests that the City and Commission in certifying the land use
designation and zoning found that the subject site was strategically located to serve the needs
of existing and future levels of visitors. It appears that the current designation and zoning at
the site are appropriate and maximize the provision of visitor serving facilities in the coastal
zone as required by the certified LCP and Coastal Act.
For the reasons outlined above, Commission staff is concerned that the proposed changes may
not be consistent with the Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act and the City's certified Local
Coastal Program. This is staffs assessment of the proposal based on the information provided
and past Commission actions. The ultimate decision on an LCP amendment is, of course,
determined by the Coastal Commission through public hearing once a complete LCP
amendment request is submitted.
Again thank you for the opportunity to comment on Negative Declaration 96-1. Please do
not hesitate to contact me with any questions regarding these comments or a future LCP
amendment submittal for the land use designation and zone change described in Negative
Declaration No. 96-1. s
Response-1• " r
The response refers to provision of the California Coastal Act which place an emphasis on the
provision of Visitor Serving Commercial uses over Residential uses. The elimination of
Visitor Serving designated property is offset by recent land use changes in the immediate area.
Specifically, in October 1994, 2.5 gross acres were redesignated from Residential F ig� -
Density to Visitor Serving Commercial between 8th Street and 6th Street along Pacific Coast
Highway. In addition, the recent General Plan update, redesignated 235.77 acres immediately
west of Golden West Street from Industrial Resource Production to Mixed Use (Residential
and Visitor Serving Commercial Uses). In this area, Visitor Serving Commercial uses are
required to be oriented along Pacific Coast Highway. Why the exact area of commercial is
not known, the frontage of the site is approximately 6,250 feet long. These two land use
designations should more than offset the loss of the Visitor Serving Commercial designation
on subject site.
Finally, the functionality of a commercial product on the subject site is questionable. The site
has been designated for commercial uses since 1960 but has been either been in oil production
or vacant since that time. This might be due to the location of the site. The subject.site is one
block east of the corner of Pacific Coast Highway and Golden West Street. Access to the
subject site is only from westbound traffic on Pacific Coast Highway.
The response refers to the land use change and does not refer to a specific environmental
impact. The analysis of the land use change will be elaborated upon in the Local Coastal
Program Amendment reviewed by the California Coastal Commission. Therefore, no
additional analysis or mitigation measures are required in the Negative Declaration.
County of Orange, Environmental Management Agency
O CEMA-1:
Comment:
I
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the above referenced item. The County of
Orange has no comment at this time. However, we appreciate being informed of any further
developments.
Response:
The comment does not address any significant environmental issues. The comment is
acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decision makers for consideration
prior to action on the proposed General Plan and Zoning Amendment.
Department of Transportation, District 12
DOT-1:
Comment:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Negative Declaration for the
21 st and 22nd Street General Plan and Zone change from commercial to residential. Caltrans
District is responsible and has no comment at this time.
Please keep us informed of future developments which could potentially impact our State
Transportation Facilities. If you have any questions, or need to contact us, please call Aileen
Kennedy on(714) 724-2239.
Response:
The comment does not address any significant environmental issues. The comment is
acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decision makers for consideration
prior to action on the proposed General Plan and Zoning Amendment.
City of Costa Mesa _
CM-1:
Comment:
The City of Costa Mesa has reviewed the Draft Negative Declaration for the project
referenced above. The project consists of a General Plan Amendment for a 0.88 acre area
along Pacific Coast Highway from commercial/residential designation to a high density
residential designation. According to the Negative Declaration, potential traffic generated by
the worst case, 26-unit residential project would be much less than the worst case commercial
project that could be built under the existing designation. There will be no impacts to the City
of Costa Mesa. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the environmental document.
If you have any questions, please call me at 754-5136.
Response:
The comment does not address any significant environmental issues. The comment is
acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decision makers for consideration
prior to action on the proposed General Plan and Zoning Amendment.
V. ERRATA TO NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 96-2
The following changes to Negative Declaration No. 93-13 and the Initial Study Checklist are as
noted below. The changes to the Negative Declaration as they relate to issues contained within
this errata sheet doe not affect the overall conclusions of the environmental document. The
changes are identified by the comment reference response.
1,�
• - •
the building permits. In addition, compliance with General Plan Policy LU 2.1.7 will require
discussions to offset any impacts beyond the required school fees. No additional
mitigationmeasures or analysis is required in Negative Declaration No. 96-2.
HBUHSD-2:
Comment:
While we are sensitive to the burden that the cost of full mitigation place on a development,
wwe are also concerned about the need to ensure that adequate classroom space is provided
for the children of those home buyers. Further, the proposed General Plan language sets out
the City's role in ensuring that new development bear its share of respnonsitbility for school
impacts. Thereby, we request that, as your review proceeds, and prior to approval of a
tentative tract m ap, the City require the developer to enter into negotiations with the district
for mitigation of the impact of the proposed development on our schools.
Response:
The respose referes to General Plan Policy LU 2.1.7 which states, "Ensure that development
shall not occur without providing for adequate school facilities." The policy was adopted to r
ensure that developers discuss possible student generation with the impacted school districts.
Untill the full extent of the project is determined, the actual impact will not be known. A
mitigation measure requiring compliance with this policy is included in the Negative
Declaration and will be suggested to be included as a condition of approval for future
development. No additional mitigationmeasures or analysis is required in Negative
Declaration No. 96-2.
HBUHSD-3:
Comment:
I would be pleased to meet with representatives of the developer and the City do discuss this
matter further.
Response:
The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decision makers for
consideration prior to action on the proposed General Plan and Zoning Amendment.
~� California Coastal Coimmission
A5 N CCC-1:
Y�� Comment:
ut letter here. --
Response-1•
The response referes to provision of the Californai Coastal Act which place an emphais on the
provision of Visitor Serving Commercial uses over Residential uses. The elimination of
Visitor Serving designated property is offdset by recent land use changes in the immediate
.... area. Specifically, in October 1994, 2.5 gross acres were redesignated from Residential High
Density to Visitor Serving Commercial between 8th Street and 6th Street along Pacific Coast
Highway. In addition the recent General Plan update, redesignated 235.77 acres immediately
west of Golden West Street from Industrial Resource Production to Mixed Use (Residnetail
and Visitor Serving Commercial Uses). In this area, Visitor Serving Commercial uses are
required to be orineted along Pacific Coast Highway. Why the exact area of commercial is
AUG-16-96 FR1 13;32 V. U2 '
HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT -
20451 Crzirner Lane P.O.eox 71 Huntington Beach,California 9264e (714)964-e3e3
BOARD OF TRUSTEES August 16, 1996
Brian E Roche e!ncr
President
Brian Garland Mr. Brian James, Assistant Planner
Clerk Department of Community Dcvelopment
Shirley Carey City of Huntington Beach
Member 2000 Main Street
Rcbert Mann,Ed.D. Huntington Beach CA 92648
Member
Catherine McGough RE: Draft Negative Declaration No.96-1 (21st&22nd Street-General Plan and r'
Member Zone Change from commercial to residential)
,r
ADMINISTRATION Dear Brian-,
Duane A.Dlshno,Ed.D. The Huntington Beach City School District has had an opportunity to review the Draft
Supclnlcndcnt Negative Declaration Document and concurs with the finding flint the impact of the
Alan Rasrrussa,.Ed.D. project has a significant impact and that General Plan Policy `,_U 2.1.7 must be
Assistant SuperirUndent complied With,
PersornellEduCatioral 1
ServiCe3
Jerry Buchanar, The two schools serving this project would be Smith Elementary and Dwyer Middle
Assistant Super;r.;endent School. Smith is currently at 120% capacity and is utilizing 6 portable classrooms to
AdministrativO Services house students. Tlie,impact of current state legislation to reduce class size in grades 1-3
will necessitate an additional 9 classrooms on the site. Dwyer currently has capacity,
however,the recent addition to the site was to add capacity to handle students from the
Holly Seacliff Development. Based on projections from the Holly Seacliff
Development, the entire available capacity for Dwyer will be absorbed within 24
months.
The request to change the General Plan and Zoning designation on the project adds 16
additional students for which there is no planned housing. The cost to house these
additional students is $560,000, which is far short of the statutory fee of $1.12 per
square foot currently 1xing assessed.
Compliance with General Plan Policy LU 2.1.7 will go a long way toward reducing the
significant impact. :
Sincerely
Jerry Buchanan
Assistant Superintendent
Administrative Services -- - -
cc: Dr. Duane Dishno, Superintendent, HBCSD
"We Are An Equal Opportunity Employer"
Board of Trustees:
HUNTINGTONBEACH UNION Bonnie Bruce
Bonnie Castrey
HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT Barbara Johnscn
Z z Curt Jones
* * Michael Simons
10251 Yorktown Avenue •Huntington Beach, California 92646-2999
(714) 964-3339 FAX(714) 963-7684 David J. Hagen, Ed.D.,Superintendent of Schools
°h SO4
Mr. Brian James - y `' June 14, 1996
Department of Community Development
2000 Main Street ilia 2 8 1g 'ct
Huntington Beach,CA 92648
Dear M
r
On behalf of the Huntington Beach Union High School District I have received your letter
regarding General Plan Amendment 96-1 regarding a proposed 26 lot subdivision for residential
development between 21st and 22nd Streets on Pacific Coast Highway. District staff have
analyzed the existing capacity of our schools and projected enrollment growth for the next few
years. We find that internal growth and approved development will absorb our capacity and that
enrollment generated by new development will impose a financial burden on the District due to
the need for additional classroom and auxiliary space. Our analysis shows that the cost of
adding permanent classroom space for new students is $31,071.64 per student, which consists
of$21,525.28 for construction and furnishings and an additional $9,546.36 for the cost of land
acquisition. Attached are details for these figures.
For this proposed development we agree on your projection of an increase of 5 students, or a
potential cost of$155,358.20. We cannot estimate what the homes will generate in developer
fees; however, our experience tells us that statutory developer fees are insufficient to offset the
cost of new construction.
While we are sensitive to the burden that the costs of full mitigation place on a development,
we are also concerned about the need to ensure that adequate classroom space is provided for
the children of those home buyers. Further, the proposed General Plan language sets out the
City's role in ensuring that new development bears its share of responsibility for school impacts.
Therefore, we request that, as your review proceeds, and prior to approval of a tentative tract
map, the City require the developer to enter negotiations with the District for mitigation of the -
impact of the proposed development on our schools.
I would be pleased to meet with reprgsentatives of the developer and City staff to discuss this
matter further.
Sincerely,
Patricia Reid Koch, Ph.D. - -
Assistant Superintendent, Business Services
Attachment
The mission of the HBUHSD, responsive to our diverse communityc-expectations, is to educate all students by ensuring a relevant and
focused educational program which develops responsible,productive and creative individuals with a capacity for leadership.
Table 4-1
HBUHSD 9-12 Configuration
Cost Estimates Per Square Foot of Building Area
Typical High School
Site Statistics Statistic Adjustments Factor Description
Acres 40.00 Geographic %;,£:•_:1.00 Orange County
Land Sq.Ft. 1.742,400 Small Building :.N/A.No
Students 2.200 Index Adjustment :: ': ::.; . ':Lee Saylor
Net Sq.Ft per Student 91 Urban N/A"No
Gross Sq.Ft.per Student 94 Security N/A No
Net Building Sq.FL 200,200 Base Fixed Fee Building Costs $ 120.00
Gross Building Sq.Ft. 206,800 Structures-Stories 1
Cost Inflator 100.00% Building Class BID D
Cost Per Total Cost Per
Category Factors Unit Sq.Ft. Total Costs Student Total
:Hard_Costs <
........... ... <..
Building Costs Fixed $120.00 $24,024,OCO $10,920.00
Adjustments Lee Saylor $0.00 SO $0.00
On-Site Development-General 5.00% Of Building Costs $6.00 $1.201,200 $5 46.00
On-Site Development-General $15,000 Per Acre $3.00 $600,000 $272.73
On-Site Deve?opment-Services 15.00% Of Building Costs $18.00 $3,603,600 $1.638.00
Utility Services 2.50% Of Building Costs $3.00 $600.600 $273.00 '
Off-Site Improvements 7.50% Of Quilding Costs $9.00 $1,801,800 S819.00
Energy Management 15.00% Of Building Costs $18.00 $3.603,600 $1.638.00
Other Hard Costs 1.50% Of Building Costs $1.80 S360,360 $163.80
Hard Cost Sub-Total $178.80 . $35,795,160 $16,270.53
-.-....^:v:•yv.,v::.•v..y i>';..,,..y<v:N ♦ \::^>:-ti::.,:
-
ArchJEng.Fees 6.50% Of Hard Costs $11.62 S2,326,6a5 $1.057.58
Inpeclion/Tests 2.00% Of Hard Costs $3.58 $715,903 $325.41
Plan Check Fees 0.75% Of Hard Costs $1.34 $268,464 $122.03
Utility Fees 0.25% Of Hard Costs $0.45 $89,488 $40.68
Environmental Documentation $30,000 Per Site $0A5 $30.000 $13.64
Archeaological Survey $5,000 Per Site $0.02 $5,000 $2.27
Soils Report $20,000 Per Site $0.10 $20,000 $9.09
Site Survey $15,000 Per Site $0.07 $15,000 $6.82
Appraisal&Escrow Costs S18,000 Per Site $0.09 S18,000 $8.18
Administrative Costs 3.00% Of Hard Costs $5.36 $1,073,855 $488.12
Relocation Costs $0.00 Per Site $0.00 $0 $0.00
Other Soft Costs 1.50% Of Hard Costs $2.68 $536,927 $244.06
Soft Cost Sub-Total $25.47 $5,099,322 $2,317.87
FF&E&.Technoio9.Y - ♦-
Fumiture&Equipment(FF&E) $7.00 Per Bldg.Sq.Ft. $7.00 $1,401.400 $637.00
Technology&Media $14.00 Per Bldg.Sq.FL $14.00 $2,802,800 $1.274.00
FF&E&Technology Sub-Total $21.00 $4,204,200 $1,911.00
Hard/Soft&FF&E Cost Sub-Total $225:27 $45,098,682 $20,499.40
:Construeuon:Contingency
State Contincen ..,. - .,.,,w..,
cY 1.50% Of Sub-Total $3.38 $676,4S0 $307.49
State Contingency $2,000 Per School $0.01 $2,000 $0.91
District Contingency 3.50% Of Sub-Total $7.68 $1,578.454 $717.48
Construction Contingency Sub-Total $11.27 $2,256,934 $1,025.88
Hard/Soft,FF&E, &Contingency Sub-Total $236.54 $47,3S5,617 $21,525.28 $47,355,617 '
\
♦ �<
L^nd $500,000 Per Acre 599•90 $20,000,000 $9.090.91
L<nd Cost Sub-Total 00 00
$99 90 20 0 O 9 090
.Land'Conun enc a a -
State Contingency ... .....«. ,.,:....... ......�:..,,,..:..,::.,•:.�,,..._.,w..,.:.,..,.,,,.,,.,�«... ,:.......r ,.,. ..��.,<...,......�,.�...,,. ':
1.5004 Of Sub-Total $1.50 $300.000 $136.36
Stale Contingency $2,000 Per School 50.01 $2,000 - --$0.91 - - -
District Contingency 3.50% Of Sub-Total $3 50 3700.000 $318.18•.
Land Contingency Sub-Total $5.00 $1,002.000 $455.45
Land & Contingency Sub-Total $104.91 $21,002.000 $3.546.36 '-$21,002,000
Total Construction/Land Cost per Sq.Ft. $341.45 $68.357.617 $31,071.64 $68,357,617
=6468:59 PM HSLINKXLSSchool Cast
STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY PETE WILSON, Governor
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION _
SOUTH COAST AREA
t5 W. BROADWAY, STE. 380
O. BOX 1450 %
LONG BEACH, _. =rJ
{310) 590.5071 August 5, 1996 `
AUG 06 1996
Brian James
Assistant Planner �'�'= "
Department of Community Development
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Re: Draft Negative Declaration No. 96-1
Twenty—first and Twenty—Second Street General Plan and Zone Change
Commercial to Residential
Dear Mr. James,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Negative Declaration No. 96-1 .
The negative declaration describes a request to change the current land use
designation and zoning from commercial to residential along Pacific Coast
Highway between Twenty—second and Twenty—first Streets. The Negative
Declaration states that the General Plan designation is Mixed Use Vertical
Integration. The land use designation in the certified Local Coastal Program
Land Use Plan for the subject .site is Visitor Serving Commercial . The
proposed change would designate the site as Residential High Density (which
allows up to 30 units per acre) . The zoning is proposed to be changed from
Downtown Specific Plan Area 1 (Visitor Serving Commercial) to Downtown
Specific Plan Area 2 (Residential).
As noted in the Negative Declaration, the proposed land use designation and
zone change would require approval of a Local Coastal Program (LCP) amendment
by the Coastal Commission. The LCP amendment would effect both the Land Use
Plan (LUP) and the Implementation Plan UP) portions of the LCP.
In evaluating an amendment to a certified Land Use Plan, the Commission's
standard of review is the Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act. The standard
of review for an Implementation Plan (zoning) amendment is the certified Land
Use Plan. Following are Commission staff's comments on the proposal .
Both the-Coastal Act and the City' s certified 'LUP place a higher priority on
visitor serving commercial uses than on residential uses. Section 30213 of
the Coastal Act states, in part:
Lower cost visitor and recreational facilities shall be protected,- -
encouraged, and, where feasible,* provided: Developments providing public
recreational- opportunities are preferred.
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. u
I
Negative Declarato No. 96-1
Page 3
The proposed redesignated area is part of a two-block visitor serving
commercial node identified in the LUP. The node is located at the
intersection of Goldenwest Street and Pacific Coast Highway, immediately
inland of the beach. Regarding the subject area and two other visitor serving
commercial nodes the certified LUP states (on page 122) :
These three nodes were selected to concentrate commercial development at
specific locations near existing and proposed traffic signals and beach
accessways.
Goldenwest Street is a major arterial that connects directly with the 405
freeway. Consequently it functions as a major beach access route. As a major
beach access route, high volumes of visitor traffic will travel by the node.
In addition, being immediately inland of the beach, visitor commercial uses
providing snacks , beach items, etc. would attract beach goers once they are at
the beach. The intersection of Goldenwest Street and Pacific Coast Highway is
signalized and provides crosswalks, which allows safe pedestrian crossing.
For these reasons, the site is a logical location for visitor serving uses.
The certified land use designation and zoning reflect Coastal Act section
30250(c) ' s requirement that visitor serving facilities be located at selected
points of attraction for visitors. Further, the LUP language suggests that
the City and Commission in certifying the land use designation and zoning
found that the subject site was strategically located to serve the needs of
existing and future levels of visitors. It appears that the current
designation and zoning at the site are appropriate and maximize the provision
of visitor serving facilities in the coastal zone as required by the certified
LCP and Coastal Act.
For the reasons outlined above, Commission staff is concerned that the
proposed changes may not be consistent with the Chapter 3 policies of the
Coastal Act and the City' s certified Local Coastal Program. This is staff's
assessment of the proposal based on the information provided and past
Commission actions. The ultimate decision on an LCP amendment is, of course,
determined by the Coastal Commission through public hearing once a complete
LCP amendment request is submitted.
Again thank you for the opportunity to comment on Negative Declaration 96-1 .
Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions regarding these
comments or a future LCP amendment submittal for the land use designation and
zone change described in Negative Declaration No. 96-1 .
Sincerely,
Meg Vaughn
hn
Staff Analyst
7454F
Connie Brockway, City Clerk
City Of Huntington Beach
Office of the City Clerk
P.O. Box 190
i
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
023-137-04
�-• William K. Vogt,. •
��NTINGTpy 401 19th St .
Beach "CA . �a(✓"g��
p� `NLORPONN,,O d�. Huntington
VOGT407 926485004" 1N r 1
RETURN TO 5EtiN �.
NO FORWARD ORDER O'PJ\fr ILE
� ° O UNABLE TO FORWA Q; -
cF RETURN TO SENDEKs
cNUNTY CP LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING
�t�4a/.-�a• III���ii�����ll��li��ii���li���ii���li������lili���ll���ii���i
. ...............
Connie Brockway,City Clerk j. •
City of Huntington Beach
Office of the City Clerk
P.O. Box 190
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 \ •
' 2 3 I 4
r.egory ook �� �0
INGTpy 2 �0'�h St .
p`c -�OOR,ONN,, dF Huntl Cod CA '9d
_ HOOK205� 2da-4A2013���N'•. 03Ypi2/97
REINpN TO SEN;1�R, '�
NO FORWARD ORDER ON} I`L E
UNABLE TO FORWAR r`.
RETURN TO SENDER
FpNpNTY CPS\ �
LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING�3�-