HomeMy WebLinkAboutUtilities - Edison Co. - 1948-1979 C0'4V OF HUNITOE OVOW BEACH
INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION
HUNIINGION BEACH
To Distribution From Mary Lynn Norby
Local Coastal Program
Subject SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON Date July 23 , 1979
Notice of Intention to build
a Combined Cycle Power Plant
Since March 1978 when So. California Edison Company
announced its intention to build a new plant or expand
facilities in its Southern California network, reviews
and studies have been proceeding under the California
Energy Commission NOI process to evaluate four possible
sites : Ormond Beach and Huntington Beach (coastal sites)
and Lucerne Valley and Buttes (inland California) .
The final report was published on July 20 , 1979. A copy
is on file in the Planning Division and at the Huntington
Beach Public Library. This report indicates that the Energy
Commission procedures have determined that SCE demonstrated
a need for up to 1290 megawatts additional capacity by the
mid-1980Es, that an immediate load combined cycle with peak
load combustion turbines and flexibility to operate a maximum
of 1500 hours annually and to provide future conversion to
gasified coal or synthetic liquid fuels was the preferred
configuration.
The report summarizes the evaluation on thirteen major issue
areas with a relative merit ranking of the four sites :
1) Ormond Beach (Ventura County)
2) Lucerne Valley (San Bernadino County)
3) Buttes (Kern County)
—� 4) Huntington Beach (Orange County)
—� The report recommends 1 and 2 be approved and 3 and 4 not approved.
The .issues as they apply to Huntington Beach:
Air Q. gJj ty - Huntington Beach site is unlikely to conform
to air quality rules for a combined cycle or gas turbine .
SCE
July 26 , 1979-
Page 2
Wate Quality - Coastal sites approved first. Huntington .
Reach ranked second to Ormond Beach.
Biological Resources - At Huntington Beach the expansion
site contains a significant salt marsh ecosystem, habitat
for California Least Tern and Belding-Savannah sparrow.
However, the California Coastal Commission proposed site
(mud dump area) would have more impacts to residents and would
cost more. This factor ranked Huntington Beach fourth.
More significant noise impacts exist at Huntington Beach
but can be mitigated/abated.
Cultural Resources - about equal with another site .
Civil Engineering - better than some sites .
Geotechnical Issues - Same as some sites . Mitigatable,
Socio-Economic Issues - Impacts resolvable.
Structural Engineering - Equal as all sites,
Safety and Reliability_ - Less safe than other sites due to
proximity of residents
Capitol Costs - Huntington Beach ranked with Ormond Beach in
all the alternative facilities on capitol costs with Ormond Beach
leading with a slight capitol cost advantage.
Ability to Convert to Coal Gas - Ranked fourth due to lack of site
area and a railroad spur for transporting 15,000 tons of coal per dad
would impact the beach and coast highway.
The following quote about public input is from page 22 of the
final:, report: "The Huntington Beach site had little public
or local government participation: The City of Huntington
Beach o oses the expansion while the City of Costa Mesa
"favors it.
A formal hearing on this Final Report will be held on August
2, 1979 at 10:00 A.M. at:
State Office Building
107 S. Broadway, Auditorium
Los Angeles , CA.
l ti
SCE
July 26, 1979 .
Page 3
The decision of the Energy Commissioners to accept or reject
the Report and its recommendations will be heard on August 6,
1979 at 10 : 00 A.M. at:
California Energy Commission
1111 Howe Avenue
Room 620
Sacramento, CA.
If the Energy Commission approves the Ormond Beach and Lucerne
Valley as acceptable on August 6 , further consideration of the
Huntington Beach site for expansion at this time will not
continue.
Please copy Local Coastal Program for any actions in this
subject area.
MLN/dc
A SALUTION OF:;THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF E '' ; ''�
HUNTINGTON BEACH.BUSINESS & PROFESSIONAL OMEN'S IF
CLUB RELATING TO THE EXPANSION--OF THE HU INGTON---- ----.--�
BEACH GENERATING STATION: 1� 3
WHEREAS, the Southern California Edison Company is attempting to
gain approval to expand the Huntington Beach Generating Station; and
WHEREAS, the proposed expansion will utilize the latest available
technology that will have minimum impact on the environment and will meet
air pollution standards; and
WHEREAS, the present plant and the proposed additions will be made
aesthetically compatible with the community by extensive landscaping and
architectural treatment; and
WHEREAS, the expansion of the Generating Station is vital to the
economic health of the area in order to avoid a serious shortage of
electrical energy; and
WHEREAS , the General Fund of the City of Huntington Beach will benefit
by an estimated,$900,000 in additional tax revenues annually as a result of
the expansion;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Huntington Beach Business
and Professional Women's Club Board of Directors hereby registers its support
for the addition of these vital electric generating facilities in Huntington
Beach.
r'J
Catherine B. Sven sen, President
ATTEST:
21 , 1973
LOcille R. Allaire, Recording Secretary MAY 2 51973
CITY OF HUB"dTINGTOid BEACH
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE f
C1 I OF HUNTINGTON OACH
' COUNCIL - ADMINISTRATOR COMMUNICATION CA 73-1.
HUNTINGTON BEACH
To Honorable Mayor & City Council From David D. Rowlands ,
Members City Administrator
Subject POSITION STATEMENT Date January -,�PP9L03'j D B1 c4 -1
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY
220 KV TRANSMISSION FACILITY ._..._..............-..........
/�_ S-__--.tq.
RECONSTRUCTION
REVIEW:
On November 13 , 1972 , Southern California Edison Company filed a
proposal for reconstruction of 160 transmission towers on 16 miles
of existing rights-of-way covering property in the five cities of
Stanton, Garden Grove , Westminster , Fountain Valley and Huntington
Beach. The total cost of the proposed project is $13 ,000 ,000 in-
cluding esthetic towers costing in excess of $4 . 1 million. The
California Public Utilities Commission General Order No . 131 requires
Edison to undertake a review with the city of the proposed line re-
construction with consideration for community values , recreational
and park areas , historical and esthetic values , and influence on the
environment. Any position statement filed by the City will not im-
ply an approval of expansion of the Huntington Beach generating
station.
Within our city there are 4 . 5 miles of right-of-way or approximately
125 acres . We have developed or leased approximately 31 acres (under
a long standing Edison policy) for park purposes at a cost of $ 50
per acre per year . Development costs for Gisler and other formal
Edison right-of-way parks run between $10 ,000-15 ,000 an acre .
Richard Bigler & Associates , a landscape architect under contract to
the City, has suggested during the past six years one of the two
following approaches which are in conformance with stated policies
of the City' s parks , open space , schools and recreational element of
the Master Plan :
1 . Natural Park Concept - Creation of a typical Southern California
open space belt with native seed plants and shrubs - cost to be
$1500 per acre or $30 ,000 per mile . This would take five years
to mature and would exclude irrigation but would include a
dirt (soils cement) trail for maintenance , bikes , hiking and
jogging.
2 . Semi-Formal Park Concept - Creation of minimal ark open space
with double row irrigation system - cost to be $2500 per acre
or $50 ,000 per mile . This would include the dirt trail above
but more exotic plant materials .
The Edison Company has received position papers from several of the
cities concerned recommending 2 . above with Edison grading and develop-
ment or partial development plus lowering the annual lease to $1 . 00 per'
acre per year. The company has taken the position that the development
cost is excessive and would have to be passed on to the consumer . They
_ y Page 2
CA .73-1 nuary 8 , 1973
also state that there are 308 miles of right-of-way in the system and
other jurisdictions will demand the same development . Understandably ,
the company feels that the cost will be a large factor in the
California Public Utilities Commission rejecting a rate increase for
such development.
i
POSITION STATEMENT :
1 . Approve the use of esthetic towers .
2 . Urge the reduction of annual rent per acre to $1 . 00 from
$50 . 00 .
3. Negotiate terms of development on a joint venture basis .
4 . Join in the sponsorship of property tax credit legislation to
the Edison Company for the value of such surface property.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS :
This city has been the forerunner in developing the rights -of-way
at what is really an excessive cost for lease property. The Edison
Company , however , is interested in the environmental effect that
the transmission corridors have on the communities - hence the use
of esthetic towers . It appears that a reasonable approach would
be some form of joint effort. It is felt that the recommended
position is an equitable approach for the greatest public benefit.
RECOMMENDED ACTION :
Approve Position Statement for transmittal to California Public
Utilities Commission through Edison Company.
Respectfully submitted,
David D . Rowlands
City Administrator
DDR/gbs
City of Huntington Beach
• P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
November 9, 1970
[BY G1OUb�N :IL
�-------------
- ------------------
-------
Honorable Mayor
and City Council
City of Huntington Beach
Attention: Doyle Miller
City Administrator
Subject: Generating Plant Expansion
Gentlemen:
Southern California Edison Company has made application
to encroach within the right of way of Pacific Coast Highway
for the purpose of constructing the cooling water pipes to
serve the new facility.
It has been concluded to withhold issuance of the permit
until after the November 16 meeting so that I may have the
benefit of your opinion about the matter.
From an engineering point of view there is no reason
to not issue the permit, however, there is a great probability
that our citizens will find the project objectionable.
Very truly yours,
James R. Wheeler
Director of Public Works
JRW:ae
10 July 1970
TO: City Council / o
FROM: City Attorney
SUBJECT: Resolution Supporting Action of the
Orange County Board of Supervisors
in Opposition to Expansion of Edison
Plant
The attached resolution was prepared at the di-
rection of the City Council in order to express
its support and agreement with the action taken
by the Orange County Board of Supervisors in
opposing the expansion of the Edison plant in
this city .
Respectfully submitted,
DON P. BONFA
City Attorney
/ahb
Attachment
A )6-
2 z 9 1968
:rC , C3.cy Co J-I o
Or NO o
r'
,„•�S;l:, 1��?.s'b2in i�►ocli�:.�ed as- :�4�.3o�s: _
r �,7 (lE '� :'•6.�.3Ctn cCJfxpa?v_ '�iO. +E'•-� ?.
7cZT� C'SvoC� �, ?{- t.+' •G310 vt?4�-
Z r+ nCld the language SUM t �'3Y� 't;� Cii�>L? 51"i=z1 .q �
! t r i` �` 'r?tablic O ,�. : {+�}z,ricJ..._ i?�':'-:a:L
it �czes colax� to no
the es a:zd �o n` o:,„ �5 }Z�' t= =�:v
oary Public
9753)
G .v"7" LOiti1C�-�. Iti3 !ems
x�ovide �,j aI-,! h q .G ti3 c , � 'ii'`�'Cl i.: l.?.?'"r-:> ` •
!_cd3 i To P �l 1.1':r f-�.i7• -�.•�S�i r �i "3 r{ .,..t.+''-r;•.
,-�yes Of the public Ut
�G erS Uf -the, i� t�l'i �_l3 .lf
(Section 97.51); andTOride n i
,, F',YJt'j- LAl4�.1'as v0.4rr
�'- �, rC � SCj '�L�sf1 L�t3t. +
4 of e ?1� `J
Course 1 Viz" de
c
the .1de"
n _U
�r` Lta , 1, .l� GL :. 1,0 ,;'r i. . Cii.7L"� .z
F} .SO ,-,v ns l'C' � ti . �� E1�i°� �--t � C! 1 L i.tz'` r�;��r�; l+
S7I?�.tLiC'fl pL t�2�.�il 't:f1 E3�'�3�1,'3S "C3.1a �.. .d� - , ' -
t Tdisor� com- P �. 0 7,` , �.�.c: "t,:..a3:° -�.r:..� �, ,,
A;yi3O:'aaE'
v"U/1// .
0
Southern California Edison Company
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA
RALPH C. KISER
DISTRICT MANAGER July 18, 1968 '
C ITY OF
yG
n r 2�
The Honorable City Council T' O
City of Huntington Beach _
P. 0. Box 190
Huntington Beach, California V413
Attention: Mr. Don Bonfa
City Attorney
Gentlemen:
The League of Cities recommended procedural Ordinance
designed to implement the Public Utilities Commission's
Case No. 8209 decision - now being considered for adoption
by the City of Huntington Beach, is for conversions of
overhead facilities to underground, and does not apply to
residential areas as such.
The criteria for qualifying a conversion district to allow
the use of allocated utility company .funds is as follows:
1. Such undergrounding will avoid or eliminate an
unusually heavy concentration of .overhead distri-
bution facilities;
2.. Said street or road or right-of-way is extensively
used by the general public and carries a heavy
volume of pedestrian or vehicular traffic;
3. Said street or road or right-of-way adjoins or passes
through a civic area or public recreation area or an
area of unusual scenic interest to the general public.
It is plain from these definitions that conversion areas are
commercial, industrial, or municipal in nature. Furthermore,
selection of Districts is with the recommended undergrounding
committee, on which is included at least three Council appointed
City people. The City Council acts in the adoption of Districts
qualifying for conversion funds, thus giving complete and final
control with the Council.
It is my hope that this information is satisfactory in this ex-
planation.
Most sincerely, l q a
Rarpn C.. Kiser, Di trict Manager 4C.
RCK:imr
0
Southern California Edison Company '
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA
RALPH C. KISER July 1, 1968 -
DISTRICT MANAGER
Honorable City Council
City of Huntington Beach
P. 0. Box 190
Huntington Beach, California 92648
4
Subject: ', ' Proposed Ordinance No. 1429, Establishing Regulations
and Procedures for the Removal of Overhead Utility
Facilities and the Installation of Underground Facilities
in Underground Utility Districts
Gentlemen:
We appreciatel, the opportunity which you gave us to study your
proposed Underground Ordinance. We find that the Ordinance meets
the requirements set forth by the Public Utilities Commission in
their decision 8209 in all respects but one.
In your Ordinance, Section 9751, an underground utility commission
is established. This section does not provide for representatives
of all utilities to be a part of the undergrounding committee, as
spelled out by the League of Cities and confirmed by the Public
Utilities` Commission. We suggest a section titled, "Report by City '
Engineer-,(or other designated city official or body) .be substituted
for this section- or be added as an additional section. The Report
by City Engineer should be worded as follows:
"Prior to.holding such public hearing, the city engineer
shall consult with all affected utilities and shall prepare
a report for submission at such hearing, containing among
other information, the extent of such utilities' participation
and estimates of the total costs to the city and affected
property owners. Such report shall also contain an estimate
of the time required to complete such underground installation.
and removal of overhead facilities."
Our Rule 20, approved by the Public Utilities Commission stipulates
that the city consult with the utility prior to. holding a public
hearing or establishing an underground district and the addition of
this section would bring your ordinance in compliance with Rule 20
Page 2
Honorable City Council
and enable us to allocate funds for undergrounding.
Very truly yours,
Ralph r. kKiser, District Manager
RCK:RPB:bg
July 26, 1954
,Southern California Edison Co.
309 Pain Street
Huntington Beacha California
Gentlemen,
We kindly ask the following meters be disconnected
as the City of Huntingtoni Beach Sewage Disposal
Plant has been officially abandoneds
Meter No. 81-•015170
Pump No. 1 — 33r-14-15Z 2544340
Very truly you.rsp
J. L. Henricksen#
City Clerk
JLHtbd
October 16, 1949
Southern California Edison Company
309 Uain Street
Huntington Beach,, California
ATTENTION: HR. C. D. SHEDEN ELM
Dear Mr. Shedenhelmr
At a regular meeting; of the City Council of the;
City of Huntington Beach held on October 17, 19490 perrnis-
lion was given in accordance with your request to connect
your present lever line from your plant located at Lake
and Palm Streets to the Cityls Interceptor Line along Lake
Avenue.
Very truly yours,,
JLHamg J. L. Henricksen
City Clerk
i �z
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY
Huntington Beach, California
October 17, 1949
City Council
City of Huntington ,Beach +
California
Gentlemen:
Permission is requested to connect our present
sewer line from our-plant located at Lake and Palm Streets
to the Cityas "Interceptor 'Line extending along Lake
Avenue. Indicated in blue pencil on attached exhibit is
proposed sewer connection we desire to establish and
install in the near future.
Father extensive-expansion of our present plant
facilities require a revamping of our present sewer line.
Necessary permits, etc. will be secured in advance of
construction.
.Vbry truly yours,
. Shedenhelm, District Manager
CDS/jw
attch
r ,
I
Q�
! 0
�ysP�d
.
1 Pbo
01i do
i ? f
! f4
NJ
%o./off
/YEf TB S-Calc. ( � �oragc Tloor.
/ GreD 5G TiG�
�� r
r
r 79
ED
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, EDISON COMPA oC
1949
EDISON BUILDING
RIGHT OF WAY AND LAND DEPT. LOS ANGELES 53,CALIFORNIA
H. L. MOORE
MANAGER
F.J.VAN LOHN
T
ASSISANT MANAGER / 3
October b, 1949
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of the City Council
City of Huntington Reach
Huntington Beach, California
He: Proposed Sewer Connection
Gentlemen:
The Southern California Edison Company is the owner of property located
on the east side of Lake Avenue between Indianapolis Street and Palm
Avenue, described as Block 7U4 in the Wesley Park Section of the City
of Huntington Beachm We hereby request your permission to make a con-
nection to the existing sewer in Lake Avenue in order to have more ade-
quate service from our property. It is understood that the Southern
California Edison Company's problem has already been discussed with
the City Engineer who is favorable to the request.
Will you please advise the undersigned as to your decision?
Yours very truly,
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY
H. L: Moore, Manager
night of way and Land Department
W...A. Baldwin, Supervisor
nights of viay
WAB vg
I
E WADE •wio IUT � ^:y .
® MAIN OFFICE: i
2527 FRESNO S'f
A�`rs' FRESNO
1 THE BEST EQUIPPED COMMQRCIAL A OR� E PACVI7 COAST
c ` 1635 W. GAYLORD STREET H MLOCK 15 7 93
BOX 1228 &il1nDA 6- 176
ANALYTICAL n ��
INDUSTRIAL CHE.0 ISTS LONG SEA '„' i '1i7x:�Y.i 1
ONSULTI—. ENGINEERS
TESTING A IN 6P EC T!DN (vi�Mry' CLEM
P O 0 . �10 a BH-253
February 22, 195 'pi"" .I,. jfr Job No .
2450
REPORT ON CONCR CINDEK
Examination No.: 18,943 1c?299
For: Bechtel Corporation
Architect: Bechtel Corporation
Contractor: Bechtel Corporation_
Structure: HUNTINGTON BEACH STEAM STATION
Sample from: Intake screenwell Pour #b
Mix: ##3 3 , 000 p .s ,i .
Water, gal./sk. cement:
Slump: 311
Date poured: 1-25-57
Date tested: 2-1-57 2-22-57
Cylinder Nos : BH-106 BH-10b-A
COMPRESSION TEST— 7 Days 28 Days
Total load to destruction, lbs. 59, 000 107,000
Lbs. per sq. inch: 2,085 3,785
Cylinder made by:
J. 'rV. Mace
Cylinder delivered by: Pelletier
Cylinder received on: 1-29-57
Note ,* 28 day test complies with specifications ,
cc : Bechtel Corp .�2
Bechtel Corp ./4
' So . Calif . Edison/2 THE TWINING LABORATORIES
Consolidated
Huntington Beach Bldg, Dept.
By a
' INGTpN
City of Huntington Beach ,-
California
�C�UNTY 6P' SUPPLE 41EHT FINDINGS
��DINGS
In the Southern Calif ;di son Garfield St
rezoning case hearing held on December ,17, . 1957.
SUPPLEMENTARY TO THE FINDINGS OF FACT ARE THE FOLLOWING
REASONS GIVEN BY k1 CONSENSUS OF OPINION OF THE P A�NZA?G CflP�MISSItO�?o
1. ^ That the proposed amendmentsto t e Interim �oni.ng
j Ordinanc"e, may b.e of questionable validity. Duet the . lack of
preyAeous,'ca,se,s in law, the validity of a �, t e- Interim
,-_ ofii.ng Ordinance is not readily ascet°ta n 'h" Planning
Coimission -does: not recomm�erid enactient oflydina Amendments
which may be gdestionable.
,
2. Studies, of the rat -a reveal that the Edison
facility would .require a con t on e:rrmit In the -county
territory, Westminster, and 'o t ;I , Va1ley>, since these areas
are all maintained under Grange _ty 0rd 351 which is the same
as this city9 s Interim race . G rdeai, Grove , �1ewport Beach,
and Costa. Mesa all re { ous e s "of Use Permits. It i s '
believed then that t e Edison acility ia.i11. be' faced with the
same circumstances i gardle s of where it may locate in the
general vicinity.
3. t is lso pointed out that the present E.D.S.
is partial operatic g as a non-conforming use with benefit
of rezoning it app rs 'to be no substantial handicap' to
their pre se opera ns. One may go further to point .ovt
that there ar. her Edison'facilities including E.D.S. 4
which are opera under variances and conditional permits.
4- It can be argued that a conditional permit or
variance is the more secure and permanent type of zoning
regulation. Assurhing that the E.D.S., was built upon the
properly zoned parcel and, at a.Jater date the zoning was
changed' to make it a non-conforming use. If the building
(, was more than 50 % destroyed by any act of God , or. otherwise
vacated, tiahile it existed as non-conforming, then the permit
to operate as a nonconforming use would be null and 'void.
On the other hand , if the E.D.S. operated under a conditional
permit , destruction of the building would not nullify the permit ,
since it is imparted permanently to the 16nd.
INGTpN�
RA
y
-= City of Huntington Beach
�F „ 1909, � California
CpYNTY GP SUPPLEMENT FINDINGS
( continued)
5. Assuming that the parcel in, question is rezoned
to M-1-0, there can be no, assurance given -,to the residents in
the area that they will receive adequate protection. Require-
ments to screen the pole .yard could not be invol d if the parcel
was rezoned. If she Edison should abandon 'the to after
receiving the rezoning, there would be no prote ion for the
residents in the area against other industry.
The above described findings are
transmitted to the City Council
with my complete w dge and
approval:
irman
Attest
ecretary
J
TINGTpN�
WO RA)-,
s
City of Huntington Beach
ti P�o California
C�c. ?7soe• �
CppNTY �P� py qq ,��„ iy, y�} i � g, � � '}'y j� ffi
.90 u"m 6m 'mvsF I z dwS i .vd"+rk Z aha., A L
cambor 20, 1957
TO: CrIff t' Use IL. City of HwtinCton Beach. California
Pursuant to thq request of the Hon,orablo City cil, tho
petition of the Soutbern California Faison Co. for a zoo chance for
its proposed E. D. S. facjljt7 was resubmitted to the ' ai ining
Co mission of the City off Huntington Beach for further • ar natfons
and f`indlmgs of fact 'at the regular metUVi, hold on Dace i zer li, 1957.
The Planning Corr mission rem"
the proposal with duo consideration
given to the Edison Co Representatives
and the public-at41 -�
CoQ Rea�rasc�ntat�,r��s a
Ralph C. Kiser. Dist. t;gr., Edison, h. Dist.
H. C. Teragle, ,Dist. Supt., Edison, ch. Dist.
C. Robert Sinpson, Jr., ass '" �axksol, �:�� , ova Co.
Morsnan l,ch. Edison epre "emu" on zon matters. 5
Bob Bazil, fl Cols: Uon Cha m=
Vernon, tiles, ` Vezaber
Paul Davis, Dbmber
.lePi �°°dGi1 R e � 7€�tY°
Edwrard Stang t-bmbo r
Clifford Tr#V " Secretary
Charles a r Attorney
W. L. bybrignt, Representative for Habra,, Wise a Barber,
Planning Consultants.
Six property oars spoke a ainat th3 AIson rezoning proposal
All persons concerned were allowed to voice thmir° opinions
and give argurmts at the hearing. logal counsel for the Edison Co.
gave an rural presentation and submtitted briefs, as did other represen-
tatives- of the sarrre company, stag. argutrant for the propoeal. Legal
Counsel for the Planning Commission gave legal advice in answer to
questions of the Cormission3rs.
i
INGTpN
ORA?-,O�f9�
? City Of Huntington Beach
y F P9' OQ
c 1809+ trCali;�o�nukatta1
FCOpNTY GP\\
(continmcl)
Planning Commission discussion and arguments regarding the
Edison Proposal viere completed,
MOTION; A motion was made by Davis and seconded by Liles to
recommend denial of the zoning change request - vlth
the,stipulation that a conditional permit would be
favorably considered and that the opinions expressed
by ,. 4sybri gl t, the City torp3 , and the �, nera l
public a °+a to incorporated in m finding of s.cts.
ROLL CA 'I 012#.- y roll call. vote the notion was car :ed.
AYES,. Conalssi.onersa I�azll, Stang, Din ' �, I��v and miles.
n3#3+ Commissioners: 14one.
ABSM i Commissionerst achrye*.
ABSTALMED;' Commissioners: �s n.
D1 TM Of CirAT10k,
iaOM `ad TYS.i�t�9+�"+ SVR ITS _
p ERRIM, oil BEACH E.D.S.
Based unton the 'ni the Planninng Co.-milssion, general. public,
t:e city Otto y, and they :g Consultant representative � W. L. ybright,
thca follc 'an dirsgg were determined by the Iuntan�;tr�n QI`a ']annin
Cornissi.on at �,he Dscoi t ,r 17, 1937 meeting.
IT I .� ,BY ID AS FACTS:
1,L t ha t,e rra jori.ty of proporty owners in the 11V of
SEC 1, `4. .,�R;li. ,; h indicated their desires, through public
hearings., to r+aintain the quarter section for residential usage.
That the majority of property ovmers in this pbarticul. r' .
area are not Specifically .opposed to the Edison E.D.S. facility being
Located at the proposed site as' da•s'cribed in their petition requesting
a change of zone.
That the present zoniing wi.l.l pormit the E.D.S. to
util.i.ze the proposed site by the issuance of a Condi.ti.onal, Use Pormi.t
authorized by the City Council, Them is no objerWtion given to prevent
issuance of such a permit.
4 That the int ont of the Interim Zoning Ordinance is to
preserve the character of and integrity of the neighborhood by main-
taining the present zoning in good faith until suer time as the prosper
zoning studies are completed .for the overall. section. Any deviation
from the present zoning should be either by Variance or Conditional Use Permits.
2.
���NTINGTpN�
�t44ORA7F. f9
City of Huntington Beach
y� -
F�ou �P`>`�� ���California
NTY Transmittal
(continued)
That the rezoning of the specific parcel 330 feet by 660 feet
would be of benefit to the individual fire and to the detriment of the
neigbborhood and the ant-ire north Annexation area because good faith of
the interim Ordinance would thence be broken. Once the Interim Ordinance
Zoning Ordinance has been broken, tb 'will be no criteria to refuse other
petitions for razoning wider sianijar circumstances.
That the 'Condit.iona .Use ?ermit was spec V.,cally created'
in the zoning regulation to' pariTat such a 'pr b osed u.se. a: the. .
facility where necessity warrants it*, n the opinion of I he Planning
Co.-mission the conditigns descri.ba d are these fa which 'd e Conditional
Use Permit was intended. Theref ere the Planni - Can , Solt is on record
as being in favor of the proposed site if it is QParated _ r a Conditional
' Use Permit.
The abov d cr1 indings are
transm itt Ni ti City Council
with my come 0ta. knowlede and
approval.
i -
Chairman
Attests
I
Clifford Z.*, Trkyp.
Secretary
I, 3.
i
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY
:STATEMEeTT BY MR. C. D. :SHEDENHEIM
AT THE HEARING BEFORE THE HUNTINGTON
BEACH CITY COUNCIL ON .SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA, EDISON COMPANYQ-s
APPLICATION IN REGARD TO ITS PROPOSED
HUNTINGTONI BEACH E.D.S.
December ,2, 1957
My name is C. D. :Shedenhelm. At the time the application
in this case was filed, I was Edison's District Manager for the
company',s Huntington Beach 'District. I would like to make a
brief statement in regard to- this application.
Edison has requested in the application on file that
the zone of .a parcel of land described in the application
be changed from -an RF-4 zone, to- an M-1-0 'Zone.
:,Vhat is an IDS? The initials stand for Edison District
:Store, and area long:standing designation fora base of
construction, repair and maintenance operations. The use
consists normally of a garage type ,structure used for
the housing and repair of vehicular equipment and an
open storage yard used for the storage of poles, cables,
lines -and other equipment and facilities necessary for such
construction, repair, and maintenance operations. The use
also includes a business office for 10 - 15 people and other
and
incidental uses .such as mdtchboard,/radio, communication
facilities. The total personnel now generally .approx.mates
70 people.
Why is Edison asking for a change of zone, rather than
a variance? Over the course of the last several years,
Edison has continuously had to, expand its service facilities
in order to meet the extremely rapid increase in the demand
for electric service throughout its entire' service area.
This has been particularly true in the area of Huntington
Beach and surrounding cities. And being a company dedicated
to public service, Edison, as distinguished from other
investor owned, but non-regulated industries, .does not have
a choice in the matter of whether it will expand to. meet
increasing demands.
Edison believes, on the basis of forecasts which have
been prepared from the best information which is presently
available to us, that such expansion will continue into the
reasonable future.
The expansion of Edison,s .service facilities which has
taken place, which is continuing. and which, we believe, will
continue has• involved not only the number of ,such facilities,
but also an expansion of the size and capability of existing
facilities. In the case of substations, this expansion has
necessitated a continual increase in the capacity of such
stations. In the case of the :EDS, such expansion has involved
and will involve bringing in additional mobile equipment, adding
repair facilities, expanding areas within the parcel devoted to G
storage, etc.
Oftentimes, the speed with which Edison must act to expand
the services performed from an EDS base of operations in order to
meet a local demand situation cannot wait upon
the time consuming procedures required for obtaining the
modification of an .existing variance. To require 2dison
and its customers to be subject to such delay is, in our
opinion, contrary -to public interest, when in a proper case,
a change of zone which permits -.Edison to use its property
consistent with the provisions governing all uses within the
zone, can reasonably be granted.
We believe that the requested change of zone and
modification of the provisions of M-1-0 zoning can
reasonably be granted in this case. That conclusion is
based upon our study of the zone characteristics of the
M-1-0 zone under the Cityl.s ordinance Code, the character
of the neighborhood surrounding the parcel, the nature of
the service to be rendered from the parcel, and the necessity
for this particular parcelgas a base for Edisonls•construction,--
repair and maintenance operations in this area. . ,
The EDS is primarily an industrial use of land. It is
appropriate, therefore, that such use,be zoned M-1-0.
It appears to Edison, on- the basis of an extensive study
of the neighborhood and surrounding areas, that the neighborhood
in the vicinity of the parcel involved in this proceeding is
commercial and industrial. Oil storage tanks adjoin us to the
east. A shop headquarters for oil pumping equipment is situated
immediately to the west. Commercial development is
beginning to appear along the east frontage 'of Huntington
Beach Boulevard.
1 need not reiterate that the. service to be performed
by'Edison from the parcel in question is wholly and ex—
elusively a service devoted to public welfare.
Of all other sites investigated by Edison as a,
possible location for the Huntington Beach EDS, the
subject parcel is superior in all respects. Edison was
concerned in its search for a site with central location,
accessible thoroughfares and parcel size. The .subject parcel
is centrally located in the area to be served from the
site. it provides Edison with convenient.access for its
truck traffic to the west into the City of Huntington
Beach and to the east into other neighboring communities
to be served from the site. Of particular significance
is the fact that Garfield Avenue, on which the site-
fronts, provides access directly west into the City of
Huntington Beach without the necessity of having to delay
traffic on Huntington Beach Boulevard with trucks and
dollies. The parcel is large enough to meet Edison's
. site requirements .both presently and into the reasonable.
future.
On the basis of these facts., and the law which the
.Company is prepared to submit, Edison urges that this
Honorable Council grant the matters_ requested by Edison
in its application in this case.
4 ;
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY
EDISON BUILDING • P.O. BOX 351
LOS ANGELES 53, CALIFORNIA
BRUCE RENWICK LAW DEPARTMENT VICTOR E. KOCH
VICE PRESIDENT ROBERT J.CAHALL
AND GENERAL COUNSEL DAVID N. BARRY, III
HARRY W. STURGES, JR. JOHN
C. ROBERT SIMPSON, JR.
ROLLIN E. WOODBURY December 2 1957 R. BURY
� AUSTUSTIN C. SMITH, JR.
ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL _ RICHARDS D. BARGER
H. CLINTON TINKER
ASSISTANT COUNSEL
The Honorable City Council of
the City of Huntington Beach � . 1
Huntington Beach, California
-------- ----- ---- J
Gentlemen:
Re: Application by Southern California
Edison Company fora change of zone
and related matters in regard to its
proposed Huntington Beach E.D.S.
The following is respectfully submitted as a
memorandum, of law concerning the question whether the
subject application is unlawful as "spot zoning."
1. So-called "spot zoning"- has been variously
defined by the .cases. Such zoning was defined in Calif-
ornia by the case of Wilkins v. -Citz of San Bernardino
(1946) 29 C. .2nd 332._—The court sai , at page
"So-called "spot" zoning results in the creation of
two types of "islands." As pointed out above, the
objectionable.type arises when the zoning authority
improperly limits the use which may be made of a
small parcel located in the center of an unrestricted
area. The second type of "island" results when most
of a large district is devoted to .a limited or res-
tricted use, but additional uses are permitted in one
or more "spots" in the district."
2. The courts are loath to overturn an act
of zoning by a, local administrative tribunal, and will
do so only in the face of a palpable abuse of discretion.
This general proposition applies with equal force and
effect to the matter of zoning a single parcel of land.
Feraut v. Cit of Sacramento (1928) 204 C 687
was a..case involving the Validity of spot zoning
in the defendant city's general zone ordinance.
The court said, at page 696:
The Honorable City Council of
the City of Huntington Beach
December 2, 1957 Page 2
" The adoption 'of- a proper system of zoning is
largely in the power and discretion of the
municipal authorities, and courts are loath
to substitute, their judgment for that of' the
duly constituted authorities of the city.
' It is only when it is palpable that the
measure in .controversy has no real or sub-
stantial relation to the public health, safety,
morals or general welfare that it will be nul-
lified by the courts. ' (Miller v. Board of
Public Works, supra, p. 490.) "
3. Under the cases in California and else-
where, there is nothing unlawful about spot zoning,
in and of itself. Each case must be decided on its
facts.
In the Wilkins case, cited above, the court
said, at page 341:
"It is the second type of "island" that is pre-
sented in this case, and if there is any discrimina-
tion, it is in favor of the "island" since it may
be devoted to a greater number of uses than the
surrounding territory. It is clearly within the
discretion of the legislative body of the city to
determine whether such an "island" should be en-
larged or not, . . all
In the Feraut case, quoted above, the court
said, at page 696:
"The only particular in which the complaint charges
that the present system of zoning is not general,
uniform and comprehensive is that, by the original
ordinance. and subsequent amendments thereto, the
City has permitted small areas scattered through-
out the residential sections to be zoned for busi-
ness uses, and thereby permitted or caused the
residential districts to become "spotted!' This
practice we think is in almost universal operation.
It was followed in the ordinance considered in the
Zane case, and was expressly approved and commended
by this court (p. 511) . "
The Honorable City Council 'of
the City of Huntington Beach
December 2, 1957 Page 3
In Harris v. Cityy of Piedmont (1935) 5 C.A.
2d 146, !he court said, at page 152:
"The fact that ordinance No. 315 'created a large
number of small zones, indiscriminately scattered
over the entire City of Piedmont, frequently con-
sisting of not more than one lot ' did not make
it invalid. (Feraut v. City of Sacramento, 204
Cal. 687 (269 Pac. 537) .) . "
4. It has been held that when the matter
of spot zoning involves the use of the property in
the public interest, the courts will not upset an
act of legislative discretion in zoning a single
parcel different from surrounding parcels.
In Holt v. City of Salem (1951)192 Or. 200,
234 P. 2T564, the court upheld an amendment to
the general zoning ordinance changing a classifi-
cation from t°residential" to "residential business"
to permit the construction of a substation by an
electric company in order to facilitate the dis-
position of electric power and thereby to meet
the increased demands of the public.: The court
said, at page 571:
"The zone-changing ordinance under consideration
here is definitely related to the health, safety,
morals and general welfare, both of the restricted
district and of the city at large. Such an ordinance
is not "spot zoning" in its reprehensible and uncon-
stitutional sense. "
5. The character of the neighborhood as a
basis for spot zoning has also been upheld by the courts
as a reasonable and valid exercise of legislative discre-
tion.
In Offutt v. Board of Zoning AREeals, etc.
(1954) 105 A. Zd Z19, two tracts ot iandwere
reclassified from residential to light industrial .
The court held that the reclassification was not
objectionable spot zoning, relying on the facts that
the tracts in question were near a railroad and near
property devoted to commercial and industrial uses.
The Honorable City Council of
the City of Huntington Beach
December 2, 1957 Page 4
Based upon the foregoing, and upon the
evidence presented by Edison in the matter, Edison
submits and urges that the requested zoning is law-
ful and should be granted.
Respectfully submitted,
C. Robert Simpson, Jr.
Assistant Counsel
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO.
CRSJr:pc
i
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY
EDISON BUILDING • P.O. BOX 351
LOS ANGELES 53, CALIFORNIA
BRUCE RENWICK LAW DEPARTMENT VICTOR E. KOCH
VICE PRESIDENT December 2, 1957 ROBERT J.CAHALL
AND GENERAL COUNSEL DAVID N. BARRY, I I I
HARRY W.STURGES,JR. _ C. ROBERT SIMPSON,JR.
ROLLIN E.WOODBURY AUSTJOHN R. BURY
USTIN C.SMITH,JR.
ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL
RICHARDS D.BARGER
H.CLINTON TINKER
ASSISTANT COUNSEL
The Honorable City Council of the
City. of Huntington Beach nrn
Huntington Beach, California
I
----------
Gentlemen:
- A
Re: Application by Southern California
Edison Company for a Conditional
Exception for its Ocean View Substation.
The following is respectfully submitted as a
memorandum. of law concerning the validity of a condition
to the granting of zoning authority that the applicant
be required to dedicate a portion of its property in-
volved in the application to the granting body without
receiving just compensation therefor.
1. It is well recognized that reasonable
conditions can -validly be imposed upon the granting of
a privilage under polio regulation. See:
McQuillin, Munici al Corporation, 3rd Ed. ,
Volume 9, Section , et, seq. an�c cases -cited.
2. However, the power to condition the grant
of a privilege. is not unlimited, and under the doctrine
.of unconstitutional conditions, one of the limitations
upon reasonableness and thus upon the power to condition
such grant is that a governmental authority may not im-
pose a condition which requires the applicant for the
privilege to waive or relinquish a constitutional right.
See:
Frost et, al, v. Railroad Commission of the
State ..o Ca it ornia U.S. , 771770. 1101.
United States v. - Chicago etc. Railroad Company
(1930) L. E .
The Honorable City Council of
the City of Huntington Beach
December 2, 1957 Page - 2
3. The doctrine of unconstitutional conditions
applies in the case of applications for zoning permits,
variances and exceptions. See:
Soho Park & Land Co. v. Board of Adjustment
etc. , et. a .
Abbadessa et. al. v. Board of Zoning Appeals
etc. .
4. A condition to the grant of a zoning ex-
ception that the applicant be required to give up its
property without compensation to the granting authority
for street widening as a condition of the grant is un-
constitutional .as a deprivation of property without due
process of law. Such condition is, therefore, unreasonable
and invalid.
In the case of Van ellow et. al. v. City of
Rochester, et. al. N.Y.S. , the
court said, at page 678 :
"It is true that no valid condition could be
imposed requiring plaintiffs, their successors or
assigns, to surrender- the right to just compensation
in event that the City should later condemn the ten-
foot strip (for street widening) . "
5. It has been held that the widening of -a street
constitutes a taking of property for which the governmental
authority must pay just compensation. See: '
In Re Sansom Street (1928) 143 A. 134.
McQuillin., Munici al Corporation, I3rd Ed. ,
Volume 11, Section . seq. ; Section 32.34,
page 338.
6. Private property cannot be taken without com-
pensation under the police power where no emergency exists.
In Rose v. State of California (1942) 19 Cal. 2d.
713, the court said, at pages - .
"While it is true that the seeming absolute
protection against the taking or damaging of private
property for public use provided for in section 14 of
article I of our Constitution may be qualified by
The Honorable -City Council' of
the City of Huntington Beach
December 2, 1957 Page 3
the police power in the area in which such power
operates, it should be obvious that the police
power doctrine cannot be invoked in the taking or
damaging of private property in the construction
of a public improvement where no emergency exists.
To hold otherwise would,. in effect destroy the pro-,
tection guaranteed -by our Constitution against the
taking or damaging of private property for a public
use without compensation. "
Based upon the foregoing, Edison contazds
that the recommendation of the Planning Commission
that the granting of. Edison's application for a
conditional exception in this case be conditioned,
subject to the approval of the City Attorney, upon
Edison's dedicating to the City of Huntington Beach '
the easterly 5 feet of Edison's Ocean View' Substation
be rejected, and Edison urges that said application
be granted without such condition.
Respectfully submitted,
*er Simpson, J'.
Assistant Counsel
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO.
CRSJr:pc
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY
BI MR. C. D. 'SHEDS HKX AT THE HEARING BEFORE
StA" �:STATEMT
THE HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL ON ZOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
EDISON COMPANY°.S .APPLICATION FOR A CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION
FOR ITS OCEAN VIEW SUBSTATION.
DECEMBER 2, 1957
Per name is C. D. :Shedenhelm. At the time the application in
this case was filed, I was Edison's District Manager for the company's
Huntington Beach District. I would like to: make a brief statement in
regard to this application.
The Ocean View .Substation has been in operation for about 34 years.
Edison has continuously served and is serving electricity from this
substation to its residential, commercial and industrial customers within
.an area which is bounded on the north by Bolsa Avenue, on the south by
Ellis Avenue, on the west by Gothard :Street, .and on the east by Cannery
Street.
It, is the rapid growth in this area which caused Edison to file
for the Conditional Exception under discussion. The work for which
permission is :sought wader the Conditional Exception is the addition
of a .switchrack. This addition will increase the capacity of the sub-
station. And this additional capacity is urgently necessary if Edison
is to continue satisfactorily to meet the demands of its customers for
electricity in the area -served by the substation.
Edison also proposes, under the Conditional Exception, to
increase the height of a portion of the existing fence fronting on
18W :Street from b feet to 8 feet. The remaining portion of the fence
is now 8 feet.
The Planning Commission has recommended that the requested
Conditional Exception be granted, .subject toia condition, to be
approved by the City Attorney, that Edison dedicate to the City
of Huntington Beach, for street `,ridening. purposes, the easterly
5 feet of its property fronting on ".B". ,Street.
Edison objects to this condition on the ground that it is
an unreasonable condition in that it would cause `Edison to be
deprived of its property without compensation in' violation of
its constitutional rights.
Edison counsel has met with the City Attorney and has
explained Edison's position on this point of lax. Tyr. C. Robert
Simpson., -Jr.., an Assistant Counsel of Edison, is present this
evening and is prepared to submit a .statement of the lax in
support of Edison°-s legal position. °
I would like to make the following additional comments
concerning the facts of this case:
The switchrack which -Edison proposes to construct on
the substation property under the Conditional Exception will
be no nearer "BII Street than any other facilities of the sub.
station now located on the property.
The additional switchrack cannot reasonably be considered
as the kind of an installation which will impose on the City any
additional burden in the rendition of municipal services to the
area.
m2v
j
The proposed installation will not result in the creation
of _any harmful or unsafe conditions.
The substation is not now manned .and it will not be manned
after the installation of the proposed' switchrack. Therefore, the
proposed additional facility will not- create any new problems of
parking or travel to or from the substation by Edison personnel, or
necessitate increased visitation to the premises by such personnel.
On the basis of these facts and the law which we will submit,,
Edison urges that this Honorable Body order that the condition
requiring Edison to dedicate its property as a condition of the
Conditional Exception be .deleted and that the application for
the Conditional Exception be granted as otherwise recommended
by the Planning Commission.
® 3 —
7-6-1_ - ,rl p
'77
I It
i ,
it
Ii S�OGYiytq i /� >Jy30 11 ��l44O
It
it I i
is ,�• S/,����- ����� � '; �; �¢���' � � '� s'��, � I ', � I ':� 1�
it
t f �7�i7,v"':
O- _ _-_��G°�1=a�lV[!/1�yc�'..�=.Y'J-J_a_ -�._...._-_{t... �_--+/ ^--_ __?�- _, -._�t_�.-- �/-,w. � ..-...-__----1-__h—._.mow- _,__'-_�+____•_-:_./�v{��.._.-.____+-. --,�--„-�.-•_--_ -_-.1--�.+,-,. _.-_.}_w.,-_1.�.._t._ —lj,._��___•_--'__^ _-_•�_.
! ,I
}. c�/��T e,iLti� /�f���Gc-cam ✓/. "1 15/-7i
Elo
d3Z17617, ha i
a �
=:emsAll
-_-�.--'. .- :_ -: - - ----- --___- =�f-. - -_ - - - -__ . -_ --- -- -- - - - - -- - � _- _
117
Ao
I"
C� -C1-ft�--2•.,fY(-1�-� vim' ¢�� � .� i k' , � p:{ 1; I I 1
ii74 7tl
TU',
�`''�' �t-t�+- ��L-E�� 0�--[._ ;y�t.C�,¢� •�� � ,. 1 � I pZ�UO.,, 1;
( ���� GNU✓'/ �J � 1 1 - I� _ 1t `-'{/��� _ N r - �i- _ _ -
I
/.� �i,•-7��-�,�. ��y i it � 7� i� 1 �I c.�''7� �', � I . i� - f �I
OF
00
_ fit?�,�,_�� w� .-� � --.> ._. .— _-,•-- � �__-�. ___ _ __ •-— ---�+ -
f Zoe {
d 7'
�zw oLc � _ ��AR.'�5,16 y �, � '7� ;� ;t i � fa a2/ ��' l;
�T-' .s .y A �/1/i�. �e_p�QJ - ___ � "i _ _ t - 1} - � � -- - U V ���r: � _ - «f � N - - - _ I_._ _• _ _ H — . _ r
a, a ak
Ak
17
I
117.
Z. '�M_(„v/_ _- �V�/�_--.ram_-___. -_-____-__-. __"'-_�__�.F_ t _;_._. � �'��a/ K.�.�--. ,-, ._ � r.-�_._ ..-•_ __--M'-____. -.. /�,1/-.�-µ- _r._-+ -•. -_ _y,�_ �-..�.-_., �. - _•M--- _ti.-.-_r _-•_��__'�i_.-_.1�_-..,.- ' �_.h _
ry
y-l � ,y` �c7if•�j � .. � � �� ��'. .�16 o I �T��' � � I �� � '; � I '
w lr 4
Jos
d
/t/ I ea1 i r//4)e -A" �Sr�. �3 � w ;. '�t,
S/ 4Y—a
i /
57Z,
ell
it
I _
j I
I
1
11 I
i
�-- ---��-_---�--�_ _--��.-__�...---T.���-�.-.T_-_,•�-._-.4---.i.-o-.L-�--r- -�-._�-�- _-•art.�-'-..-�_�.++----�.-a-.e_.-�-�11.-_.--�+..._-o-.f--,-..�i J� N, .-�i- I -_.-- .� �-• ' � _ _ _ _
� � i -• �_-' f------� - -'-�- ---�----" -----•-�-�----� -- ��-__ ._--_ --.''�-----_:,-0-.�.===-5-_ - _ 1.=_�=--', _-_- --_ -- - ` '--� - - -=_��1-Lam,-=�_----_ ==�i--.�.,=r--_�__- \�
I
t f' c,.•� -w..e�c /G� GA �'F' "tea,*
it
/
4101
fit- - ------------- - --- ----..—_—.—_—__. r----_-•- --*- —� ----��-----,--- - --�-
{
I - --- -«-G411.y�yy.�.,. 41+1` �c-:�,�%`.i�.�---.—_.�._..--- - -_...,-,.-.r-+ .—!�---.._-..--.—. -t}___-"'--^__. _�_—.._1�.•_-- --� �- --L---1"----^._..,.-- --i'- '---r-- - -- -+'-�— ---- -- —^t---`-•--}-•-� -�f__�..--�_"-- --- —t- -
�I ' tI •\ �' 1 � � �, � f �I� � �1 �I I ij
it �' i � I � l� � 1I � �I; i; � :; ',� •
1� s li
I
I
it
�.—