The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutZone Change 87-16 - Negative Declaration 87-49 - Appeal With CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK sic //0/5�_s;W c-/, October 18, 1989 Ott Huntington Beach Company 2120 Main Street, Suite 260 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at the regular meeting held October 16, 1989, continued decision on your appeal to Planning Commission denial of Zone Change 87-16 and Negative Declaration No. 87-49 to November 20, 1989. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Hal Simmons, Community Development Department, 536-5271. Connie Brockway, CMC City Clerk CB:pm CC: Paul Cook, City Administrator Gail Hutton, City Attorney Mike Adams, Director of Community Development w (Telephone:714-536-5227) r HOTIQ OF__P_UBLIC H ITN APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF ZONE CHANGE VE DE TION NO. 87-49 (Appeal to the Planning Commission' s denial of a request to change zoning 'on 55. 5 gross acres from Residential Agricultural to Low" Density Residential) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Huntington Beach City Council will hold a public hearing in the Council Chamber at the Huntington Beach Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, on the date and at the time indicated below to receive and consider the statements of all persons who wish to be heard relative to the application described below. IRATE/TIME: Monday, March 21, 1988, 7: 00 PM &PpLICATION NUMBER: Zone Change No. 87-16 and Negative Declaration No . 87-49 - APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL APPELLANT APPLICANT: Huntington Beach Company LOCATION: Generally located at the northwest corner of Edwards Street and Garfield Avenue (see attached map) . CURRENT RA-01(Residential Agriculture Combined with Oil ZONE: District)/RA-0-CZ and RA-01-CZ (Residential Agriculture Combined with Oil District, Coastal Zone) REOUEST: Appeal to the Planning Commission' s denial of a request to change zoning designation from RA-01 to R1-(2)-01-10,000; RA-0-CZ to R1-(2)-0-10, 000-CZ,; and RA-01-CZ to Rl-(2)-01-101000-CZ on three parcels of land which total 55.5 gross acres. -- is`a haling the Planning Commission' s easons : 1. Huntington each Company disagrees with staff ' s analysis and findings for denial. 2 . The requested zoning is clearly consistent with the General Plan and compatible with other land uses and development in - the area. 3 . Adequate environmental documentation exists to assess the impacts of the existing land use designation and proposed zoning. The applicant has Agreed to a condition requiring supplemental environmental assessment prior to any development entitlement. . i y 10 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING (Continued) REOUEST: 4 . Approval of the requested zoning will not establish a boundary for the proposed linear park. In response to the Planning Commission' s denial, the applicant has requested the addition of the "Q" suffix to the zoning to conditionally require environmental analysis prior to the approval of any development entitlement on the property. ENVIRONM NTAL STATUS: Negative Declaration No . 87-49 has been processed in accordance with the requirements of CEQA, 1986 .and will also be Considered by Council . COASTALPursuant to Section 989 . 5 . 0 a coastal development permit is not necessary with this application on parcels located in the coastal zone. ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the Department of Community Development, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648, for inspection by the public. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If there are any further questions please call Robert Franklin, Assistant Planner at 536-5271 . (9967d-9 , 10) ' it - - APPEAL TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF ZONE CHANGE NO. 87-16/ ! NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 87-49 (Appeal to the Planning Commission's denial of a request to change zoning on 55.5 gross acres from Residential Agricultural to Low Density Residential) k NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Huntington Beach City Council will hold a public hearing in the Council Chamber at the Huntington j Beach Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California,on the date and at the time indicated below to receive and consider r' the statements of all persons who wish to be heard relative to the application described below. s 1 i DATE/TIME: Monday, March 21, 1988, 7:00 PM APPLICATION NUMBER:Zone Change No. 87-16 and Negative Declaration No. 87-49 — Appeal to Planning Commission Denial APPELLANT/APPLICANT: Huntington Beach Company n LOCATION: Generally located at the northwest corner of Edwards Street and Garfield Avenue(see attached map). M CURRENT ZONE: RA-01 (Residential Agriculture Combined with Oil District)/RA-0-CZ and RA-01-CZ (Residential Agriculture a Combined with Oil District, Coastal Zone) of REQUEST: Appeal to the Planning Commission's denial of a request to change zoning designation from RA-01 to R1-(2)-01-10,000; ! RA-0-CZ to R1-(2)-0-10,000-CZ; and RA-01-CZ to R1-(2)-01-10,000-CZ on three parcels of land which total 55.5 gross acres. The applicant is appealing the Planning Commission's denial based on the following reasons: 1. Huntington Beach Company disagrees with staff's analysis and findings for denial. 2. The requested zoning is dearly consistent with the General Plan and compatible with other land uses and development in the area. 1 3. Adequate environmental documentation exists to assess the impacts of the existing land use designation and proposed zoning.The applicant has agreed to a condition requiring supplemental environmental assessment prior to any development entitlement. REQUEST: 4. Approval of the requested zoning will not establish a boundary for the proposed linear park. In response to the Planning Commission's denial, the applicant has requested the addition of the "Q" suffix to the zoning to conditionally require environmental analysis prior to the approval of any development entitlement on the property. i ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS:Negative Declaration No.87-49 has been processed in accordance with the requirements of CEQA, 1986 and will also be considered by Council. COASTAL STATUS: Pursuant to Section 989.5.0 a coastal development permit is not necessary with this application on parcels located in the coastal zone. ON FILE:A copy of the proposed request is on file in the Department of Community Development,2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648, for inspection by the public. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If there are any further questions please call Robert Franklin, Assistant Planner at 536-5271. HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL, By: Alicia M.Wentworth, City Clerk, Phone: (714) 536-5405 Published Orange Coast Daily Pilot March 10, 1988 th531 Authorized to Publish Advertisements of all kinds including public notices by Decree of the Superior Court of Orange County, California. Number A-6214, dated 29 September. 1961. and A-24831, dated 11 June. 1963. STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of Orange Pubsc hlohp AdyrbWift CO»••d by this 81110sM is so in 7 point with 10 pas cokom rldth I am a Citizen of the United States and a resident of the-County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the below entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of the Orange Coast DAILY PILOT, with which is combined the NEWS-PRESS, a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published in the City of Costa Mesa. County of Orange. State of. California, and that a Notice of Puhl ; r• Hearing of which copy attached hereto is a true and complete copy, was printed and published in the Costa Mesa, Newport Beach, Huntington Beach, Fountain Valley, Irvine, the South Coast communities and Laguna Beach issues of said newspaper for o n e consecutive weeks to wit the issue(s) of March 10 198 8 198 198 198 198 I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on March 1 0 , egg a --' at Costa Mesa, California. Signature 87. PROOF OF PUBLICATION ■ �• 1•Yl �H Ol �• N \\\111 i • T •f EWO ONN F E ' CF-R u •r ` v � I 4 i � i I �M I r I � f I I ZONE CHANGE 87-16 NE GAT I VE DECLARATION 8 7-4 9 ••• -ii[•2. -L____ any ... ..•••••••••:•::•:•:•::�;: J I � r�•: i i 3 I/ � ;if;:•• 2 . u GARFIELD AVE. , ZONE CHANGE 87-16 NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 87-49 HUNTINGTON BEACH COILIFORNIA PLANNING DIVISION CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HU"NGTON BEACH To Honorable Wes Bannister, Mayor From Gail Hutton and Members of the City Council City Attorney Subject City Attorney Report on the Date October 16, 1989 Opinion of the California Fair Political Practices Commission on Seacliff Memberships o = c-3 c We have now had an opportunity to review the individual account` ;e„ of the members of the Council at Seacliff Country Club, have C.ia = 2 studied the advice letter dated October 4, 1989, and have the C, �r- following observations. Conclusions: 1. As of October 1, 1989, no Councilmember appears to be disqualified from any decisions affecting the Seacliff Country Club or the Huntington Beach Company. 2. Similarly, no member of the Planning Commission appears to be disqualified. Summary of the FPPC Opinion: The advice letter from the FPPC concludes that the value of the VIP membership for purposes of disqualification is : 1. The value based upon actual use, using the difference between actual costs and $30 per month, plus 2. The value of initiation fee of $105 or an annual fee of $35, whichever is applicable, plus 3 . The monthly exemption of $30 for each month in the future that the membership is valid. Factors in Applying the Opinion: In making these computations, we have relied upon a monthly report of the charges incurred, less the $30 monthly minimum. All memberships were more than one year old, so the initiation fee is not applicable. The annual fee of $35 does apply, and is credited as of November 1. The term of the memberships is November 1 to October 31. The memberships were terminated effective June 1, 1989 . Therefore, there is no *computation required for future value after that date. 4 Honorable Wes Bannister, Mayor and Members of the City Council October 16, 1989 Page 2 Government Code §87103 (e) disqualifies an official if it is reasonably foreseeable that a decision will have a material financial effect upon a donor of a gift aggregating $250 or more within 12 months Prior to the time when the decision is made. Therefore, we look back to October 1, 1988, for purposes of this analysis . In valuing such a gift, we thereafter look at each preceeding 12-month period; i .e. , on November 1, 1989, the relevant period will be back to November 1, 1988 . Analysis: As of October, 1989, the value of the gift for each Council member is : Wes Bannister $185 Jim Silva $215 John Erskine $185 Grace Winchell -0- Tom Mays $215 Peter Green -0- Don MacAllister $185 No member reaches the $250 threshold. The value as of November, 1989 , will diminish, to the extent of the annual fee for the prior year and the difference between the amount spent in November, 1988, and the $30 minimum. We have analyzed the memberships back to November 1, 1988, and also find that at no time did the value of the gift for any Councilmember exceed $245 . 00 . Council Members Winchell and Green did not ever use the cards, so they did not receive a gift under the FPPC regulations . As to the Planning Commission, Commissioners Kirkland, Shoemaker and Williams never used their cards and did not receive a gift. Commissioners Leipzig, Ortega and Mountford never received a VIP card. Commissioner Bourguignon has his own paid membership. Parenthetically, we note that the FPPC law only applies to gifts made to officials . If a donor gives passes, memberships, tickets, and the like, to a public agency, and the agency then distributes the gifts, then the official is not generally Honorable Wes Bannister, Mayor and Members of the City Council October 16, 1989 Page 3 disqualified. The FPPC has issued an advice letter (the "Stone" letter) on this point, and if Council would like us to draft a procedure for such agency gifts, we will do so. Gail Hutton City Attorney GH: sg cc: Chairman Bourguignon and Members of the Planning Commission Paul Cook, City Administrator Connie Brockway, City Clerk Mike Adams, Director of Community Development, Secretary to Planning Commission T CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH To From HONORABLE MAYOR WES BANNISTER GAIL HUTTON AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL City Attorney Subject Date Opinion of the Fair Political October 6, 1989 Practices Commission Regarding Seacliff Country Club Enclosed is a copy of the F.P.P.C. opinion regarding Seacliff Country Club which was received late Thursday via facsimile. I will be available to answer your questions regarding the opinion on Friday, October 6 . Robert Sangster, Deputy City Attorney, will be available to answer your questions next week. oz, GAIL HUTTON City Attorney GH/rj 1 Attachment : Opinion of the F.P.P.C. cc: Paul Cook, City Administrator Connie Brockway, City Clerk Deputy City Attorneys Department Heads Planning Commission C California f Fair Political iPractices ComYnission October 4, 1989 Teresa Craigie Pillsbury, Madison and Sutro P. O. Box 7880 San Francisco, CA 94120 Gail Hutton City Attorney P. O. Box 2740 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Re: Your Requests for Advice Our File Nos. A-89-441 and A-89-452 Dear ifs. Craigie and Ms. Hutton: This is in response to your requests for advice concerning the duties and obligations of your respective clients, Huntington Beach Company, and the employees and officials of the city of Huntington Beach under the Political Reform Act (the "Act") . 1 Because your requests for advice are based on the same set of facts we have elected to respond to both requests in one advice letter. QUESTIONS How should a VIP membership, a gift pass to the Seacliff Country Club (the "club") , given to certain public officials be valued: I. For purposes of disclosure including disclosure pursuant to the lobbying provisions of the Act. 2. For purposes of disqualification. 1 Gover=ent Code Sections 31000-91015. All statutory references are to the Government Code unless otherwise indicated. Commission regulations appear at 2 California Code of Regulations Section 18000, et sec . All references to regulations are to Title 2, Division 6 of the California Code of Regulations. 428 J Srreer, Suire 800 0 P.Q. Box 807 • Sacramento CA 95804-0807 0 (916)3ZZ-a660 * Our File tro. n-39-44 i Page 2 CONCLUSIONS 1. Based on the facts provided, the value of the VIP ;membership for purposes of disclosure is the initiation and annual fees, whichever is applicable, plus the difference between the actual costs incurred by the public official if less than $30 and the $30 minimum monthly dining room fee, for each month of the � reporting period. However, an official who receives a VIP ;membership but does not use it, nor transfers it to someone else, is not required to disclose receipt of the membership. 2 . The value of the VIP membership for purposes of disqualification is the value based on the actual use, determined as described above, plus $30 per month for each of the months in the future that the membership is valid. If the official returns the VIP membership card prior to the decision, the value of the VIP membership for purposes of disqualification is the value based on actual use during the past 12 months, determined as described above. FACTS T.he Seacliff Country Club (the "Club") is a gol.-60, tennis, swimming, fitness and social club owned and operated by Huntington Beach Company ("Huntington Beach") , a lobbyist employer. Huntington Beach distributed "VIP Memberships" to 153 business leaders, prominent citizens and realtors. You have indicated that this was done in order to promote and increase Club dining room usage. The recipients of these memberships included officials and employees of the City of Huntington Beach (the "city") and other state and local officials ("public officials") . The VIP memberships entitle the holders to dining room privileges only; such members may not use any of the other club facilities. VIP members are not required to pay any initiation or annual fees. Each time a VIP member uses the Club's dining room facilities, he or she is charged the same amount, and is billed in the same manner as any other Club member. No minimum monthly dining room charge applies. The use of the VIP membership by Public officials varies. some have never used the card, others routinely use the card and others use the card on an occasional basis. The Club has ten different types of memberships, each of which has different privileges. The initiation fee and annual or monthly charges for a membership depend upon the type of membership.2 For example, an individual could join as a "social member. " Such a member would pay a $150 initiation fee, a $50 2 You have provided us with a chart describing the various types of memberships available at the club and the fees paid for those memberships. A copy of the chart is attached for ease of reference. > Our rile tlo. S?-441 page 3 annual fee, and a $3o per month dining room minimum. A golf membership would entitle an individual to golf, swimming, dining, banquet and VIP room privileges and would cost a $20, 000 initiation fee, a $215 monthly fee, and an $85 per month dining room minimu-n. =or a tennis membership, an individual would have to pay an $300 initiation fee and a $100 monthly tennis court charge. Tennis members are not charged a dining room minimum. Most, but not all, of the memberships have a dining room minimum. The member must pay the minimum regardless of whether he or she uses the dining room. A golf member, for example, must spend $35 per month in the dining room. If he or she does not, he or she is charged 535. On the other hand, if he or she charges $a5 or More in the dining room, he or she is billed for the actual dining room use. In a telephone conversation on August 25th, you provided the following additional information: 1. All members are issued cards with the amember's name on the card. The card is renewed annually. 2. Although technically only the person whose name is on the card may use the card, somebody else could use the card since the dining room staff would not question if someone other than the member were using the membership card. 3 . The dining room consists of a lounge area and the dining room. The lounge has tables which may be used by card players. however, the club has cardrooms available to the members. These cardrooms are not available to persons holding the VIP membership. 4. The banquet room privilege available to social members consists of use of the banquet room. There is no charge if the banquet room is used on a day that the club is open. should a member desire to use the banquet room on a day when the club is closed, the member is charged $300. This privilege is not available to persons holding -the VIP membership. 3. Members are limited to the areas permitted by their respective memberships. Thus, a person holding a social membership may not access the golf course or other facilities of the club other than the -acilities available to a person holding a social membership (the dining, banquet and VIP rooms) . Cur File No. A-34-441 Page 4 6 . Each member is sent a monthly bill for the charges incurred in the club's facilities, taking into account the dining room minimum for the type of membership- Thus, for example, if a person holding a social membership has incurred charges of less than $30, he or she is sent a bill for $30. ANALYSIS Public officials who are listed in Section 87200 or who are designated in a state or local government agency's conflict-of- intersst code must file annual statements of economic interests. (Sections 87200-87313 . ) If a public official is listed in Section 87200, or if required by his or her agency's conflict-of- interest code, the official must disclose income and gifts on his or her statement of economic interests. Section 86116 details the information a lobbyist employer must include in his quarterly report. subdivision (f) of Section 861.16 requires' disclosure of each activity expense of the filer including any gifts to public officials. Since Huntington Beach, a lobbyist employer, distributed VIP memberships to various public officials, the value of these gifts must be disclosed by Huntington Beach, by the public officials listed in section 87200, or as required in the official's agency's conflict-of-interes t code. The general rule is that gifts are to be valued at fair market value. (section 82025.5. ) Regulation 18726 (b) (copy enclosed) further provides: (b) General Rule for Valuation of unique Gifts. Whenever the fair market value cannot readily be ascertained because the gift is unique or unusual, the value shall be the cost to the donor, if known or ascertainable; if the cost to the donor is unknown and unascertainable, then the recipient shall make a reasonable approximation. In making such an approximation the price of similar items should be taken into account. if similar items are not available as a guide, a good faith estimate shall be utilized. Gifts must be valued for purposes of disclosure and- -isqualification even if unused, discarded or given to some other person, except as provided for in subsection (b) of Section 18726.1. Regulation 18726 (b) . J Cur File "To . A-o9-441 Page j 1. Valuation of the VIP membershin for purnoses of disclosure. Regulation 18726 . 3 (copy enclosed) provides more specific guidance for valuing gift passes to facilities such as country clubs. For purposes of disclosure, the value shall be the fair market value of the actual use of the pass by the official, plus the fair market value of any possible use by any person or person to whom the official transfers the privilege of use of the pass. (Regulation 18726. 3 (a) . ) The thrust of Regulation 18726.3 is to value the benefit received by a public official. By measuring the value of the pass based on actual use, the pass is valued by measuring the benefit derived by the public official from its use. In determining fair market value, it is reasonable to lcok at the value of comparable services available to the public without regard to official status. You have used the value of the social membership, discounted because of the limitations on the VIP memberships, as a reasonable approximation. we agree with your evaluation regarding the value of the initiation and annual fees. However, because of the confusion engendered by the use of the monthly minimum charge, in that a person who does not use it at all would appear to derive a greater benefit than a frequent user since the frequent user would receive goods (food and beverages) in return for the $30/month, you have concluded that exemption from this minimum has no value. We disagree. when a public official visits the club occasionally as a VIP member, but is exempt from the $30 per month minimum dining room charges, the public official receives the benefit of retaining the membership for further use without incurring the minimum charges. Accordingly, if the public official does not visit the club in any particular month, he receives a discount to the extent he avoids the $30 per month minimum which a person holding a social membership would be required to pay. Therefore, for purposes of disclosure, the value of the VIP membership is the benefit received by the public official, i.e. the difference between actual use, if less than $30, and $30 for each :month of the reporting period, plus $105 for the initiation fee value or $35 for the annual fee value, whichever would apply.3 If the official incurred dining room charges of more than $30 in any particular month, then for that month the public official does not receive any additional benefit compared to a person holding a 3 Our advice is based on the understanding that the recipient of the VIP membership card is the only person who will use the card. We assume that the public officials comply with that rule. If, in fact, an official has transferred the membership card to another, then the value of the card to the public official would increase by the benefit to the transferee. Our =i:.a No. A-69 4I Page 6 social membership. To the extent that this results in a public official who rarely uses the club being deemed to have received a more valuable gift than one who frequents the club, it does accurately reflect the $30 per month discount received by the public official in comparison to a person holding a social membership, we accept your assertion, however, that a public official who neither uses the VIP membership nor lends the card to another has not received a gift and is, therefore not required to disclose the membership on his or her statement of economic interests. (Regulation 18726.3 (a) . ) In summary, the value of the VIP membership is $105 or $35 (the initiation or annual fee equivalents) plus the difference between $30 per month and the actual dining room charges for each month in which the actual charges are less than $30. If the membership is unused during the entire calendar year, the value would be zero. Section 86117 requires lobbyist employers to file periodic reports during the month following each calendar quarter. As noted above, Section 86116(f) requires disclosure of gifts to public officials. Huntington Beach may monitor a public official's use of the VIP membership, and report the value of the gift to the public official based on actual use, determined as described above. In the alternative, Huntington 'Beach could disclose the full value of the VIP membership when the gift is made. The value of the gift to the public official would be the value based on future use, determined as described below. 2. Valuation of the VIP Membership for purposes of disq_ua ificat on. For purposes of disqualification, the value of the pass is measured by determining the value of the pass based on actual use as discussed above, plus the fair market value of the maximum reasonable use following the date of the decision. (Regulation 18726.3 (b) . )- This rule essentially measures the maximum reasonable benefit to be derived by the public official. The benefit to the public official who is a VIP member is retaining the privilege to use t+he club if and when he or she desires. Accordingly, the value of the VIP membership for the future is the number of months that the membership is valid following the date of the decision, multiplied by the $30 minimum monthly dining room charges assessed against a person holding a social membership. This is the account that a person holding a social membership would pay if the person does not use the club but wants to retain the privilege of being able to use the club. Therefore, the value of the VIP membership for purposes of disqualification is the value based on the actual use during the past 12 months, determined as described above, plus $30 per month for each of the months- in the future that the membership is valid. However, if the official chooses to return the VIP membership card I i t our File No. A-89-441 Page 7 prior to they decision, the value of the membership for purposes of disqualification is the value based on the actual use during the past 12 months, determined as described above. (Regulation 18726.3 (b) . ) I trust this letter adequately responds to your request for advice. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please contact me at (916) 322-5901. Sincerely, Kathryn E. Donovan General Counsel 2Q�;.��ivt. By: Jeevan S. Ahuja Counsel, Legal Division KED:JSA:aa Enclosures CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK July 6, 1989 Huntington Beach Company 2120 Main street, Suite 260 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at the regular meeting held July 5, 1989, continued decision on your appeal to Planning Commission denial of Zone Change 87-16 and Negative Declaration 87-49 until the City Attorney has received a formal opinion from the Fair Political Practices Commission relative to Councilmembers ' participation in this matter. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call the Community Services Department, 536-5271 . Connie Brockway, CMC City Clerk CB:ln CC: Gail Hutton, City Attorney Mike Adams , Director of Community Development Paul Cook, City Administrator (Telephone:714-536-5227) CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ILI 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 1 / June 28, 1988 Huntington Beach Company 2120 Main Street, Suite 260 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at the regular meeting held June 20, 1988, continued decision on your appeal to Planning Commission denial of Zone Change 87-16 and Negative Declaration 87-49 to""December 5, 1988. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contract Hal Simmons , Community Services Department, 536-5271 . Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk AMW:bt CC: Paul Cook, City Administrator Gail Hutton, City Attorney Doug LaBelle, Director of Community Development (Teleohone:714-536s7771 f • r , REQUEST FOR CITY C U C L ACTIQoN Da June 20, 1988 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council 16 Submitted by: Paul E. Cook, City Administrator Prepared by: Douglas La Belle, Director of Community Develop en Subject: APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF NE CHANGE NO. 87-16 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 87-49 (CONTINUED FROM MARCH 21, 1988) Consistent with Council Policy? bQ Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Transmitted for your consideration is an appeal by the Huntington Beach Company to the Planning Commission's denial of Zone Change No. 87-16 and Negative Declaration No. 87-49 on February 17, 1988. Zone Change No. 87-16 is a request by the Huntington Beach Company to rezone 55.5 gross acres which are presently designated with three different zoning classifications. The request is to change the zoning as follows: (1) Approximately 43 acres from RA-01 (Residential Agricultural combined with Oil Production) to R1-(2)-01-10,000 (Low Density Residential-2 units per acre-with a minimum 10,000 square foot lot size-Combined with Oil Production); (2) Approximately .5 acres from RA-0-CZ (Residential Agricultural combined with Oil Production in the Coastal Zone) to R1-(2)-0-10,000-CZ (Low Density Residential-2 units per acre-with a minimum 10,000 square foot lot size-Combined with Oil Production in the Coastal Zone); and (3) Approximately 12 acres from RA-01-CZ (Residential Agricultural combined with Oil Production and Drilling in the Coastal Zone) to R1-(2)-01-10,000-CZ (Low Density Residential-2 units per acre-with a minimum 10,000 square foot lot size-Combined with Oil Production and Drilling in the Coastal Zone). In response to the Planning Commission's denial, the applicant has requested the addition of the "Q" suffix to the zoning to conditionally require environmental analysis prior to the approval of any development entitlement on the property. RECOMMENDATION: Planning Commission Action on February 17. 1988: A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECONDED BY PIERCE TO DENY ZONE CHANGE 87-16 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 87-49 WITH REVISED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Silva, Pierce, Leipzig, Livengood NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: Higgins PIO 5/85 Findings of Denial: 1. Pursuant to Section 21002 of the California Environmental Quality Act, 1986, an environmental impact report should be prepared which would provide feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of future projects. Negative Declaration No. 87-49 has been determined to be inadequate because significant environmental concerns such as grade differential, archaeological resources, seismic, oil operations, circulation, and recreation (linear park) have not been addressed. 2. Archaeological sites (No. 88, 365 and 366) indicate that 50 percent of the site is a potential, significant archaeological resource that needs careful evaluation in an environmental impact report. 3. Further environmental evaluation of the site is needed since past studies (Environmental Impact Report No. 83-2) show up to 50 percent of the property should be excluded from development. 4. The proposed zone change will establish linear park boundaries which are inconsistent with Resolution No. 5652 which was approved by the City Council on March 24, 1986. Staff Recommendation: Continue Zone Change No. 87-16 and Negative Declaration No. 87-16 and Negative Declaration No. 87-49 for six months (until December 5, 1988) in order to allow staff to prepare a General Plan Amendment for the surrounding area. That amendment will address the Linear Park boundary, Edwards Street alignment, surrounding land uses and a dedication agreement for acquisition of the Linear Park. The Zone Change request could then be considered as a part of the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan resubmittal. ANALYSIS: On March 21, 1988, the City Council considered the Huntington Beach Company's appeal to the Planning Commission's denial of Zone Change No. 87-16/Negative Declaration No. 87-49. The Council's action was to continue the Zone Change for 90 days to June 20, 1988, and to hold a study session on May 2, 1988. Due to scheduling problems, however, the study session was not held until June 6, 1988. The purpose of the Zone Change continuance and study session was to consider issues related to the Bolsa Chica Linear Park, the Ellis/Goldenwest Specific Plan and Edwards/Seapoint arterial alignments. Staff was requesting direction on various aspects of those issues. Staff was also proposing that a special study of the expanded area be undertaken in order to resolve all of the issues in a comprehensive General Plan Amendment. The plan would also establish a Linear Park boundary and lay the foundation for a dedication agreement with the Huntington Beach Company for acquisition of a portion of the Linear Park. The City Council did provide direction on preferences related to circulation planning. They also requested that staff provide further analysis of the feasibility of acquiring various Linear Park acreages. Lastly, the Council agreed with the proposal for a comprehensive study of the larger area around the Linear Park. RCA/6-20-88 -2- (0743d) In light of the Council's agreement with a comprehensive planning effort for the larger area, staff is recommending that action on Zone Change No. 87/16/Negative Declaration No. 87-49 be continued for a period of six months (until December 5, 1988). It could then be considered as part of the revised Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan. The larger study that staff is preparing will constitute a General Plan amendment to the Land Use, Circulation and Open Space/Conservation elements. The amendment will fix the boundaries of the Linear Park and the alignments of Edwards Street and Seapointe, establish appropriate land use designations in and around the Ellis-Goldenwest area, and serve as the basis of a dedication agreement for Linear Park acquisition north of Garfield Avenue. The amendment will be implemented by one of more Specific Plans as well as standard zoning. The Specific Plans will establish an equestrian trail system, topographic standards, Circulation alignments and design guidelines in the Ellis-Goldenwest and bluff-top area. As per Council direction at the June 6, 1988 study session, staff will prepare a further analysis of the feasibility of acquiring, through dedication and/or purchase the Linear Park acreage stipulated in the Council's Resolution 5652 pertaining to the Linear Park. Staff will also prepare a detailed work program for preparation of the General Plan amendment. The program will include scope of work, funding responsibilities, and time frame. Staff will submit the work program to the City Council for authorization. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Negative Declaration No. 87-49 has been processed in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, 1986. FUNDING SOURCE: Not applicable. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: The City Council may deny Zone Change No. 87-16 and Negative Declaration No. 87-49 with the Planning Commission findings contained in the March 21, 1988 Request for Council Action and included on page 2 of this report. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Area Map 2. Request for Council Action dated March 21, 1988. PEC:DLB:MA:HS:gbm 3 RCA/6-20-88 -'� (0743d) a � • .\` lrft(Ip�+E01 1�_. _A •-_� .tl . ._-�-., -CD U-0 CD RA 0-c0 t s61�.... . -' .rr RA-0-CD �UOCD -- RA-0 t s ��o w� ��o Co p►ru•ui1 o-epoo y _ RA-0 t :: r.) RAOCO R•o-cD La R�u ii a o00 o- 8L 0- RA: b(M-0 8.000o�''It 110 RA-0 . - • . RA-01 RA-0 RA-0-CD /r (u�o•co Lum s � RA-0 -CZ� ` — \ I u RA-(X RA-01 RA-0-CO I + GIRFI((D Y s 4- -CZ I • RA-0 I -CD r..6Wrw/ R4-0 CI-0 i aa�a a u•su. W i. I• i - " .a.., r~ ...• ., M 2 0 L t JA 4� IJ lt QAt M2-01 -CD � t rw �..... ... ... y... �JYl1��• lu I �i W RI urn. z c 87-b-1 6) N 1)87- 1 md? v ' i 10<1(04 kAkH HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Date July 5, 1989 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Submitted by: Paul E. Cook, City Administrator 1�& Prepared by: Mike Adams, Director, Community Development Subject: APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF ZONE CHXNG' NO. 87-16/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 87-49 (CONTINLMp FROM DECEMBER 5, 19 8 8) rn rn — Consistent with Council Policy? [ ] Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception , Tam � x Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions,Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE: On June 20, 1988, the City Council closed the public hearing on Zone Change No. 87-16, a request by the Huntington Beach Company to rezone 55 acres west of Edwards Street and north of Garfield Avenue from RA (Residential Agriculture) to R1 (Single Family Residential) . The hearing was closed and the decision continued to December 5, 1988, so that a Master Plan and EIR could be prepared for the larger surrounding area . On December 5, 1988, the hearing was again continued to July 15, 1986, to allow work on the Master Plan to be completed. This transmittal is an update on the status of the master plan. RECOMMENDATION• Continue action on Zone Change No. 87-16 and Negative Declaration No. 87-49 to November 20, 1989 , so that the Holly-Seacliff Master Plan may be completed. ANALYSIS• The City Council was concerned that Zone Change No . 87-16 was premature pending resolution of issues related to the Linear Park boundaries, the Edwards Street/Garfield Avenue alignments, and other land use problems in the surrounding area . A decision on Zone Change No . 87-16 was delayed until a Master Plan could be completed for the larger area. On December 5, 1988, the City Council authorized staff to enter into ` - a contract with the planning firm of FORMA to prepare the Holly-Seacliff Master Plan and EIR. In the ensuing time, a series of public workshops and study sessions have been held as the plan has been prepared. Staff is presently reviewing the screencheck EIR and anticipates the Draft EIR being circulated for public review beginning July 14 , 1989 . Staff would further anticipate public hearings on the plan to begin in September 1989, and conclude in November 1989 . f 3 No 5/85 i In order to allow completion of the Master Plan, staff is recommending that Zone Change No. 87-16 and Negative Declaration No. 87-49 be continued to November 20, 1989 . It should be pointed out that the filing and continuance of this zone change request in no way constitutes any vesting of the project in terms of entitlement fees . The project will be subject to whatever fees are in effect at the time of pulling permits . FUNDING SOURCE: No funds required. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: The City Council may approve or deny Zone Change No. 87-16 and Negative Declaration No. 87-49 . Council may also select an alternative date for a continuance. ATTACHMENTS: 1. RCA dated December 5, 1988 2. Letter from applicant concurring with continuance of Zone Change No. 87-16 to July 3, 1989 3 . Holly-Seacliff Master Plan study area 4 . RCA dated June 20, 1988 PEC:MA:HS:kla RCA - 7/5/89 -2- (3045d) REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Date December 5, 1988 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council A� Submitted b Paul Cook, CityAdministrators / 89 Prepared by: Mike C. Adams, Acting Director, rommunity Development Subject: APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION' S DENIAL OF ZONE CHANGE NO. 87-16/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 87-49 (CONTINUED FROM JUNE 20, 1988) Consistent with Council Policy? JC] Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions,Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE• On June 20, 1988, the City Council closed the public hearing on Zone Change No . 87-16, a request by the Huntington Beach Company to rezone 55 acres west of Edwards Street and north of Garfield Avenue from RA (Residential Agriculture) to R1 (Single Family Residential) . The hearing was closed and the decision continued to December 5, 1988 so that a master plan and EIR could be prepared for the larger surrounding area . This transmittal is an update on the status of the master plan. RECOMMENDATION• Continue action on Zone Change No . 87-16/Negative Declaration No. 87-49 to July 3 , 1989 so that the Holly-Seacliff Master Plan may be completed. Also, authorize staff to enter into a contract with FORMA to prepare the Holly-Seacliff Master Plan, and schedule a study session for January 3 , 1989 to review the Holly-Seacliff Master Plan Scope of Work. ANALYSIS• The City Council was concerned that Zone Change No. 87-16 was premature pending resolution of issues related to the Linear Park boundaries, the Edwards Street/Garfield Avenue alignments, and other land use problems in the surrounding area . A decision on Zone Change No . 87-16 was delayed until a master plan could be completed for the larger area. After the City Council gave direction on June 20, 1988, the Huntington Beach Company hired FORMA, a Newport Beach based planning firm, to prepare a master plan and EIR for the study area. They have called the study the Holly-Seacliff Master Plan. The Huntington Beach Company also formally filed for a General Plan Amendment as a means of adopting the master plan. P10 5/85 l Using the guidelines suggested to the City Council by staff in the earlier zone change transmittals, FORMA has proposed a 760 acre master plan area generally bounded by Ellis Avenue to the north, Huntington Street to the east, Main Street and Clay Avenue to the south, and the Edwards Street bluffs to the west. The study will analyze land uses, street alignments, topography, archaeology, geology, recreation and other issues . The master plan will result in amendments to the Land Use Element, Circulation Element, Recreation element and Open Space/Conservation Element . It will further be implemented through various specific plans . In order to gain public input and support for the plan, staff advertised a public workshop for November 30, 1988 to discuss scoping for the plan. The workshop was co-sponsored by the Planning Commission Ellis/Goldenwest Specific Plan Committee. Staff will brief the Council of the outcome of that workshop, as well as recommend that the Council hold its own study session on January 3 , 1989 to provide input on the plan. Staff is also recommending that the City Council authorize FORMA to prepare the Holly-Seacliff Master Plan and EIR for the City. FORMA was initially hired by the Huntington Beach Company to prepare the plan for them. Since there are other property owners involved, as well as a number of important City issues, however, staff feels that the plan should be prepared for the City rather than for the Huntington Beach Company. Since FORMA has done so much background work on the plan, they are a logical selection to do the project for the City. They have recently completed the Irvine Coast Local Coastal Program and are well qualified for the Holly-Seacliff Master Plan. After discussion with the Huntington Beach Company, staff has reached agreement on the following approach. The City may enter into a contract with FORMA to prepare the project for the City. The Huntington Beach Company and the City will agree on a scope of work for the project, and the company will reimburse the City for all costs in accordance with the approved scope of work. FORMA will be directly accountable to the City for all work on the project . In working with FORMA over the past two months, staff has arrived at an approach to the project which will provide ongoing opportunities for public input . Beginning with the November 30, 1988 workshop, a series of monthly public workshops are proposed to follow the project to its conclusion in July, 1989 . After the November 30, 1988 public workshop, staff would like to conduct study sessions with the Planning Commission and City Council . As indicated above, staff is proposing January 3, 1989 for the City Council study session. The Planning Commission could be invited to that study session if the Council desires . In order to allow completion of the master plan, staff is recommending that Zone Change No. 87-16/Negative Declaration No. 87-49 be continued to July 3 , 1989 . It should be pointed out that RCA - 12/5/88 -2- (1675d) ncontinuanceof this zone change request in no wa the filing and g q y constitutes any vesting of the project in terms of entitlement fees . The project will be subject to whatever fees are in effect at the time of pulling permits . FUNDING SOURCE• No funds required. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: The City Council may approve or deny Zone Change No. 87-16/Negative Declaration No. 87-49 . They may direct staff to advertise a Request for Proposal for the Holly-Seacliff Master Plan rather than entering into a contract with FORMA. Council may also select an alternative date for a study session. ATTACHMENTS• 1. Letter from applicant concurring with continuance of Zone Change No . 87-16 to July 3, 1989 . 2 . Holly-Seacliff Master Plan study area . 3 . RCA dated June 20, 1988 . MA:HS:gbm RCA - 12/5/88 -3- (1675d) Huntington Beach Company 2120 Main Street, 260. Huntington Beach,California 92648-2499 (7 1 41 960-4351 FAX 714 969 3659 RECEIVED November 29, 1988 NOV 2 91"1 Df_P.ARTMENT OF ILI Mr. Hal Simmons, Senior Planner Department of Community Development 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Subject: Zone Change 87-16; Negative Declaration 87-49 Dear Hal: The Huntington Beach Company hereby consents to continuing the above application to the regular City Council meeting of July 3, 1989, as recommended by Staff. When this item was continued on June 20, 1988, it was our understanding that a general plan amendment would be prepared addressing land uses, circulation and open space within the larger Holly-Seaeliff area. To expedite this process the Huntington Beach Company in September submitted a formal application for a general plan amendment , and has agreed to reimburse the City for the preparation of required planning studies and environmental documentation. We continue to support this master planning effort and look forward to the adoption of a comprehensive land use plan and development program for the Holly-Seaeliff area. Sincerely , William D. Holman Sr. Project Representative cc: Paul Cook, City Administrator Mike Adams, Acting Director, Community Development IL r k `� .= 11 1.1f..'1 Q ��►a MIN � L - w �l11l1I.s`. �� -:��1-:�=�-�,!�- ' -fit�:��r N - � g Mill bell 11,11111lll 1 0 N I " III 490 Mull got 162; P-4 so 11141831116 1 1"11111 all, REQUEST FOR CITY C U kep�y ACTI • D Dat June 20, 1988 /1- Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council �6 Submitted by: Paul E. Cook, City Administrator 30C Prepared by: Douglas La Belle, Director of Community Develop40FNE Subject: APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIALCHANGE NO. 87-16 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 87-49 (CONTINUED FROM MARCH 21, 1988) Consistent with Council Policy? X Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions,Attachments: t STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Transmitted for your consideration is an appeal by the Huntington Beach Company to the Planning Commission's denial of Zone Change No. 87-16 and Negative Declaration No. 87-49 on February 17, 1988. Zone Change No. 87-16 is a request by the Huntington Beach Company to rezone 55.5 gross acres which are presently designated with three different zoning classifications. The request is to change the zoning as follows: (1) Approximately 43 acres from RA-01 (Residential Agricultural combined with Oil Production) to R1-(2)-01-10,000 (Low Density Residential-2 units per acre-with a minimum 10,000 square foot lot size-Combined with Oil Production); (2) Approximately .5 acres from RA-0-CZ (Residential Agricultural combined with Oil Production in the Coastal Zone) to R1-(2)-0-10,000-CZ (Low Density Residential-2 units per acre-with a minimum 10,000 square foot lot size-Combined with Oil Production in the Coastal Zone); and (3) Approximately 12 acres from RA-01-CZ (Residential Agricultural combined with Oil Production and Drilling in the Coastal Zone) to R1-(2)-01-10,000-CZ (Low Density Residential-2 units per acre-with a minimum 10,000 square foot lot size-Combined with Oil Production and Drilling in the Coastal Zone). In response to the Planning Commission's denial, the applicant has requested the addition of the "Q" suffix to the zoning to conditionally require environmental analysis prior to the approval of any development entitlement on the property. RECOMMENDATION: Planning Commission Action on February 17. 1988: A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECONDED BY PIERCE TO DENY ZONE CHANGE 87-16 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 87-49 WITH REVISED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Silva, Pierce, Leipzig, Livengood - NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: Higgins PI O 5/85 Findings of Denial: 1. Pursuant to Section 21002 of the California Environmental Quality Act, 1986, an environmental impact report should be prepared which would provide feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of future projects. Negative Declaration No. 87-49 has been determined to be inadequate because significant environmental concerns such as grade differential, archaeological resources, seismic, oil operations, circulation, and recreation (linear park) have not been addressed. 2. Archaeological sites (No. 88, 365 and 366) indicate that 50 percent of the site is a potential, significant archaeological resource that needs careful evaluation in an environmental impact report. 3. Further environmental evaluation of the site is needed since past studies (Environmental Impact Report No. 83-2) show up to 50 percent of the property should be excluded from development. 4. The proposed zone change will establish linear park boundaries which are inconsistent with Resolution No. 5652 which was approved by the City Council on March 24, 1986. Staff Recommendation: Continue Zone Change No. 87-16 and Negative Declaration No. 87-16 and Negative Declaration No. 87-49 for six months (until December 5, 1988) in order to allow staff to prepare a General Plan Amendment for the surrounding area. That amendment will address the Linear Park boundary, Edwards Street alignment, surrounding land uses and a dedication agreement for acquisition of the Linear Park. The Zone Change request could then be considered as a part of the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan resubmittal. ANALYSIS: On March 21, 1988, the City Council considered the Huntington Beach Company's appeal to the Planning Commission's denial of Zone Change No. 87-16/Negative Declaration No. 87-49. The Council's action was to continue the Zone Change for 90 days to June 20, 1988, and to hold a study session on May 2, 1988. Due to scheduling problems, however, the study session was not held until June 6, 1988. The purpose of the Zone Change continuance and study session was to consider issues related to the Bolsa Chica Linear Park, the Ellis/Goldenwest Specific Plan and Edwards/Seapoint arterial alignments. Staff was requesting direction on various aspects of those issues. Staff was also proposing that a special study of the expanded area be undertaken in order to resolve all of the issues in a comprehensive General Plan Amendment. The plan would also establish a Linear Park boundary and lay the foundation for a dedication agreement with the Huntington Beach Company for acquisition of a portion of the Linear Park. The City Council did provide direction on preferences related to circulation planning. They also requested that staff provide further analysis of the feasibility of acquiring various Linear Park acreages. Lastly, the Council agreed with the proposal for a comprehensive study of the larger area around the Linear Park. RCA/6-20-88 -2- (0743d) In light of the Council's agreement with a comprehensive planning effort for the larger area, staff is recommending that action on Zone Change No. 87/16/Negative Declaration No. 87-49 be continued for a period of six months (until December 5, 1988). It could then be considered as part of the revised Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan. The larger study that staff is preparing will constitute a General Plan amendment to the Land Use, Circulation and Open Space/Conservation elements. The amendment will fix the boundaries of the Linear Park and the alignments of Edwards Street and Seapointe, establish appropriate land use designations in and around the Ellis-Goldenwest area, and serve as the basis of a dedication agreement for Linear Park acquisition north of Garfield Avenue. The amendment will be implemented by one of more Specific Plans as well as standard zoning. The Specific Plans will establish an equestrian trail system, topographic standards, Circulation alignments and design guidelines in the Ellis-Goldenwest and bluff-top area. As per Council direction at the June 6, 1988 study session, staff will prepare a further analysis of the feasibility of acquiring, through dedication and/or purchase the Linear Park acreage stipulated in the Council's Resolution 5652 pertaining to the Linear Park. Staff will also prepare a detailed work program for preparation of the General Plan amendment. The program will include scope of work, funding responsibilities, and time frame. Staff will submit the work program to the City Council for authorization. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Negative Declaration No. 87-49 has been processed in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, 1986. FUNDING SOURCE: Not applicable. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: The City Council may deny Zone Change No. 87-16 and Negative Declaration No. 87-49 with the Planning Commission findings contained in the March 21, 1988 Request for Council Action and included on page 2 of this report. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Area Map 2. Request for Council Action dated March 21, 1988. PEC:DLB:MA:HS:gbm 3 RCA/6-20-88 -'3` (0743d) IvRcrcn.EDl l__- �R -� _ L -CD u-0-CD RA 0 CO j b r�.... . ...b RA-0-CD L. 1*0.000 Co ----� — RA-0 : I ►u o co u-o co Plq;U•11�0-.p00 . .« RA-0 �- r"� RAaco RAo•co om1-a T1-0-6A00 TR sAoo, -Al an_o s•000 ` le Flo 3 AA-o �r • •« RA-01 RA-0 tu-o-cD RA-0-CD r RA-0 -CZ�� - -- RA-a T -a RA-0-CD � Z RA-0-co I + GARFIELD 9 _ .r•w . R4.0-CZ t RA-0 I-CD Y.*w•rr. !f C1-0 r ;.�...�"r... R4-0 ,,•, is �i ; M2-01 -- N �� *.• �� , ,•dam t M2 0 l-CO ROS-0C� ', ......... ,..'.T�'1 L, •� u... .a'• I M JI COI ZC87-4461W) 87-49 . v " ►N�NiM�GII)►1 slAlN 1 HUNTINGTON BEACH MANNING DIVISION i Page 11 - Council /Agency Minutes - 12/5/88 There being no one further to speak on the matter and there being no further protests filed , either oral or written, the hearing was closed by the Mayor. Les Evans reported the final percentage of protests to be the following: Mr. Brindle represents 14.56 acres , Mr. Greer represents 4 acres , and Mr. Weir, owner of Weir Oil , represents 4.779 acres . The total protests of 23.339 acres or 3.896%. Discussion between Counci 1 members Winchell and MacAllister, Les Evans , the City Administrator, Chief Picard , and Mr. Divan , the attorney retained by the City to act as bond counsel , was held in regards to Ayres Storage being exempt from the district . Mr. Evans stated that Ayres is a class of property that is already fully developed and does not receive the direct benefit that other properties receive due to this project . The City Clerk presented Resolution No 5959 for Council consideration - "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, ORDERING CERTAIN CHANGES AND MODIFICATIONS TO THE ENGINEER' S "REPORT" IN A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT. " (This Resolution is appropriate for any changes or modifications required from the first presentation of the Engineer' s "Report" . ) The City Clerk presented Resolution No 5960 for Council consideration - "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, OVERRULING AND DENYING PROTESTS AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS IN A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DIS- TRICT. " (This Resolution adopted if any protests , oral or written , to the establishment of a Special Assessment District have been received. ) j The City Clerk presented Resolution No 5961 for Council consideration - "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CONFIRMING THE ASSESSMENT, ORDERING THE IMPROVEMENTS MADE, TOGETHER WITH APPURTENANCES, AND APPROVING THE ENGINEER"S "REPORT" RELATED TO ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 88-1 . " (This Resolution orders the work and confirms the assessments) A motion was made by Erskine, seconded by Silva , to adopt Resolution Nos . 5959, 5960, and 5961 . The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: MacAllister , Green , Winchell , Bannister , Mays , Silva , Erskine NOES : None ABSENT: None RECESS/RECONVENE The Mayor called a recess of Council at 10:40 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 10:45 p .m. (City Council ) CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING - CONTINUED TO FIRST MEETING JULY 1989 - APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF ZONE CHANGE 87-16 _ & NEGATIVE DECLARATION 87-49 - HUNTINGTON BEACH COMPANY - FORMA CONSULTANTS - APPROVED The Mayor announced that this was the day and hour set for a decision on a closed public hearing on an appeal to the Planning Commission' s denial of Zone Change No. 87-16 and Negative Declaration No. 87-49 continued from June 20, 1988 , said public hearing was opened and closed on March 21 , 1988 . i Page 11 - Minutes - 6/20/88 AYES: Kelly, Green, Finley, Erskine, Mays , Winchell NOES: None ABSTAIN: Bannister ABSENT: None (City Council ) PUBLIC HEARING - CODE AMENDMENT 87-11 - APPROVED - ORD NO 2947 - INTRODUCTION APPROVED - PARKING STRUCTURE REGULATIONS The Mayor announced that this was the day and hour set for a public hearing continued open from April 4, 1988 to consider Code Amendment 87-11 , initiated by the City of Huntington Beach which would amend Article 960 of the Hunting- ton Beach Ordinance Code to establish regulations for parking structures. The Deputy City Clerk announced that all legal requirements for notification, publication and posting had been met, and that she had received no communica- tions or written protests to the matter. The Mayor declared the hearing open. There being no one present to speak on the matter and there being no protests filed , either oral or written , the hearing was closed by the Mayor. The Deputy City Clerk presented Ordinance No. 2947 for Council consideration - "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING ARTICLE 960 OF THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ORDINANCE CODE BY ADDING NEW SECTION 9605.1 AND AMENDING SEC- TION 9608(b) RELATING TO PARKING STRUCTURE DESIGN." i A motion was made by Kelly, seconded by Mays , to approve introduction of Ord- inance No. 2947, after reading by title, and to approve Code Amendment 87-11 , with findings set forth in the RCA dated June 20, 1988, as follows : Findings for Approval : 1 . Revisions to Article 960 will create a more systematic and consistent method for reviewing parking structures . 2 . Revisions to Article 960 will create parking structures which are more aesthetically pleasing and architecturally compatible with on-site devel- opment and surrounding properties . 3 . Revisions to Article 960 are in conformance with the General Plan; in particular, the Land Use and Circulation Elements . The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Kelly, Green , Finley, Erskine, Mays , Winchell , Bannister NOES: None ABSENT: None (City Council ) DECISION RE: APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF ZONE CHANGE 87-16 & NEGATIVE DECLARATION 87-49 - CONTINUED TO 12/5/88 - HUNTINGTON i BEACH COMPANY The Mayor announced that this was the day and hour set for a decision on a public hearing closed on March 21 , 1988 on an appeal by the !Huntington Beach •� Page 8 - Council /Agency - March 21 , 1988 Discussion was held regarding costs of Alternative C and D, possible flooding problems and a shuttle to the parking facility. Public Comments - North of Pier Parking Structure Concept Design - Bolsa 4 Chi ca State Beach i DoQg Langevin, spokesman for Huntington Beach Tomorrow, and Tom Pratte, repre- senting the Surfriders Foundation, supported Alternative B. Natalie Kotsch , Chairman of the Board of National Surfing Foundation Museum, requested that Council /Agency optimize parking. Dave Schulze requested that the Council /Agency optimize parking. In response to a question by Councilwoman/Director Finley, the City Admini- strator stated that the city had received a letter from CALTRANS which indica- ted they would not reimburse the City for the project. Councilmember/Director Finley and Mays suggested that a comparison be made of similar projects in other cities . A motion was made by Mays , seconded by Kelly, to approve a modified version of Alternative C and D as outlined by staff and that it be prepared and sent to the Planning Commission; to direct that an economic analysis be prepared on the modified version, including the source of monies and proposed cost; to pursue funds at the state level ; to address security of the parking structure and its management; to pursue a structure with a range of 800 to 1000 parking spaces in it; and to pursue other alternatives such as a shuttle service to other parking facilities . The motion carried by the following roll tali vote: AYES: Kelly, Green, Mays , Bannister NOES: Finley ABSTAIN: Erskine ABSENT: Winchell RECESS - RECONVENE The Mayor/Chairman called a recess of Council /Agency at 9:47 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 10:07 p.m. (City Council) PUBLIC HEARING - HUNTINGTON BEACH CO - APPEAL TO PLANNING COM- MISSION DENIAL OF ZONE CHANGE 87-16 - NEGATIVE DECLARATION 87-49 - HEARING CLOSED WITH DECISION CONTINUED TO 6/20/88 - STUDY SESSION SCHEDULED FOR 5/2/88 The Mayor announced that this was the day and hour set for a public hearing to consider an appeal filed by Huntington Beach Company to the Planning Commis- sion ' s denial of a request to change zoning designation from RA-01 to Rl-(2)41-10,000; RA-0-CZ to Rl-(2)-0-10,000-CZ; and RA-01-CZ to Rl-(2)-01-10,000-CZ on three parcels of land which total 55.5 gross acres gen- erally located at the northwest corner of Edwards Street and Garfield Avenue. The Mayor stated that the applicant was appealing the Planning Commission' s denial based on the following reasons : I . Huntington Beach Company disagrees with staff' s analysis and findings for denial . A • Page 9 - Council /Agency March 21 , 1988 2 . The requested zoning is clearly consistent with the General Plan and com- patible with other land uses and development in the area. 3. Adequate environmental documentation exists to assess the impacts of the existing land use designation and proposed zoning. The applicant has agreed to a condition requiring supplemental environmental assessment prior to any development entitlement. The property is currently zoned RA-01 (Residential Agriculture Combined with Oil District0 RA-O-CZ and RA-01-CZ (Residential Agriculture Combined with Oil District, Coastal Zone) The Deputy City Clerk announced that all legal requirements for notification, publication and posting had been met, and that she had received no communica- tions or written protests to the matter. Hal Simmons , Senior Associate Planner, presented a staff report. Discussion was held between Council and staff regarding the length of a possible continu- ance of the matter. The Mayor declared the hearing open. Bill Holman , representing the Huntington Beach Company, applicant and appel- lant, reviewed the history of the park acreage as it related to the company. He requested that if the matter was continued it be continued for no more than forty-five days . Lorraine Faber, representing the Amigos de Bolsa Chica, stated the organiza- tion endorsed the alternative action, which was to continue the matter until the Edwards/Seapoint alignment has been resolved and the precise eastern boundary for the Bolsa Chica Linear Park has been determined. Mary Roscz k supported the Planning Commission denial of the zone change. Corinne Welch , Chairperson for the Environmental Board, stated her concern regarding seismic conditions in the area and stated she believed the Negative Declaration was inadequate and zoning premature. ftry Bell , representing Equestrian Trails Corral 100, stated that there were no equestrian trails proposed for the linear park and recommended that exist- ing trails east of Edwards Street connect to the Linear Park, Huntington Cen- tral Park and the estate area. Tom Harman, representing Huntington Beach Tomorrow, supported the staff recom- mendation and stated he believed that Council needed a study session on the issue. Dave Schulze stated he supported the recommended action. There being no one present to speak further on the matter and there being no further protests filed, either oral or written, the hearing was closed by the Mayor. A motion was made by Mays , seconded by Green , to continue the decision on the appeal by the Huntington Beach Company to the Planning Commission' s denial of Zone Change 87-16 and to consider Negative Declaration 87-49 to June 20, 1988 Page 10 - Council /Agency - March 21 , 1988 and to schedule a meeting on May 2, 1988 to hold a study session on the issue. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Green, Finley, Erskine, Mays NOES: Kelly, Bannister ABSENT: Winchell SCity Council) PUBLIC HEARING - MOLA DEV CORP - APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 87-36/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 87-28/TENTA- TIVE TRACT 12900 - HEARING CLOSED WITH DECISION CONTINUED TO 4/4/88 The Mayor announced that this was the day and hour set for a public hearing to consider an appeal filed by Mola Development Corporation to the Planning Com- mission ' s denial of Conditional Use Permit No. 87-36, Coastal Development Per- mit No. 87-28, and Tentative Tract 12900, a proposal to develop a 17-lot sub- division for condominium purposes and construct a mixed use development com- prised of 74 stacked condominiums , 16 townhouse condominiums and 10,000 square feet of retail space on 3.7 acres . Parking would be provided at grade level and with a subterranean parking structure . The subject property is located north of Orange Avenue between Main Street to the east and realigned Sixth Street to the west. The property is currently zoned Downtown Specific Plan - District 6 (Mixed Use - Commercial /Office/ Res- idential ) . The environmental status is covered under Environmental Impact Report No. 82-2 for the Downtown Specific Plan. Coastal Status - not appeal- able. The Deputy City Clerk announced that all legal requirements for notification , publication and posting had been met, and that she had received a letter dated March 17, 1988 from Mike Foell , Pastor of the Community Bible Church stating his concern regarding parking for his congregation during the construction of the project and after 6th Street is realigned; and a letter dated March 17 , 1988 from Mr. and Mrs . Wayne Wolfe and residents of 6th Street opposing buses being rerouted down 6th Street, if it were realigned; loss of parking spaces due to red-lining of the curb; and objecting to the density and height of the proposed project. Scott Hess , Associate Planner, presented a staff report. Discussion was held regarding parking for the project and nearby residents ; and regarding a letter from the Environmental Board regarding the block wall and height of the chim- ney caps . The Mayor declared the hearing open. Richard Harlow, representing Mola Development, applicant, reviewed the history of the project. He requested approval of the project and stated the developer was willing to work with staff on the six foot wall . Frank Mola, developer, answered questions posed by Mayor Erskine regarding the bulk of the building and the parking structure. Arline Howard, William Tater, Chris Craig, Lois Freman, Jo Christian Craig, Mike Tater, Dave Schulze and Glen Ouinliven addressed Council regarding their opposition to the project. Loretta Wolfe, representing her neighborhood on 6th Street, stated they were looking forward to development of the commercial portion of the property. She stated their concern regarding the possibility that buses would be rerouted on -� the realigned 6th Street, redlining of the curb, parking and the height of the project. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 1L ' June 28, 1988 Huntington Beach Company 2120 Main Street, Suite 260 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at the regular meeting held June 20, 1988, continued decision on your appeal to Planning Commission denial of Zone Change 87-16 and Negative Declaration 87-49 to December 5, 1988. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contract Hal Simmons, Community Services Department, 536-5271 . Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk AMW:bt CC: Paul Cook, City Administrator Gail Hutton, City Attorney Doug LaBelle, Director of Community Development (Telephone:714536-52Z7) NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING APPEAL TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION' S DENIAL OF ZONE CHANGE NO. 87-16/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 87-49 (Appeal to the Planning Commission' s Denial of a request to change zoning on 55 . 5 gross acres from Residential Agricultural to Low Density Residential) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Huntington Beach City Council will hold a public hearing in the Council Chamber at the Huntington Beach Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, on the date and at the time indicated below to receive and consider the statements of all persons who wish to be heard relative to the application described below. DATE/TIME: Monday, December 5, 1988, 7 : 00 PM APPLICATION NUMBER: Zone Change No. 87-16 and Negative Declaration No. 87-49 - Appeal to Planning Commission APPELLANT/APPLICANT: Huntington Beach Company LOCATION: Generally located at the northwest corner of Edwards Street and Garfield Avenue (see attached map) . REQUEST: Appeal to the Planning Commission' s denial of a request to change zoning designation from RA-01 to Rl-(2)-01, 10, 000; RA-O-CZ to Rl-(2)-10, 000-CZ and RA-01-CZ to R1-(2)-01-10, 000 CZ on three parcels of land which total 55. 5 gross acres. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Negative Declaration No. 87-49 has been processed in accordance with the requirements of CEQA and will also be considered by Council . COASTAL STATUS: Pursuant to Section 989 . 5 . 0 a coastal development permit is not necessary with this application on parcels located in the coastal zone. ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the Department of Community Development, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648, for inspection by the public. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If there are any further questions please call Hal Simmons, Senior Planner, at 536-5271 . Huntington Beach City Council By: Connie Brockway, City Clerk (724) 536-5405 (1649d-6) �'`'—' — — --- -- — L I. I r� 'c, i �• •� /\�4 � � to�5`—: ��•'� i r-A n•r��•'�-��,��.:3�f 7�.y.'mac, /i �.il'[ •. it y �' � '� alillill � < { 1•x I l' ' I I I 1 j I ZONE CHANGE 87-16 NEGr;TTVE DECLARATION 87-49 :: v.; %::•:• j / �ti:tip�:�'•'• :•.••'l}•%•.:.::'•'•:y:•'''•''%•:'•: � h- 39 � � � •,{}''r'r,'r'fr'•'•''pt :`l•'r{:.�•'r?r: i I I ( _ "• / {rrrr,{:;rr,{:•,}•.titi%ti}:ti::;'`.;:;:} ;{:;:;'r;:;:ti}{' !y.!ry.!' IiL tr GARFIELD AVE. \ ZONE CHANGE 87-16 NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 87-49 HUNTINGTON BEACH 04LIFORNIN PLANNING DIVISION Huntington Beach Company 2120 Main Street,'6 260, Huntington Beach,California 92648-2499 (714)960-4351 1 �b J r ! i i '3 Ili t/U February 26, 1988 Honorable John Erskine, Mayor Huntington Beach City Council 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA. 92648 ZONE CHANGE 87-16/NEGATIVE DECLARATION 87-49 Honorable Mayor and Council : By its letter of February 19, 1988, Huntington Beach Company appealed the action taken by the Huntington Beach Planning Commission on February 17, 1988 regarding the above-referenced zoning application. The decision of the Planning Commission is being appealed for the following reasons : 1. Huntington Beach Company disagrees with staff's analysis and findings for denial. 2. The requested zoning is clearly consistent with the General Plan and compatible with other land uses and development in the area. 3. Adequate environmental documentation exists to assess the impacts of the existing land use designation and proposed zoning. The applicant has agreed to a condition requiring supplemental environmental assessment prior to any development entitlement. 4. Approval of the requested zoning will not establish a boundary for the proposed linear park. We would appreciate your prompt consideration of this appeal. Sincerely W�V�-D444M William D. Holman Sr. Project Representative WDH/lc cc: Michael Adams REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Date March 21 1988 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council d/v 3 Islk Submitted by: Paul E. Cook, City Administrator ,4 y Prepared by: Douglas La Belle, Director of Community Developm t Subject: APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL O NE CHANGE NO.s- Z �. 87-16 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 97-49 Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions,Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Transmitted for your consideration is an appeal by the Huntington Beach Company to the Planning Commission's denial of Zone Change No. 87-16 and Negative Declaration No. 87-49 on February 17, 1988. Zone Change No. 87-16 is a request by the Huntington Beach Company to rezone 55.5 gross acres which are presently designated with three different zoning classifications. The request is to change the zoning as follows: (1) Approximately 43 acres from RA-01 (Residential Agricultural combined with Oil Production) to R1-(2)-01-10,000 (Low Density Residential-2 units per acre-with a minimum 10,000 square foot lot size-Combined with Oil Production); (2) Approximately .5 acres from RA-0-CZ (Residential Agricultural combined with Oil Production in the Coastal Zone) to R1-(2)-0-10,000-CZ (Low Density Residential-2 units per acre-with a minimum 10,000 square foot lot size-Combined with Oil Production in the Coastal Zone); and (3) Approximately 12 acres from RA-01-CZ (Residential Agricultural combined with Oil Production and Drilling in the Coastal Zone) to R1-(2)-01-10,000-CZ (Low Density Residential-2 units per acre-with a minimum 10,000 square foot lot size-Combined with Oil Production and Drilling in the Coastal Zone). In response to the Planning Commission's denial, the applicant has requested the addition of the "Q" suffix to the zoning to conditionally require environmental analysis prior to the approval of any development entitlement on the property. RECOMMENDATION: Planning Commission Action on February 17, 1988: A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECONDED BY PIERCE TO DENY ZONE CHANGE 87-16 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 87-49 WITH REVISED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Silva, Pierce, Leipzig, Livengood NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: Higgins \ \ PIO 4/81 \ Findings of Denial: 1. Pursuant to Section 21002 of the California Environmental Quality Act, 1986, an environmental impact report should be prepared which would provide feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of future projects. Negative Declaration No. 87-49 has been determined to be inadequate because significant environmental concerns such as grade differential, archaeological resources, seismic, oil operations, circulation, and recreation (linear park) have not been addressed. 2. Archaeological sites (No. 88, 365 and 366) indicate that 50 percent of the site is a potential, significant archaeological resource that needs careful evaluation in an environmental impact report. 3. Further environmental evaluation of the site is needed since past studies (Environmental Impact Report No. 83-2) show up to 50 percent of the property should be excluded from development. 4. The proposed zone change will establish linear park boundaries which are inconsistent with Resolution No. 5652 which was approved by the City Council on March 24, 1986. Staff Recommendation: Deny Zone Change No. 87-16 and Negative Declaration No. 87-34 with the Planning Commission's findings for denial. ANALYSIS: The Huntington Beach Company has appealed the Planning Commission's denial of Zone Change No. 87-16 and Negative Declaration No. 87-49 based on the four (4) following reasons: 1. Huntington Beach Company disagrees with staff's analysis and findings for denial. Response: Staff has identified numerous significant concerns regarding the applicant's request. Staff's analysis addresses environmental, archaeological, seismic, equestrian, circulation, and linear park boundaries. All of these issues were addressed in the Planning Commission staff report dated February 17, 1988 and during the public hearing at which the zone change request was denied. After lengthy discussion, the Planning Commission agreed with staff's position and denied the zone change request. 2. The requested zoning is clearly consistent with the General Plan and compatible with other land uses and development in the area. Response: Staff acknowledges that the applicant's request is consistent with the City's General Plan of land uses. The existing General Plan designation is Estate Residential - two (2) units per acre. Although the request is consistent with the General Plan, staff RCA - 3/21/88 -2- (0151d) and the Planning Commission recognize that important issues such as adequate environmental impact analysis, the proposed realignment of Edwards Street and Garfield Avenue, the finalization of the precise boundaries of the Bolsa Chica Linear Park, and compatibility with the draft Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan are still unresolved. Until those issues are resolved, Zone Change No. 87-16 is premature. In terms of consistency with the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan, staff maintains that the uses proposed in Zone Change No. 87-16 are not compatible due to the absence of equestrian facilities such as have been conditioned by zoning in the remainder of the Ellis-Goldenwest area. 3. Adequate environmental documentation exists to assess the impacts of the existing land use designation and proposed zoning. The applicant has agreed to a condition requiring supplemental environmental assessment prior to any development entitlement. Response: The applicant has cited EIR 83-2, certified on November 11, 1983, as adequate environmental analysis for the site. In fact, EIR 83-2 is a very general document which focused on the larger Ellis-Goldenwest area and which made certain assumptions about the area now covered by Zone Change 87-16 that make that assessment invalid for the applicant's request. Specifically, EIR 83-2 made the assumption that the majority of the area now covered by Zone Change 87-16 would be undevelopable due to the desirability of preserving the blufftop areas for views and the Bolsa Chica Linear Park (Attachment 6). The EIR also failed to discuss the archaeological sites which are located in the study area. Due to the above issues, EIR 83-2 does not provide adequate environmental analysis and cannot be used as a basis for a focused EIR at a later date. The applicant has agreed to a condition (Q) on the zone change request requiring supplemental environmental assessment prior to any development entitlement (i.e., conditional Use Permit, Tentative Tract, Coastal Development Permit, etc). Since EIR 83-2 does not provide an adequate and comprehensive environmental analysis, staff cannot support the applicant's proposal to provide only supplemental environmental assessment prior to any development entitlement. Staff feels that a comprehensive environmental assessment providing mitigation of the archaeologically significant areas, grade differential, seismic, oil operations, circulation, and traffic impacts must be completed prior to approving any zone change request. As such, staff has prepared the applicant's zone change ordinance to require a comprehensive environmental impact report for the entire area prior to the approval of any development entitlements. 4. Approval of the requested zoning will not establish a boundary for the proposed linear park. Response• Central to staff's position regarding this zone change request is the yet to be determined precise eastern boundary of the Bolsa Chica Linear Park. Resolution No. 5652 which was approved by the City Council on March 24, 1986, clearly states that the eventual alignment of Edwards Street and Seapoint Avenue will be a buffer between urban development and the park. Zone Change No. 87-16 does not reflect RCA - 3/21/88 -3- (0151d) the County's interpretation of Resolution No. 5652. Staff has initiated a Circulation Element Amendment which will be presented to the Planning Commission within the next four months. The Circulation Element Amendment will analyse the proposed Edwards Street/Seapoint Avenue alignment which Resolution No. 5652 identifies as the eastern boundary of the Bolsa Chica Linear Park. When the Edwards/Seapoint alignment has been resolved, a precise boundary for the Bolsa Chica Linear park can be established. The establishment of precise boundaries will enable staff to determine which areas will become park and which areas will be devoted to development. Staff feels that once the alignment of Edwards/Seapoint has been resolved and the precise boundary of the Bolsa Chica Linear Park established, then staff will be in a position to better evaluate a zone change request for this site. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Negative Declaration No. 87-49 has been processed in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, 1986. FUNDING SOURCE: N/A ALTERNATIVE ACTION: The City Council may continue Zone Change No. 87-16 and Negative Declaration No. 87-49 until the Edwards/Seapoint alignment has been resolved and the precise eastern boundary for the Bolsa Chica Linear Park boundary has been determined. Staff is preparing an environmental impact report for the proposed Circulation Element Amendment (Edwards/Seapoint alignment) which will address most of the environmental concerns in this area. If this environmental impact report is certified by the City Council, the applicant may use it as a program environmental impact report and tier a focused environmental impact prior to approval of development entitlements. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Area Map 2. Letter of Appeal dated February 26, 1988 3. Letter from County dated February 16, 1988 supporting staff's recommendation for denial of Zone Change No. 87-16/Negative Declaration No. 87-49 4. Ordinance 5. Figure 3-3 from Land Use Element No. 83-3 6. Planning Commission staff report dated February 17, 1988 PEC:DLB:MA:BF:gbm RCA - 3/21/88 -4- (0151d) ti (PREZONED) -CD Ll o-co RA-0-CD -CD bum RA-0-CD U_O.Co Mo-spoo-co LU-0-CO RA-0 I LU-0-CO U.,Co -0-co 'o-ODoo RA-0 RA,.C, RA-0-CO ORI-Q7)-0-6.000 MRM.61.8.0w RA-o-a D RA-0 Tie SO RA I RA-0 LU-0-00 RA-0-CD CD RA-0 -CZ�, RA-01 I[RAJ-01 RA-0-CD o A, RA 0-co Z. GARFIELD cc-cz--",- R4-0-CZ RA-0 I-CD zm -,0-c cl-0 2 0 CZ.�, -0 f IM R4 1:I'M M2-01 M2-01-CD ROS-0 R 4 RI ft.co R I v Pil of ZC8 "LINTNGTON KAC" HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION 4 Q U NTY O F ERN SCOR DIRECTTOR,,EMR A y ROBERT G. FISHER DIRECTOR OF PLANNING 5 3 RAN G E LOCATION: 12 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA P.O. BOX 4048 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY SANTA ANA,CA 92702.4048 PLANNING MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 4048 SANTA ANA,CA 92702-4048 TELEPHONE: (714)834-4643 FILE February 16, 1988 Paul Cook, City Manager City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 SUBJECT: Planning Commission Hearing February 17, 1988, Agenda item #1: Zone Change No. 87-16/Negative Declaration No. 87-49 Dear Paul: We have reviewed the proposed zone change and strongly support your staff recommendation that the Planning Commission deny the project. We further recommend this letter be entered into the record during the Planning Commission's hearing on February 17, 1988. The proposed project is located within the County's Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program Study Area and within the proposed 148 acre Bolsa Chica Linear Regional Park. As submitted the project would eliminate the potential connection of Edwards and Seapoint Streets that we discussed and your traffic engineering section is continuing to study. It would also eliminate any viable trail connection atop the bluff and thereby remove one of the fundamental bases for the linear park. Should you or your staff have further questions or desire County representation at the Planning Commission hearing please contact Ron Tippets at 834-5394. Very truly yours, _ IS U D i Robert G. Fisher FEBF EB 1 a� Director of Planning CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH RME: ls(3-044) 131-1INISTPATIVE OFFICE 8047 i x ORDINANCE No. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ORDINANCE CODE BY AMENDING SECTION 9061 THEREOF TO PROVIDE CHANGE OF ZONING ON REAL PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF EDWARDS STREET AND GARFIELD AVENUE ( ZONE CHANGE 87-16 ) WHEREAS, pursuant to the State Planning and Zoning law, the Huntington Beach Planning Commission and Huntington Beach City Council have had separate public hearings relative to Zone Change No. 87-16 wherein both bodies have carefully considered all information presented at said hearings, and after due consideration of the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission and all evidence presented to said City Council, the City Council finds that such zone change is proper, and consistent with the General Plan. NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does ordain as follows : SECTION 1 . The following described real property located at the northwest corner of Edwards Street and Garfield Avenue is hereby changed from RA-01 (Residential Agricultural Combined with Oil Production) to (Q)R1- (2 )-01-10 ,000 (Qualified Low Density Residential (2 Units per acre) Combined with Oil Production, with a Minimum 10,000 Square Foot Lot Size) ; RA-0-CZ (Residential Agricultural Combined with Oil Production in the Coastal Zone) to (Q)R1-(2 )-0-10,000-CZ (Qualified Low Density Residential (2 Units per Acre) Combined With Oil Production with a Minimum 10 ,000 Square Foot Lot Size in the Coastal Zone) ; and RA-01-CZ (Residential Agricultural Combined with Oil Production in the Coastal Zone) to (Q)R1-(2 )-01-10 ,000-CZ (Qualified Low Density Residential (2 Units per Acre) With Oil Production with a Minimum 10 ,000 Square Foot Lot size in the Coastal Zone) (see attached map) : - 1 - I QUALIFIED CONDITION FOR ZONE CHANGE NO. 87-16 1 . An environmental impact report which will analyze the entire site shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development prior to the approval of any development entitlements. PARCEL A: Beginning at the south quarter corner of Section 34, Township 5 South, Range 11 West, thence westerly along the south line of said Section 1510 .5 feet; thence north 8036155" east, 1001 .4 feet, more or less, to a point on the line defining the Huntington Beach City limits; thence along said City limits line south 89040 ' 21" east 376 .0 feet; thence north 0018137" east, 1111 . 9 feet; thence leaving said City limits line south 89031 '23" east, 124 .0 feet; thence south 0018 ' 37" west, 120 .0 feet; thence south 89031123" east, 864 .7 feet, more or less, to the east line of the southwest quarter of said Section 34; thence southerly along said east line of the southwest quarter 1979 .7 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning . Contains 55 .5 Acres . SECTION 2 . Section 9061 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, District Map 38 (Sectional District Map 34-5-11) is hereby amended to reflect the change contained in this ordinance and on the map attached hereto. The Director of Community Development is hereby directed to prepare and file an amended map. A copy of such district map, as amended, shall be available for inspection in the office of the City Clerk . END OF THIS PAGE 2 - SECTION 3 . This ordinance shall take effect thirty (30 ) days after its adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of 1988 . Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk /,C t tor 0. '3—� C= ' 3- � REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED: City Administrator Director of Community Development be 3 - (PREZONED) r" -CD U•O-co RA-0-CID ak - K#4v+(3)-"jDOO-CD • -41 W. •Y•• RA-0-CD LU-0-CD � �! ! LU-O•CO RA-0 • «. i - ►}RF(2 7)-O-8POo R$ : R142 7)- AN=j . RA-0- 9 +' 427)-o•5,OOO,-`r(y 111•It 110 J J J S \� _ g � RA-0 «.. RA-01 RA-0 LU-o-CD RA-0-CD p° RA-0 -CZ% RA-01 RA-a RA-0-CD I o I r RA-0-CD i GARFIELD AL •' R4-0-CZ € ' . r� ( CI-0 RA-0 I-CD Y_J O•Y U. y .�..J.�...�. R 4-0 > ��„� � f M 2-01 _ N M2-01 -CD baa t� "O••r•�bti R4 01'- RIR r+�It1' 0 TGLBERT I I CF •r I C F R �, ,� •_ C'F r I; L - f,r : � -- - Area B � ..:�•� :. ter:: �. :.�,...:•.• � �I _ y r i Area A o s II M• .._ __-- .. --_ - ---_- � � I l Blufftop and Swale Preservation Areas * HUNTINGTON BE4CH °} PLANNING DIVISION Developable Areas Subject to Clustering huntington beach department of community development GAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Community Development DATE: February 17, 1988 SUBJECT: ZONE CHANGE NO. 87-16/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 87-49 APPLICANT: Huntington Beach Company DATE ACCEPTED: 2120 Main Street, Ste. 260 December 28, 1987 Hunt . Beach, CA 92648 MANDATORY PROCESSING DATE: REQUEST: Change zoning classifi- February 28, 1988 cation from RA-01 to R1-(2)-01-10, 000; RA-0-CZ ZONE: RA-01, RA-0-CZ, to R1-(2)-0-10, 000-CZ; RA-01-CZ and RA-01-CZ to Rl-(2)-01-10, 000-CZ on GENERAL PLAN: Estate 55 . 5 gross acres . Residential (2 units per acre) . LOCATION: Generally located at the northwest corner of Edwards EXISTING USE: Vacant with Street and Garfield Avenue. oil production ACREAGE: 55 . 5 gross acres 1 . 0 SUGGESTED ACTION: (A) Determine Negative Declaration No. 87-49 to be inadequate because it does not sufficiently address potential environmental impacts and not accept it; and (B) Deny Zone Change No. 87-16 based on findings . 2 . 0 GENERAL INFORMATION: Zone Change No. 87-16 is a request by the Huntington Beach Company to rezone 55 .5 gross acres which are presently designated with three different zoning classifications . The request is to change the zoning as follows : (1) Approximately 43 acres from RA-01 (Residential Agricultural combined with Oil Production) to R1-(2)-01-10, 000 (Low Density Residential-2 units per acre-with a minimum 10, 000 square foot lot size-Combined with Oil Production) ; 0 (2) Approximately . 5 acres from RA-0-CZ (Residential Agricultural combined with Oil Production in the Coastal Zone) to R1-(2)-0-10,000-CZ (Low Density Residential-2 units per acre-with a minimum 10, 000 square foot lot size-Combined with Oil Production in the Coastal Zone) ; and (3) Approximately 12 acres from RA-01-CZ (Residential Agricultural combined with Oil Production and Drilling in the Coastal Zone) to Rl-(2)-01-10,000-CZ (Low Density Residential-2 units per acre-with a minimum 10, 000 square foot lot size-Combined with Oil Production and Drilling in the Coastal Zone) . The zone change request is consistent with the General Plan land use designation of Estate Residential- 2 Units per Acre. Environmental discussion relative to Negative Declaration No. 87-49 is within Section 4 . 0 of this report . 3 . 0 SURROUNDING LAND USE, ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS: North of Subject Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Estate Residential-2 units per acre ZONE: RA-0 (Residential Agriculture with Oil Production) LAND USE: Edison Substation/Temporary Mulching Operation East of Subject Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Estate Residential-4 units per acre ZONE: RA-0 (Residential Agriculture with Oil Production) and Q-R1-(2 .7)-0-8, 000 (Qualified Low Density Residential- 2 units per acre-with Oil Production with a minimum 8, 000 square foot lot size) LAND USE: Vacant with Oil Production/Estate Residential Subdivision South of Subject Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Planned Community ZONE: R4-0 (High Density Residential with Oil Production) LAND USE: Vacant with Oil Production West of Subject Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Portion Open Space-Recreation Portion in Orange County ZONE: Portion RA-01-CZ (Residential Agriculture with Oil Production in the Coastal Zone) and a portion in Orange County LAND USE: Vacant with Oil Production (proposed Bolsa Chica Regional Linear Park) 4 . 0 ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: After conducting an Environmental Initial Study to analyze potential adverse environmental impacts associated with the proposed zone change, it was determined that a mitigated negative declaration (Negative Declaration No. 87-49) in lieu of an Environmental Impact Report could be considered by the Planning Commission due to the following: (a) The zone change would not result in any immediate adverse impact upon the environment; and (b) Sensitive environmental issues relative to the site such as grading, drainage, soil stability, archaeology, traffic, etc. could be more thoroughly and adequately addressed through an Environmental Impact Report at the development stage of the site because a specific development plan (conditional use permit and tentative tract) would be completed which would more accurately depicts cut and fill, impact of drainage, traffic circulation, etc. However, in order to assure an Environmental Impact Report be prepared for the entire site addressing these sensitive issues prior to development of the site, or portion thereof, a qualified ("Q") classification must accompany the zone change. This must be done with the concurrence of the applicant because it will require new public notification of the zone change to include the "Q" and waiver of the mandatory processing time. Pursuant to the environmental regulations in effect at this time the Department of Community Development posted draft Negative Declaration No. 87-47 for ten days, and no comments, either verbal or written were received. Prior to any action on Zone Change No. 87-16 it is necessary for the Planning Commission to review and act on Negative Declaration No. 87-47. Pursuant to Section 9724, Environmental Evaluation, of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code prior to any discretionary approval or carrying out of any project which requires environmental evaluation, the discretionary body (Planning Commission) shall first act upon the negative declaration or the environmental impact report. The discretionary body acting on the project may adopt the negative declaration or may reject it and require an environmental impact report. Without concurrence by the applicant for the "Q" zoning, staff recommends that the Planning Commission deem Negative Declaration No. 87-47 as inadequate by rejecting it and deny Zone Change No. 87-16. 5 .0 COASTAL STATUS: Pursuant to Section 989 .5 . 0 a coastal development permit is not necessary with this application on parcels located in the coastal zone. Staff Report - 2/17/88 -3- (0023d) r 6 .0 RE EVELOPMENT STATUS: Not applicable. 7.0 SPECIFIC PLAN: The proposed zone change is located in Subarea One of the Draft Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan. 8 . 0 SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE: Not applicable. 9 . 0 ISSUES AND ANALYSIS: Zone Change No. 87-16 is a request to rezone approximately 55 . 5 gross acres from Residential Agriculture with oil production in the Coastal Zone to Low Density Residential with Oil Production in the Coastal Zone. The applicant is proposing two units to the acre, which is consistent with the General Plan designation of Estate Residential-2 Units Per Acre. Further, the applicant is proposing a minimum 10, 000 square foot lot size which is 4, 000 square feet larger than typical low density 6, 000 square foot residential lots . The minimum 10,000 square foot lot size will provide for estate residential which is the intent of the General Plan and the Draft Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan. Staff has a number of concerns regarding this request. The major issues include the environmental situation, the proposed Edwards/Seapoint Street realignment, the proposed eastern boundary of the Bolsa Chica Regional Linear Park, possible archaeological resources located on the site, seismic hazards, equestrian amenities, and conformance with the Draft Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan. Environmental Situation: An indicated in Section 4 . 0, Environmental Status, of this report, a negative declaration for the zone change is inadequate unless a "Q" zoning classification is imposed to assure an environmental impact report is prepared and reviewed prior to approval of any development entitlements . The site exhibits an existing grade differential ranging from 100 feet in elevation to almost sea level. Drainage and erosion are major concerns. The presence of active and past oil operations calls for a thorough investigation into possible hazardous materials that may be contaminating the soil. The fact that the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone lays beneath the surface (see attachment) requires thorough seismic evaluation. Also, UCLA has designated the site as part of a larger area that is best described "archaeologically sensitive" . Archaeological resources such as artifacts associated with settlement sites have been identified in addition to two burial sites . This is of major significance. Staff Report - 2/17/88 -4- (0023d) Circulation• Although the City' s Circulation Plan of Arterial Streets and Highways indicates that Edwards Street will realign to the base of the bluff located to the west of the present location, staff is preparing an amendment to the Circulation Element of the General Plan which will analyze the realignment of Edwards Street to the west of its present location but still on the bluff top. This may enable the direct connection of Seapoint and Edwards Streets rather than offset intersections . Also, Garfield Avenue will realign to the north of its present location in anticipation of a cross-gap connector across the Bolsa Chica Area, to Bolsa Chica Street. Staff has just begun the analysis of these realignments and it is projected that the Circulation Element Amendment will be available for public review within six to eight weeks . An Environmental Impact Report will be prepared in conjunction with the Circulation Amendment which will address environmental concerns . Bolsa Chica Linear Park Boundary: On March 24 , 1986, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 5652 which established criteria for the conceptual boundary of the Bolsa Chica Linear Park. The intent of the City Council ' s resolution is to provide for the maintenance, enhancement and protection of the bluff and bluff-top area. In addition, Resolution No. 5652 specifies that the eastern boundary of the Linear Park, Seaview (Seapoint) , Edwards Street and/or others, will be a buffer between urban development and the park. The applicant has submitted a zone change which does not reflect the established policy of the City Council regarding the Linear Park. The zone change request does not take into account the possible realignment of the Edwards/Seapoint Street nor does it recognize the conceptual boundary established by Resolution No. 5652. It is possible that if the Edwards/Seapoint realignment is approved, those streets will define the eastern boundary of the park. As previously noted, staff is presently working on the necessary Circulation Element Amendment. Staff is also working with Orange County EMA on linear park planning and circulation issues. Lastly, staff will need to analyze Huntington Beach Company park dedication requirements on their City-wide land holdings as a means of acquiring the linear park property. Draft Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan: The site for the proposed zone change request is located in Subarea One of the Draft Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan. When the Specific Plan was being prepared, the zoning for this property was M1-02 (Light Industrial District with Oil Production) . On July 2, 1984 , the City Council approved Zone Change No. 84-7, which changed the zoning classification from M1-02 to RA-01 and also delineated the coastal zone boundary. Language in the Draft Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan regarding Subarea One identifies policies that are applicable to this case. The first policy concern is a provision to provide adequate open space area to accommodate the proposed Bolsa Staff Report - 2/17/88 -5- (0023d) Chica Regional Linear Park. Other policy concerns include: provide bluffline drive with views into the Linear Park and the Bolsa Chica lowlands; integration and compatibility of new development proposals with surrounding land uses; and the coordination of the circulation patterns, equestrian trails, open space corridors, landscaping and architectural features applied in Subarea Two of the Specific Plan. The policies included in the Draft Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan clearly recognize the need to address the proposed Edwards/Seapoint Street alignment and the Bolsa Chica Linear Park boundary. The Draft Specific Plan also identifies compatibility with surrounding land uses in the near vicinity. In the Draft Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan area, conditional approvals of zone changes for single family detached estate residential subdivisions have obtained equestrian amenities by means of a "Q" prefix (qualified zoning) . Linkage trails and the percentage of equestrian lots have been established by "Q" zoning in lieu of an adopted Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan. At minimum, staff would recommend the addition of a "Q" prefix to the applicant ' s request in order to achieve compatibility with surrounding existing land uses. Staff would prefer that the applicant work with the City in preparing a revised Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan. Adoption of the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan would establish overall zoning which would address environmental, circulation and development issues . Summary: Staff has identified a number of major issues which should be resolved prior to any approval of a zone change on the subject property. Those issues pertain to the ultimate Edwards Street alignment, the linear park boundary, the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan and appropriate environmental analysis. In order to resolve those issues, staff has proposed the following projects: 1. Circulation Element Amendment/EIR for Edwards/Seapoint Street alignment. 2. Assessment of Huntington Beach Company park dedication requirements. 3 . Revision and adoption of the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan. Staff has already begun work on the Circulation Element Amendment and has tentatively scheduled the EIR review period to begin in six weeks . An assessment of Huntington Beach Company land holdings and park dedication requirements can be completed during that time period. Staff would also like to work with the Huntington Beach Company during that time to prepare a revision of the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan for adoption. Staff Report - 2/17/88 -6- (0023d) Based on the environmental concerns, an inadequate Negative Declaration and the three items listed above (which are currently being prepared) , staff is recommending denial of the zone change with findings . As an alternative, the Planning Commission may continue the zone change with concurrence by the applicant in order to allow the studies to be completed and environmental concerns addressed. If continuance is selected, staff would recommend continuance for a period of four months (until June 21, 1988) . Such continuance would require Huntington Beach Company to work closely with staff in preparation of those studies . 10 . 0 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following action: (A) Determine Negative Declaration No. 87-49 to be inadequate because it does not sufficiently address potential environmental impacts and not accept it; and (B) Deny Zone Change No. 87-16 based on findings . FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - ZONE CHANGE NO, 87-16 : 1. Pursuant to Section 21002 of the California Environmental Quality Act, 1986, an environmental impact report should be prepared which will provide feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of future projects. 2 . Zone Change No. 87-16 is not consistent with Resolution No. 5652 which was approved by the City Council on March 24, 1986, which established the conceptual boundary of the Bolsa Chica Linear Park. 3 . Zone Change No. 87-16 is premature pending the proposed Edwards/Seapoint Street realignment which will possibly determine the eastern boundary of the Bolsa Chica Linear Park. 4 . Zone Change No. 87-16 is not consistent with the equestrian related policies contained in the Draft Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan nor will it be consistent with surrounding existing equestrian oriented land uses . 11.0 ALTERNATIVE ACTION: The Planning Commission may continue Zone Change No. 87-16 and Negative Declaration No. 87-49 to the June 21, 1988 Planning Commission meeting, with the following findings. Staff Report - 2/17/88 -7- (0023d) FINDINGS FOR CONTINUANCE: 1. Continuance of Zone Change No. 87-16 is necessary until the forthcoming circulation amendment has been prepared by staff in order to: a. Resolve the Edwards/Seapoint Street alignment issue. b. Provide a definite eastern boundary for the Bolsa Chica Linear Park. 2 . Continuance of Zone Change No. 87-16 will allow staff to prepare a revised Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan which will: a. Assure compatibility with existing estate residential land uses . b. Provide the opportunity to integrate and coordinate circulation patterns, equestrian trails, open space corridors, landscaping and architectural features applied in Subarea Two (Country View Estates, Central Park Estates and Tract 13210) . 3 . Continuance of Zone Change No. 87-16 may allow time for an Environmental Impact Report to be prepared for consideration, concurrently with the zone change. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Area map 2 . Narrative 3 . Site plan dated October 13, 1987 4 . Land Use Concept Plan dated October 19, 1987 5. Resolution No. 5652 - Bolsa Chica Linear Park Policies adopted by the City Council 6 . Orange County EMA interpretation of linear park adopted boundary 7. Archaeological site map 8. Fault Map - Alquist Priolo 9 . Section from Draft Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan-Subarea One 10 . Draft Ordinance 11. Negative Declaration No. 87-49 SH:RLF:kla Staff Report - 2/17/88 -8- (0023d) "+ (PREZONED) V y J V L -CD U•O cD RA-0-CD 7,1-6k- °°° Ma 6Poo-CD 1r•r.r . .e.n RA-0—CD LU-0•CO RA-0 9 LU-O-CO „d u-0•CO -- ,� �RI•c2.7)-o-e�DOo .a. RA-0 RA-0-CD RA-0-CD -- — k?RH2.7)-0.8A00 ••r•b• �••� RA-01 RA-0 LU-0-CO RA-0 RA-0-CO RA 0 -CZ r� co RA-01 8 01 RA-0-CD o / W s! R RA-0-CD t R Ti GARPIELD L .N•M'0/ f .l CC-CZ—/^ t RA-0 I-CD CI-0 W M 2-01 Wr. P M2-01-CD k i u•r yo �n - arr � i prtu RII .xe . �''—— -- —��A.� r"�-Ra-a�'• •.,,, .r... � 1 ,wt Idl \`•�i► s of HUNTIWUON/EACH HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION Written Narrative to Accompany Zone Change No. The Huntington Beach Company has ini dated this application for rezoning of the subject property from RA-01, RA-O-CZ, and RA-01-CZ to Rl-(2)-Ol- 10,000, R1-(2)-0-10,000-CZ, and R1-(2)-C1-I0,00G-C7- fey the following reasons: 1. To adopt zoning in conformance with arc+ consistert with the City's adopted General Plan as required by section 65860 of the California Government Code. 2. To implement the City's General Plan and Local Coastal Plan, both of which designate the subject property for estate residential development at a density of two units per gross acre. 3. To allow the property to be subdivided into approximately 100 lots for the development of single family homes with views of the Bolsa Chica and Pacific Ocean (see enclosed concept plan). 4. To permit the continued use of the property for drilling and production of oil and gas resources and related facilities. The subject property is undeveloped and is leased to Chevron USA, Inc., who operates 22 producing oil and gas wells on the site. Other onsite facilities include surface and subsurface crude oil, gas, fresh water and wastewater pipelines, storage facilities, graded and paved access roads, and overhead power lines and poles. Oilfields lie to the south and west of the property. The Southern California Edison Company's Slater Substation is located directly north of the subject property. Land uses to the east across Edwards Street include a temporary horse stable (Ocean View Stables), the Country View Estates residential subdivision, and oil fields. Utilities are available on or near the property and in the area, however, only limited subdivision and development has occurred because of long term oil leases and the lack of zoning to implement the general plan. The proposed Rl-(2)-01-10,000 zoning is consistent with the General Plan and compatible with the residential zoning and subdivisions east of Edwards Street, by allowing a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet and a maximum density of two units per gross acre. Adoption of the requested zoning will allow the applicant to begin preparation of preliminary plans for grading, subdivision, utilities, public improvements and the relocation of oil facilities for development of the property in conformance with the General Plan. �irl. ' ,�� —� .J J`I ♦ham' _ \�\��!' '' (('N ♦ ♦ �•�a �LL �`,. /-f J. NA IN I _ •y• "�' t C 1 i rK OfM L•isocf�7fl, l.Ic. SITE PLAN .....� c ..w+ FON . l rfl fK fl+Efr+Sr'•cANOISan✓E rOvs ZONE CHANGE I "'� \J . I •• ELLI \ I 1 � I I� II � _ I / ••. �I I _ •• I I Woe SIR I •I ®" - � � IJ•' /„1U� I \ / // A • \\ I I \\ - -�'�C�/►770N a - - 1 � `.- ,� E9Tf�cTt LOTJ r— ,.° �,."1 - \�. 6i�iY/i�1L Pl,✓IN GA7�Yy' yN?3 �1CRi�3 �il�/l�' It , Al so is ,� OIl�v 9P^C6��ON s ��NA-r ». NiNhc AaAM) 063 k. LAND USE CONCEPT PLAN THE BLUFFS HUNTINGTON BEACH COMPANY d puuml i i i fo" : I ' RESOLUTION NO. 5652 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH APPROVING PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO PLANNING COMMISSION ALTERNATIVE RESOLUTION NO. 1353 WHICH ESTAB- LISHES CRITERIA FOR A CONCEPTUAL BOUNDARY OF THE BOLSA CHICA LINEAR PARK WHEREAS, the Orange County Board of Supervisors executed agreement 0979-102 dated November 27 , 1979, between the County of Orange, the Orange County Harbors, Beaches and Parks District and the City of Huntington Beach, providing for cooperative planning and implementation of the Bolsa Chica Linear Park; and WHEREAS, The Orange County Board of Supervisors adopted the Bolsa Chica Linear Park Boundary Study dated April 1985, as the guidance document for acquisition and development of the proposed park; and PM WHEREAS, the City of Huntington Beach established Bolsa Chica no Linear Park planning goals in 1977 as set forth on the attached sheet; and WHEREAS, a General Development Plan for the park will be prepared by the County of Orange to address the specific siting and layout of park facilities; and WHEREAS, the General Development Plan will maximize the recreational potential of land within the park boundary; and WHEREAS, an Advisory Committee, including members of the Huntington Beach City Council, Planning Commission, Community Services Commission and other interested bodies, will be formed to assist the County in the preparation of the General Development Plan for the park; and 1. 0 - WHEREAS, a public hearing was held in the City of Huntington Beach on February 19, 1986 to allow for public testimony on the issues relating to the proposed conceptual boundary of the Bolsa Chica Linear Park; and WHEREAS, the public testimony received endorsed a linear park of a size which would provide more acreage for human recreational uses than the current city staff proposed approximately one hundred twenty acre or the current County staff proposed approximately one hundred thirty acre park; and WHEREAS, the Bolsa Chica Linear Park will provide for the maintenance, enhancement and protection of the physiographic character of the bluff areas and serve as a transition area from open space to development; and WHEREAS streets along the entire eastern boundary of the Bolsa Chica Linear Park (Seaview, Edwards and/or others) will be a buffer between urban development and the park providing public access to the park, a public view corridor, access for public safety vehicles and personnel, and trespassing security for residents; and WHEREAS, the precise plan of street alignment for the cross-gap connector street, currently Garfield, and the local connector streets, currently Seaview and Edwards, will be adopted by the City of Huntington Beach in the earliest stages of planning 1 due to their tremendous impact on the development of the park; and WHEREAS, the Bolsa Chica Linear Park Conceptual boundary will establish a minimum usable width of one hundred fifty feet in order to provide adequate recreational trails throughout the full length of the park; and 2 . - WHEREAS, the Bolsa Chica Linear Park Conceptual Boundary will establish an ultimate, long-term minimum of one hundred acres suitable for human recreational uses ( after phase-out of oil-related facilities) , and a short-term minimum of forty-four acres suitable and directly available for human recreational uses including scenic vistal points, recreational trails of adequate width for equestrian, bicycle, and pedestrian uses, flat areas for parking and staging facilities, coastal resource interpretation center, and appropriate support facilities; and WHEREAS, many areas within the Bolsa Chica Linear Park Conceptual Boundary including, but not limited to buffer areas surrounding urban development and/or environmental reserves, natural and man-made drainage areas, arterial streets, bluff faces, setbacks from bluff faces, steeply-sloped areas and, environmentally sensitive habitat areas (E MAS) , will not be suitable for human recreational uses and they will not be counted in the acreage established for human recreational uses; and NO FURTHER TEXT ON THIS PAGE MM 3 . WHEREAS, the acquisition of such property is in conformance with the Open Space Element of the General Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach adopt the Conceptual Boundary of the Bolsa Chica Linear Park as shown on the attached map which reflects consideration of all the above. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of adjourned Huntington Beach at a/regular meeting thereof held on the 24th day of March 1986. ATTEST : 'City C er -Mayor REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INWIATED AND APPROVED AS TO FORM ity A City Attorney 4• Res. No. 5652 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) v I, ALICIA M. WEN:WORTH, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of more than a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular adjourned meeting thereof held on the 24th day of March 19 86 by the following vote: AYES: Councilmen: Kelly, MacAllister, Finley, Mandic, Bailey, Green NOES: Councilmen: None ABSENT: Councilmen: None NOT VOTING: Councilman: Thomas City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California tit>\✓ P Y t bo1�y G�•c� .�fie. Ra�Ic.•�:^aa-a•• I VGb" 10� � ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES •:4Y MW �:.:. 365 _ 3b6 3 64 .a : w. '•:':C yiC, �.. > 294 93 92-- 290® : �, . 291 ARCHAE�l� OCrAj SITES SITE AREA REMANNCP NNCEM SITE AREA DESTROY® us ORA SITE NLAIBERS AS NVESTIGAC TED BY A L I ZONING INDEX MAP 9 S-n 10-S [I'\\ DM 9 p 1 .� LEGEND 19-6.10-SECTION-TOWNSHIP-RANGE 16-5-11 15-5-11 14-51 - OM 22 DISTRICT MAP 22 OM t8 pMt7 MIS 24-5,I 19 ••• 20 5 n 21 5-u 22-5_II 21-5.11 - 24-611 — OM 2B`•. DM 21 •• DM,Z3 DM24 DM25 D►' S DM;27 •` I r 3- 30 27-5-It 26 5 u 25- -tl /6M 33 \� D ��%DM33 DM32 DIM 31 Dilxn -- yC, 5`11 33 OM 36 DM 39'a - DM 40 5-6-1I \ 6 -'� 3-6-II 11 I-6-II 6-6-10 5-46-10 I (1OM 4 i \ DM 3 Db1 i OM 6 DM�1 `\"'-� P It- -11 '-11 7-6-10 8-6-10 DM 10 DIVI �l DM t2 I OM 7 OM8 � t � i �r. © 14-6\ --I}6-11 16-6-to— 17-6-10 CITY OF 0W14 DM.10 DM19 HUNTINGTON BEACH -�- - ' I ' ORANGE COUNTY CALIFORNIA ~ ` 24-6-1 9- -10 „. DM29 2// t1.•fpMS• MbWt1 y W / EARTHQUAKE HAZARD SPECIAL STUDY ZONE SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP 34-5-I I - - - CITY OF i HUNTINGTON BEACH 01 ANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA }� USE OF PROPERTY MAP CF r� � o GARFIELO AVE Y f. The coordination of circulation patterns, equestrian trails, open space corridors, landscaping and architectural features applied in Subarea Two of the Specifc Plan. i 4.2 SUBAREA ONE BOUNDARY i Subarea One includes that portion of the E Ilia-Golden west Specific Plan area located west of Edwards Street. Precisely the real property described as follows: Parcels in the City of Huntington Beach as per maps in the County Assessor's Map Book 110, Page 01, lots 51-58 recorded in Miscellaneous Maps of Orange County. 4.3 GENERAL PROVISIONS The Following general provisions shall apply to Subarea One of the Specific Plan. 4.3.1 CONTINUATION AND EXPANSION OF EXISTING USES The following uses are permitted prior to the approval of a specific plan for the entire subarea: a. OII. Use or maintenance of any installation, facility or structure excluding buildings as defined in Article 968 of the City's Zoning Ordinance) used either directly or indirectly, to carry out or facilitate 1 one or more of the following functions: drilling, rework, repair, redrilling, production, processing, extraction, assisted recovery, stimulation, storage or shipping of oil, gas or hydrocarbons from the subsurface of the earth. Oil activities shall be in compliance with Sections 9680-9680.4 and Sections 9682.2-9682.5 of the City's Zoning Ordinance and with the City's Oil Code. b. Open Space/Recreation. Open space and recreation facilities related to development of the proposed Orange County Bolsa Chica Regional Linear Park and the Orange County Master Plan of Riding and Hiking Trails. C. Public Utility Substations. Public Utility Substations not to exceed one 1 acre in total net area, excluding switchyard. 15 S ` . trr �♦4-r f 1 Uii-�61�17�Fe� 4.0 SUBAREA ONE 4.1 PURPOSE As a subarea of the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan the following policy is adopted to provide direction for preparation of development standards: 1. Prior to the submission of any proposal for development, a specific plan for the development of the entire subarea shall be submitted representing a cooperative effort by all property owners within the subarea. Said specific plan shall be subject to review and approval by the City's Planning Commission and shall address the following concerns: a. The provision of adequate open space area to accommodate the proposed Bolsa Chica Regional Linear Park. b. _The provision of a scenic bluffline drive with views into the proposed Bolsa Chica Regional Linear Park and the Bolsa 'Chica lowlands and to serve as a transition area from open space to development. C. The preservation of natural topographic features to the greatest extent feasible. d. The integration and compatibility of new development proposals with surrounding land uses. e. To assure access to oil operations remaining within any proposed development; and the preservation of future access to underground oil reserves. 14 L�l��.t•1'G _=___ 'FtaTe'+a,�� .rZ't'tsttAL D►�c,►iMf..NT I) '� LOui'dTCyR '�t�r`T k4 k Mt r N •••••• Ct�T1CCP'1'��•COt��.CSbQ �SS`.Ltt_T At-�;11M�1.1'� jI so to -••-••- 'P�yl1G �t)ESTit1AN�Qft'RCAfiOt�1 ��T`1Z),1t... � ;� ./ /�--\ •oj-.�/ w�\J 'gyp '1',` S ,fin \ � oc�� . ' •��• �• -_ . � �\ � •� �I\ w x / 1 .r 30 ) -- - , •�. So wareThree I • r� 1 T A `•�V Sijbcrec Ont u rM o �cqwe -VYA�l 6111;-�514jXW1+ A' f' ' Pf Proposed Streets, Trails HUNTINGTON BEACH C4UFORNIK PLANNING DIVISION Open S ace Corridors DRAFT Zone Change 87-16 ORDINANCE AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ORDINANCE CODE BY AMENDING SECTION 9061 THEREOF TO PROVIDE CHANGE OF ZONING ON REAL PROPERTY FROM RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL COMBINED WITH OIL PRODUCTION, TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (2) COMBINED WITH OIL-10, 000; RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL COMBINED WITH OIL PRODUCTION IN THE COASTAL ZONE TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (2) COMBINED WITH OIL PRODUCTION-10, 000 IN THE COASTAL ZONE; RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL COMBINED WITH OIL PRODUCTION IN THE COASTAL ZONE TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (2) COMBINED WITH OIL PRODUCTION-10, 000 IN THE COASTAL ZONE ON REAL PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF EDWARDS STREET AND GARFIELD AVENUE (ZONE CASE 87-16) WHEREAS, pursuant to the State Planning and Zoning Law, the Huntington Beach Planning Commission and Huntington Beach City Council have had separate public hearings relative to Zone Case No. 87-16 wherein both bodies have carefully considered all information presented at said hearings, and after due consideration of the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission and all evidence presented to said City Council, the City Council finds that such zone change is proper, and consistent with the General Plan, NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does ordain as follows : SECTION 1. The following described real property located at the northwest corner of Edwards Street and Garfield Avenue is hereby changed from RA-01 (Residential Agricultural Combined with Oil Production) to R1-(2)-01-10,000 (Low Density Residential (2 Units per acre) Combined with Oil Production, with a Minimum 10,000 Square Foot Lot Size) ; RA-0-CZ (Residential Agricultural Combined with Oil Production in the Coastal Zone) to R1-(2)-0-10, 000-CZ (Low Density DRAFr Residential (2 Units per Acre) Combined With Oil Production with a Minimum 10, 000 Square Foot Lot Size in the Coastal Zone) ; and RA-01-CZ (Residential Agricultural Combined with Oil Production in the Coastal Zone) to R1-(2)-01-10,000-CZ (Low Density Residential (2 Units per Acre) With Oil Production with a Minimum 10, 000 Square Foot Lot size in the Coastal Zone) (see attached map) : PARCEL A: Beginning at the south quarter corner of Section 34, Township 5 South, Range 11 West, thence westerly along the south line of said Section 1510. 5 feet; thence north 8036 ' 55" east, 1001.4 feet, more or less, to a point on the line defining the Huntington Beach City limits; thence along said City limits line south 89040 ' 21" east 376 .0 feet; thence north 0018 ' 37" east, 1111.9 feet; thence leaving said City limits line south 89031 ' 23" east, 124 . 0 feet; thence south 0018137" west, 120. 0 feet; thence south 89031 ' 23" east, 864 .7 feet, more or less, to the east line of the southwest quarter of said Section 34; thence southerly along said east line of the southwest quarter 1979 .7 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning. Contains 55 . 5 Acres . SECTION 2 . The Planning Director of the City of Huntington Beach is hereby directed to change District Map 38 (Sectional District Map 34-5-11) to incorporate the zone change described in Section 1 hereof, and as said district map shall have been amended, the same shall be in full force and effect and be a part of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. A copy of said district map, as amended hereby, is available for inspection in the office of the City Clerk. SECTION 3 . Section 9061, District Map 38 thereof, is hereby amended by Zone Case No. 87-16 . SECTION 4 . This ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its adoption. DRAFT PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of 1988 . Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk City Attorney REVIEWED AND APPROVED: City Administrator Director of Community Development 11D A ET PLANNING ZONING r M 38 Lolini I SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP 34-5-1 . „ NOTE ADOPTED AUGUST 15. AGO CITY OF OF " _. q wE.OE9 TO EXTEND TO TIN CENTER OTY DIDWKNGR OIIDIMAMC( NDZ-oraT66 0. r+a n+.T °r ar7 AMCMDED use CAD NO AMENDED JNORQ NO LEGEND: NOIQY.M�.OICIL,IEHL O19rec, HUNTINGTON BEACH 6 - CETI -62 era .�a N�x,- .-/-" SDS list 1•e!2 lb•1. 253, [� cameo wrw a+o3cr.T. 12-SM 66-.9 atN .-e-62 err 2576 �' .01,a.m.e3cort.a O191 rcr 2.3.69 06-46 1". 5.3-62 e2-2 255S ® 1E 1 rmnT.l.c 9.[T..CT 6-M-70 70-6 1376 •-e-424.3255, cm +v�•T m..lc— a...Kr 1D-9-70 ) 70-10 1606 2.5-8553�-62666 c°rbtA Ow > 659 x-e.e.-T 2706 c,ORANGE Cot.- nTY, CALIFORNIA 6 71 71-26 ,661 10-rft65131A126OO Re —WED WIC M(',p17. °p aKuTOr.o wuonr.cr F2 7NT 1709 Ir-Q3r1D zow26O6 M) , DO.—KOO[—-T.KT 2-22-it Th.1 1722 cao w.EO— . 10-15-73 73.20 1676 'OD ya.1[°m TD .-7.7. M-22 1977 &j qOs IT"O.[.OKE 9-15-73 T.-5 2010 F7� mrr.rlNAWNF"OWQ. T -6-76 7.-Z2 2077 �T .aar.•2°1t a.rna _E.21 -1 1.21.77 77-9 2229 —N watt sqw.• ff N [r[' // RI-CZ .1-CD CZRI ar RI C2 / 6w, j RI-CZ ° ` RI-CZ j1RI-C RI-CD-CZ I I w RI o D ti .RI RI RI H ' G �, RI CZ . -1 o • .a a C FAR RI-Cz c, Z RA-0-CD r o MV \/ON 7R(-CZ '�• y i (PREZONED) RA-0-CD • ��u��A" R I-CD / �iJ•'. �7�o:p _ OCD -col (PREZONED) I R I Os-o- -O-CD Ros-o-co o c -0-CD \ F(PRE�06E*()) Ic C2-0 4CD OCD PCD U-O-cD I I RA-0-CD CD �,�, • °" ,��° RA-CD aRI Ms CD-IBDWI •� -- i CZ)-nil0 po0-G�' Lu CDC p J RA-0 I ,; Lu-o-CD C ro(0" ^°� uOCDI o-Rl-(zn-o-e,000 � RA-0 ::.___ r., RA-a-CD RA-0-CD I - 'Q RH27)-0-BJDOO (o o.C-� ,.RII27}0-gppp: l g ;o:.r�.. .:::• .. RAID I 9 4 0 z : O-RI-(27)-0-".000 0 b.X I RA-0 ` i .., ,E.- RA-01 RA-0 LU-O-CDI RA-o-CD ° OF I I � I H J ` RA 01-CZ CD z RA-0I ?I RA-01 1 RA 0'CD r g RA-O-CD " GARFIELD AVE. 0I- Ioobo dal Z� Gam► Pro Po�e�.� �'jou/►C�Q✓•f _ J.J"J& CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON/EACH J' To Bob Franklin From Catherine M. O'Hare// - - -Assistant Planner Assistant Planner Subject HUNTINGTON BEACH COMPANY Date February 2, 1988 ZONE CHANGE NO. 87-16/ ENVIRONMENTAL. ASSESSMENT NO. 97-49 On November 24, 1988, an initial study analyzing the potential environmental impacts of the Huntington Beach Company's proposed zone change (for the 55.5 acres located at Edwards and Garfield) was prepared. Initial conclusions indicated that an EIR should be prepared to analyze the zone change. This recommendation assumed that a conditional use permit for development would be processed concurrently with the zone change, and that detailed information regarding the future use, and consequently the potential future impacts of the site, would be known. This is not the case, however, only a zone change is being processed at this time. Because no development is proposed at this time, very little information about future impacts can be concluded at this stage. Consequently, it would be very difficult to prepare an adequate EIR for the site. Given the environmental sensitivity of the site (grade differences, archaeological classification, seismic hazards, etc.) it is imperative that a detailed EIR be prepared. Therefore, it is recommended that an EIR be prepared when more detailed development information is available. A negative declaration should be processed for the proposed zone change and the new zone designation should include a qualifier ("Q" suffix) that specifies that an EIR must be prepared for the entire site prior to the approval of any future subdivision or development entitlements. The "Q" suffix should note the sensitive issues of the site. I have prepared the necessary documentation to process Negative Declaration No. 87-49 for Zone Change 87-16. It is attached for your review. It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve the Negative Declaration and the applicant's zone change withthe addition of a "Q" suffix as aforementioned. CMO:gbm Attachment - '(9977d) r ^ RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURE FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 87-49/ZONE CHANGE 14O. 87-16 The new zone designations for the site shall include a "Q" Suffix to require that any future subdivision or entitlement application for the subject 55 . 5 acre site, or any portion thereof, be analyzed by an Environmental Impact Report in accordance with the California Environ- mental Quality Act. The Environmental Impact Report should analyze the potential impacts of development on the overall 155 . 5) acre site. The recommended zoning is as follows : Q-R1- ( 2) -01-10 , 000 Q-R1- (2) -0-10 , 000-CZ Q-R1- (2) -0l-10, 000-CZ • APPENDIX I ENVIRONMENTAL C-ECXLIST FORM (To Be Completed By Lead Agency) I. Bocicground I. Name of Proponent `}l,y1q' 3Ca G�1 ✓V l� 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent ,24,40 MQ vl S�Y`e 't s01---Z400 41 in z o 48 3. Date of Checklist Submitted )I�,Zq l,E7 4. Agency Requiring Checklist OA" 0' 5. Nome of Proposal, if applicable FYI xP6* Z�IG L� 0 ND 87"IlP II. Environmental Impacts (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.) Yes Mafbe No I. Earth, Will the proposal result in: a. Unstcble earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? x _ b. Oisruptiorts, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? — c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of _s soils, either on or off the site? f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? 115 1 Yes No q. Exposurr of people or property to geolo- gic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards) i 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration i of on-bient air quality? i b. The creation of objectionable odors?- C. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course of di- rection of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? _ b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage pat- terns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? _ c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters.? d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, in- cluding but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? x g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct odditioru or with- drawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water svpp lies? i. Exposure of people or property to water re- lated hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? 116 Yes No 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, gross, crops, and aquatic plants)'. b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? _ c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? c. Introduction of new species of animals into on area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels'. �1 _ b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a sub- stantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? 117 Yes Ada be No b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involver a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals of radiation) in the event of an accident or upset Conditions? b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evocuat ion plan? II. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing hous- ing, or create a demand for additional housing? 13. Transportation/Circulatian. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? c. Substantial impact upon existing transpor- tation systems? d. Alterations to present patterns of circulo- tion or movement of people and/or goods? e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air troff ic? f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 14. Public Services. Will the proposo I have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any'of the following areas: a. Fire protection'. _ b. Police protection? c. Schools.? 4 118 . -1' Yes 1�1a�tx No d. Parks or other recreational facilities? f.. Maintenance of public facilities, including rands? f. Other governmental services? 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy'. b. Substantial increase in demand upon exist- ing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? b. Communications systems? C. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? 17. Htxnrn Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)7 b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstniction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open x to public view? 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? - 20. Cultural Resources. a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? 119 . Yes Maybe No b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? c. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wild- life population to drop below self sus- taining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endongered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have the potential to i achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short- term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively con- siderable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 111. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation IV. Determination (To be completed by the Lead Agency) 120 On the basis of this initial evoluotions 1 find that the proposed project COULD NOT hove a significant effect an the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. —� I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case _1 because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environ- ment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Ix I a2SZe— to bignature For , (Note: This is only a suggested form. Public agencies arel free to devise their own format for initial studies.) 121 Discuss.o._ if "Yes" and "Maybe" Responses t%.. .itial Study of Environmental Assessment No. 87-49/Zone Change 87-16 la. Development of the site may result in unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures. lb. Development of the site may result in the disruption, displacement and compaction of the soil. lc. Development of the site will change the existing topography. ld. Development of the property may change unique geologic or physical features. Further study is required to ascertain full impact. le. On-site erosion may increase during construction. Development of the site may do so also. lg. The subject site is located within the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Hazard Special Study Zone. Compliance with State mandated guidelines is required. 2a. Development of the site may generate significant levels of emissions. 3b. Development resulting from the zone change will increase the rate and volume of stormwater runoff on the site. 4a-c. It is not presently known what plant species exist on the subject 55.5 acre site. Potential impacts need to be assessed. Sa-d. It is not presently known what animal species utilize the subject 55.5 acre site. Potential impacts need to be assessed. 6a. Development of the site may increase ambient noise levels. 7. Development of the site may produce new light. 9. Development of the site may result in an increase in the rate of use of natural resources. 11. Development of the site may increase the population of Huntington Beach. 13a-f. Development of the site per the proposed zone change may significantly impact circulation and existing infrastructure in the area. 14. Development of the site per the proposed zone change may impact existing public services and utilities. 18. Development of the site per the proposed zone change will change the existing nature and use of the subject site. 19. The proposed residential development will create a demand for additional recreational parkland. The proposal also impacts the country's proposed regional linear park. Boundaries for the regional park are located within the subject 55.5 acre site. 20a-d. The site is located very near an area designated as being archaeologically sensitive. (9547d) i r PLANNING ZONING DM 38 SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP 34-5—II . • MOTE- ...e•,lul,Do ,wa,a�alr ADOPTED AUGUST is, 960 ..n.Tt1a0e D.m-D WEND rou l,rt a1 l.rT7l.CITY OF QTTCMOIL OIOIMAMC[ M0. 766 , a — !MENDED 0 MM NQ 6.rcNO(D WORD NO LEGEND HUNTINGTON BEACH 6 s,! 6,D 1-1•-62 61 _>o wr.e .r.r z•+oD c 4 .-6-66 06 7 I,)2 ,-.0-62!�� 253, corm rrTM oL�oac*-i 12-l-46 66-N RTI s.ej a-,. nee � .D. e 71.61T'•oa7,T„�Dtn•cr 2.D• , "-" 1,%. p•7.6262226D) 'O• 160a 7 7D6 1�o•r.-,cr•1 6.26-0 0-6 •-9-a2 62 7 Z55' ® �[laDT 0 q-9-70 .2-5-67 67-M266 GE C� itiTY7C �LIFORNIA 1 OR ` T-26 NI -2--69 6S..7w2l �Iq-1 1, m N -+DZ lwu,lWmw.lf c.K,7-+TM� .,.Dft,,c.r,l.no,,..o,o.,,ao<.Tun¢aLLc.,• .cKS,N r .T 2- CM0-22-72 71M 1722 ®0-7 ryD 676 I]I,LL/'1D Q10INJ7gN •.7-74 74-22 97, ® KG[rtq 0•Ti f„K[ 9-9-15 r.-] 200 'm,.,u•,•tU9[Df Dsr.cr 7-6-76 7•-Z2 2077 •�tot Lf•'t t•tr .-21_7 77.9 Z229 =y,rr / /" //�////- �.r,.�r �CL.C.0 L�f.LL./K � •// .nw„aim t0[+R /� RI-CZ MIS R�Z 41, ZIA iLr �_ •.Ro cj ` S w S RIIRI-t;z RI-cz al•cz RI-CD-CZ 1 u� ,o o / , *�zL.�. J1� RI ' RIRI RI y •l�� RI•Q M cz / e �ti s I� s + C F R FIR RI-CZ� C %• 1 / _ 0 R A-0 CD Il C> \C? RI CZ '' I (PREZONED) RA-0-C D RI-CD / ? (PREZONED) RI j ,' s D Ros-0-co o c o ; J=Dj 4C0 D (PREZONED) 1 -CD U•0-CD RA-0-CD RA-CD ' RA-0 - 7LIO-co -D (z.�-o-e,D00 R -0 ! ------- A Ra-01 PA-0-CO r o-ar(2.7ho ep00 g 8 8 RI-(27)•0•Bp00 _ .'-.4 P � O-RI-(27)•0-8,000 '- 'a MI-t2)}O 3 J J RA-0 T267e - �) RA-0 Lu-0-CD RA-0-CD am �. _ W-cD I RA-01 RA-0-CD fC r r c A It RA-0-CD 1 GARFIELD AVE. 76 ) N'M April 26 , 1988 RECEIVED Country Estates Homeowner Association c/o Euclid Management Company qpR 2 �988 P. U. Box 1510 Upland, CA 91785 DEPARTMENT Of COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT The Honorable John Erskine PLANNING DIyISION City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Stnt�et Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE: H. B. Co. proposed development on Edwards Street, zone change 87-16 , negative declaration 87-49 Dear Mr. Mayor: The members of the Country Estates Homeowners' Association are very concerned that the City Council will rule in favor of the Huntington Beach Company' s request for the development of the 55 acre parcel , west of Edwards Street and north of Garfield. The Association feels very strongly that this specific request should be denied for the following reasons: Firstly, we Feel the project is premature. Four events should precede COUT]Cil ' S permission . The Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan should be updated ( perhaps even expanded into the bluff area) and passed by Council to set the tone of development in the entire area. Street alignments not specifically included in the Ellis--Goldenwest Plan need further definition. The boundary for the Linear Park must be established prior to the issuance of permits for any site west of Edwards Street. And environmentally sensitive areas need to be identified, specifically addressed , and action defined--including toxic sites that exist. Secondly, the proposed plan we examined at the Council meeting of March 21 , 1988 , did not allow for any equestrian trails within the development, and did not allow for equestrian lots within the site . Both trails and lots are essential to the estate atmosphere that we existing homeowners are expecting the "bluff" area to embrace. The trail system must connect Central Park, Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan, the areas west of Edwards including the Linear Park, and the equestrian site within the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan. Finally , the infrastructure for water and sewer does not exist and only now is Reservoir Hill being discussed in specific detail . Sewer considerations have not been addressed to the best of our knowledge_ In fact, we have serious doubts that the County will allow additional sewer connections . y The density requested .is 1.o be applauded by staff , this Association, and City Council . The project itself will undoubtedly be a genuine asset to the City and to us personally as homeowners . The pro.iect is simply premature. Other considerations by the City must have priority. The Association would like to be included in any planning that Staff will be undertaking in the coming months . The President of the Association is Mr. John Fisher. He is available at (714 ) 842-1873 . The City has a great opportunity to spearhead a concensus for the area. Please allow the foundations to be built prior to buildings . Sincerely, Country Estates Homeowners' Association CC: City Council Members : Wes Bannister, Ruth Finley, Tom Mays , Peter Green, Jack Kelly, Grace Winchell . Planning Commission members : Victor Leipzig, Jim Silva, Ken Bourguignon, Frank Higgins, Tom Livengood, Geri Ortega, Roger Slate . City Staff : Paul Cook, Douglas LaBelle, Mike Adams , Robert Franklin . +0 e Mary Lou Rosczyk Q UVIc`1 cbAeJ KAO1 NbILC C6V4VAk KtS 16172 Ballantine Ln. 4'4�Yti` Huntington Beach 92647 �JK,3__ mcky a, 1781 Dear Members of the Huntington Beach City Council, In view of the fact that City Staff has not suggested any Linear Park Circulation Alternatives with the wishes of the citizens of Huntington Beach as a prime consideration, please consider the following two alternatives in addition to the three suggested by City Staff: Circulation Alternative 4---Adoption of Appx. County-Proposed Boundary (See Map) 1) Since Edwards-Seapointe alignment avoids the bluff area, costly grading of major arterial streets is avoided. 2) No local road dead ends as in Alt. 3. 3) There is adequate separation of the park from homes by the street. 4) There is no Garfield cross-gap connector to bisect the park as in Alt. 1,2, & 3. 5) There is only one T intersection instead of two as in Alt. 3. 6) Archaeological sites area however, more impacted than in Alt. 5. 7) More land is retained for residential development than in Alt. 5. Circulation Alternative 5---Adoption of Larger Linear Park (See Map) 1) Existing alignment of Edwards Street is maintained. 2) No local road dead-ends as in Alt 3 where people would have to make a U-turn to leave. 3) Seapointe aligns with Garfield as a major transportation artery and Edwards intersects with Seapointe-Garfield. 4) There is no Garfield cross-gap connector to bisect the Linear Park as in Alt. 1,2,& 3. 5) There is only one T intersection instead of two as in Alt. 3. 6) Little if any grading would be necessary as the bluffs are avoided in aligning the streets. 7) Sensitive archaeological sites are avoided. 8) There is adequate separation of the park from homes. C i f cti l ai";on r)a.+i v e �_ E I &L.LIS AVE. �}ppX IaS ACRES / I I 6kRFlEI D AVE. T t t i Y r � • • Ci rcvlcction R l+erna 'f ive 5 a.�C�ERT q�E W &LEIS AVE. ACRES 4ARFIELZ AVE. �y ,::•� r 1µ'GY' J I S,+Q A 4�� PdN_•,geld -,�,a— N C NOTICE PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLIC NOTICE a6�vo�s NOTI IUBLIC HEARMq-- ,1 uo^eO wieM.d APPEAL TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF ZONE CHANGE NO. 87-161 NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 87-49 (Appeal to the Planning Commission's denial of a request to change zoning on 55.5 gross acres from Residential Agricultural to Low Density Residential) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Huntington Beach City Council will hold a public hearing in the Council Chamber at the Huntington Beach Civic Center,2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach,California,on the date and at the time indicated below to receive and consider the statements of all persons who wish to be heard relative to the application described below. DATE/TIME: Monday, March 21, 1988, 7:00 PM APPLICATION NUMBER: Zone Change No. 87-16 and Negative Declaration No. 87-49 — Appeal to Planning Commission Denial APPELLANT/APPLICANT: Huntington Beach Company LOCATION: Generally located at the northwest corner of Edwards Street and Garfield Avenue(see attached map). CURRENT ZONE: RA-01 (Residential Agriculture Combined with Oil District)/RA-0-CZ and RA-01-CZ (Residential Agriculture Combined with Oil District, Coastal Zone) REQUEST: Appeal to the Planning Commission's denial of a request to change zoning designation from RA-01 to R1-(2)-01-10,000; RA-0-CZ to R1-(2)-0-10,000-CZ; and RA-01-CZ to R1-(2)-01-10,000-CZ on three parcels of land which total 55.5 gross acres. The applicant is appealing the Planning Commission's.denial based on the following reasons: 1. Huntington Beach Company disagrees with staff's analysis and findings for denial. 2. The requested zoning is clearly consistent with the General Plan and compatible with other land uses and development in the area. 3. Adequate environmental documentation exists to assess the impacts of the existing land use designation and proposed zoning.The applicant has agreed to a condition requiring supplemental environmental assessment prior to any development entitlement. REQUEST: 4. Approval of the requested zoning will not establish a boundary for the proposed linear park. In response to the Planning Commission's denial, the applicant has requested the addition of the "Q" suffix to the zoning to conditionally require environmental analysis prior to the approval of any development entitlement on the property. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Negative Declaration No. 87-49 has been processed in accordance with the requirements of CEQA, 1986 and will also be considered by Council. COASTAL STATUS: Pursuant to Section 989.5.0 a coastal development permit is not necessary with this application on parcels located in the coastal zone. ONFILE:A copy of the proposed request is on file in the Department of Community Development,2000 Main Street,Huntington Beach, California 92648, for inspection by the public. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If there are any further questions please call Robert Franklin, Assistant Planner at 536-5271. HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL, By: Alicia M. Wentworth, City Clerk, Phone: (714) 536-5405 Published Orange Coast Daily Pilot March 10, 1988 th531 DR :J- 41 Y .,. La �t J C F-R a' %� t •°i � � Inuh:Or3.'OS r.EY'i 3DL?1R'<) r iI Z O �! 0L L e i ZONE CHANGE 87-16 NEGATIVE DECLARATION 87-49 :: ;:;'r; ;:;; : .•'� 4��o I :•::•: :•:•:f:•. :••• Mee We r :} I :• :•:•:•::•:•:•:•:•::V� •:'§ I ~ /J GARFIELD AVE , ZONE CHANGE 87-16 NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO, 87-49 HUNTINGTON BEACH C4LIFORNIA PLANNING DIVISION I f - - Authorized to Publish Advertisements of all kinds including public notices by Decree of the Superior Court of Orange County, California. Number A-6211, dated 29 September. 1961. and A-24831. dated 11 June. 1963 STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of Orange Public Non"Ad..nlwp cowed by IMe NNde.lt if so ,n 7 po1n1 .",1 10 pica cok~.6d111 I am a Citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the below entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of the Orange Coast DAILY PILOT, with which is combined the NEWS-PRESS, a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published in the City of Costa Mesa. County of Orange, State of California, and that a Notice of Fill hI ; c nearing of which copy attached hereto is a true and complete copy, was printed and published in the Costa Mesa, Newport Beach, Huntington Beach, Fountain Valley, Irvine, the South Coast communities and Laguna Beach issues of said newspaper for o n e consecutive weeks to wit the issue(s) of March 10 198 8 198 198 198 198 1 declare, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on March 1 0 , 198 a at Costa Mesa, California. Signature PROOF OF PUBLICATION ,�dt1E PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLIC NOTICE I PUBLIC NOTICE I PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING APPEAL TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF ZONE CHANGE NO. 87-16/ NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 87-49 (Appeal to the Planning Commission's denial of a request to change zoning on 55.5 gross acres from Residential Agricultural to Low Density Residential) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Huntington Beach City Council will hold a public hearing in the Council Chamber at the Huntington Beach Civic Center,2000 Main Street,Huntington Beach,California,on the date and at the time indicated below to receive and consider the statements of all persons who wish to be heard relative to the application described below. DATE/TIME:Monday,March 21, 1988,7:00 PM APPLICATION NUMBER:Zone Change No.87-16 and Negative Declaration No.87-49—Appeal to Planning Commission Denial APPELLANT/APPLICANT:Huntington Beach Company LOCATION:Generally located at the northwest corner of Edwards Street and Garfield Avenue(see attached map). CURRENT ZONE: RA-01 (Residential Agriculture Combined with Oil District)/RA-0-CZ and RA-01-CZ (Residential Agriculture Combined with Oil District,Coastal Zone) REQUEST:Appeal to the Planning Commission's denial of a request to change zoning designation from RA-01 to R1-(2)-01-10.000; RA-0-CZ to Rl-(2)-0-10,000-CZ;and RA-01-CZ to R1-(2)-01-10,000-CZ on three parcels of land which total 55.5 gross acres. The applicant is appealing the Planning Commission's denial based on the following reasons: 1-Huntington Beach Company disagrees with staff's analysis and findings for denial. 2-The requested zoning is clearly consistent with the General Plan and compatible with other land uses and development in the area. 3-Adequate environmental documentation exists to assess the impacts of the existing land use designation and proposed zoning.The applicant has agreed to a condition requiring supplemental environmental assessment prior to any development entitlement. REQUEST:4.Approval of the requested zoning will not establish a boundary for the proposed linear park. In response to the Planning Commission's denial, the applicant has requested the addition of the "0" suffix to the zoning to conditionally require environmental analysis prior to the approval of any development entitlement on the property. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS:Negative Declaration No.87-49 has been processed in accordance with the requirements of CEQA,1986 and will also be considered by Council. COASTAL STATUS: Pursuant to Section 989.5.0 a coastal development permit is not necessary with this application on parcels located in the Coastal zone. ON FILE:A copy of the proposed request is on file in the Department of Community Development,2000 Main Street,Huntington Beach, California 92648,for inspection by the public. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above-If there are any further questions please call Robert Franklin,Assistant Planner at 536-5271. HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL,By:Alicia M.Wentworth,City Clerk,Phone:(714)536-5405 Published Orange Coast Daily Pilot March 10,16,1988 ThS31 F161 t �. < , - - + - ZONE CHANGE 87-16 1,•.,:,,,,,,,,,,,, T— _ NEGATIVE DECLARATION 87-49 "'" " "'' rX. .. /• fi•::..�.�.•.'�.•i •:i:.:•.•.:•:.•:.�.'�.ti�1. / GARFIELJ `r i AVE ZONE CHANGE 87-16 NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO, 87-49 HUNTINGTON BEACH C4LIFORNIA PLANNING DIVISION Authorized to Publish Advertisements of all kinds Including public notices by Decree of the Superior Court of Orange County, California. Number A-6214. dated 29 September. 1961. and A-24831. dated 11 June. 1963- STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of Orange PuOK NOMA Adverl!W"covered by tlue e141Weva n let in 7 p011%1 w1h 10 p,Ce CokWM WWnh I am a Citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the below entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of the Orange Coast DAILY PILOT, with which is combined the NEWS-PRESS, a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published in the City of Costa Mesa, County of-Orange. State of California, and that a Notice of Puhl i C Rearing of which copy attached hereto is a true and complete copy, was printed and published in the Costa Mesa, Newport Beach, Huntington Beach, Fountain Valley, Irvine, 'the South Coast communities and Laguna Beach issues of said newspaper for o n e consecutive weeks to wit the issue(s) of March 18 198 8 198 198 198 198 I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on March 18 , 198 8 at Costa Mesa, California. 4CL Signature ` PROOF OF PUBLICATION ;LIC NOTICE PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLIC NOTICE 1 PUBLIC NOML ---rutiut, nunWE NOTICE. OF PUBLIC-ReARING APPEAL TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF ZONE CHANGE NO. 87-16/ NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 87-49 Appeal to the Planning Commission's denial of a request to change zoning on 55.5 gross acres from Residential Agricultural to Low Density Residential) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Huntington Beach City Council will hold a public hearing in the Council Chamber at the Huntington each Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach,California,on the date and at the time indicated below to receive and consider ie statements of all persons who wish to be heard relative to the application described below. DATE/TIME: Monday, March 21, 1988, 7:00 PM APPLICATION NUMBER:Zone Change No. 87-16 and Negative Declaration No. 87-49 — Appeal to Planning Commission Denial APPELLANT/APPLICANT: Huntington Beach Company LOCATION: Generally located at the northwest corner of Edwards Street and Garfield Avenue (see attached map). CURRENT ZONE: RA-01 (Residential Agriculture Combined with Oil District)/RA-0-CZ and RA-01-CZ (Residential Agriculture %ombined with Oil District, Coastal Zone) REQUEST: Appeal to the Planning Commission's denial of a request to change zoning designation from RA-01 to R1-(2)-01-10,000; :A-O-CZ to R1-(2)-0-10,000-CZ; and RA-01-CZ to R1-(2)-01-10,000-CZ on three parcels of land which total 55.5 gross acres. The applicant is appealing the Planning Commission's denial based on the following reasons: 1. Huntington Beach Company disagrees with staff's analysis and findings for denial. 2. The requested zoning is clearly consistent with the General Plan and compatible with other land uses and development in the area. 3.Adequate environmental documentation exists to assess the impacts of the existing land use designation and proposed zoning. ThE applicant has agreed to a condition requiring supplemental environmental assessment prior to any development entitlement. REQUEST: 4. Approval of the requested zoning will not establish a boundary for the proposed linear park. In response to the Planning Commission's denial, the applicant has requested the addition of the "Q" suffix to the zoning tc conditionally require environmental analysis prior to the approval of any development entitlement on the property. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS:Negative Declaration No. 87-49 has been processed in accordance with the requirements of CEQA, 198E and will also be considered by Council. COASTAL STATUS: Pursuant to Section 989.5.0 a coastal development permit is not necessary with this application on parcel: located in the coastal zone. ON FiLE:A copy of the proposed request is on file in the Department of Community Development,2000 Main Street, Huntington Beact California 92648, for inspection by the public. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the applicatio as outlined above. If there are any further questions please call Robert Franklin, Assistant Planner at 536-5271. HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL, By: Alicia M. Wentworth, City Clerk, Phone: (714) 536-5405 Published Orange Coast Daily Pilot March 10, 1988 th53 1I - Y I I -Ii I - � IIL • . ...a CF—R a � r .-,- ` K,.•`,': +a n.. "•f ZT - �"" :.'}'7' _ -� I.iu!W(�n7 N1 +.E.VTAALPARY) " Signal'.Companies Inc. Robert C. Sunderland T 17890 S�y Park Cir P.O.Boix. 49.7. Irtv IValley Center CA 92082 r �.tn; G. Nahin 110-200-14 110-015-48;52;53;54;55; Signal Companies Inc. I Michael W. Blasgen 17890 Sky Park Blvd. 33 Whippoorwill Rd Irvine, CA 92714 Chappaqua, NY 10514 110-015-50 110-200-21 Signal Companies Inc. Phillips Petroleum Co. Signal Landmark, Inc. Real Estate & Claims 17890 Sky Park Cir 18055 E. Tufts Ave. Parkway Irvine, CA 92714 ` Denver, CO 80237 110-051-51 1110-230-05 Huntington Beach Company Huntin ton Beach Co. Property Tax I Prope Ny Tax Div. P.O.Box 7611 i 225 Bush St. San Francisco, CA 94120 San Francisco, CA 94120 110-015-56;57;58; 110-230-08 Huntington Pacific Corp Edwards Lindborg-Dahl 2110 Main St. Western Homex Corp Huntington Beach, CA 92648 P.O.Box 1188 110-015-60; 61 Sunset Beach, CA 90742 159-351-01;02;03;04;05;06;14;15;, 16;17;18;19;20; I City of Huntington Beach P.O.Bxo 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 110-015-62 Signal Bolsa Corp 17890 Slypark Cir Irvine, CA 92714 110-015-67 _ I Julian I. Hathaway P.O.Box 3404 Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670 110-190-01 7, C 77-14 I Muriel F. Johnson 2387 -3E Via Mariposa West Laguna Hills, CA 92653 110-190-02;03;04 Huntington Beach Co. Property Tax P.O.Box 7611 San Francisco, CA 94120 110-200-10;11;22;29 Huntington Pacific Corp 2110 Main St. Huntington Ueach, CA 92648 110-200-12 Rhonda Evans Environmental Management Agency 12 Civic Center Plaza P. O. Box 4048 Santa Ana, CA 92702 Lorraine Faber 700 Marina Drive Seal Beach, CA 90740 Calif. Coastal C nvnission South Coast District 245 W. Broadway, Suite 380 Long Beach, CA 90801 Huntington Beach Tomorrow P. O. Box 865 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Mary Bell-Trail Coordinator E.T.I. 20292 Eastwood Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Mike Martin So. Calif. Edison 7333 Bolsa Avenue Westminster, CA 92683 Amigos de Bolsa Chica 15545 Cceputer Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92647 DISTRICT NUMBER: 054A HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY PARCEL NO/ 0WNERS ZIP PARCEL NO/ OWNERS ZIP PARCEL NO/ OWNERS Z. TRA NAME ANO ADDR S CODE TRA NAME ANO ADDRESS CODE TRA NAME AND ADORES S Cl 159-351-16 WESTERN CORP 159-352-OS KUBELKA, BARTON A TR 159-352-12 DUNCAN9 DAV P 04-013 P O 1188 04-013 5122 KATELLA AVE 1114 04-013 5042 P DGE CIR ET BEACH► CA 90742 LOS ALAMIIOS► CA 90720 GTON BEACH, CA 921 159-351-19 EDWARDS-LIN _ AIIL 159-352-06 CHAPMAH, GERALD L 159-352-13 RABOY, N 04-013 1722 PE ST 9226 04-013 6742 SHIRE CIR 04-013 6 6 7_j,4YftrTLAND CIR ,.. T`AIN VALLEY, CA 92708 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92649 looff CIWTINGTON BEACH, CA '921 159-351-20 COUNTRY VIEW HOMEOWNERS 159-352-07 WATSON, GORDON M TR 159-352-14 WESTERN HOM P 04-013 ASSN 04-013 5021 DOVEWOOD OR 04-013 P 0 BOA04TBB %WESTERN HOMEX CORP HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92649 Soe BEACH, CA 90' 17205 PACIFIC COAST HWY SUNSET BEACH, CA 90742 1S9-3S2-01 GALE, STEVEN L 159-352-08 DAHL, DAVID D 159-352-15 MCDEVITT/ f"'M 04-013 P 0 BOX 702 04-013 %DAHL COMPANY, THE 04-013 505 AVE WHITTIER, CA 90608 505 PARK AVE BOA ISLAND, CA M BALBOA ISLAND, CA 92662 159-352-02 BOIVIN, JOHN A 159-352-09 ENG, VINCENT CHEE KEI 159-352-16 MCDEVITT/S f 04-013 6671 SHIRE CIR 04-013 6692 SHIRE CIR 04-013 505 P E HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 B A ISLAND, CA 921 159-352-03 CRACCIIIOLO, SALVATOR W 159-352-10 ALOOROTY, ROBERT 159-352-17 MANDIC, ROB 'JR 04-013 6691 SHIRE CIR 04-013 6672 SHIRE CIR 04-013 1112 M T HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92647 H TON BEACH, CA 21 . 159-352-04 MCDEVITT/SMITH 12 159-352-11 WALTERS, LARRY R 159-352-18 MILL�3i-J GENE N 04-013 505 PARK AVE 04-013 6652 SHORE CIR 04-013 R BALBOA ISLAND, CA 92662 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 42646 , CA 921 M� i t ` VVV NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF ZONE CHANGE NO. 87-16/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 87-49 (Appeal to the Planning Commission' s denial of a request to change zoning on 55 . 5 gross acres from Residential Agricultural to Low Density Residential) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Huntington Beach City Council will hold a public hearing in the Council Chamber at the Huntington Beach Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, on the date and at the time indicated below to receive and consider the statements of all persons who wish to be heard relative to the application described below. DATE/TIME: Monday, March 21, 1988, 7 : 00 PM APPLICATION NUMBER: Zone Change No. 87-16 and Negative Declaration No . 87-49 - APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL APPELLANT APPLICANT: Huntington Beach Company LOCATION: Generally located at the northwest corner of Edwards Street and Garfield Avenue (see attached map) . CURRENT RA-01(Residential Agriculture Combined with Oil '70NE: District)/RA-0-CZ and RA-01-CZ (Residential Agriculture Combined with Oil District, Coastal Zone) REQUEST: Appeal to the Planning Commission' s denial of a request to change zoning designation from RA-01 to R1-(2)-01-10, 000; RA-0-CZ to R1-(2)-0-10, 000-CZ ; and RA-01-CZ to R1-(2)-01-10, 000-CZ on three parcels of land which total 55 . 5 gross acres . The applicant is appealing the Planning Commission' s denial based on the following reasons : 1 . Huntington each Company disagrees with staff ' s analysis and findings for denial . 2 . The requested zoning is clearly consistent with the General Plan and compatible with other land uses and development in the area . 3 . Adequate environmental documentation exists to assess the- impacts of the existing land use designation and proposed zoning. The applicant has greed to a condition requiring supplemental environmental assessment prior to any development entitlement. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING (Continued) REOUEST: 4 . Approval of the requested zoning will not establish a boundary for the proposed linear park. In response to the Planning Commission' s denial, the applicant has requested the addition of the "Q" suffix to the zoning to conditionally require environmental analysis prior to the approval of any development entitlement on the property. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS : Negative Declaration No . 87-49 has been processed in accordance with the requirements of CEQA, 1986 . and will also be considered by Council . COASTAL STATUS : Pursuant to Section 989 . 5 . 0 a coastal development permit is not necessary with this application on parcels located in the coastal zone. ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the Department of Community Development, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648, for inspection by the public. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If there are any further questions please call Robert Franklin, Assistant Planner at 536-5271 . (9967d-9 , 10) I \' !. �Y% �6 !L--r—�.�1fi I _.��_i_�'.�_. •i�� I to IL Jl ZONE CHANGE 87-16 NEGATIVE DECLARATION 87-49 GARFIELD AVE. ZONE CHANGE 87-16 NEGATIVE DECLARATION N0, 87-49 HUNTINGTON BEACH C4LIFORNIA PLANNING DIVISION — —^--�� 4— PH i �F�pp f Ol L L -Megl 4., •� CI ,r 9 j j I � ZONE CHANGE 87-16 S NEGATIVE DECLARATION 87-49 f•fh}e.f.• •r' t. � � � it :f •�� - / XxX KPIN AA � i off . �� i T—� � :;?• GARFIELD AVE. ZONE CHANGE 87-16 NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 87-49 HUNTINGTON BEACH C4LIFORNIA PLANNING DIVISION --- Lega Notice - City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk P. O. Box 190 ON Huntington Beach,CA 92648 i _ P1ic i . c � � � �,Oi?:397 a jw 159-352-11 NALTERSp LARRY R .04-013 6652 SHORE CIR �' 1 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA-,N 192646`t ` " FRST CLASS MAIL HUNTINGTON BEACH i r j�QTICE OF PLTB�C HEARING APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF ZONE CHANGE WO. 87-19/NRGXTfV—E D LARATION NO. 87-49 (Appeal to the Planning Commission' s denial of a request to change zoning on 55. 5 gross acres from Residential Agricultural to Low Density Residential) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Huntington Beach City Council will hold a public hearing in the Council Chamber at the Huntington Beach Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, on the date and at the time indicated below to receive and consider the statements of all persons who wish to be heard relative to the application described below. DATE/TIME: Monday, March 21, 1988, 7:00 PM APPLICATION NUMBER: Zone Change No. 87-16 and Negative Declaration No. 87-49 - APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL APPELLANT APPLICANT: Huntington Beach Company L.00ATIO21: Generally located at the northwest corner of Edwards Street and Garfield Avenue (see attached map) . CURRENT RA-01(Residential Agriculture Combined with Oil ZONE: District)/RA-0-CZ and RA-01-CZ (Residential Agriculture Combined with Oil District, Coastal Zone) REOUEST: Appeal to the Planning Commission' s denial of a request to change zoning designation from RA-01 to R1-(2)-01-10,000; RA-0-CZ to Rl-(2)-0-10,000-CZ; and RA-01-CZ to R1-(2)-01-10,000-CZ on three parcels of land which total 55.5 gross acres . The applicant is appealing the Planning Commission' s denial based on the following reasons: 1. Huntington each Company disagrees with staff ' s analysis and findings for denial. 2. The requested zoning is clearly consistent with the General Plan and compatible with other land uses and development in the area. 3 . Adequate environmental documentation exists to assess the- impacts of the existing land use designation and proposed zoning. The applicant hasAgreed to a condition requiring supplemental environmental assessment prior to any development entitlement. NOTICE OF P1JBLIC HEARING (Continued) REQUEST: 4 . Approval of the requested zoning will not establish a boundary for the proposed linear park. In response to the Planning Commission' s denial, the applicant has requested the addition of the "Q" suffix to the zoning to conditionally require environmental analysis prior to the approval of any development entitlement on the property. ENVIRONMEENTAL STATUS: Negative Declaration No. 87-49 has been processed in accordance with the requirements of CEQA, 1986.and will also be considered by Council . COASTAL STATUS: Pursuant to Section 989 . 5.0 a coastal development permit is not necessary with this application on parcels located in the coastal zone. ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the Department of Community Development, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648, for inspection by the public. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If there are any further questions please call Robert Franklin, Assistant Planner at 536-5271. (9967d-9 , 10) Huntington Beach City Council Study Session Re: Holly-Seacliff Master Plan 4/24/89 On Monday, April 24, 1989, at 6:00 p.m., the Huntington Beach City Council will conduct a study session on the Holly-Seacliff Master Plan. The purpose of the study session will be to review the baseline data which had been collected, and examine the land use alternatives which will be analyzed for the area. The public is invited to attend the study session, however, it is not a public hearing. The public hearing will be scheduled at a future date. The Holly-Seacliff Master Plan covers a 768-acre area generally bounded by Ellis Avenue to the north, Huntington and Main streets to the west, Yorktown and Clay avenues to the south and the bluff west of Edwards Street to the west. Connie Brockway, City Clerk, City of Huntington Beach-4/18/89 Anri121, 1989 Huetington Beach News i CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK March 28, 1988 Huntington Beach Company 2120 Main Street, Suite 260 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at the regular meeting held March 21 , 1988, continued your public hearing to an adjourned meeting to be called May 2, 1988 for the purpose of holding a study session with decision continued to the regular meeting of June 20, 1988. If you have any questions, please call our office. Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk AMW:bt Enc. (Telephone: 714-536-5227) Huntington Beach Company FC5 2120 Main Street,0260, Huntington Beach,California 92648-2499 (714)960-4351 February 19, 1988 Honorable John Erskine,Mayor Huntington Beach City Council 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Subject: Appeal of Planning Commission Action on Zone Change 87-16 Honorable Mayor and Council: The Huntington Beach Company hereby appeals the Huntington Beach Planning Commission's action of February 17, 1988, recommending denial of Zone Change 87-16. Would you please schedule a public hearing on this item at your earliest convenience. Thank you. Sincerely, William D. Holman Sr. Project Representative cc: Michael Adams, Community Development Department USE BALL POINT PEN ONLY - PRESS FIRMLY CASH RECEIPT • CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH P O BOX 711 •HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 Y (714) 536-5511 •CITY TREASURER WARREN G HALL ' ISSUING DEPT �-J ��' DATE e,2:z el-A RECEIVED t FROM ADDRESS I^ v e (J - / FOR %1 r, 7t!� TJ� d ; AMOUNT RECEIVED CASH ❑ CHECK w ABA ^-�'f'r RECEIVED BY ACCOUNT AMOUNT AQ C 1 TOTAL NO 4420 � 6 CUSTOMER COPY REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION June 6, 1988 Date Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council / Submitted by: Paul E. Cook, City Administrator C� Prepared by: Douglas La Belle, Director of Community Developme Subject: JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION S SESSION —HUNTINGTON BEACH COMPANY ZONE CHANGE/LINEAR PARK Consistent with Council Policy? pQ Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions,Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE: On May 3, 1988, staff conducted a joint City Council/Planning Commission study session on issues related to the Bolsa Chica Regional Linear Park. Due to an extended Executive Session, however, time was very limited for the Study Session. After an abbreviated staff presentation and limited Council/Commission discussion, the Study Session was continued to May 17, 1988. On May 16, 1988, the Study Session was continued to June 6, 1988. Staff is essentially resubmitting the previous back—up materials for the new Study Session. Rather than focusing prematurely on arbitrary park acreages, however, staff would prefer that the Council/Commission think in terms of desired park uses, realistic street alignments and timing of acquisition in order to ultimately arrive at an appropriate park boundary and acreage. If the Council and Commission agree on a linear park of a general purpose and nature which could be obtained through developer dedication, then staff will be further looking for direction on a proposal for an area study/dedication agreement. That proposal is outlined in the May 2, 1988 staff report attached here. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Staff Report dated May 2, 1988 2. Edwards/Seapoint — Linear Park Issue Paper dated March 28, 1988 3. City Council Resolution dated February 4. Letter from Mary Lou Rosczyk dated May 2, 1988 5. Letter from County Estates Homeowner Association dated Arpil 26, 1988 6. Letter from Equestrian Trails, Inc. dated April 22, 1988 PEC:DLB:MA:HS:gbm Gi f (0573d) PIO 5/85 REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Date May 2, 1988 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Submitted by: Paul E. Cook CityAd minis trat Prepared by: Douglas La Belle, Director of Community Develop ehr Subject: JOINT PLANNING COMNIISSION/CTTY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION —HUNTINGTON BEACH COMPANY ZONE CHANGE/LINEAR PARK Consistent with Council Policy? [�J Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Fundinq Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE: On March 21, 1988, the City Council held a public hearing on the Huntington Beach Company's request for a zone change on 55 acres of property located at the northwest corner of Garfield Avenue and Edwards Street (Figure 1). The Planning Commission had previously denied the request, and the Planning staff was recommending denial or continuance. The basis for the recommended action was that the request was inconsistent with existing Ellis/Goldenwest Specific Plan concepts, adopted boundaries of the Linear Park and pending circulation analyses in the vicinity. The City Council agreed with the Planning Commission and staff assessment and continued action on the item for 45 days. The City Council further set a study session for May 2, 1988 in order to further discuss the various issues involved. The Planning staff has focused the content of the Study Session around the basic issue areas which have been identified. Those areas are: 1. Ellis/Goldenwest Specific Plan Concepts 2. Linear Park Boundary 3. Circulation Planning 4. Suggested Actions At the study session, staff will discuss the history, status and issues associated with each of the above topics and will suggest a process to resolve the various issues. The following is a summary overview of the issue areas and the suggested action. S T u Dy SSE sS Zd/v P10 5/85 Y qr DR. `QRTME WK C � r ��SCN V000 i j Lill DR .lUDM• -- t W ° C F-R 4) 4 O RCRn[t CR L L ELL- Oq IE Oq ` 4 b• �qC qD 00JP P t � /ly API, 0 9 O ?V 4 J� r x u _ _. -I----J' v, W 3 2 W N J .. o GARFIELD AVE. FIGURE 1 Huntington Beach. Campany Zone Change Request Area lopHUNTINGT ON BEACH C4LIFORNIA PLANNING DIVISION -2- i I. ELLIS/GOLDENWEST SPECIFIC PLAN The Ellis/Goldenwest Specific Plan was proposed in 1981 and 1982 to address development standards in a topographically unique part of the community. The Specific Plan Area initially encompassed property from Ellis Avenue to Garfield Avenue, and from Gothard Street to the bluffs west of Edwards Street (Figure 2). The purpose of the Specific Plan was to establish an equestrian-oriented community which would preserve and take advantage of the unique topographic features in the area. The intent was to establish an equestrian trail system, require common equestrian boarding facilities, limit overall densities to estate levels, establish ranch-style design standards and affix a circulation system to the entire area. After an extensive public hearing process, however, the subareas west of Edwards Street and east of Goldenwest Street were dropped from the Specific Plan and only the central portion remained. After further public hearings, even the central portion was eventually left unadopted due to differing perspectives on appropriate densities and design standards. Although the Ellis/Goldenwest Specific Plan was never adopted, staff has used it as a policy document for development of the central portion of the Ellis/Goldenwest Area. Several tracts have been developed with conditions on the zoning and entitlements requiring compliance with many of the components of the Draft Specific Plan. The result has been development of the Ellis/Goldenwest Area in a manner which has largely preserved the unique topography of the area and which has formed the basis of an expanding equestrian trail system. Now that development of the Ellis/Goldenwest Area has truly begun in earnest, it is probably appropriate to consider a plan that will formalize many of the types of conditions the City has been obtaining on individual tracts and apply them to the larger area. Among the issues that need to be addressed are: I. Overall Density: The existing General Plan in the area varies from 2 to 3 to 4 units per acre. Perhaps one density of 3 units per acre should be established. 2. Equestrian Standards: How many equestrian sized lots should be required and should the City continue to require common equestrian boarding facilities. Perhaps one area could be set aside to allow a commercial facility. 3. Circulation: A precise plan of street alignment for the internal collector street needs to be established. The ultimate locations and widths of Ellis Avenue, Edwards Street and Garfield Avenue also need to be fixed. An equestrian trail system for the larger area needs to be established. 4. Encyclopedia Lots: A strategy for dealing with the undevelopable encyclopedia lots in the area needs to be determined. 5. Boundaries: A determination needs to be made regarding whether or not the Specific Plan standards and conditions will apply west of Edwards Street and east of Goldenwest Street. RCA - 5/02/88 -3- (0516d) i R CF CF-R ;�:i1 _y mot= r` .t.• _. r. j W I I •., .__ CF.R 16.. / -- - I - --• I y -T--- —- - .. . �` — f _i i I --. -- - - i , .. k - -• - ....S ... .... �...I - -->- # - t s # r ....... — x + imidt _ I € ^...... - .........-- - ..... I ... I I i n _ — --- —'� J. L�- I I - -- IL- - / rt IT J /• `/t LCF-E I CF-C FIGURE 2 Draft Ellis/Goldenwest Specific Plan Boundary HUNTINGTON BEACH C4LIFORNIN PLANNING DIVISION -4- II. LINEAR PARK The concept of a Bolsa Chica Regional Linear Park was first established in 1977 with a resolution of the Orange County Board of Supervisors. That resolution established policies for a park which would connect Huntington Central Park to Bolsa Chica State Beach. The park would be lineal in nature, providing a trail system which would skirt the bluff line along the Huntington Beach Mesa. The purpose of the park was to provide a buffer area between development on the mesa and the Ecological Reserve below the mesa, protect and preserve the bluff edge, provide a trail system for pedestrians, equestrians and bicyclists, and enhance opportunities for scenic views for the public. In 1979, the Huntington Beach City Council adopted a resolution supporting those concepts. In 1985, Orange County EMA presented a report entitled "Bolsa Chica Linear Regional Park Boundary Study." That report analyzed the adopted Linear Park policies, land ownership, topographic and environmental constraints, circulation issues and design concepts. Based on that analysis, the study recommended a 132 acre linear park (Figure 3). Of that acreage, 23.7 acres were owned by the City, 48.6 by the Huntington Beach Company, and 59.6 by Signal Landmark. Signal's property was to be dedicated to the City and County as part of the Bolsa Chica development. The Huntington Beach Company's property was to be either purchased or dedicated to the City through adjacent development. Further, the study did not precisely define the eastern park boundary on Huntington Beach Company's land, other than to say it should be refined by future agreement between the City and the Huntington Beach Company. In 1986, in reaction to the County's study, the City of Huntington Beach held its own public hearings on the Linear Park. As a result of those hearings, the City Council adopted a resolution supporting the Linear Park. The Council resolution, however, called for a much expanded park area. Since approximately 54 acres of the bluff area were at that time proposed by Signal to be Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHA's), the City Council established that a minimum of 100 acres should be usable for park purposes. The result was an approximate park size of 154 acres. (Figure 4). In 1987, in reaction to the City's resolution, Signal Landmark and the Huntington Beach Company retained a consultant and prepared their own analysis and recommendation for a Linear Park. Their analysis examined linear park policies, topographic constraints, circulation issues, ESHA issues, development costs, maintenance issues, ownership issues and dedication requirements. Their recommendation was for a 105 acre Linear Park. (Figure 5). The acreage involved 24.4 acres of City property, 48.8 acres of Signal Property and 30.6 acres of Huntington Beach Company Property. Of the total 105 acres, 55 acres were ESHA's and 50 acres were usable park. Partially due to the disparity in recommended park acreages (City - 154, County - 132, Landowners - 105), planning for the Linear Park has stalled. In light of the Huntington Beach company's zone change request on the blufftop, however, final decisions need to be made regarding the Linear Park boundaries. Staff has identified the following basic issues: 1. Park Purpose: Is the Linear Park to be simply a trail system and buffer zone, or is it to be a larger more active park. A trail system could be accommodated in a smaller park while active uses would require a larger park. 2. ESHA Areas: Are ESHA areas appropriate for inclusion in the park and if so, who should maintain them. Are ESHA's usable for certain park-related purposes (trail systems). RCA - 5/02/88 -5- (0516d) \ aLLiERT q�E r. ELL15 AVE. i 132 ACRES , QARFIEL,D AVE. 't 17 `�y N A YK FIGURE 3 County EMA Proposed Linear Park Boundary HUNTINGTON BEACH C4LIFORNIA PLANNING DIVISION -6- A�r3E>zr q�E GL.LIS AVE. r . ..»>??'.` i »> 154 ACRES / 6t4TZF(EL,D AVE. ,,. .. ,... _.. Pptµ� .o : ;_ . Ste' A 4<� FIGURE 4 City Adopted Linear Park Boundary r HUNTINGTON BEACH C4LIFORNIA PLANNING DIVISION I -7- I \ ALL3ERT ,q\,E 6L.LIS AVE. i 105 ACRES 4At2FIEL.D AVE. - ..:.. Wilt �y »t N A YK FIGURE 5 Huntington Beach Company/Signal Landmark Proposed Linear Park Boundary HUNTINGTON BEACH CALIFORNIA PLANNING DIVISION -8- 3. Acquisition: Is the Linear Park to be acquired through dedication or purchase, and how soon is acquisition desired? Acquisition through dedication would require a smaller park while purchase would be required for a larger park. 4. Maintenance Responsibilities: Who will maintain the Linear Park. The County has not committed to any maintenance responsibilities, but it is likely that the larger the park, the less likely they will be to share in its maintenance. III. CIRCULATION Partially in an effort to resolve the eastern boundary of the Linear Park, staff initiated a Circulation Element Amendment (CIR 88-2) to analyze the westward realignment of Edwards Street to connect with Seapoint at Garfield Avenue. It was hoped that such an alignment would provide an intermediate park acreage, along with the advantages of a distinct physical boundary between urban and park uses, public access opportunities and scenic views. After preliminary investigation, however, staff determined that a blufftop arterial alignment may not be the most cost-effective and realistic option for resolving relevant circulation and land use problems in the area. A number of issues arose with regard to the park boundary which have bearing on the type and location of roadway desired, and which need to be resolved. These include a determination of desirable park size and width, desirable uses (passive vs. active), whether to include ESHA areas within the park boundaries, and determination of development and maintenance responsibilities. Rather than proceed with the time and expense of preparing the Circulation Element Amendment at this time, staff prepared an Issue Paper on the topic in order to solicit Council direction. The Issue Paper which was submitted to Council set forth three possible alternatives for Edwards and Seapoint Streets. The alternatives were evaluated in terms of their impacts on topography and archaeological sites, and their ability to define an acceptable linear park boundary, to provide park access, scenic views, and an adequate circulation system, and to strike a balance between park area and developable land. The three alternatives are outlined below, along with some of their advantages and disadvantages. 1. Realignment of Edwards Street to the base of the bluffs. as shown on the adopted City Circulation Plan. This alignment would not provide an effective park boundary between natural/recreational uses and urban uses, nor would it provide an appropriate access point to the proposed blufftop trails. The lowland alignment would divide the park from the adjacent wetland areas, creating a barrier for wildlife and disturbing or eliminating potential ESHA and wetland areas. It would also result in residential uses directly abutting the park along the blufftops. This alternative, however, would be the least expensive to construct, and would avoid major topographic alteration, archaeological sites, and residentially zoned property along the blufftops. 2. Realignment of Edwards Street to the west on the blufftops. This alignment provides an effective physical boundary between park uses to the west of the road and residential uses to the east. It would also provide excellent scenic views and opportunities for public access to the park. A blufftop arterial, however, would be the most costly alternative to construct with regard to grading. The significant topographic alteration required would adversely impact the RCA - 5/02/88 -9- (0516d) character of the bluffs and the integrity of known archaeological sites. Additionally, the amount of land required for an arterial roadway would reduce that available for park and development purposes. 3. Retention of Edwards Street in its present alignment. combined with a local "bluffline drive." This alternative would provide the advantages of a distinct physical park boundary, along with opportunities for public access and scenic views, with less grading costs and less topographic alteration than a blufftop arterial. Thus, there would be less disruption of the bluff edges and faces, less impact on archaeological sites, and less land taken for right-of-way purposes. For the reasons outlined above, staff has recommended that a local, bluffline drive be used to set the Linear Park boundary, and that Circulation Element Amendment No. 88-2 be processed to realign Edwards Street from its currently adopted location at the base of the bluffs to its existing developed alignment. With the appropriate Council direction, staff will proceed with the Circulation Amendment. As a secondary issue, staff is also seeking direction on the possible connection of Ellis Avenue to Talbert Avenue. This connection has been sought by the County of Orange EMA as well as by the City Fire Department. The connection was analyzed by Circulation Element Amendment 80-1 where it was tabled by the City Council, and Circulation Element Amendment 83-1, where it was denied. Because the possible need for the connection still exists, staff has included it in its Notice of Preparation (NOP) for Circulation Element Amendment No. 88-2. With direction from the Council, staff will either continue to analyze it as part of CIR 88-2, or will drop it now from further consideration. IV. SUGGESTED ACTION In the time since the Council acted to continue the Huntington Beach Company's Zone Change request, staff has been researching issues and has met several times with the Huntington Beach Company and the County. As a result of the research and meetings, a strategy for resolution of the issues has evolved. Staff and the Planning Commission and City Council have been aware of the many issues involved for a number of years. In that time, several attempts have been made to study the entire area with the intent of resolving those issues. Due to the complexity of the issues, and the widely divergent interests involved, however, those studies have never come to fruition. At the same time, an incremental approach has been equally unsuccessful due to the degree of interrelationships between the issues. At this time, it appears that there are a number of new situations which would tend to dictate the desirability (and realistic feasibility) of preparing a new study of the larger area. Those situations are the degree of existing and pending development in the Ellis/Goldenwest Area (including the Huntington Beach Company's Zone Change request), the County's pending confirmation hearings for the Bolsa Chica LCP, the increasing urgency for traffic and other infrastructure analysis in the developing Ellis/Goldenwest Area, the need to spend County monies now available for design and development of the Linear Park, and new knowledge about the lack of feasibility of a westward realignment of Edwards Street to define the park boundary. RCA - 5/02/88 -10- (0516d) In order to acquire and develop the Linear Park in a timely manner, staff has concluded that it may be desirable to enter into a dedication agreement with the Huntington Beach Company. Such an agreement would allow for advance dedication of their properties in the surrounding area to go toward attainment of the Linear Park. To assure the Company of the long-term right to develop in accordance with the agreement, however, a study of land uses in the larger area will be necessary. The study would involve an environmental impact report and amendments to the Land Use Plan, Open Space/Conservation Plan and Circulation Plan. Following adoption of the General Plan Amendments, a dedication agreement could be entered into and implementing zoning could be initiated. Such implementing zoning could include the Ellis/Goldenwest Specific Plan as well as the Huntington Beach Company's zone change request on the blufftop. Staff would propose that the study area should generally•encompass the area between Ellis Avenue on the north, the Pacific Electric right-of-way on the east, Clay Avenue and the Seacliff peninsula on the south, and the base of the Huntington Beach Mesa on the west. (Figure 6). The City would be the applicant for the study and the major landowners would pay for many of the special consultant fees which would be necessary. Public input will clearly be an important component of the proposed study. It will be equally important to recognize, however, that due to the scale of the study and the widely differing viewpoints involved, the public's involvement should be limited to reviewing and commenting on the study rather than dictating the alternatives and parameters to be analyzed. The study will need to be clearly directed toward the goals of obtaining a Linear Park and determining necessary, serviceable and desirable types and amounts of development in the surrounding area. In anticipation of direction to proceed with the study, staff has prepared the following very tentative schedule of events: May-June 1988 - GPA/EIR Scoping - Public Workshops July - August 1988 - Traffic, sewer, water studies September 1988 - Draft EIR complete November-December - Public hearings - Adoption of GPA/EIR January-February 1989 - Adoption of Dedication Agreement - Initiate Specific Plans/Zone Changes - Initiate Precise Plans of Street Alignment If the above schedule of events is generally acceptable to the Planning Commission and City Council, staff will refine the goals, objectives and procedures for the study and will resubmit them for further approval prior to initiating the GPA/EIR scoping. PEC:DLB:MA:HS:gbm RCA - 5/02/88 -11- (0516d) fit „ r� uuuui7nu u■u•� ux■u eme anx•uuu•� •-�- • _�---- -- Ci■Tuu■TmTm■ �111�1 IPUYw,Ie■, 1 r i,!N■,�d� ■ i�oiu■�i and- ,� ' = 1 0 n ■o■■mm■■■' = E d ■■r�j■ ■,.... qly W � .,� Z ueuuoun E -■w, Q. � dli�Vi�a I- �.�rt.. ■ ::■uinun,■n'v'i C and ,, ■ ■■ �■ �L ullWeur, uIgloomm�u,u:� �n umn�um ■-l■ a■u ■dG■ m n■ uu �.J+ - s �„ =i:i•�is:: i Cp1:.ur/t��h►vi •u u n rr� m• nuq;•!■��Peonnw e,e,dd • Qy� �Il�il°e°e�r - mom Lai y�. � ��ij E� p�� IIINIII - p--11n■ uuum �� = �i�� IIWIIIO Ir/�• pmuu EE �Iy 8-� . ,iiujpr -- �j �-,Vh•1,11,,, 2C � % s•�4abn,dki an wOdiS. � J �s.� umn,�� erl•,•,;:;;� ;�"�;�,;I�r � Eel- .,,�.:�..,• `'- huif4�:•",�i'',•,"Ji I�ki$k3; I• 0'C .d,i', p7 uu■s,i A{BIIE'r;fifi•'.3T� IGIK;E�: � e■�nn• Nx1e,O1:1, ;3�F•91 'I•''�" IIIIIx �._ l= Moiou e� II � �r ■ W IBIMU -O BIE. ; >Y i p Special f e ort EDWARDS/SEAPOINT LINEAR PARK ISSUE PAPER Department of Community Development March 28, 1988 HUNTINGTON BEACH CALIFORNIA PLANNING DIVISION i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This issue paper examines the need for resolution of issues associated with the Alignments of Edwards Street and Seapoint Street, and with the eastern boundary of the proposed Bolsa Chica Linear Park. Problem areas identified include conflicting arterial alignments on City and County Master Plans, an undefined boundary for the Bolsa Chica Linear Park, potential for scenic views and access to the park, increasing development pressure in the area, and potential impact of roadways and developments on known archaeological sites. Three alternative alignments of Edwards Street are analyzed as to their effectiveness in resolving these issues: I. Realignment of Edwards Street to the base of the bluffs, 2. Realignment of Edwards Street westward on the blufftops, and I Retention of the existing alignment combined with a local bluffline drive. At this time, it appears that the third alternative, the retention of the existing alignment of Edwards combined with a local drive, is the the most cost—effective and realistic option. This alternative would provide a suitable boundary for the Linear Park, as well as opportunities for park access and scenic views. It would also allow development to proceed in a timely manner, and would reduce costs and topographic alteration associated with other alternatives. (0278d) INTRODUCTION Within the vicinity of the Huntington Beach mesa and bluffs exist a number of land use and circulation problems, which are primarily related to the future alignments of Edwards and Seapoint Streets, and to the uncertain boundary of the Bolsa Chica Linear Park. These problems and conflicts need to be resolved in order to facilitate planning efforts on an area-wide scale, and to permit orderly and timely development. This issue paper will briefly discuss the impacts of three alternative street alignments for Edwards and Seapoint Streets on relevant problem areas, and will present a recommendation for direction and future action. STATEMENT OF PROBLEM The location of the eastern boundary for the proposed Bolsa Chica Regional Linear Park remains undetermined. The Huntington Beach City Council, in 1986, adopted a resolution establishing general criteria for a park boundary and outlining conceptual alterna- tives . The criteria included a minimum of 100 acres of usable recreation area, a minimum usable width of 150 feet, and an eastern boundary defined by Seapoint and Edwards Streets or other streets . The resolution established that usable recreation area could not include bluff faces or environmentally sensitive habitat areas (ESHA' s) . In response to the City Council ' s resolution, the County adopted a proposed park boundary which followed the exist- ing alignments of Edwards and Seapoint Streets, and encompassed approximately 140 acres . (Figure 1) The future alignments of Edwards Street and Seapoint Street also remain unresolved. The existing developed alignment of Edwards Street south of Talbert Avenue ascends the bluffs and extends due south, terminating at Garfield Avenue. This alignment conforms with the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways. The adopted Circulation Plan for the City of Huntington Beach, however, shows Edwards Street veering westward just south of Talbert Avenue, and following a route along the bottom of the bluffs to an intersection with the Garfield Avenue extension (cross-gap connector) . The existing alignment of Seapoint Street extends northeasterly from Palm Avenue approximately one-half mile to a dead end. The County Master Plan of Arterial Highways shows Seapoint Street continuing northward to a T-intersection with the cross-gap connector (Garfield Avenue) , west of the existing Edwards/Garfield intersection. The City Circulation Plan shows Seapoint Street continuing northward and connecting directly with Edwards Street at the base of the bluffs, forming a four-way intersection with the cross-gap connector (Garfield Avenue) . The alignment of these arterials relates directly to possible access points to the Linear Park. The Linear Park will be access- ible from either end, at Huntington Central Park and Bolsa Chica State Beach. Depending on their alignments, both Edwards Street and Seapoint Street could provide a means of additional access along the perimeter of the park. -1- • K Y , N. Ne ZLUS / V f N ?.oel e. I I I I 1 W 1 O : ::`- I I L I— GARFIELD t.� '•Xow ••� ��„' �_� � -fie i i ... .n` t Aft COUNTY INTERPRETATION HUNTINGTON BEACH C4LIFORNIA OF LINEAR PARK BOUNDARY PLANNING DIVISION FIGURE 1 -2- The blufftop area has the potential to provide outstanding scenic views to motorists, ranging from Catalina Island, the Pacific Ocean, and the Bolsa Chica lowlands to the south and west, to the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains to the north. The existing developed alignment of Edwards Street does not take full advantage of the view potential due to the roadway' s distance from the bluff face, and its termination at Garfield Avenue. The Huntington Beach Company has proposed a zone change from RA (Residential Agriculture) to Qualified-R1 (Low Density Residen- tial) on a 55-acre blufftop site, in order to permit development of single family residences. The zone change proposal conflicts with adopted City and County policies regarding the linear park boundary, and does not consider any potential realignment of Edwards Street as outlined on the City Circulation Plan. The zone change was denied by the Planning Commission on February 17, 1988, and an appeal is currently pending before the City Council. NEED FOR RESOLUTION The County of Orange has planned Coastal Commission confirmation hearings on the Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan for summer of 1988 . The alignment of Edwards Street and the definition of the linear park boundary are critical to the implementation of the plan as proposed. The development of the Bolsa Chica lowlands is contingent upon providing viable wetlands and Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHAs) along the bottom of the bluffs and along the bluff faces, within the linear park. The City' s currently adopted alignment of Edwards Street precludes the planned restoration of many acres of wetlands and ESHAs . The boundary of the Linear Park also needs to be resolved because the Bolsa Chica LCP calls for the park to provide required coastal access . The County also has funds available for acquisition and design of the linear park. These activities should be undertaken as soon as possible to assure that such funds are effectively utilized. The proposed Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan area is experiencing increasing development pressure. Several zone changes to Qualified-R1 (Low Density Residential) have been approved in recent years, and construction in the area has commenced (Country View Estates and Central Park Estates) . The Huntington Beach Company has additional zone changes to Qualified-R1 pending both east and west of Edwards Street. The alignment of the arterials and the location of the park boundary need to be determined in order to allow for appropriate development planning within the Specific Plan area, including location of internal collector streets, open space areas, and horse trails . The Huntington Beach Company zone change west of Edwards Street is especially impacted by these decisions, since they not only influence the design of the subdivision, but also determine the limits of the developable area . -3- (0679D) ALTERNATIVES AND MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS Three alternatives for the Edwards - Seapoint alignment are under consideration. Their effectiveness in resolving the issues outlined above will be evaluated in terms of the following factors: o Definition of a realistic linear park boundary o Provision of access to the park o Provision of adequate circulation o Retention of developable land o Cost effectiveness The three alternatives for Edwards Street south of Talbert Avenue are: 1. Realignment of Edwards Street to the bottom of the bluffs, as shown on the adopted City Circulation Plan. (Figure 2) 2 . Realignment of Edwards Street to the west of its current location, but still on the bluff top. (Figure 3) 3 . Retention of the existing alignment of Edwards Street, combined with a local street system west of Edwards . (Figure 4) 1. Realignment of Edwards Street to the Base of the Bluffs This alignment would not be an effective boundary between the linear park and adjacent urban uses . Instead, the roadway would pass directly through areas designated in the Bolsa Chica Land Use Plan for restored wetlands and possible Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHA' s) . The roadway would divide the park/bluff area from the wetlands, creating a barrier for wildlife, and disturbing or eliminating many acres of valuable wetland habitat. This alignment would not provide the preferred access to the park. Since the pedestrian, bicycle and equestrian trails are proposed to be located on the blufftop, the roadway would not be an appropriate point for public access to the park. An alignment at the bottom of the bluff would provide adequate circulation in the area by connecting north Huntington Beach to the cross-gap connector (Garfield Avenue) and to Pacific Coast Highway via Seapoint Street. It also would not interfere with parcels currently zoned and General Planned for residential uses, which are located primarily along the blufftops . Nor would this alternative impact significant archaeological sites which are thought to exist along the bluff top. This alternative would be the least expensive of the three alternatives to construct, due to the limited amount of grading required. The realignment would avoid Edwards Hill, and would follow the approximate alignment of an existing oil road. -4- (0679D) I AMENDMENTS OTI CIRCULATION PLAN OF ARTERIAL STREETS AND HIGHWAYS -" ADOPTED BY CRY COUNCL © 1 \\I RESOLUTION NO..4368—DEC.12.1976 1 LEGEND: CITY OF FREEWAY STREET CAPACITY HUNTINGTON BEACH - 1 '` MAJOR 45000 _ ORANGE COUNTY CALIFORNIA PRIMARY 30.000 ,.� . o ;..•... i SECONDARY 20.000 -- I NOTE: � SOLID LINES INDICATE EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY NOT NECESSARILY ULTIMATE RIGHT OF WAY DASHED LINES INDICATE AREAS wHERE NO RIGHT OF WAY EXISTS 40 6 ELLIS 100 lool to FIGURE 2 CURRENTLY ADOPTED PLAN - EDWARDS STREET AT BASE OF BLUFFS -S- AMENDMENTS I �..-� G.. CIRCULATION PLAN OF ARTERIAL /� ';� STREETS AND HIGHWAYS " � ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL © 1 \! RESOLUTION N0.4368—DEC,12.1976 1 LEGEND CITY OF ` —_ FREEWAY STREET CAPACITY HUNTINGTON BEACH a — MAJOR 45,000 ORANGE COUNTY CALIFORNIA 1 PRIMARY _30000 �. SECONDARY .20.000 NOTE 1 SOLID LINES INDICATE EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY I \ NOT NECESSARILY ULTIMATE RIGHT OF WAY I ' DASHED LINES INDICATE AREAS WHERE NO RIGHT OF WAY EXISTS lk �-� 3 E1L15 . I i I \ OF dw 2 ni � It <Y'M FIGURE 3 REALIGNMENT OF EDWARDS ALONG BLUFFTOP -6- AMENDMENTS ft AM-0 uCOOK, CIRCULATION PLAN OF ARTERIAL STREETS AND HIGHWAYS ADOPTED BY CITY COUNGL RESOLUTION N0.4368-DEC.12,1976 LEGEND: CITY OF FREEWAY STREET CAPACITY HUNTINGTON BEACH MAJOR _45,000 ORANGE COUNTY CALIFORNIA I PRIMARY_ _30000 K,• SECONDARY _.20,000 NOTE SOLID ONES INDICATE EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY NOT NECESSARILY ULTIMATE RIGHT'OF WAY DASHED LINES INDICATE AREAS WHERE NO { RIGHT OF WAY EXISTS d 8 Ir v ' Elu3 J-1 IF !(1 H O� ------ ` s ,. prcr El O del C'YY D FIGURE 4 RETENTION OF EXISTING ALIGNMENT !--IITH LOCAL BLUFFTOP ROAD -7- i 2 . Realignment to the West on the Blufftop This alignment would provide a continuous, effective, physical boundary between residential development east of the roadway, and the linear park to the west . The extension of Edwards Street along the blufftop would also provide excellent opportunities for public access to the park, scenic views, and access for public safety vehicles and personnel. An arterial in this location would provide trespassing security for residents to the east, and act as a buffer between residents and recreational activity at the park. This roadway, like the adopted alignment, would provide a direct connection to Pacific Coast Highway via Seapoint Street, and form a four-way intersection with the cross-gap connector (Garfield Avenue) . This type of arterial intersection is more desirable from a traffic engineering- standpoint than an offset intersection, which would result from Alternative Three described below. The Huntington Beach Company' s pending zone change west of Edwards Street extends nearly to the bluffline. This alignment of Edwards would cross through the property, creating additional area for the park on the west, and reducing the amount of developable land to the east. It is possible that a portion of the existing Edwards right-of-way could be used to compensate for this loss . Although the right-of-way could not be abandoned or developed due to the location of existing utilities, the area could be used to meet recreational/open space requirements for a development. The blufftop alignment of Edwards Street does have drawbacks, most notably the amount of grading required as the road traverses the bluffs down to a connection with Seapoint Street . Extensive cuts would be needed, ranging from 16 ' to 35 ' , and earthwork quantities would amount to approximately 200,000 cubic yards . This amount of grading would greatly alter the contours of the existing bluff face, as well as greatly impact the archaeological sites located along the blufftop. (Figure 5) 3 . Retention of the Existing Alignment This alternative would maintain Edwards Street in its current alignment, and provide a local street system along the blufftop to the linear park boundary. A local blufftop route could provide the advantages of a blufftop arterial, but with less cost and topographic alteration. Edwards Street would be retained in its present alignment, forming a T-intersection with Garfield Avenue. Seapoint Street would extend northerly to a T-intersection with the extension of Garfield Avenue (cross-gap connector) , approximately 1/4 to 1/2 mile to the west of Edwards Street. Thus, the circulation pattern would not allow direct access from Edwards Street to Seapoint Street, but would require a westward traverse on the Garfield extension. The local blufftop roadway would connect only with Edwards Street, in order to prevent the use of local streets as a "short-cut" from Edwards to Seapoint. -8- (0679D) i cgs r \ •` `� m TALBERT - :. ELLIS GARFIELD ;oe i \ - r�,J, - 1. �. 0 SIX 1600 AdItL HUNTINGTON BEACH C4LIFOR I N A ARCHA EOL09CAL WES The local roadway, like the blufftop arterial, would provide an effective physical separation between the Linear Park and adjacent easterly development projects. A local road could also provide access to the park, as well as scenic opportunities for motorists. If the local roadway is used to delineate the park boundary, the Huntington Beach Company could proceed with their zone change in this area, with both the local street system and the park boundary to be approved in conjunction with development plans. A local road would not require the extensive grading that accompanies an arterial, because decreased width and reduced traveling speeds allow the right-of-way to more closely conform with the existing topography. Approximately 40, 000 cubic yards of earthwork would be needed, and consequently, the total cost of the project is much less than construction of an arterial . This alternative could also be designed to have a minimal impact on the blufftop archaeological sites . At this time, staff has initiated Circulation Element Amendment No. 88-2 and Environmental Impact Report No. 88-1 to study the impacts of these possible arterial alignments . After preliminary investigation as discussed in this report, however, staff feels that extensive analysis of possible amendments to the Circulation Element of the General Plan should be delayed until the Council expresses a preferred direction for resolution of the issues . RECOMMENDATION Staff proposes to prepare a Precise Plan of Street Alignment for a local blufftop road, and to complete at a later date a Circulation Element Amendment and Environmental Impact Report to realign Edwards Street from its adopted location at the bottom of the bluffs to the existing alignment (Figure 4) . This alternative will allow for the advantages of a blufftop arterial, including delineation of a park boundary, park access and scenic views, at less cost and with less topographic alteration than an arterial. Additionally, it will allow the Huntington Beach Company to proceed with development plans in a timely manner. The Precise Plan of Street Alignment for the local bluffline drive will set the boundary for the linear park. Therefore, in preparing the Precise Plan, staff would propose that the _ road leave a minimum 150 foot wide usable area for park purposes, in accordance with the Council ' s previous resolution. It will also be designed to have the least possible impact on known archaeolo- gical sites along the blufftop, and to strike a balance between park land and developable areas. These considerations will require a cooperative effort between City staff, Orange County Environmental Management Agency staff, and the Huntington Beach Company. -10- (0679D) On March 21, 1987, the City Council directed staff to schedule a joint Planning Commission/City Council study session for May 2, 1988 to consider issues related to the Linear Park and the Edwards/Seapoint alignments. At that time, staff will introduce a bluff line drive alignment in conjunction with a linear park boundary, including an analysis of resulting park acreage and width. If that approach is found to be acceptable, then the Huntington Beach Company' s zone change request on the blufftop could be reconsidered on June 20, 1988 as presently scheduled. MA:HS:LP:gbm -11- (0679D) REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Date May 2, 1988 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Paul E. Cook City Administrat G� Submitted by: � y Prepared by: Douglas La Belle, Director of Community Develop erk Subject: JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION/CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION —HUNTINGTON BEACH COMPANY ZONE CHANGE/LINEAR PARK Consistent with Council Policy? [,4 Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions,Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE: On March 21, 1988, the City Council held a public hearing on the Huntington Beach Company's request for a zone change on 55 acres of property located at the northwest corner of Garfield Avenue and Edwards Street (Figure 1). The Planning Commission had previously denied the request, and the Planning staff was recommending denial or continuance. The basis for the recommended action was that the request was inconsistent with existing Ellis/Goldenwest Specific Plan concepts, adopted boundaries of the Linear Park and pending circulation analyses in the vicinity. The City Council agreed with the Planning Commission and staff assessment and continued action on the item for 45 days. The City Council further set a study session for May 2, 1988 in order to further discuss the various issues involved. The Planning staff has focused the content of the Study Session around the basic issue areas which have been identified. Those areas are: I. Ellis/Goldenwest Specific Plan Concepts 2. Linear Park Boundary 3. Circulation Planning 4. Suggested Actions At the study session, staff will discuss the history, status and issues associated with each of the above topics and will suggest a process to resolve the various issues. The following is a summary overview of the issue areas and the suggested action. s - d Semi ors, PI O 5/85 i LL I 5 JS-rL— nr !' '� CF-R 1 '�__ / •'� ''sec.., r� i -- --- --� --n.0 Fit I / I I � I 9 I . t ....... ........./ II' II j I I ....... ....... \ J .... JI i .............. ... . ......... .................................. ........................... 1 r ' N 1 W I 3 I o O N i I I i I - I I I / DARFIELD AVE. FIGURE 1 Huntington Beach Company Zone Change Request Area HUNTINGTON BEACH C4LIFORNIA PLANNING DIVISION -2- I. ELLIS/GOLDENWEST SPECIFIC PLAN The Ellis/Goldenwest Specific Plan was proposed in 1981 and 1982 to address development standards in a topographically unique part of the community. The Specific Area initially encompassed property from Ellis Avenue to Garfield Avenue, and from Gothard Street to the bluffs west of Edwards Street (Figure 2). The purpose of the Specific Plan was to establish an equestrian-oriented community which would preserve and take advantage of the unique topographic features in the area. The intent was to establish an equestrian trail system, require common equestrian boarding facilities, limit overall densities to estate levels, establish ranch-style design standards and affix a circulation system to the entire area. After an extensive public hearing process, however, the subareas west of Edwards Street and east of Goldenwest Street were dropped from the Specific Plan and only the central portion remained. After further public hearings, even the central portion was eventually left unadopted due to differing perspectives on appropriate densities and design standards. Although the Ellis/Goldenwest Specific Plan was never adopted, staff has used it as a policy document for development of the central portion of the Ellis/Goldenwest Area. Several tracts have been developed with conditions on the zoning and entitlements requiring compliance with many of the components of the Draft Specific Plan. The result has been development of the Ellis/Goldenwest Area in a manner which has largely preserved the unique topography of the area and which has formed the basis of an expanding equestrian trail system. Now that development of the Ellis/Goldenwest Area has truly begun in earnest, it is probably appropriate to consider a plan that will formalize many of the types of conditions the City has been obtaining on individual tracts and apply them to the larger area. Among the issues that need to be addressed are: 1. Overall Density: The existing General Plan in the area varies from 2 to 3 to 4 units per acre. Perhaps one density of 3 units per acre should be established. 2. Equestrian Standards: How many equestrian sized lots should be required and should the City continue to require common equestrian boarding facilities. Perhaps one area could be set aside to allow a commercial facility. 3. Circulation: A precise plan of street alignment for the internal collector street needs to be established. The ultimate locations and widths of Ellis Avenue, Edwards Street and Garfield Avenue also need to be fixed. An equestrian trail system for the larger area needs to be established. 4. Encyclopedia Lots: A strategy for dealing with the undevelopable encyclopedia lots in the area needs to be determined. 5. Boundaries: A determination needs to be made regarding whether or not the Specific Plan standards and conditions will apply west of Edwards Street and east of Goldenwest Street. RCA - 5/02/88 -3- (0516d) �C R - CF.R 71 £ >> `:»> «:> C ............. }:. _ I y[C li i -� I I I I� I L I= IIt .............. rT II I CF.0 CF-E INw, N FIGURE 2 Draft Ellis/Goldenwest Specific Plan Boundary HUNTINGTON BEACH C4LIFORNIA PLANNING DIVISION -4- 11. LINEAR PARK The concept of a Bolsa Chica Regional Linear Park was first established in 1977 with a resolution of the Orange County Board of Supervisors. That resolution established policies for a park which would connect Huntington Central Park to Bolsa Chica State Beach. The park would be lineal in nature, providing a trail system which would skirt the bluff line along the Huntington Beach Mesa. The purpose of the park was to provide a buffer area between development on the mesa and the Ecological Reserve below the mesa, protect and preserve the bluff edge, provide a trail system for pedestrians, equestrians and bicyclists, and enhance opportunities for scenic views for the public. In 1979, the Huntington Beach City Council adopted a resolution supporting those concepts. In 1985, Orange County EMA presented a report entitled "Bolsa Chica Linear Regional Park Boundary Study." That report analyzed the adopted Linear Park policies, land ownership, topographic and environmental constraints, circulation issues and design concepts. Based on that analysis, the study recommended a 132 acre linear park (Figure 3). Of that acreage, 23.7 acres were owned by the City, 48.6 by the Huntington Beach Company, and 59.6 by Signal Landmark. Signal's property was to be dedicated to the City and County as part of the Bolsa Chica development. The Huntington Beach Company's property was to be either purchased or dedicated to the City through adjacent development. Further, the study did not precisely define the eastern park boundary on Huntington Beach Company's land, other than to say it should be refined by future agreement between the City and the Huntington Beach Company. In 1986, in reaction to the County's study, the City of Huntington Beach held its own public hearings on the Linear Park. As a result of those hearings, the City Council adopted a resolution supporting the Linear Park. The Council resolution, however, called for a much expanded park area. Since approximately 54 acres of the bluff area were at that time proposed by Signal to be Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHA's), the City Council established that a minimum of 100 acres should be usable for park purposes. The result was an approximate park size of 154 acres. (Figure 4). In 1987, in reaction to the City's resolution, Signal Landmark and the Huntington Beach Company retained a consultant and prepared their own analysis and recommendation for a Linear Park. Their analysis examined linear park policies, topographic constraints, circulation issues, ESHA issues, development costs, maintenance issues, ownership issues and dedication requirements. Their recommendation was for a 105 acre Linear Park. (Figure 5). The acreage involved 24.4 acres of City property, 48.8 acres of Signal Property and 30.6 acres of Huntington Beach Company Property. Of the total 105 acres, 55 acres were ESHA's and 50 acres were usable park. Partially due to the disparity in recommended park acreages (City - 154, County - 132, Landowners - 105), planning for the Linear Park has stalled. In light of the Huntington Beach company's zone change request on the bluff top, however, final decisions need to be made regarding the Linear Park boundaries. Staff has identified the following basic issues: 1. Park Purpose: Is the Linear Park to be simply a trail system and buffer zone, or is it to be a larger more active park. A trail system could be accommodated in a smaller park while active uses would require a larger park. 2. ESHA Areas: Are ESHA areas appropriate for inclusion in the park and if so, who should maintain them. Are ESHA's usable for certain park-related purposed (trail systems). RCA - 5/02/89 -5- (0516d) \ o.LLiERT ,q�,E ELL1S AVE. .``» :3a ` . i 132 ACRES / 4J4RFIEL,D AVE. >:- -: ...- w Ppµ y N A 4<�7 FIGURE 3 County EMA Proposed Linear Park Boundary HUNTINGTON BE4CH C4LIFORNIN PLANNING DIVISION -6- A�tar ACE GLLIS AVE. ...... .. ................... ....... ..................... / :i::.. . is::....... 154 ACRES d4RFIEL D AVE. 4<� FIGURE 4 City Adopted Linear Park Boundary HUNTINGTON BEACH C4LIFORNIA PLANNING DIVISION —7— ' .... EL.LIS AVE. i 105 ACRES z: > 6tAl2FIEL,D AVE. ........... ........... FIGURE 5 Huntington Beach Company/Signal Landmark Proposed Linear Park Boundary HUNTINGTON BEACH CALIFORNIA PLANNING DIVISION -8- i 3. Acquisition: Is the Linear Park to be acquired through dedication or purchase, and how soon is acquisition desired? Acquisition through dedication would require a smaller park while purchase would be required for a larger park. 4. Maintenance Responsibilities: Who will maintain the Linear Park. The County has not committed to any maintenance responsibilities, but it is likely that the larger the park, the less likely they will be to share in its maintenance. III. CIRCULATION Partially in an effort to resolve the eastern boundary of the Linear Park, staff initiated a Circulation Element Amendment (CIR 88-2) to analyze the westward realignment of Edwards Street to connect with Seapoint at Garfield Avenue. It was hoped that such an alignment would provide an intermediate park acreage, along with the advantages of a distinct physical boundary between urban and park uses, public access opportunities and scenic views. After preliminary investigation, however, staff determined that a blufftop arterial alignment may not be the most cost-effective and realistic option for resolving relevant circulation and land use problems in the area. A number of issues arose with regard to the park boundary which have bearing on the type and location of roadway desired, and which need to be resolved. These include a determination of desirable park size and width, desirable uses (passive vs. active), whether to include ESHA areas within the park boundaries, and determination of development and maintenance responsibilities. Rather than proceed with the time and expense of preparing the Circulation Element Amendment at this time, staff prepared an Issue Paper on the topic in order to solicit Council direction. The Issue Paper which was submitted to Council set forth three possible alternatives for Edwards and Seapoint Streets. The alternatives were evaluated in terms of their impacts on topography and archaeological sites, and their ability to define an acceptable linear park boundary, to provide park access, scenic views, and an adequate circulation system, and to strike a balance between park area and developable land. The three alternatives are outlined below, along with some of their advantages and disadvantages. 1. Realignment of Edwards Street to the base of the bluffs. as shown on the adopted City Circulation Plan. This alignment would not provide an effective park boundary between natural/recreational uses and urban uses, nor would it provide an appropriate access point to the proposed blufftop trails. The lowland alignment would divide the park from the adjacent wetland areas, creating a barrier for wildlife and disturbing or eliminating potential ESHA and wetland areas. It would also result in residential uses directly abutting the park along the blufftops. This alternative, however, would be the least expensive to construct, and would avoid major topographic alteration, archaeological sites, and residentially zoned property along the blufftops. 2. Realignment of Edwards Street to the west on the blufftops. This alignment provides an effective physical boundary between park uses to the west of the road and residential uses to the east. It would also provide excellent scenic views and opportunities for public access to the park. A blufftop arterial, however, would be the most costly alternative to construct with regard to grading. The significant topographic alteration required would adversely impact the RCA - 5/02/88 -9- (0516d) character of the bluffs and the integrity of known archaeological sites. Additionally, the amount of land required for an arterial roadway would reduce that available for park and development purposes. 3. Retention of Edwards Street in its present alignment. combined with a local "bluffline drive." This alternative would provide the advantages of a distinct physical park boundary, along with opportunities for public access and scenic views, with less grading costs and less topographic alteration than a blufftop arterial. Thus, there would be less disruption of the bluff edges and faces, less impact on archaeological sites, and less land taken for right-of-way purposes. For the reasons outlined above, staff has recommended that a local, bluffline drive be used to set the Linear Park boundary, and that Circulation Element Amendment No. 88-2 be processed to realign Edwards Street from its currently adopted location at the base of the bluffs to its existing developed alignment. With the appropriate Council direction, staff will proceed with the Circulation Amendment. As a secondary issue, staff is also seeking direction on the possible connection of Ellis Avenue to Talbert Avenue. This connection has been sought by the County of Orange EMA as well as by the City Fire Department. The connection was analyzed by Circulation Element Amendment 80-1 where it was tabled by the City Council, and Circulation Element Amendment 83-1, where it was denied. Because the possible need for the connection still exists, staff has included it in its Notice of Preparation (NOP) for Circulation Element Amendment No. 88-2. With direction from the Council, staff will either continue to analyze it as part of CIR 88-2, or will drop it now from further consideration. IV. SUGGESTED ACTION In the time since the Council acted to continue the Huntington Beach Company's Zone Change request, staff has been researching issues and has met several times with the Huntington Beach Company and the County. As a result of the research and meetings, a strategy for resolution of the issues has evolved. Staff and the Planning Commission and City Council have been aware of the many issues involved for a number of years. In that time, several attempts have been made to study the entire area with the intent of resolving those issues. Due to the complexity of the issues, and the widely divergent interests involved, however, those studies have never come to fruition. At the same time, an incremental approach has been equally unsuccessful due to the degree of interrelationships between the issues. At this time, it appears that there are a number of new situations which would tend to dictate the desirability (and realistic feasibility) of preparing a new study of the larger area. Those situations are the degree of existing and pending development in the Ellis/Goldenwest Area (including the Huntington Beach Company's Zone Change request), the County's pending confirmation hearings for the Bolsa Chica LCP, the increasing urgency for traffic and other infrastructure analysis in the developing Ellis/Goldenwest Area, the need to spend County monies now available for design and development of the Linear Park, and new knowledge about the lack of feasibility of a westward realignment- of Edwards Street to define the park boundary. RCA - 5/02/88 -10- (0516d) In order to acquire and develop the Linear Park in a timely manner, staff has concluded that it may be desirable to enter into a dedication agreement with the Huntington Beach Company. Such an agreement would allow for advance dedication of their properties in the surrounding area to go toward attainment of the Linear Park. To assure the Company of the long-term right to develop in accordance with the agreement, however, a study of land uses in the larger area will be necessary. The study would involve an environmental impact report and amendments to the Land Use Plan, Open Space/Conservation Plan and Circulation Plan. Following adoption of the General Plan Amendments, a dedication agreement could be entered into and implementing zoning could be initiated. Such implementing zoning could include the Ellis/Goldenwest Specific Plan as well as the Huntington Beach Company's zone change request on the blufftop. Staff would propose that the study area should generally encompass the area between Ellis Avenue on the north, the Pacific Electric right-of-way on the east, Clay Avenue and the Seacliff peninsula on the south, and the base of the Huntington Beach Mesa on the west. (Figure 6). The City would be the applicant for the study and the major landowners would pay for many of the special consultant fees which would be necessary. Public input will clearly be an important component of the proposed study. It will be equally important to recognize, however, that due to the scale of the study and the widely differing viewpoints involved, the public's involvement should be limited to reviewing and commenting on the study rather than dictating the alternatives and parameters to be analyzed. The study will need to be clearly directed toward the goals of obtaining a Linear Park and determining necessary, serviceable and desirable types and amounts of development in the surrounding area. In anticipation of direction to proceed with the study, staff has prepared the following very tentative schedule of events: May-June 1988 - GPA/EIR Scoping - Public Workshops July - August 1988 - Traffic, sewer, water studies September 1988 - Draft EIR complete November-December - Public hearings - Adoption of GPA/EIR January-February 1989 - Adoption of Dedication Agreement - Initiate Specific Plans/Zone Changes - Initiate Precise Plans of Street Alignment If the above schedule of events is generally acceptable to the Planning Commission and City Council, staff will refine the goals, objectives and procedures for the study and will resubmit them for further approval prior to initiating the GPA/EIR scoping. PEC:DLB:MA:HS:gbm RCA - 5/02/88 -11- (0516d) NZ IUI. Q,11U0 IIIIUIIIUI,OOIIr�I. m :-T 11 1 • as saaa s sell41, as=-. •=r!j"�} also Ia 1 r • \` J I�iii� � :'Ii�1 I�?ail I�1""1� 11 7 juiT IN n nl ss � ■ ■ � � " ��- 00 0 •• ,1'1 1 11''1!!1 1 ' '1' \ RIM Ilwwl il■6,YINWII , �� ' oil ,.■■■� .;!= a��`gad;� i2 � �, I 1 ,I ■1 ��.�e�■■� �s�iu mu III u_ • ,Wul w � '�� a�` Iu I . �.��■�i■� a ■��i��. ��II�I _ .mosellso•all